![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 52 to 76 of 194. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 23, 2002, at 8:41:21
In reply to Re: Lou's response to NikkiT2's post, posted by NikkiT2 on October 23, 2002, at 8:28:49
nikkiT2,
I'm sorry, but the disagreement , now, here, is about that I will be restrained from posting that the Rider said to me, "You shall have no other Gods before me", and I object to being restrained from posting what the Word of God said to me, who is the Rider, and others are not restrained in quotng their bible verses, including Dr. Bob.
It is plainly visible on this thread and you can look at the posts in front of your post here to see them. You can also examine the faith board and read the posts of those posting their bible quotes. At your request, I will compile a list of URLs for your viewing to show you what is involved in this disagreement.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on October 23, 2002, at 9:01:18
In reply to Re: Lou's response to NikkiT2's post » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on October 23, 2002, at 8:23:53
Lou, I'm confused. Can you show me the link to where Dr. Bob said you couldn't say that the Rider said to you that you should have no other gods before god?
All I saw was the please be civil about the statement containing the word "fools". It would be very helpful to me if you could link the other limitation you are speaking of.
Actually, I think you must have been doing very well staying within Dr. Bob's guidelines because you were able to post quite a long thread about your experiences without any objection at all from Dr. Bob. Until the "fools" quote.
So I am really really confused as to why you think Dr. Bob is not allowing you to post your experience.
Just a simple link to where he said that is all I need to clarify it for me. But without that link, I am totally lost.
Dinah
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 23, 2002, at 9:07:08
In reply to Re: Lou's response to NikkiT2's post » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on October 23, 2002, at 9:01:18
Dinah,
Below is tha link from Dr. Bob saying that he will restrain me from saying that my God told me not to have any other Gods before Him:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020918/msgs/7716.html
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on October 23, 2002, at 9:17:41
In reply to Re: Lou's response to NikkiT2's post » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on October 23, 2002, at 8:41:21
No Lou, you misunderstand.
No one objected to you saying "Rider said to me, "You shall have no other Gods before me". Not one single person as I can see, and yes, I have read all the posts on this thread, and in the faith board.
What we objected to was you saying "The Rider turned to us and said, "Only a fool, in his heart, says that there is no God."
They are very different statements.
If someone else had posted saying their god had said this, or their gods messenger or who ever, I would have been offended then too.
I hope you now understand.
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 23, 2002, at 9:30:28
In reply to Re: Lou's response to NikkiT2's post, posted by NikkiT2 on October 23, 2002, at 9:17:41
NikkiT2,
Dr. Bob has posted that if I say that I should have no other Gods befor me, that he has a rule that restrains me from saying that ab=nd he will accuse me of being disrespectfull and I am disagreeing with him because he allows others , and himself, to quote the bible which christiandom people consider to be The Word of God and they are not accused of being disrespectfull. I object to Dr. Bobs applying his rule to me and not to the bible quoting people, and I have requested for him to provide me with his rational that makes that descrimination.
The link is in the post above this post that I answered Dinah's request to post the link to. It has Dr. Bob aswering my queston to whether or not I will be restrained from posting that I was told to have no other Gods before me.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on October 23, 2002, at 9:35:40
In reply to Lou answers Dinah's request » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on October 23, 2002, at 9:07:08
Thank you Lou. Now I understand. It was this quote from Dr. Bob
"Yes, that's a constraint at PBF."
Now you see, I wouldn't have guessed that. I would have guessed that it would be ok to say that the rider told you to have no other gods before God.
I would have guessed it would not be OK to say anyone who had other gods before God would not go to heaven, or was cursed, or something like that.
I would have guessed that the first was just recounting an experience, without saying anything insulting to anyone else, while the second would obviously be a put down of polytheistic people (or atheistic people).
Well, that shows you what my guesses are worth, and it does show the inherent limitations of the faith board.
I wonder if it would be ok to say "I believe that there is but one God, and that I should have no other gods before him." Perhaps it was the imperative that Dr. Bob objected to.
Dr. Bob, could you clarify this matter?
Is it not ok to say "The rider told me that there was one God and I should have no Gods before him." even if there is no statement of what is thought of people who choose to have other gods before God, or choose to not believe in God?
If it isn't ok, would it be ok if it was stated as a belief rather than an imperative. Is that the problem with the statement?
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 23, 2002, at 10:03:28
In reply to Re: Dinah requests clarification from Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on October 23, 2002, at 9:35:40
Dinah,
Thank you for your reply that you are concerned about this disagreement that I am having with the Administration here.
But I must tell you that I am not going to post something that the Rider, who is The word of God in my experiance, said to me, that is different from what was said to me. For (me) to do so would be for (me) to commit spiritual adultery by denying what was said to me. Would you want ISO W to say something other than what her Word of God said to her? Would you want the poster that said that she belives in the father, the son, and the holy ghost to say anything different than that?
I am not ashamed of the good news that was revealed to me in my experiance by the Rider, who is the Word of God in my experiance, and I am not going to adulterate what ws said to me to please anyone.
The concept of marriage requiers allegiance to each other. There is the concept of adultery. In my faith, it was revealed to me by the Rider, who is The Word of God in my experiance, that I would be commiting spiritual adultery if I embraced other Gods. I am not saying that those that beleive in God can not embrace other Gods. I am not saying that the people that believe in No God can not beleive in a God. What I am saying is that I object to anyone accusing me of disrespecting others because I am a jew that believes in one God and that God says,to jews, amd myself, that He will be like a husband to them, and that gioing after other Gods is spiritual adultery to us, which is idolatry to us. There are other religions beside judaism that hold the same concept.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on October 23, 2002, at 11:07:51
In reply to Lou's response to Dinah's post » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on October 23, 2002, at 10:03:28
Oh no, Lou. I wasn't asking you to. I just thought your question was a valid one, and sometimes find the finer points of what is allowed to be a bit ambiguous, so I was asking clarification from Dr. Bob.
I don't know that I will ever have a similar situation come up in my own posting, but if I do, I would like to know what would be allowed, and any ambiguity cleared up. As I said, I guessed wrong on this one, and would like to know what was allowed if it should ever come up for me. Ambiguity always makes me a bit nervous.
I've asked similar questions about other posts where I was confused at the parameters of what was permissable.
Dinah
Posted by tina on October 23, 2002, at 15:22:26
In reply to Re: I won't be baited » tina, posted by mair on October 23, 2002, at 7:51:48
I am also rather proud of myself. :)
hope you're having a good day
tina
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 23, 2002, at 16:23:37
In reply to Re: please be civil--sorry (nm) » Dr. Bob, posted by tina on October 23, 2002, at 7:39:52
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 23, 2002, at 16:25:34
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dinah's post » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on October 23, 2002, at 11:07:51
Dinah,
Thank you for saying that my question was a valid one and that you are also intersted in clarification for it could, possibly, affect your posting in the future.
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 23, 2002, at 16:37:52
In reply to Re: Dinah requests clarification from Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on October 23, 2002, at 9:35:40
> Now you see, I wouldn't have guessed that. I would have guessed that it would be ok to say that the rider told you to have no other gods before God.
>
> I would have guessed it would not be OK to say anyone who had other gods before God would not go to heaven, or was cursed, or something like that.Hmm, fair enough, I take back what I said, sorry I got carried away, and thanks for the input.
Bob
Posted by IsoM on October 23, 2002, at 16:48:52
In reply to Re: clarification, posted by Dr. Bob on October 23, 2002, at 16:37:52
So does that mean if anyone says such-and-such says "..." OR that I experienced someone telling me "..." it would be okay? But if one was to say something DIRECTLY themself, that's what's wrong?
Your short reply to Dinah isn't quite clear what is & what isn't allowable.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 23, 2002, at 17:33:12
In reply to Re: clarification » Dr. Bob, posted by IsoM on October 23, 2002, at 16:48:52
ISO M,
I share your concerns for clarification in regards to expressing your faith here. My model would be based on the following principles:
1) That telling of your faith does not disrespect others.
This means that when someone tells me of their Christiandom faith, that I am to be tolerant and know that it is their faith, and that I have my faith, and that my faith is no more disrespetfull to their faith than their faith is disrespctfull to mine. This is the principle of freedom of religion. I do not get offended or think that one is disrespecting me when another tells me that he is a polytheist, and I do expect, even here, that people do not accuse me of disrespect because I am a jew and believe in one God.
I welcome your quotes from your bible for it is my beleif that All scripture is God-inspirerd.
So my position is that anyone can express their faith and not have to be subjected to being accused of disrespect to others that believe a different way, or no way at all.
I would like to hear more bible quotes here. For I beleive that The Word of God does not come back void. It is the Water of Life. It is the Power to become The Sons of God.
Now if someone here does not want to beleive that, then I am not expecting that they have to, anymore than those that do not beleive, expect me to be like them.
So let freedom ring. Let those that are Christians praise their faith and I will love them. Let those that are jews praise their faith and I will love them. Let them that are Islamic people praise their faith and I will love them. Let them that are all the other faiths praise their faith and I will love them. Let those that are of no faith praise theres also, and I will love them. For God is not a relgion. God is Love.
Lou
Posted by IsoM on October 23, 2002, at 18:26:43
In reply to Lou's shared concerns with ISO M » IsoM, posted by Lou Pilder on October 23, 2002, at 17:33:12
Lou, I just want Bob to clarify his last comment, that's all. I don't wish to publicize my beliefs in these forums. As I said before, I don't think forums are a good place to discuss one's beliefs. But Bob's comment can be viewed in more than one way & I'm not sure which way he means. Nothing more. There's better ways to reach people, if that's one's goal, than through internet forums or boards.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 23, 2002, at 20:06:52
In reply to Re: clarification » Dr. Bob, posted by IsoM on October 23, 2002, at 16:48:52
Friends,
The next principle that I am suggesting for the faith board is:
(2)That any part of the person's faith can be expressed without being accused of disrespect or putting aothers down. This would include, but not limited to:
A)The writing of Any verse or passage from that person's faith book(s). This could be the bible, the koran, the tenach, the talmud,the Catholic book of catachisms, L.Ron Hubbards Dianetics, Mary Baker Edy's Key to the scriptures and her other writings, the Watchtower society publications, and any other written document. We should be tolerant and accept that what is quoted is from that person's faith and that does not disrespect other faiths anymore than the other faiths disrespect the one that quoted the passage. If anyone is allowed to accuse someone that expresses their faith as being disrespctfull to others that are not of that faith, or no faith at all, then we could not have any expression of faith at all!
To have freedom of religion means to not have to be accused by others of another faith, or no faith at all, of disrespecting them becaue they express their Faith . The church on one side of the street is not disrespecting the mosque on the other side of the stret any nore than the mosque on its side of the street is disrespecting the church on the other side of the street. All faiths have to be welcome here. If the moderators can not or will not honor all faiths here, then shutting down the faith board would be preferable to me than to have a board that does not welcome all faiths, or accuses a faith of disrespecting others because of what their faith beleives.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 23, 2002, at 20:16:56
In reply to Lou's suggested model for the faith board(2), posted by Lou Pilder on October 23, 2002, at 20:06:52
Friends,
The next suggestion that I have for the faith board is:
3) That the topic of the afterlife , according to that person's faith, be allowed to be expressed without restraint. This includes, but not limited to, the fate of the wicked, hell, the lake of fire, purgatory, Greek mythology, new age, heaven, the Kingdom of God, eternal death, anihliilation, reincarnation, karma, and anything else about the expression of that faith in relation to what happens after death.
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 23, 2002, at 21:46:58
In reply to Re: clarification » Dr. Bob, posted by IsoM on October 23, 2002, at 16:48:52
> So does that mean if anyone says such-and-such says "..." OR that I experienced someone telling me "..." it would be okay? But if one was to say something DIRECTLY themself, that's what's wrong?
Hmm, I see this is a slippery slope... On third thought, I think I should go back to my original position:
> > if I said that the Rider said that one should not have any other Gods before Him, then would you admonish me as being not respectfull of "others" that are polythiests?
>
> Yes, that's a constraint at PBF.To return to Dinah:
> Now you see, I wouldn't have guessed that. I would have guessed that it would be ok to say that the rider told you to have no other gods before God.
>
> I would have guessed that the first was just recounting an experience, without saying anything insulting to anyone elseWhile I wouldn't consider them insults, either, statements like that do put down alternative beliefs. And could be considered pressure. So I think it would be more civil here not to have those experiences recounted.
> I wonder if it would be ok to say "I believe that there is but one God, and that I should have no other gods before him." Perhaps it was the imperative that Dr. Bob objected to.
Yes, it's definitely the "should" that I consider the problem, the above would be fine.
Bob
Posted by IsoM on October 24, 2002, at 0:56:57
In reply to Re: re-clarification, posted by Dr. Bob on October 23, 2002, at 21:46:58
Aackk, Bob! This has been bounced around so much, I'm not sure what your original position is now. Please, just once more - state what your position is in so many words for mentally confused fellow posters like me. Make it clear so there's no confusion if you can.
Posted by Dinah on October 24, 2002, at 3:29:12
In reply to Re: re-clarification » Dr. Bob, posted by IsoM on October 24, 2002, at 0:56:57
IsoM, I must confess that I am more confused than ever. I thought the rule was to not insult those who had different beliefs.
Dr. Bob says it's the "should" he objects to and the same thing could be said without the "should" as a statement of belief and it would be ok.
Lou asked if he could say "the Rider said to me, "You shall have no other Gods before me"," and Dr. Bob says that is not OK, nor would it be OK to quote any particular scripture that states that only one God or one belief should be embraced, even if there is no insult implied to anyone else who follows a different belief. So is it true that you could not say "The New Testament says that you should have faith in Jesus as your Lord and Saviour" or "The Koran teaches that there is no God but God".
Hmm, kind of does away completely with the idea of the faith board. So one couldn't quote the first commandment, even if one was an atheist? Or only if one agrees with the first commandment...
So if I were to say, "I was reading the Bible one day, and I read "I am the Lord thy God, and thou shalt have no gods before me" and I was really struck by that passage and decided to adopt that as my belief." would that or wouldn't that be allowed.
If I were to say "I was reading the Bible one day and I read "I am the Lord thy God, and thou shalt have no gods before me" and I don't really believe that because I am a nature worshipper" would that or wouldn't that be allowed.
After all, we are allowed to quote other literature, or tell our experiences with people other than the Rider freely. Could I say that my mother told me I should believe in Jesus? Would it matter whether I was saying it in a positive or negative way?
Talk about slippery slopes, Dr. Bob. You're standing at the top of the peak with slopes to each side of you. :) Best put on some hob nailed boots.
Dinah
PS. I think I'll retire from the lists now. I just hate ambiguity. I'll just try to stay away from posting on the faith board.
(PPS. Is it so different than someone saying "My doctor told me that no one should ever prescribe antidepressants for an anxiety disorder?" Would that be a put down to anyone who is using antidepressants for an anxiety disorder?)
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 5:51:28
In reply to Re: re-clarification, posted by Dinah on October 24, 2002, at 3:29:12
Dinah,
I am delighted that you were able to place th main issue here in your post. I am awaiting the answers from Dr. Bob to our questions for the answer will determine if I can be a jew here or if I have to hide my judaism and not say that I believe in one God and that there is a commandment to jews to not hve any Gods before Him.
I like your analogy about the drug people that say that ADs should not be taken.... and your statement asking if you could say that you read in your bible that there was a commandment in it to not have any Gods before God.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 5:55:21
In reply to Lou likes Dinah » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 5:51:28
Friends,
Sorry that the last two words were left out in the subject line. It is my faulty computer's fault. Not that I do not like Dinah , anyway, for I do .
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on October 24, 2002, at 6:12:10
In reply to Lou's shared concerns with ISO M » IsoM, posted by Lou Pilder on October 23, 2002, at 17:33:12
Lou,
quoting is fine... but when those quotes are offensive, I don't think its OK...
Use your judgement... are you happy upsetting people??
Nikki
Posted by NikkiT2 on October 24, 2002, at 6:18:19
In reply to Correction:should be Lou likes (Dinahs's post), posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 5:55:21
It would be Ok to say "my literature says you should have no god other than the one I worship"... but NOT ok to say "my literature says you are a fool if you don't believe in my god".
I simply don't like being called a fool (or anything similar!)
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 6:54:49
In reply to Re: re-clarification, posted by Dinah on October 24, 2002, at 3:29:12
Friends,
Dinah has said that if the administration here says that one can not state their beleif that their faith says that they shall have no other Gods before God, that they will be restrained from saying that, which would prohibit the faith board to exists, as Dinah says,"humm kind of does away completly with the idea of the the faith board".
I agree with Dinah, but there are also other questions that arise out of Dr. Bob's stance on this issue that I would like addressed here. One would be if his stance , now, is a (change) from his original making of the faith board, where all faiths were welcomed, and that it is now being changed to something other than that. For the post that said that the poster beleived in the father, the son and the holy ghost was not restrained, along with numerous other posts that were not restrained that expessed their faith beliefs, and even Dr.Bob citing a passage from the new testament from the book of James,which I did not demend that he be restrained from quoting, and now there is a change that prohibits jews that beleive in one God to state that their God commands them that they shall have no other Gods before them. This is the foundation of judaism and I am not going to adulterate that beleif of mine by changing that wording of my beleif to accomodate any one elses beleif any more than I would demand that the christian be restraind and not state that they believe in Jesus, the father and the holy ghost. Now if Dr. Bob's prohibition of me saying my foundation of my faith is allowed to stand, and at the same time allowing the christian person to say that they believed in the father the son and the holy ghost , which is the foundation of christianity, is going to be allaowed,or for bible verses to be quoted, then I would preferr that this site be shut down iimmediatly. I also would want an apology made to all those that were lured into this site on Dr. Bob's invitation to tell of their fiath experiances and then told that their faith could not be expressed because their faith is different from, in this case chritianity for the chritian foundation of the father , the son , and the holy ghost was not restrained,and christian bible verses are not restrained, and therfore jews would be accused of disrespect when the christian person was not accused of disrespect when they expressed their faith of the foundation of their beleif of the father, the son, and the holy ghost or cite their christian bible verses.
Lou
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.