![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 78 to 102 of 194. Go back in thread:
Posted by NikkiT2 on October 24, 2002, at 7:44:21
In reply to Re: I think... » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 7:03:18
Like I said, I think its ok to say "xxx told me to have no other god but him"... but its when you use phrases like the fools one that you're crossing the lines.
I used the fools comment as an example. i would hope you have learnt that phrases that make me out to be less of a person for not believeing in god are not acceptable.
I believ its fine to discuss and tell of your experiences without putting others down. Try and double check what you say to make sure you're not saying such things.
Just to re-iterate.. I think its OK to say things like only one god, as long as you're not saying that others are less of a person for not believeing in that god.
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 8:22:11
In reply to Re: I think... » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on October 24, 2002, at 7:44:21
NikkiT2,
I am sorry that you feel that I was offending you, for it was not, and will never be, my intention to offend anyone and apologise to you for any thing that I have reiterated here in my experiance.
The quote in question involved spiritual implications,(in his heart) not intellectuall ones. What I am tellng in my experiance "The 7 Gates on the Road to the Crown of Life is a spiritual unfolding, not an intellectual one. I am sorry that this could not be brought out without me being able to complete the complete revelation that was given to me, and I do recognise that there will be some quotes that some will not approve of, and that there will be disagreements about them.
Now if I am able to complete telling of my experiance here, then it would be brought out in more light what the phrase in question really means.
Actually,I have heard the phrase in question quoted by christian groups on national television and world-wide radio broadcasts. It is found in our jewish book called the tenach, and the christian groups include the psalms, which this is number 14 and 53, in their bibles.
The correct understanding of the verse is, I must admit, clouded because it can only be properly understood when more light is revealed. It is my intention to bring all of this together shortly to explain that verse and others in its spiritual context, if I am allowed to. And I want to be allowed to do that for people like yourself so that I can bring out the full meaning of that verse and others. As of now, unless I am allowed to complete my experiance here, there will be unfinished explanations that could be cleared up only if I will be allowed to finish my experiuance here. So if I am given more opportunity here to finish the 7 Gates on the Road to the Crown of Life, then I will have the opportunity to clarify this to you and others.
I hope that we can stay in touch,
Lou
Posted by Dinah on October 24, 2002, at 8:45:34
In reply to I think..., posted by NikkiT2 on October 24, 2002, at 6:18:19
> 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!)
>
> NikkiHi Nikki,
That was always my belief about the rules as well, but Dr. Bob has specifically said something different. He has said that it is not ok to say "my literature says you should have no god other than the one I worship"... ".
Dinah
Posted by Dinah on October 24, 2002, at 8:46:11
In reply to Re: I think..., posted by Dinah on October 24, 2002, at 8:45:34
Posted by Dinah on October 24, 2002, at 8:54:58
In reply to Dinah's observations-Lou's response » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 6:54:49
Lou, I too am confused at what is allowed. And I wonder how constrained the faith board can be without becoming a board absent of faith.
However, I don't think it is at all fair to put an anti-Semitic slant on the argument. Dr. Bob is equally limiting the ability of people of all faiths to post their doctrine on the board. In fact the first statement prohibited was a Christian statement about the only way to be saved being through Jesus Christ. And many people were upset at not being able to quote the new testament to that effect.
For myself, I am willing to abide by whatever rules Dr. Bob imposes, since it is his board and really I have no choice anyway. :) Perhaps if it were my board the rules would be slightly different.
But please don't take it personally, or as an affront to Judaism in particular. I have seen absolutely no signs of anti Semitism in Dr. Bob's decisions and have the utmost respect for Dr. Bob.
And Dr. Bob didn't say you couldn't say you believed in one God, merely that you couldn't say (even through quotes) that you "should" believe in one God. A subtle distinction, but the one Dr. Bob is trying to make, I think.
Dinah
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 9:14:24
In reply to Re: Dinah's observations-Lou's response » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on October 24, 2002, at 8:54:58
Dinah,
Sorry, but the christian poster recieved no restraint to post that she believed in the father, the son, and the holy ghost which is the foundation of Christianity, and I will be restrained to say the foundation of my jewish faith, thatI beleive that my God requireres me to have no other God before Him.
I'm sorry, but I will not accept this and I have asked Dr. Bob to give me his descriminatory rational for allowing one and not the other. Are you saying that a christian has the option of beleiveing that christianity requirers the acceptance if beleiveing in the Father , the Son, and the Holy ghost or to not believe in the Father, the Son amd the Holy Ghost? There is a (should) in that foundation to be a christian. Why is the christian (should) to believe in the Father, the Son and the holy Ghost any different than the (should) in the foundation of the jewish faith to believe only in one God? If you can clarify the differences between the (shoulds) then I will be better able to understand why you are supporting Dr. bob when to me it is plainly visible on this board that there are two different standards.
Lou.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 9:37:50
In reply to Re: Dinah's observations-Lou's response » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on October 24, 2002, at 8:54:58
Dinah,
Could you take a look at the folowing post?
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/fith/20020527/msgs/196.html
If you could, then I would be appreciative because the content of this post , I believe, is relavant to what you have posted and I believe that if we examine this post together, that we could be better able to communicate with each other in regards to this discussion.
Thanks in advance if you could examine the post thatI have requested for you to examime,
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 9:47:31
In reply to Re: Dinah's observations-Lou's response(2) » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 9:37:50
Dinah,
This is the URL in its corrected form:
http://dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20020527/msgs/196.html
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 10:21:33
In reply to Correction to the URL in the above » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 9:47:31
Friends,
Below is another post that I feel is relavant to the discussion on this thread.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20020527/msgs/189.html
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 10:29:08
In reply to other relavant posts » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 10:21:33
Friends,
Below is another post that I feel could be relavant to this discussion.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20020527/msgs/466.html
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 10:42:19
In reply to Re: other relavant posts (2), posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 10:29:08
Friends,
Below is another post that I feel could be relavant to this discussion.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20020527/msgs/486.html
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on October 24, 2002, at 10:42:48
In reply to Re: I think... » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 8:22:11
I do understand the meaning of the sentance... I was a regular church goer for a number of years (not taken by parents) and am also confirmed (int eh Church of England) and have studied many religious texts with a friend study religions.
But I found I just couldn't believe in god. So being told I'm a fool for this is vry hurtful.
Your apology is gracefully accepted though. Thankyou.
Nikki
Posted by NikkiT2 on October 24, 2002, at 10:44:45
In reply to Re: Dinah's observations-Lou's response » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on October 24, 2002, at 8:54:58
Well said Dinah.
I don't object at all to people showing their faith or quoting it, I just object to people saying I *should* believe in this or that. (and that doesn't just go with religion!!!)
Thannks for making some sense of what I'm trying to say :o)
Nikki
Posted by NikkiT2 on October 24, 2002, at 10:47:56
In reply to Correction to the URL in the above » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 9:47:31
I have read that post and don't understand your problem with it Lou.
Never in that post did SandraDee say that anyone "should" do naything. Just that she believed xx church was better than yy church.
Nikki
Posted by NikkiT2 on October 24, 2002, at 10:51:30
In reply to Re: other relavant posts (2), posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 10:29:08
And this one is simply Dinah's feelings towards your situation.
I didn't agree with others when they were "bashing" you, and I'm not bashing you now.. I hope I haven't said anything hurtful.
I am just hoping to help you understand some of the feelings toward some of your posts, to help avoid any painful situations in the future.
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 10:58:05
In reply to Re: I think... » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on October 24, 2002, at 10:42:48
NikkiT2,
In regards to this discussion, I respect all faiths and I consider those that believe in their heart that there is no God is also to be respected. But the phase,(in their heart), needs to be clarified, for that is different from just not beleiving. The phrase (in their heart) is a spiritual phrase, not an intellectual one.
Actually, I think that you will be pleased when, and if I am allowed, I finish the 7 Gates on the Road to the Crown of Life.
I am again sorry that I can not go on and tell the rest of my experiance here untill the disagreement that I have with the administration of the board here is resolved, but if you would like, we could communicate via email and I could , perhaps, clear up the descepancy with you privatly.
Best Regards,
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 11:22:53
In reply to Re: Correction to the URL in the above » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on October 24, 2002, at 10:47:56
NikkiT2,
One of the statements is ,"that He sent His only Son for you"
Now it is my understanding that by saying that, the poster is posting the foundation of christianity. This is what Christians (must)(should) (shall) beleive in order to be a Christian.
I am posting what myself as a jew must (should) (shall) believe to be a jew, and I will be restrained from posting that, yet the christian person is not restrained .
Also, when the Rider, who is the Word of God in my experiance, said to me, "you shall have no other Gods before me", He wasn't saying that to you anymore than the Christian person on this board is saying what they said in their post to you or me. I am only telling my experiance with my faith here and so are the others. The difference is that I will be restrained from telling the foundation of my faith and christians are not restrained from telling their foundation of their faith. And I am not being disrespected by the christians posting here by them posting about Christ and I am objecting to being accused by anyone here of being disrespectfull to anyone because I am a jew and the foundation of judaism is to beleive in one God and we shall have no other Gods before us . The foundation for Christiandom is that they must (shall-should)believe in Christ to be a christian. Are you saying that the christians can state theuir foundation for their faith and that I as a jew can not state my foundation for my faith on this board? If so, could you clarify why my foundation, to me, to be a jew, can not be posted here but the Christian foundation to be a Christian can be posted here? If you could clarify that, then I will have abetter understanding about the subject of this discussion and I will be better able to discuss it with you,
Lou
Posted by Dinah on October 24, 2002, at 11:24:07
As I'm getting rather confused. I'm not sure I adequately conveyed my feelings on the subject of the faith board, nor am I even totally sure what they are. I think I am trying to say the same thing Nikki said.
I do, however want to reiterate my belief that Dr. Bob is not biased for or against any particular belief structure. And that I've never quite understood how the faith board fits into Babble, given the overall purpose of the site. The very nature of faith is that if you believe in one thing (including agnosticism or atheism) that you don't believe in other things. Of course that is also true of politics, etc. And I think with the faith board, Dr. Bob is balancing precariously, trying to achieve more than one goal, and probably doomed to have trouble with it.
Oh, I'm confusing myself again.
Posted by oracle on October 24, 2002, at 11:59:54
In reply to I bow rather gracelessly out...., posted by Dinah on October 24, 2002, at 11:24:07
> And that I've never quite understood how the faith board fits into Babble, given the overall purpose of the site.
And I think with the faith board, Dr. Bob is balancing precariously, trying to achieve more than one goal, and probably doomed to have trouble with it.
>Yep, the beginning of the end
Posted by IsoM on October 24, 2002, at 12:35:47
In reply to I bow rather gracelessly out...., posted by Dinah on October 24, 2002, at 11:24:07
Exactly why I said that a person's beliefs (or lack of beliefs) aren't discussed easily on a internet board. It soon ends up enbroiled in a mess. It'll either degenerate into a free-for-all, with poster attacking poster for what the other will consider "hogwash", or like here, so many rules & restrictions that what one sis trying to say becomes watered down.
It's futile & achieves nothing which is why I posted a definition of faith vs logic but refuse to participate further. I'm NOT trying to say "I told you so" - draw your own conclusions about the usefulness of a faith board.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 13:15:12
In reply to Re: I bow rather GRACEFULLY out.... » Dinah, posted by IsoM on October 24, 2002, at 12:35:47
IsoM,
Thank you for posting that the restictions water down what someone wants to say.
That is important because the restriction, in effect, is a denying one to make the speech, for the restrictions Stops the thought that one wants to say.
Also, though,I do not see a free-for-all here, just a disagreement.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on October 24, 2002, at 13:41:31
In reply to Re: I bow rather gracelessly out...., posted by oracle on October 24, 2002, at 11:59:54
> Yep, the beginning of the end
>
>the Faith Board?
Babble?
Dr. Bob's patience?
my sanity?
faith itself?
the world and life as we know it?I enjoy your posts, oracle. You remind me a lot of Dr. Bob. :)
Posted by IsoM on October 24, 2002, at 13:58:18
In reply to Re: I bow rather GRACEFULLY out.... » IsoM, posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 13:15:12
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 19:58:27
In reply to Re: other relavant posts (3), posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 10:42:19
Friends,
Below is another post that I feel could be relevant to this discussion:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20020715/msgs/606.html
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on October 24, 2002, at 20:16:07
In reply to other relevant posts (4), posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 19:58:27
Again Lou, no where in that post did it say "you shall" or "you should" or anything like that.
Nikki
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.