![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 96 to 120 of 194. Go back in thread:
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
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 20:21:42
In reply to Re: other relevant posts (4) » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on October 24, 2002, at 20:16:07
NikkiT2,
The relevancy to th discussion that I feel is visible here in the post is:
(Jesus became the source of our salvation to all those that obey Him.)
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 20:25:20
In reply to Re: other relevant posts (4) » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 20:21:42
Friends,
Below is another post that I feel is relevant to the discussion here:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20020527/261.html
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 20:28:10
In reply to Re: other relevant posts (5) » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 20:25:20
Friends, The link is:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20020527/msgs/261.html
lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on October 24, 2002, at 20:35:24
In reply to Re: other relevant posts (4) » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 20:21:42
She only said that Jesus became the source of something, not that we wouldn't receive salvation at all if they didn't believe in him.
I agree that this one could be slightly dubious.. it sits slightly uncomfortably with me.
Like I have previously said, I understand Dr Bobs objections to be the use of words such as should and you shall...
Nikki
Posted by NikkiT2 on October 24, 2002, at 20:35:52
In reply to Correction to other relevant posts (5), posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 20:28:10
I don't understand your objection to this one.. could you copy the line(s) you find offensive??
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 20:49:29
In reply to Re: Correction to other relevant posts (5) » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on October 24, 2002, at 20:35:52
NikkiT2,
the part that I feel is relevant to the discussion here is:
"I believe in God. I believe in the Trinity (God the father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit)
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on October 24, 2002, at 20:53:44
In reply to Re: Correction to other relevant posts (5) » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 20:49:29
Again Lou, she said "I believe", not "you should" or "you shall". That is where the distinction lies in my opinion.
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 20:57:11
In reply to Re: Correction to other relevant posts (5) » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 20:49:29
Nikki,
After rereading you posts, I need to clarify that I am only listing posts that I feel are relevant to the discussion here. If you think that some are offensive, that does Not mean that I consider them offensive. On the contrary, for I welcome all faiths and I am not offended by people that have other faiths than mine and their faith is not disrespectfull to me for I beleive in freedom of religion.
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on October 24, 2002, at 21:02:21
In reply to clarification for Nikki » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 20:57:11
Oh, I realise that Lou... I'm just pointing out where these posts differ from yours (the one you got the pbc for), and querying why you think these posts need to be flagged.
I apologise if my wording isn't as good as it should be.. its late here!!!
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 21:02:57
In reply to Correction to other relevant posts (5), posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 20:28:10
Friends,
Below are some oter relevant posts that I feel could be included in this discussion:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20020715/msgs/504.htmlhttp://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20020715/msgs/506.html
lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 21:12:36
In reply to Re: clarification for Nikki » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on October 24, 2002, at 21:02:21
NikkiT2,
The discussion is about that Dr. Bob t will accuse me of not respecting others if I post the foundational beliefe of my faith, Jewdaism, that says that I should have no other Gods before me.
It is not about the other post.
And BTW, if you bring that up tha post again, could you be accurate in your quote? It is not that... a fool beleives that there is no God, but ...a fool(IN His Heart) beleives that there is no God.
If you are accurate in your quote, I will appreciate it , for accuracy is important so that others get the corect infomation.
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on October 24, 2002, at 21:20:16
In reply to Re: clarification for Nikki » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 21:12:36
How about saying "I believe that *I* should have no other gods before me". This changes teh emphasis from the reader thinking you could mean them, to being clear that this is simply about YOU.
What do you think?
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 21:20:21
In reply to other relevant posts (more), posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 21:02:57
Friends,
Below are some other posts that I feel are relevant to this discussion:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20020715/msgs/521.htmlhttp://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20020715/msgs/527.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20020715/msgs/628.html
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 21:31:32
In reply to Re: clarification for Nikki » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on October 24, 2002, at 21:20:16
NikkiT2,
It is my understanding that you are either in the "others" that Dr. Bob is referring to or you are speaking for the " others" , but you are not on the "others"
Either way, if the "others" are those that in their heart beleive that there is no God, I am not restraining you, or the people that you may be speaking for, to say that in your heart you beleive that there is no God. You can say that and I feel it is your right to say it without you being restrained to change it in any way. I am asking that I not be restrained from telling the foundation of my faith any more than others are not being restrained from telling of their foundation of their faith.
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on October 24, 2002, at 21:35:22
In reply to Re: clarification for Nikki » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 21:31:32
Lou.. this is the last for tonight as I must get to bed.
I know its OK to say I don't believe in god, but it would not be ok for me to say "A fool, in their heart, believes in god". That would be suggesting that those who do believe are fools.
Do you see the difference?
Nikki
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 25, 2002, at 1:30:13
In reply to I bow rather gracelessly out...., posted by Dinah on October 24, 2002, at 11:24:07
> 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.
To say that one belief should be embraced is to say that others should not. Which puts down those other beliefs. I think it's more civil not to tell others what to believe.
As a general guideline. There may, however, be exceptions, depending on the context, etc.
> 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".
A discussion of what different faiths teach would be a good example of such an exception. For one thing, various points of view would be represented, so there wouldn't be any implication that any one road was the only "right" one.
> Hmm, kind of does away completely with the idea of the faith board.
I think it should be possible to discuss faith respectfully. It's worth a try, at least...
> So one couldn't quote the first commandment, even if one was an atheist?
Telling people what to do is different than telling them what to believe -- but can be tricky, too. And would depend partly on what it was that people were being told to do.
> 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?
Another factor might be the likelihood of reaching a compromise. After discussion of evidence, etc.
> 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.It would depend partly on the context, but would the quote really be necessary? Why not just "I was reading the Bible one day, and I was really struck by a passage and decided to have no gods before Him" or "I was reading the Bible one day and didn't really believe all of that because I am a nature worshipper"?
> After all, we are allowed to quote other literature, or tell our experiences with people other than the Rider freely.
Well, not totally freely... There was that quote from Apocalypse Now, for example...
> 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?
Maybe just say she taught you to believe in Jesus?
> Talk about slippery slopes, Dr. Bob. You're standing at the top of the peak with slopes to each side of you. :)
1. If there are slopes to each side, then there's balance, which is good.
2. So I don't have to climb any farther? :-)> 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.
Yes. And it's fine to talk about what you believe -- as long as you don't put down other beliefs.
Sorry about having vacillated on this. I think the questions you and IsoM asked really helped me clarify my thinking on this, thank you. I know I'm not perfect, but I do try to be open to feedback and to do what I think will be good for this community as a whole. Thanks for your patience,
Bob
Posted by NikkiT2 on October 25, 2002, at 5:42:48
In reply to Re: guidelines and exceptions, posted by Dr. Bob on October 25, 2002, at 1:30:13
So... its not OK to say "You should only have one god", but it IS ok to say "I feel I should only have one god"...???
Its all soooo confusing!!!
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 25, 2002, at 6:44:42
In reply to Re: guidelines and exceptions, posted by Dr. Bob on October 25, 2002, at 1:30:13
Dr. Bob,
You wrote that ["to say one beleife should be embraced is to say that others should not. Which puts down these other beliefs.] I think that it is more civil not to tell others what to believe."
Are you saying, by implication, that I said that my belief in Judaism is the one religion that should be embraced? Are you saying that I told others what to believe? If you are, please do not use these type of tactics . They are uncivil for you are implying that what I said means that and I consider that for you to be jumping to a conclusion which is uncivil just as you have in the past accused others of here. I never said that, and there is no implication for you to see here any more than if I, or anyone else here, wanted to say, my God said, "You shall not commit any murder." Or, you shall love your neighbor as yourself."
I wrote that I wanted to tell of my experiance where the Rider, who is the Word of God in my experiance , said to me, "You shall have no other Gods before me." Please be accurate, for I never said what you are saying that I said, anymore than the Christian person said that they believe in the father , the son, and the holy ghost and that she is Catholic would mean that there is an implication that others should be Catholic.
Are you sayig that if I post the post in discussion here that you will accuse me of putting down Christian people or athiests, or poytheists or other religions?
If so, could you give me your descriminating rational for not accusing the poster that said [that Jesus became our salvation to All Those That Believe]? There is an implication here that you must believe to be saved, and that you must believe in Jesus to be saved also.And that you also Must Obey Jesus to be saved. This pharse has been used for almost 2000 years to arrouse bad feelings to the jews and others that do not beleive that you must obey the Christiandom's Jesus, throughout the world, for the implication is obvious here that obediance to Jesus is a requirrment for salvation and Jews do not include the Jesus of Christiandom to be requirered to obey in relation to their salvation. That is the plainly visible implication which obviously puts down all other religions that do not obey Jesus. If there is a post on this board that implies that you must be a particular religion, I would say that a reasonable man would think that it is this statement by the Christian person and not a statement that the Jewish poster's God told them not to have other Gods Before Him. I never said that other's salvation was connected with that. The Christian poster did imply that. Are you saying that you have a descrimintory rational that defines the Christian poster's "imply" as different from other "implys"? If you do, could you clarify that rational for me? If you could, then I could have a better understanding of your descrimintory rational and be better able to post here to accomodate your rational.
I am not ashamed to want to have equal opportunity to post here, and I am asking you to clarify the difference between the Christiandom's people's posts and my post that I want to post in the future . Their posts tell of their foundation to obey Jesus for salvation. You did not restrain that post. I never even implied such a thing when I wanted to post the foundation of my Jewish faith , to me,which is that I shall not have other Gods before Him. Yet you are going to restrain me to post that and accuse me of disrespecting others and not restrain the Christiandom people here from writing that Jesus became our salvation to all those that Obey Him?
Could you clarify what your rational is for that so that I can better undestand the implication that you are promulgating here? If you could, then I could better understand how Christian posters can post their foundation of their faith, that is to obey Jesus, and why I can not tell of the foundation of my Jewish faith without being accused of disrespect to others and not being accused by you of putting down others because I post the foundation of Judaism and the Christian foundation of their religon is not restrained or accused by you of putting down others or disrespect to others?
Lou Pilder
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.