![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 48 to 72 of 72. Go back in thread:
Posted by Elizabeth on January 30, 2000, at 8:46:36
In reply to Re: P.S. -- Mea Culpa on the way to bed..., posted by Noa on January 30, 2000, at 8:10:00
Of course it's related to being off ADs. DJ, I'm sorry to see you go too because I feel you have a lot to offer. You say you feel better, but I can't imagine that you would feel better having such powerful reactions to interpersonal conflict. Isn't that overwhelming for you? (Feel free to write to me if you'd like. Currently shapere@aol.com, should remain so for at least another month.)
I think too little attention is paid in clinical practice to irritability as a symptom of emotional illness. I think that pathological irritability is probably distinct from both depression and bipolar disorder, though it can occur in conjunction with both as well as with other conditions (anxiety and personality disorders, schizophrenia). (As such, it's hard to treat: sometimes ADs are the solution, other times AEDs, lithium, benzos, antipsychotics, stimulants, ....)
There seems to be a tendency to blame the patient for being irritable rather than trying to help him or her (of course, it's hard to help someone who seems not to want to be helped, but many patients do display insight and realize that their irritability is extreme and problematic).
That said, I think DJ has something to be angry about, and it's the way that he (she?) is expressing it that is of concern, not the content of the anger. As an atheist, I'm constantly offended and insulted by "Christians" and others trying to ram their irrational "faith" down my throat or make condescending remarks that I am evil and going to hell. Atheists don't harrass people about their beliefs, they don't start wars, they don't engage in "ethnic cleansing" and the like, etc., so this seems like rank hypocrisy not to mention plain old rudeness.
It seems to me that those who foster religious beliefs owe me and other non-"spiritual" folks at least the courtesy of treating us as though our beliefs (*not* "faith") are not somehow inferior to theirs. This means, among other things, that I don't *want* you to pray for my "soul" - that's condescending. You may recall how disgusted and horrified non-Christians were (some Christians were too, in fact) when the Southern Baptist Convention urged members to pray for their souls. Same principle. It's your hubris that causes you to presume that you have the power to "save" others.
Posted by dj on January 30, 2000, at 13:13:47
In reply to irritability - DJ, Noa, posted by Elizabeth on January 30, 2000, at 8:46:36
Just had to make a comment on this. I appreciate both of your comments and posts and will still monitor the site, though a bit less. And elizabeth thanks for the offer, I may take you up on it at some time, but not right away.
Frankly, I don't see it about being off ADs as generally I do feel much better physically, mentally and emotionally, than I have in some time. I still have a St. Johns-Worts - 5HTP combo as a back-up. The ADs and my course of study of the past year both contributed a lot of physical and mental stress to me -- the former was supposed to help with the latter and did some (more on an emotional and cognitive level), much of which has been alleviated now.
I've been getting a lot of physical therapy -- chiropractory, massage and acupuncuture which is also helping with my physical and mental flexibility and am working on looking less like the Buddha and acting more like him. I've a ways to go yet on both fronts ; ). Eating less on the run and working out more regularly will help. Both have been difficult until recently because of immense fatigue, which I also attribute somewhat to coming off ADs, which I am also counterbalancing with lots of vitamins and herbal combos, like gingko.
The irritability I would attribute to many factors and am working on that through some groups with folks I know well and respect deeply, as well as on my own. Religion is a particular flash point as it was shoved down my throat, during my early years. My mother/father are/were wonderful folks but could be very dogmatic and unbending on religious issues and my Mom once almost disowned me due to a disagreement on this issue, which to me has always been about free choice.
My father, who had 7 priests (2 or 3 who were the former heads of a Catholic University on which he served on the Board of Governors for years, as well as many community boards and being one of two Canadian reps. on the international board of the Knights of Columbus, and an honourary Knight of Malta, etc.) talked her out of it. Recently she told me if she hadn't met my father she was leaning toward the nunnery. Instead she had 9 kids and as the oldest male in the middle of 6 females, prior to the arrival of my male sibs. my aggress energies were often shut down and one was expected to be seen not heard, unless you had something nice to say.
I was often blamed when 'emotional' encounters ocurred, rightfully or wrongfully. I was often the target of my father's wrath when he was home acting as the enforcer usually more with harsh words than nought. As a lawyer, who became a provincial Supreme Court justice, he was good at prosecuting and cutting to the quick, at times, as am I.
He was also a very just and compassionate man, generally, though a bit dogmatic in the expression of his views at times, as am I. He was also generally very liberal with a healthy dose of conservatism, as am I. Regardless I don't blame my father nor my mother for the way they were, or I am. They had lots of stressors in their lives, beyond nine obvious ones and are & were wonderful people, beneath sometimes foreboding countenances, as am I.
I have a love-hate relationship with spirituality/religion/theology and authority. I am a doubting Thomas who sometimes seeks but often does not find much that appeals in what passes for religions insights. However, most varieties of Buddhism offer insights which I find the most attractive and least dogmatic (which explains the former)because they are thougtfully and beautifully explained and always leave the onus on the seeker to look for themself. And they condemn none and welcome all. And historically they seem to have one of the most unblemished records of oppression of those who disagree with thier views, of which I am aware.
So goes it...the very best to EVERY, single one of you on your paths. Ours may cross again, yet. If anyone has any particularly interesting postings (especially on the science of dealing with and alleviating depression) which they feel I might be interested in, or just want to say hello, you can always copy them to me at jd-dm@rocketmail.com.
It's a sunny day, but somewhat chilly day, & I'm off for my first coffee, to read a paper or two and have some adventures...
> Of course it's related to being off ADs. DJ, I'm sorry to see you go too because I feel you have a lot to offer. You say you feel better, but I can't imagine that you would feel better having such powerful reactions to interpersonal conflict. Isn't that overwhelming for you? (Feel free to write to me if you'd like. Currently shapere@aol.com, should remain so for at least another month.)
>
Posted by dj on January 30, 2000, at 15:45:16
In reply to Re: irritability - my last post for awhile....long, posted by dj on January 30, 2000, at 13:13:47
Following should have read: My father, who had seven priests (...) present & officiating at his funeral (including my uncle, whom I am named after and who is a former missionary, but one who is very relaxed in his approach and leads by example, more than preaching)
>
> My father, who had 7 priests (2 or 3 who were the former heads of a Catholic University on which he served on the Board of Governors for years, as well as many community boards and being one of two Canadian reps. on the international board of the Knights of Columbus, and an honourary Knight of Malta, etc.) talked her out >of it.Many other current & past factors and general temperment contribute to my occasional shortness & aggressiveness which is balanced out with apathy when severely depressed, (and compassion at both times, though sometimes strained, in the manner of St. Paul, & others) which I am moving away from as I focus on, develop and channel my passions for truth, justice, etc...!
That's all for a while folks. Cheerio, it's been a slice...; )
Posted by + on January 30, 2000, at 17:07:05
In reply to irritability - DJ, Noa, posted by Elizabeth on January 30, 2000, at 8:46:36
As an atheist, I'm
constantly offended and insulted by "Christians" and others trying to ram their irrational
"faith" down my throat or make condescending remarks that I am evil and going to
hell. Atheists don't harrass people about their beliefs, they don't start wars, they don't
engage in "ethnic cleansing" and the like, etc., so this seems like rank hypocrisy not to
mention plain old rudeness.It seems to me that those who foster religious beliefs owe me and other non-"spiritual"
folks at least the courtesy of treating us as though our beliefs (*not* "faith") are not
somehow inferior to theirs. This means, among other things, that I don't *want* you to
pray for my "soul" - that's condescending. You may recall how disgusted and horrified
non-Christians were (some Christians were too, in fact) when the Southern Baptist
Convention urged members to pray for their souls. Same principle. It's your hubris that
causes you to presume that you have the power to "save" others.
I am also offended by what some non-christians say. We are doing what we feel compelled to do based on our beliefs. So are you saying we are the cause of all the worlds problems? Was Hitler, Saddam Hussein, or Ghengis Khan Christians? Are you going to dictate what we can believe concerning other beliefs? Are you going to tell me what I can pray about? Do atheist believe hubris is a sin? Why do you work so hard at defending a belief in nothing? If you don't like what you hear don't listen.
Posted by Janice on January 30, 2000, at 21:36:03
In reply to Religion etc. to Elizabeth, posted by + on January 30, 2000, at 17:07:05
Sorry to hear you'll be leaving the board. I'll e-mail you sometime. I'd offer you my e-mail address, but it includes my last name, which I don't like to post on a board.
I completely related to all that you said dj.
+ - you could turn almost anyone away from christianity. You'd serve God best by keeping your mouth shut. Janice
Posted by + on January 31, 2000, at 2:13:57
In reply to dj, posted by Janice on January 30, 2000, at 21:36:03
I am only stating what I believe. You not liking it in my eyes only reflects badly of you. It was not written for your benefit anyway. I will not apologize for taking a stand for what I believe in. Consider following your own advice.
Posted by Elizabeth on January 31, 2000, at 5:28:37
In reply to Religion etc. to Elizabeth, posted by + on January 30, 2000, at 17:07:05
> I am also offended by what some non-christians say. We are doing what we feel compelled to do based on our beliefs.
You might want to seek medical care if you have compulsions that force you to act in a particular way. Fortunately there are medications that can help.
> So are you saying we are the cause of all the worlds problems?
Uh, no, I never said anything resembling that.
> Was Hitler, Saddam Hussein, or Ghengis Khan Christians?
Hitler was. So were Torquemada, Mary I of England ("Bloody Mary"), the witch hunters at Salem, the Crusaders, and many more. Even today, Christians are committing acts of terror in the name of their religion, such as murdering doctors who perform abortions. Catholics and Protestants are still at each other's throats in Ireland. And of course, Slobodan Milosevic, mass murderer du jour, is a Christian.
> Are you going to dictate what we can believe concerning other beliefs? Are you going to tell me what I can pray about?
Not at all, but I think you should be aware of the arrogance implied in presuming to pray for another's soul.
> Do atheist believe hubris is a sin?
No. But Christians do (pride), so you probably ought to watch your behavior.
I can't speak for others, but I don't believe that something is right or wrong just because somebody told me so or because I read it in a book somewhere.
> Why do you work so hard at defending a belief in nothing?
I'm not working particularly hard; but why do you work so hard at defending a belief in something that is a fiction?
> If you don't like what you hear don't listen.
If nobody listens to you because of the arrogance with which you present your positions, you won't have much success getting your message across. Also, if you persist in ramming your positions down others' throats against their wills, you may one day find yourself the defendant in a harrassment lawsuit.
Posted by b.b. on January 31, 2000, at 9:01:18
In reply to effects of religious intolerance, posted by Elizabeth on January 31, 2000, at 5:28:37
Look obviously no one is going to convert anyone here. The only thing being accomplished is the insulting of posters and the temporary loss of another. Unfortunately Christianity has fallen into an easily stereotyped role and much of it's followers have become incredilby hypocritical (correct word?). Therefore many dont know enough to make a strong defense for the reasons they practice the faith. As for atheism I see that as being just irrational as any religion. Science has a long way to go to answer many questions that linger. As for the Hitler and all the rest well almost all of them (except the salem witch trials) carried their reigns of terror out in the name of the catholic church. The Salem witch trials occured under the Puritans. What do these two have in common. Both are equally opressive and cold perversions of Christ's doctrine.
I think we should abandon this post...this board can be put to better use
b.b.
Posted by b.b. on January 31, 2000, at 9:16:00
In reply to effects of religious intolerance, posted by Elizabeth on January 31, 2000, at 5:28:37
Some equally opressive atheists. Who forced their belief on the citizens of their countries.
1. Stalin (who murdered millions of his people)
2. Kruschev (continued Stalins reign of terror)
3. Kim Jong II of china
4. Mussolini
5. Castro
The list goes on and on for both sides
Posted by Adam on January 31, 2000, at 14:21:43
In reply to Re: effects of religious intolerance, posted by b.b. on January 31, 2000, at 9:01:18
>
> I think we should abandon this post...this board can be put to better use
> b.b.Oh, I don't know. Sometimes there's no better way to cut throught the b.s. than to have a good argument; arguments can be constructive and reasonably civil, intellectually stimulating, and often, once emotions have simmered down and all parties have had a chance to reflect, lead to a greater amount of consensus than existed before.
I think, exactly as b.b. pointed out, Elizabeth errs when she says atheists don't commit certain crimes against humanity. They do. Human beings from all walks of life can be sociopaths.
I'm not sure if killing people in the name of God (or whoever) is necessarily a perversion of religious beliefs, though. It seems rather cliche to point this out, but there's a fair amount of God-sanctioned killing going on in the Bible. The most obvious example is the book of Joshua (ironically, the hebraic form of Jesus)...
"And Joshua said, Hereby ye shall know that the living God is among you, and that he will without fail drive out from before you the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Hivites, and the Perizzites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Jebusites."
(Joshua, 3:10)
The Canaanites especially, having the misfortune of living in the middle of the Promised Land, are nearly eradicated. But of course they are anti-Yahwist, oversexed barbarians who owe their allegiance to the depraved Baals and Astartes, and really ought to be exterminated, since they're in the way. Genocide, five books away from Genesis. Like it or not, that's the message. So when a Baruch Goldstien type commits an attrocious crime and then says it's the proper thing to do, why is it such a shock?
But Christians and Jews alike tend to ignore a lot that textual stuff these days. I'm certainly not complaining. What disturbs me a bit is that so many devout followers of Western religions actually know very little about the history and the literature of their own faith, or regard such matters as relatively unimportant. This seems rather strange, and never fails to amaze me. I've had so many discussions where I've pointed out various disturbing elements of Judeo/Christian doctrine only to be told things like "Jesus never said that!" Then, when I produce the contrary evidence, I get told that, say, clearly Jesus was misquoted on this occasion, or that what I have found is a human perversion of Christ's true message.
Maybe, maybe not. I would feel a lot better about the average joe explaining to me what religion X really prescribes if I had some evidence that they knew what they were talking about. This goes for both the positives and the negatives. This kind of behavior becomes particularly disturbing when it comes from active evangelists.
So, you know, pray for people all you like. Spread the word with sincerity: It's your right in a country where freedom of religion and speech are considered sacred. Just maybe give your Bible a good reading. Pick up a good, non-biased book on the history of your faith. Of course religions are allowed to evolve and modernise, just try and be aware of the antecedents, if, for no other reason, you then might better understand the unhappyness and even the revulsion your faith can produce in moral, critically-thinking members of society who reject it out of principle, not, say, out of ignorance and bigotry.
Posted by + on January 31, 2000, at 16:30:04
In reply to effects of religious intolerance, posted by Elizabeth on January 31, 2000, at 5:28:37
Defending your religious beliefs is a mental illness? Are you sure about Hitler? Don't worry yourself about me praying for your soul. Being concerned about someones fate is arrogance?? Where do you get your information and how do you know its true, is it not something you have chosen to believe? Why defend a belief in nothing at all. So its fiction is it? I am not forcing my beliefs on anybody, I am just stating my beliefs. As far as I know, freedom of speech and freedom of religion are still legal rites in this country.
Posted by + on January 31, 2000, at 18:56:17
In reply to Re: effects of religious intolerance, posted by Adam on January 31, 2000, at 14:21:43
moral, critically-thinking members of society who reject it out of principle, not, say, out of ignorance and bigotry.
Morality has to have a basis. If your basis is not the same as mine then we don't have the same view of what morality is. The Church has to reach various audiences, some intelligent, some not so intelligent, some conservative, some liberal etc.. If you are offended by a particular Church, evangelist or whatever, maybe you are not at the right place. The Message is geared to different audiences. I don't necessarily like everything I hear, but I don't condemn the Church because someone offended me. Also, do you know of a religion that has more martyrs than Christianity? What does this tell you? Will someone who feels unsure of their beliefs die for them? How many atheist martyrs are there? There are a lot of disquieting things in the Bible, but if there is a God should he have to conform to our way of thinking or should we have to conform to his way of thinking? I personally don't support any aggression against other beliefs or denominations within the Church other than by verbal argument. I am upset with what I see as the degeneration of the media, (TV, internet etc.), and for you historians, are you familiar with the fall of Rome?
Posted by Janice on January 31, 2000, at 20:38:17
In reply to Oops again, that was to Adam, posted by + on January 31, 2000, at 19:03:12
It's very obvious (to me anyway) who you are. Janice
Posted by + on January 31, 2000, at 21:11:34
In reply to +, why don't you sign your name? , posted by Janice on January 31, 2000, at 20:38:17
Is it? Who am I? Perhaps you noticed a + resembles a cross?
Posted by Elizabeth on January 31, 2000, at 22:18:28
In reply to Re: effects of religious intolerance, posted by Adam on January 31, 2000, at 14:21:43
> I think, exactly as b.b. pointed out, Elizabeth errs when she says atheists don't commit certain crimes against humanity. They do. Human beings from all walks of life can be sociopaths.
Atheists don't kill, persecute, or harrass people in the name of atheism. (I think Stalin is a bad example since he did these things to people for being his political enemies; religion was incidental.)
> I'm not sure if killing people in the name of God (or whoever) is necessarily a perversion of religious beliefs, though.
It isn't, though many try to claim that those who engage in such behavior are not "real Christians" (in order to make their claim that Christians never err a tautology).
> But Christians and Jews alike tend to ignore a lot that textual stuff these days. I'm certainly not complaining. What disturbs me a bit is that so many devout followers of Western religions actually know very little about the history and the literature of their own faith, or regard such matters as relatively unimportant.
I was talking to a friend about this today; she thinks that their beliefs aren't about consistency -- they're about doing what they want. If they have to do some kind of contorted rationalizing to get what they want, they will.
Posted by b.b. on February 1, 2000, at 0:18:45
In reply to Re: effects of religious intolerance, posted by Elizabeth on January 31, 2000, at 22:18:28
>
> Atheists don't kill, persecute, or harrass people in the name of atheism. (I think Stalin is a bad example since he did these things to people for being his political enemies; religion was incidental.)>Actually Stalin was the main reason the catholic church never gained a foothold in the USSR. The persecution of priests and followers by Stalin is well documented. He did this in the name of "Mother Russia". Religion and government are never incidental. The two almost always go hand in hand. That is why we have the separation of church and state in our constitution.
> > I'm not sure if killing people in the name of God (or whoever) is necessarily a perversion of religious beliefs, though.>Adam your knowledge of the Old Testament is interesting. What motivated you to study the Bible? Actually though if you read the New Testament and this is where the word Christian is derived Christ's doctrine differs enormously with that of the Old Testament. That is one of the reasons why he was persecuted. Christ preaches a doctrine of humility and pacifism one that was a stark contrast to the powerful Isreal of the Old Testament. The word Christian is used much to loosely and many have used it to seek personal gains. Hence a perversion of the actual faith.
>
> > But Christians and Jews alike tend to ignore a lot that textual stuff these days. I'm certainly not complaining. What disturbs me a bit is that so many devout followers of Western religions actually know very little about the history and the literature of their own faith, or regard such matters as relatively unimportant.> I agree. The Western culture itself does not place much value anymore on religion of any sort. That is one reason many are disillusioned and cynical whenever Christ's name is mentioned. Too many people become comfortable with going to church every sunday and leaving it at that. It's funny because sunday isnt even the true sabbath.
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 1, 2000, at 0:48:41
In reply to dj, posted by Janice on January 30, 2000, at 21:36:03
> + - you could turn almost anyone away from christianity. You'd serve God best by keeping your mouth shut.
C'mon, everyone. Please be respectful of the views of others. Even if you consider them wrong. What goes around, comes around.
Bob
Posted by + on February 1, 2000, at 1:04:16
In reply to Re: effects of religious intolerance, posted by Elizabeth on January 31, 2000, at 22:18:28
"Atheists don't kill, persecute, or harrass people in the name of atheism."
Who's name do the do it in then?
"Christians never err"
Where did you come up with this idea? This is not something that any Christian I know claims.
"beliefs aren't about consistency -- they're about doing what they want."
This is what a Christian would say of an atheist. If you don't have to answer to God for what you have done, then you can do pretty much what you want. No eternal consequences.
Who is intolerant here? Who is the hypocrite?
Posted by + on February 1, 2000, at 1:14:22
In reply to Re: effects of religious intolerance, posted by b.b. on February 1, 2000, at 0:18:45
"It's funny because sunday isn't even the true sabbath."
I'm not sure but I think the Christian Sabbath is on Sunday, the Jewish Sabbath is on Saturday. I forget the exact reason.
Posted by Noa on February 1, 2000, at 5:04:25
In reply to Re: effects of religious intolerance, posted by b.b. on February 1, 2000, at 0:18:45
Christ's doctrine differs enormously with that of the Old Testament. That is one of the reasons why he was persecuted. Christ preaches a doctrine of humility and pacifism one that was a stark contrast to the powerful Isreal of the Old Testament.
To the extent that Jesus was a pacifist, I think it would be more realistic to say that his teachings were in reaction to Roman aggression, not that of the ancient Israelites. From our temporal perspective, it might seem like the territorial battles of the Old Testament, and Jesus's life, are chronological neighbors. But it would be analogous to Abby Hoffman (for Christians,please pardon the association--no slight intended--just using him to illustrate a point about the anachronism) starting a pacifist movement in reaction to the American Revolution.
Posted by Curious on February 1, 2000, at 15:31:42
In reply to Re: effects of religious intolerance, posted by + on February 1, 2000, at 1:04:16
The one thing I`ve always found most difficult to comprehend about religion is the concept of prayer. People say they`ve got everyone they know praying for their sick child. The kid in the next bed in the hospital has no one praying for him, so God should just let him die? And if the prayers don`t work and the prayed for child dies anyway, people say it must have been God`s will-so why did they bother praying in the 1st place if God is going to do what he wants anyway? Just curious.
Posted by Abby on February 1, 2000, at 22:17:52
In reply to Question for religious people, posted by Curious on February 1, 2000, at 15:31:42
> The one thing I`ve always found most difficult to comprehend about religion is the concept of prayer. People say they`ve got everyone they know praying for their sick child. The kid in the next bed in the hospital has no one praying for him, so God should just let him die? And if the prayers don`t work and the prayed for child dies anyway, people say it must have been God`s will-so why did they bother praying in the 1st place if God is going to do what he wants anyway? Just curious.
That whole "God willed it" stuff really offends me.Maybe there are people like that, but I think that's just crap. I only know about Anglican services, but we have something called the prayers of the people. Where you read off set prayers--e.g. "for our families friends and neighbors and for those who are alone."
"for the poor, the sick and the oppressed" etc. And then usually the reader syas "especially Mary, Sarah and Joseph" all of whom are members of the congregation. It isn't that you don't care about others but that they are part of the community and are known to people.
Praying is not about having God fix someone who is sick. As it has been presented to me, it's about one's own relationship with God which makes you a (I don't mean this word) better person, reinvigorated to change the world.Same thing with the eucharist. By coming together as a community you are realizing the promise of God and beginning to create His Kingdom on earth.
It's not about voodoo.
Abby
Posted by Sassy on February 8, 2000, at 21:12:25
In reply to Re: Question for religious people, posted by Abby on February 1, 2000, at 22:17:52
> > The one thing I`ve always found most difficult to comprehend about religion is the concept of prayer. People say they`ve got everyone they know praying for their sick child. The kid in the next bed in the hospital has no one praying for him, so God should just let him die? And if the prayers don`t work and the prayed for child dies anyway, people say it must have been God`s will-so why did they bother praying in the 1st place if God is going to do what he wants anyway? Just curious.
> That whole "God willed it" stuff really offends me.
>
> Maybe there are people like that, but I think that's just crap. I only know about Anglican services, but we have something called the prayers of the people. Where you read off set prayers--e.g. "for our families friends and neighbors and for those who are alone."
> "for the poor, the sick and the oppressed" etc. And then usually the reader syas "especially Mary, Sarah and Joseph" all of whom are members of the congregation. It isn't that you don't care about others but that they are part of the community and are known to people.
> Praying is not about having God fix someone who is sick. As it has been presented to me, it's about one's own relationship with God which makes you a (I don't mean this word) better person, reinvigorated to change the world.
>
> Same thing with the eucharist. By coming together as a community you are realizing the promise of God and beginning to create His Kingdom on earth.
>
> It's not about voodoo.
>
> AbbyAbby,
I've read one or two things from here and may be
commenting prematurely.I don't think people can believe unless they go
through their own experience and I think we can
talk till we are blue in the face.All of this has to do with WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE.
Also, it is not the will of God for someone that died after we prayed. That is what man said, not God.
Maybe we don't know enough. You have to really
be in the faith to understand what I just said.A person knows the Words, which is also
translated as LOGOs who is Jesus, it states
through out the scripture it talks about health and healing the sick. Why do they die after we
prayed, did we really believe, or were we hoping.
What did we hear and talk about more was in
life or death? Life and death are in the power
of the tongue as the word states.Some Christians are very radical and militant.
I think they are at a place others don't understand.When Christians talk about Christianity, people think we are crazy.
When people want to ask Christians a question,
I think they really make their point.You can never understand until you want to understand.
Please don't put us Christians in a box. Some
religious people don't even know they are Christians because they don't have a personal
relationship; they were raised with doctrine.One day we will all have our questions answered, and we all have a long way to go.
If you want to know the truth, you will find it
if you seek with all your heart.Peace,
Sassy
Posted by Tamara on March 19, 2001, at 17:16:16
In reply to Re: effects of religious intolerance, posted by + on February 1, 2000, at 1:04:16
What did an atheist or a Muslim or Buddhist or gay or trans or Satannist ever do to you?
Believe me; what goes around, comes around.
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 19, 2001, at 23:20:57
In reply to kharma, posted by Tamara on March 19, 2001, at 17:16:16
> What did an atheist or a Muslim or Buddhist or gay or trans or Satannist ever do to you?
>
> Believe me; what goes around, comes around.This thread, if it's going to be continued, should be redirected to Psycho-Social-Babble, thanks. This board is now for medication-related issues only. Thanks,
Bob
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Medication | 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.