![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 33. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 27, 2010, at 23:46:17
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-chemlobo » Lou Pilder, posted by hyperfocus on August 25, 2010, at 1:37:11
H-F,
You wrote,[...supersessionism...could you clarify?..]
There have been rules made here, some notin the FAQ but posted to me by Mr. Hsiung and Dinah that make me unsure as to what I can or can not post here concerning links and what the historical record shows in particular but not limited to the era from 1922 to 1945 and focused between 1933 and 1945. I am unsure if I can even post the links here to their posts to me and if yu email me, then I could forward those links to you.
In particular, there is a post by Mr. Hsiung to me threatening me with expulsion from this commujnity if I was to post what has been revealed to me from the God that I give service and worship to concerning a commandment to me that is the foundation of Judaism that I believe. Mr. Hsiung states that there is an imperative in that commandment to me. But there is a post here that preclude Jews and others that do not accept the claim that xxxx those that accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior can have forgiveness and Eternal life. This is allowed to be posted here as being {OK}. But {OK} can not also always be {supportive} for Mr. Hsiung could ave drafted his rule to allow what is in question and if so then I could respond if I knew if he considers the statement to be supportive or not here and since support takes precedence here I am asking Mr. Hsiung to post in the thread in question to clear up any ambiguity as to if he considers the statement in question to be supportive or not and if he posts a reply there, then I could have the opportunity to respond to him.
Here is a link to a post in the thread in discussion and I am awaiting for Mr. Hsiung to reply to me.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20100403/msgs/759397.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 27, 2010, at 23:46:18
In reply to Lou's reply-rhepleighzmnt » hyperfocus, posted by Lou Pilder on August 25, 2010, at 7:11:34
> H-F,
> You wrote,[...supersessionism...could you clarify?..]
> There have been rules made here, some notin the FAQ but posted to me by Mr. Hsiung and Dinah that make me unsure as to what I can or can not post here concerning links and what the historical record shows in particular but not limited to the era from 1922 to 1945 and focused between 1933 and 1945. I am unsure if I can even post the links here to their posts to me and if yu email me, then I could forward those links to you.
> In particular, there is a post by Mr. Hsiung to me threatening me with expulsion from this commujnity if I was to post what has been revealed to me from the God that I give service and worship to concerning a commandment to me that is the foundation of Judaism that I believe. Mr. Hsiung states that there is an imperative in that commandment to me. But there is a post here that preclude Jews and others that do not accept the claim that xxxx those that accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior can have forgiveness and Eternal life. This is allowed to be posted here as being {OK}. But {OK} can not also always be {supportive} for Mr. Hsiung could ave drafted his rule to allow what is in question and if so then I could respond if I knew if he considers the statement to be supportive or not here and since support takes precedence here I am asking Mr. Hsiung to post in the thread in question to clear up any ambiguity as to if he considers the statement in question to be supportive or not and if he posts a reply there, then I could have the opportunity to respond to him.
> Here is a link to a post in the thread in discussion and I am awaiting for Mr. Hsiung to reply to me.
> Lou
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20100403/msgs/759397.htmlcorrected
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20100403/msgs/959397.html
Posted by hyperfocus on September 1, 2010, at 20:22:07
In reply to Lou's reply-rhepleighzmnt » hyperfocus, posted by Lou Pilder on August 27, 2010, at 23:46:17
Lou first up, I'm sorry if you been hurt by administrative action taken directly or indirectly towards you. The admin staff can and do make mistakes and some rules and actions taken can be hurtful and seem overly punitive and unfair. But there is no posting utopia unfortunately on this earth. I don't think Dr. Bob and his deputies deliberately try to hurt members or suppress discussion or expression of beliefs on the Faith board. It's just a very difficult job they have balancing the rights and responsibilities of everyone in the community while maintaining a safe environment. Most people here are very emotionally vulnerable so sometimes the best course of action is the 'safest' one meaning that there must be restrictions as to what can be said when affirming your faith.
However that said, I don't think that you can't express your beliefs here. I'm not familiar with the history of posting on the Faith board, but to me it seems that every faith requires imperatives and exclusivity claims in its affirmations. I don't know of any religion that doesn't claim it is charged with the exclusive franchise for salvation of human beings and woe be on any other vendor who attempts to sell officially licensed salvation merchandise to customers without proper authorization. Part of having faith is having faith in something and not in something else I guess.
So if somebody says "Jesus is the only way", then in the first place they may be just theologically ignorant of the relationship and covenant God had with the people of Israel, and in the 2nd place they're just expressing their faith. If a follower of Islam says "The Prophet is the only way" then I don't think he or she is being anti-christian or anti-judaism. It's just an expression of that person's faith. I mean billions of people all over the world affirm things like this at least once a week and sometimes several times a day. So we're all in big trouble if these affirmations are antisemitic.
I'm not really qualified to discuss this, but I think sometimes it is necessary to let the old wounds heal and try to move on. Yes it is true that there was a concentrated intellectual effort during the Nazi era to bring to bear all the psychological and economic and biological and historical theories they could muster on the Jewish people being inferior and worthy of destruction. But that era is gone. The truth is there's a lot of violence in this world, directed against all kinds of people. Hundreds of millions of people in Asia, Africa, the former Soviet Union, South America have been liquidated like animals. That's just the world we live in. But we have to move on. Like I said I've been in direct contact with psychiatric practice for a good number of years and despite their massive limitations and failings, I don't believe that the ultimate end was to do anything but get me better. You might have your reasons for being anti-drugs, as do a good number of people, but I don't believe God would put these tools in the hands of doctors and scientists for them to do anything than ease people's sufferings. If you have reasons for believing otherwise then I would really like to hear them. You could help a great deal of people here by posting what has been revealed to you.
So my advice to you would be to not dwell on what anybody else has posted here - you can only control your own actions. So I would go ahead and post what you believe has been revealed to you. I'm genuinely interested in what you would like to say to us. Only other thing I could advise is to preface what you say by "I believe..." Because that's all really that any of us have. I believe Lou Pilder is a child of God, as I am, and we will one day find salvation. I could be wrong but I hope I'm not.
Posted by 10derHeart on September 2, 2010, at 0:42:50
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-rhepleighzmnt, posted by hyperfocus on September 1, 2010, at 20:22:07
HF,
This is wonderful writing. Articulate, clear, positive, down-to-earth.
Thank you for taking the time and energy to write such a thoughtful post. I really appreciate it.
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 2, 2010, at 5:01:42
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-rhepleighzmnt, posted by hyperfocus on September 1, 2010, at 20:22:07
> Lou first up, I'm sorry if you been hurt by administrative action taken directly or indirectly towards you. The admin staff can and do make mistakes and some rules and actions taken can be hurtful and seem overly punitive and unfair. But there is no posting utopia unfortunately on this earth. I don't think Dr. Bob and his deputies deliberately try to hurt members or suppress discussion or expression of beliefs on the Faith board. It's just a very difficult job they have balancing the rights and responsibilities of everyone in the community while maintaining a safe environment. Most people here are very emotionally vulnerable so sometimes the best course of action is the 'safest' one meaning that there must be restrictions as to what can be said when affirming your faith.
>
> However that said, I don't think that you can't express your beliefs here. I'm not familiar with the history of posting on the Faith board, but to me it seems that every faith requires imperatives and exclusivity claims in its affirmations. I don't know of any religion that doesn't claim it is charged with the exclusive franchise for salvation of human beings and woe be on any other vendor who attempts to sell officially licensed salvation merchandise to customers without proper authorization. Part of having faith is having faith in something and not in something else I guess.
>
> So if somebody says "Jesus is the only way", then in the first place they may be just theologically ignorant of the relationship and covenant God had with the people of Israel, and in the 2nd place they're just expressing their faith. If a follower of Islam says "The Prophet is the only way" then I don't think he or she is being anti-christian or anti-judaism. It's just an expression of that person's faith. I mean billions of people all over the world affirm things like this at least once a week and sometimes several times a day. So we're all in big trouble if these affirmations are antisemitic.
>
> I'm not really qualified to discuss this, but I think sometimes it is necessary to let the old wounds heal and try to move on. Yes it is true that there was a concentrated intellectual effort during the Nazi era to bring to bear all the psychological and economic and biological and historical theories they could muster on the Jewish people being inferior and worthy of destruction. But that era is gone. The truth is there's a lot of violence in this world, directed against all kinds of people. Hundreds of millions of people in Asia, Africa, the former Soviet Union, South America have been liquidated like animals. That's just the world we live in. But we have to move on. Like I said I've been in direct contact with psychiatric practice for a good number of years and despite their massive limitations and failings, I don't believe that the ultimate end was to do anything but get me better. You might have your reasons for being anti-drugs, as do a good number of people, but I don't believe God would put these tools in the hands of doctors and scientists for them to do anything than ease people's sufferings. If you have reasons for believing otherwise then I would really like to hear them. You could help a great deal of people here by posting what has been revealed to you.
>
> So my advice to you would be to not dwell on what anybody else has posted here - you can only control your own actions. So I would go ahead and post what you believe has been revealed to you. I'm genuinely interested in what you would like to say to us. Only other thing I could advise is to preface what you say by "I believe..." Because that's all really that any of us have. I believe Lou Pilder is a child of God, as I am, and we will one day find salvation. I could be wrong but I hope I'm not.H-F,
You wrote,[...I am not fsamiliar with the history of posting on the faith board.. and post what has been revealed to you...preface with "I believe"...].
Here are some links to posts that are in threads that I am requesting that you look at and the othere posts in the thread. If you culd, then I think that with knowing the history there could be a better nderstanding of this ongoing situastion here and that we could have better dialog concerning the issues presented by the posts.
Lou
In this link, it brings up a thread and the post that I would like for you to read is authored by Deputy Dinah.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20070227/msgs/766933.html
In the following links, I would like for you to look at all of the posts in the threads.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20090813/msgs/913286.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20080313/msgs/821360.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 2, 2010, at 5:30:10
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-rhepleighzmnt » hyperfocus, posted by 10derHeart on September 2, 2010, at 0:42:50
> HF,
>
> This is wonderful writing. Articulate, clear, positive, down-to-earth.
>
> Thank you for taking the time and energy to write such a thoughtful post. I really appreciate it.10d-H,
You wrote,[...thank you...to write...]
I am requesting that you look at the following post and if you could post answers here to questions of my concern, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20081003/msgs/864793.html
A. Do you agree that there is a rule here that states that you could post what you believe as long as what you post does not put down those of other faiths?
B. Do you agree that there is a statement by Mr. Hsiung that states that the use of an imperative could preclude others and that Mr. Hsiung has posted that foundations of faiths that have an imperative in it are included in his rule that some foundatios of faiths can not be posted here but taken elseswhere?
C. Could you do a search of the following? If you could, then I think that any future dialog could be better understood in relation to my concerns here as to what (redacted by respondent).
A. Bring up google
B. Type in:
[replacement theology, millions of Jews]
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 2, 2010, at 5:43:54
In reply to Lou's request-nhvurehygen » 10derHeart, posted by Lou Pilder on September 2, 2010, at 5:30:10
> > HF,
> >
> > This is wonderful writing. Articulate, clear, positive, down-to-earth.
> >
> > Thank you for taking the time and energy to write such a thoughtful post. I really appreciate it.
>
> 10d-H,
> You wrote,[...thank you...to write...]
> I am requesting that you look at the following post and if you could post answers here to questions of my concern, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> Lou
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20081003/msgs/864793.html
> A. Do you agree that there is a rule here that states that you could post what you believe as long as what you post does not put down those of other faiths?
> B. Do you agree that there is a statement by Mr. Hsiung that states that the use of an imperative could preclude others and that Mr. Hsiung has posted that foundations of faiths that have an imperative in it are included in his rule that some foundatios of faiths can not be posted here but taken elseswhere?
> C. Could you do a search of the following? If you could, then I think that any future dialog could be better understood in relation to my concerns here as to what (redacted by respondent).
> A. Bring up google
> B. Type in:
> [replacement theology, millions of Jews]10d-H,
Now if you could read the posts involved in this link, then I think any discussion could have a better understanding of my concerns here as to my requests to Mr. Hsiung that are outstanding and (redacted by respondent)
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20100714/msgs/955108.html
Posted by 10derHeart on September 2, 2010, at 15:44:55
In reply to Lou's request-nhvurehygen » 10derHeart, posted by Lou Pilder on September 2, 2010, at 5:30:10
No, thanks, Lou.
I only wanted to compliment hyperfocus on his/her post. That's all.
Take, care.
Posted by hyperfocus on September 3, 2010, at 11:46:44
In reply to Lou's reply-owelleah? » hyperfocus, posted by Lou Pilder on September 2, 2010, at 5:01:42
I read the posts and it seems that the main conflict here is about this post:
I personally believe the passage in the bible that states
> "For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ" (John 1:17)Which Dr. Bob said is ok according to the posting rules on the Faith board. So I guess you feel that Dr. Bob is sanctioning a post which could be construed as demeaning to Jews. The thing is Lou like I said about supersessionism - the theory that the 'new' Christian covenant replaces the 'old' Jewish covenant is just a misguided theory. Maybe it has been used by people to marginalize Jews and may even have been used by the Nazis. But it's just one theory. I'm sure you know of the New Testament verse where Jesus states directly that the law of Moses must be fulfilled before any one can reach salvation. And I'm sure you know that the dominant supersessionism theory today is that the new covenant is just an extension, not replacement, of the old covenant.
My limited understanding of supersessionism is that the new covenant was a way to open up salvation to the Gentiles. I know that Paul and some other New Testament writers give opinions about this that might seem prejudicial against Jews, but Paul also wrote that women shouldn't be in the ministry too. I think it's important to take the context of these writing in light of the historical and social circumstances of the time. Early Christians were extremely traumatised by the betrayal and execution of Christ. So I don't doubt that in these writitngs you can find perjorative things said against Judaism. But scholars of the Bible and history know that there exists a huge about of prejudice and prejudice in the Bible. Most Christinas today think of Mary Magdelene as a minor character in the story of Jesus - a prostitute who just received forgiveness from Christ. But if you just skim Bible scholarship and search for things like Bible apocrypha, Gnostic Gospels and The Gospel of Mary, you will see that most scholars today believe Mary Magdalene was actually quite a significant figure in the story of Jesus who was marginalised by Paul and other early Christians due to sexism and just plain jealousy. Some scholars believe that Mary Magdalene was actually the closest apostle of Jesus, greatly envied by the other apostles, whose influence and writings were hidden by the early Christian Church out of prejudice and jealousy. So what consequences for Christians will arise out of this piece of deliberate sabotage? The point I'm making is that while we believe the Bible to be the word of God, it is still written by men. So while you may find prejudicial and demeaning things in the New Testament about Judaism, these things have absolutely nothing to do with the real principles of Christianity, which are simply love for others and salvation for all.
What concerns me Lou is that you're sort of holding on to this and you're not really allowing yourself to participate in the PB community. So I've written the above to try and convince you that there is no antisemitism in Christianity. And people who affirm their Christian faith on the Faith board are not intentionally trying to demean Judaism - that would be as far from real Christianity as one can get. Antisemitism is just a small part of a more general trend of antihumanism, which I grant you is extremely prevalent and can be found all over in the world. I can't speak absolutely but I don't believe that Dr. Bob or any deputy is antisemitic or wants to encourage or condone antisemitic violence. And the truth is that you really need to let this thing go because we are all supposed to share the boards and by repeatedly posting the same issue over and over again you're discouraging other posters from posting on the Faith board and you're turning away people from the many good things and support which I'm sure you want to share with them. So I hope you take these words to heart and can allow yourself to participate in this community without letting other people's perceived actions hold you back.
Posted by hyperfocus on September 3, 2010, at 11:48:46
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-rhepleighzmnt » hyperfocus, posted by 10derHeart on September 2, 2010, at 0:42:50
Thank you for your compliment 10der, you really do live up to your name !
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 3, 2010, at 16:26:54
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-owelleah? » Lou Pilder, posted by hyperfocus on September 3, 2010, at 11:46:44
> I read the posts and it seems that the main conflict here is about this post:
>
> I personally believe the passage in the bible that states
> > "For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ" (John 1:17)
>
> Which Dr. Bob said is ok according to the posting rules on the Faith board. So I guess you feel that Dr. Bob is sanctioning a post which could be construed as demeaning to Jews. The thing is Lou like I said about supersessionism - the theory that the 'new' Christian covenant replaces the 'old' Jewish covenant is just a misguided theory. Maybe it has been used by people to marginalize Jews and may even have been used by the Nazis. But it's just one theory. I'm sure you know of the New Testament verse where Jesus states directly that the law of Moses must be fulfilled before any one can reach salvation. And I'm sure you know that the dominant supersessionism theory today is that the new covenant is just an extension, not replacement, of the old covenant.
>
> My limited understanding of supersessionism is that the new covenant was a way to open up salvation to the Gentiles. I know that Paul and some other New Testament writers give opinions about this that might seem prejudicial against Jews, but Paul also wrote that women shouldn't be in the ministry too. I think it's important to take the context of these writing in light of the historical and social circumstances of the time. Early Christians were extremely traumatised by the betrayal and execution of Christ. So I don't doubt that in these writitngs you can find perjorative things said against Judaism. But scholars of the Bible and history know that there exists a huge about of prejudice and prejudice in the Bible. Most Christinas today think of Mary Magdelene as a minor character in the story of Jesus - a prostitute who just received forgiveness from Christ. But if you just skim Bible scholarship and search for things like Bible apocrypha, Gnostic Gospels and The Gospel of Mary, you will see that most scholars today believe Mary Magdalene was actually quite a significant figure in the story of Jesus who was marginalised by Paul and other early Christians due to sexism and just plain jealousy. Some scholars believe that Mary Magdalene was actually the closest apostle of Jesus, greatly envied by the other apostles, whose influence and writings were hidden by the early Christian Church out of prejudice and jealousy. So what consequences for Christians will arise out of this piece of deliberate sabotage? The point I'm making is that while we believe the Bible to be the word of God, it is still written by men. So while you may find prejudicial and demeaning things in the New Testament about Judaism, these things have absolutely nothing to do with the real principles of Christianity, which are simply love for others and salvation for all.
>
> What concerns me Lou is that you're sort of holding on to this and you're not really allowing yourself to participate in the PB community. So I've written the above to try and convince you that there is no antisemitism in Christianity. And people who affirm their Christian faith on the Faith board are not intentionally trying to demean Judaism - that would be as far from real Christianity as one can get. Antisemitism is just a small part of a more general trend of antihumanism, which I grant you is extremely prevalent and can be found all over in the world. I can't speak absolutely but I don't believe that Dr. Bob or any deputy is antisemitic or wants to encourage or condone antisemitic violence. And the truth is that you really need to let this thing go because we are all supposed to share the boards and by repeatedly posting the same issue over and over again you're discouraging other posters from posting on the Faith board and you're turning away people from the many good things and support which I'm sure you want to share with them. So I hope you take these words to heart and can allow yourself to participate in this community without letting other people's perceived actions hold you back.H-F,
You wrote,[...the law was given by...came by...which (Mr Hsiung) said was OK according to the posting rules..].
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity too respond accordingly.
A. Are you equating {OK} with {I think that's good}?
B. What part of the rules, if any, states that on the faith board the poster's post about {...but grace and truth came by...}the whole statement that Mr. Hsiung says that he thinks that's good applies to making the statement by the poster within the rules of the faith board?
C. What is your definition of supportive?
D. Could a Jew reading the statement in question (redacted by respondent)
E. Did you see my post to Mr. Hsiung requesting that he respond to my concerns about the statement by the poster?
F. According to the statemnt in question, could a Jew feel that their faith is being compared to another faith? If so, (redacted by respondent)
G. Can you consider that the statement is a foundation of many denominations of christianity?
H. Do you know of any denomination that does not translate that bible verse as posted here?
K. Are you aware that the Greek text that the verse was translated from has been translated in other ways and that translators have inserted a word in the verse as posted?
L. What is your definition of the conjunction {but}
M. What is your definition of the use of {came by} in the bible verse here?
N. other related questions arising out of any answers that you post here.
Lou
Posted by hyperfocus on September 3, 2010, at 19:16:03
In reply to Lou's reply-nhvurehyghen » hyperfocus, posted by Lou Pilder on September 3, 2010, at 16:26:54
I think that in a dialogue or conversation there has to be balance. So far you've asked me to do certain things and answer some questions, which I have done. So now I think it's your turn to reciprocate. However, in a show of good faith, I'll turn on my hyperfocusing super powers and answer this recent set of questions.
>A. Are you equating {OK} with {I think that's good}?
Yes, in the context of where Dr. Bob was writing he could have said "OK".
>B. What part of the rules, if any, states that on the faith board the poster's post about {...but grace and truth came by...}the whole statement that Mr. Hsiung says that he thinks that's good applies to making the statement by the poster within the rules of the faith board?
Like I said I'm not an expert on posting on the Faith board and I can't even say I've read all the rules. I only know that you're allowed affirmations of faith as long as you indicate clearly that it is your personal belief and that it does not put down any other faith. And to me this makes sense because I don't see what the point of a Faith board would be without the ability to actually affirm a particular Faith.
>C. What is your definition of supportive?
The same definition that can be found in a dictionary which I won't reproduce here.>D. Could a Jew reading the statement in question (redacted by respondent)
If a follower of Islam posted:
"Jesus was a prophet of God but the Prophet Mohammed (PBOH) is the only way."
I would not feel put down. I don't believe the poster's intent is to demean any other religion. I think I've made it clear in my previous posts why i believe this.>E. Did you see my post to Mr. Hsiung requesting that he respond to my concerns about the statement by the poster?
I've seen many, many posts by you on this subject. I've not read most of them, but I have read the ones you asked me to.>F. According to the statement in question, could a Jew feel that their faith is being compared to another faith? If so, (redacted by respondent)
>G. Can you consider that the statement is a foundation of many denominations of christianity?
In contemporary Christianity one principle is that people reading the Bible must find their own way to meaning. The argument on whether what is written in the Bible should be taken literally vs. figuratively is futile and moot. I'm aware that there are denominations of Christianity which have been formed under the splintering of agreement as to what weekday the Sabbath should be, and how God's literal name should be spelled. But each person has to find their own way to faith. I can't comment on whether or not certain Christian denominations have as a principle that this verse and others in the New Testament are prejudicial against Judaism. I personally do not believe that the verse in question is antisemitic. I personally do not believe that prejudice against any religion can be justified by any true Christian. Jesus says that we should love others and treat them as we would like to be treated. This seems to preclude religious prejudice against anyone. I can't say what a Jew would or would not feel reading this verse. I do know it would be wrong for him to conclude that this verse is an indictment against Judaism. That would be prejudicial to MY faith.>H. Do you know of any denomination that does not translate that bible verse as posted here?
>K. Are you aware that the Greek text that the verse was translated from has been translated in other ways and that translators have inserted a word in the verse as posted?
I really can't comment on translations of the Bible. Somebody once wrote that the only thing more dangerous than a complete ignoramus is an ignoramus with a little knowledge. By this principle I am a dangerous person to ask to comment on these things. What I know of theology and Biblical scholarship and translation is what I've read superficially on the subject. All I know is that the translation which I'm most accustomed to is the New International Version and that I found solace and understanding in many things I've read there. Pick a Bible verse and you can fill a whole book with debates on which translation is the 'real' meaning. I really don't know much about this topic.>L. What is your definition of the conjunction {but}
One day people are going to look at my daughter and say "She got her nose from hyperfocus but her eyes from Reese Witherspoon" I don't believe that this statement is prejudicial to me. "But" can function as a logical and. But I mean Lou this sort of circles back to what my point has been - even if we ran a computer program to perform pragamatic, discourse, semantic, lexical, syntactical, morphological, and phonemical
analysis on this verse to find the 'real' logical meaning - what good would it serve? The Bible is an infinite fount of knowledge. Each person dips their own cup and picks up answers that they need in their life. But one thing they cannot pick up is hate. Because God is not hate. If somebody says that this verse is prejudicial to Judaism I would advise to wash out from their cup all the stuff that was there before and dip again.>M. What is your definition of the use of {came by} in the bible verse here?
I can't really define what some english phrase means without the whole thing becoming tautological and silly. What's your definition of the word "definition?". But my point is, again, it doesn't really matter what somebody else thinks something means. We all have open our own hearts and find our own meaning. Christianity totally rejects the idea of prejudice against anyone. Christ specifically rejects any attempt to do away with the old Judaic covenant. So it is theologically impossible, in my opinion, that any Christian can find anything prejudicial against Judaism in that verse.>N. other related questions arising out of any answers that you post here.
Well before you get to ask those questions I think you should answer 3 of mine:
1. Do you believe that (John 1:17) means that Judaism is somehow inferior or made outdated by Christianity?
2. Do you believe that contemporary mainstream thinking on replacement theology advocates that the covenant that God has with Judaism is now gone?
3. Do you believe that antisemitism is compatible with Christian principles as laid down by Jesus Christ?
Posted by SLS on September 4, 2010, at 6:52:20
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-nhvurehyghen, posted by hyperfocus on September 3, 2010, at 19:16:03
Maybe you can correct me if my memory fails me. Paul was specific in his declaration that circumcision was no longer a necessary sacrament. However, it was this act that was precisely the covenant made between God and the Jews through Abraham. Communion became a sacrament that the Jews were not to follow.
The reason I bring these things up is not so much to test whether my memory is accurate or not. I'm sure it is not. The question becomes how should conflicts in belief be handled as civil communication on the Faith board. Personally, I don't believe that we are all riding on the back of a turtle. However, I can still tolerate others having this belief.
What about religious beliefs that are used by some to foster antisemitism? I am not smart enough to know how to deal with this.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 4, 2010, at 8:10:15
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-nhvurehyghen, posted by SLS on September 4, 2010, at 6:52:20
> Maybe you can correct me if my memory fails me. Paul was specific in his declaration that circumcision was no longer a necessary sacrament. However, it was this act that was precisely the covenant made between God and the Jews through Abraham. Communion became a sacrament that the Jews were not to follow.
>
> The reason I bring these things up is not so much to test whether my memory is accurate or not. I'm sure it is not. The question becomes how should conflicts in belief be handled as civil communication on the Faith board. Personally, I don't believe that we are all riding on the back of a turtle. However, I can still tolerate others having this belief.
>
> What about religious beliefs that are used by some to foster antisemitism? I am not smart enough to know how to deal with this.
>
>
> - ScottFriends,
If you are considering being a discussant in this thread or parallel threads, I am requesting that you read the article in the following link. If you could, think that you could have a better understanding of the issues here as brought up by Scott and others. I could also bring into focus then (redacted by respondent)here.
Lou
To see this article:
A. bring up google
B. Type in:
[The Alhambra Decree By King]
then you could see the article that starts off with the words {Royal Edict}
Posted by Dinah on September 4, 2010, at 8:35:00
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-nhvurehyghen, posted by SLS on September 4, 2010, at 6:52:20
> Maybe you can correct me if my memory fails me. Paul was specific in his declaration that circumcision was no longer a necessary sacrament. However, it was this act that was precisely the covenant made between God and the Jews through Abraham.
I'm not the theological scholar I'd like to be, but I think it's important to remember that at the time this was written there were two parallel communities of early Christians. There was the community of Jesus' early Jewish followers. And there was the community of gentile converts that Paul had made his special mission.
Paul was responding to the Jewish followers of Christ saying that it was impossible to be a follower of Christ without following the Law, including circumcision. Paul wanted to bring as many gentiles as possible to the Christian faith, and considered certain requirements might make that difficult.
He wasn't in any way saying that the covenant of God with the nation of Israel was superceded. He was addressing an internal conflict with other early Christian leaders about whether gentile converts needed to be fully Jewish to be fully Christian.
Which is not to say that there aren't other verses from the Bible that are more problematic, in my eyes, than that one. And I've always personally preferred the message of James to the message of Paul. But given the struggle between various leaders among the followers of Christ, and the differing views of what it meant to be a Christian, I don't think that particular statement was meant to be applied to Jewish followers at all.
Or at least that's my recollection. I haven't made any serious efforts lately in reading about early Christian history.
Posted by SLS on September 4, 2010, at 12:20:57
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-nhvurehyghen » SLS, posted by Dinah on September 4, 2010, at 8:35:00
> I'm not the theological scholar I'd like to be, but I think it's important to remember that at the time this was written there were two parallel communities of early Christians. There was the community of Jesus' early Jewish followers. And there was the community of gentile converts that Paul had made his special mission.
Yes. I was aware of the politics involved 2000 years ago. However, where are we now?
- Scott
Posted by SLS on September 4, 2010, at 12:27:19
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-nhvurehyghen » SLS, posted by Dinah on September 4, 2010, at 8:35:00
> He wasn't in any way saying that the covenant of God with the nation of Israel was superceded.
I wouldn't know for sure. However, my point is that even if supersession was a tenet of a particular religion, how should such a religion be treated by Psycho-Babble? Is there room for conflicting beliefs?
- Scott
Posted by Dinah on September 4, 2010, at 14:22:32
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-nhvurehyghen » Dinah, posted by SLS on September 4, 2010, at 12:27:19
I've never thought the Faith board was all that useful for discussing faith. At least not all aspects of it.
I think Dr. Bob tries to be clear about that. I suppose he could be even more clear.
I think if people wish to discuss faith without any restrictions, this isn't the best place to do it.
JMHO
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 4, 2010, at 23:17:48
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-nhvurehyghen » Dinah, posted by SLS on September 4, 2010, at 12:27:19
> I don't know of any religion that doesn't claim it is charged with the exclusive franchise for salvation of human beings ... Part of having faith is having faith in something and not in something else I guess.
>
> hyperfocus> how should conflicts in belief be handled as civil communication on the Faith board. Personally, I don't believe that we are all riding on the back of a turtle. However, I can still tolerate others having this belief.
>
> What about religious beliefs that are used by some to foster antisemitism?> Is there room for conflicting beliefs?
>
> - ScottThere's limited room here for conflicting beliefs. There's room for me to believe we're riding on the back of a turtle and for you to believe we're riding on the back of a rabbit. There isn't room for me to post that you're wrong or for you to post that I'm wrong.
There's room for me to post that I have faith in X and not Y. There's room for you to post that you have faith in Y and not X. There isn't room for either of us to post that the other must have our faith to be saved.
Even if we're willing to tolerate being told that we're wrong or won't be saved.
From the Faith board introduction and posts it links to:
> Since the idea here is support, please don't pressure others to adopt your beliefs or put them down for having theirs. Sorry, but this may mean not posting some aspects of some beliefs.
>
> Agnosticism and atheism are considered not to be supportive of religious faith.> There may, however, be exceptions, depending on the context, etc.
>
> 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.> > This is very difficult, to find the right balance between saying what you believe, and sounding like you believe everyone should follow your chosen path.
> In general, these would be OK:
>
> I feel I should believe in the father, the son, and the holy ghost.
> I feel I should have one God and no others before him.
>
> I believe in the father, the son, and the holy ghost.
> I have one God and no others before him.
>
> People of my faith believe in the father, the son, and the holy ghost.
> People of my faith have one God and no others before him.
>
> And these wouldn't:
>
> People should believe in the father, the son, and the holy ghost.
> People should have one God and no others before him.
>
> My faith says people should believe in the father, the son, and the holy ghost.
> My faith says people should have one God and no others before him.
>
> My faith says I should believe in the father, the son, and the holy ghost.
> My faith says I should have one God and no others before him.Bob
Posted by SLS on September 5, 2010, at 6:09:08
In reply to Re: conflicting beliefs, posted by Dr. Bob on September 4, 2010, at 23:17:48
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 5, 2010, at 10:06:30
In reply to Re: conflicting beliefs, posted by Dr. Bob on September 4, 2010, at 23:17:48
> > I don't know of any religion that doesn't claim it is charged with the exclusive franchise for salvation of human beings ... Part of having faith is having faith in something and not in something else I guess.
> >
> > hyperfocus
>
> > how should conflicts in belief be handled as civil communication on the Faith board. Personally, I don't believe that we are all riding on the back of a turtle. However, I can still tolerate others having this belief.
> >
> > What about religious beliefs that are used by some to foster antisemitism?
>
> > Is there room for conflicting beliefs?
> >
> > - Scott
>
> There's limited room here for conflicting beliefs. There's room for me to believe we're riding on the back of a turtle and for you to believe we're riding on the back of a rabbit. There isn't room for me to post that you're wrong or for you to post that I'm wrong.
>
> There's room for me to post that I have faith in X and not Y. There's room for you to post that you have faith in Y and not X. There isn't room for either of us to post that the other must have our faith to be saved.
>
> Even if we're willing to tolerate being told that we're wrong or won't be saved.
>
> From the Faith board introduction and posts it links to:
>
> > Since the idea here is support, please don't pressure others to adopt your beliefs or put them down for having theirs. Sorry, but this may mean not posting some aspects of some beliefs.
> >
> > Agnosticism and atheism are considered not to be supportive of religious faith.
>
> > There may, however, be exceptions, depending on the context, etc.
> >
> > 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.
>
> > > This is very difficult, to find the right balance between saying what you believe, and sounding like you believe everyone should follow your chosen path.
>
> > In general, these would be OK:
> >
> > I feel I should believe in the father, the son, and the holy ghost.
> > I feel I should have one God and no others before him.
> >
> > I believe in the father, the son, and the holy ghost.
> > I have one God and no others before him.
> >
> > People of my faith believe in the father, the son, and the holy ghost.
> > People of my faith have one God and no others before him.
> >
> > And these wouldn't:
> >
> > People should believe in the father, the son, and the holy ghost.
> > People should have one God and no others before him.
> >
> > My faith says people should believe in the father, the son, and the holy ghost.
> > My faith says people should have one God and no others before him.
> >
> > My faith says I should believe in the father, the son, and the holy ghost.
> > My faith says I should have one God and no others before him.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote something like,[...there is not room here to post something that states that another must have a faith to be saved (which has the potential IMHO to be analogous to that {saved} also means having forgivness and Eternal Life).
If this is an incorrect thinking of mine here compared to yours, could you post here why it is while citing the statement in question that you say that you have drafted your rules here to be {OK} to post it? And also, could you post here as to if that statement is {supportive} or not supportive by you saying that it is {OK} to post it for I consider that {OK} does not automatically mean that something is supportive, but that you have drafted your rule to allow it and would like for this , as I see it to be an ambiguity, to be cleared up? (the statement is not the one that you say [...that's good, thanks...])
Lou Pilder
Posted by ed_uk2010 on September 5, 2010, at 12:43:21
In reply to Lou's response-knurenbherrglawz » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on September 5, 2010, at 10:06:30
>Personally, I don't believe that we are all riding on the back of a turtle.
Me neither, but I guess that would explain why life is sometimes a bumpy ride.
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 5, 2010, at 15:14:13
In reply to Lou's response-knurenbherrglawz » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on September 5, 2010, at 10:06:30
> > > I don't know of any religion that doesn't claim it is charged with the exclusive franchise for salvation of human beings ... Part of having faith is having faith in something and not in something else I guess.
> > >
> > > hyperfocus
> >
> > > how should conflicts in belief be handled as civil communication on the Faith board. Personally, I don't believe that we are all riding on the back of a turtle. However, I can still tolerate others having this belief.
> > >
> > > What about religious beliefs that are used by some to foster antisemitism?
> >
> > > Is there room for conflicting beliefs?
> > >
> > > - Scott
> >
> > There's limited room here for conflicting beliefs. There's room for me to believe we're riding on the back of a turtle and for you to believe we're riding on the back of a rabbit. There isn't room for me to post that you're wrong or for you to post that I'm wrong.
> >
> > There's room for me to post that I have faith in X and not Y. There's room for you to post that you have faith in Y and not X. There isn't room for either of us to post that the other must have our faith to be saved.
> >
> > Even if we're willing to tolerate being told that we're wrong or won't be saved.
> >
> > From the Faith board introduction and posts it links to:
> >
> > > Since the idea here is support, please don't pressure others to adopt your beliefs or put them down for having theirs. Sorry, but this may mean not posting some aspects of some beliefs.
> > >
> > > Agnosticism and atheism are considered not to be supportive of religious faith.
> >
> > > There may, however, be exceptions, depending on the context, etc.
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > > > This is very difficult, to find the right balance between saying what you believe, and sounding like you believe everyone should follow your chosen path.
> >
> > > In general, these would be OK:
> > >
> > > I feel I should believe in the father, the son, and the holy ghost.
> > > I feel I should have one God and no others before him.
> > >
> > > I believe in the father, the son, and the holy ghost.
> > > I have one God and no others before him.
> > >
> > > People of my faith believe in the father, the son, and the holy ghost.
> > > People of my faith have one God and no others before him.
> > >
> > > And these wouldn't:
> > >
> > > People should believe in the father, the son, and the holy ghost.
> > > People should have one God and no others before him.
> > >
> > > My faith says people should believe in the father, the son, and the holy ghost.
> > > My faith says people should have one God and no others before him.
> > >
> > > My faith says I should believe in the father, the son, and the holy ghost.
> > > My faith says I should have one God and no others before him.
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> You wrote something like,[...there is not room here to post something that states that another must have a faith to be saved (which has the potential IMHO to be analogous to that {saved} also means having forgivness and Eternal Life).
> If this is an incorrect thinking of mine here compared to yours, could you post here why it is while citing the statement in question that you say that you have drafted your rules here to be {OK} to post it? And also, could you post here as to if that statement is {supportive} or not supportive by you saying that it is {OK} to post it for I consider that {OK} does not automatically mean that something is supportive, but that you have drafted your rule to allow it and would like for this , as I see it to be an ambiguity, to be cleared up? (the statement is not the one that you say [...that's good, thanks...])
> Lou Pilder
>
Mr. Hsiung,
You wrote something like,[....there is not room here to post that one must have a faith of another to be saved...].
Here is the statement that you say is {OK}.
The ONLY reason given in God's Word that has or ever will cause someone to miss out on God's forgivness and Eternal Life...is to reject the gift of His Son Jesus as Lord and SaviorNow I think that it is reasonable for readers to understand what the statement says in regards to how one is saved or not according to what the statement purports, and to understand that to have forgivness and Eternal Life is conditional upon not rejecting what the statement purports.
Then I also think that reasonable people can undertand that since there is a condition in the statement to be saved, and an imperative, that some people will be precluded according to the statement from forgivness and Eternal Life. The Jews and Islamic people and others that reject what the statement's imperative purports could ask themmselves:
A. Do the Jewish children that have been murderd by antisemites have forgivness and Eternal Life according to the claim in question?
B. Do the Islamic children murdered by anti Islamic people have forgivness and Eternal Life according to the claim in question?
C. Do the murderers have forgivness and Eternal Life if they accepted the claim in question?
D. other questions not stated that members could have and I would appreciate them emailing to me with.
You say that you have drafted your rule here to say that it is {OK} to post it. But does that automatically mean that the statement, in and of itself, is supportive?. I am awaiting your reply to me concering for you to let the membership know if you are or or not wanting to mean that the statement is or is not supportive. If you could post your reply to that here, then I think that this discussion could be opened up to responses to whatever you post here. OTOH, IMHO without a declaration by you here as to if the statement is or is not supportive, then IMHO there is an ambiguity, and if so, how could that be supportive in a mental health community?
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 5, 2010, at 16:34:35
In reply to Lou's response-knurenbherrglawz, posted by Lou Pilder on September 5, 2010, at 15:14:13
> > > > I don't know of any religion that doesn't claim it is charged with the exclusive franchise for salvation of human beings ... Part of having faith is having faith in something and not in something else I guess.
> > > >
> > > > hyperfocus
> > >
> > > > how should conflicts in belief be handled as civil communication on the Faith board. Personally, I don't believe that we are all riding on the back of a turtle. However, I can still tolerate others having this belief.
> > > >
> > > > What about religious beliefs that are used by some to foster antisemitism?
> > >
> > > > Is there room for conflicting beliefs?
> > > >
> > > > - Scott
> > >
> > > There's limited room here for conflicting beliefs. There's room for me to believe we're riding on the back of a turtle and for you to believe we're riding on the back of a rabbit. There isn't room for me to post that you're wrong or for you to post that I'm wrong.
> > >
> > > There's room for me to post that I have faith in X and not Y. There's room for you to post that you have faith in Y and not X. There isn't room for either of us to post that the other must have our faith to be saved.
> > >
> > > Even if we're willing to tolerate being told that we're wrong or won't be saved.
> > >
> > > From the Faith board introduction and posts it links to:
> > >
> > > > Since the idea here is support, please don't pressure others to adopt your beliefs or put them down for having theirs. Sorry, but this may mean not posting some aspects of some beliefs.
> > > >
> > > > Agnosticism and atheism are considered not to be supportive of religious faith.
> > >
> > > > There may, however, be exceptions, depending on the context, etc.
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > > > This is very difficult, to find the right balance between saying what you believe, and sounding like you believe everyone should follow your chosen path.
> > >
> > > > In general, these would be OK:
> > > >
> > > > I feel I should believe in the father, the son, and the holy ghost.
> > > > I feel I should have one God and no others before him.
> > > >
> > > > I believe in the father, the son, and the holy ghost.
> > > > I have one God and no others before him.
> > > >
> > > > People of my faith believe in the father, the son, and the holy ghost.
> > > > People of my faith have one God and no others before him.
> > > >
> > > > And these wouldn't:
> > > >
> > > > People should believe in the father, the son, and the holy ghost.
> > > > People should have one God and no others before him.
> > > >
> > > > My faith says people should believe in the father, the son, and the holy ghost.
> > > > My faith says people should have one God and no others before him.
> > > >
> > > > My faith says I should believe in the father, the son, and the holy ghost.
> > > > My faith says I should have one God and no others before him.
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
> > Mr. Hsiung,
> > You wrote something like,[...there is not room here to post something that states that another must have a faith to be saved (which has the potential IMHO to be analogous to that {saved} also means having forgivness and Eternal Life).
> > If this is an incorrect thinking of mine here compared to yours, could you post here why it is while citing the statement in question that you say that you have drafted your rules here to be {OK} to post it? And also, could you post here as to if that statement is {supportive} or not supportive by you saying that it is {OK} to post it for I consider that {OK} does not automatically mean that something is supportive, but that you have drafted your rule to allow it and would like for this , as I see it to be an ambiguity, to be cleared up? (the statement is not the one that you say [...that's good, thanks...])
> > Lou Pilder
> >
> Mr. Hsiung,
> You wrote something like,[....there is not room here to post that one must have a faith of another to be saved...].
> Here is the statement that you say is {OK}.
>
> The ONLY reason given in God's Word that has or ever will cause someone to miss out on God's forgivness and Eternal Life...is to reject the gift of His Son Jesus as Lord and Savior
>
> Now I think that it is reasonable for readers to understand what the statement says in regards to how one is saved or not according to what the statement purports, and to understand that to have forgivness and Eternal Life is conditional upon not rejecting what the statement purports.
> Then I also think that reasonable people can undertand that since there is a condition in the statement to be saved, and an imperative, that some people will be precluded according to the statement from forgivness and Eternal Life. The Jews and Islamic people and others that reject what the statement's imperative purports could ask themmselves:
> A. Do the Jewish children that have been murderd by antisemites have forgivness and Eternal Life according to the claim in question?
> B. Do the Islamic children murdered by anti Islamic people have forgivness and Eternal Life according to the claim in question?
> C. Do the murderers have forgivness and Eternal Life if they accepted the claim in question?
> D. other questions not stated that members could have and I would appreciate them emailing to me with.
> You say that you have drafted your rule here to say that it is {OK} to post it. But does that automatically mean that the statement, in and of itself, is supportive?. I am awaiting your reply to me concering for you to let the membership know if you are or or not wanting to mean that the statement is or is not supportive. If you could post your reply to that here, then I think that this discussion could be opened up to responses to whatever you post here. OTOH, IMHO without a declaration by you here as to if the statement is or is not supportive, then IMHO there is an ambiguity, and if so, how could that be supportive in a mental health community?
> Lou Pilder
>
Friends,
I am requesting to those that are considering being a discussant in this thread or parallel threads to read what is in the following article. If you could, I think that you could have more education concerning this ongoing issue here related to, but not limited to, that I am asking for Mr. Hsiung to post here as to if he is considering the statement in question in and of itself to be supportive or not.
If you could read the article, you could have maybe more knowlege concerning:
A. The relation to (redacted by respondent)
B. The laws that fosterd (redacted by respondent).
C. Why a Jew could (redacted by respondent) that is the subject now by me.
D. How antisemitic feelings (redacted by respondent)
E. How scapegoating is (redacted by respondent)
F. other education concerning this ongoing situaation here
Lou
To read the article:
A. pull up google
B. type in:
[Martin Luther's little book]
the one is the one authored by Jim Walker
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 5, 2010, at 21:22:16
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-owelleah? » Lou Pilder, posted by hyperfocus on September 3, 2010, at 11:46:44
> you really need to let this thing go because we are all supposed to share the boards and by repeatedly posting the same issue over and over again you're discouraging other posters from posting on the Faith board and you're turning away people from ... many good things and support
Let's not see this as an issue of what Lou does or doesn't do. Sharing the boards is an issue for everyone.
I've tried to address this with the 3 post rule:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#three
Would it help for me to change that rule? Or to make a new one? Or is there something posters could do?
Bob
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.