![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 21 to 45 of 70. Go back in thread:
Posted by SLS on November 5, 2011, at 6:11:49
In reply to Lou's reply- » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on November 4, 2011, at 8:20:04
> > > I must have clicked the wrong button is this the history board? I do not say this to be harmful or disrespectful in anyway to anyone. But I don't understand call be dumb stupid whatever what this has to do with babble? Respectfully Phillipa
> >
> > I believe Lou has some concerns that a Christian doctrine is incompatible with other religions, and that, as such, it should be considered uncivil to post references to it. According to Dr. Bob's rules of civility, I think Lou has a point. I guess it depends on how such a reference is worded. It would be nice if Lou were to receive some guidance from Dr. Bob as to how to view this apparent conflict. I remain neutral in this matter. Perhaps Dr. Bob has already addressed this issue. I don't know.
> >
> >
> > - Scott
>
> Scott,
> You wrote,[...Perhaps (Mr. Hsiung) hhas already addressed this issue...].
> He has done so in many instances. What the rule here is:
> A. Some foudations of faiths can not be posted here.
> B. It doesn't matter if it is in a bible or someone else said it.
> C. It doesn't matter if the one posting it believes it.
> D. Support takes precedence
> E. Foundations of faiths that use imperatives like {shall} and {only} could preclude others and are not supportive. Statements of fiath using those words could lead those of other faiths to feel put down and one is not to post here what could lead another to feel put down.
> F. Antisemitic posts are posts that when a Jew reads it, they could be led to feel put down/accused.Lou, what you are asking me to do is to petition Dr. Bob to prohibit posts affirming the fundamental tenet of Christianity, which seems to be a contradiction of Jewish tenets. Let me think about that for awhile.
Wording is important. I think one can state the tenets of Christianity without portraying them as being components of the one and only Truth. But then again, can one state in a similar fashion rationales for committing genocide if they are fundamental to their religion?
What I think is that the Faith board is a minefield. If you step on the wrong post, you will encounter something that assaults your belief system. Some people are bound to feel insulted. The authors of these posts often have good intentions, and wish to help others.
It is probably best to shut down the Faith board and avoid the contradictions inherent in having individuals post the tenets of opposing religions.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 5, 2011, at 7:58:54
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-rheeplazmnt » Lou Pilder, posted by Phillipa on November 4, 2011, at 20:32:47
> Well I guess I'm in a heap of trouble when dead as I just dont believe there is an eternal life. And it's my belief to post this. The Bible to me has been interpreted so many times and life is so different now I enjoyed Di Vinci's Code. So I rot and if dead what do I care? Being of a scientific background and belief show me and I will believe it and I mean show me Jesus or God?
Phillipa,
You wrote,[...show me...].
I have posted here concerning this a while ago...
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20020527/msgs/217.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 5, 2011, at 8:44:32
In reply to Re: Scott's reply to Lou's reply- » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on November 5, 2011, at 6:11:49
> > > > I must have clicked the wrong button is this the history board? I do not say this to be harmful or disrespectful in anyway to anyone. But I don't understand call be dumb stupid whatever what this has to do with babble? Respectfully Phillipa
> > >
> > > I believe Lou has some concerns that a Christian doctrine is incompatible with other religions, and that, as such, it should be considered uncivil to post references to it. According to Dr. Bob's rules of civility, I think Lou has a point. I guess it depends on how such a reference is worded. It would be nice if Lou were to receive some guidance from Dr. Bob as to how to view this apparent conflict. I remain neutral in this matter. Perhaps Dr. Bob has already addressed this issue. I don't know.
> > >
> > >
> > > - Scott
> >
> > Scott,
> > You wrote,[...Perhaps (Mr. Hsiung) hhas already addressed this issue...].
> > He has done so in many instances. What the rule here is:
> > A. Some foudations of faiths can not be posted here.
> > B. It doesn't matter if it is in a bible or someone else said it.
> > C. It doesn't matter if the one posting it believes it.
> > D. Support takes precedence
> > E. Foundations of faiths that use imperatives like {shall} and {only} could preclude others and are not supportive. Statements of fiath using those words could lead those of other faiths to feel put down and one is not to post here what could lead another to feel put down.
> > F. Antisemitic posts are posts that when a Jew reads it, they could be led to feel put down/accused.
>
> Lou, what you are asking me to do is to petition Dr. Bob to prohibit posts affirming the fundamental tenet of Christianity, which seems to be a contradiction of Jewish tenets. Let me think about that for awhile.
>
> Wording is important. I think one can state the tenets of Christianity without portraying them as being components of the one and only Truth. But then again, can one state in a similar fashion rationales for committing genocide if they are fundamental to their religion?
>
> What I think is that the Faith board is a minefield. If you step on the wrong post, you will encounter something that assaults your belief system. Some people are bound to feel insulted. The authors of these posts often have good intentions, and wish to help others.
>
> It is probably best to shut down the Faith board and avoid the contradictions inherent in having individuals post the tenets of opposing religions.
>
>
> - ScottScott,
You wrote,[...Lou, what you are asking mee to do is to petition (Mr. Hsiung) to prohibit posts affirming the fundamental tenet of Christianity...].
hummmmmmm.
Although that is part of this situation here that involves my requests to Mr. Hsiung and his deputy that are outstanding, the overiding request from me to Mr. Hsiung is for him to post in the thread in question as to if he considers the statement in question to be {supportive} or not. For as of now readers can think that the statement is supportive on the grouunds that Mr Hsiung's TOS states that support is what the forum is for and that support takes precedence. That could have the potential IMHO to mean to readers that what is seen is what is considered to be supportive unlesss it is notated by the administration as not being supportive, like all the other posts here that the administration has sanctioned on those grounds.
But it is much more than that to me. You see, the statement in question precludes Jews and others that do not accept the claim that (redacted by respondent) Jesus that are the {only} set of people that could have forgivness and eternal life. The use of the word {only} precludes all others than what set of people the statement includes. This could mean then that the 1 1/2 million Jewish children murdered in the years from 1933 to 1945 and all those that have ever lived and never heard of that Christian claim or rejected the claim in question are without forgivness and eternal life. The poster states that the bible says that. Really? And I am prohibited from answering the poster's claim because of Mr. Hsiung's prohibitions here.
So what I am asking for members to do is:
A. Post in that thread as to if or if not you consider the claim in question supportive or not.
B. And also to post there your concern, if you have such, as to that you also would like for Mr. Hsiung to post there the answer to my request to him.
You see, as long as my request remains outstanding, others could think that Mr. Hsiung allows the statement in question to stand, and then there is the potential IMHHHO for some others to take what is claimed to be considerd by the community in toto to be what the community wants to promulgate, unless members post there that they do not consider the statement to be supportive to them. You see, the community can also controll what is thought to be promulgated by the administration by protesting and speaking out and rising up to what they think is not what they condone by the administration.
So as long as there are not members posting there that do not want others to think that they condone what is seen, then there is the potential IMHO for other readers to think that the members are in agreement with the administration.
Now if the President of The United States appeared on national television and said what the post in question says, I would protest and let others know tthat I am not in agreement with him. In fact, I would use all my might to impeach him if he said that.
You can think about it, but the consequences to the Jews and others that do not accept the claim in question will be ongoing until Mr. Hsiung posts there to state as to if he does or does not consider the statement in question supportive. Those consequences could be the murder of Jews and others that do not accept that claim by those that visit this site and get their idea in their minds from reading the statement in question to murder those that the claim excludes fro forgivness and eternal life. Do you want to support that possibility? If not, could you take this opportunity to post in that thread your opinion as to if the statement in question is supportive or not?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 5, 2011, at 15:58:58
In reply to Lou's reply to Scott's reply to Lou's reply- » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on November 5, 2011, at 8:44:32
> > > > > I must have clicked the wrong button is this the history board? I do not say this to be harmful or disrespectful in anyway to anyone. But I don't understand call be dumb stupid whatever what this has to do with babble? Respectfully Phillipa
> > > >
> > > > I believe Lou has some concerns that a Christian doctrine is incompatible with other religions, and that, as such, it should be considered uncivil to post references to it. According to Dr. Bob's rules of civility, I think Lou has a point. I guess it depends on how such a reference is worded. It would be nice if Lou were to receive some guidance from Dr. Bob as to how to view this apparent conflict. I remain neutral in this matter. Perhaps Dr. Bob has already addressed this issue. I don't know.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > - Scott
> > >
> > > Scott,
> > > You wrote,[...Perhaps (Mr. Hsiung) hhas already addressed this issue...].
> > > He has done so in many instances. What the rule here is:
> > > A. Some foudations of faiths can not be posted here.
> > > B. It doesn't matter if it is in a bible or someone else said it.
> > > C. It doesn't matter if the one posting it believes it.
> > > D. Support takes precedence
> > > E. Foundations of faiths that use imperatives like {shall} and {only} could preclude others and are not supportive. Statements of fiath using those words could lead those of other faiths to feel put down and one is not to post here what could lead another to feel put down.
> > > F. Antisemitic posts are posts that when a Jew reads it, they could be led to feel put down/accused.
> >
> > Lou, what you are asking me to do is to petition Dr. Bob to prohibit posts affirming the fundamental tenet of Christianity, which seems to be a contradiction of Jewish tenets. Let me think about that for awhile.
> >
> > Wording is important. I think one can state the tenets of Christianity without portraying them as being components of the one and only Truth. But then again, can one state in a similar fashion rationales for committing genocide if they are fundamental to their religion?
> >
> > What I think is that the Faith board is a minefield. If you step on the wrong post, you will encounter something that assaults your belief system. Some people are bound to feel insulted. The authors of these posts often have good intentions, and wish to help others.
> >
> > It is probably best to shut down the Faith board and avoid the contradictions inherent in having individuals post the tenets of opposing religions.
> >
> >
> > - Scott
>
> Scott,
> You wrote,[...Lou, what you are asking mee to do is to petition (Mr. Hsiung) to prohibit posts affirming the fundamental tenet of Christianity...].
> hummmmmmm.
> Although that is part of this situation here that involves my requests to Mr. Hsiung and his deputy that are outstanding, the overiding request from me to Mr. Hsiung is for him to post in the thread in question as to if he considers the statement in question to be {supportive} or not. For as of now readers can think that the statement is supportive on the grouunds that Mr Hsiung's TOS states that support is what the forum is for and that support takes precedence. That could have the potential IMHO to mean to readers that what is seen is what is considered to be supportive unlesss it is notated by the administration as not being supportive, like all the other posts here that the administration has sanctioned on those grounds.
> But it is much more than that to me. You see, the statement in question precludes Jews and others that do not accept the claim that (redacted by respondent) Jesus that are the {only} set of people that could have forgivness and eternal life. The use of the word {only} precludes all others than what set of people the statement includes. This could mean then that the 1 1/2 million Jewish children murdered in the years from 1933 to 1945 and all those that have ever lived and never heard of that Christian claim or rejected the claim in question are without forgivness and eternal life. The poster states that the bible says that. Really? And I am prohibited from answering the poster's claim because of Mr. Hsiung's prohibitions here.
> So what I am asking for members to do is:
> A. Post in that thread as to if or if not you consider the claim in question supportive or not.
> B. And also to post there your concern, if you have such, as to that you also would like for Mr. Hsiung to post there the answer to my request to him.
> You see, as long as my request remains outstanding, others could think that Mr. Hsiung allows the statement in question to stand, and then there is the potential IMHHHO for some others to take what is claimed to be considerd by the community in toto to be what the community wants to promulgate, unless members post there that they do not consider the statement to be supportive to them. You see, the community can also controll what is thought to be promulgated by the administration by protesting and speaking out and rising up to what they think is not what they condone by the administration.
> So as long as there are not members posting there that do not want others to think that they condone what is seen, then there is the potential IMHO for other readers to think that the members are in agreement with the administration.
> Now if the President of The United States appeared on national television and said what the post in question says, I would protest and let others know tthat I am not in agreement with him. In fact, I would use all my might to impeach him if he said that.
> You can think about it, but the consequences to the Jews and others that do not accept the claim in question will be ongoing until Mr. Hsiung posts there to state as to if he does or does not consider the statement in question supportive. Those consequences could be the murder of Jews and others that do not accept that claim by those that visit this site and get their idea in their minds from reading the statement in question to murder those that the claim excludes fro forgivness and eternal life. Do you want to support that possibility? If not, could you take this opportunity to post in that thread your opinion as to if the statement in question is supportive or not?
> LouScott,
You wrote,[...I think that one can state the tenets of Christianity without portraying them as being the components of the one and only Truth. But then again, can one state in similar fashion rationales for comitting genocide if they are fundamental to theiir religion?...].
Yes, the rules have been well-established here by the administration that it is not supportive to state that there is the one and only Truth by using the words {only} or {shall}. And he also states that support takes preceence. This is why I think that members posting in that thread with their opinions as to if the statement in question is supportive or not is important here. For the historical record shows what could happen when the {state} allows others to say that they are in a set of people that are the only ones to have forgivness and eternal life which prcludes all others, or to say that they are the {master race}.
Lou
Here is a video that I am requesting for interested member to view. To view this video:
A. Pull up Google
B. Type in:
[youtube, Kristallnacht-1938]
This could come up first and there is a pic of a building and the time is 5 min posted on November 26 2006
Posted by sigismund on November 6, 2011, at 0:55:30
In reply to Re: Scott's reply to Lou's reply- » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on November 5, 2011, at 6:11:49
>It is probably best to shut down the Faith board and avoid the contradictions inherent in having individuals post the tenets of opposing religions.
It's only a problem with monotheism, isn't it?
Posted by SLS on November 6, 2011, at 1:13:38
In reply to Re: Scott's reply to Lou's reply-, posted by sigismund on November 6, 2011, at 0:55:30
> >It is probably best to shut down the Faith board and avoid the contradictions inherent in having individuals post the tenets of opposing religions.
>
> It's only a problem with monotheism, isn't it?That is an interesting observation, but I don't see many Buddhists posting there. I guess that's the point. From what I understand, declaring a faith is not required in the major Eastern religions (Ways). Because the Faith board attracts people who follow a Western monotheistic theology, I think there is a legitimate argument to be made to discontinue providing a platform for people to claim religious exclusivity. It is not supportive, and is, perhaps, destabilizing.
Faith does not equate to spirituality.
But you already know that.
- Scott
Posted by Phillipa on November 6, 2011, at 18:20:43
In reply to Re: Scott's reply to Lou's reply- » sigismund, posted by SLS on November 6, 2011, at 1:13:38
Quick google yielded this. Short. Phillipa
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 8, 2011, at 7:19:54
In reply to Re: Scott's reply to Lou's reply- » sigismund, posted by SLS on November 6, 2011, at 1:13:38
> > >It is probably best to shut down the Faith board and avoid the contradictions inherent in having individuals post the tenets of opposing religions.
> >
> > It's only a problem with monotheism, isn't it?
>
> That is an interesting observation, but I don't see many Buddhists posting there. I guess that's the point. From what I understand, declaring a faith is not required in the major Eastern religions (Ways). Because the Faith board attracts people who follow a Western monotheistic theology, I think there is a legitimate argument to be made to discontinue providing a platform for people to claim religious exclusivity. It is not supportive, and is, perhaps, destabilizing.
>
> Faith does not equate to spirituality.
>
> But you already know that.
>
>
> - ScottScott,
You wrote,[...It is not supportive...].
Thank you for posting your opinion of this situation here. But there could be much more than that in relation to saving lives here and heading off the potential of Jews and others that do not accept the claim that {only} (redacted by respondent) Jesus are those that could have eternal life and forgivness. Those then have the potential IMHO to become targets of antisemitic violence and murder. That claim as posted has my request to Mr. Hsiung to post in that thread as to if he considers the statement in question supportive or not and my request is outstanding. This keeps the situation going on and on until Mr. Hsiung replies to my request. Or, members could post there their opinion as to if the statement in question is supportive or not which IMHO could show that some members do not accept Mr. Hsiung's thinking about what is supportive.
Thet fact of that my request is outstanding could then have readers see the claim as supportive by Mr. Hsiung since he states that his forum here is for support and support takes precedence. This then IMHHHHO could arouse antisemitic feelings since the poster claimes that the {Word of God} says that. Does it really? I am prohibited by the rules here from posting my response in that thread since it could involve the prohibition to me by Mr. Hsiung to not post that I have a commandment from the God that I give service and worship to that I (redacted by respondent). There are other prohibitions to me also that prevent me from posting my response to Mr. Hsiung in that thread.
Now the statement in question could give members a (false) feeling of beinbg superior to Jews. In a community like this that allows the promotion of the use of mind-altering drugs and with that the administration does not intercede in posts that members advocate the taking of drugs together that could cause a life-ruining condition or death, leads this member to have a want for information to know what {support} means to Mr. Hsiung. If you could post your statement in this thread in the thread in question, I think that could go a long way to help prevent Jews from becoming victims of antisemitic violence or murder.
You say that you want to think about posting that. Could you post here what you need to think about before you decide as to if you will post that it is your opinion that the statement in question is not supportive? If you could, then I could respond to you here and perhaps clarify some things that might be preventing you from posting that in the thread in question.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 8, 2011, at 8:06:41
In reply to Re: Scott's reply to Lou's reply-, posted by sigismund on November 6, 2011, at 0:55:30
> >It is probably best to shut down the Faith board and avoid the contradictions inherent in having individuals post the tenets of opposing religions.
>
> It's only a problem with monotheism, isn't it?Sig,
The aspect of that my requests to Mr. Hsiung that are outstanding has the potential IMO for some others to consider the statement in question supportive. This then could give rise to particular types of thinking since the forum is owned and operated by a psychiatrist that has his thinking that what he does is in his thinking to that it will be good for the community as a whole as to what he does. Now the statement in question could go to those of Eastern religions also for the statement purports that {only} (redacted by respondent) Jesus, which could preclude even atheists,agnostics, and those that have an Eastern faith, could it not?
Here is a link to a post that has a link to a site that catalogs murders and other crimes by those that were taking mind-altering drugs as allowed to be promoted here. If there is an investigation as to if the murderers came to this site, then we could see if they visited the thread in question here and got their idea to murder from that they could think that the statement in question is supportive and may have murderd a person that had an Eastern religion or any other faith besides the one that states that {only}.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20110902/msgs/996161.html
Posted by SLS on November 8, 2011, at 18:14:01
In reply to Lou's response to Scott's reply to Lou's reply- » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on November 8, 2011, at 7:19:54
> > Because the Faith board attracts people who follow a Western monotheistic theology, I think there is a legitimate argument to be made to discontinue providing a platform for people to claim religious exclusivity. It is not supportive, and is, perhaps, destabilizing.
> Scott,
> You wrote,[...It is not supportive...].
> Thank you for posting your opinion of this situation here.I think you pin-pointed a contradiction inherent in this website's policy regarding the language allowable on its Faith forum.
> You say that you want to think about posting that. Could you post here what you need to think about before you decide as to if you will post that it is your opinion that the statement in question is not supportive?
I think I would rather speak more generally and less specifically regarding the posted content that appears to be discordant with the posting policy as described by this website's owner and moderator.
> If you could, then I could respond to you here and perhaps clarify some things that might be preventing you from posting that in the thread in question.
I think we both know how contentious discourse regarding religion can be. I am not prepared to enter into a conversation regarding specific religious doctrines. I think you have been exquisitely specific in identifying one point of contention between two religions. I don't think I can add anything to make your example more visible. I guess I don't want to spend the time and energy locating mines on the Faith board and detonating each one of them. It would be easier to just shut the whole thing down.
- Scott
Posted by hyperfocus on November 8, 2011, at 18:59:20
In reply to Re: Scott's reply to Lou's reply- » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on November 5, 2011, at 6:11:49
As long as I have been reading the Faith board I have never seen any conflict between posters regarding the tenets or doctrines of any religion. I'm not saying that it has never happened before but to me it seems that 99% of the posters on the Faith board try to follow the charter of the board as best they can. If they go outside these guidelines, as will happen, then the other posters accept that it's just a human mistake, and assume the poster does not harbor any evil intent that proves them culpable to terrible deeds spanning hundreds of years. For thousands of years every religion and religious text known to man has been co-opted to justify the political and military and economic aims of evil men. Some might argue this was the original reason religion was created. I don't think though any one religion is unique to being misused like this but it seems that a minority of posters there do.
The reason the Faith board generates such a disproportionate volume of admin activity while actual posting drops off to nothing, is that most threads started by posters there devolve into the same issue, the way this thread has. If you want to understand the sole issue facing the Faith board then all you need to do is examine the form and content of this thread. It seems to me that the majority of new posters on the Faith board start one thread and then never return. It would be interesting to see if this theory is supported by usage statistics. Logically though most people feel hurt and upset and angry about accusations of committing or facilitating bigotry, hate crimes, murder, genocide, Nazi collaboration, indoctrination, dehumanization, mind control, etc., directed towards them and their religion, and would tend not to return to any forum where posters of one faith are routinely accused of these things.
If anybody believes the Faith board should be shut down then there's nothing I can do. I'm not able to offer my time or any other thing to save it. It's just a shame that it would come to this. I have learnt many things from all the posters on the Faith board and have changed my views and corrected several erroneous assumptions I had. But on any forum all posters have to follow simple standards of community for it to survive. This has nothing to do with monotheist or polytheist or Eastern or Western religious doctrine. Starting new threads for issues that concern you and not repeatedly interjecting your issues into threads started by others would be one. Preserving the subject line and not filling it with redundant and cryptic information understandable only by you would be a 2nd. Demanding answers to lengthy lists of questions while refusing to answer all and any yourself would be a 3rd. On a forum dedicated to religious faith in particular, being accepting and tolerant of all religions and not harboring any anger or hate towards any one religion would seem to be a minimum requirement for participating. Being open to others questioning and challenging your views would be another. Without each poster sharing these basic things the forum can be rendered useless and die.
I suppose though if I lived near a community who I believed were committing the atrocities I have mentioned, I would feel some moral vindication in seeing it shutdown. In that case shutting down the Faith board would be seen by a minority of posters as a good thing. It's just unfair to the 99% of posters there looking to discuss matters of religion and faith. I do believe that 100% of posters there desire and would be enriched by these discussions, but as it stands now the situation is not favorable to anyone.
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 8, 2011, at 20:52:26
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Scott's reply to Lou's reply- » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on November 8, 2011, at 18:14:01
> > > Because the Faith board attracts people who follow a Western monotheistic theology, I think there is a legitimate argument to be made to discontinue providing a platform for people to claim religious exclusivity. It is not supportive, and is, perhaps, destabilizing.
>
>
> > Scott,
> > You wrote,[...It is not supportive...].
> > Thank you for posting your opinion of this situation here.
>
> I think you pin-pointed a contradiction inherent in this website's policy regarding the language allowable on its Faith forum.
>
> > You say that you want to think about posting that. Could you post here what you need to think about before you decide as to if you will post that it is your opinion that the statement in question is not supportive?
>
> I think I would rather speak more generally and less specifically regarding the posted content that appears to be discordant with the posting policy as described by this website's owner and moderator.
>
> > If you could, then I could respond to you here and perhaps clarify some things that might be preventing you from posting that in the thread in question.
>
> I think we both know how contentious discourse regarding religion can be. I am not prepared to enter into a conversation regarding specific religious doctrines. I think you have been exquisitely specific in identifying one point of contention between two religions. I don't think I can add anything to make your example more visible. I guess I don't want to spend the time and energy locating mines on the Faith board and detonating each one of them. It would be easier to just shut the whole thing down.
>
>
> - ScottScott,
You wrote,[...I don't think I can add anything to make your example more visible...].
What can be seen is what is visible and it is plainly visible to you as you post here that you see it.
But it is not the visiblity that I am concerned about here. What I am concerned about is that other members in a great number have not posted in that thread to:
A. say that the statement in question is or is not supportive
B. asking for Mr. Hsiung to respond to my request to post there saying as to if or if not he considers tthe statement in question supportive or not.
Those two things could go a long way IMHO to determine if or if not the community members have an interest or not in preventing some others from thinking that the Jews and others that do not accept the claim that (redacted by respondent) Jesus, can not have forgiveness and eternal life. That could be taken that the 6,000,000 Jews from 1933 to 1945 that were murdered are precluded from forgiveness and eternal life because they were Jews that do not accept the claim in question and believe that the God that they cherish has a plan for then that includes forgivness and eternal life without them accepting the claim in question.
Now when people reading here that take mind-altering drugs read the post in question, I think that there is the potential for some to think that since a psychiatrist allows it to be posted as {OK}, while a Jewish poster is prohibited from posting the foundation of Judaism as revealed to him, they could be indoctrinated to think that Jews are inferior to those that accept the claim in question and then target a Jew to murder, or target a person of the Islamic faith to murder or target anyone that does not accept the claim for the claim states that {only}(redacted by respondent)Jesus. They could even be mass-murderers. Do you not all know that the historical record shows that there were those that orchestrated mass-murder that took amphetamines and other mind-altering drugs?
Lou
Posted by SLS on November 8, 2011, at 21:45:40
In reply to Re: Faith board, posted by hyperfocus on November 8, 2011, at 18:59:20
Hi HF.
That is a very compelling post. I admire the depth and scope of the thought you employ to address these matters (or any matters).
My impression of the Faith board is biased by my encountering posts there that were antagonistic and not supportive during the brief period of time that I followed its activity several years ago. Perhaps this period was uncharacteristic and not representative of the board in general. Right now, much of my concern lies in what I imagine to be the potential for harm to be done rather than my witnessing it on a regular basis. I think my current sentiments are colored by the negative experiences I had recently in two different houses of worship. They reminded me of how religion can separate rather than unite.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on November 9, 2011, at 21:00:40
In reply to Lou's reply-oarkahpstrayt » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on November 8, 2011, at 20:52:26
Hi Lou.
Here is one post I found in which Dr. Bob presents some examples to be used as guidelines.
- Scott
> > > > Because the Faith board attracts people who follow a Western monotheistic theology, I think there is a legitimate argument to be made to discontinue providing a platform for people to claim religious exclusivity. It is not supportive, and is, perhaps, destabilizing.
> >
> >
> > > Scott,
> > > You wrote,[...It is not supportive...].
> > > Thank you for posting your opinion of this situation here.
> >
> > I think you pin-pointed a contradiction inherent in this website's policy regarding the language allowable on its Faith forum.
> >
> > > You say that you want to think about posting that. Could you post here what you need to think about before you decide as to if you will post that it is your opinion that the statement in question is not supportive?
> >
> > I think I would rather speak more generally and less specifically regarding the posted content that appears to be discordant with the posting policy as described by this website's owner and moderator.
> >
> > > If you could, then I could respond to you here and perhaps clarify some things that might be preventing you from posting that in the thread in question.
> >
> > I think we both know how contentious discourse regarding religion can be. I am not prepared to enter into a conversation regarding specific religious doctrines. I think you have been exquisitely specific in identifying one point of contention between two religions. I don't think I can add anything to make your example more visible. I guess I don't want to spend the time and energy locating mines on the Faith board and detonating each one of them. It would be easier to just shut the whole thing down.
> >
> >
> > - Scott
>
> Scott,
> You wrote,[...I don't think I can add anything to make your example more visible...].
> What can be seen is what is visible and it is plainly visible to you as you post here that you see it.
> But it is not the visiblity that I am concerned about here. What I am concerned about is that other members in a great number have not posted in that thread to:
> A. say that the statement in question is or is not supportive
> B. asking for Mr. Hsiung to respond to my request to post there saying as to if or if not he considers tthe statement in question supportive or not.
> Those two things could go a long way IMHO to determine if or if not the community members have an interest or not in preventing some others from thinking that the Jews and others that do not accept the claim that (redacted by respondent) Jesus, can not have forgiveness and eternal life. That could be taken that the 6,000,000 Jews from 1933 to 1945 that were murdered are precluded from forgiveness and eternal life because they were Jews that do not accept the claim in question and believe that the God that they cherish has a plan for then that includes forgivness and eternal life without them accepting the claim in question.
> Now when people reading here that take mind-altering drugs read the post in question, I think that there is the potential for some to think that since a psychiatrist allows it to be posted as {OK}, while a Jewish poster is prohibited from posting the foundation of Judaism as revealed to him, they could be indoctrinated to think that Jews are inferior to those that accept the claim in question and then target a Jew to murder, or target a person of the Islamic faith to murder or target anyone that does not accept the claim for the claim states that {only}(redacted by respondent)Jesus. They could even be mass-murderers. Do you not all know that the historical record shows that there were those that orchestrated mass-murder that took amphetamines and other mind-altering drugs?
> Lou
>
Posted by SLS on November 9, 2011, at 21:02:10
In reply to Lou's reply-oarkahpstrayt » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on November 8, 2011, at 20:52:26
Sorry. I forgot to post the link.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020918/msgs/7889.html
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 9, 2011, at 21:03:08
In reply to Re: Faith board, posted by hyperfocus on November 8, 2011, at 18:59:20
> As long as I have been reading the Faith board I have never seen any conflict between posters regarding the tenets or doctrines of any religion. I'm not saying that it has never happened before but to me it seems that 99% of the posters on the Faith board try to follow the charter of the board as best they can. If they go outside these guidelines, as will happen, then the other posters accept that it's just a human mistake, and assume the poster does not harbor any evil intent that proves them culpable to terrible deeds spanning hundreds of years. For thousands of years every religion and religious text known to man has been co-opted to justify the political and military and economic aims of evil men. Some might argue this was the original reason religion was created. I don't think though any one religion is unique to being misused like this but it seems that a minority of posters there do.
>
> The reason the Faith board generates such a disproportionate volume of admin activity while actual posting drops off to nothing, is that most threads started by posters there devolve into the same issue, the way this thread has. If you want to understand the sole issue facing the Faith board then all you need to do is examine the form and content of this thread. It seems to me that the majority of new posters on the Faith board start one thread and then never return. It would be interesting to see if this theory is supported by usage statistics. Logically though most people feel hurt and upset and angry about accusations of committing or facilitating bigotry, hate crimes, murder, genocide, Nazi collaboration, indoctrination, dehumanization, mind control, etc., directed towards them and their religion, and would tend not to return to any forum where posters of one faith are routinely accused of these things.
>
> If anybody believes the Faith board should be shut down then there's nothing I can do. I'm not able to offer my time or any other thing to save it. It's just a shame that it would come to this. I have learnt many things from all the posters on the Faith board and have changed my views and corrected several erroneous assumptions I had. But on any forum all posters have to follow simple standards of community for it to survive. This has nothing to do with monotheist or polytheist or Eastern or Western religious doctrine. Starting new threads for issues that concern you and not repeatedly interjecting your issues into threads started by others would be one. Preserving the subject line and not filling it with redundant and cryptic information understandable only by you would be a 2nd. Demanding answers to lengthy lists of questions while refusing to answer all and any yourself would be a 3rd. On a forum dedicated to religious faith in particular, being accepting and tolerant of all religions and not harboring any anger or hate towards any one religion would seem to be a minimum requirement for participating. Being open to others questioning and challenging your views would be another. Without each poster sharing these basic things the forum can be rendered useless and die.
>
> I suppose though if I lived near a community who I believed were committing the atrocities I have mentioned, I would feel some moral vindication in seeing it shutdown. In that case shutting down the Faith board would be seen by a minority of posters as a good thing. It's just unfair to the 99% of posters there looking to discuss matters of religion and faith. I do believe that 100% of posters there desire and would be enriched by these discussions, but as it stands now the situation is not favorable to anyone.
>hf,
You wrote,[...the situation is not favorable to anyone...].
Would you be willing to explain here what you are wanting to mean by that? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 10, 2011, at 5:21:36
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-oarkahpstrayt - Link » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on November 9, 2011, at 21:02:10
> Sorry. I forgot to post the link.
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020918/msgs/7889.html
>
>
> - ScottScott,
As can be seen, the statement by Mr. Hsiung at the end of what is in the link states that the purpose of the forum is for support and if something is not supportive they can take it elseware, (not here). And also the fact that it is in the bible does not make it supportive.
That is the crux of this matter in question. I am requesting for Mr. Hsiung to post in the thread in question as to if he considers the statement in question that purports that there is a set of people that have eternal life and forgivness by the {only way}. That way is described as (redacted by respondent)Jesus. That precludes all others since the poster uses the word,{only}.
It has been well-established in the rules here that statements that could lead people to think that there is what is referred to as {the only way}, to not be supportive. This is why I am asking members here to ppst from their perspective in the thread in question.
Here is a post that exemplifies this rule here.
Lou
To see this post:
A. Go to the search box at the bottom of the page here
B. Type in:
[admin, 6531]
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 10, 2011, at 5:51:50
In reply to Lou's reply- » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on November 10, 2011, at 5:21:36
> > Sorry. I forgot to post the link.
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020918/msgs/7889.html
> >
> >
> > - Scott
>
> Scott,
> As can be seen, the statement by Mr. Hsiung at the end of what is in the link states that the purpose of the forum is for support and if something is not supportive they can take it elseware, (not here). And also the fact that it is in the bible does not make it supportive.
> That is the crux of this matter in question. I am requesting for Mr. Hsiung to post in the thread in question as to if he considers the statement in question that purports that there is a set of people that have eternal life and forgivness by the {only way}. That way is described as (redacted by respondent)Jesus. That precludes all others since the poster uses the word,{only}.
> It has been well-established in the rules here that statements that could lead people to think that there is what is referred to as {the only way}, to not be supportive. This is why I am asking members here to ppst from their perspective in the thread in question.
> Here is a post that exemplifies this rule here.
> Lou
> To see this post:
> A. Go to the search box at the bottom of the page here
> B. Type in:
> [admin, 6531]Scott,
The crux of this matter is as to if Mr. Hsiung considers the statement in question supportive or not. And if he considers it to be not supportive, then what is his rationale for allowing the statement to be {OK}? And thn what does {OK} mean here?
You see, it has been well-established that Jews and others that do not acceopt the claim in queastion are not in the set of people that the statement in question identifiies.
Then my concern is also as to why are not the members here, in mass, protesting the allowing of the statement in question by Mr. Hsiung by posting in the thread in question.
Here is another link that brings out the crux of this situation. And is it in question to some here as to if the statement in question is supportive or not?
Lou
To see this post:
A. Go to the search box at the bottom of the page
B. Type in:
[faith, 453471]
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 12, 2011, at 8:06:23
In reply to Lou's request-izzywil » hyperfocus, posted by Lou Pilder on November 9, 2011, at 21:03:08
> > As long as I have been reading the Faith board I have never seen any conflict between posters regarding the tenets or doctrines of any religion. I'm not saying that it has never happened before but to me it seems that 99% of the posters on the Faith board try to follow the charter of the board as best they can. If they go outside these guidelines, as will happen, then the other posters accept that it's just a human mistake, and assume the poster does not harbor any evil intent that proves them culpable to terrible deeds spanning hundreds of years. For thousands of years every religion and religious text known to man has been co-opted to justify the political and military and economic aims of evil men. Some might argue this was the original reason religion was created. I don't think though any one religion is unique to being misused like this but it seems that a minority of posters there do.
> >
> > The reason the Faith board generates such a disproportionate volume of admin activity while actual posting drops off to nothing, is that most threads started by posters there devolve into the same issue, the way this thread has. If you want to understand the sole issue facing the Faith board then all you need to do is examine the form and content of this thread. It seems to me that the majority of new posters on the Faith board start one thread and then never return. It would be interesting to see if this theory is supported by usage statistics. Logically though most people feel hurt and upset and angry about accusations of committing or facilitating bigotry, hate crimes, murder, genocide, Nazi collaboration, indoctrination, dehumanization, mind control, etc., directed towards them and their religion, and would tend not to return to any forum where posters of one faith are routinely accused of these things.
> >
> > If anybody believes the Faith board should be shut down then there's nothing I can do. I'm not able to offer my time or any other thing to save it. It's just a shame that it would come to this. I have learnt many things from all the posters on the Faith board and have changed my views and corrected several erroneous assumptions I had. But on any forum all posters have to follow simple standards of community for it to survive. This has nothing to do with monotheist or polytheist or Eastern or Western religious doctrine. Starting new threads for issues that concern you and not repeatedly interjecting your issues into threads started by others would be one. Preserving the subject line and not filling it with redundant and cryptic information understandable only by you would be a 2nd. Demanding answers to lengthy lists of questions while refusing to answer all and any yourself would be a 3rd. On a forum dedicated to religious faith in particular, being accepting and tolerant of all religions and not harboring any anger or hate towards any one religion would seem to be a minimum requirement for participating. Being open to others questioning and challenging your views would be another. Without each poster sharing these basic things the forum can be rendered useless and die.
> >
> > I suppose though if I lived near a community who I believed were committing the atrocities I have mentioned, I would feel some moral vindication in seeing it shutdown. In that case shutting down the Faith board would be seen by a minority of posters as a good thing. It's just unfair to the 99% of posters there looking to discuss matters of religion and faith. I do believe that 100% of posters there desire and would be enriched by these discussions, but as it stands now the situation is not favorable to anyone.
> >
>
> hf,
> You wrote,[...the situation is not favorable to anyone...].
> Would you be willing to explain here what you are wanting to mean by that? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> Louhf,
You wrote,[...the same issue...].
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to men here. Here is a way to see a post here that may or may not involve the issue.
Would you be willing to look at the post in the link herre and post from your perspective concerning the {issue}? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
To see this post:
A. Go to the search box at the bottom of this page.
B. Type in:
[admin, 428781]
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 12, 2011, at 12:28:50
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-dhelbihndiph? » Lou Pilder, posted by 10derheart on November 3, 2011, at 19:06:08
> >>If anyone could podt here why they are silent concerning this ongoing situation, then I could have the opportunity to respond to them here.
>
> Perhaps because they see no "ongoing" situation? Your seeing an ongoing situation does not make the existence of such a situation a verifiable fact to others, Lou.
>
> I wish I could help you with this issue you see, but I cannot.
>
>_der_
Could you look at this? If you could type in the search box ,[admin, 307041], I could have the opportunity to respond further to you.
Posted by 10derheart on November 12, 2011, at 17:57:13
In reply to Lou's reply-knupsei » 10derheart, posted by Lou Pilder on November 12, 2011, at 12:28:50
Sorry, Lou, no, I won't do that.
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 13, 2011, at 20:56:33
In reply to Lou's reply-dhakrugs, posted by Lou Pilder on November 10, 2011, at 5:51:50
> > > Sorry. I forgot to post the link.
> > >
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020918/msgs/7889.html
> > >
> > >
> > > - Scott
> >
> > Scott,
> > As can be seen, the statement by Mr. Hsiung at the end of what is in the link states that the purpose of the forum is for support and if something is not supportive they can take it elseware, (not here). And also the fact that it is in the bible does not make it supportive.
> > That is the crux of this matter in question. I am requesting for Mr. Hsiung to post in the thread in question as to if he considers the statement in question that purports that there is a set of people that have eternal life and forgivness by the {only way}. That way is described as (redacted by respondent)Jesus. That precludes all others since the poster uses the word,{only}.
> > It has been well-established in the rules here that statements that could lead people to think that there is what is referred to as {the only way}, to not be supportive. This is why I am asking members here to ppst from their perspective in the thread in question.
> > Here is a post that exemplifies this rule here.
> > Lou
> > To see this post:
> > A. Go to the search box at the bottom of the page here
> > B. Type in:
> > [admin, 6531]
>
> Scott,
> The crux of this matter is as to if Mr. Hsiung considers the statement in question supportive or not. And if he considers it to be not supportive, then what is his rationale for allowing the statement to be {OK}? And thn what does {OK} mean here?
> You see, it has been well-established that Jews and others that do not acceopt the claim in queastion are not in the set of people that the statement in question identifiies.
> Then my concern is also as to why are not the members here, in mass, protesting the allowing of the statement in question by Mr. Hsiung by posting in the thread in question.
> Here is another link that brings out the crux of this situation. And is it in question to some here as to if the statement in question is supportive or not?
> Lou
> To see this post:
> A. Go to the search box at the bottom of the page
> B. Type in:
> [faith, 453471]Scott,
Here is a post that uses derogatory and dehumanizing imagery toward the Jews that I pointed out to Mr. Hsiung.
Now Mr. Hsiung asked the poster to rephrase or revise the post. But the statements came from a link to a site so how could anyone rephrase or revise what is in someone else's statement? I guess one could revise by deleting the link but is that offerd to others here to delete what they posted in a link? But how could a poster delete their own post here? There is much more to this...
You see, there was another post by Mr. Hsiung before that post to not post a link to a site that has antisemitic content.
Lou
To see this post:
A. Go to the search box at the bottom of this page
B. Type in:
[Dec 13 2004, admin, 428781]
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 13, 2011, at 21:30:01
In reply to Lou's reply-huzphulinhu, posted by Lou Pilder on November 13, 2011, at 20:56:33
> > > > Sorry. I forgot to post the link.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020918/msgs/7889.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > - Scott
> > >
> > > Scott,
> > > As can be seen, the statement by Mr. Hsiung at the end of what is in the link states that the purpose of the forum is for support and if something is not supportive they can take it elseware, (not here). And also the fact that it is in the bible does not make it supportive.
> > > That is the crux of this matter in question. I am requesting for Mr. Hsiung to post in the thread in question as to if he considers the statement in question that purports that there is a set of people that have eternal life and forgivness by the {only way}. That way is described as (redacted by respondent)Jesus. That precludes all others since the poster uses the word,{only}.
> > > It has been well-established in the rules here that statements that could lead people to think that there is what is referred to as {the only way}, to not be supportive. This is why I am asking members here to ppst from their perspective in the thread in question.
> > > Here is a post that exemplifies this rule here.
> > > Lou
> > > To see this post:
> > > A. Go to the search box at the bottom of the page here
> > > B. Type in:
> > > [admin, 6531]
> >
> > Scott,
> > The crux of this matter is as to if Mr. Hsiung considers the statement in question supportive or not. And if he considers it to be not supportive, then what is his rationale for allowing the statement to be {OK}? And thn what does {OK} mean here?
> > You see, it has been well-established that Jews and others that do not acceopt the claim in queastion are not in the set of people that the statement in question identifiies.
> > Then my concern is also as to why are not the members here, in mass, protesting the allowing of the statement in question by Mr. Hsiung by posting in the thread in question.
> > Here is another link that brings out the crux of this situation. And is it in question to some here as to if the statement in question is supportive or not?
> > Lou
> > To see this post:
> > A. Go to the search box at the bottom of the page
> > B. Type in:
> > [faith, 453471]
>
> Scott,
> Here is a post that uses derogatory and dehumanizing imagery toward the Jews that I pointed out to Mr. Hsiung.
> Now Mr. Hsiung asked the poster to rephrase or revise the post. But the statements came from a link to a site so how could anyone rephrase or revise what is in someone else's statement? I guess one could revise by deleting the link but is that offerd to others here to delete what they posted in a link? But how could a poster delete their own post here? There is much more to this...
> You see, there was another post by Mr. Hsiung before that post to not post a link to a site that has antisemitic content.
> Lou
> To see this post:
> A. Go to the search box at the bottom of this page
> B. Type in:
> [Dec 13 2004, admin, 428781]Scott,
I would like to focus on the post in the above that you get when you type in [Dec 13 2004, admin, 428781].
There are other posts in the first group that could also come into this discussion, but I would like to focus on the one by itself now.
You see, there was discussion as to what happened to the post by th eposter, for if you click on the link by that poster, the link now is not there. There were other happenings with that link before wht you could see now is seen. The question that I have is who did whatever to the the link. A tech expert told me that there are two or more possibilities. To see what I found out, I could email that to you at your request.
But my concern is as to if the membership here could post in the thread in question where I request for Mr. Hsiung to post as to if he considers the statement in question supportive or not that precludes Jews and others that do not (redacted by respondent)have forgivness and eternal life. And is there a connection to these two post that you see that could be considerd {analogous}?
Lou
Posted by Phillipa on November 13, 2011, at 21:35:51
In reply to Lou's reply-focus, posted by Lou Pilder on November 13, 2011, at 21:30:01
Lou is the post from the year 2004? That would feel like living in the past. Phillipa
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 14, 2011, at 22:03:26
In reply to Re: Faith board, posted by hyperfocus on November 8, 2011, at 18:59:20
> As long as I have been reading the Faith board I have never seen any conflict between posters regarding the tenets or doctrines of any religion. I'm not saying that it has never happened before but to me it seems that 99% of the posters on the Faith board try to follow the charter of the board as best they can. If they go outside these guidelines, as will happen, then the other posters accept that it's just a human mistake, and assume the poster does not harbor any evil intent that proves them culpable to terrible deeds spanning hundreds of years. For thousands of years every religion and religious text known to man has been co-opted to justify the political and military and economic aims of evil men. Some might argue this was the original reason religion was created. I don't think though any one religion is unique to being misused like this but it seems that a minority of posters there do.
>
> The reason the Faith board generates such a disproportionate volume of admin activity while actual posting drops off to nothing, is that most threads started by posters there devolve into the same issue, the way this thread has. If you want to understand the sole issue facing the Faith board then all you need to do is examine the form and content of this thread. It seems to me that the majority of new posters on the Faith board start one thread and then never return. It would be interesting to see if this theory is supported by usage statistics. Logically though most people feel hurt and upset and angry about accusations of committing or facilitating bigotry, hate crimes, murder, genocide, Nazi collaboration, indoctrination, dehumanization, mind control, etc., directed towards them and their religion, and would tend not to return to any forum where posters of one faith are routinely accused of these things.
>
> If anybody believes the Faith board should be shut down then there's nothing I can do. I'm not able to offer my time or any other thing to save it. It's just a shame that it would come to this. I have learnt many things from all the posters on the Faith board and have changed my views and corrected several erroneous assumptions I had. But on any forum all posters have to follow simple standards of community for it to survive. This has nothing to do with monotheist or polytheist or Eastern or Western religious doctrine. Starting new threads for issues that concern you and not repeatedly interjecting your issues into threads started by others would be one. Preserving the subject line and not filling it with redundant and cryptic information understandable only by you would be a 2nd. Demanding answers to lengthy lists of questions while refusing to answer all and any yourself would be a 3rd. On a forum dedicated to religious faith in particular, being accepting and tolerant of all religions and not harboring any anger or hate towards any one religion would seem to be a minimum requirement for participating. Being open to others questioning and challenging your views would be another. Without each poster sharing these basic things the forum can be rendered useless and die.
>
> I suppose though if I lived near a community who I believed were committing the atrocities I have mentioned, I would feel some moral vindication in seeing it shutdown. In that case shutting down the Faith board would be seen by a minority of posters as a good thing. It's just unfair to the 99% of posters there looking to discuss matters of religion and faith. I do believe that 100% of posters there desire and would be enriched by these discussions, but as it stands now the situation is not favorable to anyone.
>hf,
You wrote,[...the sole issue facing the Faith board...].
Would you be willing to type in the search box at the bottom of this page and read the post and then post here as to if what is in the post goes to {the sole issue}? If you could, then I could know what the sole issue is or is not and respond accordingly
Lou
To see the post in question:
A. go to the search box at the bottom oof this page
B. Type in:
[Dec 13 2004, admin, 428781]
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.