![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 6 to 30 of 33. Go back in thread:
Posted by BeardedLady on November 25, 2002, at 7:28:39
In reply to Re: And often, with your game, » BeardedLady, posted by Lou Pilder on November 25, 2002, at 7:05:56
> BL,
> But would this be like you are saying?
> A vector space is an additive communitive group induced by an endomorphism...Exactly. Because I don't know the answer doesn't make it unfair. No one knows the answer in the quizzes, either; we have to guess.
> The point here is that not evryone could know what a vector-space is, and so be it with the post in question. It was not as simple as [two plus two equals four.]
This is true. But it doesn't make it wrong.
My only point is that when rayww posted those statements, he (the both-sex-inclusive he) was entitled to post a false one, whether we knew the answer or not.
The problem I have with his not being allowed to do that is that it assumes the untruth is something that will be unsupportive of someone's religion.
Maybe it is impossible to stand in a holy place and remain unmoved. In fact, I would think, semantically, it is impossible, as atoms move all the time.
beardy
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 25, 2002, at 7:39:17
In reply to Re: And often, with your game,, posted by BeardedLady on November 25, 2002, at 7:28:39
BL,
You wrote,[...was entitled to post the false one...]
Hummmmmmmmmmm. I need to digest a little on this.
LOu
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 25, 2002, at 7:57:20
In reply to Re: And often, with your game,, posted by BeardedLady on November 25, 2002, at 7:28:39
BL,
You wrote that [...he is entitled to post the wrong one...]
Are you saying that this is now a constitutial issue of first amendmant rights to Freedom of Speech?
Lou
Posted by BeardedLady on November 25, 2002, at 7:59:54
In reply to Re: And often, with your game, » BeardedLady, posted by Lou Pilder on November 25, 2002, at 7:57:20
Posted by rayww on November 25, 2002, at 11:10:10
In reply to Re: And often, with your game,, posted by BeardedLady on November 25, 2002, at 7:28:39
> > BL,
> > But would this be like you are saying?
> > A vector space is an additive communitive group induced by an endomorphism...
>
> Exactly. Because I don't know the answer doesn't make it unfair. No one knows the answer in the quizzes, either; we have to guess.
>
> > The point here is that not evryone could know what a vector-space is, and so be it with the post in question. It was not as simple as [two plus two equals four.]
>
> This is true. But it doesn't make it wrong.
>
> My only point is that when rayww posted those statements, he (the both-sex-inclusive he) was entitled to post a false one, whether we knew the answer or not.
>
> The problem I have with his not being allowed to do that is that it assumes the untruth is something that will be unsupportive of someone's religion.
>
> Maybe it is impossible to stand in a holy place and remain unmoved. In fact, I would think, semantically, it is impossible, as atoms move all the time.
>
> beardyWhat a lot of big words! Please explaine
I had a dream the night before I discovered this forum. I was walking down a long hallway beside my best friend from high school (who was later killed in a car accident). She had her arm around my shoulder and I could feel her pure love for me as a friend. Her middle name was Ray.
The name seemed appropriate, ray of hope, ray of sunshine, ray of light. The ww stands for wonderful woman. Upside down it is m&m's. mm and ww have special meaning to my symbolism.
The problem with cyberspace communication, is it is difficult to tell when a person is serious or teasing. I try not to tease but by nature I am always trying to see the lighter side.
My own explanation of the false statement was redirected by Bob. I'm not sure why.
rayww (wicked witch?)
Posted by Mr Beev on November 25, 2002, at 19:20:41
In reply to Re: And often, with your game, » BeardedLady, posted by Lou Pilder on November 25, 2002, at 7:05:56
Never thought I'd see an (incorrect) definition of a vector space, of all things, on psycho-babble! Gotta love it....
Cheers,
Mr Beev
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 25, 2002, at 20:06:47
In reply to Re: And often, with your game,, posted by Mr Beev on November 25, 2002, at 19:20:41
Mr. Beev,
It is great to see your reply. I used [vector space] because it was in a class that I took 38 years ago. I only used it in this post as a way to indicate that not evryone could assume that something would be known in a post by evryone, and I reached way back in my memory to recall something that I thought would be known by few, and [vector space] came to my mind. I did not give the entire concept, just a part...
I am glad to meet you.
Best regards,
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on November 25, 2002, at 20:53:49
In reply to Re: And often, with your game, » Mr Beev, posted by Lou Pilder on November 25, 2002, at 20:06:47
"I only used it in this post as a way to indicate that not evryone could assume that something would be known in a post by evryone,"
But I remember you saying you were able to post something as everyone knows your story... And no, I'm not going to go trawling back to find this exact post.
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 25, 2002, at 21:06:37
In reply to Re: And often, with your game, » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on November 25, 2002, at 20:53:49
NikkiT2,
You wrote,[I remembr you saying you were able to post something as evryone knows your story...]
Could you clarify that statement? Perhaps if you can give me some additional infomation, I could understand the meaning of the statement that you are trying to convey, and then I could be better able to communicate with you in regards to your post.
Thanks,
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 26, 2002, at 4:48:51
In reply to Re: And often, with your game, » BeardedLady, posted by rayww on November 25, 2002, at 11:10:10
> I wonder if Dr. Bob read my previous note on this board about how nice it's been lately and how it's obvious that most of us are civil
I did, and I think it's been nice, too! And I agree that it's obvious that the overwhelming majority of posts are civil.
> and when there are problems with incivility, it's usually due to misinterpretation (or a lack of humor, which is akin).
But it takes two to misinterpret. Lack of humor is in the eye of the beholder.
> No one thought Wendy was serious or even had to question.
>
> beardyIt's not just about Wendy, it's also about clarifying guidelines for others.
> My own explanation of the false statement was redirected by Bob. I'm not sure why.
>
> raywwBecause a discussion about whether false statements should be posted is an administrative issue (rather than one having to do with faith).
Bob
Posted by BeardedLady on November 26, 2002, at 7:45:45
In reply to Re: false statements, posted by Dr. Bob on November 26, 2002, at 4:48:51
> But it takes two to misinterpret.
No, it doesn't. And that's a fact. One person can say something to one other person, and that person can take it in a way not meant by the first. Only one is misinterpreting.
My point was that you were the only one who questioned Wendy's blood sucking. Had several posters (or even another) complained, then it would've looked as though Wendy may have communicated her message unsuccessfully.
>Lack of humor is in the eye of the beholder.
Very funny. No, sure, you're right about that. But I still don't see what's wrong with humor on the faith board. Even if Wendy were a Satanist, wouldn't she be allowed to post that on the board? Or did the guidelines change so that the Faith board only includes worshipers of God, not necessarily those of different faiths who may worship, say, God and Goddess, as in Wicca?
And you still haven't said why rayww wasn't allowed to make ten statements and have us guess which one was false.
Beardy
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 26, 2002, at 15:09:52
In reply to Re: false statements » Dr. Bob, posted by BeardedLady on November 26, 2002, at 7:45:45
BL,
You wrote,[Dr. Bob was the only one that complained about Wendy's remark about blood eating...if another would have complained...]
Are you saying that it is [only when others, or just one, complain] that the moderator is [allowed] to exert his authority and judgement?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 26, 2002, at 16:29:09
In reply to Re: false statements » Dr. Bob, posted by BeardedLady on November 26, 2002, at 7:45:45
BL,
Are you saying tat Wendy's remarks about eating blood are humorous?
A resonable person that has a faith in a particular God could construe the remark to constitute confrontation and/or ridicule. There are many faiths that have the prohibition of eating blood. The Witnesses of Jahovah do not even take blood transfusions. Observant Jewish people do not even allow blood to be in the meat that they eat. Islamic people also. Other Christiandom groups also have the prohibition of eating blood. Religious groups that are vegetarians also prohibit the eating of blood.
I agree with the moderator here in flagging the post in question so that others would abide by the goals of the faith board to only post content that supports faith in God. Those posts that have the potential to arrouse ant-God feelings could be posted on another board, although IMO, those type of posts would be inappropriate on any board here because I do not see how they could offer support to those that come here seeking light and understanding about their afflictions, and are searching for support to overcome them. The faith board is [unique] in respect that offering support in faith in God is its only purpose and all other thought that is antagonistic to [faith in God] is not supportive.
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on November 26, 2002, at 17:37:13
In reply to Lou's reply to Nikkt2's post » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on November 25, 2002, at 21:06:37
It was when we were talking about the statement about people without faith in their hearts being fools.
You said at the time that everyone would know that the rider was talking to you alone, as people would know your history.
You now say that you must not assume peole know everything.
I just found it to be confusing.
Nikki
Posted by wendy b. on November 26, 2002, at 18:03:14
In reply to Re: false statements (2) » BeardedLady, posted by Lou Pilder on November 26, 2002, at 16:29:09
Lou,
And your point is...? Truly, I'm not interested in whether blood-drinking is prohibited by most religions. Does this mean it's BEYOND discussion? I would have to maintain that it is not.
Yes, my remarks were humorous, and from the e-mails I received, it wasn't only Beardy who found them funny. Relax, Lou, it's only humor, not some kind of plot to undermine the major religions of the world...
I remember attending a lecture on Haitian religious practices at the Museum of Natural History in New York, many moons ago. It's called Voodoo:
Main Entry: 1. voo·doo
Pronunciation: 'vü-(")dü
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural voodoos
Etymology: Louisiana Creole voudou, probably from Ewe vódu tutelary deity, demon
Date: 1850
1 : a religion that is derived from African polytheism and ancestor worship and is practiced chiefly in Haiti
2 a : a person who deals in spells and necromancy b (1) : a sorcerer's spell : HEX (2) : a hexed object : CHARM
- voodoo adjectiveAnyway, ritualistic blood-letting and drinking are part of that culture. I thought it was interesting. I didn't immediately reject it as a practice. Haitain voodoo is a civilized, human-made religious act. Not to be put down, but, rather: accepted.
_______________
For another, entirely different example, read this, written by a born-again Christian, on the practice of vampirism (sorry, but it made me laugh - oops there's that HUMOR again...):"True vampirism is not a joke, nor is it a ghost story. Christians need to understand that this is a real (albeit uncommon) affliction, just like drug abuse or child abuse. Sadly, it is getting more common. Because of the universal taboos and biblical commands against blood drinking, many newly saved Christians, whose past included vampirism, now struggle with serious issues. "Can I be a Born Again vampire?" "Can God forgive me?" "Will the church ever accept such a monster as I?" "
The web citation is:
http://www.chick.com/seasonal/halloween/vampireletter.asp
It's a serious discussion.
__________________
Also see another discussion on the demonization of Satanism and Wicca:
"Shortly after the mass suicide of Heaven's Gate members, a local reporter contacted Chico State'sSarah Pike, professor of Religious Studies, for her perspective on the event. That evening, when she sat down to watch the news, she was horrified to see her comments worked into a feature about vampire cults in Chico. Members of a neo-pagan group in southern Indiana known as the Elflore Family must have been similarly horrified when the police who showed up at one of their woodland festivals described it as a satanic gathering and claimed to have seen celebrants drinking blood and consuming human flesh. Why do Americans have such a need to demonize strange religions? Why must we define the Other as evil? These questions interest Pike, whose talk, "Evil in Your Back Yard: Strange Cults and America'sStruggle with Religious Diversity," wrapped up the Center for Multi-Cultural and Gender Studies' "Conversations on Diversity" series for fall.
All religious movements start small, Pike noted, usually have a charismatic leader, and frequently, if not always, face disparagement, ridicule, or worse. We tend to assume members of these religions are brainwashed by their "gurus" or insane to begin with. And we tend to call these religions cults. "A cult is something other people don't like," said Pike, who has done extensive research on contemporary pagan festivals and, in the process, uncovered a huge literature, beginning for the most part in the mid-eighties, that attempts to link New Age and neo-pagan beliefs with satanism, a phenomenon some sociologists have labeled "satanic panic." "which is from:
http://www.csuchico.edu/pub/inside/archive/97_12_11/divers.html
_________
Also this, on communion and drinking "blood":"... thousands and thousands of years ago, there developed and evolved basic ritualistic behavioral patterns, and mythological motifs, or themes, that have spread by a process of diffusion from, at least, the Neanderthal period through Cro-Magnon caves, and into the Christian churches and cathedrals of 20th-century America.
One of the more obvious of these is the "sacred meal" or ritualistic cannibalism. We still practice this ritual today in the Protestant and Roman Catholic communion, where we eat the body and drink the blood of the divine leader.
The Christian church calls it "communion," or "taking communion." The communicant eats and drinks, symbolically or literally, the flesh and blood of the divine "leader." The traditional invitation to Communion, spoken by the presiding clergy, is this: "Take, eat, this is my body . . . this cup is the new covenant is my blood . . . drink."
Eating a body and drinking blood is a cannibalistic theme, no matter how hard the clergy try to water it down, or theo-babble around it by calling it "only symbolic" cannibalism. In the 9th century, the clergy said that God made the flesh of Jesus only look like a wafer so as not to upset the worshipers. They were really cannibals, but they didn't have to face up to it, admit it, or be vividly aware of it.
How convenient. History reeks with Theo-babble. ("Theo" God-babble.) One anthropological scholar who has spent a lifetime studying this ritual is Dr. Jean-Paul Dumont, professor of anthropology at the University of Washington. He writes: "Cannibalism has always been a part of religious behavior. The principle is the same . . . acquiring through ingestion the powers of something, whether human or divine. The purpose has always been to take on the qualities of the person being eaten. Through the ritual you share in the divinity of the one being eaten. In our Christian traditions we still practice this cannibalistic ritual in taking Communion."quoted from:
http://www.banned-books.com/truth-seeker/1996archive/123_1/12communion.html
_____________
So Lou, don't think you've got a lock on what true believers say and do. Here are three (out of many many more) discussions about blood-drinking, in some form or fashion. You can't ban THOUGHT.There's a lot of controversy out there - just waiting for you...
Salutations,
Wendy
> BL,
> Are you saying tat Wendy's remarks about eating blood are humorous?
> A resonable person that has a faith in a particular God could construe the remark to constitute confrontation and/or ridicule. There are many faiths that have the prohibition of eating blood. The Witnesses of Jahovah do not even take blood transfusions. Observant Jewish people do not even allow blood to be in the meat that they eat. Islamic people also. Other Christiandom groups also have the prohibition of eating blood. Religious groups that are vegetarians also prohibit the eating of blood.
> I agree with the moderator here in flagging the post in question so that others would abide by the goals of the faith board to only post content that supports faith in God. Those posts that have the potential to arrouse ant-God feelings could be posted on another board, although IMO, those type of posts would be inappropriate on any board here because I do not see how they could offer support to those that come here seeking light and understanding about their afflictions, and are searching for support to overcome them. The faith board is [unique] in respect that offering support in faith in God is its only purpose and all other thought that is antagonistic to [faith in God] is not supportive.
> Lou
>
Posted by oracle on November 26, 2002, at 18:45:42
In reply to Re: even more... » Lou Pilder, posted by wendy b. on November 26, 2002, at 18:03:14
You can't ban THOUGHT.
But, Dr Bob can ban us from discussing the differences on this site.
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 26, 2002, at 18:45:48
In reply to Re: even more... » Lou Pilder, posted by wendy b. on November 26, 2002, at 18:03:14
wendy,B,
You wrote,[since there are religions that prohibit blood drinking, does that mean that blood drinking is beyound discussion?]
Are you saying that this is a constitutional issue involving the first amendment in regards to freedom of speech?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 26, 2002, at 20:12:28
In reply to Re: even more... » Lou Pilder, posted by wendy b. on November 26, 2002, at 18:03:14
W,
You wrote,[and your point is...?]
Wendy, my point is that there are serious things here that are life or death to some and the faith board is a place that people can come to in search of peace in their faith with their God.
And Dr. Bob has said that to make a false statement about eating blood is not supportive and I agree even if the poster lables it "humor".
Even a false statement labled as humor can have disasterous consequences. There have been hundreds of people killed this week because a journalist made what he said was to be a humorous statement about Muhammad marrying a beauty queen in a country in Africa.
Now am not condoning what has happened in that country, but only pointing out the seriousness of a person's faith. And the topic of eating blood is a very serious topic, whether you are joking or not, to many people's faith as I have posted.
Dr. Bob is trying to develop a faith board for those that want comfort and peace in relation to God. The board is in flux now, and these issues need to be discussed so that the board can make decisions about policy so that the goals of the board can be accomplishd.
Lou
Posted by Robin David John on November 26, 2002, at 20:33:33
In reply to Re: even more... » wendy b., posted by Lou Pilder on November 26, 2002, at 18:45:48
> wendy,B,
> You wrote,[since there are religions that prohibit blood drinking, does that mean that blood drinking is beyound discussion?]
> Are you saying that this is a constitutional issue involving the first amendment in regards to freedom of speech?
> Lou
That is the key word here ..**Freedom** , to live and let live ..What is right ...what is wrong...who gives any being the right to take freedom of personality from another...no mater what the circumstance ...who gives us the right to judge anyones ways of living ...living life on lifes terms in any circumstance is hard enough...the above postings in my opinion have been an expression of freedomThis is why there are wars ..freedom is taken from one another ..and I believe In any circumstance this is wrong
I side with no one here today....thats my freedom ... I choose to exercise my personal thought about letting all see my **OPINION**...my freedom of expression ... that is what all the above posts have done ...control of anyone, other than ones self is nothing but rebellious ...**freedom** ...is a word and a right that, and I believe is the most abused word in this world...Guess I'm being rebellious in a way but feel very human that I have some freedom to remind others...Live and Let LiveBeen busy and miss you all...take care
Robin
Posted by NikkiT2 on November 27, 2002, at 5:49:57
In reply to Re: false statements » BeardedLady, posted by Lou Pilder on November 26, 2002, at 15:09:52
When taking communion I seem to very strongly remember drinking the "blood of christ".. it may have only been symbollic, but they *are* the words that are used.
Having read the "blood drinking" posts, I'm pretty sure the PBC isn't for the original post,but for Wendy's sarcasm towards Dr Bob.
Nikki
Posted by NikkiT2 on November 27, 2002, at 5:57:32
In reply to **freedom** everyone » Lou Pilder, posted by Robin David John on November 26, 2002, at 20:33:33
A quote from a Christian Church (Church of England) web site
"On the night before Jesus was put to death on the Cross, he had his last supper with the disciples.
During the meal, he took some bread and gave thanks to God in the Jewish fashion. He broke it into pieces and gave it to his friends saying it was his Body. After the meal, he took some wine, gave thanks to God and gave it to them saying it was his Blood. He commanded them to continue this simple ceremony in remembrance of him. "
==========
The words used during Holy Communion
Words at the Giving of Communion
1
The body of our Lord Jesus Christ,
which was given for you,
preserve your body and soul unto everlasting life.
Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for you,
and feed on him in your heart by faith with thanksgiving.
The blood of our Lord Jesus Christ,
which was shed for you,
preserve your body and soul unto everlasting life.
Drink this in remembrance that Christ's blood was shed for you,
and be thankful.
2
The body of Christ.
The blood of Christ.
3
The body of Christ keep you in eternal life.
The blood of Christ keep you in eternal life.
4
The body of Christ, broken for you.
The blood of Christ, shed for you.
5
The bread of heaven in Christ Jesus.
The cup of life in Christ Jesus.========
From another site
"They would be supported by the church catechism, which speaks of "the body and blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's supper." "
Could you explain why it is OK to drink Christs blood, but no one elses??
Nikki
Posted by wendy b. on November 27, 2002, at 8:22:54
In reply to Re: false statements » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on November 27, 2002, at 5:49:57
Posted by wendy b. on November 27, 2002, at 8:27:17
In reply to Drinking of Blood - Lou and others, posted by NikkiT2 on November 27, 2002, at 5:57:32
Interesting quotes, Nikki...
> Could you explain why it is OK to drink Christs blood, but no one elses??
>
> Nikki
>
Yeah, seems kinda the wrong way 'round, doesn't it? Like, since Christ was such a special being, you wouldn't/shouldn't drink it. But it IS a symbolic ceremony, isn't it... Supposedly the strength one receives from Christ's blood is the point... Although it always made me wonder, taking the Eucharist...Later,
Wendy
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 27, 2002, at 8:48:03
In reply to Drinking of Blood - Lou and others, posted by NikkiT2 on November 27, 2002, at 5:57:32
Posted by NikkiT2 on November 27, 2002, at 9:24:46
In reply to Re: long live sarcasm! (nm) » NikkiT2, posted by wendy b. on November 27, 2002, at 8:22:54
I would just like to point out, I found it funny.. I was just being devils Advocate and saying what I htought Dr Bob might see if that makes any sense at all!!!
Nikki
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.