![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 30 to 54 of 65. Go back in thread:
Posted by AuntieMel on September 16, 2004, at 16:09:29
In reply to Lou's closing argument- Dr. Hsiung's decision-12 » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on September 15, 2004, at 20:12:54
I don't want to get political, and I couldn't possibly guess anyones motives {I always assume the best until proven wrong} BUT
I read the poem and it really isn't about faith and it *does* seem to belong on the writing board.
Posted by Gabbix2 on September 16, 2004, at 17:38:40
In reply to Doctor Bob, I agree - to a point » Lou Pilder, posted by AuntieMel on September 16, 2004, at 16:09:29
I think it depends on what your interpretation of faith is. To me the poem was very much about
faith. I read it as a philosophy of making God personal not necessarily (but not excluding) looking for signs and justification from an omnisicent God figurehead. It was about seeing yourself as part of the fabric of life and spirit recognizing it's beauty and shouldering it's responsibilites.
Posted by Cass on September 16, 2004, at 18:50:55
In reply to Doctor Bob, I agree - to a point » Lou Pilder, posted by AuntieMel on September 16, 2004, at 16:09:29
I'm really not here to debate the poem. I am spiritually inspired by the poem, and Dr. Bob already made the decision not to delete it. However I will say this -- even though the poem doesn't make a direct reference to faith, I think it's pertinent to the faith board because it encourages me to to be more conscious of my spiritual values and to act on them. It compels me to strenghten my religious principles and put my beliefs to ACTION. "Realize that this is the perfect moment to change the energy of the world, to step right up and crank your personal volume right when it all seems dark" Those lines encourage me to remember the God within me (or to have "faith")in these dark political times and to act upon my own spiritual convictions. It compels me not to shut down my creativity, love, kindness, and compassion, but to give it liberally.
In my opinion, forgiveness and reason are religious/spiritual values, and the poem seems to encourage those qualities. In the context of war and hatred, the author says, "Resist the urge toward nihilism. Seek out nuance, and counter argument and subtle irony and balance and perspective." I like the way the poem promotes peace.
The poem inspires me to tap into my spiritual resources, reminds me of our interconnectedness and gives me the hope of cosmic renewal. "Remember magic and finally, believe you are part of a groundswell, a resistance, a seemingly small but actually very, very large impending karmic overhaul, a great shift. The beginning of something important and unstoppable." Something "karmic", "great" and "unstoppable" certainly sounds like a religious or spiritual reference to me. Couldn't this be an indirect reference to God and the presence of God in us?Anyways, I don't want to be very involved in this thread, but I do feel strongly that the poem was pertinent for the faith board.
Posted by Jai Narayan on September 16, 2004, at 20:21:12
In reply to Re: Doctor Bob, I agree - to a point » AuntieMel, posted by Gabbix2 on September 16, 2004, at 17:38:40
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 16, 2004, at 21:37:27
In reply to Lou's closing argument- Dr. Hsiung's decision-12 » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on September 15, 2004, at 20:12:54
Ladies and gentlemen of the forum,
I have shown you the language used by Mark Morford . But there is more. He continues with,"resist the great surges toward nihilism about the media, in seeking them all as either a {bunch of depressing snickering} {pansy-(expletive) (expletive) liberal {scum} or corperate-controlled sensationalistic (expletive) all parroting the same old pro-Shrub war stories and beating the same thudding pro-violence drum."
There are journalistic standards. To write like this about others IMO could be declared as journalistic hate-speech. But the words of a journalist are usually carfully chosen for a reason.
Lou Pilder
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/g/a/2002/10/18/notes101802.DTL
Posted by Gabbix2 on September 16, 2004, at 22:53:51
In reply to Gabbix2 liked your comment..thanks (nm), posted by Jai Narayan on September 16, 2004, at 20:21:12
Posted by SLS on September 17, 2004, at 8:03:33
In reply to Lou's respons to Dr. Hsiung's decision 388469LS » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on September 12, 2004, at 16:45:58
Hi Lou.
I'm not the smartest guy in the world, but as I see it, disagreeing with the Old Testament does not equate to being anti-semitic any more than disagreeing with the New Testament makes one a hater of Christians. I doubt that you are a hater of Christians.
L’Shonah Tovah.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 17, 2004, at 8:11:39
In reply to Re: Lou's respons to Dr. Hsiung's decision 388469LS » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on September 17, 2004, at 8:03:33
SLS,
You wrote,[...disagreeing with the old testament does not equate to being antisemitic...].
The faith board has a stipulation that posts can not have the potewntial to put down those of other faiths. The statement that has been interpreted to mean that the god of the old testament is perhaps to be reeavaluated as not-so-divine is not IMO a statement of disagreement but a statement that arrouses others to consider thinking of the God in the old testament as "lesser" than another god, which puts down the god of the jews.
Shabott Shalom,
Lou
Posted by Larry Hoover on September 17, 2004, at 8:19:48
In reply to Lou's response to SLS » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on September 17, 2004, at 8:11:39
This seems to me to be a debate about the difference between the literal and the figurative. People are bound to have differences in that regard, and we see those differences, IMHO, in relative adherence to orthodoxy. Nobody is more than or less than, just different. Agree to disagree, or don't agree to disagree. Disagreement is not inherently a putdown, but the failure to agree to disagree can be inferentially a putdown, all by itself.
Lar
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 17, 2004, at 8:29:58
In reply to Lou's response to SLS » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on September 17, 2004, at 8:11:39
SLS,
You wrote,[...is a disagreement...].
If the statement that causes others to think that the god of the old testament perhaps should be reevaluated as not-so-divine is a call for others to think a particular way.
Thoughout history, others have called on others to think of jews in a particular way that was defaming to the jews. It is when others call for other to think in a lesser light about the jews that the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings occurs. These feelings promted by others to think of jews in a defaming manner is the foundation of antisemitism. The pharase, {not-so-divine} attacks the god of the jews. Attacks upon another's God is an attempt to deminish that God which puts down that God and those that have faith in that God. Are you saying that people can defame another's God and it is not hate-speech because it is a disagreement?
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 17, 2004, at 8:56:26
In reply to Re: my thoughts, posted by Larry Hoover on September 17, 2004, at 8:19:48
Larry Hoover,
You wrote,[...a failure to agree to disagree can be...a put down....].
Are you saying that I can not object here to have the statement deleted or admonished or redirected that writes, [...the God of the old testament... reevaluated perhaps as not-so-divine..]? I am giving my closing argument as to why I consider the statement a violation of the stated rules for the faith board as to not posting what could put down those of other faiths. Are you saying that the statement in question does not have the potential for others to see that the statement puts down another faith?Lou Pilder
Posted by Dinah on September 17, 2004, at 8:58:02
In reply to Lou's response to SLS-2 » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on September 17, 2004, at 8:29:58
But I can't say for certain, as I'm not as familiar with the thread as to be certain.
It always saddens me to see the "God of the Old Testament" referred to as anything but the "God of the New Testament". I can't imagine that that was the idea, because it would have been all too easy to scrap the Old Testament if that were true. While it is true that I am a semitophile, I feel similar distress at similar types of statements about the "God of Islam".
Isn't it possible, and on the Faith Board preferable, to phrase one's own spirituality in such a way as to not in any way put down the God or the faith or the spirituality of another?
I don't really want to get enbroiled in this. But I love God. The God of Israel and Isaac and Jesus. I am generally considered a pariah at church for saying just this sort of thing.
I understand that others feel differently.
Perhaps it would be helpful to conduct a poll of devout Jews only? Or perhaps I could locate a website of devout Jews and ask them to come comment on whether the thread is considered respectful to their faith and their God? I hate to speak for others, and perhaps they wouldn't be offended. I don't know that it would be easy to find a group who would be willing to comment, but there are several synagogues here, and perhaps I could bring the printouts to several rabbis and see if any of the more computer literate are willing to comment.
They may not be, however. I have called the local rabbi of the reform synagogue more than once to cry on his shoulder at my distress in Sunday School at hearing the Law and the "God of the Old Testament??" and similar things spoken of disrespectfully, and he always encourages me to continue to go to Sunday School.
Toph seems to have an idea of what I am trying to say, but less colored by my distress. Perhaps Toph would be willing to explain it more coherently than I can?
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 17, 2004, at 9:51:51
In reply to I think I agree with Lou, posted by Dinah on September 17, 2004, at 8:58:02
> It always saddens me to see the "God of the Old Testament" referred to as anything but the "God of the New Testament".
Was the "God of the Old Testament" referred to at all?
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20040729/msgs/388469.html
Bob
Posted by Toph on September 17, 2004, at 10:13:03
In reply to I think I agree with Lou, posted by Dinah on September 17, 2004, at 8:58:02
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 17, 2004, at 10:50:37
In reply to Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung for expungment-388469, posted by Lou Pilder on September 11, 2004, at 13:48:33
Dr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...does it mention the God of the old testament...].
It is the potential for others to think that the God of the old testament is being referrrred to by the author. The poster that posted it wrote that he/she thought so. That is evidence that the words chosen by Mark Medford lead others to believe that. Since the potential for that to be seen is there, it can br seen. It is my concern that others also could make that same observation and lead to some type of discussion that could have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings. Why not just post something to the post by the poster that responded to my request for clarification by writing that[... he/she thinks that it is the god of the old testament..]with something like [...please rephrase...] or [...this is not supportive...]? That way, his/her respomse would not be seen as the forum endorsing his/her response.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dinah on September 17, 2004, at 11:25:12
In reply to Re: references, posted by Dr. Bob on September 17, 2004, at 9:51:51
The reference was in a followup post by the poster of the original post, so I'm guessing that would be representative of the intent of the poster, if not the poet.
Posted by Dinah on September 17, 2004, at 11:26:49
In reply to Re: references, posted by Dr. Bob on September 17, 2004, at 9:51:51
But the keywords in the poem also make it more likely than not that that was also the intent of the poet.
Posted by gardenergirl on September 17, 2004, at 11:51:00
In reply to Lou's response to SLS » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on September 17, 2004, at 8:11:39
Against my better judgement, I feel the need to post to this thread...
Lou Pilder wrote:
> The faith board has a stipulation that posts can not have the potewntial to put down those of other faiths.Actually, neither the faith board description nor links provided on it use the word "potential" in their cautions. I think if the standard were to be that one must decide on posts' merits based on their "potential" to evoke feelings of any kind then that likely would go well beyond the moderator's ability and stamina to maintain. In addition, it would take the established civility standards into the realm of possible instead of actual, which is also difficult if not impossible to judge.
I'd like to add that whether a post has said potential is no less relevant than what is within the reader of the post. A post cannot evoke a feeling that is not already there in some degree. The opposite of feeling is indifference. If the reader of a post is indifferent, then nothing in the post can evoke a potential feeling. How do you judge, then just one side of the dynamic?
Thus, I believe that the post is within the civility guidelines as set forth by Dr. Bob. That does not mean that the post might not evoke certain feelings. Clearly it already has. But revising or sanctioning a post based on its *potential* for evoking feelings is not appropriate as I understand the rules of the Faith Board.
Regards,
gg
Posted by Dinah on September 17, 2004, at 12:08:20
In reply to Re: Lou's response to SLS » Lou Pilder, posted by gardenergirl on September 17, 2004, at 11:51:00
I fail to see how it is more offensive to say that "I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt have no other gods before me." than to say about someone's god "a cantankerous bearded patriarchal figure to please, oh yes, smite your enemies
might be a bit antiquated."Similar controversies have arisen on PBPsych, and I believe that Dr. Bob has finally come to the conclusion that respect is a necessary component to discussion. "a cantankerous bearded patriarchal figure to please, oh yes, smite your enemies might be a bit antiquated." doesn't appear to me to be all that respectful to my God.
Posted by Dinah on September 17, 2004, at 12:11:02
In reply to Re: But » gardenergirl, posted by Dinah on September 17, 2004, at 12:08:20
I have no illusions that I can change the hearts and minds of others, including Dr. Bob. I stated my position, affirmed my love for the Lord my God, and now withdraw from the discussion.
Carry on.
Posted by SLS on September 17, 2004, at 12:23:06
In reply to Lou's response to SLS » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on September 17, 2004, at 8:11:39
> The faith board has a stipulation that posts can not have the potewntial to put down those of other faiths.
Hi Lou.
I think the poem you are referring to could indeed be interpreted as an attack upon a belief system in that forum, and I think some acknowledgment of that possibility might be justified. However, I think the two of us disagree as to whether the content of the poem is anti-semitic. Even if you can prove the intent of the author as being so, it still does not make the words such as they are written. I hope you allow me to disagree with your interpretation of them. I can understand yours. Still, anti-semitism is not the issue. Belief systems are. If that remains the focus, perhaps some resolution can be found.
- Scott
Posted by Larry Hoover on September 17, 2004, at 12:38:46
In reply to Lou's respons to Larry Hoover » Larry Hoover, posted by Lou Pilder on September 17, 2004, at 8:56:26
> Larry Hoover,
> You wrote,[...a failure to agree to disagree can be...a put down....].
> Are you saying that I can not object here to have the statement deleted or admonished or redirected that writes, [...the God of the old testament... reevaluated perhaps as not-so-divine..]? I am giving my closing argument as to why I consider the statement a violation of the stated rules for the faith board as to not posting what could put down those of other faiths. Are you saying that the statement in question does not have the potential for others to see that the statement puts down another faith?Lou PilderYou ask complex questions, Lou. As such, I cannot answer. I can only re-express myself.
I do not see it as a put down of any faith, period. I see a convocation to the god within us all. The divine is more than an image.
Lar
Posted by gardenergirl on September 17, 2004, at 12:43:17
In reply to Re: But » gardenergirl, posted by Dinah on September 17, 2004, at 12:08:20
Dinah,
Your post makes a lot of sense to me. However, I was responding more to the construction of the argument rather than the content, which is why I prefaced it with my caveat. I guess I could have been more clear. I'm in no position to get involved in the specifics of the post's content. Just not my area. I just wanted to comment on what I perceived as a slippery area of Lou's argument. Perhaps I am reading the rules too literally, though.gg
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 17, 2004, at 13:15:25
In reply to Re: Lou's response to SLS » Lou Pilder, posted by gardenergirl on September 17, 2004, at 11:51:00
Gardengirl,
You wrote,[...the word "potential" is not used in the cautions of the rules...].
One rule states,[...do not ...anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down...].
I think that {could lead} is equivalant to {potential to}.
Lou
Posted by gardenergirl on September 17, 2004, at 14:41:27
In reply to Lou's response to gardengirl » gardenergirl, posted by Lou Pilder on September 17, 2004, at 13:15:25
Good point. I suppose that Dr. Bob attempts to determine the liklihood of a post leading to others' feeling put down or accused when making his decisions.
Regards,
gg
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.