Posted by Lou Pilder on January 12, 2014, at 11:55:13
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on January 10, 2014, at 22:46:32
> > I do not see that anyone needs to make any jump to the conclusion that unsanctioned posts are considered by you to be supportive and will be good for this community as a whole by you.
>
> I said that because other conclusions are possible. For example, readers could think that I was just not reading the board then.
>
> > Since it is your rule that the statement is not in accordance with, I can not post a repudiation to it for it is not my rule, but yours.
> > I will concede that you can post anything that could show that you do not want anti-Semitic statements and other statements that could put down those of other faiths to be seen by a subset of readers as supportive
>
> Here's another idea. I see 2 issues. Maybe we should deal with them separately:
>
> 1. What was said about you.
>
> You could repudiate that.
>
> 2. Whether a God that imposes burdens is a bad God.
>
> I could address whether saying a God imposes burdens is putting down that God. It seems that's one of the questions raised by the Book of Job:
>
> Misery
> by Joan Acocella
> December 16, 2013
> http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2013/12/16/131216crbo_books_acocella
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...I could address whether saying a God imposes burdens is putting down that God...].
You could address the post in question in the manner that you say that you could here. And I would like you to go ahead and post what you say you could, and then I could have the opportunity to post my response to you.
In the mean time, if you are preparing what you could post, I would like to go on to the other post that offers a link to anti-Semitic verses in John 5.
Lou Pilder
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:1050116
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20131217/msgs/1058405.html