![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 62 to 86 of 159. Go back in thread:
Posted by beardedlady on July 21, 2002, at 5:51:39
In reply to Re: Your patootie....Dinah, posted by shar on July 21, 2002, at 5:45:30
Posted by shar on July 21, 2002, at 5:53:48
In reply to Oh. Right. (nm) » shar, posted by beardedlady on July 21, 2002, at 5:51:39
Posted by shar on July 21, 2002, at 6:38:05
In reply to He shouldn't get away with this, posted by mair on July 20, 2002, at 12:44:21
> I support kiddo. She's right, Lou never said a word about her post being accusatory until Bob cautioned her. More importantly, there was nothing inherently accusatory in kiddo's post...
Mair, I agree with what you've written. However, I've gotten confused because
(1) The PBC by Dr. Bob to Kiddo said "but I don't think it's supportive here to imply that there's only one "right" road..."
Then,
(2) Lou responded "My concern is that your posts, to me, go over the line and constitute anti-Semitic rhetoric. I base that on the same post that Dr. Bob flagged *and* your other post about your accusation that the pharisees were hypocrites...etc." [emphasis mine]
(3) Unless I am mistaken, Dr. Bob only said (in essence) 'don't say that your way is the one right way.' He never said anything at all about other posts, or what they implied, or how they might be understood or misunderstood, or that there was something inherently anti-Semitic in any post.
So,
(4) I believe Lou has attributed to Dr. Bob some agreement with Lou's stance (for example, Lou's statement "to be some kind of implied condemnation to the pharisees, to me, for , and Dr. Bob agrees") when I don't find that anywhere. Dr. Bob's statement was quite clear and clearly limited to the no-one-right-way idea, I thought.I have reread the posts, and imo the original PBC got turned into something it is not, and that most of the discussion does not center around the point of the PBC.
I also think this is either a lose-lose situation, or people will just have to agree to disagree about an interpretation of the bible parts, and, I hope, come to a gracious end.
Shar
Posted by beardedlady on July 21, 2002, at 7:59:46
In reply to Have a nice trip, BL... (nm) » beardedlady, posted by shar on July 21, 2002, at 5:53:48
Posted by Dinah on July 21, 2002, at 8:01:17
In reply to Re: Your patootie....Dinah, posted by shar on July 21, 2002, at 5:45:30
Thank you for expressing it better than I did.
And thank you for understanding.
Posted by Dinah on July 21, 2002, at 8:24:27
In reply to Re: He shouldn't get away with this, posted by shar on July 21, 2002, at 6:38:05
Posted by beardedlady on July 21, 2002, at 8:27:48
In reply to Have a nice trip, BL... (nm) » beardedlady, posted by shar on July 21, 2002, at 5:53:48
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 21, 2002, at 10:12:16
In reply to Re: He shouldn't get away with this, posted by shar on July 21, 2002, at 6:38:05
Shar,
I am referring to Kiddo's posts in total. Dr. Bob only flagged the one part about the "wrong" road, "right" road . But to me, all of Kiddo's post are of one thought and I believe that the total thought of those posts "cross the line into anti_Semitic rhetoric." I have read and reread Kiddo's post and I deduce from them that:
1) Only people that are "in accordance to the word", and Kiddo's jesus was defined as the word, were on the right road, and all others were on the "wrong" road . So it is unmistakable that Kiddo's posts imply, to me, that jews are on the wrong road because jews do not accept the new testament or the jesus that Kiddo is referring to as the word. Now me and Dr. Bob agree that that is not acceptable on this board because of the reasons stated by him. Dr, Bob did not block Kiddo, but only flagged the post to say at that point that Kiddo should reevaluate her direction with the thought, in total ,that she was presenting, IMO.
2) Also, I deduce from Kiddo's post that the jews in history were against the jesus that Kiddo is talking about because of the defamation of the religiuos jewish leaders as "hypocrites" and that they did not accept that the jesus that Kiddo is talking about did his works, by the power of God , but by Beelzabub, which Kiddo has aknowleged to be the satanic. Actually, the bible passage that Kiddo is citing is much more than what is presented here. I offered a historical background as to the history of Beelzabub , but no one asked me to post it.
3) Also, I posted the edict by Queen Isabel of Spain that expelled the jews from Spain in 1492. I posted that as educaton to show that historically, similar thought as Kiddo postd was used to persecute the jewish people and that is one of the reasons that I thought that Kiddo's posts were rhetoric that was crossing into anti-Semitic thought. Now I do not believe that anyone here is anti-Semitic. When people post these type of posts, I view them as innocent posts for I believe that when they post them, they know not what they do. It is my position to stop the posts from getting out of control, so I object to them, for I believe that if these type of posts were not flagged by Dr. Bob, that they would have the opportunity to arrouse real anti-
Semitic feelings toward me with posters demanding my expulsion, with posters posting links to anti_Semitic web sites, with posters using epithets and profane language toward me, with posters citing bible passage that defame jewish people, maufacturing falsehoods about me, conspiering with others to ostracise me, post responses to me to not answer their posts, accuse me of not answering them, posting that I should not be allowed to get away with it, etc. etc. until I would be forced to leave.
4) another aspect of this, although it is not going into the rhelm of anti-Semitism, is the position that Kiddo takes in regards to people not knowing God. It appears to me that what was attempted to be put forth was that people can only know God through reading the new testament. I may be wrong about what Kiddo was trying to say in that post of hers about the people that did not know God, and I am asking Kiddo, if she reads this post of mine, to clarify what she meant by that post so that I would be better able to understand it and, perhaps, discuss it further with her.
Thamks,
Lou
Posted by mair on July 21, 2002, at 10:39:16
In reply to Re: He shouldn't get away with this, posted by shar on July 21, 2002, at 6:38:05
Shar
The point I was tryng to make is that the post that Dr. Bob flagged was written by Kiddo on July 18. Lou posted 3 or 4 more times after that on the 18th, and all of these posts were directed to kiddo. He did not raise the anti-semitism issue until the next day, after Dr. Bob's admonishment. I think it's an after-the-fact rationalization to say that he was already thinking of raising this issue before Bob ever flagged it. However, this may be appropos of nothing other than perhaps Dr. Bob fuels Lou with his cautions to other posters.
My other point however is that I find very little difference between calling someone an anti-semite and accusing them of using anti-semitic rhetoric. Anti-semitism is such a loaded issue - I don't care whether he thought his post was being instructive or whatever - if you use that word in reference to something someone has said, they can't help but be offended.
In spite of the fact that I took almost as many religion courses in college as I needed to have it be my major, I have little patience with or interest in discussing the finer points of the Bible, and should probably stay out of these discussions. I just really thought that Lou followed kiddo over here to the admin Board, not the other way around, and chose to respond to her post to Dr. Bob with a post that one could easily take as accusatory. Posters here are constantly being told by Bob not to read things Lou writes that may upset them or to not respond to him unless they can find a way (frequently strained) to say it in a way that no human being could possibly find to be accusatory or unsupportive. My personal opinion is that Lou says and does alot of things on the Board that can really be construed as being quite inflammatory, the post in question being but one example. Do you think that the last upteen posts on this thread would ever have occurred had Lou not responded to Kiddo's post to Dr. Bob?
Mair
Posted by krazy kat on July 21, 2002, at 10:58:01
In reply to Lou's resonse to Shar's post » shar, posted by Lou Pilder on July 21, 2002, at 10:12:16
I am only posting here in very rare cases, in case hrtlm wants to make a comment again about my just going, and have kept out of this thread because I can guess where it is going to end up. No one is going to win.
But as it seems to get deeper and deeper into a criticism of Kiddo and her beliefs, I decided I'd like to post my support. I won't get into the discussion beyond this post for the same reasons I left, but I do want her to know I'm thinking of her in this respect. Someone mentioned casualities from debate in general here - that's actually a good term for those who have decided to seek support elsewhere, and if I were Kiddo, this would really tempt me to do just that.
I don't understand why some Jews from Christ's time can't be critized - they were Jews. So was Christ. So was his Mother. So were the apostles - all wonderful Jews. I'm part German. I am well aware that there have been good Germans and bad Germans in the world. In fact I have to deal with the fact that there were some damn bad ones... and it is hard at times to come from a people who could be so gullible and tyranical.
I wish that Lou would explain one thing - why everything he is describing (and I mean Everything I have read) is in Revelations? He is quoting Christ. Just as I would be quoting Gandhi if I said "Truth is my religion and ahimsa is the only way of its realisation." If I said I experienced this, and then found out that Gandhi had actually said this, I would wonder if perhaps I had read it somewhere and it had popped up at a later date.
And re: beliefs and choosing the right road -- someone said that it was the way Kiddo phrased it. Yes, O.K. In keeping with analyzing everything that is posted here so that No One will be offended, I agree. But the very essense of "faith" is a "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" and "something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs".
Therefore, if you believe that the way to heaven, or eternal bliss, or whatever, is through Christ, there can be no other way. Otherwise you don't truly believe your conviction.
- KK
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 21, 2002, at 11:52:19
In reply to Re: He shouldn't get away with this, posted by mair on July 21, 2002, at 10:39:16
mair,
There is a difference, to me, of calling someone an anti-Semite and saying that what they have posted crosses, in my opinion, into anti-Semitic thought.
Once again, I am not calling Kiddo an anti-Semite. I am saying, like Dr. Bob was cautioning Kiddo, that the total thought that Kiddo was presenting could be construed as anti-Semitic rhetoric. I am only cautioning Kiddo that I believe that her thouht should be reconsidered, just as Dr. Bob has said, for it is encroaching into the area of historical anti-Semitic propaganda. I am simply trying to ward off the rest of what , historically, has been said in the thought that Kiddo is presenting. If I do not object at this point, then I beleive that the other historical things that have followed that type of thought,(the jews are not saved because they do not beleive in jesus....etc. etc..) could be posted, perhaps innocently, by another poster. I believe that Dr. Bob was doing Kiddo a favor by saying that she should stop and reevealuate the "right and wrong" road thought that she was presenting. I have had this happen to me on another board and some other places and the moderators would not stop it and it went on to include posts and statements to me in email like the following :
You are to "be gone" from this board for you are jewish and jews do not believe in our jesus so you are of the devil because anyone that does not have the spirit of our jesus is of the anti-christ.
Only membes of Catholisism are saved
Only members of Jahovah's witnesses are saved
The jews killed christ so jews should be persecuted
This is a Christian country, you get out
jews are dirty and cause epidemics
jews reject their own massiah
jewish doctors give AIDS to some
The jews control the media
All jews are going to hell because they do not accept christ
jews can not reach God in prayer because they can only reach God in prayer if the prayer is in the name of jesus.
Albert Einstien and the jews that developed vacines for polio are in hell because they did not accept christ.
Now , once again, I am not calling anyone an anti-Semite. I am simply objecting to thought th at is written here that could be construed by others to be anti-Semitic and if I do not object and want it stopped, then I would be allowing it to go further and I am taking the position here that I will try to stop people from going over that line of thought that could lead to the above examples. I posted Queen Isabel's edict to show , historically, what could happen . I believe that if the Spainish people would have objected to the Queen's edict, that perhaps, the edict would have been withdrawn. But, the people were threatened with death if they harbored a jewish person so that would make it difficult to do so.
Now if the question is whether or not I am accusing Kiddo of being an anti-Semite, then please put it to rest for I am not doing so. I realise that a lot of the Christiandom churches teach what Kiddo writes. And I believe that you all know by now that I believe, from my experiance, that others that are not members of christiandom or any other religion can receive The Crown of Life and have never heard the name of jesus and enter The City of Peace and be with God forever.
Lou
Posted by fachad on July 21, 2002, at 13:52:15
In reply to support for Kiddo..., posted by krazy kat on July 21, 2002, at 10:58:01
> I wish that Lou would explain one thing - why everything he is describing (and I mean Everything I have read) is in Revelations? He is quoting Christ...if I said I experienced this, and then found out that Gandhi had actually said this, I would wonder if perhaps I had read it somewhere and it had popped up at a later date.
The technical term for this phenomenon is cryptomnesia. From a dictionary definition:
"Cryptomnesia is, literally, hidden memory. The term is used to explain the origin of experiences that people believe to be original but which are actually based on memories of events they've forgotten."
"Cryptomnesia may also explain how the apparent plagiarism of such people as Helen Keller or George Harrison of the Beatles might actually be cases of hidden memory. Harrison didn't intend to plagiarize the Chiffon's "He's So Fine" in "My Sweet Lord." Nor did Keller intend to plagiarize Margaret Canby's "The Frost Fairies" when she wrote "The Frost King." Both may simply be cases of not having a conscious memory of their experiences of the works in question."
It can be very frustrating to a person who has had (subjectively) genuine mystical experiences to have a skeptical person point out exact similarities to some historical document. But it also could be viewed as validating their experiences because they are in agreement with a recognized mystical tradition. Or it could be viewed as a valid experience with elements shaped by cryptomnesia. Either way it does not necessarily have mean they are being insincere.
Posted by ctrlaltndel on July 21, 2002, at 17:04:06
In reply to The Technical Term is Cryptomnesia » krazy kat , posted by fachad on July 21, 2002, at 13:52:15
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 21, 2002, at 17:40:49
In reply to support for Kiddo..., posted by krazy kat on July 21, 2002, at 10:58:01
Krazy Kat,
You wrote that you could not understand why jews from christ's time could not be criticised.
Now I read the posts in question and it is my belief that the posts were depicting the jews as enemys of christ. This depiction has historically been used to arouse anti-Semitic feelings toward the jewish people. It is my posistion on this board to protest those type of statements and I do not believe that since there is a book that uses those phrases that those phrases can be used ligitimatly on this board, even if that book is the bible, whether it be the old or new testaments.
Lou
Posted by kiddo on July 21, 2002, at 18:01:04
In reply to Lou's response to mair's post, posted by Lou Pilder on July 21, 2002, at 11:52:19
I am saying, like Dr. Bob was cautioning Kiddo, that the total thought that Kiddo was presenting could be construed as anti-Semitic rhetoric.
PLEASE TELL ME WHERE DR. BOB SAID THIS??????? ASKING ME TO BE SUPPORTIVE, AND SAYING THERE IS ONLY ONE ROAD IS A LOT DIFFERENT THAN TELLING ME WHAT I'M SAYING IS ANTI-SEMITIC RHETORIC.
Posted by kiddo on July 21, 2002, at 18:05:45
In reply to Re: support for Kiddo... » krazy kat , posted by Lou Pilder on July 21, 2002, at 17:40:49
the posts were depicting the jews as enemys of christ.........
WRONG!!!!!!! I WAS QUOTING SCRIPTURE. YOU NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT NOT USING THE NEW TESTAMENT....THE PEOPLE I WAS TALKING ABOUT-NOT ALL JEWISH.
ARE YOU TRYING TO CENSOR MY FREEDOM OF SPEECH, AS YOU SO OFTEN SAY? (PARAPHRASED)
FORGET IT, ALRIGHT? YOU CAN'T HAVE A DISCUSSION AROUND HERE
Posted by kiddo on July 21, 2002, at 18:10:48
In reply to Re: support for Kiddo... » krazy kat , posted by Lou Pilder on July 21, 2002, at 17:40:49
It is my posistion on this board to protest those type of statements and I do not believe that since there is a book that uses those phrases that those phrases can be used ligitimatly on this board, even if that book is the bible, whether it be the old or new testaments.
> LouI DIDN'T KNOW YOUR POSITION ON THE BOARD CHANGED? DO YOU THINK THE FAITH BOARD BELONGS TO YOU????
YOU CAN NOW BELIEVE GET OUT YOUR BIBLE, KING JAMES VERSION TO MATTHEW 12:24:
BUT WHEN THE PHARISEES HEARD IT, THEY SAID, THIS FELLOW DOTH NOT CAST OUT DEVILS, BUT BY BEELZEBUB THE PRINCE OF THE DEVILS....
Posted by Dinah on July 21, 2002, at 19:16:21
In reply to Dinah Rose (-Colored Glasses?) » Dinah, posted by beardedlady on July 20, 2002, at 15:24:29
But to explain that statement I need to go to the Faith Board, because it really isn't administrative. And while it could be social, I would rather err on the side of the faith board.
If you're interested (and even if you're not), I'm starting a thread on why I need to thank you on the Faith board.
Smiles,
Dinah
Posted by krazy kat on July 21, 2002, at 19:36:08
In reply to Re: support for Kiddo... » krazy kat , posted by Lou Pilder on July 21, 2002, at 17:40:49
you've only addressed a small piece of my post.
Are you anti-Bible? Based on your statements, your road is irrelevant since there are many roads to "heaven" or that concept -- why choose your road over another then?
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 21, 2002, at 21:45:13
In reply to Re: Lou's response to mair's post, posted by kiddo on July 21, 2002, at 18:01:04
Kiddo,
I am saying that Dr. Bob cautioned you to reconsider your thought about the "wrong" , "right" road . Then I wrote that your total thought, to me, was crossing the line and going into anti-Semitic rhetoric. I base that on the history of anti-Semitism and the fact that your posts:
1. use defaming language toward the jewish leaders in the time of the jesus that you are referring to when you called the pharisees "hypocrites". You did not give a biblical reference when you wrote that and I have posted elseware that even if the pharisees are called hypocrites in the bible, that doesn't, to me, make it a ligitimate post it on this board. The referrence to the jews attributng the works of the jesus that you are refering to , to Beelzebub by the jewish leaders is a phrase that has been used historically in anti-Semitic rhetoric. The people that use that say that the jews thearfor are the enemys of the jesus that you are referring to .
Now Dr. Bob told you not to post that anyone was on the wrong road. You said that if it "is not in accordance with the word, and the jesus that you are refering to is the word, then it is "wrong". That thought has been used for 2000 years to imply that anyone that is not a member of christiandom is on the wrong road. And jews are not members of christiandom.
Now I agree with Dr. Bob in his flagging of your post for his stated reasons. I posted that I have my own reasons for objecting to the total of your posts and my reasons are separate from Dr. Bob's reasons.
So Dr. Bob did not say to you that the post that he flagged was anti-Semitic rhetoric. I said that the post in question *and* the rest of your posts in total were crossing the line into that area.
I hope that I have explained this satisfactory , and if you want more clarification from me, I would be glad to hear from you.
Best regards,
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 21, 2002, at 21:49:13
In reply to Re: support for Kiddo... » Lou Pilder, posted by kiddo on July 21, 2002, at 18:05:45
Kiddo,
You said that you were quoting scripture about the pharisees and Beelzebub.
I do not remember that there was a biblical citation attached to that statement of yours. Couldy ou look back at your post again and examine it to see if there is a biblical refference cited by you?
Thanks,
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 21, 2002, at 22:00:40
In reply to Re: support for Kiddo... » Lou Pilder, posted by kiddo on July 21, 2002, at 18:10:48
Kiddo,
The type of statements are te ones that defame jews, like calling the scribes and pharisees "hypocries " and saying that they attributed the works of the jesus that you are referring to to the devil and that... people are on the wrong road...
I do not know the bible and my experiance is what I remember what was said by the Rider and others. I am not quoting the bible. I am saying what I remember what was said to me.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 21, 2002, at 22:36:30
In reply to what about the good Jews in the Bible... - Lou, posted by krazy kat on July 21, 2002, at 19:36:08
Kiddo,
You said that my road is irelevant and that there are many roads to heaven or the concept of heaven. Then you asked why choose the Road?
I am not attempting to make people choose a road. I am telling what I experianced. But I do not know what you meant by the Road being irrelavant. Could you clarify what you mean by the Road being irrelavant? If you do, then I wil have a better understanding of your thought and will be better able to discuss more with you.
Thanks,
Lou
Posted by kiddo on July 21, 2002, at 22:49:14
In reply to Lou's response to Kiddo's post » kiddo, posted by Lou Pilder on July 21, 2002, at 21:45:13
> Kiddo,
> I am saying that Dr. Bob cautioned you to reconsider your thought about the "wrong" , "right" road . Then I wrote that your total thought, to me, was crossing the line and going into anti-Semitic rhetoric. I base that on the history of anti-Semitism and the fact that your posts:
You are welcome to have your opinion, just as I am allowed to have mine. I posted scripture from the BIBLE, spoken by Pharisees about Jesus, who was also born a Jew.I don't feel I am crossing the line. I posted Bible on a Faith BOARD....Where it belongs. There have been things that you post that have offended others, yet Dr. Bob allows you to continue...I realize it's your experience, the Bible is mine, alright?
I do believe in God, I believe in the Bible-all of it, not just the New Testament, or just the Old Testament, all of it, and I've seen posts from those who don't believe, but I don't go bashing them over it as I feel you are doing to me.
> 1. use defaming language toward the jewish leaders in the time of the jesus that you are referring to when you called the pharisees "hypocrites". You did not give a biblical reference when you wrote that and I have posted elseware that even if the pharisees are called hypocrites in the bible, that doesn't, to me, make it a ligitimate post it on this board. The referrence to the jews attributng the works of the jesus that you are refering to , to Beelzebub by the jewish leaders is a phrase that has been used historically in anti-Semitic rhetoric. The people that use that say that the jews thearfor are the enemys of the jesus that you are referring to .I used no defaming language...I quoted scripture. I didn't call them hypocrites, please read again. The pharisees accused Jesus of using the works of Beelzebub....and that has been historically Bible for the past 2000, not 'rhetoric' as you put it. Well, I guess that doesn't fit me at all then does it, because I never ONCE said they were enemies of Jesus, besides, you don't even believe in MY Jesus (from what it seems) so what does it matter if they ARE enemies of a man you don't even believe in?
> Now Dr. Bob told you not to post that anyone was on the wrong road. You said that if it "is not in accordance with the word, and the jesus that you are refering to is the word, then it is "wrong". That thought has been used for 2000 years to imply that anyone that is not a member of christiandom is on the wrong road. And jews are not members of christiandom.
That is what he asked me not to say....THAT POST!!!!! I haven't said anything of the sort since then. I posted this original post to Dr. Bob, the question was for him. You have a right to your opinion, and belief. That is MY belief Lou, you asked questions, I answered them. I won't get into another Faith post with you, ok?> Now I agree with Dr. Bob in his flagging of your post for his stated reasons. I posted that I have my own reasons for objecting to the total of your posts and my reasons are separate from Dr. Bob's reasons.
Now you are free to agree with Dr. Bob, I agree with him too, my mistake was in not saying it was my belief, ok? For the record, I BELIEVE THAT.
> So Dr. Bob did not say to you th
at the post that he flagged was anti-Semitic rhetoric. I said that the post in question *and* the rest of your posts in total were crossing the line into that area.Fine, and you are free to feel that way. I don't feel that way, so please don't ask me about it again.
> I hope that I have explained this satisfactory , and if you want more clarification from me, I would be glad to hear from you.
> Best regards,
> LouNo, you've repeated the same thing that you've said before, IN MY OPINION. I don't want to discuss this with you further.
Posted by kiddo on July 21, 2002, at 23:02:06
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Kiddo's post » Lou Pilder, posted by kiddo on July 21, 2002, at 22:49:14
I'm not going to reply to anymore messages on this or Faith, except Dr. Bob if the need arises.
Thanks-
Kiddo
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.