![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 44 to 68 of 194. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 22, 2002, at 19:46:15
In reply to Lou, Lou, Lou.., posted by NikkiT2 on October 22, 2002, at 16:04:42
NikkiT2,
You asked me to please consider your post. I consider all posts here valuable and I am considering it as you have requested.
There is disagreement here , now. And reasonable men and women can disagree. Disagreeing is a natural aspect of communication.
You wrote that "Dr. Bob pointed out..."
I do not consider anyone infallible,including myself. I like what ISO M said, when she said that all of us have come short of hitting the target all of the time. We are all far from being infallible.
So NikkiT2, let us let some time run between us and , perhaps, either I or you may see things in a different light. Untill then,
Peace be upon you,
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 22, 2002, at 20:03:48
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by oracle on October 22, 2002, at 17:53:55
Oracle,
Good evening. I read your post and I was looking forward to having a discussion with you because you have posted some other posts that were intriguing to me.
In regards to the discusson at hand, do you have anything that you could post to enlighten our perspectives about this disagreement? If you could post anything , I would appreciate it for I consider your input valuable, and all others also.
Lou
Posted by tina on October 23, 2002, at 7:38:24
In reply to Re: Telling of your faith does not put down others » tina, posted by Lou Pilder on October 22, 2002, at 9:41:26
I have explained very succinctly the general objection to the word "fools" as it was used in YOUR post and will not elaborate further simply because it isn't necessary.
Posted by tina on October 23, 2002, at 7:39:52
In reply to Re: please be civil » tina, posted by Dr. Bob on October 22, 2002, at 16:15:35
Posted by NikkiT2 on October 23, 2002, at 7:46:07
In reply to Lou's response to NikkiT2's post » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on October 22, 2002, at 19:46:15
I don't need time as I am not angry. I am just trying to poin tout that no one attcked you for your views on god or your experience, just for calling poeple fools.
Please try to understand this.
Nikki
Posted by mair on October 23, 2002, at 7:51:48
In reply to Re: I won't be baited » Lou Pilder, posted by tina on October 23, 2002, at 7:38:24
I think (my opinion only), that you were being baited and I applaud your restrained response.
Mair
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 23, 2002, at 8:23:53
In reply to Re: Lou's response to NikkiT2's post » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on October 23, 2002, at 7:46:07
NikkiT2,
There is disagreement , now, not about what the Rider, who is The Word of God in my experince, said to the man that said that there is no God, but about whether or not I will be restrained to say that the Rider, who is The Word of God in my experiance, said to me, "you shall have no other Gods before me."
I disagree with the moderator's position to restrain me from posting that , for I beleive that others are allowed here to post that they believe in the father, the son, and the holy ghost without restraint upon them and that I will be restrained if I post that my religion requirers Me to believe in only one God. There are other religions besides judaism that also believe in only one God. I do not asking for special rights, but (equal) rights and I am objecting to the fact that I have been told that I will be restrained from posting that I have been told that I must believe in only one God.
I am not telling people here that believe in many Gods that the can not do that. I am not telling people here that they can not beleive that God in what christiandom calls a "trinity". I am not telling people here that they can not beleve in no God at all. Dr. Bob quoted the bible in one of his posts. I am not restraing him from posting what the word of God said to him or others that quote their bible here.
Someone here recently quoted the bible," For with the heart one exercises faith for rightiousness..." No one is trying to restrain that poster from posting that. She has a God-given right, an American-right and a human right to express what she believes about her God without beng accused of disrespecting others , and I am saying that so do I.
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on October 23, 2002, at 8:28:49
In reply to Re: Lou's response to NikkiT2's post » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on October 23, 2002, at 8:23:53
OK, one final time.
You were not told to stop saying the stuff about only one god. You were not told to stop posting your experience.
You *were* asked not to post stuff that others might feel offended by, such as calling those that don't believe in god fools.
You called *me* a fool. You called others fools.
That is all this is about. Nothing more.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 23, 2002, at 8:41:21
In reply to Re: Lou's response to NikkiT2's post, posted by NikkiT2 on October 23, 2002, at 8:28:49
nikkiT2,
I'm sorry, but the disagreement , now, here, is about that I will be restrained from posting that the Rider said to me, "You shall have no other Gods before me", and I object to being restrained from posting what the Word of God said to me, who is the Rider, and others are not restrained in quotng their bible verses, including Dr. Bob.
It is plainly visible on this thread and you can look at the posts in front of your post here to see them. You can also examine the faith board and read the posts of those posting their bible quotes. At your request, I will compile a list of URLs for your viewing to show you what is involved in this disagreement.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on October 23, 2002, at 9:01:18
In reply to Re: Lou's response to NikkiT2's post » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on October 23, 2002, at 8:23:53
Lou, I'm confused. Can you show me the link to where Dr. Bob said you couldn't say that the Rider said to you that you should have no other gods before god?
All I saw was the please be civil about the statement containing the word "fools". It would be very helpful to me if you could link the other limitation you are speaking of.
Actually, I think you must have been doing very well staying within Dr. Bob's guidelines because you were able to post quite a long thread about your experiences without any objection at all from Dr. Bob. Until the "fools" quote.
So I am really really confused as to why you think Dr. Bob is not allowing you to post your experience.
Just a simple link to where he said that is all I need to clarify it for me. But without that link, I am totally lost.
Dinah
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 23, 2002, at 9:07:08
In reply to Re: Lou's response to NikkiT2's post » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on October 23, 2002, at 9:01:18
Dinah,
Below is tha link from Dr. Bob saying that he will restrain me from saying that my God told me not to have any other Gods before Him:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020918/msgs/7716.html
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on October 23, 2002, at 9:17:41
In reply to Re: Lou's response to NikkiT2's post » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on October 23, 2002, at 8:41:21
No Lou, you misunderstand.
No one objected to you saying "Rider said to me, "You shall have no other Gods before me". Not one single person as I can see, and yes, I have read all the posts on this thread, and in the faith board.
What we objected to was you saying "The Rider turned to us and said, "Only a fool, in his heart, says that there is no God."
They are very different statements.
If someone else had posted saying their god had said this, or their gods messenger or who ever, I would have been offended then too.
I hope you now understand.
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 23, 2002, at 9:30:28
In reply to Re: Lou's response to NikkiT2's post, posted by NikkiT2 on October 23, 2002, at 9:17:41
NikkiT2,
Dr. Bob has posted that if I say that I should have no other Gods befor me, that he has a rule that restrains me from saying that ab=nd he will accuse me of being disrespectfull and I am disagreeing with him because he allows others , and himself, to quote the bible which christiandom people consider to be The Word of God and they are not accused of being disrespectfull. I object to Dr. Bobs applying his rule to me and not to the bible quoting people, and I have requested for him to provide me with his rational that makes that descrimination.
The link is in the post above this post that I answered Dinah's request to post the link to. It has Dr. Bob aswering my queston to whether or not I will be restrained from posting that I was told to have no other Gods before me.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on October 23, 2002, at 9:35:40
In reply to Lou answers Dinah's request » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on October 23, 2002, at 9:07:08
Thank you Lou. Now I understand. It was this quote from Dr. Bob
"Yes, that's a constraint at PBF."
Now you see, I wouldn't have guessed that. I would have guessed that it would be ok to say that the rider told you to have no other gods before God.
I would have guessed it would not be OK to say anyone who had other gods before God would not go to heaven, or was cursed, or something like that.
I would have guessed that the first was just recounting an experience, without saying anything insulting to anyone else, while the second would obviously be a put down of polytheistic people (or atheistic people).
Well, that shows you what my guesses are worth, and it does show the inherent limitations of the faith board.
I wonder if it would be ok to say "I believe that there is but one God, and that I should have no other gods before him." Perhaps it was the imperative that Dr. Bob objected to.
Dr. Bob, could you clarify this matter?
Is it not ok to say "The rider told me that there was one God and I should have no Gods before him." even if there is no statement of what is thought of people who choose to have other gods before God, or choose to not believe in God?
If it isn't ok, would it be ok if it was stated as a belief rather than an imperative. Is that the problem with the statement?
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 23, 2002, at 10:03:28
In reply to Re: Dinah requests clarification from Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on October 23, 2002, at 9:35:40
Dinah,
Thank you for your reply that you are concerned about this disagreement that I am having with the Administration here.
But I must tell you that I am not going to post something that the Rider, who is The word of God in my experiance, said to me, that is different from what was said to me. For (me) to do so would be for (me) to commit spiritual adultery by denying what was said to me. Would you want ISO W to say something other than what her Word of God said to her? Would you want the poster that said that she belives in the father, the son, and the holy ghost to say anything different than that?
I am not ashamed of the good news that was revealed to me in my experiance by the Rider, who is the Word of God in my experiance, and I am not going to adulterate what ws said to me to please anyone.
The concept of marriage requiers allegiance to each other. There is the concept of adultery. In my faith, it was revealed to me by the Rider, who is The Word of God in my experiance, that I would be commiting spiritual adultery if I embraced other Gods. I am not saying that those that beleive in God can not embrace other Gods. I am not saying that the people that believe in No God can not beleive in a God. What I am saying is that I object to anyone accusing me of disrespecting others because I am a jew that believes in one God and that God says,to jews, amd myself, that He will be like a husband to them, and that gioing after other Gods is spiritual adultery to us, which is idolatry to us. There are other religions beside judaism that hold the same concept.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on October 23, 2002, at 11:07:51
In reply to Lou's response to Dinah's post » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on October 23, 2002, at 10:03:28
Oh no, Lou. I wasn't asking you to. I just thought your question was a valid one, and sometimes find the finer points of what is allowed to be a bit ambiguous, so I was asking clarification from Dr. Bob.
I don't know that I will ever have a similar situation come up in my own posting, but if I do, I would like to know what would be allowed, and any ambiguity cleared up. As I said, I guessed wrong on this one, and would like to know what was allowed if it should ever come up for me. Ambiguity always makes me a bit nervous.
I've asked similar questions about other posts where I was confused at the parameters of what was permissable.
Dinah
Posted by tina on October 23, 2002, at 15:22:26
In reply to Re: I won't be baited » tina, posted by mair on October 23, 2002, at 7:51:48
I am also rather proud of myself. :)
hope you're having a good day
tina
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 23, 2002, at 16:23:37
In reply to Re: please be civil--sorry (nm) » Dr. Bob, posted by tina on October 23, 2002, at 7:39:52
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 23, 2002, at 16:25:34
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dinah's post » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on October 23, 2002, at 11:07:51
Dinah,
Thank you for saying that my question was a valid one and that you are also intersted in clarification for it could, possibly, affect your posting in the future.
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 23, 2002, at 16:37:52
In reply to Re: Dinah requests clarification from Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on October 23, 2002, at 9:35:40
> Now you see, I wouldn't have guessed that. I would have guessed that it would be ok to say that the rider told you to have no other gods before God.
>
> I would have guessed it would not be OK to say anyone who had other gods before God would not go to heaven, or was cursed, or something like that.Hmm, fair enough, I take back what I said, sorry I got carried away, and thanks for the input.
Bob
Posted by IsoM on October 23, 2002, at 16:48:52
In reply to Re: clarification, posted by Dr. Bob on October 23, 2002, at 16:37:52
So does that mean if anyone says such-and-such says "..." OR that I experienced someone telling me "..." it would be okay? But if one was to say something DIRECTLY themself, that's what's wrong?
Your short reply to Dinah isn't quite clear what is & what isn't allowable.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 23, 2002, at 17:33:12
In reply to Re: clarification » Dr. Bob, posted by IsoM on October 23, 2002, at 16:48:52
ISO M,
I share your concerns for clarification in regards to expressing your faith here. My model would be based on the following principles:
1) That telling of your faith does not disrespect others.
This means that when someone tells me of their Christiandom faith, that I am to be tolerant and know that it is their faith, and that I have my faith, and that my faith is no more disrespetfull to their faith than their faith is disrespctfull to mine. This is the principle of freedom of religion. I do not get offended or think that one is disrespecting me when another tells me that he is a polytheist, and I do expect, even here, that people do not accuse me of disrespect because I am a jew and believe in one God.
I welcome your quotes from your bible for it is my beleif that All scripture is God-inspirerd.
So my position is that anyone can express their faith and not have to be subjected to being accused of disrespect to others that believe a different way, or no way at all.
I would like to hear more bible quotes here. For I beleive that The Word of God does not come back void. It is the Water of Life. It is the Power to become The Sons of God.
Now if someone here does not want to beleive that, then I am not expecting that they have to, anymore than those that do not beleive, expect me to be like them.
So let freedom ring. Let those that are Christians praise their faith and I will love them. Let those that are jews praise their faith and I will love them. Let them that are Islamic people praise their faith and I will love them. Let them that are all the other faiths praise their faith and I will love them. Let those that are of no faith praise theres also, and I will love them. For God is not a relgion. God is Love.
Lou
Posted by IsoM on October 23, 2002, at 18:26:43
In reply to Lou's shared concerns with ISO M » IsoM, posted by Lou Pilder on October 23, 2002, at 17:33:12
Lou, I just want Bob to clarify his last comment, that's all. I don't wish to publicize my beliefs in these forums. As I said before, I don't think forums are a good place to discuss one's beliefs. But Bob's comment can be viewed in more than one way & I'm not sure which way he means. Nothing more. There's better ways to reach people, if that's one's goal, than through internet forums or boards.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 23, 2002, at 20:06:52
In reply to Re: clarification » Dr. Bob, posted by IsoM on October 23, 2002, at 16:48:52
Friends,
The next principle that I am suggesting for the faith board is:
(2)That any part of the person's faith can be expressed without being accused of disrespect or putting aothers down. This would include, but not limited to:
A)The writing of Any verse or passage from that person's faith book(s). This could be the bible, the koran, the tenach, the talmud,the Catholic book of catachisms, L.Ron Hubbards Dianetics, Mary Baker Edy's Key to the scriptures and her other writings, the Watchtower society publications, and any other written document. We should be tolerant and accept that what is quoted is from that person's faith and that does not disrespect other faiths anymore than the other faiths disrespect the one that quoted the passage. If anyone is allowed to accuse someone that expresses their faith as being disrespctfull to others that are not of that faith, or no faith at all, then we could not have any expression of faith at all!
To have freedom of religion means to not have to be accused by others of another faith, or no faith at all, of disrespecting them becaue they express their Faith . The church on one side of the street is not disrespecting the mosque on the other side of the stret any nore than the mosque on its side of the street is disrespecting the church on the other side of the street. All faiths have to be welcome here. If the moderators can not or will not honor all faiths here, then shutting down the faith board would be preferable to me than to have a board that does not welcome all faiths, or accuses a faith of disrespecting others because of what their faith beleives.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 23, 2002, at 20:16:56
In reply to Lou's suggested model for the faith board(2), posted by Lou Pilder on October 23, 2002, at 20:06:52
Friends,
The next suggestion that I have for the faith board is:
3) That the topic of the afterlife , according to that person's faith, be allowed to be expressed without restraint. This includes, but not limited to, the fate of the wicked, hell, the lake of fire, purgatory, Greek mythology, new age, heaven, the Kingdom of God, eternal death, anihliilation, reincarnation, karma, and anything else about the expression of that faith in relation to what happens after death.
Lou
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.