![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 4 to 28 of 53. Go back in thread:
Posted by alexandra_k on March 28, 2005, at 3:40:08
In reply to Re: guidelines and exceptions » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on March 28, 2005, at 3:08:05
> The problem with asking Lou to rephrase is that Lou is reporting an experience, not a belief. So he can't honestly say that he believes the Rider told him this or that. He has to say that the Rider told him this or that. But I don't see how it's offensive if the Rider told him, Lou, to do something or to believe something. That doesn't in any way follow that the Rider told everyone to do that. Especially if Lou made clear that he wasn't trying to say that the Rider's instructions applied to everyone.
FWIW I agree.
Posted by mair on March 28, 2005, at 6:05:09
In reply to Re: guidelines and exceptions » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on March 28, 2005, at 3:08:05
How many times did you have in mind for letting Lou relate his experience?
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 28, 2005, at 8:13:45
In reply to Re: guidelines and exceptions » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on March 28, 2005, at 3:08:05
> Couldn't the third pair of examples be removed?
>
> You've been moving in that direction anyway with your civility rulings. Saying things like "I think she meant that to apply to Christians" and things like that. Or "I think she meant that to apply to herself and Sue."
>
> There's not much of a leap from the one to the other.
>
> The problem with asking Lou to rephrase is that Lou is reporting an experience, not a belief. So he can't honestly say that he believes the Rider told him this or that. He has to say that the Rider told him this or that. But I don't see how it's offensive if the Rider told him, Lou, to do something or to believe something. That doesn't in any way follow that the Rider told everyone to do that. Especially if Lou made clear that he wasn't trying to say that the Rider's instructions applied to everyone.
>
> Besides, didn't you recently say that you were thinking of rethinking the Faith Board guidelines?
>
> I realize three o'clock in the morning isn't the time to make decisions, but maybe you could think of revising the guidelines to say things that apply to you or your group of believers is ok without actually using the word "believe", especially if you give a disclaimer.Dinah,
You wrote in your post above,[...couldn't the third pair of examples be removed?...].
There are tests to determine that. One test is ,[...is there a sound rational based on the same rationals as the first two pair of examples...]? Can there be a refereance from the same body that the other two examples are derived from? If not, then could the third pair of examples be an unsound mental health practice?
If not, then we could go to another test like,is the third pair of examples arbitrary, caprecious or discriminatory? If the third pair of examples could be determined as one or more of those, then could the examples be a sound mental-health practice?
Then we could go to another test as to if the rule to restrain what I would say has the effect of [...stilling the voice from the Jewish perspective...]. This could be determined in part by seeing if the perspective, let's say of Christianity is not stilled by allowing the foundation of Christianity to be not restrained here on links and quotes where the policy is that even quoting others does not overule the rule. It is my opinion that the allowing of ,[...{nothing but} the blood of Jesus can wash away my sins..],whether it be a quote of a song or not, is still posting,IMO, the foundation of Christinity. The poster writes that he/she likes the song, a favorite. If the poster did not like the song,a favorite, could the poster believe what the words say? Then could we determine if the song is posted so that what is written is for others to like also? If the poster did not want others to like what the song said,[...{nothing but} the blood of Jesus...]would he/she post it as a favorit Hymn?
Lou
Posted by Dinah on March 28, 2005, at 8:25:00
In reply to Lou's response to Dinah's post-remvex » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on March 28, 2005, at 8:13:45
Lou, I just meant exactly what I said. And I'm too tired to figure out what I didn't say.
If you'd rather I butt my nose out of the matter, I will. Just let me know.
Posted by Dinah on March 28, 2005, at 8:28:33
In reply to Re: guidelines and exceptions » Dinah, posted by mair on March 28, 2005, at 6:05:09
As much as he likes, I imagine.
I certainly hope Dr. Bob doesn't put a limit in how often I can relate therapy experiences. :-O
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 28, 2005, at 8:38:43
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dinah's post-remvex » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on March 28, 2005, at 8:25:00
Dinah,
You wrote, [...butt my nose out of the matter...].
I hope not, for if this is a concern of yours, then I think that it is worth going on to its logical conclusion.
Lou
Posted by alexandra_k on March 28, 2005, at 15:32:52
In reply to Lou's reply to Dinah-btnos » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on March 28, 2005, at 8:38:43
None of that follows from the 'nothing but the blood of Jesus' thing, Lou.
1) The poster didn't post the whole song - not even a link to the whole song.
2) The poster didn't say that they believed it.Once again you can only determine civility on the basis of what someone ACTUALLY DOES say. Not on the basis of trying to read their mind (which is a bit "1984")
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 28, 2005, at 16:29:33
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Dinah-btnos » Lou Pilder, posted by alexandra_k on March 28, 2005, at 15:32:52
a_k,
You wrote,[...not on the basis of trying to read their mind....]..
Was not the poster of the Hymn,[...{nothing but} the blood of Jesus can wash away my sins...] the same poster that wrote that they were in some way assosiated with evengelical christianity? A minister perhaps? And did not that same poster post a link to his/her church's web site?
If so, does the foundation of christianity have in it that the blood of Jesus is the only thing that can atone for {anyone's} sins?
And I did not see an answer to my request to the poster for clification. So is no answer an answer?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 28, 2005, at 16:37:49
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Dinah-btnos » Lou Pilder, posted by alexandra_k on March 28, 2005, at 15:32:52
s_k,
You wrote,[...the poster did not post the whole song, {not even a link....}...].
Could you click on the first offered link in the link that I have provided below?
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20050312/msgs/475029.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 28, 2005, at 16:59:41
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Dinah-btnos » Lou Pilder, posted by alexandra_k on March 28, 2005, at 15:32:52
a_k,
You wrote,[...the poster didn't say they believed it...].
Could we look at the following post ?
Assuming that this post is the same person as the person that posted,[...{nothing but}the blood of Jesus can wash away my sins...], the poster writes in the link below,[...I believe that untill a man is born again...{they are lost}, and cannot fellowship with God...]
The poster also writes, [...Jesus... showed...how we are to seek, find, and follow God...]
The poster also wrote,[...A christian's worldview is that ALL must come to the Lord on His terms...God ...only "sees" two types of people...Saved born-again followers of Him and those that have not yet found Him {as their Lord & Savior}...]
The poster then quotes the christian bible verse,{...Jesus said...I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh to the Father, but by me...].
The poster then writes,[...Here is a link to my church web page to better aquaint you with {Evangelical Christianity}...}.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20050111/msgs/460347.html
Posted by alexandra_k on March 28, 2005, at 17:36:53
In reply to Lou's reply to alexandra_k-did~sy? » alexandra_k, posted by Lou Pilder on March 28, 2005, at 16:59:41
I was just considering what was actually said in the particular post that you were requesting determination on.
All that was said was that their favourite song was 'nothing but the blood of Jesus'.
All the rest of it... Is you putting words in the posters mouth.
You posted the link to the song.....
And if the song is unacceptable then YOU should get a warning for that - not the other poster.Jeepers Lou.
time for me to go back to just leaving you to it methinks...
Posted by alexandra_k on March 28, 2005, at 17:38:44
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to alexandra_k-did~sy? » Lou Pilder, posted by alexandra_k on March 28, 2005, at 17:36:53
Sorry. I was wrong there.
The poster did post the links.
Sorry about that.
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 28, 2005, at 19:49:17
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to alexandra_k-did~sy? » Lou Pilder, posted by alexandra_k on March 28, 2005, at 17:36:53
a_k,
You wrote,[...if the song is unacceptable...].
Has it not already been determined to be acceptable here?
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 30, 2005, at 5:22:35
In reply to Re: guidelines and exceptions » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on March 28, 2005, at 3:08:05
> The problem with asking Lou to rephrase is that Lou is reporting an experience, not a belief... He has to say that the Rider told him this or that. But I don't see how it's offensive if the Rider told him, Lou, to do something or to believe something. That doesn't in any way follow that the Rider told everyone to do that.
I guess I'm afraid that if people post experiences of God telling them to believe things then others might think that applies to them, too?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on March 30, 2005, at 10:00:27
In reply to Re: being told to believe something, posted by Dr. Bob on March 30, 2005, at 5:22:35
Well, I don't think I'd feel put down if anyone on any path said something like "This applies to me and people of my faith, and I'm not saying that everyone should believe this" as long as they didn't go on to include things that amount to "people who don't believe this won't be saved or will go to hell or something like that."
Because really it's almost a statement of fact, isn't it? "The tenets of my faith (or the Rider) say that those of my faith should xxx". It *could* mean that once you accept the YYY faith you should xxxx. And under Alexandra's excellent principles of charity, perhaps everyone could assume that that was exactly what was meant, and no more, unless more is stated. It is sometimes most delicate not to inquire exactly what one thinks will happen to those of other faiths or no faith.
I still think that statements that everyone should xxxx, or that if you don't xxxxx negative things will happen should be disallowed, because that's an obvious violation.
That's my one or two cents, anyway.
Posted by mair on March 30, 2005, at 11:23:47
In reply to Re: being told to believe something » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on March 30, 2005, at 10:00:27
I think where matters of faith are involved, there is a very fine line between stating something as a fact (the Rider told me or God spoke to me) and creating an inference that someone else will find offensive. Don't then you become the messenger of faith?
Imagine that an evangelist got up and started relating his personal experience - what his life was like before he became a believer, and how he came to become a believer and what his life has been like since he had this wonderful religious experience. I contend that he could stop right there and whatever proseletyzing message he wanted to make would be totally evident to those listening to him relate his personal "experience."
mair
Posted by Dinah on March 30, 2005, at 12:33:49
In reply to It's too fine a line, posted by mair on March 30, 2005, at 11:23:47
But the faith board currently doesn't disallow those things at all.
Indeed if it did, there'd be no reason for a faith board.
(Although I still believe the real purpose of the faith board is to get faith off the other boards.)
Posted by Dinah on March 30, 2005, at 12:58:32
In reply to It's too fine a line, posted by mair on March 30, 2005, at 11:23:47
And we're also allowed to post our positive experiences with medication or therapy and how they've changed our lives. That's a form of proselytizing too, I guess.
I don't think religion should be penalized. Just as we wouldn't say that anyone who wasn't in therapy or anyone who wasn't taking Cymbalta was doomed, we shouldn't say that anyone who isn't doing what works for us religion-wise is doomed. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be allowed to say what does work for us.
Especially on the faith board.
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 30, 2005, at 23:00:24
In reply to Re: being told to believe something » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on March 30, 2005, at 10:00:27
> Imagine that an evangelist got up and started relating his personal experience - what his life was like before he became a believer, and how he came to become a believer and what his life has been like since he had this wonderful religious experience. I contend that he could stop right there and whatever proseletyzing message he wanted to make would be totally evident to those listening to him relate his personal "experience."
>
> mair> But the faith board currently doesn't disallow those things at all.
>
> DinahRight, I think her point was that what's currently allowed is enough and that it's not necessary to say things like:
> "The tenets of my faith (or the Rider) say that those of my faith should xxx".
Bob
Posted by Dinah on March 30, 2005, at 23:25:20
In reply to Re: being told to believe something, posted by Dr. Bob on March 30, 2005, at 23:00:24
Sigh.
Well, I tried.
I'm on record saying that I think that allowing Lou to relate his experience with the Rider, and the change to the Faith board in general, would be a positive thing for the board in general. And lead to less perceived inequality in administrative decisions.
Best I can do.
Posted by gardenergirl on March 31, 2005, at 0:26:50
In reply to Re: being told to believe something » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on March 30, 2005, at 23:25:20
Okay, either I had a psychotic break or I dreamed this, or Lou's account of his experience with the Rider is in the archives, isn't it?
gg
Posted by Dinah on March 31, 2005, at 4:25:08
In reply to Re: being told to believe something, posted by gardenergirl on March 31, 2005, at 0:26:50
Not all of it. He felt he couldn't go forward with it because of the rules.
Posted by gardenergirl on March 31, 2005, at 11:57:19
In reply to Re: being told to believe something » gardenergirl, posted by Dinah on March 31, 2005, at 4:25:08
Oh my, there's more? I didn't realize.
gg
Posted by rayww on April 1, 2005, at 11:22:23
In reply to Another request, Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on March 27, 2005, at 12:49:49
Lou, like many of us, needs a place where he can write safely. I realize you had intended the Faith board to be that safe place, but under general guidelines, it can't work. Lou wants to write. A reason he criticizes others is because of the way he perceives he has been treated by us. I have compassion for people who have needs like his.
You have quite a few new boards, and all seem to be successful. I'd like to propose one more just for people like Lou who have had an experiance they would like to share, but can't anywhere else. I would name the new board, "Experiance", because with the "a" instead of "e" it opens up the word to include things that may not be quite right with the world.
Guidelines:
- A board for the sharing of spiritual experiences that are or seem real.
- You may ask questions for clarification, but please do not criticize or put down what is very real and sacred to the writer.
Posted by 10derHeart on April 1, 2005, at 17:13:28
In reply to Re: Another request, Dr. Bob, posted by rayww on April 1, 2005, at 11:22:23
I'm - obviously - not Dr. Bob, rayww, but I was thinking - couldn't Lou (and others) post these experiences on the Writing board?
It seems to fit into the guidelines stated at the top...?
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.