![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 28 to 52 of 87. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 25, 2004, at 20:13:30
In reply to What are Christians? Is Rousseau correct?7, posted by Lou Pilder on September 25, 2004, at 20:07:43
Friends,
Then this Jesus of Christianity said to the multitudes around Him, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called , The Children of God."
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 25, 2004, at 20:16:42
In reply to What are Christians? Is Rousseau correct?8, posted by Lou Pilder on September 25, 2004, at 20:13:30
Friends,
Then this Jesus of Christianity said to the multitudes around Him, "Blessed are they that are persecuted for rightiouness' sake, for theirs is The Kingdom of Heaven."
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 25, 2004, at 20:21:25
In reply to What are Christians? Is Rousseau correct?9, posted by Lou Pilder on September 25, 2004, at 20:16:42
Friends,
Then this Jesus of Chrstianity said to the multitudes around Him, "Blessed are you, when men revile and persecute you,and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 25, 2004, at 20:35:10
In reply to What are Christians? Is Rousseau correct?10, posted by Lou Pilder on September 25, 2004, at 20:21:25
Friends,
This Jesus of Christianity could be the Jesus and Christianity that Jean Jaques Roussea was referring to. I belive that it was , for the history of the world, and in the time period of Jean Rousseau's time, the Jesus that spoke the previous words was the same Jesus.
This Jesus Jean Rousseau says [...preaches only servitude and dependence...].
Is that what this Jesus of Christianity preached in the previous posts? Is mourning a part of this dependence and servitude that Jean Roussear writes about? Is being merciful part of the dependence that Jean Rousseau wrote Bout?
Are hungering and thirsting for rightiousness part of what Jean Rousseau was referring to as dependance and servitude? Would not servitude to rightiousness be a good quality for a person to have?
I have questions that I would like anyone to answer. Is Jean Jaques Rouseauu the athourity here on this Jesus of Christianity? If so, where does he get this authority from?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 25, 2004, at 21:01:51
In reply to What are Christians? Is Rousseau correct?10, posted by Lou Pilder on September 25, 2004, at 20:35:10
Friends,
Jean Jaques Rousseau write, [...christianity preaches only servitude and dependence....true christians are made to be slaves...].
Let us look at what this Jesus of Christianity said .
He was questioned greatly about life. And on one occasion when questioned on why He was here for people, He said," I come that they may have life and that they might have it more abundanly."
Does that sound like what Jean Rouseaau says about Christianity?
Lou
Posted by Gabbix2 on September 25, 2004, at 21:37:03
In reply to What are Christians? Is Rousseau correct?12, posted by Lou Pilder on September 25, 2004, at 21:01:51
That these should be posted on the Faith board.
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 25, 2004, at 21:43:36
In reply to Well my Belief is.., posted by Gabbix2 on September 25, 2004, at 21:37:03
Gabbix,
Thank you for your interest in this discussion. You wrote,[...should be ...on the faith board...].
Well, the posts in question are in relation to refuting Jean Jaques Rousseau's accusations that [...Christianity preaches only servitude and dependence,...made to be slaves...short life counts little...]in a thread that it is relevant to. If i was to post it on the faith board, then it would not appear in the thread here.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 25, 2004, at 22:16:21
In reply to Lou's reply to Gabbix2 » Gabbix2, posted by Lou Pilder on September 25, 2004, at 21:43:36
Gabbix2,
This thread is an administrative discussion on what in part is written on the opening page of the faith board that I beliveis defaming to Christians and others and I am in a dialog with Dr. Hsiung in referrence to my request that the referrences that use Jean Rousseau either be removed or ckarified as to if the forum endorses what is in question here.
It is my belife that the statements in question by Rousseau are in violation of the forum's goal of support, for I belive that the statements by Rousseau put down the christians faith and that is why I have posted the posts that you have asked about. I am showing that Rousseau's accusations about Christianity are not consistant with the Jesus of Christianity in relation to what He preached, for what that Jesus preached is different from what Rousseau writes about Christianity.
If this is so, then could not the parts on the faith board by Rousseau be deemed false and deserve to be removed?
I hope this gives more light on why I posted the posts in question. The posts are part of a dialog with me and Dr. Hsiung and others in this thread, not something that I wanted to post as a faith post. So I am not seeking faith responses . If I was, then I would post it on the faith board.
Lou
Posted by Gabbix2 on September 25, 2004, at 22:52:33
In reply to Lou's reply to Gabbix2-B » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on September 25, 2004, at 22:16:21
I think you voiced your disagreement very eloquently in that single post Groovy Lou. The reason I mentioned that I thought this belonged on the Faith board was because read individually the single posts appeared to me to be Bible Teachings..
By the time I got to the bottom I'd lost your original point.
However after reading "Lou's reply to Gabbix2-B" I understand your concerns much better.
And I really don't mind if you post 10 times
or 12, (except in certain situations) but I do think others would alsounderstand what you had to say much better from a single post (or a Gabbi double) But I know you've heard all that before : )
Then again, I'm hardly one to give advice on how to get one's point across succinctly.Foiled again.
Last post for me!
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 25, 2004, at 22:56:55
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Gabbix2-B » Lou Pilder, posted by Gabbix2 on September 25, 2004, at 22:52:33
Gabbi2,
thank you for your reply. I guess I better let it out here. You see, I can not write any other way than I do. I have a rare neurological disorder that prohibits me from posting (normally?). Your comments are kind ones about my posting.
Bless,
Lou
Posted by Gabbix2 on September 25, 2004, at 23:04:15
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Gabbix2-2B » Gabbix2, posted by Lou Pilder on September 25, 2004, at 22:56:55
> Gabbi2,
> thank you for your reply. I guess I better let it out here. You see, I can not write any other way than I do. I have a rare neurological disorder that prohibits me from posting (normally?). Your comments are kind ones about my posting.Well I certainly agree with you on questioning
Normal? I understand, and I'm sorry that you had to explain, if it hadn't made such a significant difference in my ease of understanding I wouldn't have mentioned it.
Posted by gardenergirl on September 25, 2004, at 23:37:25
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Gabbix2-2B » Gabbix2, posted by Lou Pilder on September 25, 2004, at 22:56:55
Lou,
I have just been an observer to your thread because I am not well informed about your topic.Nevertheless, I wanted to jump in to say that I believe it was very brave and generous of you to share with Gabbi and the board the underpinnings of your posting style. I applaud you. Can you hear my applause from your end of the city in which we both live? :)
Take care,
gg
Posted by NikkiT2 on September 26, 2004, at 5:30:13
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Gabbix2-2B » Lou Pilder, posted by gardenergirl on September 25, 2004, at 23:37:25
"Tolerance should be given to all religions that tolerate others, so long as their dogmas contain nothing contrary to the duties of citizenship. But whoever dares to say: Outside the Church is no salvation, ought to be driven from the State."
I, personally, think this statement says an awful lot, but it does not mention ANY particular faith.
What I see it as saying, is that any "nation" is made up of many different religious beliefs, and that all should be tolerated. To me, it says that salvation can *only* be found within any particular religion is incorrect, and that all different beliefs should be respected.I rather like that quote. I don't know the full of what it comes from, but Dr Bob didn't post the full text, only what I have quoted above.
Nikki
Posted by SLS on September 26, 2004, at 6:42:49
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Gabbix2-B » Lou Pilder, posted by Gabbix2 on September 25, 2004, at 22:52:33
Hi.
> And I really don't mind if you post 10 times
or 12, (except in certain situations)
Which situations?
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 26, 2004, at 9:40:02
In reply to The *actual* quote used, posted by NikkiT2 on September 26, 2004, at 5:30:13
Friends,
I thank all of you who have shown interest in this discussion. To some, it may be just another topic of discussion, but to me, it is the most important topic.
The foundation of the attitude toward people of faith is being brought to our attention on the faith board with Jean Jaques Rousseau's writing with a link to click on that goes into a chapter of his writing. All of this could be looked at and perhps several different ideas could be arrived at after reading the link's content and the quote by Rousseau on the faith board. Is it clear as to what the forum's attitude tpward people of faith is? I do not think so and that is why I am asking for clarification from the moderator about the parts in question.
Lou
Posted by verne on September 26, 2004, at 9:49:48
In reply to The *actual* quote used, posted by NikkiT2 on September 26, 2004, at 5:30:13
I agree. The post is about religious tolerance and in keeping with the spirit of the Faith board.
I think the baby is being thrown out with the bathwater.
verne
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 26, 2004, at 10:09:50
In reply to Lou's concern about the quote by Jean Rousseau, posted by Lou Pilder on September 26, 2004, at 9:40:02
Friends,
There are two parts to the quote seen without clicking on the link. One part says that [...tolerance should be given to all religions that tolarate others...] and I have no qualm with that, for I believe that it goes without saying that a forum about faith that is open to the public would have that ideal.
But it is the second part of that quote that concerns me,[...whoever dares say that outside the church is no salvation...] and the linking to the other parts of Rousseau's writing that I am asking for clarification for.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 26, 2004, at 10:25:52
In reply to Lou's concern about the quote by Jean Rousseau-2 » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on September 26, 2004, at 10:09:50
Friends,
The second part of the quote in question is what I am asking clarification to and the parts in the link to click on that I have mentioned.
On the one hand, Rousseau states that [..tolerance should be given to all religions that tolerate others...].
But the part that I am asking for clarification to is the part that Rousseau states in the link to that writing,[...christianity preaches only servitude and dependence...true christins are made to be slaves...this short life count little in their lives...]. Is that being tolarent to Christianity? This is part of why I am asking for clarification. I consider those statements to be false accusations toward christians and demening to christians and inconsistant with being tolarant to all religions and has thepotential to put down those of the christian faith and thearfore could be deemed as not supportive to the goals of the faith board.
The purpose of the administrative board is so that things like this can be discussed so that a more supportive atmospher could be made. I am not a member of christiandom, but I feel put down by the statement in the link by Rousseau and if it said, [...budddism preaches that buddists should be slaves...] , I would feel put down also.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Gabbix2 on September 26, 2004, at 10:51:52
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Gabbix2-B » Gabbix2, posted by SLS on September 26, 2004, at 6:42:49
> Hi.
>
> > And I really don't mind if you post 10 times
> or 12, (except in certain situations)
>
>
> Which situations?
>
>
> - ScottWhen someone is feeling unconformatble with being asked for further clarification.
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 26, 2004, at 10:54:13
In reply to Lou's concern about the quote by Jean Rousseau-3, posted by Lou Pilder on September 26, 2004, at 10:25:52
Friends,
The other part of my request to Dr. Hsiung for clarification involves the part of the quote,[...whoever dares to say...outside the Church is no salvation...].
I have asked for clarificaion of the following:
Is this a reference to the Roman Catholic doctrine of [...Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus..] and some clarification about the word "church'
I am asking for this clarification because I would need to know the identification of this in order to respond accordingly. The word "church" is capitalised in Rousseau's quote. This is important to me in order to respond accordingly to have the clarificatrion requested.
I am asking for clarification of this because there are issues here that have linkage involved in them that concern me. It is this linkage that I have not discussed yet. I have not discussed this linkage because I need clarification of the things that I have requested in order to do so.
I have proposed to Dr. Hsiung that the part brought to attention on the faith board by Jean Rousseau be removed so that this discussion could end. If the part is not going to removed, I have asked for clarification of the things in question so that I can respond accordingly.
Lou Pilder
http://www.catholicism.org/pages/outside.htm
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 26, 2004, at 11:08:50
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Gabbix2-B » SLS, posted by Gabbix2 on September 26, 2004, at 10:51:52
Gabbix2,
Am I correct here in what tyou have written about posting style and clarification?
A. It really doesn't matter how many posts a person posts
B. The multiple post style of writing is really just one post broken into small parts
C. People that object to my writing style could have another reason for objecting other than it takes longer to read the post and such. If this is true to you, could you write what your opinion is as to why others here are objecting to my posting in this manner here?
D. A combination of the above which is....
E Something else
Lou
Posted by SLS on September 26, 2004, at 12:22:33
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Gabbix2-B » SLS, posted by Gabbix2 on September 26, 2004, at 10:51:52
> > Hi.
> >
> > > And I really don't mind if you post 10 times
> > or 12, (except in certain situations)
> >
> >
> > Which situations?
> >
> >
> > - Scott
>
> When someone is feeling unconformatble with being asked for further clarification.What if someone is made uncomfortable by the first request for a clarification? Does the second request become uncivil and require sanction? Must the person being made uncomfortable submit a post stating his discomfort before subsequent posted requests for clarification are to be judged uncivil?
What if I were not to be made uncomfortable by 100 requests for clarification? What if I were not to respond at all to 100 sequential requests for clarification of the same phrasing of the same post? Would an additional 100 requests remain civil? Were the first 100 uncivil? Can civility be judged upon the numbers of posts submitted sequentially without a response?
Why should there be a limit on the number of requests for clarification of a post if each request fits well within the guidelines of civility furnished by this site's FAQ?
What if I were to decide that I would break each of my intended submissions into multiple posts, each containing a single word. I shall declare this to be my style. Am I not to be allowed to post in this style as long as I remain civil? I might never ask a single person for a clarification.
Perhaps it is time to establish posting quotas so that posting priveleges here are not abused. Posting to this site is indeed a privelege and not a civil right. (At least, not at the moment). It is a real shame that this should become necessary.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 26, 2004, at 12:47:36
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Gabbix2-B » Gabbix2, posted by SLS on September 26, 2004, at 12:22:33
SLS,
You wote,[...time to establish posting quotas...].
Could you tell us what your idea would be for the number in this quota to be?
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on September 26, 2004, at 12:50:23
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Gabbix2-B » Gabbix2, posted by SLS on September 26, 2004, at 12:22:33
The boards roll over when they reach a certain size, memory wise.
10 posts each containing 10 words, will take up more space than 1 post with 100 words.This means that the board will be archived quicker. This means that posts will be missed by people when it rolls over.
Another site I use limits the number of posts by people on their main board for a very similar reason. its not a "legal" rule, but one that everyone abides by out of respect for other posters.
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 26, 2004, at 12:58:45
In reply to Lou's reply to SLS-pq » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on September 26, 2004, at 12:47:36
SLS,
You brought up the topic of requests for clarification. This was discussed in the past and there is a policy on it in the FAQ.
There are the following points in the policy:
A. A poster can post,[..Do Not Post To Me...]and if they do post to them after that has been posted, then that is uncivil according to this code here.
But there is another part of that policy that states that if the poster responds back to you, even after the [..Do Not Post To Me...] is posted to you, that the you can post back to that person because they lift the restriction by making some other post to you. They do not have to say that the restriction is lifted, for just responding back in any way to the poster automatically lifts the restriction.
This is also a part of formal debate. It is called [..opening the door...]. When one responds back, they open the door for the other to reply. And in civil discussion, when one opens the door, they invite the other to reply to them.
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.