![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 13 of 13. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 6, 2005, at 23:51:02
In reply to Re: The Jewish Faith?, posted by ayrity on January 5, 2005, at 0:46:34
ayrity,
You wrote,[...antisemitic postings...]. Could you identify , let's say 3posts that you would designate as fitting into that catagory?
If you could, then we could possibly have a discussion related to them.
Best regards,
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 6, 2005, at 23:57:37
In reply to Lou's response to ayrity's post-asposigs » ayrity, posted by Lou Pilder on January 6, 2005, at 15:44:29
> You wrote,[...antisemitic postings...]. Could you identify , let's say 3posts that you would designate as fitting into that catagory?
Please keep in mind that it might not be considered civil to call a post anti-Semitic...
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 7, 2005, at 7:10:55
In reply to Re: Lou's response, posted by Dr. Bob on January 6, 2005, at 23:57:37
Dr Hsiung,
You wrote,[...it might not be considered civil to call a post antisemitic...].
I am requesting that you clarify as to what rational is used to {...call a post antisemitic...}.
Could any of the following constutute that the post that the statement was contained in be determined as {...antisemitic...}?If you see a distingushing charactoristic that determines as to if a post can be called antisemitic or not, could you point that out? If you could, then I could know ahead of time as to what is civil or not in relation to calling a post antisemitic.
A.any statement that could have one to think that the statement says that the jews killed Christ.
B.any statement that says that the jews are filthy people
C. any statement that says that the jews are full of all manner of abominations
D.replacment theology
E. any statement that says that those that honor any God besides Jesus are not saved
F. any statement that says that the jews that keep the commandments of their God, as they think that their God wants them to, are hypocrites.
G. others to be given.
Lou Pilder
Posted by AuntieMel on January 7, 2005, at 9:25:50
In reply to Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung for clarification » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on January 7, 2005, at 7:10:55
What is replacement theology?
As for the others, I would think that all of them are uncivil - period. You could replace "jews" with "liberals" in all those statememts and be uncivil.
Although it is also worth noting that we jews have particular reason to be sensitive. I don't recall anyone trying to mass murder liberals - yet.
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 7, 2005, at 9:31:51
In reply to Re: Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung for clarification » Lou Pilder, posted by AuntieMel on January 7, 2005, at 9:25:50
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041218/msgs/431178.html
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 7, 2005, at 10:48:57
In reply to link for replacemment theology, posted by Lou Pilder on January 7, 2005, at 9:31:51
Friends,
The link for replacement theology was for the purpose of showing the definition of the doctrine. There are different forms of the doctrine and I do not endorse any of the forms.
The question here is if writing the doctrine on the faith board is acceptable or not in relation to the guidlines of the forum as to being a doctrine that could have the potential,IMO, to arrouse antisemitic feelings which could also have the potential IMO to be determined as putting down jews and others also.
Then, after a determination is made, and the determination is that the doctrine of replacement theology is not acceptable here in relation to the guidlines of the forum, then the question is if the doctrine is {antisemitic or not}.That could mean that a definition of {antisemitic} may be requierd for the forum to define.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 7, 2005, at 13:52:18
In reply to Re: Lou's response, posted by Dr. Bob on January 6, 2005, at 23:57:37
Dr. Hsiung,
you wrote that it could be uncivil to call a post antisemitic. I believe that for a post to be determined as antisemitic, that some part of it could have a statement that is antisemitic. A definition of {antisemitic} could be used to make that determination. There are many definitions of what antisemitic means, depending on who is giving the definition. One thing that could be found in common is that the statement that is being considerd to be antisemitic or not, could carry with it a hatred toward jews. This hatred could be seen in a statement that portreys jews as {subhuman},such as some of the Nazi propaganda.
Another form of antisemitism libels the jews and accuses them or attempts to make them scapegoats. The accusations could run from controlling the media to killing Christ or bringing the black plague to Europe, etc.
These are some of the accepted definitions of antisemitism. There are more. There is racial vs religious antisemitism. I believe that those definitions could be the same in a mental health community. I am requesting that if you have some other way to determine if a post could be called antisemitic, which has antisemitic content, that you add it to what I have written, or say that some or all of what I have written here is not what you would use to determine if a post is antisemitic. If youcould, then I could know what is an antisemitic post and what is not, according to the guidlines of the forum.
Lou Pilder
Posted by AuntieMel on January 7, 2005, at 16:57:59
In reply to link for replacemment theology-B, posted by Lou Pilder on January 7, 2005, at 10:48:57
The doctrine seems to me to be quite arrogant. "We are now the chosen people." Under what authority?
I would also call espousing it the same as putting down another person's faith - and thus forbidden.
Posted by AuntieMel on January 7, 2005, at 17:14:22
In reply to Lou's response to Dr. Hsiung's post » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on January 7, 2005, at 13:52:18
If there were some published guidlines, it could only be beneficial. Both to anyone trying to decide if it is within the rules, and to the poster who doesn't want to offend.
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 7, 2005, at 19:15:11
In reply to Dr. Bob - Lou has a point., posted by AuntieMel on January 7, 2005, at 17:14:22
The poster writes,[...if there were some published guidlines...].
There are guidlines on the faith board and there are the guidlines under the civility aspect of the FAQ.
The guidlines write that posts can not put down those of other faiths.
The question here is if a post is an antisemitic post. Well, if the post puts down jews is it thearfore an antisemitic post? If so, then would the guidlines on the faith board be suffitiant to make a determination as to if a post is antisemitic or not?
Then, is an antisemitic post one that falls into the catagory of an uncivil post? And if so, could it be that an uncivil post follow the established procedures for such as other uncivil posts have been addressed?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 7, 2005, at 20:25:30
In reply to Re: link for replacemment theology-B » Lou Pilder, posted by AuntieMel on January 7, 2005, at 16:57:59
The poster wrote,[...the doctrine,(replacement theology) ...the same as putting down those of other faiths...].
Replacement theology sometimes needs to be deduced from what is stated. For instance in this post that writes,[...no unclean thing can enter into His kingdom...save it be those that have washed their garments in my blood...].
This statement has the potential, IMO, to advocate replacement theology because the words, [..."no" unclean person...save those that are washed ...] is used. The (imparitive?), "no", speaks for itself in relation to the guidlines of the forum, unless some explanation could cause the statement to not be outside the guidlines of the faith forum and I am asking anyone to explaine how the statement could be in accordance with the guidlines here.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20041120/msgs/437229.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 7, 2005, at 21:37:34
In reply to Lou's response to AuntieMel's post-replaceputdwn, posted by Lou Pilder on January 7, 2005, at 20:25:30
Replacement theology can also be involved in the Nation of Israel. The creation of the State of Israel in 1948 has caused some problems with the doctrine of replacement theology that you can read in the link that I posted in the previous post in this thread.
In respect to that, I would like to present something that Dr. Martin Luther King jr said.
Lou
http://www.christianactionforisrael.org/antiholo/ml_king.html
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 8, 2005, at 3:33:07
In reply to Lou's response to AuntieMel's post-pubgud, posted by Lou Pilder on January 7, 2005, at 19:15:11
> The question here is if a post is an antisemitic post. Well, if the post puts down jews is it thearfore an antisemitic post? If so, then would the guidlines on the faith board be suffitiant to make a determination as to if a post is antisemitic or not?
> Then, is an antisemitic post one that falls into the catagory of an uncivil post? And if so, could it be that an uncivil post follow the established procedures for such as other uncivil posts have been addressed?I think that sounds right...
Bob
This is the end of the 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.