![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 26 to 50 of 105. Go back in thread:
Posted by Angel Girl on January 12, 2005, at 22:08:11
In reply to Re: examples for the faith board, posted by Dr. Bob on January 12, 2005, at 20:54:25
Dr. Bob
Could you please look at the examples that I have shown you in my last post directed to you in this thread and address them please so that I may have better understanding of what is deemed acceptable and what is not.
AG
> > It appears to me that there is a VERY VERY fine line here.
>
> Yes, I think so, too.
>
> Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 13, 2005, at 0:44:24
In reply to Re: examples for the faith board » Dr. Bob, posted by Angel Girl on January 12, 2005, at 0:02:22
> The only difference that I am seeing in your examples to mine are the use of the word *my* and *their*. BUT in my statement, even though those words are not present, they are implied by the beginning of my statement starting with "As a Christian". I think adding the words *my* or *their* is redundant.
Why would "as a Christian" imply "my"? Is there a downside to being explicit?
Bob
Posted by Angel Girl on January 13, 2005, at 8:22:25
In reply to Re: examples for the faith board, posted by Dr. Bob on January 13, 2005, at 0:44:24
Dr Bob
This is my original statement that you deemed problematic but I feel should be acceptable.
As a Christian, I believe that salvation can only be obtained through Jesus Christ
Can you please tell me what is problematic about it. I am only stating that I am a Christian and that as such, that is what *I* believe. In no way am I putting others down for their own beliefs or telling them that they have to believe the same. What others belief is up to them.
I also would see no problem in writing:
Christians believe that salvation can only be obtained through Jesus Christ.
Please explain to me where there is anything wrong in my 2 above samples.
AG
>
> Why would "as a Christian" imply "my"? Is there a downside to being explicit?
>
> Bob
Posted by Fallen4MyT on January 13, 2005, at 17:10:35
In reply to Re: examples for the faith board » Dr. Bob, posted by Angel Girl on January 13, 2005, at 8:22:25
AG be ready its such a fine fine line I am curious as to what he has to say cause I see zero wrong with your statements that IS what Christians think..believe....by definition one who belives in Jesus Christ is a Christian :)
> Dr Bob
>
> This is my original statement that you deemed problematic but I feel should be acceptable.
>
> As a Christian, I believe that salvation can only be obtained through Jesus Christ
>
> Can you please tell me what is problematic about it. I am only stating that I am a Christian and that as such, that is what *I* believe. In no way am I putting others down for their own beliefs or telling them that they have to believe the same. What others belief is up to them.
>
> I also would see no problem in writing:
>
> Christians believe that salvation can only be obtained through Jesus Christ.
>
> Please explain to me where there is anything wrong in my 2 above samples.
>
> AG
>
> >
> > Why would "as a Christian" imply "my"? Is there a downside to being explicit?
> >
> > Bob
>
>
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 13, 2005, at 18:06:03
In reply to Re: examples for the faith board » Angel Girl, posted by Fallen4MyT on January 13, 2005, at 17:10:35
Friends,
It has been written that a statement like,[...as a Christian, I believe that salvation can only be obtained through Jesus Christ...] could be in accordance with the guidlines of the faith board here.
As I see this statement, and those like it, there are two issues IMO that are [...problematic...].
The first issue is, does it fall in the catagory of Jean Jacques Rousseau's statement on the opening page of the faith board that [..Whosoever dares say ,Outside the Church there is no salvation...]. Well, looking at the statement , it writes that[... salvation can {only} be obtained through Jesus Christ...]. Now if the potential is there to consider that the statement thearfore also means that jews could possibly not get salvation, or others that consider their salvation to be obtained by some other means than through Jesus Christ, then does the statement in question put those of those faiths down? My answer depends on what is defined as [...putting down...]. The past practice in the archives can give that definition clarity.
The next issue as I see it, is whether the poster that posted the post believes it or not. Well, if some foundations of some faiths can not be posted, and if this statement in question is a foundation of a faith that can not be posted, could the fact that one believes it or not be relevant to the statement's acceptability or not here? My answer is that it depends. It depends on whether other foundations of other faiths are not allowed to be posted here that have similar meaning. IMO, if one posted,[...only people that are members of the ...] are the true believers and are the only ones going to heaven..], if that was posted, would whether the poster believed it or not have any determination as to it's acceptability or not? If so, what could prevent a segregationist from posting racist statements here? Or a supremist posting supremist statements? Is it not the {foundation} that is what is determined as acceptable or not?
When we look at the statement in question,[..as a Christion...salvation only through Jesus Christ...], one could be convinced by many sources that the statement is true. But I ask all hear to consider the following conversation that I have had many times with persons that say that to me.
The converstion usually starts with , Lou, your not saved because the jews do not believe in Jesus. The Bible says,[...Neither is there salvation in any other, for there is none other name under heaven given among men, wherby we must be saved...].
They usually go on and say, [...we are saved by grace... we do not deserve salvation... you can only be forgiven by God by beliveing in Jesus...if you do not accept Jesus you will not be saved...].
My answer has been as follows:
My friend, are you going to heaven?
"Yes", they answer.
I ask , "Do you deserve to go to heaven?
"No", they say and say, [..all fall short of the glory of God, but by God's grace alone, through Christ, I receive the fullness of the Father's blessings...].
Very well, I say, But if God can be gracious to you and give you blessings that you say that you do not deserve, could He not do likewise with the Jews, for His own reasons as yet unbeknowest to you?
Lou
Posted by Fallen4MyT on January 13, 2005, at 19:20:30
In reply to Lou's response to salvation only through Christ, posted by Lou Pilder on January 13, 2005, at 18:06:03
Lou IMO yes the God I belive in can, could and very well might have a way for the Jewish people but as I am Christian (and see many of us say Christians believe)...Jesus is the way to MY salvation I would not presume to know the mind and heart of God and His plans for those who He has considered his chosen ones...the Jews.
>>>Lou states in part>>
Very well, I say, But if God can be gracious to you and give you blessings that you say that you do not deserve, could He not do likewise with the Jews, for His own reasons as yet unbeknowest to you?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 13, 2005, at 19:51:13
In reply to Re: Lou's response to salvation only through Christ » Lou Pilder, posted by Fallen4MyT on January 13, 2005, at 19:20:30
Fallen4myT,
You wrote,[...yes, the God I believe in...might have a way for the jewish people but...Jesus is the way to MY salvation...].
Is not that what this is about? Is not it about writing whether Jesus is the way to your salvation verses Jesus is the only way to salvation? Did not Dr. Hsiung give that as an alternative?
Lou
Posted by Fallen4MyT on January 13, 2005, at 20:10:52
In reply to Lou's reply to Fallen4myT-mysal » Fallen4MyT, posted by Lou Pilder on January 13, 2005, at 19:51:13
Lou I cannot speak for De Bob or even other posters I can only tell you what my beliefs are and that is how I see it. I have spoken with priests and some believe the same. I am sorry but I only really only read about 1 in 2000 posts so Dr Bob may have said that but I dont think I saw it....Lou some do not believe as I do so they would disagree and could be going against their beliefs if they posted as I did. This is a hard topic and I feel sad that you cannot seem to get a straight answer.
> Fallen4myT,
> You wrote,[...yes, the God I believe in...might have a way for the jewish people but...Jesus is the way to MY salvation...].
> Is not that what this is about? Is not it about writing whether Jesus is the way to your salvation verses Jesus is the only way to salvation? Did not Dr. Hsiung give that as an alternative?
> Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 13, 2005, at 20:34:58
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Fallen4myT-mysal » Lou Pilder, posted by Fallen4MyT on January 13, 2005, at 20:10:52
Fallen4myT,
You wrote,[...I feel sad that you cannot seem to get a straight answer...].
Could you clarify as to what the question is that you write that I can not seem to get a {straight} answer to?
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 13, 2005, at 23:04:02
In reply to Re: examples for the faith board » Dr. Bob, posted by Angel Girl on January 13, 2005, at 8:22:25
> This is my original statement that you deemed problematic but I feel should be acceptable.
>
> As a Christian, I believe that salvation can only be obtained through Jesus Christ
>
> Can you please tell me what is problematic about it.Someone else might think you're referring to their salvation, too.
Bob
Posted by Fallen4MyT on January 13, 2005, at 23:05:47
In reply to Lou's reply to Fallen4myT » Fallen4MyT, posted by Lou Pilder on January 13, 2005, at 20:34:58
I could be wrong Lou but I think you are trying very hard to understand what Dr Bob wants or accepts on the faith boards and the rules he has posted and what he means by what he posts and you ask for clarification from him. But the rules and all are kind of vague and hard to get for many of us. That is what I mean.
> Fallen4myT,
> You wrote,[...I feel sad that you cannot seem to get a straight answer...].
> Could you clarify as to what the question is that you write that I can not seem to get a {straight} answer to?
> Lou
Posted by Angel Girl on January 14, 2005, at 4:30:21
In reply to Re: examples for the faith board, posted by Dr. Bob on January 13, 2005, at 23:04:02
> > This is my original statement that you deemed problematic but I feel should be acceptable.
> >
> > As a Christian, I believe that salvation can only be obtained through Jesus Christ
> >
> > Can you please tell me what is problematic about it.
>
> Someone else might think you're referring to their salvation, too.
>
> BobDr Bob
I made a comment referring to MY and only MY beliefs due to that fact that I am a Christian. I made absolutely no comment on other faiths or put them down. It seems that I can not write about my beliefs because there is always going to be somebody who is going to object.
Again, I ask you,
WHAT IS THE POINT OF A FAITH BOARD IF YOU CAN'T TALK ABOUT OUR FAITH???
I GIVE UP!!! No wonder very few people post on the Faith board. I will never venture there again or I will be blocked for every post I make in regards to my own faith. I've heard plenty of people complain that the Faith board is anti-Sementic. Well now, it is anti-Christian too. What will be next? This is totally ridiculous IMHO.
AG
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 14, 2005, at 8:01:46
In reply to I GIVE UP!!! » Dr. Bob, posted by Angel Girl on January 14, 2005, at 4:30:21
AG,
You wrote,[...it (the faith board) is anti-Christian...].
If your statement is because the rules state that one can not post that[...salvation can {only} be obtained through Jesus Christ...],then IMO, the board is not anti-Christian
Lou
Posted by Angel Girl on January 14, 2005, at 9:26:12
In reply to Lou's respose to Angel Girl-[*]ntichrist? » Angel Girl, posted by Lou Pilder on January 14, 2005, at 8:01:46
> AG,
> You wrote,[...it (the faith board) is anti-Christian...].
> If your statement is because the rules state that one can not post that[...salvation can {only} be obtained through Jesus Christ...],then IMO, the board is not anti-Christian
> Lou
>
LouThat is your opinion, mine obviously differs. Also, I am HIGHLY OFFENDED by you putting the word 'antichrist' in the subject line with my name. I PLEAD that you ask Dr Bob to remove it IMMEDIATELY. As a Christian it SICKENS me to see that word attached to my name, regardless if it is your little shortform or not!!! Next time please use a little more sensitivity in what you choose for your references in the subject line.
AG
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 14, 2005, at 10:24:25
In reply to Lou you have HIGHLY OFFENDED ME!!! » Lou Pilder, posted by Angel Girl on January 14, 2005, at 9:26:12
AG,
The notation for my referrence has a question mark after the shorthand. So the shorthand notation is for [antichristian?] because the subject of your post was that you wrote that the board is antichristian. IMO it is not antichristian, but the question mark means to me that there is a discussion in the thread relevant to whether the faith board is or is not antichristian. The discussants are me and you so far, but it was you that innitiated the statement that the faith board is antichristian. I am responding to your statement of such and wrote that {if} you were saying that the faith board is antichristian because one can not post to be acceptable here that[... Jesus is the {only} way to salvation...], then I do not think that that constitutes that the faith board is antichristian. Others may want to join the discussion about that and that is why I put the question mark. I'm sorry that you were offended, but it is not my intention to offend you in any way, for the discussion IMO is an administrative one about what can be an acceptable post or not, and I do not consider the discussion to be about whether Jesus is or is not the only way to salvation, but whether is can be stated that {the faith board is antichristian}on the basis of if the statement in question is being determined as unacceptable by DR. Hsiung means that the faith board is antichristian.
Lou
Posted by coral on January 14, 2005, at 10:56:14
In reply to Lou you have HIGHLY OFFENDED ME!!! » Lou Pilder, posted by Angel Girl on January 14, 2005, at 9:26:12
Dear Angel Girl,
When I saw the title of the post you mentioned, I was taken aback to say the least.
Coral
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 14, 2005, at 11:00:14
In reply to I GIVE UP!!! » Dr. Bob, posted by Angel Girl on January 14, 2005, at 4:30:21
AG,
You wrote,[...as a christian, I believe that salvation can only be obtained through Jesus Christ...] and, [...it (the faith board) is anti-Christian...].
If the basis for that statement by you is that if the statment that [...Jesus is the {only} way to salvation...] is determined by DR. Hsiung to be unacceptable here, then I disagree with the statement that the faith board is antichristian.
I do not think IMO that whether the poster that posts the post is a christian or not is relevant to making a determination for acceptability or not on that basis.
Suppose some one wrote here, [..as a christian, I believe that the jews are not saved because they reject Jesus....]. Now I do not think that that statement could be determined as acceptable here. But the issue in this discussion is if the faith board is antichristian because the other statement is determined to be unacceptable by Dr. Hsiung because the statement could mean that since the poster writes that[..salvation can {only} be obtained through Jesus Christ...], the {only} is limiting salvation to {through Jesus Christ}.
I agree with Dr. Hsiung that the statement is not in accordance with his guidlines for the faith board because the potential IMO is there for jews and others that do not think that their salvation is through Jesus Christ could feel put down because the could feel that the poster's statement says that they are worshipping their God in vain because if salvation is only through Jesus Christ, then they could not have salvation since they do not believe that.
By Dr. Hsiung restraing the post in question, he welcomes all faiths and IMO is not antichristian. What if he did not restrain the post?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 14, 2005, at 11:31:23
In reply to I GIVE UP!!! » Dr. Bob, posted by Angel Girl on January 14, 2005, at 4:30:21
AG,
You wrote,[...it (the faith board) is anti-Christian...].
Now IMO if your post in question was determined to be acceptable here, then could the following also be posted, and if not, could the faith board be written to be antisemitic?
A. Salvation is only through keeping the Law of Moses
B. Only jews are saved because they are chosen by God
C. Non jews are only saved if they convert to jewdaism
D. Outside of the synogogue,there is no salvation
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on January 14, 2005, at 13:14:08
In reply to Lou you have HIGHLY OFFENDED ME!!! » Lou Pilder, posted by Angel Girl on January 14, 2005, at 9:26:12
I was also quite shocked at the title of that post. I know Lou uses a code to allow him to find posts easier or something.. but I think you deserve an apology for that, as someone unfamiliar with Lou's code could quite easily think that he is asking if you are the antichrist (which you quite obviously aren't)
Nikki
Posted by Angel Girl on January 14, 2005, at 13:30:46
In reply to Re: Lou you have HIGHLY OFFENDED ME!!! » Angel Girl, posted by Lou Pilder on January 14, 2005, at 10:24:25
Lou
I have no intentions of discussing what I last said anymore since I am HIGHLY OFFENDED by your subject line. As you can see, other posters agree with me. I don't care that it is a short-form, to put the word 'anti-christ' beside my name is totally disgusting and extremely INSENSITIVE. Are you not aware that that shortform is a word in itself?
And even though you say it was not your intention to offend me, you still go on and on about my previous comment like that subject line means nothing to me as a Christian.
IT MAKES ME SICK!!! PLEASE THINK BEFORE YOU DO SOMETHING SO . . . UGH!!! I AM AT A LOSS OF WORDS FOR THIS.
PLEASE E-MAIL DR BOB AND HAVE IT REMOVED IMMEDIATELY. I DO NOT WANT TO SEE IT AGAIN!!!
AG
Posted by Angel Girl on January 14, 2005, at 13:31:54
In reply to Re: Lou you have HIGHLY OFFENDED ME!!!, posted by coral on January 14, 2005, at 10:56:14
> Dear Angel Girl,
>
> When I saw the title of the post you mentioned, I was taken aback to say the least.
>
> CoralCoral, thank you very much for your support. I guess maybe you have to be a Christian to see the significance of the word.
AG
Posted by Angel Girl on January 14, 2005, at 13:37:56
In reply to Re: Lou you have HIGHLY OFFENDED ME!!! » Angel Girl, posted by NikkiT2 on January 14, 2005, at 13:14:08
> I was also quite shocked at the title of that post. I know Lou uses a code to allow him to find posts easier or something.. but I think you deserve an apology for that, as someone unfamiliar with Lou's code could quite easily think that he is asking if you are the antichrist (which you quite obviously aren't)
>
> Nikki
NikkiThank you for your support. I am recently aware of Lou's shortforms that he uses for easy reference but even with that, he needed to use more sensitivity in selecting one and you're right about somebody who is unfamiliar with his code. I agree that I deserve at the least an apology and yet he carries on with talking about my previous comment like that subject line is no big deal. That angers me even more. I feel he is being even more insensitive to me now than he was before. Again, thank you very much for your support.
AG
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 14, 2005, at 13:43:13
In reply to Re: Lou you have HIGHLY OFFENDED ME!!! » coral, posted by Angel Girl on January 14, 2005, at 13:31:54
AG,
You wrote,[...I guess ...you have to be a christian to see the significance of the word...].
I am not a member of christiandom so I do not see the significance that you see. Can I consider that you are apologising to me by writing that?
Lou
Posted by coral on January 14, 2005, at 13:52:33
In reply to Re: Lou you have HIGHLY OFFENDED ME!!! » coral, posted by Angel Girl on January 14, 2005, at 13:31:54
Dear AngelGirl,
No, I don't think you have to be a Christian to understand why that particular statement is so heinous. I'm sorry this has been so upsetting for you and I do fully understand why you're upset.
((((AG))))
Coral
Posted by NikkiT2 on January 14, 2005, at 14:45:24
In reply to Lou's resp[onse to Angel Girl's post-beachrstntose » Angel Girl, posted by Lou Pilder on January 14, 2005, at 13:43:13
Lou., I'm not a Christian but I can see why someone who is would be very very upset by having that word next to their name.
Maybe you could try thinking of it in the terms of using a word that you may fund offensive, being a Jew, but that someone who wasn't a Jew wouldn't find offensive.
I did, in the original version of this, include an example, but I have removed that as I thougt you would probably be offended, but if you would like me to do so, just say.
Nikki
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.