![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 19 of 19. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by shes_initforthemoney on September 14, 2011, at 21:34:05
I am just referencing from a post above about the common misconceptio that most Christians are conservative. first, God is not conservative or liberal. I belong to Sojouners, a site that believes Jesus and God's messages are about social justice, and in being responsible for one another, as well as for the environment and planet. There are over 1500 references in the Bible to calls for social justice. Think of the scene when Jesus was smashing the tables of the moneychangers, disgusted at their love for money when so many people went without. Jesus would rather be with the poor, sick, hungry...with the prostitutes and beggers in the slums. Jesus was disgusted with decadence and greed..and love of money. He was the first to speak for the poor. He detested violence and war.I will write more of this topic with direct references, but it is fair to say you most likely would be closer to Jesus and God, and find them spreading their love in a slum in Calcuta then on Wall street.
Jay
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 15, 2011, at 15:38:45
In reply to Liberal Christian, posted by shes_initforthemoney on September 14, 2011, at 21:34:05
> I am just referencing from a post above about the common misconceptio that most Christians are conservative. first, God is not conservative or liberal. I belong to Sojouners, a site that believes Jesus and God's messages are about social justice, and in being responsible for one another, as well as for the environment and planet. There are over 1500 references in the Bible to calls for social justice. Think of the scene when Jesus was smashing the tables of the moneychangers, disgusted at their love for money when so many people went without. Jesus would rather be with the poor, sick, hungry...with the prostitutes and beggers in the slums. Jesus was disgusted with decadence and greed..and love of money. He was the first to speak for the poor. He detested violence and war.I will write more of this topic with direct references, but it is fair to say you most likely would be closer to Jesus and God, and find them spreading their love in a slum in Calcuta then on Wall street.
>
> JayJay,
You wrote,[...scene when Jesus is smashing the tables of the moneychangers, disgusted at their love for money...].
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean by posting that. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
A. Who were the moneychangers?
B. Why were they changing money?
C. does it say in that scene that Jesus said that the moneychangers loved money?
D. If so, could you cite such?
E. Does it say in that scene that Jesus was disgusted? If so, could you cite such?
F. Could there be a meaning unbeknownst to you that the passage concerning that scene could mean to the Jews?
G. Do you think that Jews could be sterotyped in an antisemitic way by some reading what you have posted about that those in question {loved money]? If not, why not?
H.Are you aquainted with the historical uses of the passage in question toward Jews during the inquisition and the years from 1933 to 1945?
k. redacted by respondent
Posted by Shes_InItForTheMoney on September 16, 2011, at 5:14:59
In reply to Lou's request-pstairtie » shes_initforthemoney, posted by Lou Pilder on September 15, 2011, at 15:38:45
> > I am just referencing from a post above about the common misconceptio that most Christians are conservative. first, God is not conservative or liberal. I belong to Sojouners, a site that believes Jesus and God's messages are about social justice, and in being responsible for one another, as well as for the environment and planet. There are over 1500 references in the Bible to calls for social justice. Think of the scene when Jesus was smashing the tables of the moneychangers, disgusted at their love for money when so many people went without. Jesus would rather be with the poor, sick, hungry...with the prostitutes and beggers in the slums. Jesus was disgusted with decadence and greed..and love of money. He was the first to speak for the poor. He detested violence and war.I will write more of this topic with direct references, but it is fair to say you most likely would be closer to Jesus and God, and find them spreading their love in a slum in Calcuta then on Wall street.
> >
> > Jay
>
> Jay,
> You wrote,[...scene when Jesus is smashing the tables of the moneychangers, disgusted at their love for money...].
> I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean by posting that. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> A. Who were the moneychangers?
> B. Why were they changing money?
> C. does it say in that scene that Jesus said that the moneychangers loved money?
> D. If so, could you cite such?
> E. Does it say in that scene that Jesus was disgusted? If so, could you cite such?
> F. Could there be a meaning unbeknownst to you that the passage concerning that scene could mean to the Jews?
> G. Do you think that Jews could be sterotyped in an antisemitic way by some reading what you have posted about that those in question {loved money]? If not, why not?
> H.Are you aquainted with the historical uses of the passage in question toward Jews during the inquisition and the years from 1933 to 1945?
> k. redacted by respondentLou,
Please don't label me anti-Semitic. That is a very hurtful and wrong conclusion. My Danish ancestors played a role in taking in and hiding Jews from Hitler. Hitler quoted and mangled and distorted completely, many parts of philosophy and religion.
For all of the good in people who quote scripture,
this far outweighs what a few evil people do. You should be wise to filter out the twisted beliefs of lunatics like Hitler. Religion is to bring us all together, regardles of denomination. Fundamentalist Dictators try to turn it around, and use religion as a call for evil and violence.
I kindly ask for an apology.Jay
Posted by Dinah on September 16, 2011, at 8:33:00
In reply to Lou's request-pstairtie » shes_initforthemoney, posted by Lou Pilder on September 15, 2011, at 15:38:45
Lou, religions include all sorts of people, and wherever there are people there will be people who overvalue money. I don't see what it has to do with Judaism. I daresay there are a few Christian leaders whose tables Jesus would overturn. I think what he was objecting to was using religion to make money, in excess of what he considered reasonable.
I think there is some misperception among some Christians that Jesus' criticisms were directed at "Jews". I see Jesus' criticisms directed at Jews who weren't being very good Jews. Who weren't living up to the ideals of their Jewish faith. I see Jesus as addressing us all, no matter what our faith, to be better people and to love and serve God with all our hearts. If he addressed Jews in particular, it was because those were his people, and because he loved his people and his God.
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 16, 2011, at 17:12:31
In reply to Re: Lou's request-pstairtie » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on September 16, 2011, at 8:33:00
> Lou, religions include all sorts of people, and wherever there are people there will be people who overvalue money. I don't see what it has to do with Judaism. I daresay there are a few Christian leaders whose tables Jesus would overturn. I think what he was objecting to was using religion to make money, in excess of what he considered reasonable.
>
> I think there is some misperception among some Christians that Jesus' criticisms were directed at "Jews". I see Jesus' criticisms directed at Jews who weren't being very good Jews. Who weren't living up to the ideals of their Jewish faith. I see Jesus as addressing us all, no matter what our faith, to be better people and to love and serve God with all our hearts. If he addressed Jews in particular, it was because those were his people, and because he loved his people and his God.Dinah,
You wrote,[...people who overvalue money...I think that what (H)e was objecting to was using religion to make money in excesss of what (H)e considerd reasonable...].
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean by posting that here. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordinglyy.
A.Have you read the passage where the scene is described that is posted about by the other poster here?
B. If not, could you look it up and read it?
C. If you have read the passage, is there anything said about the moneychangers having a love for money or that (H)e was disgusted?If so, could you post here the citation(s) from that passage?
D.Is there anything said in that passage about the monychangers using religion to make money in excess of what (H)e thought was reasonable? If so, could you post te citation?
E. Do you know who the moneychangers were in that passage? If so, could you post your identification of them here?
F. What period of the year was the passage in context with as pertaining to the Jews?
G. Do you have any understanding of what the passage could be about in relation to the sacrifices of doves from a Jewish perspective?
H. redacted by respondent
K. Is it fair, in your opinion, for the moneychangers to be called those that used religion to make money and making a profit in excess of what (H)e thought to be reasonable, if that statement toward those Jews is not in the record in that passage?
L. Do you know of any historical use of the passage that has been used to arouse antisemitic feelings?
M. redacted by respondent
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 16, 2011, at 17:33:57
In reply to Lou's request-hyzoriklheyt » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on September 16, 2011, at 17:12:31
> > Lou, religions include all sorts of people, and wherever there are people there will be people who overvalue money. I don't see what it has to do with Judaism. I daresay there are a few Christian leaders whose tables Jesus would overturn. I think what he was objecting to was using religion to make money, in excess of what he considered reasonable.
> >
> > I think there is some misperception among some Christians that Jesus' criticisms were directed at "Jews". I see Jesus' criticisms directed at Jews who weren't being very good Jews. Who weren't living up to the ideals of their Jewish faith. I see Jesus as addressing us all, no matter what our faith, to be better people and to love and serve God with all our hearts. If he addressed Jews in particular, it was because those were his people, and because he loved his people and his God.
>
> Dinah,
> You wrote,[...people who overvalue money...I think that what (H)e was objecting to was using religion to make money in excesss of what (H)e considerd reasonable...].
> I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean by posting that here. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordinglyy.
> A.Have you read the passage where the scene is described that is posted about by the other poster here?
> B. If not, could you look it up and read it?
> C. If you have read the passage, is there anything said about the moneychangers having a love for money or that (H)e was disgusted?If so, could you post here the citation(s) from that passage?
> D.Is there anything said in that passage about the monychangers using religion to make money in excess of what (H)e thought was reasonable? If so, could you post te citation?
> E. Do you know who the moneychangers were in that passage? If so, could you post your identification of them here?
> F. What period of the year was the passage in context with as pertaining to the Jews?
> G. Do you have any understanding of what the passage could be about in relation to the sacrifices of doves from a Jewish perspective?
> H. redacted by respondent
> K. Is it fair, in your opinion, for the moneychangers to be called those that used religion to make money and making a profit in excess of what (H)e thought to be reasonable, if that statement toward those Jews is not in the record in that passage?
> L. Do you know of any historical use of the passage that has been used to arouse antisemitic feelings?
> M. redacted by respondent
> LouDinah,
There could be a misunderstanding here in relation to the identification of the [he].
It could be since Jesus is involved that the [he] is He. Or, is it possible also that the {he} could be the other poster?
Please clarify as to who the [he] is in your post, if it needs to be modified, so that I can modify if requierd my requests to you.
Lou
Posted by 10derheart on September 16, 2011, at 17:43:35
In reply to Re: Lou's request-pstairtie » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on September 16, 2011, at 8:33:00
Well, you certainly tried. It's all one can do.
Posted by Dinah on September 16, 2011, at 20:45:00
In reply to correction- Lou's request-poss misunderstanding, posted by Lou Pilder on September 16, 2011, at 17:33:57
Lou, I was just saying that Jesus wasn't attacking Jews. He was a Jew. It's like if I was upset at something my neighbor did. I certainly would hope no one would even think of telling me I was anti-American just because my neighbor would naturally enough be an American.
Jesus didn't like certain behaviors. He loved Jews.
He being Jesus. I have nothing more to say on the topic, really, Lou. Other than that people who talk about Jesus and the money lenders can not be assumed to be anti Semitic. And frankly I do feel a little insulted when I believe I am being accused of that.
So I'll ask you straight out. Do you think I'm anti-Semitic?
Posted by Dinah on September 16, 2011, at 20:48:12
In reply to Re: Lou's request-pstairtie » Dinah, posted by 10derheart on September 16, 2011, at 17:43:35
If I was perceived by Jay to be supportive to him, then I've done what I set out to do. I don't like to feel like someone thinks I'm anti-Semitic either. And I do sometimes feel that way when confronted by Lou's questions, even if Lou didn't intend it that way.
Posted by Shes_InItForTheMoney on September 17, 2011, at 2:23:31
In reply to Liberal Christian, posted by shes_initforthemoney on September 14, 2011, at 21:34:05
I mean't to emphasize that again, Jesus nor God are liberal or conservative. I am sorry if I made any implications as such. He loves all of His children, and I truly try to practice that kind of love, but am tinged a bit by some (of my) stubborn political views. I absolutely also don't wish to make any of this political. Again, I was just continuing from a thread above. I quote my favourite spiritual song on this:
"I believe in the Kingdom Come
Then all the colors will bleed into one
Bleed into one
But yes I'm still running"Respectfully,
Jay
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 17, 2011, at 15:48:53
In reply to Re: correction- Lou's request-poss misunderstanding, posted by Dinah on September 16, 2011, at 20:45:00
> Lou, I was just saying that Jesus wasn't attacking Jews. He was a Jew. It's like if I was upset at something my neighbor did. I certainly would hope no one would even think of telling me I was anti-American just because my neighbor would naturally enough be an American.
>
> Jesus didn't like certain behaviors. He loved Jews.
>
> He being Jesus. I have nothing more to say on the topic, really, Lou. Other than that people who talk about Jesus and the money lenders can not be assumed to be anti Semitic. And frankly I do feel a little insulted when I believe I am being accused of that.
>
> So I'll ask you straight out. Do you think I'm anti-Semitic?Dinah.
You wrote,[...Do you think that I am...?].
To determine if a person is antisemitic or not requiers a want for information to make that determination.
The definition of what constitues antisemitism is agreed upon by many at this time. But for one to be antisemitic, that could be different from one posting something that is antisemitic here.
Mr Hsiung agrees that if a post has something in it that could lead a Jew to feel put down/accused, then the post is an antisemitic post. But that is not the only definition of antisemitism.
One form of antisemitism is to foster hate toward Jews or a Jew. This hate could be fosterd in many ways such as doing what could lead others to think things about Jews or a Jew that could sterotype a Jew or describe a Jew as a person in a defamatory context. This could be by scapegoating, attributing undesierable qualities to Jews or a Jew and other tactics that are evident in the historical record where communities became antisemitic on the basis that the leadership or the government fosterd antisemitic policies. This is called state-sponsored antisemitism.
Now some people consider one to be antisemitic if they are a member of a community that fosters antisemitism and they do not object to it. Their reasoning is that those that did not object could have stopped it and allowed it to spread like a forest fire by not standing up to the authorities that allowed antisemitim in the community. Now I do not accept that definition until those that are allowing antisemitism are given due-processs to determine why they allowed it.
Then there is discrimination toward Jews by having two standards or targeting Jews or a Jew or allowing others to break the laws towad Jews or a Jew. This can be indifference to a Jew's complaints or repeated negligence in allowing a Jew to be unprotected by the laws of the community. Then a Jew could become a victim of antisemitic violence due to the repeated negligence of the community leaders to protect Jews or Jew.
There are more definitions that I will post in my next post.
But for me to determine if you are antisemitic or not, I would need to discover by asking questions annd getting answers to them before I could do that.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on September 17, 2011, at 15:53:37
In reply to Lou's reply--defofantisemitsm » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on September 17, 2011, at 15:48:53
You mean after all this time you have no sense of me?
Hmmm....
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 17, 2011, at 16:00:27
In reply to Re: Lou's reply--defofantisemitsm, posted by Dinah on September 17, 2011, at 15:53:37
> You mean after all this time you have no sense of me?
>
> Hmmm....Dinah,
What do you mean by a {sense}?
Lou
Posted by hyperfocus on September 22, 2011, at 23:30:05
In reply to Re: Lou's request-pstairtie » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on September 16, 2011, at 8:33:00
> I see Jesus' criticisms directed at Jews who weren't being very good Jews. Who weren't living up to the ideals of their Jewish faith. I see Jesus as addressing us all, no matter what our faith, to be better people and to love and serve God with all our hearts. If he addressed Jews in particular, it was because those were his people, and because he loved his people and his God.
This is how I always interpreted the Old Testament and New Testament - I don't see how it can be interpreted differently. I don't see how the events described there can be characterized as indictments against any faith or people. It is the actions of the moneylenders in the temple, and others who were transgressing God's law, who were being hypocritical, which deserved reproach. Just as the actions of Egyptians and Babylonians and Philistines against Israelites brought reproach and judgment from God. I don't think the Old Testament is an indictment against all Egyptians or Caananites or Assyrians or Persians or any peoples, that must endure from ancient to modern-day times. But the logic of the assertion made in this thread about how all Christians presumably view Judaism is the same.
When God made a promise to Abraham that he would spare Sodom even if only a handful of good people were there it, seems he made one of the first of a series of promise that he would never judge a people by the actions of some or even the majority. It goes as far back as Noah and the covenant made with him to not destroy mankind, presumably as long as at least one righteous person existed. One of the major themes that runs through all the terrible bloody conflicts of the Old and New Testaments is that it is the actions of individuals which determine their righteousness in the eyes of God, not their membership in any faith or ethnicity. David was the most exalted king of the Israelites, raised up from a boy as God's own, but God still punished him severely when he committed evil acts. It would be a much, much better world if Christians and Jews and all people everywhere could be judged solely on their individual actions and beliefs. But it's clear we're very, very far from that ideal.
Posted by hyperfocus on September 22, 2011, at 23:43:47
In reply to Re: Lou's reply--defofantisemitsm, posted by Dinah on September 17, 2011, at 15:53:37
The guilt or innocence of someone accused of something cannot depend on how well he or she answers a series of questions from the accuser. This is a retrograde step.
Posted by hyperfocus on September 23, 2011, at 0:08:59
In reply to Liberal Christian, posted by shes_initforthemoney on September 14, 2011, at 21:34:05
Well I'd say it's 50-50. You'd find bad people and good people mixed in the same proportion in a Calcutta slum as on Wall Street. I think one major reservation I have about the whole social justice movement is this silent assumption that people of the East are sort of morally superior to the capitalists and technocrats of the West. This is not the case. If you think corruption is bad in the U.S. you should visit India some time. If billion-dollar infrastructure projects or disaster-relief programs were shutdown every month because most of the funds were siphoned off by the government officials and company executives assigned to run them, all hell would break loose. Imagine 10 AIGs or Solyndrass. But this is what happens in India and Pakistan and Nigeria and so many resource-rich countries whose citizens have been living in desperate poverty for more than a hundred years. It's a really sad thing reading about Indian women committing suicide because the micro-finance programs designed to help left them from grinding poverty are turned into exploitation schemes by local business men.
I'm not saying that everyone in the rest of the world is like this - there are good people and miracles of achievement and self-empowerment taking place all over the world, just as in the U.S. But it is not the case that Western political and economic theories are any more exploitative or less moral than anywhere else. I do agree with you totally about Jesus' identification with the poor and sick and downtrodden though.
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 24, 2011, at 20:26:51
In reply to Re: righteousness in the Old and New Testament, posted by hyperfocus on September 22, 2011, at 23:30:05
> > I see Jesus' criticisms directed at Jews who weren't being very good Jews. Who weren't living up to the ideals of their Jewish faith. I see Jesus as addressing us all, no matter what our faith, to be better people and to love and serve God with all our hearts. If he addressed Jews in particular, it was because those were his people, and because he loved his people and his God.
>
> This is how I always interpreted the Old Testament and New Testament - I don't see how it can be interpreted differently. I don't see how the events described there can be characterized as indictments against any faith or people. It is the actions of the moneylenders in the temple, and others who were transgressing God's law, who were being hypocritical, which deserved reproach. Just as the actions of Egyptians and Babylonians and Philistines against Israelites brought reproach and judgment from God. I don't think the Old Testament is an indictment against all Egyptians or Caananites or Assyrians or Persians or any peoples, that must endure from ancient to modern-day times. But the logic of the assertion made in this thread about how all Christians presumably view Judaism is the same.
>
> When God made a promise to Abraham that he would spare Sodom even if only a handful of good people were there it, seems he made one of the first of a series of promise that he would never judge a people by the actions of some or even the majority. It goes as far back as Noah and the covenant made with him to not destroy mankind, presumably as long as at least one righteous person existed. One of the major themes that runs through all the terrible bloody conflicts of the Old and New Testaments is that it is the actions of individuals which determine their righteousness in the eyes of God, not their membership in any faith or ethnicity. David was the most exalted king of the Israelites, raised up from a boy as God's own, but God still punished him severely when he committed evil acts. It would be a much, much better world if Christians and Jews and all people everywhere could be judged solely on their individual actions and beliefs. But it's clear we're very, very far from that ideal.hf,
You wrote,[...it is the actions of the money changers in the temple, and others who were transgressing God's law, who were being xxx,..deserved...].
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
A. Have you read the passage in question?
B. If not, could you do so?
If you have read the passage;
C. What is the time of year as to why the Jews are buying doves?
D. What are the animals going to be used for?
E. Why were the money changers there?
F. What were the actions of the money changers in question that you say was a transgression of God's law?
H. Is there anything in the passage in question that states that, if you post the {actions} here?
K. what was the hypocracy? Is there anything in the passage that states that?
L. Who were the money changers, if you know?
M. Could there be a meaning to the scene that is unbeknownst to you that (redacted by respondent)
Lou
Posted by Shes_InItForTheMoney on September 25, 2011, at 2:41:34
In reply to Re: Liberal Christian » shes_initforthemoney, posted by hyperfocus on September 23, 2011, at 0:08:59
> Well I'd say it's 50-50. You'd find bad people and good people mixed in the same proportion in a Calcutta slum as on Wall Street. I think one major reservation I have about the whole social justice movement is this silent assumption that people of the East are sort of morally superior to the capitalists and technocrats of the West. This is not the case. If you think corruption is bad in the U.S. you should visit India some time. If billion-dollar infrastructure projects or disaster-relief programs were shutdown every month because most of the funds were siphoned off by the government officials and company executives assigned to run them, all hell would break loose. Imagine 10 AIGs or Solyndrass. But this is what happens in India and Pakistan and Nigeria and so many resource-rich countries whose citizens have been living in desperate poverty for more than a hundred years. It's a really sad thing reading about Indian women committing suicide because the micro-finance programs designed to help left them from grinding poverty are turned into exploitation schemes by local business men.
>
> I'm not saying that everyone in the rest of the world is like this - there are good people and miracles of achievement and self-empowerment taking place all over the world, just as in the U.S. But it is not the case that Western political and economic theories are any more exploitative or less moral than anywhere else. I do agree with you totally about Jesus' identification with the poor and sick and downtrodden though.Well, I would also say you will find Him in slums in New York, or any other place of suffering regardless of East Vs. West. I know that corruption in India is very widespread. For those seeking some kind of forgiveness or redemption you will find Him close to them if they are on Wall St. I dare not even think of how many Wall Street Traders do what they do day after day and seek redemption. Just like the powerful and affluent in India who live with the caste system.
Social justice is about looking for God's mercy. You have to be looking, congruent in what you are doing, though. Read "What's so amazing about grace" by Philip Yancy and you will see what I mean. Making money on the back's of others while knowing many suffer because of it, is evil. They gambled on Jesus' clothing while he was dying. These things are inherently evil.
Social Justice is a moral issue. That is why they published The Poverty and Justice Bible. It highlights more than 2,000 verses that refer to poverty and social justice in Scripture.
I'd highly recommend reading.(With all due respect.)Jay
Posted by 10derheart on September 25, 2011, at 17:38:36
In reply to Re: guilt and innocence, posted by hyperfocus on September 22, 2011, at 23:43:47
Good point. Well said.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Faith | 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.