![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 149 to 173 of 795. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 12, 2013, at 18:26:45
In reply to Lou's reply to Mr Hsiung-dizckrmtoardjz, posted by Lou Pilder on October 12, 2013, at 17:55:46
> > > > > If {what if} means that by modifying what can be seen would annul the fact that the post means, I have said that it would not.
> > > > >
> > > > > Lou Pilder
> > > >
> > > > > I have heard the words often enough, in context, to understand that it's generally meant as a condemnation of Christian churches who do not have Christ at their center.
> > > > >
> > > > > Dinah
> > > >
> > > > > if you think for one second that I am going to ever stop my efforts here to purge that statement .. then think again my friends
> > > > >
> > > > > Lou
> > > >
> > > > I did think we might be able to agree on a way to modify it. Apparently not. Reasonable people can disagree. How about moving on to another statement?
> > >
> > > Mr. Hsiung,
> > > The statement says what it says. You even want to change it. You could do that and then I will post my response to you in that thread where you make the change. I have the following concerns and would like for you to post answers to the following.
> > > A. Are you going to actually do some type of computer surgery to the statement and change it so that it will be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community? You do not need my permission to do that.
> > > B. If so, would the original statement remain or not?
> > > C. If you could do that to the statement in the post in question, could you also do that to other post's statements?
> > > D. If so, what are the criteria that you will use to determine which ones you will change and make an unsupportive statement into a supportive statement?
> > > E. When I read your TOS here, it said to not post anything that could put down those of other faiths. I took you at your word. So are you going to change your TOS from that to something like:
> > > [...If you post a statement that could put down those of other faiths, I will use my features in my computer to change the statement so that it does not put down those of other faiths...].
> > > F. Have you done this type of changing previously here? If so, could you post the urls of those?
> > > G. If you do change the statement, would there be a disclaimer posted in the thread that you made a change to what another member posted and why you modified the statement?
> > > Lou Pilder
> > >
> > > Mr Hsiung,
> > If you are going to use your option to not respond to my requests in the above post from me to you, then here is the next post in our discussion.
> > The post is problematic for many reasons. But be it as it may be, the statements still stand that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings and IMHO could induce in the minds of a subset of readers the ideas that could lead them IMHHO to think of violence toward Jews, on the basis that some readers could think that the statements about Jews are conducive to the civic harmony and welfare here by you. What I am asking is for you to post there a statement that the statements about Jews are not considered by you to be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community. To see the post in question, go to the search box at the bottom of this page and type in:
> > [ faith,428781 ]
> > Lou PIlder
> > to
> Mr Hsiung and readers,
> Here is a link and the links in the post to what I think could help readers understand the situation that I find myself in here.
> Lou Pilder
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/429340.htmlI apologize for what is contained in the post in the link for that was in 2004 and there are posted prohibitions to me here now from Mr Hsiung that could now encompass some of the statement in the link.
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 13, 2013, at 22:52:52
In reply to Lou's aplogy, posted by Lou Pilder on October 12, 2013, at 18:26:45
> If you are going to use your option to not respond to my requests in the above post from me to you, then here is the next post in our discussion.
> To see the post in question, go to the search box at the bottom of this page and type in:
> [ faith,428781 ]> I apologize for what is contained in the post in the link for that was in 2004 and there are posted prohibitions to me here now from Mr Hsiung that could now encompass some of the statement in the link.
Thanks, should we move on to another statement?
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 14, 2013, at 5:14:23
In reply to Lou's reply to Mr Hsiung-heytoardjz, posted by Lou Pilder on October 12, 2013, at 17:26:56
> > > > If {what if} means that by modifying what can be seen would annul the fact that the post means, I have said that it would not.
> > > >
> > > > Lou Pilder
> > >
> > > > I have heard the words often enough, in context, to understand that it's generally meant as a condemnation of Christian churches who do not have Christ at their center.
> > > >
> > > > Dinah
> > >
> > > > if you think for one second that I am going to ever stop my efforts here to purge that statement .. then think again my friends
> > > >
> > > > Lou
> > >
> > > I did think we might be able to agree on a way to modify it. Apparently not. Reasonable people can disagree. How about moving on to another statement?
> >
> > Mr. Hsiung,
> > The statement says what it says. You even want to change it. You could do that and then I will post my response to you in that thread where you make the change. I have the following concerns and would like for you to post answers to the following.
> > A. Are you going to actually do some type of computer surgery to the statement and change it so that it will be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community? You do not need my permission to do that.
> > B. If so, would the original statement remain or not?
> > C. If you could do that to the statement in the post in question, could you also do that to other post's statements?
> > D. If so, what are the criteria that you will use to determine which ones you will change and make an unsupportive statement into a supportive statement?
> > E. When I read your TOS here, it said to not post anything that could put down those of other faiths. I took you at your word. So are you going to change your TOS from that to something like:
> > [...If you post a statement that could put down those of other faiths, I will use my features in my computer to change the statement so that it does not put down those of other faiths...].
> > F. Have you done this type of changing previously here? If so, could you post the urls of those?
> > G. If you do change the statement, would there be a disclaimer posted in the thread that you made a change to what another member posted and why you modified the statement?
> > Lou Pilder
> >
> > Mr Hsiung,
> If you are going to use your option to not respond to my requests in the above post from me to you, then here is the next post in our discussion.
> The post is problematic for many reasons. But be it as it may be, the statements still stand that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings and IMHO could induce in the minds of a subset of readers the ideas that could lead them IMHHO to think of violence toward Jews, on the basis that some readers could think that the statements about Jews are conducive to the civic harmony and welfare here by you. What I am asking is for you to post there a statement that the statements about Jews are not considered by you to be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community. To see the post in question, go to the search box at the bottom of this page and type in:
> [ faith,428781 ]
> Lou PIlder
> toMr. Hsiung,
Now you write that you would like to go on to another post. But there is the potential, IMHO, for Jews to be victims of anti-Semitic violence as a result of the derogatory statements about Jews being allowed to stand by you here.
You say that you do what in your thinking will be good for this community as a whole and for people to trust you in that. But I say to you that as long as you do not respond to my requests, what you allow to stand here about the Jews could inflict harm to Jews because there could be a subset of readers that see these statements in question being allowed to stand and could take that as that what is written about Jews to be supportive by you since you say that support takes precedence. And you also say that one match could start a forest fire so that you do not wait to act. Then statements that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings being allowed to stand by you could cause a subset of readers to think that it is supportive by you to have statements that could defame Jews and stigmatize Jews which I think could induce hostility toward Jews in a subset of readers so that there could be children being beaten and killed by Jew-haters as they could see that a psychiatrist allows such derogatory and dehumanizing statements about Jews to be seen as good for this community as a whole as you say that you do.You say that you take responsibility for what you post here. I say to you that it could be seen that your posture toward Jews by allowing these statements about Jews to stand could stoke the furnace of hate and by allowing the statements, the fire of hatred toward the Jews is still burning. I am here to put out the fire that you are allowing. And as long as these statements that are derogatory and dehumanizing about the Jews are allowed to be seen as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community, so shall I continue to try to stop you from allowing the fire of hatred toward the Jews to spread.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 14, 2013, at 5:48:43
In reply to Lou's reply to Mr Hsiung-phyrofheyt, posted by Lou Pilder on October 14, 2013, at 5:14:23
> > > > > If {what if} means that by modifying what can be seen would annul the fact that the post means, I have said that it would not.
> > > > >
> > > > > Lou Pilder
> > > >
> > > > > I have heard the words often enough, in context, to understand that it's generally meant as a condemnation of Christian churches who do not have Christ at their center.
> > > > >
> > > > > Dinah
> > > >
> > > > > if you think for one second that I am going to ever stop my efforts here to purge that statement .. then think again my friends
> > > > >
> > > > > Lou
> > > >
> > > > I did think we might be able to agree on a way to modify it. Apparently not. Reasonable people can disagree. How about moving on to another statement?
> > >
> > > Mr. Hsiung,
> > > The statement says what it says. You even want to change it. You could do that and then I will post my response to you in that thread where you make the change. I have the following concerns and would like for you to post answers to the following.
> > > A. Are you going to actually do some type of computer surgery to the statement and change it so that it will be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community? You do not need my permission to do that.
> > > B. If so, would the original statement remain or not?
> > > C. If you could do that to the statement in the post in question, could you also do that to other post's statements?
> > > D. If so, what are the criteria that you will use to determine which ones you will change and make an unsupportive statement into a supportive statement?
> > > E. When I read your TOS here, it said to not post anything that could put down those of other faiths. I took you at your word. So are you going to change your TOS from that to something like:
> > > [...If you post a statement that could put down those of other faiths, I will use my features in my computer to change the statement so that it does not put down those of other faiths...].
> > > F. Have you done this type of changing previously here? If so, could you post the urls of those?
> > > G. If you do change the statement, would there be a disclaimer posted in the thread that you made a change to what another member posted and why you modified the statement?
> > > Lou Pilder
> > >
> > > Mr Hsiung,
> > If you are going to use your option to not respond to my requests in the above post from me to you, then here is the next post in our discussion.
> > The post is problematic for many reasons. But be it as it may be, the statements still stand that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings and IMHO could induce in the minds of a subset of readers the ideas that could lead them IMHHO to think of violence toward Jews, on the basis that some readers could think that the statements about Jews are conducive to the civic harmony and welfare here by you. What I am asking is for you to post there a statement that the statements about Jews are not considered by you to be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community. To see the post in question, go to the search box at the bottom of this page and type in:
> > [ faith,428781 ]
> > Lou PIlder
> > to
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> Now you write that you would like to go on to another post. But there is the potential, IMHO, for Jews to be victims of anti-Semitic violence as a result of the derogatory statements about Jews being allowed to stand by you here.
> You say that you do what in your thinking will be good for this community as a whole and for people to trust you in that. But I say to you that as long as you do not respond to my requests, what you allow to stand here about the Jews could inflict harm to Jews because there could be a subset of readers that see these statements in question being allowed to stand and could take that as that what is written about Jews to be supportive by you since you say that support takes precedence. And you also say that one match could start a forest fire so that you do not wait to act. Then statements that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings being allowed to stand by you could cause a subset of readers to think that it is supportive by you to have statements that could defame Jews and stigmatize Jews which I think could induce hostility toward Jews in a subset of readers so that there could be children being beaten and killed by Jew-haters as they could see that a psychiatrist allows such derogatory and dehumanizing statements about Jews to be seen as good for this community as a whole as you say that you do.You say that you take responsibility for what you post here. I say to you that it could be seen that your posture toward Jews by allowing these statements about Jews to stand could stoke the furnace of hate and by allowing the statements, the fire of hatred toward the Jews is still burning. I am here to put out the fire that you are allowing. And as long as these statements that are derogatory and dehumanizing about the Jews are allowed to be seen as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community, so shall I continue to try to stop you from allowing the fire of hatred toward the Jews to spread.
> Lou PilderMr. Hsiung,
Here are two posts for discussion. The posts have statements in them that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings and the posts can be seen as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community and supportive by you.
In this post anti-Semitic feelings could be aroused IMO. This could stereotype Jews and stigmatize Jews, for the passage doesn't say what the poster says it says.
The post is:
http:/www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20101230/msgs/996847.html
Then in this post, line #6 uses the word, {only} which precludes Jews and all other religions that have a different way than Christiandom. This could arouse hatred in particular but not limited toward the Jews.
The post is:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20080404/msgs/832720.html
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 14, 2013, at 5:51:53
In reply to Lou's reply to Mr Hsiung-pstig/pstereo, posted by Lou Pilder on October 14, 2013, at 5:48:43
> > > > > > If {what if} means that by modifying what can be seen would annul the fact that the post means, I have said that it would not.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Lou Pilder
> > > > >
> > > > > > I have heard the words often enough, in context, to understand that it's generally meant as a condemnation of Christian churches who do not have Christ at their center.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dinah
> > > > >
> > > > > > if you think for one second that I am going to ever stop my efforts here to purge that statement .. then think again my friends
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Lou
> > > > >
> > > > > I did think we might be able to agree on a way to modify it. Apparently not. Reasonable people can disagree. How about moving on to another statement?
> > > >
> > > > Mr. Hsiung,
> > > > The statement says what it says. You even want to change it. You could do that and then I will post my response to you in that thread where you make the change. I have the following concerns and would like for you to post answers to the following.
> > > > A. Are you going to actually do some type of computer surgery to the statement and change it so that it will be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community? You do not need my permission to do that.
> > > > B. If so, would the original statement remain or not?
> > > > C. If you could do that to the statement in the post in question, could you also do that to other post's statements?
> > > > D. If so, what are the criteria that you will use to determine which ones you will change and make an unsupportive statement into a supportive statement?
> > > > E. When I read your TOS here, it said to not post anything that could put down those of other faiths. I took you at your word. So are you going to change your TOS from that to something like:
> > > > [...If you post a statement that could put down those of other faiths, I will use my features in my computer to change the statement so that it does not put down those of other faiths...].
> > > > F. Have you done this type of changing previously here? If so, could you post the urls of those?
> > > > G. If you do change the statement, would there be a disclaimer posted in the thread that you made a change to what another member posted and why you modified the statement?
> > > > Lou Pilder
> > > >
> > > > Mr Hsiung,
> > > If you are going to use your option to not respond to my requests in the above post from me to you, then here is the next post in our discussion.
> > > The post is problematic for many reasons. But be it as it may be, the statements still stand that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings and IMHO could induce in the minds of a subset of readers the ideas that could lead them IMHHO to think of violence toward Jews, on the basis that some readers could think that the statements about Jews are conducive to the civic harmony and welfare here by you. What I am asking is for you to post there a statement that the statements about Jews are not considered by you to be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community. To see the post in question, go to the search box at the bottom of this page and type in:
> > > [ faith,428781 ]
> > > Lou PIlder
> > > to
> >
> > Mr. Hsiung,
> > Now you write that you would like to go on to another post. But there is the potential, IMHO, for Jews to be victims of anti-Semitic violence as a result of the derogatory statements about Jews being allowed to stand by you here.
> > You say that you do what in your thinking will be good for this community as a whole and for people to trust you in that. But I say to you that as long as you do not respond to my requests, what you allow to stand here about the Jews could inflict harm to Jews because there could be a subset of readers that see these statements in question being allowed to stand and could take that as that what is written about Jews to be supportive by you since you say that support takes precedence. And you also say that one match could start a forest fire so that you do not wait to act. Then statements that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings being allowed to stand by you could cause a subset of readers to think that it is supportive by you to have statements that could defame Jews and stigmatize Jews which I think could induce hostility toward Jews in a subset of readers so that there could be children being beaten and killed by Jew-haters as they could see that a psychiatrist allows such derogatory and dehumanizing statements about Jews to be seen as good for this community as a whole as you say that you do.You say that you take responsibility for what you post here. I say to you that it could be seen that your posture toward Jews by allowing these statements about Jews to stand could stoke the furnace of hate and by allowing the statements, the fire of hatred toward the Jews is still burning. I am here to put out the fire that you are allowing. And as long as these statements that are derogatory and dehumanizing about the Jews are allowed to be seen as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community, so shall I continue to try to stop you from allowing the fire of hatred toward the Jews to spread.
> > Lou Pilder
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> Here are two posts for discussion. The posts have statements in them that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings and the posts can be seen as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community and supportive by you.
> In this post anti-Semitic feelings could be aroused IMO. This could stereotype Jews and stigmatize Jews, for the passage doesn't say what the poster says it says.
> The post is:
> http:/www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20101230/msgs/996847.html
> Then in this post, line #6 uses the word, {only} which precludes Jews and all other religions that have a different way than Christiandom. This could arouse hatred in particular but not limited toward the Jews.
> The post is:
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20080404/msgs/832720.html
> Lou PilderThe correction to the first link is:
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20101230/msgs/996847.html
Posted by Dinah on October 14, 2013, at 8:21:05
In reply to Lou's reply to Mr Hsiung-phyrofheyt, posted by Lou Pilder on October 14, 2013, at 5:14:23
If I were neutral, which I'm not, the thing most likely to set fires of anger towards Jews might be the constant repetition of accusations of Anti-Semetism where none were intended.
Fortunately, I work hard at separating my feelings about the actions of one Jew from my feelings about Judaism.
But in general, I think the statements outstanding on this site that might be most likely to arouse negative feelings towards Jews are the repeated accusations of Lou. But that's just my opinion based on the feelings aroused in me.
Subjective I admit.
Posted by SLS on October 14, 2013, at 8:58:33
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Mr Hsiung-phyrofheyt, posted by Dinah on October 14, 2013, at 8:21:05
> If I were neutral, which I'm not, the thing most likely to set fires of anger towards Jews might be the constant repetition of accusations of Anti-Semetism where none were intended.
>
> Fortunately, I work hard at separating my feelings about the actions of one Jew from my feelings about Judaism.
>
> But in general, I think the statements outstanding on this site that might be most likely to arouse negative feelings towards Jews are the repeated accusations of Lou. But that's just my opinion based on the feelings aroused in me.
>
> Subjective I admit.I feel the same way regarding the posts of Lou Pilder. I have always been concerned that they have had the potential to foster and reinforce antisemitism. I believe it is a stereotype that Jews constantly cry antisemitism where none exists. Lou Pilder has done much to reinforce this stereotype. Also, I feel that his chronic citing of specific posts, and thus posters, as promoting antisemitism and violence against Jews contributes to civic disharmony.
I would suggest that no single poster has caused more civic disharmony than Lou Pilder. This, of course, is my perception. I have no statistics to verify this. I look forward to following his posts on the Medication forum to see if his posture has changed, now that the forum is actively moderated.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 14, 2013, at 9:09:16
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Mr Hsiung-phyrofheyt, posted by Dinah on October 14, 2013, at 8:21:05
> If I were neutral, which I'm not, the thing most likely to set fires of anger towards Jews might be the constant repetition of accusations of Anti-Semetism where none were intended.
>
> Fortunately, I work hard at separating my feelings about the actions of one Jew from my feelings about Judaism.
>
> But in general, I think the statements outstanding on this site that might be most likely to arouse negative feelings towards Jews are the repeated accusations of Lou. But that's just my opinion based on the feelings aroused in me.
>
> Subjective I admit.
>
Friends,
It is written,[...the things most likely to set the fires of anger toward Jews might be the constant repetition of accusations of Anti-Semitism where none were intended...].
The intent is not an issue here, for I can not know one's intent when they post statements that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings. What is at issue here is that there could be harm to Jews inflicted by the statements here that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings that could be seen as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and also seen as supportive , for support takes precedence here in Mr Hsiung's TOS.
Those statements in question that are plainly visible here and are in my discussion with Mr Hsiung, can stoke the furnace of hatred toward the Jews in particular but not limited to them. There is a rule here to not post anything that could put down those of other faiths and I took Mr. Hsiung at his word when I read his rule. There is a procedure to follow for getting posts addressed by the administration and I am following that procedure as humanly possible. The procedure involves reminders and reminders to the reminders. The administrative board is for this purpose and I am posting here on that board for redress of grievances that I think could make this community better. If one does not want to see this constant endeavor of mine to have statements that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings addressed according to Mr. Hsiung's own TOS, then they could (redacted by respondent) and leave this to me and Mr. Hsiung or join in from their perspective.
Be advised, readers, that the poster that directed this to me says that I am making accusations of anti-Semitism where non is intended and because of that it could set the fire of anger toward Jews. If anyone is angry because I am trying to stop statements here that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings from being seen as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community and supportive, then do those people that are angry want those statements to remain as being seen as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community and supportive? My friend, I am not going to stop using the administrative procedures provided here for those seeking redress of grievances because of what is written about me here. I could be the subject person that Dinah is using and I feel that what she has posted about me could arouse hatred toward Jews that object to statements here that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings because she states that the intent of the posters of such could be that they did not intend for the statements in question to be anti-Semitic. I do not know their intent nor do I think that anyone else including Dinah could know the deep intent in one's heart to post such statements against the Jews that are in question here that you can see in my discussion with Mr. Hsiung. There is not an accusation of the poster being anti-Semitic, so that statement directed against me by Dinah is one that I deeply object to and her statement could IMHO arouse antisemitic feelings toward me. This could decrease the respect, regard and confidence in which I am held and induce hostile and disagreeable opinions and feelings against me.
I am giving Mr. Hsiung the opportunity to correct what I think are statements that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings and cause harm to Jews by being victims of anti-Semitic violence because readers could think that those statements in question are conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and supportive. And when a person that already harbors hatred toward the Jews sees these statements in question, that IMHO could give them incentive to feel justified in harming or murdering a Jew because a psychiatrist has a rule not to post anything that could lead one to feel put down or to post anything that could put down those of other faiths and to not post what is not supportive. So those statements allowed to stand could be thought by a subset of readers to be supportive and will be good for this community as a whole. If it could be good for this community as a whole, some readers could think that it could be good for their community as a whole also. This could result in the harm and murder of Jews as the historical record shows. I will do my part to object to the statements in question under discussion regardless what the intent of the poster could be, for it is what can be seen that is plainly visible that is in question here, the intent of the poster of such could be unseen .
Lou
Posted by SLS on October 14, 2013, at 9:23:32
In reply to Lou's response-uhnpsean, posted by Lou Pilder on October 14, 2013, at 9:09:16
> The intent is not an issue here, for I can not know one's intent when they post statements that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings. What is at issue here is that there could be harm to Jews inflicted by the statements here that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings...
"Could" this and "could" that...
These are your hypotheses for which you never demonstrate evidence of occurrence.
Can you replace the word "could" with the word "does" in your posits of antisemitism. Do you know of anyone on Psycho-Babble who has been harmed by the posts you cite as promoting civic disharmony?
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 14, 2013, at 11:50:11
In reply to Re: Lou's response-uhnpsean, posted by SLS on October 14, 2013, at 9:23:32
> > The intent is not an issue here, for I can not know one's intent when they post statements that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings. What is at issue here is that there could be harm to Jews inflicted by the statements here that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings...
>
> "Could" this and "could" that...
>
> These are your hypotheses for which you never demonstrate evidence of occurrence.
>
> Can you replace the word "could" with the word "does" in your posits of antisemitism. Do you know of anyone on Psycho-Babble who has been harmed by the posts you cite as promoting civic disharmony?
>
>
> - ScottFriends,
It is written here,[...these are your hypotheses for which you never demonstrate evidence of occurrence...].
The demonstration of theharm that could come to Jews when anti-Semitic statement are allowed to stand in a community is in the historical record. And to see how this is promulgated historically, see the following video.
Lou
To see this video:
A. Bring p Google
B. Type in:
[ youtube,UDv1aqbWRE0 ]
after the "v" is a "one"
after the "E" there is a "zero"
Posted by SLS on October 14, 2013, at 14:31:45
In reply to Lou's response-phozderheyttwdjz, posted by Lou Pilder on October 14, 2013, at 11:50:11
> The demonstration of the harm that could come to Jews when anti-Semitic statement are allowed to stand in a community is in the historical record.
What you ask for is illogical.
I have yet to see antisemitism in any of the posts you cite, even those that describe a belief in the necessity to go through Jesus to get to heaven or to be required to be circumcised to get to heaven. When you find antisemitism in a current post, perhaps then we can draw from the historical record. For now, your attachment to posts that are many years old, and your requesting the moderator to remove them would create more problems than would be solved. There would be concerns regarding the constant editing of content and needing a cumbersome protocol to review the entire history of posts on Psycho-Babble.
Do you think your history of posting has been conducive to civic harmony? This is a critical question, given your use of civic harmony as a benchmark of civility. If civic harmony were the measure of civility, you would probably be blocked from posting indefinitely as is demonstrated by people's reactions to your posting behaviors. However, civic harmony alone cannot be sufficient to determine civility. It is possible that only one person in the community knows the truth and feels compelled to inform and persuade everyone else to consider his pleas.
Your litany of listings of antisemitic posts is untenable. You have not managed to identify a single one. Not a single one. If you have a problem with a Christian expressing their belief that one must go through Jesus to get to Heaven, then let's discuss that and come to a resolution. Perhaps you can compare and contrast that belief with that of Jews that a male must be circumcised to get to Heaven.
----------------------------------------------
John 14:6
"No one gets to the Father but through me."
----------------------------------------------
There no unanimity among theologians as to what this passage in the New Testament means. Is the "Father" a reference to salvation and Heaven or, rather, to creating a closer bond with God while on Earth?
QUESTION: Is this reference the one and only problem you have with posts regarding Christianity?
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 14, 2013, at 14:50:18
In reply to Expression of religious beliefs - What is Uncivil? » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on October 14, 2013, at 14:31:45
> > The demonstration of the harm that could come to Jews when anti-Semitic statement are allowed to stand in a community is in the historical record.
>
> What you ask for is illogical.
>
> I have yet to see antisemitism in any of the posts you cite, even those that describe a belief in the necessity to go through Jesus to get to heaven or to be required to be circumcised to get to heaven. When you find antisemitism in a current post, perhaps then we can draw from the historical record. For now, your attachment to posts that are many years old, and your requesting the moderator to remove them would create more problems than would be solved. There would be concerns regarding the constant editing of content and needing a cumbersome protocol to review the entire history of posts on Psycho-Babble.
>
> Do you think your history of posting has been conducive to civic harmony? This is a critical question, given your use of civic harmony as a benchmark of civility. If civic harmony were the measure of civility, you would probably be blocked from posting indefinitely as is demonstrated by people's reactions to your posting behaviors. However, civic harmony alone cannot be sufficient to determine civility. It is possible that only one person in the community knows the truth and feels compelled to inform and persuade everyone else to consider his pleas.
>
> Your litany of listings of antisemitic posts is untenable. You have not managed to identify a single one. Not a single one. If you have a problem with a Christian expressing their belief that one must go through Jesus to get to Heaven, then let's discuss that and come to a resolution. Perhaps you can compare and contrast that belief with that of Jews that a male must be circumcised to get to Heaven.
>
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> John 14:6
>
> "No one gets to the Father but through me."
>
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> There no unanimity among theologians as to what this passage in the New Testament means. Is the "Father" a reference to salvation and Heaven or, rather, to creating a closer bond with God while on Earth?
>
> QUESTION: Is this reference the one and only problem you have with posts regarding Christianity?
>
>
> - Scott
>Friends,
The question here is if a post is anti-Semitic or not. There is a test that Mr Hsoung agrees to use here to make that determination. The test is if a Jew reads I, could they feel put down, or in another way, does the statement in question put down Jews.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041218/msgs/439314.html
Posted by SLS on October 14, 2013, at 15:25:23
In reply to Lou's response-whtizanantyceemetikstatement, posted by Lou Pilder on October 14, 2013, at 14:50:18
----------------------------------------------
>
> John 14:6
>
> "No one gets to the Father but through me."
>
> ----------------------------------------------QUESTION: Is this reference the one and only problem you have with posts regarding Christianity?
===============================================
> The test is if a Jew reads I, could they feel put down, or in another way, does the statement in question put down Jews.I think we must work on this.
This is an administrative issue to be sure.
The test, as you describe it, is too dependent on the psyche of the reader. You might find antisemitism in words that I do not. If I state that I feel you are attacking me with words because I am Jewish, even though we were just debating the best way to carve a breadfruit, I should be able to have you blocked for being antisemitic, right?
Wrong.
Get over it.
- Scott
Posted by Willful on October 14, 2013, at 16:57:58
In reply to Lou's response-whtizanantyceemetikstatement, posted by Lou Pilder on October 14, 2013, at 14:50:18
That is absolutely not what Bob has said.
It has nothing to do with what any Jew would think. I hope we are at least requiring that that Jew be a reasonable and prudent person, a person of discernment, and good judgment.
I hope we are insisting that that Jew understand the difference between vicious attacks and legitimate questioning or criticism.
I hope we are in a world where we require evidence, convincing arguments, openness to dialogue-- and do not simply willy-nilly hold statements in such contempt.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 14, 2013, at 17:06:57
In reply to Re: Lou's response-whtizanantyceemetikstatement, posted by Willful on October 14, 2013, at 16:57:58
> That is absolutely not what Bob has said.
>
> It has nothing to do with what any Jew would think. I hope we are at least requiring that that Jew be a reasonable and prudent person, a person of discernment, and good judgment.
>
> I hope we are insisting that that Jew understand the difference between vicious attacks and legitimate questioning or criticism.
>
> I hope we are in a world where we require evidence, convincing arguments, openness to dialogue-- and do not simply willy-nilly hold statements in such contempt.
>
> Friends,
It is written here,[...That is absolutely not what (Mr. Hsiung) has said...].
Mr Hsiung has said in his TOS to not post what could lead someone to feel put down.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 14, 2013, at 17:14:57
In reply to Expression of religious beliefs - What is Uncivil? » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on October 14, 2013, at 14:31:45
> > The demonstration of the harm that could come to Jews when anti-Semitic statement are allowed to stand in a community is in the historical record.
>
> What you ask for is illogical.
>
> I have yet to see antisemitism in any of the posts you cite, even those that describe a belief in the necessity to go through Jesus to get to heaven or to be required to be circumcised to get to heaven. When you find antisemitism in a current post, perhaps then we can draw from the historical record. For now, your attachment to posts that are many years old, and your requesting the moderator to remove them would create more problems than would be solved. There would be concerns regarding the constant editing of content and needing a cumbersome protocol to review the entire history of posts on Psycho-Babble.
>
> Do you think your history of posting has been conducive to civic harmony? This is a critical question, given your use of civic harmony as a benchmark of civility. If civic harmony were the measure of civility, you would probably be blocked from posting indefinitely as is demonstrated by people's reactions to your posting behaviors. However, civic harmony alone cannot be sufficient to determine civility. It is possible that only one person in the community knows the truth and feels compelled to inform and persuade everyone else to consider his pleas.
>
> Your litany of listings of antisemitic posts is untenable. You have not managed to identify a single one. Not a single one. If you have a problem with a Christian expressing their belief that one must go through Jesus to get to Heaven, then let's discuss that and come to a resolution. Perhaps you can compare and contrast that belief with that of Jews that a male must be circumcised to get to Heaven.
>
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> John 14:6
>
> "No one gets to the Father but through me."
>
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> There no unanimity among theologians as to what this passage in the New Testament means. Is the "Father" a reference to salvation and Heaven or, rather, to creating a closer bond with God while on Earth?
>
> QUESTION: Is this reference the one and only problem you have with posts regarding Christianity?
>
>
> - Scott
>Friends,
If you are considering posting in this thread, I am requesting that you takeinto consideration the following post to me from M hsoiung.
Lou
To see this post:
Go to the search box at the bottom of thos page and type in:
[admin,7968 ]
usually first, but look for the 7968 to be in the colored strip url
Posted by Willful on October 14, 2013, at 17:48:45
In reply to Lou's response-pheelpudown, posted by Lou Pilder on October 14, 2013, at 17:06:57
I was responding to this statement by Lou:
The question here is if a post is anti-Semitic or not. There is a test that Mr Hsoung agrees to use here to make that determination. The test is if a Jew reads I, could they feel put down, or in another way, does the statement in question put down Jews.
~~I meant simply that the test is not if any person, or even any Jew, feels put down-- but that we might want to qualify this to say that before we stigmatize a post, we should at least ask whether the person who feels put down has good judgment, a good basis for feeling put down. Perhaps my further hopes were statements about what I thought might contribute to belief in a person's good judgment-- and in a process of coming to a view as to whether a post is anti-semitic.
It is better not to hurt other people-- including the person whose post is being judged anti-semitic-- which is why having arguments, discernment, and all those things matter.
If someone is hurt due to their own inner tendency, for example, to be hurt or offended, is that the fault of the post? (By this I am not suggesting that anyone here is.) All I mean to say is that people's posts are not always what leads someone to feel hurt-- even if the post is the source of the hurt in the person's mind.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 14, 2013, at 19:37:14
In reply to Re: judgment, posted by Willful on October 14, 2013, at 17:48:45
> I was responding to this statement by Lou:
>
> The question here is if a post is anti-Semitic or not. There is a test that Mr Hsoung agrees to use here to make that determination. The test is if a Jew reads I, could they feel put down, or in another way, does the statement in question put down Jews.
>
> ~~I meant simply that the test is not if any person, or even any Jew, feels put down-- but that we might want to qualify this to say that before we stigmatize a post, we should at least ask whether the person who feels put down has good judgment, a good basis for feeling put down. Perhaps my further hopes were statements about what I thought might contribute to belief in a person's good judgment-- and in a process of coming to a view as to whether a post is anti-semitic.
>
> It is better not to hurt other people-- including the person whose post is being judged anti-semitic-- which is why having arguments, discernment, and all those things matter.
>
> If someone is hurt due to their own inner tendency, for example, to be hurt or offended, is that the fault of the post? (By this I am not suggesting that anyone here is.) All I mean to say is that people's posts are not always what leads someone to feel hurt-- even if the post is the source of the hurt in the person's mind.
>
> Friends,
The subject here is how can it be determined if a statement is antisemtic. Mr. Hsiung agrees that if a statement could put down Jews, then it is an anti-Semitic statement. It is the statement in and of itself that is determined if it is or is not an anti-Semitic post. The test is if the statement puts down Jews.
Now the generally accepted meaning of to {put down} something, is that if a statement is critical, humiliating, disparaging, etc. So if a statement puts down Jews, it could be something that is critical of Judaism, or humiliating to a Jew or disparaging to a Jew such as belittling or showing in the post that there is a lesser value considered for the Jew than the one using the statement that could be about Jews or use a Jew or Jews as a scapegoat or accuse Jews by blaming them for real or imagined ills of a community or blaming the for what has been used historically to arouse hatred toward the Jews. The statement could demean Judaism itself by using language that elevates another religion above Judaism. That is what {put down} generally means. The fact that one is a member of Christiandom does not put down Jews. And the fact that one is a Jew does not put down other faiths. But if the Christiandom person says that they are he only (redacted by respondent) that is different story. The Christiandom person could say that the only way for Christians is....which is OK here. But it is not OK to say that the only way for all humanity is...which includes the Jews.
Now let us look at this post and you determine if Jews are being put down or not. To see this post go to the search box at the bottom of the page and type in:
[ admin, 428781 ]
Now it may not be first so look for the 4228781 in the colored strip url
Lou
Posted by Phillipa on October 14, 2013, at 21:28:26
In reply to Lou's response-428781, posted by Lou Pilder on October 14, 2013, at 19:37:14
No
Posted by SLS on October 14, 2013, at 22:14:00
In reply to Lou's response-428781, posted by Lou Pilder on October 14, 2013, at 19:37:14
> The Christiandom person could say that the only way for Christians is....which is OK here. But it is not OK to say that the only way for all humanity is...which includes the Jews.
Why is this not okay?
Will you not go to Heaven despite the beliefs of others?
Hmm.
Okay. Now we have an answer from you. You do indeed have concerns regarding the biblical passage:
----------------------------------------------
>
> John 14:6
>
> "No one gets to the Father but through me."
>
> ----------------------------------------------Were you hurt by something someone said?
Did you personally FEEL put down, or were you just concerned that Jews COULD be put down?
I seem to remember an exchange on the Faith forum from years ago where a poster asserted that John 14:6 was the one and only truth and that salvation and Heaven were to be had only by believers in Jesus the Christ. The poster was rather zealous, I thought, but was noble in his effort to help save the world - just as you would claim to be on Psycho-Babble to save lives.
Okay. What is wrong here?
The only person I see potentially arousing feelings of antisemitism here is you. Do you understand why?
The boy who cried wolf over and over again when none existed eventually led people to hold him in low regard and no longer responded to his false warnings. When a real wolf finally appeared, the boy's cries remained ignored and unanswered. The boy was killed and devoured by the wolf.
We should remain vigilant against prejudice and hate.
Have you been the subject of prejudice and hate here on Psycho-Babble? You certainly have been the subject of anger and ridicule. I have not seen prejudice. I see no hate being directed at you as the result of antisemitism. Do you? Can you document incidents of antisemitism directed at you here on Psycho-Babble? I would like to evaluate an original post for myself. Your replies obfuscate the poster's original verbiage.
I no longer consider your complaints regarding a post made many years ago to be relevant. It is unlikely that anyone would ever see it were it not for your efforts to repost it. If that one post is the only one that you feel is motivated by antisemitism, then I consider this to be an indicator of its absence.
- Scott
Posted by 10derheart on October 14, 2013, at 23:01:28
In reply to Re: Lou's response-428781 » Lou Pilder, posted by Phillipa on October 14, 2013, at 21:28:26
:-)
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 15, 2013, at 5:09:27
In reply to The wolf. » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on October 14, 2013, at 22:14:00
> > The Christiandom person could say that the only way for Christians is....which is OK here. But it is not OK to say that the only way for all humanity is...which includes the Jews.
>
> Why is this not okay?
>
> Will you not go to Heaven despite the beliefs of others?
>
> Hmm.
>
> Okay. Now we have an answer from you. You do indeed have concerns regarding the biblical passage:
>
> ----------------------------------------------
> >
> > John 14:6
> >
> > "No one gets to the Father but through me."
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------
>
> Were you hurt by something someone said?
>
> Did you personally FEEL put down, or were you just concerned that Jews COULD be put down?
>
> I seem to remember an exchange on the Faith forum from years ago where a poster asserted that John 14:6 was the one and only truth and that salvation and Heaven were to be had only by believers in Jesus the Christ. The poster was rather zealous, I thought, but was noble in his effort to help save the world - just as you would claim to be on Psycho-Babble to save lives.
>
> Okay. What is wrong here?
>
> The only person I see potentially arousing feelings of antisemitism here is you. Do you understand why?
>
> The boy who cried wolf over and over again when none existed eventually led people to hold him in low regard and no longer responded to his false warnings. When a real wolf finally appeared, the boy's cries remained ignored and unanswered. The boy was killed and devoured by the wolf.
>
> We should remain vigilant against prejudice and hate.
>
> Have you been the subject of prejudice and hate here on Psycho-Babble? You certainly have been the subject of anger and ridicule. I have not seen prejudice. I see no hate being directed at you as the result of antisemitism. Do you? Can you document incidents of antisemitism directed at you here on Psycho-Babble? I would like to evaluate an original post for myself. Your replies obfuscate the poster's original verbiage.
>
> I no longer consider your complaints regarding a post made many years ago to be relevant. It is unlikely that anyone would ever see it were it not for your efforts to repost it. If that one post is the only one that you feel is motivated by antisemitism, then I consider this to be an indicator of its absence.
>
>
> - ScottFriends,
It is written here,[...you do indeed have concerns regarding the biblical passage..].
These concerns are important because the prohibitions to me posted by Mr Hsiung prevent me from posting what I need to so that IMHO lives could be saved, life-ruining conditions and addictions could be prevented, and those in the bondage of depression and/or addiction could be delivered out from the shackles of them into a new life free from the darkness of depression and into a marvelous light of peace and joy. This could come from Jewish perspective that has been revealed to me and the prohibitions to me by Mr. Hsiung prevent me from posting such.
So it is not to me as to if anyone here does not think that the statements in question do not put down Jews, for they say what they say regardless if some posters here say they don't.
The statement in question in discussion is not the one Scott cites here. The statement in discussion is that there is a list of the top ten worst reasons for organized religion and one of those says:
[...to have their agenda not centered in Christ...].
That statement can be seen as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and supportive This is because Mr Hsiung states that one match could start a forest fire so he then does not wait to put it out and that support takes precedence and that he does what in his thinking will be good for this community as a whole. So what can be seen is what it is. It says what it says. That statement could be thought by Jews and Islamic people and all other people of religions that have their agenda not centered in Christ to be an insult to their faith for it could be thought that their faith is in the category of the "worst".
The question then becomes as to if the statement is an anti-Semitic statement, at least. The rule is that an anti-Semitic statement is one that puts down Jews. This is not determined by any member here or even Mr Hsiung himself. It is determined by what the generally accepted meaning of {put down} means. Like in elementary terms, "my bike is better than your bike" or going further, {people of my faith go to heaven and people of your faith do not}. In the latter, it took me years to have Mr Hsiung agree with me concerning a statement of that nature and reversed his thinking about the concerned statement. And I do not see anything different in the statements in discussion here as to if they put down Jews, at least. I am offering Mr Hsiung the opportunity to examine again the statements in question that I want to be purged. If he rejects that opportunity, then I have done what I could do and what I have to do.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 15, 2013, at 6:45:03
In reply to Lou's reply-duwhthavtudu » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on October 15, 2013, at 5:09:27
> > > The Christiandom person could say that the only way for Christians is....which is OK here. But it is not OK to say that the only way for all humanity is...which includes the Jews.
> >
> > Why is this not okay?
> >
> > Will you not go to Heaven despite the beliefs of others?
> >
> > Hmm.
> >
> > Okay. Now we have an answer from you. You do indeed have concerns regarding the biblical passage:
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > John 14:6
> > >
> > > "No one gets to the Father but through me."
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------
> >
> > Were you hurt by something someone said?
> >
> > Did you personally FEEL put down, or were you just concerned that Jews COULD be put down?
> >
> > I seem to remember an exchange on the Faith forum from years ago where a poster asserted that John 14:6 was the one and only truth and that salvation and Heaven were to be had only by believers in Jesus the Christ. The poster was rather zealous, I thought, but was noble in his effort to help save the world - just as you would claim to be on Psycho-Babble to save lives.
> >
> > Okay. What is wrong here?
> >
> > The only person I see potentially arousing feelings of antisemitism here is you. Do you understand why?
> >
> > The boy who cried wolf over and over again when none existed eventually led people to hold him in low regard and no longer responded to his false warnings. When a real wolf finally appeared, the boy's cries remained ignored and unanswered. The boy was killed and devoured by the wolf.
> >
> > We should remain vigilant against prejudice and hate.
> >
> > Have you been the subject of prejudice and hate here on Psycho-Babble? You certainly have been the subject of anger and ridicule. I have not seen prejudice. I see no hate being directed at you as the result of antisemitism. Do you? Can you document incidents of antisemitism directed at you here on Psycho-Babble? I would like to evaluate an original post for myself. Your replies obfuscate the poster's original verbiage.
> >
> > I no longer consider your complaints regarding a post made many years ago to be relevant. It is unlikely that anyone would ever see it were it not for your efforts to repost it. If that one post is the only one that you feel is motivated by antisemitism, then I consider this to be an indicator of its absence.
> >
> >
> > - Scott
>
> Friends,
> It is written here,[...you do indeed have concerns regarding the biblical passage..].
> These concerns are important because the prohibitions to me posted by Mr Hsiung prevent me from posting what I need to so that IMHO lives could be saved, life-ruining conditions and addictions could be prevented, and those in the bondage of depression and/or addiction could be delivered out from the shackles of them into a new life free from the darkness of depression and into a marvelous light of peace and joy. This could come from Jewish perspective that has been revealed to me and the prohibitions to me by Mr. Hsiung prevent me from posting such.
> So it is not to me as to if anyone here does not think that the statements in question do not put down Jews, for they say what they say regardless if some posters here say they don't.
> The statement in question in discussion is not the one Scott cites here. The statement in discussion is that there is a list of the top ten worst reasons for organized religion and one of those says:
> [...to have their agenda not centered in Christ...].
> That statement can be seen as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and supportive This is because Mr Hsiung states that one match could start a forest fire so he then does not wait to put it out and that support takes precedence and that he does what in his thinking will be good for this community as a whole. So what can be seen is what it is. It says what it says. That statement could be thought by Jews and Islamic people and all other people of religions that have their agenda not centered in Christ to be an insult to their faith for it could be thought that their faith is in the category of the "worst".
> The question then becomes as to if the statement is an anti-Semitic statement, at least. The rule is that an anti-Semitic statement is one that puts down Jews. This is not determined by any member here or even Mr Hsiung himself. It is determined by what the generally accepted meaning of {put down} means. Like in elementary terms, "my bike is better than your bike" or going further, {people of my faith go to heaven and people of your faith do not}. In the latter, it took me years to have Mr Hsiung agree with me concerning a statement of that nature and reversed his thinking about the concerned statement. And I do not see anything different in the statements in discussion here as to if they put down Jews, at least. I am offering Mr Hsiung the opportunity to examine again the statements in question that I want to be purged. If he rejects that opportunity, then I have done what I could do and what I have to do.
> Lou> Scott,
You wrote about my concern that Jews
> COULD be put down.
In considering all the statements in question that I think could arouse anti-Semitic feelings, there is the danger that not only myself could be put down, but that Jews could be put down.
Here are two statements that I am awaiting for Mr Hsiung to reply to in our discussion here.
This one, states that the {only} religion that...
The generally accepted meaning of put down applies here and is agreed by Mr Hsiung to do so. Yet today, it remains as can be considered to be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community an is supportive and will be good for this community as a whole. Let us look at this statement to determine if you think that it is an anti-Semitic statement on the grounds that it puts down, at least, Jews. The statement is in line number 6. The words are {the only} that are in question.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20080404/msgs/832720.html
Now here is another. In this case Jews are depicted in a manner that IMHO could lead a Jew to feel put down when they read it or that the generally accepted meaning of {put down} comes into play. The put down against Jews is plainly visible. Let us look at this.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20101230/msgs/996847.html
Now you want to examine some of these yourself to make your own determiation as to if Jews are put down in the posts. I think they are in the two above posts and if you do not, I would like for you to state your rationale for such.
Lou
Posted by SLS on October 15, 2013, at 8:25:47
In reply to Lou's request to Scott-muneecheynjurz, posted by Lou Pilder on October 15, 2013, at 6:45:03
I am acutely aware of this exchange, as I read the thread as it unfolded. I have always known that this post is the one you most often allude to in your petitions to administration.
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20080404/msgs/832720.html
"What is Christianity? The only religion that offers a pathway for you to return back to God. Now if you don't believe we came from God in the first place, this isn't going to mean much to you."
In my estimation, the author of the above passage was probably more interested in saving you than in killing you. I do not see anti-semitism. I see pro-christianity. I refuse to get into a discussion here of how Western religions have used words to facilitate genocide.
How would you feel if the author of the verbiage you find objectionable had said instead, "What is Christianity? I believe it is the only religion that offers a pathway for you to return back to God."?
Would the words "I believe" have made this a civil statement?
Personally, I would have preferred that the post be rephrased to include "I believe", as this would have been more adherent to the posting preferences for the Faith forum as described by the administrator of this website. It wasn't. The original wording is not at all antisemitic. How an antisemite might use them is.
Remember. Circumcision...
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 15, 2013, at 8:45:25
In reply to I believe. » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on October 15, 2013, at 8:25:47
> I am acutely aware of this exchange, as I read the thread as it unfolded. I have always known that this post is the one you most often allude to in your petitions to administration.
>
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20080404/msgs/832720.html
>
> "What is Christianity? The only religion that offers a pathway for you to return back to God. Now if you don't believe we came from God in the first place, this isn't going to mean much to you."
>
> In my estimation, the author of the above passage was probably more interested in saving you than in killing you. I do not see anti-semitism. I see pro-christianity. I refuse to get into a discussion here of how Western religions have used words to facilitate genocide.
>
> How would you feel if the author of the verbiage you find objectionable had said instead, "What is Christianity? I believe it is the only religion that offers a pathway for you to return back to God."?
>
> Would the words "I believe" have made this a civil statement?
>
> Personally, I would have preferred that the post be rephrased to include "I believe", as this would have been more adherent to the posting preferences for the Faith forum as described by the administrator of this website. It wasn't. The original wording is not at all antisemitic. How an antisemite might use them is.
>
> Remember. Circumcision...
>
>
> - Scott> Scott,
The rule here is to not put down those of other faiths. The rule is explained that when the use of an imperative is used, like {only}, then the imperative precludes all those that are not in the {only}. So readers see what is what it is. It says what it says. The statement means that Jews, Islamic people , Hindus and all those of other religions that are not in Christiandom, are not on the pathway that returns one to God.
The statement could be interpreted as an insult to Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and the rest that are not in the {only}. This could arouse anti-Semitic feelings because it can be seen as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community as well as supportive and will be good for this community as a whole. I do not think that having Jews and others depicted as such here as being good at all. But by the nature that it stands, readers could think that Judaism is a lesser religion that Christianity, which fits the generally accepted meaning of being put down.
So here we have a statement that puts down Jews, at least, which is agreed to be an anti-Semitic statement and it is allowed to stand.
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.