Posted by Lou Pilder on November 4, 2011, at 19:11:45
In reply to Lou's reply- » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on November 4, 2011, at 8:20:04
> > > I must have clicked the wrong button is this the history board? I do not say this to be harmful or disrespectful in anyway to anyone. But I don't understand call be dumb stupid whatever what this has to do with babble? Respectfully Phillipa
> >
> > I believe Lou has some concerns that a Christian doctrine is incompatible with other religions, and that, as such, it should be considered uncivil to post references to it. According to Dr. Bob's rules of civility, I think Lou has a point. I guess it depends on how such a reference is worded. It would be nice if Lou were to receive some guidance from Dr. Bob as to how to view this apparent conflict. I remain neutral in this matter. Perhaps Dr. Bob has already addressed this issue. I don't know.
> >
> >
> > - Scott
>
> Scott,
> You wrote,[...Perhaps (Mr. Hsiung) hhas already addressed this issue...].
> He has done so in many instances. What the rule here is:
> A. Some foudations of faiths can not be posted here.
> B. It doesn't matter if it is in a bible or someone else said it.
> C. It doesn't matter if the one posting it believes it.
> D. Support takes precedence
> E. Foundations of faiths that use imperatives like {shall} and {only} could preclude others and are not supportive. Statements of fiath using those words could lead those of other faiths to feel put down and one is not to post here what could lead another to feel put down.
> F. Antisemitic posts are posts that when a Jew reads it, they could be led to feel put down/accused.
> But there is much more to this. You see, Mr. Hsiung has posted to me many prohibitions. I could post a reply to the statement in question but the prohibitions prevent me doing so. I would need to post the foundation of Judaism as revealed to me and I am prohibited from doing so. Thwre qre 12 biblical statements that the statement in question comes from. I have been revealed another meaning of all 12 that shows that Jews and others are not excluded from forgiveness and eternal life as the statement in question claims. Mr. Hsiung's rules prevent me from posting that revelation. Could you post as to if you think that the statement in question is supportive or not in that thread?
> If you could, then I could have the opportunity to post my response to your post there.
> LouFriends,
That the posting of the doctrine of replacement theology is said by Mr. Hsiung to be {OK} to post here, leads me for a want to know if Mr. Hsiung considers that to be supportive in regards to the post in question here. My request to him is outstanding.
But do you know what replacement theology is? And does the bible teach it as truth? I could answer that but Mr. Hsiung has placed restraints upon me that I am prohibited from posting the foundation of Judaism as revealed to me. There are other prohibitions also that keep me from posting a response to the post in question which could show that the claim that {only} those that (redacted by respondent)Jesus could have eternal life and forgivness.
Here is a link to a video that I am requesting thosse interested in tthis thread to view.
Lou
To view this video:
A. Pull up Google
B. Type in;
[youtube, Satan's Great: Replacement Theology].
You will see writing (no pic) The time is 15 min posted on Nov 7 2010
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:1000678
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20110117/msgs/1001654.html