Posted by Lou Pilder on November 5, 2011, at 15:58:58
In reply to Lou's reply to Scott's reply to Lou's reply- » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on November 5, 2011, at 8:44:32
> > > > > 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.
> >
> > Lou, what you are asking me to do is to petition Dr. Bob to prohibit posts affirming the fundamental tenet of Christianity, which seems to be a contradiction of Jewish tenets. Let me think about that for awhile.
> >
> > Wording is important. I think one can state the tenets of Christianity without portraying them as being components of the one and only Truth. But then again, can one state in a similar fashion rationales for committing genocide if they are fundamental to their religion?
> >
> > What I think is that the Faith board is a minefield. If you step on the wrong post, you will encounter something that assaults your belief system. Some people are bound to feel insulted. The authors of these posts often have good intentions, and wish to help others.
> >
> > It is probably best to shut down the Faith board and avoid the contradictions inherent in having individuals post the tenets of opposing religions.
> >
> >
> > - Scott
>
> Scott,
> You wrote,[...Lou, what you are asking mee to do is to petition (Mr. Hsiung) to prohibit posts affirming the fundamental tenet of Christianity...].
> hummmmmmm.
> Although that is part of this situation here that involves my requests to Mr. Hsiung and his deputy that are outstanding, the overiding request from me to Mr. Hsiung is for him to post in the thread in question as to if he considers the statement in question to be {supportive} or not. For as of now readers can think that the statement is supportive on the grouunds that Mr Hsiung's TOS states that support is what the forum is for and that support takes precedence. That could have the potential IMHO to mean to readers that what is seen is what is considered to be supportive unlesss it is notated by the administration as not being supportive, like all the other posts here that the administration has sanctioned on those grounds.
> But it is much more than that to me. You see, the statement in question precludes Jews and others that do not accept the claim that (redacted by respondent) Jesus that are the {only} set of people that could have forgivness and eternal life. The use of the word {only} precludes all others than what set of people the statement includes. This could mean then that the 1 1/2 million Jewish children murdered in the years from 1933 to 1945 and all those that have ever lived and never heard of that Christian claim or rejected the claim in question are without forgivness and eternal life. The poster states that the bible says that. Really? And I am prohibited from answering the poster's claim because of Mr. Hsiung's prohibitions here.
> So what I am asking for members to do is:
> A. Post in that thread as to if or if not you consider the claim in question supportive or not.
> B. And also to post there your concern, if you have such, as to that you also would like for Mr. Hsiung to post there the answer to my request to him.
> You see, as long as my request remains outstanding, others could think that Mr. Hsiung allows the statement in question to stand, and then there is the potential IMHHHO for some others to take what is claimed to be considerd by the community in toto to be what the community wants to promulgate, unless members post there that they do not consider the statement to be supportive to them. You see, the community can also controll what is thought to be promulgated by the administration by protesting and speaking out and rising up to what they think is not what they condone by the administration.
> So as long as there are not members posting there that do not want others to think that they condone what is seen, then there is the potential IMHO for other readers to think that the members are in agreement with the administration.
> Now if the President of The United States appeared on national television and said what the post in question says, I would protest and let others know tthat I am not in agreement with him. In fact, I would use all my might to impeach him if he said that.
> You can think about it, but the consequences to the Jews and others that do not accept the claim in question will be ongoing until Mr. Hsiung posts there to state as to if he does or does not consider the statement in question supportive. Those consequences could be the murder of Jews and others that do not accept that claim by those that visit this site and get their idea in their minds from reading the statement in question to murder those that the claim excludes fro forgivness and eternal life. Do you want to support that possibility? If not, could you take this opportunity to post in that thread your opinion as to if the statement in question is supportive or not?
> LouScott,
You wrote,[...I think that one can state the tenets of Christianity without portraying them as being the components of the one and only Truth. But then again, can one state in similar fashion rationales for comitting genocide if they are fundamental to theiir religion?...].
Yes, the rules have been well-established here by the administration that it is not supportive to state that there is the one and only Truth by using the words {only} or {shall}. And he also states that support takes preceence. This is why I think that members posting in that thread with their opinions as to if the statement in question is supportive or not is important here. For the historical record shows what could happen when the {state} allows others to say that they are in a set of people that are the only ones to have forgivness and eternal life which prcludes all others, or to say that they are the {master race}.
Lou
Here is a video that I am requesting for interested member to view. To view this video:
A. Pull up Google
B. Type in:
[youtube, Kristallnacht-1938]
This could come up first and there is a pic of a building and the time is 5 min posted on November 26 2006
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:1000678
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20110117/msgs/1001722.html