![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 17 to 41 of 65. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 13, 2004, at 17:28:59
In reply to Re: Dr. Hsiung's decision 38846PRP, posted by Toph on September 13, 2004, at 16:24:11
Toph,
You wrote,[...I can see how it's religious assertions could be viewed as offensive to someone's faith...].
The religious assertion in question ,to me, was spacific because the term [..God of the old testament...]was used. If only "God" was used, then it could be vague as to which faith is being talked about. But the God in this thread was identified as the God of the old testament.
But I am a jew, and the God of the old testament is my God that I worship and obey.
I did not state that the poem was antisemitic and was asking Dr. Hsiung to remove the thread because I felt that it had the {potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings} if it was left to continue. Your observation that some part of it could be offensive to someone's faith could include me because of what I consider to be a spacific referece to the God that I believe in and that is indicative too me that the potential could be there.
I asked for the moderator to see that aspect of my request for I do not consider the posts to be antisemitic and I understand that things can be posted innocently, and things can be posted by someone without any intent and that is why I was specifying that the poster was not to be admonished, but that the post should be removed. Your solution, to redirect it, is very understanding.
Thanks,
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 13, 2004, at 20:16:00
In reply to Lou's respons to Dr. Hsiung's decision 38846PRP » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on September 13, 2004, at 12:47:08
Ladies and gentlemen of the forum,
I offer this closing argument in hopes that there could be a jury that agrees with me, on this forum or in the heavens. I am asking you to hear and for the angels in heaven to hear. I am asking both to have an open mind and a clean concious and a pure heart and listen in an unpartial manner to look at the issues and facts, not the persons involved.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 13, 2004, at 20:28:32
In reply to Lou's closing argument- Dr. Hsiung's decision » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on September 13, 2004, at 20:16:00
Ladies and gentleman of the forum,
It is no honor to plead for my concerns. But there is a voice in me that is telling me to plead for the people of the old testament God, for I feel that He has been defamed. On behalf of my people,and behalf of my God, I want this opportunity to show that they are innocent of any acts that could possibly be attributed to them in the poem in question that could deem my God to have to be reevaluated as not-so-divine.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 13, 2004, at 20:40:12
In reply to Lou's closing argument- Dr. Hsiung's decision-2 » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on September 13, 2004, at 20:28:32
Ladies and gentlemen of the forum,
I want to show the people here in this forum and the angels in heaven, and my God, that the offense is not for us to bear and carry on this forum, for we are innocent and our God does not have to be written publically that to be reevaluated as perhaps not-so-divine. I will show that there is an error in the poem and I am afriad that it will become irreversible if the decision is not reversed.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 13, 2004, at 21:08:55
In reply to Lou's closing argument- Dr. Hsiung's decision-3 » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on September 13, 2004, at 20:40:12
Ladies and gentlemen of the forum,
This house is being built. It is being built on the faith of principles. Priciples of sound mental-health. And if the bricks that make up the house do not fit, then the house could be built distorted from that point on, for each brick now is not fitted correctly due to the misfitted brick. And the house could fall. And great could be the fall of it.
I am taking this opportunity to correct this misplaced brick in the House of Babble.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 13, 2004, at 22:03:22
In reply to Lou's closing argument- Dr. Hsiung's decision-5 (nm) » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on September 13, 2004, at 21:27:44
Ladies and gentlemen of the forum,
It is said that one should light a candle instead of cursing the darknesss. I am asking you members of the forum to light a candle of open-mindness and decide the issues for yourselves. I would like to take this opportunity to shed the light of reason here so that what I see can be seen by others.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 14, 2004, at 8:13:41
In reply to Lou's closing argument- Dr. Hsiung's decision-5 » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on September 13, 2004, at 22:03:22
Ladies and gentlemen of the forum,
This is my last plea to correct an error that I see here. It is my great conviction that it is an error in justice that you can have the opportunity to to agree or to not agree. But the teachings of the Buddha in The Dhammapada said that [...he who dispenses justice in an arbitrary manner could never be considered one who abides by the law...]. It is the teaching of the Jesus of christiandom that [...blessed are those that do hunger and thirst after rightiousness, for they shall be filled...] It is the teaching of the God of the old testament that what is good is ,[...to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God...].
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 14, 2004, at 8:37:22
In reply to Lou's closing argument- Dr. Hsiung's decision-6 » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on September 14, 2004, at 8:13:41
Ladies and gentlemen of the forum,
Why does this poster object to the poem in question? And who has believed anything that I have reported? There have been posts here by posters dispising me and rejecting me. I feel that if the poem is left on the board that others could believe that the forum endorses and wants my God to be [...reevaluated... as {not-so-divine}...]. And that causes me to feel that I have to whare a Badge of Shame. And what is there about this poem that needs to be revealed?
The poster of the poem writes that the author is unknown. Could this mean that the poster does not know who the author is or does it mean that there is no known author?
The author, my friends is not blowing in the wind. The author is Mark Morford.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 14, 2004, at 8:44:00
In reply to Lou's closing argument- Dr. Hsiung's decision-7 » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on September 14, 2004, at 8:37:22
Ladies and gentlemen of the forum,
Mark Morford is an editorialist for the San francisco Gate. The following link has the poem and it is the second from the last entry if you scroll down to the end.
Mr. Morford has a political agenda that I will show to you and develop the logical conclusion to my closing argument.
Lou Pilder
http://www.freewillastrology.com/beauty/pagan.shtml
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 14, 2004, at 18:56:44
In reply to Lou's closing argument- Dr. Hsiung's decision-8 » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on September 14, 2004, at 8:44:00
Ladies and gentlemen of the forum,
There are always those editorialists that take one side or the other in a war. I have no qualms with anyone writing their position about any war.
But what is at hand here that I see, is not only the war, but {God and the war}. I feel that the poem has the potential to arrouse the thought that the blame for the war should be transfered to the jews, because of the reference to, [...Realize the divine is not quite what you think it might be. that old methods of imploring, say, a cantankerious bearded patriarchal figure to please, oh yes, smite your enemies might be a bit antiquated...],and, [..bogus Iraqi attack plan...],and,[...this is a time of war mongering and bitternesss...] and that is why I am asking that this poem in question be deleted. I feel that the potential is there for others to think that the author is referring to the God of the old testament, which is the God of the jews, and that the blame for the war should be transferred to the jews . There is much more to this conflict that has not been revealed. I have friends in Israel and I have received emails of picturs and videos, of things that can not be seen on television. Things that even Mr. Morford may not know. Things that I can not post here.
I do not consider the poem to have the content to be on the faith board, for it is ,to me, a poem more of a political nature and I am asking Dr. Hsiung to make some sort of administrative act to indicate that, for I consider the poem not to be supportive to faith in God
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 15, 2004, at 8:13:51
In reply to Lou's closing argument- Dr. Hsiung's decision-9 » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on September 14, 2004, at 18:56:44
Ladies and gentlemen of the forum,
The plea that I have is to have Dr. Hsiung, in some way, attend to the poem in question so that the potential for antisemitic feelings could be thwarted. As of now, the poem stands unadmonished, with one reply stateing that it is the poster sees that what is being purported by the author, that[... the God of the old testament perhps should be reevaluated as not-so-divine...]and that is what can be seen for the poster also writes, [...seemed pretty straightforward...].
It is my greatest nightmare that one day I will wake up and the happenings in Nazi Germany will be awakened to repeat itself. These things will be done by blaming the jewish people for something. History has recorded the jews being blamed for the plague.
But why do you say that I should be concerned about that poem posted here. You see, in the 30's Hitler's propaganda machine spewing hatred to the jews and blaming them for Germany's troubles was fuled by a slow local venue. But today we have the internet that reaches very fast the whole world. This superhighway of infomation can be a highway for hate.
The poem is authored by a writer for a newspaper and his articles center on topics that have two sides. His side is highly anti- Bush and in his articles there is his use of the connection to Israel. Below is a link and in the article by Mr Morford, he states,
[...maybe the other nations...scorn us because...].
Then he writes,
[...maybe it is the message we send...when we give Israel an additional $one billion in additional aid...to help assuage any extra 'suffering" ...].
I belive that this article has the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings.
i am making my closing argument to have this poem expunged. Not because I do not belive in free speech, for I do, but because I feel that it has the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings and that is not a sound mental-health concept.
Lou Pilder
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/g/a/2003/06/06/notes060603.DTL&type=printable
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 15, 2004, at 16:52:25
In reply to Lou's closing argument- Dr. Hsiung's decision-10 » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on September 15, 2004, at 8:13:51
Ladies and gemtlemen of the forum,
You have seen the poem and it has been posted on the faith board. Is that a place to have that posted when the faith board is for posting about the service and worship of God? Is the poem about that?
My friends, let us see if the poem is a politicaally aimed message to arrouse anti-President Bush feelings and his constintuancy and his policys. Let us look at the poem.
The poem posted is not the entire poem written by Mark Morford. The poem posted is a poem made up of lines from the original poem by Mark Morford. Let us look at the original poem.
The original poem starts off with Mr. Morford explaining what one can do to:
He states that the war is all about[... oil and power...], not about Saddasm and Osama, for their evil has nothing to do with the war, it is only a convieniant excuse for the war...].
He then writes the list of thingss one can do. I do not think that it is a poem, but a checklist which is an answer to what you can do for the war. His checklist is nothing more than political mud-slinging by ridiculing the personalities of the Bush administration and saying that these people are acting for their own self interests and not yours ,in a very ugly manner.
The first line that is posted on this board is only one line gleaned from a paragraph.
The line here just says,"stop thinking this is all there is". One could possibly think that this is some sort of religious promise of an afterlife in heaven. Not so, for now read the entire paragraph that the one line came from.
"Choose not to believe much of the disinfomation spinning forth from the White House at this time. Look at Donald Rumfeld's shockingly beady and pithch-black eyes and realize this man, these people, they are deeply convoluted and power blinded and do not have your best interests at heart."
I ask this forum to decide if this is appropriate for a board designed for support of people mutually in faith in God.
Lou Pilder
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/g/a/2002/10/18/notes101802.DTL
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 15, 2004, at 20:12:54
In reply to Lou's closing argument- Dr. Hsiung's decision-12 (nm) » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on September 15, 2004, at 19:54:57
Ladies and gentlemen of the forum,
Mark Morford continues with his name- calling of "these people".
He writes, [...Choose , furthermore, not to believe the world is really full of these {vile} {power-mad} {slugs}and {lizards} and {prevaricators} and {fools} and...]. "Stop thinking this is all there is, war and suffereing and apparently very pale and {egomaniacal} and {spiritless} men running the world into the ground."
These terms that Mark Morford uses to describe "these people" would seem on the surface to be terms of no significance other than to have others see them the light that Mr. Morford wants to cast on them. But there is more to those terms that Mark Morford uses. They have significance that I will show the members of this forum.
Lou Pilder
Posted by AuntieMel on September 16, 2004, at 16:09:29
In reply to Lou's closing argument- Dr. Hsiung's decision-12 » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on September 15, 2004, at 20:12:54
I don't want to get political, and I couldn't possibly guess anyones motives {I always assume the best until proven wrong} BUT
I read the poem and it really isn't about faith and it *does* seem to belong on the writing board.
Posted by Gabbix2 on September 16, 2004, at 17:38:40
In reply to Doctor Bob, I agree - to a point » Lou Pilder, posted by AuntieMel on September 16, 2004, at 16:09:29
I think it depends on what your interpretation of faith is. To me the poem was very much about
faith. I read it as a philosophy of making God personal not necessarily (but not excluding) looking for signs and justification from an omnisicent God figurehead. It was about seeing yourself as part of the fabric of life and spirit recognizing it's beauty and shouldering it's responsibilites.
Posted by Cass on September 16, 2004, at 18:50:55
In reply to Doctor Bob, I agree - to a point » Lou Pilder, posted by AuntieMel on September 16, 2004, at 16:09:29
I'm really not here to debate the poem. I am spiritually inspired by the poem, and Dr. Bob already made the decision not to delete it. However I will say this -- even though the poem doesn't make a direct reference to faith, I think it's pertinent to the faith board because it encourages me to to be more conscious of my spiritual values and to act on them. It compels me to strenghten my religious principles and put my beliefs to ACTION. "Realize that this is the perfect moment to change the energy of the world, to step right up and crank your personal volume right when it all seems dark" Those lines encourage me to remember the God within me (or to have "faith")in these dark political times and to act upon my own spiritual convictions. It compels me not to shut down my creativity, love, kindness, and compassion, but to give it liberally.
In my opinion, forgiveness and reason are religious/spiritual values, and the poem seems to encourage those qualities. In the context of war and hatred, the author says, "Resist the urge toward nihilism. Seek out nuance, and counter argument and subtle irony and balance and perspective." I like the way the poem promotes peace.
The poem inspires me to tap into my spiritual resources, reminds me of our interconnectedness and gives me the hope of cosmic renewal. "Remember magic and finally, believe you are part of a groundswell, a resistance, a seemingly small but actually very, very large impending karmic overhaul, a great shift. The beginning of something important and unstoppable." Something "karmic", "great" and "unstoppable" certainly sounds like a religious or spiritual reference to me. Couldn't this be an indirect reference to God and the presence of God in us?Anyways, I don't want to be very involved in this thread, but I do feel strongly that the poem was pertinent for the faith board.
Posted by Jai Narayan on September 16, 2004, at 20:21:12
In reply to Re: Doctor Bob, I agree - to a point » AuntieMel, posted by Gabbix2 on September 16, 2004, at 17:38:40
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 16, 2004, at 21:37:27
In reply to Lou's closing argument- Dr. Hsiung's decision-12 » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on September 15, 2004, at 20:12:54
Ladies and gentlemen of the forum,
I have shown you the language used by Mark Morford . But there is more. He continues with,"resist the great surges toward nihilism about the media, in seeking them all as either a {bunch of depressing snickering} {pansy-(expletive) (expletive) liberal {scum} or corperate-controlled sensationalistic (expletive) all parroting the same old pro-Shrub war stories and beating the same thudding pro-violence drum."
There are journalistic standards. To write like this about others IMO could be declared as journalistic hate-speech. But the words of a journalist are usually carfully chosen for a reason.
Lou Pilder
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/g/a/2002/10/18/notes101802.DTL
Posted by Gabbix2 on September 16, 2004, at 22:53:51
In reply to Gabbix2 liked your comment..thanks (nm), posted by Jai Narayan on September 16, 2004, at 20:21:12
Posted by SLS on September 17, 2004, at 8:03:33
In reply to Lou's respons to Dr. Hsiung's decision 388469LS » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on September 12, 2004, at 16:45:58
Hi Lou.
I'm not the smartest guy in the world, but as I see it, disagreeing with the Old Testament does not equate to being anti-semitic any more than disagreeing with the New Testament makes one a hater of Christians. I doubt that you are a hater of Christians.
L’Shonah Tovah.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 17, 2004, at 8:11:39
In reply to Re: Lou's respons to Dr. Hsiung's decision 388469LS » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on September 17, 2004, at 8:03:33
SLS,
You wrote,[...disagreeing with the old testament does not equate to being antisemitic...].
The faith board has a stipulation that posts can not have the potewntial to put down those of other faiths. The statement that has been interpreted to mean that the god of the old testament is perhaps to be reeavaluated as not-so-divine is not IMO a statement of disagreement but a statement that arrouses others to consider thinking of the God in the old testament as "lesser" than another god, which puts down the god of the jews.
Shabott Shalom,
Lou
Posted by Larry Hoover on September 17, 2004, at 8:19:48
In reply to Lou's response to SLS » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on September 17, 2004, at 8:11:39
This seems to me to be a debate about the difference between the literal and the figurative. People are bound to have differences in that regard, and we see those differences, IMHO, in relative adherence to orthodoxy. Nobody is more than or less than, just different. Agree to disagree, or don't agree to disagree. Disagreement is not inherently a putdown, but the failure to agree to disagree can be inferentially a putdown, all by itself.
Lar
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 17, 2004, at 8:29:58
In reply to Lou's response to SLS » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on September 17, 2004, at 8:11:39
SLS,
You wrote,[...is a disagreement...].
If the statement that causes others to think that the god of the old testament perhaps should be reevaluated as not-so-divine is a call for others to think a particular way.
Thoughout history, others have called on others to think of jews in a particular way that was defaming to the jews. It is when others call for other to think in a lesser light about the jews that the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings occurs. These feelings promted by others to think of jews in a defaming manner is the foundation of antisemitism. The pharase, {not-so-divine} attacks the god of the jews. Attacks upon another's God is an attempt to deminish that God which puts down that God and those that have faith in that God. Are you saying that people can defame another's God and it is not hate-speech because it is a disagreement?
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 17, 2004, at 8:56:26
In reply to Re: my thoughts, posted by Larry Hoover on September 17, 2004, at 8:19:48
Larry Hoover,
You wrote,[...a failure to agree to disagree can be...a put down....].
Are you saying that I can not object here to have the statement deleted or admonished or redirected that writes, [...the God of the old testament... reevaluated perhaps as not-so-divine..]? I am giving my closing argument as to why I consider the statement a violation of the stated rules for the faith board as to not posting what could put down those of other faiths. Are you saying that the statement in question does not have the potential for others to see that the statement puts down another faith?Lou Pilder
Posted by Dinah on September 17, 2004, at 8:58:02
In reply to Lou's response to SLS-2 » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on September 17, 2004, at 8:29:58
But I can't say for certain, as I'm not as familiar with the thread as to be certain.
It always saddens me to see the "God of the Old Testament" referred to as anything but the "God of the New Testament". I can't imagine that that was the idea, because it would have been all too easy to scrap the Old Testament if that were true. While it is true that I am a semitophile, I feel similar distress at similar types of statements about the "God of Islam".
Isn't it possible, and on the Faith Board preferable, to phrase one's own spirituality in such a way as to not in any way put down the God or the faith or the spirituality of another?
I don't really want to get enbroiled in this. But I love God. The God of Israel and Isaac and Jesus. I am generally considered a pariah at church for saying just this sort of thing.
I understand that others feel differently.
Perhaps it would be helpful to conduct a poll of devout Jews only? Or perhaps I could locate a website of devout Jews and ask them to come comment on whether the thread is considered respectful to their faith and their God? I hate to speak for others, and perhaps they wouldn't be offended. I don't know that it would be easy to find a group who would be willing to comment, but there are several synagogues here, and perhaps I could bring the printouts to several rabbis and see if any of the more computer literate are willing to comment.
They may not be, however. I have called the local rabbi of the reform synagogue more than once to cry on his shoulder at my distress in Sunday School at hearing the Law and the "God of the Old Testament??" and similar things spoken of disrespectfully, and he always encourages me to continue to go to Sunday School.
Toph seems to have an idea of what I am trying to say, but less colored by my distress. Perhaps Toph would be willing to explain it more coherently than I can?
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.