Psycho-Babble Administration Thread 470029

Shown: posts 10 to 34 of 58. Go back in thread:

 

Lou's response to an aspect of this thread-thejws

Posted by Lou Pilder on March 13, 2005, at 7:05:49

In reply to Re: request to Dr. Hsiung to consider in reply-suprm, posted by SLS on March 12, 2005, at 20:02:28

> > Let us look at the gramamtical construction. Since "God" is set off by commas, could not the statement have the potential to mean that it is Christ that is "supreme"?
>
> I believe this is precisely the foundation of Christendom and is part of the Trinity. Obviously, you do not have to agree with it. I don't see why this person should not be able to express their beliefs in such a way that is neither unsupportive nor coercive. It is true that people whom are dedicated to promoting hate and resentment often find fodder for accomplishing their goals by perverting the tenets of various religions. For example, are not the Jews the Chosen People? What about those whom God has not chosen? Shouldn't they feel extremely subjugated and put-down?
>
> I don't know. That Faith board can be a minefield or a garden. Avoid the mines and enjoy the flowers.
>
>
> - Scott

Friends,
If we look at the post above, there is the aspect of what the poster writes as ,[...people dedicated to {promoting hate}....by {expletive} the tenants of...religions...]. For example,are not {the Jews} ...?].
As a spokesperson here for Jewery, I am requesting from anyone here to comment as to how they think of the jews, after reading the above, so that I can post a response.
Lou

 

Re: Lou's response to an aspect of this thread-thejws » Lou Pilder

Posted by SLS on March 13, 2005, at 7:51:19

In reply to Lou's response to an aspect of this thread-thejws, posted by Lou Pilder on March 13, 2005, at 7:05:49

> As a spokesperson here for Jewery, I am requesting from anyone here to comment as to how they think of the jews, after reading the above, so that I can post a response.

Why not just post a response? It seems that you already have.

Sorry, Lou, but I do not consider you a spokesman for Jewery.

I would like to see you respond to the previous statement. What qualifies you to speak for an entire nation?

I can guarantee you that you do not speak for me.


- Scott

 

Re: Lou's response to an aspect of this thread-thejws » Lou Pilder

Posted by SLS on March 13, 2005, at 8:35:07

In reply to Lou's response to an aspect of this thread-thejws, posted by Lou Pilder on March 13, 2005, at 7:05:49

> > > Let us look at the gramamtical construction. Since "God" is set off by commas, could not the statement have the potential to mean that it is Christ that is "supreme"?
> >
> > I believe this is precisely the foundation of Christendom and is part of the Trinity. Obviously, you do not have to agree with it. I don't see why this person should not be able to express their beliefs in such a way that is neither unsupportive nor coercive. It is true that people whom are dedicated to promoting hate and resentment often find fodder for accomplishing their goals by perverting the tenets of various religions. For example, are not the Jews the Chosen People? What about those whom God has not chosen? Shouldn't they feel extremely subjugated and put-down?
> >
> > I don't know. That Faith board can be a minefield or a garden. Avoid the mines and enjoy the flowers.
> >
> >
> > - Scott
>
> Friends,
> If we look at the post above, there is the aspect of what the poster writes as ,[...people dedicated to {promoting hate}....by {expletive} the tenants of...religions...]. For example,are not {the Jews} ...?].
> As a spokesperson here for Jewery, I am requesting from anyone here to comment as to how they think of the jews, after reading the above, so that I can post a response.
> Lou
>

Is it your intention to actually take a poll?

Why not argue your case on its merits. This is something you do often as a lone dissenter.

As a lone dissenter, your taking a poll would yield not a single dissenter, in which case it would be a majority rules scenario.

Let's poll the entire world making sure we include members of every religion and non-religion. In this way, we can be sure that there be no person who feels put-down by the Jew's self proclaimation as being God's Chosen People.

I guess we could invest our time and effort to take such a worldwide poll in order to determine whether my hypothetical analogy was at all realistic. I wish not to participate in its administration.

My vote: I do not feel put-down by the phrase "Chosen People" as it pertains to Judaism.

You only have 6 billion people left to go!


- Scott

 

Lou's reply to SLS-shdnt » SLS

Posted by Lou Pilder on March 13, 2005, at 8:46:30

In reply to Re: Lou's response to an aspect of this thread-thejws » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on March 13, 2005, at 7:51:19

Scott,
Let us look at an aspect of this thread.You wrote,[...For example,are not the Jews the Chosen People? What about those whom God has not chosen? {Shouldn't} they feel extremly subjugated and put-down?...].
Could you clarify why you wrote the word,"shouldn't" in your statement?
Lou

 

Lou's reply to Scott- » SLS

Posted by Lou Pilder on March 13, 2005, at 9:27:28

In reply to Re: Lou's response to an aspect of this thread-thejws » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on March 13, 2005, at 8:35:07

Scott,
You wrote,[...Is it your intention to ...take a poll?...].
It is not my intention to take a poll.
You wrote,[...Why not argue...?]
I do not want to argue.
You wrote,[...the Jews self procamation as being God's chosen people...]
Could you elaborate on that?
Lou

 

Re: Lou's reply to Scott-

Posted by SLS on March 13, 2005, at 9:41:46

In reply to Lou's reply to Scott- » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on March 13, 2005, at 9:27:28

> Scott,
> You wrote,[...Is it your intention to ...take a poll?...].
> It is not my intention to take a poll.
> You wrote,[...Why not argue...?]
> I do not want to argue.
> You wrote,[...the Jews self procamation as being God's chosen people...]
> Could you elaborate on that?
> Lou

What is there to elaborate?


- Scott

 

Re: Lou's reply to Scott-

Posted by Phillipa on March 13, 2005, at 10:03:39

In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Scott-, posted by SLS on March 13, 2005, at 9:41:46

Boy, I'm glad I don't make a practice of Posting on this Board? It's almost like being in Freudian psychoanalysis. Why not just let people be people, be free to practice their religion, and now I know why it is not recommended that people discuss politics and religion. Everyone is right, noone can be wrong. After all we are all entitled to choose to believe what we choose to believe. I don't believe anyone can argue with this. Most but not all believe in a "Higher Being". It is their choice who or what that is. Fondly, Phillipa

 

Lou's reply to Scott- » SLS

Posted by Lou Pilder on March 13, 2005, at 10:06:30

In reply to Re: Lou's response to an aspect of this thread-thejws » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on March 13, 2005, at 8:35:07

Scott,
You wrote,[...lone dissenter...majority rules scenario...].
I had requested that any other community members post their input about your post in regards to the Jews after the had read your post. I am not asking for any type of vote to do anything. My request was so that I could have others write so that I could be better able to post a response to what you wrote because it is not clear to me as per your gramattical structure of the statement in question as to how others could interprwet the statements in question. In a mental-health forum, the population could interpret your post , perhaps, in several ways. I would like to post a response to how, if anyone responds to my request, they interpret your statements in your post.
Other community members could see what you wrote differently, in particular but not limited to,[...people whom are... promoting hate...] and your use of the word,"perverting" in relation to the tenants of various religions and the use of the word "shouldn't" in relation to,[...are not the Jews the Chosen People? What about those whom God has not chosen? shouldn't they feel {extremly}subjugated and put-down?...].
Lou

 

Re: Lou's reply to Scott- » Lou Pilder

Posted by SLS on March 13, 2005, at 10:29:24

In reply to Lou's reply to Scott- » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on March 13, 2005, at 10:06:30

Hi Lou.

As a spokesman for Jewry, how do you account for why the Jews commonly refer to themselves as "The Chosen People"?

Do you not find that this self proclaimation is exclusionary? Wouldn't such presumed exclusion have the potential to put down those whom Jews do not consider chosen? How different is this than a Christian stating that one must go through Jesus Christ to arrive at the Kingdom of God everlastingly?


- Scott

 

Re: Lou's reply to Scott-

Posted by Phillipa on March 13, 2005, at 11:33:17

In reply to Lou's reply to Scott- » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on March 13, 2005, at 10:06:30

It never ends does it?Fondly, Phillipa

 

Re: Lou's request » SLS

Posted by gardenergirl on March 13, 2005, at 13:07:54

In reply to Re: Lou's request » Dr. Bob, posted by SLS on March 12, 2005, at 20:10:16

> > > I am requesting that you write a determination as to if the following is acceptable or not in relation to the guidlines of the faith forum.
> >
> > I did block him...
> >
> > Bob
>
> But what about the post that Lou cited. Is it or is it not acceptable. I am very confused.
>
>

I agree. The block on the meds board had nothing to do with Lou's request. It seems not to have been answered yet.

gg

 

Lou's reply to Phillipa's post-clarfyit » Phillipa

Posted by Lou Pilder on March 13, 2005, at 14:55:36

In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Scott-, posted by Phillipa on March 13, 2005, at 11:33:17

Phillipa,
You wrote,[...It never ends does it?...].
Could you clarify or identify what you are referring to as {it}?
Lou

 

Re: Lou's reply to Phillipa's post-clarfyit » Lou Pilder

Posted by Phillipa on March 13, 2005, at 17:24:13

In reply to Lou's reply to Phillipa's post-clarfyit » Phillipa, posted by Lou Pilder on March 13, 2005, at 14:55:36

The microscopic examination of every word a person says. If I had to examine every word before I uttered it, I would never say anything. I just think it's "petty". What ever happened to a good conversation without fear of being picked apart. Yes, I agree, the person in question needed a timeout so to speak. He was blocked. To do so twice is redundant. He can't Post on any Board. I'll be honest Lou, I haven't taken the time to examine the Post in question on the Faith Board. For that i am guilty, and admit it. I just hate conflict! Fondly, Phillipa

 

Re: Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung-Crst,Gd,suprm?

Posted by Phillipa on March 13, 2005, at 17:29:07

In reply to Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung-Crst,Gd,suprm?, posted by Lou Pilder on March 12, 2005, at 10:10:36

Poor Matt, To me it's obvious that he is "sick" right now. I believe we need to be a little tolerant. He doesn't know what he's saying, he admits that himself. He seems to be reaching out for some help in clarifying what must be to him some frightening feelings, and thoughts. This and the previous Post are in my opinion only. Fondly, Phillipa

 

Re: Lou's reply to Phillipa's post-clarfyit » Phillipa

Posted by alexandra_k on March 13, 2005, at 18:05:18

In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Phillipa's post-clarfyit » Lou Pilder, posted by Phillipa on March 13, 2005, at 17:24:13

I don't think saying 'in my opinion' offsets calling the enterprise 'petty'.

I think it is fair to ask whether the post is acceptable or not.

It is interesting to know with respect to making sure that ones own posts are within civility guidelines.

Asking a question doesn't have to lead to conflict...

 

Re: Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung-Crst,Gd,suprm? » Phillipa

Posted by alexandra_k on March 13, 2005, at 18:06:54

In reply to Re: Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung-Crst,Gd,suprm?, posted by Phillipa on March 13, 2005, at 17:29:07

I think quite a bit of tolerance has been shown already. He received a number of warnings before being blocked. Clearly the warnings didn't have much affect. 'Reaching out for help' is one thing. Uncivil remarks to other posters is another...

 

Re: Lou's reply to Phillipa's post-clarfyit

Posted by Phillipa on March 13, 2005, at 19:37:24

In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Phillipa's post-clarfyit » Phillipa, posted by alexandra_k on March 13, 2005, at 18:05:18

I still say Matt's mental status was such that he was not responsible for his actions. I know if he demonstrated this behavior in a hospital setting or with crisis, he would be deemed unstable. I hope he is doing better. I realize he was being uncivil. Just that I don't think he was fully aware. He seemed desperate to be understood by someone because he didn't understand himself. I don't think I'm making much sense. Fondly, Phillipa

 

Re: Lou's reply to Phillipa's post-clarfyit » Phillipa

Posted by gardenergirl on March 13, 2005, at 22:09:34

In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Phillipa's post-clarfyit, posted by Phillipa on March 13, 2005, at 19:37:24

Phillipa,
I agree his condition seems alarming. I wish he could get adequate treatment and also stick with it for a solid trial.

You are a dear to be a champion for him.

Take care,
gg

 

Re: Lou's reply to Phillipa's post-clarfyit » gardenergirl

Posted by Phillipa on March 13, 2005, at 22:29:12

In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Phillipa's post-clarfyit » Phillipa, posted by gardenergirl on March 13, 2005, at 22:09:34

Thanks, I always try to give someone the benefit of the doubt. Yes, he needs help. Matt if you are reading this please go for Help! Fondly, Phillipa

 

Lou's reply to Scott- » SLS

Posted by Lou Pilder on March 14, 2005, at 7:26:58

In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Scott- » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on March 13, 2005, at 10:29:24

> Hi Lou.
>
> As a spokesman for Jewry, how do you account for why the Jews commonly refer to themselves as "The Chosen People"?
>
> Do you not find that this self proclaimation is exclusionary? Wouldn't such presumed exclusion have the potential to put down those whom Jews do not consider chosen? How different is this than a Christian stating that one must go through Jesus Christ to arrive at the Kingdom of God everlastingly?
>
>
> - Scott

Scott,
In your questions to me above, could you clarify the following?
In your first question to me,[....how do you account for why the Jews ...refer to themselves as "The Chosen People"?...], could any of the following be what you think the jews are meaning when they refer to themselves as "The Chosen People" ?
A. Jews say that they are chosen by God to automaticaly be in the Kingdom of God, regardless of how they live their lives.
B. Jews say that they are chosen by God to be the instrument that God uses that brings salvation to all other people.
C. Jews say that they are the chosen people to bring God's laws of rightiousness to mankind
D. Jews say that they are chosen by God to be priests and a holy nation to be a light to the world.
E.Jews say that they are chosen from slavery by God in a miraculous deliverance to advocate to bring freedom from oppression to others because they were once enslaved.
F.A combination of the above
G. None of the above
H.something else
Lou

 

Re: Lou's reply to Scott- » Lou Pilder

Posted by SLS on March 14, 2005, at 8:37:44

In reply to Lou's reply to Scott- » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on March 14, 2005, at 7:26:58

Lou.

Regarding:

http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20050111/msgs/469883.html

Lou, you began:

> > > > > Let us look at the gramamtical construction. Since "God" is set off by commas, could not the statement have the potential to mean that it is Christ that is "supreme"? If so, could that not have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings or to have the potential to put down jews and those that do not consider Christ to be supreme

> > > > I believe this is precisely the foundation of Christendom and is part of the Trinity. Obviously, you do not have to agree with it. I don't see why this person should not be able to express their beliefs in such a way that is neither unsupportive nor coercive. It is true that people whom are dedicated to promoting hate and resentment often find fodder for accomplishing their goals by perverting the tenets of various religions. For example, are not the Jews the Chosen People? What about those whom God has not chosen? Shouldn't they feel extremely subjugated and put-down?

> > > As a spokesperson here for Jewery, I am requesting from anyone here to comment as to how they think of the jews, after reading the above, so that I can post a response

> > As a spokesman for Jewry, how do you account for why the Jews commonly refer to themselves as "The Chosen People"?
> >
> > Do you not find that this self proclaimation is exclusionary? Wouldn't such presumed exclusion have the potential to put down those whom Jews do not consider chosen? How different is this than a Christian stating that one must go through Jesus Christ to arrive at the Kingdom of God everlastingly?


> In your questions to me above, could you clarify the following?
> In your first question to me,[....how do you account for why the Jews ...refer to themselves as "The Chosen People"?...], could any of the following be what you think the jews are meaning when they refer to themselves as "The Chosen People" ?
> A. Jews say that they are chosen by God to automaticaly be in the Kingdom of God, regardless of how they live their lives.
> B. Jews say that they are chosen by God to be the instrument that God uses that brings salvation to all other people.
> C. Jews say that they are the chosen people to bring God's laws of rightiousness to mankind
> D. Jews say that they are chosen by God to be priests and a holy nation to be a light to the world.
> E.Jews say that they are chosen from slavery by God in a miraculous deliverance to advocate to bring freedom from oppression to others because they were once enslaved.
> F.A combination of the above
> G. None of the above
> H.something else
> Lou


I am not taking a test.

The questions I posed are for you to answer. If you do not wish to answer them, I am disposed to terminate this discourse.

I am still waiting for Dr. Bob to respond to your original question.


- Scott

 

Re: Lou's reply to Scott- » SLS

Posted by Maximus on March 14, 2005, at 10:48:05

In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Scott- » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on March 14, 2005, at 8:37:44

> I am not taking a test.

Hé! Hé! Hé! You're my hero Scott ;-)

 

Re: Lou's reply to Scott- » SLS

Posted by alexandra_k on March 14, 2005, at 12:52:13

In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Scott- » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on March 14, 2005, at 8:37:44

I think you asked Lou

> > As a spokesman for Jewry, how do you account for why the Jews commonly refer to themselves as "The Chosen People"?

He gave a variety of reasons why Jews might want to refer to themselves as "The Chosen People".

I think it was a genuine attempt to answer your question...

I quite liked E. Myself. Not that I am Jewish...

 

Re: Lou's request » SLS

Posted by AuntieMel on March 14, 2005, at 13:31:43

In reply to Re: Lou's request » Dr. Bob, posted by SLS on March 12, 2005, at 20:10:16

Scott:

Under the guidlines of not saying any one faith is better than the other, I would think that this would be a violation.

The same sentence without "since he is the supreme" would be ok.

In my opinion.

 

Lou's response to Alexandra's post- » alexandra_k

Posted by Lou Pilder on March 14, 2005, at 14:09:18

In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Scott- » SLS, posted by alexandra_k on March 14, 2005, at 12:52:13

Alexandra,
Thank you for your post. I was attempting to answer the 3 questions to me but the gramatical structure ofthe post directed to me is not clear to me and I asked for clarification in order so that I could possibly answer in 3 posts.
You see, I was asked the same type of questions by a group many years ago. They were a hostile group toward me, ridiculing me and taunting me with epithets of hatred toward jews, saying that the Jews thought that they were chosen to be in the Kingdom of God on the basis of their lineage only. My answer is not that, and I do not know of any Jews personally that think that. The Jews that I know ,including myself, think that they are no better or worse than anyone else because they are Jews.
But Scott's post has in it:
[...How different is this than a Christian stateing that one must go through Jesus Christ to arrive at the Kingdom of God everlastingly?..]
The grammatical structure of the post , with that statement following the other 2 questions to me, is not clear to me. I do not know if that means that the poster is saying that Jews refer to themselves as "The Chosen People" because of their lineage or not. The poster writes,[...How different is this than a Christian stateing that one must go through Jesus Christ to arrive at the Kingdom of God everlastingly?...] because the poster uses the phrase,[...how is it different?...].
Well, I could answer that, but to save a lot of time, a clarification of what the poster thinks that the Jews think about what it means to them to be chosen could help me to reply in 3 posts.
Although you wrote that you liked "E", if you think that you know what the post in question means as per the jews being chosen, could you tell me what they are chosen for, according to how you see the grammatical structure of the post in question?
Lou


Go forward in thread:


Show another thread

URL of post in thread:


Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ


[dr. bob] 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.