![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 23 of 23. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by so on May 18, 2005, at 23:47:35
In reply to God may or may not test us, posted by Dinah on April 19, 2005, at 18:06:44
> But we can always rely on Dr. Bob. :)
A suggestion that a psychiatrist is more reliable than "god" would seem to involve faith, but probably not religious faith. Shouldn't this be posted on the administrative board instead?
Posted by alexandra_k on May 19, 2005, at 0:27:02
In reply to Re: God may or may not test us » Dinah, posted by so on May 18, 2005, at 13:32:26
> > But we can always rely on Dr. Bob. :)
> A suggestion that a psychiatrist is more reliable than "god" would seem to involve faith, but probably not religious faith. Shouldn't this be posted on the administrative board instead?It is assuming the existence of god which involves religious faith does it not?????
Posted by so on May 19, 2005, at 1:20:26
In reply to Re: God may or may not test us » so, posted by alexandra_k on May 19, 2005, at 0:27:02
> > > But we can always rely on Dr. Bob. :)
>
> > A suggestion that a psychiatrist is more reliable than "god" would seem to involve faith, but probably not religious faith. Shouldn't this be posted on the administrative board instead?
>
> It is assuming the existence of god which involves religious faith does it not?????
>
>
It can. But reference to the concept of god does not imply beleif in god. It can simply be a reference to a cultural construct. To reference religous figures as mythical constructs requires no more faith than does suspension of disbelief at a theater.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 19, 2005, at 2:37:01
In reply to Re: God may or may not test us » alexandra_k, posted by so on May 19, 2005, at 1:20:26
> It can. But reference to the concept of god does not imply belief in god.
True. In the same way that talking about unicorns doesn't commit one to the belief that they exist in mind-independent reality.
Posted by Dinah on May 19, 2005, at 4:38:53
In reply to Re: God may or may not test us » alexandra_k, posted by so on May 19, 2005, at 1:20:26
> > > > But we can always rely on Dr. Bob. :)
> >
> > > A suggestion that a psychiatrist is more reliable than "god" would seem to involve faith, but probably not religious faith. Shouldn't this be posted on the administrative board instead?
> >
> > It is assuming the existence of god which involves religious faith does it not?????
> >
> >
>
>
> It can. But reference to the concept of god does not imply beleif in god. It can simply be a reference to a cultural construct. To reference religous figures as mythical constructs requires no more faith than does suspension of disbelief at a theater.
>However, a reader of the Faith board, which you obviously are, would realize that this conversation was between two people with a great faith in God, the creator of the universe, of all things seen and unseen, rather than a cultural or mythical construct. And since you read the Faith board, I am distressed to have my hitherto unquestioned faith in the Almighty questioned.
However, I appreciate your caring enough to peruse the boards to bring to Dr. Bob's attention a small diversion between two people of deep faith in the Almighty and considerable affection for Dr. Bob, and bringing it to a wider audience.
And Dr. Bob, since you apparently didn't see this abrupt departure from Faith board concerns previously, I hope you received the smile I enclosed now that "so" brought it to your attention.
Posted by Dinah on May 19, 2005, at 4:39:48
In reply to Re: God may or may not test us » so, posted by Dinah on May 19, 2005, at 4:38:53
Posted by gardenergirl on May 19, 2005, at 5:56:14
In reply to Re: God may or may not test us » so, posted by alexandra_k on May 19, 2005, at 2:37:01
Oh no! Please don't tell me that leprechauns are a myth, too! ;-)
(covers ears) La la la la la la la la (oh, hey..Hi Lala!)
Okay, keeping it administrative after this brief panic break.
gg
Posted by alexandra_k on May 19, 2005, at 16:01:25
In reply to Unicorns don't exist???? » alexandra_k, posted by gardenergirl on May 19, 2005, at 5:56:14
As an idea or a concept.
Just not in mind-independent reality...
Posted by so on May 19, 2005, at 19:07:26
In reply to Re: God may or may not test us » so, posted by Dinah on May 19, 2005, at 4:38:53
> > > > > But we can always rely on Dr. Bob. :)
And since you read the Faith board, I am distressed to have my hitherto unquestioned faith in the Almighty questioned.
>I beleive the phraseology you proposed in a detailed brief about "I-statements" would suggest you state that you are distressed "when" you thought your hitherto unquestioned faith was questioned.
I'm now curious -- have you ever questioned your faith?
And I also wonder, do you appreciate that some people who hold a profound faith in what they beleive to be an actual supreme being might be distressed by an assertion, qualified only by an ambiguous collection of punctuation marks, that any mere mortal, even a doctor, is as reliable as the god in which they place -- or attempt to place -- absolute faith? I would wonder if Scientologists would be particularly taken back when they read a suggestion that a psychiatrist is as reliable as "god".
> However, I appreciate your caring enough to peruse the boards to bring to Dr. Bob's attention a small diversion between two people of deep faith in the Almighty and considerable affection for Dr. Bob, and bringing it to a wider audience.
Messages at psychobabble may be read by anyone with internet access. Topics of discussion are open to other members of the group.
Posted by Dinah on May 19, 2005, at 19:20:15
In reply to Re: God may or may not test us, posted by so on May 19, 2005, at 19:07:26
Posted by alexandra_k on May 19, 2005, at 20:43:08
In reply to Re: God may or may not test us, posted by so on May 19, 2005, at 19:07:26
> > > > > > But we can always rely on Dr. Bob. :)
> And I also wonder, do you appreciate that some people who hold a profound faith in what they beleive to be an actual supreme being might be distressed by an assertion, qualified only by an ambiguous collection of punctuation marks, that any mere mortal, even a doctor, is as reliable as the god in which they place -- or attempt to place -- absolute faith? I would wonder if Scientologists would be particularly taken back when they read a suggestion that a psychiatrist is as reliable as "god".
Maybe...
Maybe I'm missing the point.
I thought it went'god may or may not test us but we can rely on Dr Bob to do so'.
It is arguable whether god tests us or not.
Strictly speaking I do believe that it is supposed to go that god does not test us, rather, by giving us free will he allows satan to test us.So.
'god may or may not test us'
Indeed.
Not just because he might only exist as an idea (which I don't think was Dinah's point)
But also because, strictly speaking if we assume (have faith) that god exists then he doesn't do the testing - satan does.Maybe...
God allows Dr Bob to test us...Hmm.
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 19, 2005, at 21:08:47
In reply to Re: God may or may not test us » so, posted by alexandra_k on May 19, 2005, at 20:43:08
a_k,
You wrote,[...if we...have faith that god exists then he doesn't do the testing-satan does...]
Could you clarify as to what you base the above on?
Lou
Posted by Dinah on May 19, 2005, at 21:47:31
In reply to Re: God may or may not test us » so, posted by alexandra_k on May 19, 2005, at 20:43:08
The actual context of the post was related to a discussion on whether or not God tests us in a previous thread. My stated belief was that God doesn't test us. That he doesn't send us trials for our own good, or to see how we handle them. That trials just happen, and God is as sorry as we are at our misfortune, and weeps with us.
So while this was just a small joke, the context was against my belief that God does exist, and that he does not test us.
So God is not less reliable than Dr. Bob. He simply has (in my belief system) a different role.
To those whose belief system includes a God whose role is like Dr. Bob's, I meant no disrespect.
Posted by Dinah on May 19, 2005, at 21:51:56
In reply to :-) » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on May 19, 2005, at 21:47:31
Now I fear I have brought religion to the Admin board, where it doesn't belong.
So much grief for one small smile to Dena, and a side smile to Dr. Bob.
But such is life. :)
Posted by Dinah on May 19, 2005, at 21:56:29
In reply to Re: God may or may not test us » so, posted by alexandra_k on May 19, 2005, at 20:43:08
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20050312/msgs/485420.html
Posted by so on May 19, 2005, at 22:35:18
In reply to Re: God may or may not test us » so, posted by alexandra_k on May 19, 2005, at 20:43:08
> > > > > > > But we can always rely on Dr. Bob. :)
>
> > And I also wonder, do you appreciate that some people who hold a profound faith in what they beleive to be an actual supreme being might be distressed by an assertion, qualified only by an ambiguous collection of punctuation marks, that any mere mortal, even a doctor, is as reliable as the god in which they place -- or attempt to place -- absolute faith? I would wonder if Scientologists would be particularly taken back when they read a suggestion that a psychiatrist is as reliable as "god".
>
> Maybe...
> Maybe I'm missing the point.
> I thought it went
>
> 'god may or may not test us but we can rely on Dr Bob to do so'.
>
> It is arguable whether god tests us or not.
> Strictly speaking I do believe that it is supposed to go that god does not test us, rather, by giving us free will he allows satan to test us.
>
> So.
> 'god may or may not test us'
> Indeed.
> Not just because he might only exist as an idea (which I don't think was Dinah's point)
> But also because, strictly speaking if we assume (have faith) that god exists then he doesn't do the testing - satan does.That would only be considered true by particular sects of some faiths that hold certain cosmologies, but i'm not that interested in the topic of cosmology and if I were, we would have to drag the discussion back over to the religion board, ... nah, he said bring it here, so ... if the presumptions of a god were true, if the presumption of a divinely constructed human free will were true, and if humans are tested, it could be that humans are allowed a few days in the sun during which time they may test theirselves.
My real point and hopefully my final word on this is matter below:
Maybe...
> God allows Dr Bob to test us...
>
> Hmm.
My read of the post was that god might or might not be using us for experimental purposes, but at least the psychiatrist in question is reliable. I read what it said, and not the implicit message you state was intended, which was that the psychiatrist could be relied upon to administer tests.Okay, I can add that if the psychiatrist is intentionally testy in his administrative style, his testiness would not be consistent with his stated purpose or role in the site. But anyone familiar with my recent posts might recognize that I am not a beleiver in the consistency of human motivation, nor of the coherence of human communicaiton with inner thoughts. So if he is testy and claims otherwise, it would be consistent with what I expect.
Posted by Dinah on May 19, 2005, at 22:48:04
In reply to Re: God may or may not test us » alexandra_k, posted by so on May 19, 2005, at 22:35:18
I believe we may be using different definitions of the word "test". However I have no real desire to hash out my simple humor even further.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 20, 2005, at 4:27:02
In reply to Re: God may or may not test us » so, posted by Dinah on May 19, 2005, at 22:48:04
(((Dinah)))
I get that you were kidding :-)What did I base my notion that god doesn't test us on???
Hmm...
Well...
I am no theologian.
Job...
God allowed satan to test Job.
God didn't do the testing.
He allowed Satan to test him.In the New Testament (for those inclined to that)
God allowed Jesus to be tested by Satan.
Thats the bit about Satan promising Jesus all these riches and power etc.Also...
Descartes.
The idea there is that god exists and is no deceiver. God is benevolent and wouldn't deceive us. So how come we are sometimes deceived? The notion is that God has given us free will and people have a tendancy to use that to jump to conclusions and be deceived etc.Maybe this is more controversial than I had thought???
Perhaps further discussion of this could be redirected to the faith board?
I just meant to say that I get that Dinah was kidding. And she didn't mean to cause offence or anything.
IMO
She wasn't suggesting that Dr Bob is more reliable than god.
Posted by Dinah on May 20, 2005, at 7:27:18
In reply to Re: God may or may not test us » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on May 20, 2005, at 4:27:02
Thanks Alexandra. That hug was much needed.
I understood what you meant. :) That's why I explained to you.
Don't get me started on Job. lol. I had an entire semester on just that one book. They roped me in with an intriguing title that had nothing to do with course content.
Posted by gardenergirl on May 20, 2005, at 11:58:07
In reply to Re: Sure they exist... » gardenergirl, posted by alexandra_k on May 19, 2005, at 16:01:25
Posted by AuntieMel on May 20, 2005, at 13:49:03
In reply to Re: God may or may not test us » so, posted by Dinah on May 19, 2005, at 22:48:04
Posted by Dinah on May 20, 2005, at 21:23:25
In reply to Re: Well, *I* thought it was funny! (nm) » Dinah, posted by AuntieMel on May 20, 2005, at 13:49:03
Posted by Phillipa on May 21, 2005, at 18:39:32
In reply to Re: Well, *I* thought it was funny! (nm) » Dinah, posted by AuntieMel on May 20, 2005, at 13:49:03
Don't know what to think about admin anymore. Fondly, Phillipa
This is the end of the 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.