Shown: posts 1 to 18 of 18. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 26, 2010, at 16:29:46
Mr. Hsiung, You are alllowing to stand the following:
[...The ONLY reason given in God's word that has or ever will cause someone to miss out on God's forgivness and Eternal Life...is to reject the gift of His Son Jesus as Lord and Savior...].
This could lead Jewish members/readers of this communty, as well as non-Christians, to feel put down because they do not accept the claimes of christianity about that Jesus is God's Son and could think that they are not going to be forgiven by the God that they cherish and worship because the statement is allowed to stand unsanctioned when your TOS states not to post what could lead others to feel put down. Not only that, but the statemnet states that Jews and other non-Christians will miss out on Eternal Life because they reject Jesus as Lord and Savior.
That statement is the foundation of hatred toward the Jews and other non-Christians. It has your place in a mental-heath community to stand unsanctioned for a reason that I would like for you to post here. What ever reason you may post here to allow it to stand will not annul the fact of what it states. You have posted a threat to expel me fromn this community if I was to post the foundation of Judaism. You state that there is an imparitive in it. Yes there is, but to me and not others. And yes there is an imparitive in the statenment in question here to others, which means that the Jewish children murdered by anti-Semites will miss out on Eternal Life and God's forgivness according to the statement in question.
You write that you do what in your thinking will be good for the community as a whole. Why will it be good to allow the statement in question to stand when you have posted a threat to expel me from the community if I was to post the foundation of Judaism and is then the community good?
Lou Pilder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20080809/msgs/941769.html
Posted by SLS on May 26, 2010, at 18:01:43
In reply to Lou's request to sanction ant-Semitism, posted by Lou Pilder on May 26, 2010, at 16:29:46
> Mr. Hsiung, You are alllowing to stand the following:
<excised>
Please be careful, Lou. I really don't want to see you get blocked.
You present some of the difficulties involved in communicating one's personal spiritual and religious beliefs in the Faith forum. Exclusivity is not a rare attribute among religious doctrines.
- Scott
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 30, 2010, at 20:32:05
In reply to Lou's request to sanction ant-Semitism, posted by Lou Pilder on May 26, 2010, at 16:29:46
> The ONLY reason given in God's Word that has or will ever cause someone to miss out on God's forgivness and Eternal life....is to reject the gift of His Son Jesus as Lord and Savior.
He was referring to:
> my Maker ... the God that [I give] service and worship to ... the God that the Christian Bible refers to
so I considered it analogous to:
> People of my faith have one God and no others before him.
which I consider OK:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020918/msgs/7889.html
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 31, 2010, at 6:54:30
In reply to Re: Lou's request, posted by Dr. Bob on May 30, 2010, at 20:32:05
> > The ONLY reason given in God's Word that has or will ever cause someone to miss out on God's forgivness and Eternal life....is to reject the gift of His Son Jesus as Lord and Savior.
>
> He was referring to:
>
> > my Maker ... the God that [I give] service and worship to ... the God that the Christian Bible refers to
>
> so I considered it analogous to:
>
> > People of my faith have one God and no others before him.
>
> which I consider OK:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020918/msgs/7889.html
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You consider it to be OK to post that:
[...People of my faith have one God and no others before Him...]
But you do not consider it OK for me to post that I have a commandment from my God to me that (redacted by respondent).
The difference is that in what you would expel me from this community for is if I was to post the imperative in the statement that is the foundation of Judaism. You do suggest that I change the wording of tha commandment to me from my God to exclude the imperative {shall}, as Ok and I have told you that I will not change it to accommodate your thinking about the word {shall}, for If I was to do that, I wouuld be writing a lie, for your form is not the same as what has been given to me as a commandment to me from my God.
Now you say that using an imperative could then preclude others and thearfore is not supportive. Well, the statement in question here is not the same as the one that you say is OK because that statenment in question does have an imperative and the member even writes it in caps which has the generally accepted meaning of being a stronger imperative, if there is such, as being impossible.
Now you are allowing the statement in question to stand, which precludes Jews and others that do not accept the claim of some Christian denominations from having forgivness and they are precluded from Eternal Life since they reject the claim of the poster about Jesus to be their Lord and Savoir. That includes the Jewish children that were murderd by anti-Semites, since those Jewish chhildren have a faith that does reject the claim of the statement in question. Islam aso rejects the claims in question as well as other non-Christian groups and some Christian groups also.
I would like for you to make a more concise statement on the faith board in that thread to let people know that the statement in question is or is not considerd by you to be supportive or not supportive. This is because it has an imperative in it, that precludes, and then by you posting what you are wanting to mean in a more concise statement, that could show the members to know for sure as to if you do or do not think that the statement is OK by itself, or not, as to what the statement purports . If you write that the statement is supportive as to what the statement purports as being OK, since I think that the statement that you say is Ok is diferent from what is posted. as having the imperative as being supportive, that is one thing and I will post my response to you there. If you state in that thread that the statement in question is not supportive, but you are going to allow it to stand anyway, then that is another thing that I can then post my response to you there because what you say is OK is not the same as what is posted in question for that statement has an imperative in it and the OK statement does not use the word {only}.
You have stated that you give a higher priority to support, and that what it not supportive can be taken elsewhere. I would also like for you to post in that thread , if you consider the statement in question to not constitute support for Jews and others that are precluded by the imperative in the statement, that you are giving a higher priority to something else to allow the statement to stand. As to what that priority is for the statment that you consider to be OK that does have an imperitive in it, which is different from what you have posted as your rationale for allowing it to stand because that does not have an imperative in it like {only}, and you have posted that you will expel me from this communty if I was to post the foundation of Judaism that has the imperative in it and not change it to what you say is OK, then I could determine what my response will be to you.
Lou
Posted by SLS on May 31, 2010, at 8:22:34
In reply to Lou's rteply-krhogovsch » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on May 31, 2010, at 6:54:30
I think it should be expected that many people will conceive that their religion is the best and only way to believe. How should this reality be treated in the Faith forum? I'm sure that this issue has been addressed already, but perhaps here would be a good place to reiterate.
- Scott
Posted by sigismund on June 4, 2010, at 2:51:03
In reply to Re: Lou's rteply-krhogovsch, posted by SLS on May 31, 2010, at 8:22:34
>I think it should be expected that many people will conceive that their religion is the best and only way to believe.
It's monotheism, isn't it?
As I understand it, the main problem comes from religions (Christianity, Islam) that claim exclusive validity.
I doubt there would make sense to be an atheist in a polytheistic society.
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 11, 2010, at 9:16:35
In reply to Lou's rteply-krhogovsch » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on May 31, 2010, at 6:54:30
> > > The ONLY reason given in God's Word that has or will ever cause someone to miss out on God's forgivness and Eternal life....is to reject the gift of His Son Jesus as Lord and Savior.
> >
> > He was referring to:
> >
> > > my Maker ... the God that [I give] service and worship to ... the God that the Christian Bible refers to
> >
> > so I considered it analogous to:
> >
> > > People of my faith have one God and no others before him.
> >
> > which I consider OK:
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020918/msgs/7889.html
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> You consider it to be OK to post that:
> [...People of my faith have one God and no others before Him...]
> But you do not consider it OK for me to post that I have a commandment from my God to me that (redacted by respondent).
> The difference is that in what you would expel me from this community for is if I was to post the imperative in the statement that is the foundation of Judaism. You do suggest that I change the wording of tha commandment to me from my God to exclude the imperative {shall}, as Ok and I have told you that I will not change it to accommodate your thinking about the word {shall}, for If I was to do that, I wouuld be writing a lie, for your form is not the same as what has been given to me as a commandment to me from my God.
> Now you say that using an imperative could then preclude others and thearfore is not supportive. Well, the statement in question here is not the same as the one that you say is OK because that statenment in question does have an imperative and the member even writes it in caps which has the generally accepted meaning of being a stronger imperative, if there is such, as being impossible.
> Now you are allowing the statement in question to stand, which precludes Jews and others that do not accept the claim of some Christian denominations from having forgivness and they are precluded from Eternal Life since they reject the claim of the poster about Jesus to be their Lord and Savoir. That includes the Jewish children that were murderd by anti-Semites, since those Jewish chhildren have a faith that does reject the claim of the statement in question. Islam aso rejects the claims in question as well as other non-Christian groups and some Christian groups also.
> I would like for you to make a more concise statement on the faith board in that thread to let people know that the statement in question is or is not considerd by you to be supportive or not supportive. This is because it has an imperative in it, that precludes, and then by you posting what you are wanting to mean in a more concise statement, that could show the members to know for sure as to if you do or do not think that the statement is OK by itself, or not, as to what the statement purports . If you write that the statement is supportive as to what the statement purports as being OK, since I think that the statement that you say is Ok is diferent from what is posted. as having the imperative as being supportive, that is one thing and I will post my response to you there. If you state in that thread that the statement in question is not supportive, but you are going to allow it to stand anyway, then that is another thing that I can then post my response to you there because what you say is OK is not the same as what is posted in question for that statement has an imperative in it and the OK statement does not use the word {only}.
> You have stated that you give a higher priority to support, and that what it not supportive can be taken elsewhere. I would also like for you to post in that thread , if you consider the statement in question to not constitute support for Jews and others that are precluded by the imperative in the statement, that you are giving a higher priority to something else to allow the statement to stand. As to what that priority is for the statment that you consider to be OK that does have an imperitive in it, which is different from what you have posted as your rationale for allowing it to stand because that does not have an imperative in it like {only}, and you have posted that you will expel me from this communty if I was to post the foundation of Judaism that has the imperative in it and not change it to what you say is OK, then I could determine what my response will be to you.
> LouMr. Hsiung,
In accordance with your reminder provision, I am having a want for you to post a reply to me as I have asked here.
You see, as long as what you have posted here about that you consider it OK, people could think that OK means supportive because you state that the mission of this forum is for support and that support takes precedence.
Now if there was a post by you in the thread in question here that states that you do or do not consider the statement in question to be supportive or not, then I think that could go a long way in preventing me from being the potential of being a victim of antisemitic violence and also Islamic peole and others that do not accept the claim in question that precludes Jews and Islamic people and others that reject Jesus Christ as their Lord and savior from forgivness and Eternal Life.
Day upon day, night upon night, as long as the post remains unnotated by you as to if you are or are not wanting to mean that the statement in question is supportive or not, there could be those that could think that the statement is supportive because you say that support takes precedence. And your TOS states that you do what in your thinking will be good for the community as a whole. And you write here that antisemitic statements are those that when a Jew reads it that they could feel put down. And you write here that imperatives like shall and only preclude others which could result in the others to feel put down, and you write that if a statement could lead another to feel put down that it should not be posted. And you write that foundations of a faith that preclude by having an imperative in it are those that can not be posted here but elsewhere. You write that antisemitic statements are not civil. You are right there, my friend. For antisemiotic statements left to be considerd to be OK could stoke the fire of hate and you say that one match could cause a forest fire which we Jews think could cause another Holocaust. We say never again my friend, never again.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Brainbeard on June 24, 2010, at 9:51:19
In reply to Lou's request to sanction ant-Semitism, posted by Lou Pilder on May 26, 2010, at 16:29:46
Proverbs 31:6:
"Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts."
Deut. 14:26:
"And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household".
These verses speak for the use of psychotropics for either mental illness or (holy) enjoyment.
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 25, 2010, at 16:14:41
In reply to Some Disconcerting Verses For Lou, posted by Brainbeard on June 24, 2010, at 9:51:19
> Proverbs 31:6 ...
Sorry to interrupt, but I'd like to redirect follow-ups regarding verses to Psycho-Babble Faith. Here's a link:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20100403/msgs/952080.html
That'll be considered a different thread, so if you'd like to be notified by email of follow-ups to it, you'll need to request that there. Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 28, 2010, at 18:36:49
In reply to Lou's rteply to Mr. Hsiung-krhogovsch, posted by Lou Pilder on June 11, 2010, at 9:16:35
> > > > The ONLY reason given in God's Word that has or will ever cause someone to miss out on God's forgivness and Eternal life....is to reject the gift of His Son Jesus as Lord and Savior.
> > >
> > > He was referring to:
> > >
> > > > my Maker ... the God that [I give] service and worship to ... the God that the Christian Bible refers to
> > >
> > > so I considered it analogous to:
> > >
> > > > People of my faith have one God and no others before him.
> > >
> > > which I consider OK:
> > >
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020918/msgs/7889.html
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
> > Mr. Hsiung,
> > You consider it to be OK to post that:
> > [...People of my faith have one God and no others before Him...]
> > But you do not consider it OK for me to post that I have a commandment from my God to me that (redacted by respondent).
> > The difference is that in what you would expel me from this community for is if I was to post the imperative in the statement that is the foundation of Judaism. You do suggest that I change the wording of tha commandment to me from my God to exclude the imperative {shall}, as Ok and I have told you that I will not change it to accommodate your thinking about the word {shall}, for If I was to do that, I wouuld be writing a lie, for your form is not the same as what has been given to me as a commandment to me from my God.
> > Now you say that using an imperative could then preclude others and thearfore is not supportive. Well, the statement in question here is not the same as the one that you say is OK because that statenment in question does have an imperative and the member even writes it in caps which has the generally accepted meaning of being a stronger imperative, if there is such, as being impossible.
> > Now you are allowing the statement in question to stand, which precludes Jews and others that do not accept the claim of some Christian denominations from having forgivness and they are precluded from Eternal Life since they reject the claim of the poster about Jesus to be their Lord and Savoir. That includes the Jewish children that were murderd by anti-Semites, since those Jewish chhildren have a faith that does reject the claim of the statement in question. Islam aso rejects the claims in question as well as other non-Christian groups and some Christian groups also.
> > I would like for you to make a more concise statement on the faith board in that thread to let people know that the statement in question is or is not considerd by you to be supportive or not supportive. This is because it has an imperative in it, that precludes, and then by you posting what you are wanting to mean in a more concise statement, that could show the members to know for sure as to if you do or do not think that the statement is OK by itself, or not, as to what the statement purports . If you write that the statement is supportive as to what the statement purports as being OK, since I think that the statement that you say is Ok is diferent from what is posted. as having the imperative as being supportive, that is one thing and I will post my response to you there. If you state in that thread that the statement in question is not supportive, but you are going to allow it to stand anyway, then that is another thing that I can then post my response to you there because what you say is OK is not the same as what is posted in question for that statement has an imperative in it and the OK statement does not use the word {only}.
> > You have stated that you give a higher priority to support, and that what it not supportive can be taken elsewhere. I would also like for you to post in that thread , if you consider the statement in question to not constitute support for Jews and others that are precluded by the imperative in the statement, that you are giving a higher priority to something else to allow the statement to stand. As to what that priority is for the statment that you consider to be OK that does have an imperitive in it, which is different from what you have posted as your rationale for allowing it to stand because that does not have an imperative in it like {only}, and you have posted that you will expel me from this communty if I was to post the foundation of Judaism that has the imperative in it and not change it to what you say is OK, then I could determine what my response will be to you.
> > Lou
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> In accordance with your reminder provision, I am having a want for you to post a reply to me as I have asked here.
> You see, as long as what you have posted here about that you consider it OK, people could think that OK means supportive because you state that the mission of this forum is for support and that support takes precedence.
> Now if there was a post by you in the thread in question here that states that you do or do not consider the statement in question to be supportive or not, then I think that could go a long way in preventing me from being the potential of being a victim of antisemitic violence and also Islamic peole and others that do not accept the claim in question that precludes Jews and Islamic people and others that reject Jesus Christ as their Lord and savior from forgivness and Eternal Life.
> Day upon day, night upon night, as long as the post remains unnotated by you as to if you are or are not wanting to mean that the statement in question is supportive or not, there could be those that could think that the statement is supportive because you say that support takes precedence. And your TOS states that you do what in your thinking will be good for the community as a whole. And you write here that antisemitic statements are those that when a Jew reads it that they could feel put down. And you write here that imperatives like shall and only preclude others which could result in the others to feel put down, and you write that if a statement could lead another to feel put down that it should not be posted. And you write that foundations of a faith that preclude by having an imperative in it are those that can not be posted here but elsewhere. You write that antisemitic statements are not civil. You are right there, my friend. For antisemiotic statements left to be considerd to be OK could stoke the fire of hate and you say that one match could cause a forest fire which we Jews think could cause another Holocaust. We say never again my friend, never again.
> Lou PilderMr. Hsiung,
In accordance with your reminder provsion, the above.
Lou Pilder
Posted by PartlyCloudy on December 23, 2010, at 11:12:28
In reply to Lou's reminder to Mr. Hsiung-psuhportihv? » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on July 28, 2010, at 18:36:49
Wow, this is from a while ago.
I was just mentioning to a good friend of mine about how I don't post on the Faith board. Inevitably, my eyes stray to it at this time of year. I remember when I first joined Babble and was naively excited at the prospect of such a board. (Likening it, in my mind, to a place such as Belief.Net, where multiple belief systems and backgrounds are tolerated and exchanges were encouraged.) I did not find the Babble board to be an equivalent of such a place, and quickly took my leave.
I was dismayed, but also thought that I didn't have it in me to try to speak up about any other points of view I might have wanted to discuss. Instead, I retreated from the board.
At that time, and in the time since, I have watched Lou Pilder try in his way to be heard on the boards, but to no apparent avail. I'm actually stymied by the reception that someone's personal experiences and point of view is not welcome on, of all possible places, the Faith board.
Perhaps, since I have found my voice (at last), I could entreat others to consider that Lou has a valid voice that deserves to be heard, just as any other member of our Babble community?
respectfully,
PartlyCloudy
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 24, 2010, at 15:50:06
In reply to Re: Lou's reminder to Mr. Hsiung-psuhportihv?, posted by PartlyCloudy on December 23, 2010, at 11:12:28
> I was just mentioning to a good friend of mine about how I don't post on the Faith board. Inevitably, my eyes stray to it at this time of year. I remember when I first joined Babble and was naively excited at the prospect of such a board. (Likening it, in my mind, to a place such as Belief.Net, where multiple belief systems and backgrounds are tolerated and exchanges were encouraged.) I did not find the Babble board to be an equivalent of such a place, and quickly took my leave.
>
> I was dismayed, but also thought that I didn't have it in me to try to speak up about any other points of view I might have wanted to discuss. Instead, I retreated from the board.
>
> At that time, and in the time since, I have watched Lou Pilder try in his way to be heard on the boards, but to no apparent avail. I'm actually stymied by the reception that someone's personal experiences and point of view is not welcome on, of all possible places, the Faith board.
>
> Perhaps, since I have found my voice (at last), I could entreat others to consider that Lou has a valid voice that deserves to be heard, just as any other member of our Babble community?I welcome exchanges on the Faith board between those of multiple belief systems and backgrounds. But that would mean not retreating. Does anybody have it in them to speak up now?
Bob
Posted by PartlyCloudy on December 24, 2010, at 19:43:58
In reply to Re: speaking up, posted by Dr. Bob on December 24, 2010, at 15:50:06
> > Perhaps, since I have found my voice (at last), I could entreat others to consider that Lou has a valid voice that deserves to be heard, just as any other member of our Babble community?
>
> I welcome exchanges on the Faith board between those of multiple belief systems and backgrounds. But that would mean not retreating. Does anybody have it in them to speak up now?
>
> BobAhem (clearing throat).
I'm getting rather busy at the moment, but I will be throwing myself into the discussion with gusto shortly. Notice that it's gusto rather than knowledge!
I have some rather serious concerns and I'll be voicing them. I think there are some issues that require resolution (as I see it, anyhow) and I would love to break out of the circular pattern of "call and response" that I've been watching for years now. Maybe, just maybe, another's voice will assist in clarifying these situations.
No shrinking violet I,
pc
Posted by PartlyCloudy on December 27, 2010, at 11:55:41
In reply to Re: speaking up » Dr. Bob, posted by PartlyCloudy on December 24, 2010, at 19:43:58
...and here's a link to my post on the Faith board:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20100403/msgs/974872.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 19, 2011, at 13:32:03
In reply to Lou's reminder to Mr. Hsiung-psuhportihv? » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on July 28, 2010, at 18:36:49
> > > > > The ONLY reason given in God's Word that has or will ever cause someone to miss out on God's forgivness and Eternal life....is to reject the gift of His Son Jesus as Lord and Savior.
> > > >
> > > > He was referring to:
> > > >
> > > > > my Maker ... the God that [I give] service and worship to ... the God that the Christian Bible refers to
> > > >
> > > > so I considered it analogous to:
> > > >
> > > > > People of my faith have one God and no others before him.
> > > >
> > > > which I consider OK:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020918/msgs/7889.html
> > > >
> > > > Bob
> > >
> > > Mr. Hsiung,
> > > You consider it to be OK to post that:
> > > [...People of my faith have one God and no others before Him...]
> > > But you do not consider it OK for me to post that I have a commandment from my God to me that (redacted by respondent).
> > > The difference is that in what you would expel me from this community for is if I was to post the imperative in the statement that is the foundation of Judaism. You do suggest that I change the wording of tha commandment to me from my God to exclude the imperative {shall}, as Ok and I have told you that I will not change it to accommodate your thinking about the word {shall}, for If I was to do that, I wouuld be writing a lie, for your form is not the same as what has been given to me as a commandment to me from my God.
> > > Now you say that using an imperative could then preclude others and thearfore is not supportive. Well, the statement in question here is not the same as the one that you say is OK because that statenment in question does have an imperative and the member even writes it in caps which has the generally accepted meaning of being a stronger imperative, if there is such, as being impossible.
> > > Now you are allowing the statement in question to stand, which precludes Jews and others that do not accept the claim of some Christian denominations from having forgivness and they are precluded from Eternal Life since they reject the claim of the poster about Jesus to be their Lord and Savoir. That includes the Jewish children that were murderd by anti-Semites, since those Jewish chhildren have a faith that does reject the claim of the statement in question. Islam aso rejects the claims in question as well as other non-Christian groups and some Christian groups also.
> > > I would like for you to make a more concise statement on the faith board in that thread to let people know that the statement in question is or is not considerd by you to be supportive or not supportive. This is because it has an imperative in it, that precludes, and then by you posting what you are wanting to mean in a more concise statement, that could show the members to know for sure as to if you do or do not think that the statement is OK by itself, or not, as to what the statement purports . If you write that the statement is supportive as to what the statement purports as being OK, since I think that the statement that you say is Ok is diferent from what is posted. as having the imperative as being supportive, that is one thing and I will post my response to you there. If you state in that thread that the statement in question is not supportive, but you are going to allow it to stand anyway, then that is another thing that I can then post my response to you there because what you say is OK is not the same as what is posted in question for that statement has an imperative in it and the OK statement does not use the word {only}.
> > > You have stated that you give a higher priority to support, and that what it not supportive can be taken elsewhere. I would also like for you to post in that thread , if you consider the statement in question to not constitute support for Jews and others that are precluded by the imperative in the statement, that you are giving a higher priority to something else to allow the statement to stand. As to what that priority is for the statment that you consider to be OK that does have an imperitive in it, which is different from what you have posted as your rationale for allowing it to stand because that does not have an imperative in it like {only}, and you have posted that you will expel me from this communty if I was to post the foundation of Judaism that has the imperative in it and not change it to what you say is OK, then I could determine what my response will be to you.
> > > Lou
> >
> > Mr. Hsiung,
> > In accordance with your reminder provision, I am having a want for you to post a reply to me as I have asked here.
> > You see, as long as what you have posted here about that you consider it OK, people could think that OK means supportive because you state that the mission of this forum is for support and that support takes precedence.
> > Now if there was a post by you in the thread in question here that states that you do or do not consider the statement in question to be supportive or not, then I think that could go a long way in preventing me from being the potential of being a victim of antisemitic violence and also Islamic peole and others that do not accept the claim in question that precludes Jews and Islamic people and others that reject Jesus Christ as their Lord and savior from forgivness and Eternal Life.
> > Day upon day, night upon night, as long as the post remains unnotated by you as to if you are or are not wanting to mean that the statement in question is supportive or not, there could be those that could think that the statement is supportive because you say that support takes precedence. And your TOS states that you do what in your thinking will be good for the community as a whole. And you write here that antisemitic statements are those that when a Jew reads it that they could feel put down. And you write here that imperatives like shall and only preclude others which could result in the others to feel put down, and you write that if a statement could lead another to feel put down that it should not be posted. And you write that foundations of a faith that preclude by having an imperative in it are those that can not be posted here but elsewhere. You write that antisemitic statements are not civil. You are right there, my friend. For antisemiotic statements left to be considerd to be OK could stoke the fire of hate and you say that one match could cause a forest fire which we Jews think could cause another Holocaust. We say never again my friend, never again.
> > Lou Pilder
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> In accordance with your reminder provsion, the above.
> Lou PilderMr. Hsiung,
In regards to your procedure to keep reminding you, the above.
There are now additional concerns that I have here in relation to that my requests to you are outstanding. Here are some of them:
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 11, 2011, at 8:28:18
In reply to Lou's reminder to Mr. Hsiung-moarkunsernz, posted by Lou Pilder on January 19, 2011, at 13:32:03
> > > > > > The ONLY reason given in God's Word that has or will ever cause someone to miss out on God's forgivness and Eternal life....is to reject the gift of His Son Jesus as Lord and Savior.
> > > > >
> > > > > He was referring to:
> > > > >
> > > > > > my Maker ... the God that [I give] service and worship to ... the God that the Christian Bible refers to
> > > > >
> > > > > so I considered it analogous to:
> > > > >
> > > > > > People of my faith have one God and no others before him.
> > > > >
> > > > > which I consider OK:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020918/msgs/7889.html
> > > > >
> > > > > Bob
> > > >
> > > > Mr. Hsiung,
> > > > You consider it to be OK to post that:
> > > > [...People of my faith have one God and no others before Him...]
> > > > But you do not consider it OK for me to post that I have a commandment from my God to me that (redacted by respondent).
> > > > The difference is that in what you would expel me from this community for is if I was to post the imperative in the statement that is the foundation of Judaism. You do suggest that I change the wording of tha commandment to me from my God to exclude the imperative {shall}, as Ok and I have told you that I will not change it to accommodate your thinking about the word {shall}, for If I was to do that, I wouuld be writing a lie, for your form is not the same as what has been given to me as a commandment to me from my God.
> > > > Now you say that using an imperative could then preclude others and thearfore is not supportive. Well, the statement in question here is not the same as the one that you say is OK because that statenment in question does have an imperative and the member even writes it in caps which has the generally accepted meaning of being a stronger imperative, if there is such, as being impossible.
> > > > Now you are allowing the statement in question to stand, which precludes Jews and others that do not accept the claim of some Christian denominations from having forgivness and they are precluded from Eternal Life since they reject the claim of the poster about Jesus to be their Lord and Savoir. That includes the Jewish children that were murderd by anti-Semites, since those Jewish chhildren have a faith that does reject the claim of the statement in question. Islam aso rejects the claims in question as well as other non-Christian groups and some Christian groups also.
> > > > I would like for you to make a more concise statement on the faith board in that thread to let people know that the statement in question is or is not considerd by you to be supportive or not supportive. This is because it has an imperative in it, that precludes, and then by you posting what you are wanting to mean in a more concise statement, that could show the members to know for sure as to if you do or do not think that the statement is OK by itself, or not, as to what the statement purports . If you write that the statement is supportive as to what the statement purports as being OK, since I think that the statement that you say is Ok is diferent from what is posted. as having the imperative as being supportive, that is one thing and I will post my response to you there. If you state in that thread that the statement in question is not supportive, but you are going to allow it to stand anyway, then that is another thing that I can then post my response to you there because what you say is OK is not the same as what is posted in question for that statement has an imperative in it and the OK statement does not use the word {only}.
> > > > You have stated that you give a higher priority to support, and that what it not supportive can be taken elsewhere. I would also like for you to post in that thread , if you consider the statement in question to not constitute support for Jews and others that are precluded by the imperative in the statement, that you are giving a higher priority to something else to allow the statement to stand. As to what that priority is for the statment that you consider to be OK that does have an imperitive in it, which is different from what you have posted as your rationale for allowing it to stand because that does not have an imperative in it like {only}, and you have posted that you will expel me from this communty if I was to post the foundation of Judaism that has the imperative in it and not change it to what you say is OK, then I could determine what my response will be to you.
> > > > Lou
> > >
> > > Mr. Hsiung,
> > > In accordance with your reminder provision, I am having a want for you to post a reply to me as I have asked here.
> > > You see, as long as what you have posted here about that you consider it OK, people could think that OK means supportive because you state that the mission of this forum is for support and that support takes precedence.
> > > Now if there was a post by you in the thread in question here that states that you do or do not consider the statement in question to be supportive or not, then I think that could go a long way in preventing me from being the potential of being a victim of antisemitic violence and also Islamic peole and others that do not accept the claim in question that precludes Jews and Islamic people and others that reject Jesus Christ as their Lord and savior from forgivness and Eternal Life.
> > > Day upon day, night upon night, as long as the post remains unnotated by you as to if you are or are not wanting to mean that the statement in question is supportive or not, there could be those that could think that the statement is supportive because you say that support takes precedence. And your TOS states that you do what in your thinking will be good for the community as a whole. And you write here that antisemitic statements are those that when a Jew reads it that they could feel put down. And you write here that imperatives like shall and only preclude others which could result in the others to feel put down, and you write that if a statement could lead another to feel put down that it should not be posted. And you write that foundations of a faith that preclude by having an imperative in it are those that can not be posted here but elsewhere. You write that antisemitic statements are not civil. You are right there, my friend. For antisemiotic statements left to be considerd to be OK could stoke the fire of hate and you say that one match could cause a forest fire which we Jews think could cause another Holocaust. We say never again my friend, never again.
> > > Lou Pilder
> >
> > Mr. Hsiung,
> > In accordance with your reminder provsion, the above.
> > Lou Pilder
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> In regards to your procedure to keep reminding you, the above.
> There are now additional concerns that I have here in relation to that my requests to you are outstanding. Here are some of them:
> Lou PilderMr. Hsiung,
In regards to your policy to keep remindijng you, the requests above from me are outstanding.
I am now wondering how a psychiatrist could take the position that the forum is for support and education and (redacted by respondent).
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 12, 2011, at 14:36:19
In reply to Lou's reminder to Mr. Hsiung-ehypsubgctvdeesiizn, posted by Lou Pilder on October 11, 2011, at 8:28:18
> > > > > > > The ONLY reason given in God's Word that has or will ever cause someone to miss out on God's forgivness and Eternal life....is to reject the gift of His Son Jesus as Lord and Savior.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > He was referring to:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > my Maker ... the God that [I give] service and worship to ... the God that the Christian Bible refers to
> > > > > >
> > > > > > so I considered it analogous to:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > People of my faith have one God and no others before him.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > which I consider OK:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020918/msgs/7889.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bob
> > > > >
> > > > > Mr. Hsiung,
> > > > > You consider it to be OK to post that:
> > > > > [...People of my faith have one God and no others before Him...]
> > > > > But you do not consider it OK for me to post that I have a commandment from my God to me that (redacted by respondent).
> > > > > The difference is that in what you would expel me from this community for is if I was to post the imperative in the statement that is the foundation of Judaism. You do suggest that I change the wording of tha commandment to me from my God to exclude the imperative {shall}, as Ok and I have told you that I will not change it to accommodate your thinking about the word {shall}, for If I was to do that, I wouuld be writing a lie, for your form is not the same as what has been given to me as a commandment to me from my God.
> > > > > Now you say that using an imperative could then preclude others and thearfore is not supportive. Well, the statement in question here is not the same as the one that you say is OK because that statenment in question does have an imperative and the member even writes it in caps which has the generally accepted meaning of being a stronger imperative, if there is such, as being impossible.
> > > > > Now you are allowing the statement in question to stand, which precludes Jews and others that do not accept the claim of some Christian denominations from having forgivness and they are precluded from Eternal Life since they reject the claim of the poster about Jesus to be their Lord and Savoir. That includes the Jewish children that were murderd by anti-Semites, since those Jewish chhildren have a faith that does reject the claim of the statement in question. Islam aso rejects the claims in question as well as other non-Christian groups and some Christian groups also.
> > > > > I would like for you to make a more concise statement on the faith board in that thread to let people know that the statement in question is or is not considerd by you to be supportive or not supportive. This is because it has an imperative in it, that precludes, and then by you posting what you are wanting to mean in a more concise statement, that could show the members to know for sure as to if you do or do not think that the statement is OK by itself, or not, as to what the statement purports . If you write that the statement is supportive as to what the statement purports as being OK, since I think that the statement that you say is Ok is diferent from what is posted. as having the imperative as being supportive, that is one thing and I will post my response to you there. If you state in that thread that the statement in question is not supportive, but you are going to allow it to stand anyway, then that is another thing that I can then post my response to you there because what you say is OK is not the same as what is posted in question for that statement has an imperative in it and the OK statement does not use the word {only}.
> > > > > You have stated that you give a higher priority to support, and that what it not supportive can be taken elsewhere. I would also like for you to post in that thread , if you consider the statement in question to not constitute support for Jews and others that are precluded by the imperative in the statement, that you are giving a higher priority to something else to allow the statement to stand. As to what that priority is for the statment that you consider to be OK that does have an imperitive in it, which is different from what you have posted as your rationale for allowing it to stand because that does not have an imperative in it like {only}, and you have posted that you will expel me from this communty if I was to post the foundation of Judaism that has the imperative in it and not change it to what you say is OK, then I could determine what my response will be to you.
> > > > > Lou
> > > >
> > > > Mr. Hsiung,
> > > > In accordance with your reminder provision, I am having a want for you to post a reply to me as I have asked here.
> > > > You see, as long as what you have posted here about that you consider it OK, people could think that OK means supportive because you state that the mission of this forum is for support and that support takes precedence.
> > > > Now if there was a post by you in the thread in question here that states that you do or do not consider the statement in question to be supportive or not, then I think that could go a long way in preventing me from being the potential of being a victim of antisemitic violence and also Islamic peole and others that do not accept the claim in question that precludes Jews and Islamic people and others that reject Jesus Christ as their Lord and savior from forgivness and Eternal Life.
> > > > Day upon day, night upon night, as long as the post remains unnotated by you as to if you are or are not wanting to mean that the statement in question is supportive or not, there could be those that could think that the statement is supportive because you say that support takes precedence. And your TOS states that you do what in your thinking will be good for the community as a whole. And you write here that antisemitic statements are those that when a Jew reads it that they could feel put down. And you write here that imperatives like shall and only preclude others which could result in the others to feel put down, and you write that if a statement could lead another to feel put down that it should not be posted. And you write that foundations of a faith that preclude by having an imperative in it are those that can not be posted here but elsewhere. You write that antisemitic statements are not civil. You are right there, my friend. For antisemiotic statements left to be considerd to be OK could stoke the fire of hate and you say that one match could cause a forest fire which we Jews think could cause another Holocaust. We say never again my friend, never again.
> > > > Lou Pilder
> > >
> > > Mr. Hsiung,
> > > In accordance with your reminder provsion, the above.
> > > Lou Pilder
> >
> > Mr. Hsiung,
> > In regards to your procedure to keep reminding you, the above.
> > There are now additional concerns that I have here in relation to that my requests to you are outstanding. Here are some of them:
> > Lou Pilder
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> In regards to your policy to keep remindijng you, the requests above from me are outstanding.
> I am now wondering how a psychiatrist could take the position that the forum is for support and education and (redacted by respondent).
> Lou PilderMr. Hsiung,
In reagrds to your reminder provision, the above.
Also, if you could go to the search box at the bottom of this page and type in,[admin,307041,missing] then we could have more infrmaton if you post to my requests.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 13, 2013, at 8:29:11
In reply to Re: Lou's reminder to Mr. Hsiung-psuhportihv?, posted by PartlyCloudy on December 23, 2010, at 11:12:28
> Wow, this is from a while ago.
>
> I was just mentioning to a good friend of mine about how I don't post on the Faith board. Inevitably, my eyes stray to it at this time of year. I remember when I first joined Babble and was naively excited at the prospect of such a board. (Likening it, in my mind, to a place such as Belief.Net, where multiple belief systems and backgrounds are tolerated and exchanges were encouraged.) I did not find the Babble board to be an equivalent of such a place, and quickly took my leave.
>
> I was dismayed, but also thought that I didn't have it in me to try to speak up about any other points of view I might have wanted to discuss. Instead, I retreated from the board.
>
> At that time, and in the time since, I have watched Lou Pilder try in his way to be heard on the boards, but to no apparent avail. I'm actually stymied by the reception that someone's personal experiences and point of view is not welcome on, of all possible places, the Faith board.
>
> Perhaps, since I have found my voice (at last), I could entreat others to consider that Lou has a valid voice that deserves to be heard, just as any other member of our Babble community?
>
> respectfully,
> PartlyCloudyPC,
Yoou wrote the aove. If you could return to this thread, IMHHHO lives could be saved for you may be able to bring out the fact that the prohibitions to me (redacted by respondent)because they did not have the opportunity to hear from me on how they could be free from addiction and depression from a Jewish perspective as revealed to me.
Lou
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.