![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 15 to 39 of 51. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 6, 2015, at 11:27:53
In reply to Lou's reply-428781 » ed_uk2010, posted by Lou Pilder on February 5, 2015, at 20:19:22
> > >A question concerning what you have written here could be is if anti-Semitic propaganda is posted here, does that express hatred toward the Jews?
> >
> > I have never seen anything remotely resembling anti-Semitic propaganda anywhere on this board. Perhaps it's like the proverbial needle in a haystack?
> >
> > I can only imagine that any subset of readers, Jewish or otherwise, informed or uninformed, would have to spend a great deal of time searching, in order to find such statements.
> >
> > Out of interest Lou, do you work so tirelessly on other, more popular forums to shield the public from remarks which may induce unsuspecting members of the public to want to kill themselves?
>
> Ed,
> [ admin, 428781 ]
> Loued,
The anti-Semitic propaganda depicted in 652741 is in discussion here;
[ faith, 996847 ]
The post in question is:
[ faith, 652741 ] in an offered link as Matt 27
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 6, 2015, at 11:37:17
In reply to Lou's reply to ed-652741, posted by Lou Pilder on February 6, 2015, at 11:27:53
> > > >A question concerning what you have written here could be is if anti-Semitic propaganda is posted here, does that express hatred toward the Jews?
> > >
> > > I have never seen anything remotely resembling anti-Semitic propaganda anywhere on this board. Perhaps it's like the proverbial needle in a haystack?
> > >
> > > I can only imagine that any subset of readers, Jewish or otherwise, informed or uninformed, would have to spend a great deal of time searching, in order to find such statements.
> > >
> > > Out of interest Lou, do you work so tirelessly on other, more popular forums to shield the public from remarks which may induce unsuspecting members of the public to want to kill themselves?
> >
> > Ed,
> > [ admin, 428781 ]
> > Lou
>
> ed,
> The anti-Semitic propaganda depicted in 652741 is in discussion here;
> [ faith, 996847 ]
> The post in question is:
> [ faith, 652741 ] in an offered link as Matt 27
> Lou
ed,
Here is the post in relation to that the anti-Semitic propaganda is disturbing to me that it is allowed to be seen as supportive and will be good in Mr. Hsiung's thinking for the community as a whole to see it as supportive as support takes precedence and members are to be civil at all times according to Mr. Hsiung.
[ admin, 678224 ]
Lou
Posted by ed_uk2010 on February 6, 2015, at 14:34:24
In reply to Lou's reply to ed-678224, posted by Lou Pilder on February 6, 2015, at 11:37:17
It ought to be clear to any reader than no anti-Semitism was intended.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20101230/msgs/996905.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 6, 2015, at 18:35:36
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to ed-678224, posted by ed_uk2010 on February 6, 2015, at 14:34:24
> It ought to be clear to any reader than no anti-Semitism was intended.
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20101230/msgs/996905.html
>
> ed,
You wrote,[...it ought to be clear to any reader that no anti-Semitism was intended...].
Let there be no misunderstanding here. The statement is from the author of the post, not the passage cited in the Christiandom Bible. In order for me to determine the author's intent, I asked questions and until the author posts answers to them, I can not know the author's intent.
The statement is:
[... disgusted at their love for money...].
I do not know the author's intent for posting that, for the passage in question that the author refers to does not state such. It came from the author from somewhere, but I do not know where. But I do know how the passage has been used to defame Jews historically. And the rule here is not to post anything that could be accusative or defaming or lead someone to feel that their faith is being put down and the intent is not what determines as to if the statement is against the rules and if so, the author could post answers to my request to clarify his intent. Since the statement stands, readers could think that it is supportive and will be good in Mr. Hsiung's thinking for the community as a whole for readers to see it un repudiated. The passage takes place in the Temple where the Jews are, so the moneychangers are likely to be Jews and could lead readers to think of Jews in a disparaging manner as {loving money while others went without}.
As long as the post remains un repudiated by Mr. Hsiung, readers could think that Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record are validating what the statement could lead a subset of Jewish readers to think about Jews which could lead IMHHHO to suicides of vulnerable readers to think of Jews in that manner as being civil by this site, which could cause feelings of inferiority that could have like a trap-door open when they read such about what could be Jews in that manner depicted by the author.
In my study of cyberbullying, the suicides have such in common as a precipitator of completed suicide. This is a mental-health site so you say.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 6, 2015, at 19:55:33
In reply to Lou's reply -dicustedattheirlovformony » ed_uk2010, posted by Lou Pilder on February 6, 2015, at 18:35:36
> > It ought to be clear to any reader than no anti-Semitism was intended.
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20101230/msgs/996905.html
> >
> > ed,
> You wrote,[...it ought to be clear to any reader that no anti-Semitism was intended...].
> Let there be no misunderstanding here. The statement is from the author of the post, not the passage cited in the Christiandom Bible. In order for me to determine the author's intent, I asked questions and until the author posts answers to them, I can not know the author's intent.
> The statement is:
> [... disgusted at their love for money...].
> I do not know the author's intent for posting that, for the passage in question that the author refers to does not state such. It came from the author from somewhere, but I do not know where. But I do know how the passage has been used to defame Jews historically. And the rule here is not to post anything that could be accusative or defaming or lead someone to feel that their faith is being put down and the intent is not what determines as to if the statement is against the rules and if so, the author could post answers to my request to clarify his intent. Since the statement stands, readers could think that it is supportive and will be good in Mr. Hsiung's thinking for the community as a whole for readers to see it un repudiated. The passage takes place in the Temple where the Jews are, so the moneychangers are likely to be Jews and could lead readers to think of Jews in a disparaging manner as {loving money while others went without}.
> As long as the post remains un repudiated by Mr. Hsiung, readers could think that Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record are validating what the statement could lead a subset of Jewish readers to think about Jews which could lead IMHHHO to suicides of vulnerable readers to think of Jews in that manner as being civil by this site, which could cause feelings of inferiority that could have like a trap-door open when they read such about what could be Jews in that manner depicted by the author.
> In my study of cyberbullying, the suicides have such in common as a precipitator of completed suicide. This is a mental-health site so you say.
> LouFriends,
If you are considering posting in this thread, I am asking that you read the following:
To see this article, go to Google and type in:
[ the top 6 cyberbullying cases ]
Lou
Posted by ed_uk2010 on February 7, 2015, at 18:25:12
In reply to Lou's reply -top 6, posted by Lou Pilder on February 6, 2015, at 19:55:33
>I do know how the passage has been used to defame Jews historically.
I understand that you think that, but it seems to me that the overall impression of the post was very positive, and there was no intention to defame anyone.
>The passage takes place in the Temple where the Jews are, so the moneychangers are likely to be Jews and could lead readers to think of Jews in a disparaging manner as {loving money while others went without}.
To be honest Lou, if you weren't so insistent on drawing attention to it, I don't think anyone would be thinking anything about Jews at all.
You seem quite paranoid. I hope you are not suffering.
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 8, 2015, at 7:49:02
In reply to Re: Lou's reply -top 6 » Lou Pilder, posted by ed_uk2010 on February 7, 2015, at 18:25:12
> >I do know how the passage has been used to defame Jews historically.
>
> I understand that you think that, but it seems to me that the overall impression of the post was very positive, and there was no intention to defame anyone.
>
> >The passage takes place in the Temple where the Jews are, so the moneychangers are likely to be Jews and could lead readers to think of Jews in a disparaging manner as {loving money while others went without}.
>
> To be honest Lou, if you weren't so insistent on drawing attention to it, I don't think anyone would be thinking anything about Jews at all.
>
> You seem quite paranoid. I hope you are not suffering.ed,
You wrote,[...and there was no intention to defame anyone...].
What criteria do you use, if any, to conclude that there was no intention to defame anyone?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 9, 2015, at 10:23:41
In reply to Lou's reply -gumptukuncloo? » ed_uk2010, posted by Lou Pilder on February 8, 2015, at 7:49:02
> > >I do know how the passage has been used to defame Jews historically.
> >
> > I understand that you think that, but it seems to me that the overall impression of the post was very positive, and there was no intention to defame anyone.
> >
> > >The passage takes place in the Temple where the Jews are, so the moneychangers are likely to be Jews and could lead readers to think of Jews in a disparaging manner as {loving money while others went without}.
> >
> > To be honest Lou, if you weren't so insistent on drawing attention to it, I don't think anyone would be thinking anything about Jews at all.
> >
> > You seem quite paranoid. I hope you are not suffering.
>
> ed,
> You wrote,[...and there was no intention to defame anyone...].
> What criteria do you use, if any, to conclude that there was no intention to defame anyone?
> Loued,
You wrote,[...to me that the overall impression of the post was *very positive*...].
I am unsure as to what you are wanting readers to mean by that. If you could post answers to the following, then I could respond accordingly. True or False:
A. You can see, ed, that to you the post could cause a subset of readers to think that Judaism was corrupt during the time of the scene that Jesus said what He said to the moneychangers in the Temple and that is *very positive*.
B. You can see, ed, that the scene in the Temple with Jesus and the moneychangers could spread anti-Semitic thought in that the Jews were unworthy to retain God's love and were replaced by Christians and that is *very positive*.
C. The author misrepresented the facts in the passages with the moneychangers and the Temple, Lou.
D. The scene in the Temple with the moneychangers as told by the author of the post here in question could demean both Judaism and ultimately, Jews and that is very positive, Lou
E. The scene at the Temple with the moneychangers as stated by the author of the post in question here, {disgusted at their love for money} could cause readers to think of Jews as unethical business people and portray Jews {falsely} which could create and develop an anti-Semitic perspective of Jews and money from here by the nature that Mr. Hsiung states that he could leave anti-Semitic propaganda to be seen as supportive because in his thinking that will be good for this community as a whole.
F. Lou, I really did not know, for I am ignorant of the aspects of Judaism involved in the passages that the author of the post in question cites for readers to consider concerning the Temple and the moneychangers and his statement,{disgusted at their love for money} and how historically the passage has been used to induce anti-Semitic hatred and cause the deaths of Jews.
G. Lou, I really now see that a subset of readers seeing the statement by the author in relation to the Temple and the moneychangers being seen here as supportive, could not be a sound mental-health practice as by that the statement in question can be seen as supportive, it could be felt by Jewish readers as that Judaism is being insulted and then the Jews could be seen as being put down as being a Jew here because the statement in question can be seen as being good for this community as a whole by a psychiatrist and he wants readers to trust him in what he does here.
Lou
Posted by ed_uk2010 on February 12, 2015, at 18:35:40
In reply to Lou's reply to ed-ihgnorenz, posted by Lou Pilder on February 9, 2015, at 10:23:41
>the post could cause a subset of readers to think that Judaism was corrupt....
There is corruption all around us, Lou, both within Judaism and outside of it. Since most people are not Jewish, most corruption occurs outside Judaism. Nevertheless, since corruption is within the very essence of human nature, I have little doubt that some Jews are corrupt.
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 13, 2015, at 7:43:49
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to ed-ihgnorenz » Lou Pilder, posted by ed_uk2010 on February 12, 2015, at 18:35:40
> >the post could cause a subset of readers to think that Judaism was corrupt....
>
> There is corruption all around us, Lou, both within Judaism and outside of it. Since most people are not Jewish, most corruption occurs outside Judaism. Nevertheless, since corruption is within the very essence of human nature, I have little doubt that some Jews are corrupt.ed,
You wrote,[...There is corruption...within Judaism...].
The issues here involve the poster's statement,{...disgusted at *their* love for money when so many people went without...] and that the poster is referring to {the scene when Jesus was smashing the tables of the money changers...].
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20101230/msgs/996847.html
The poster is asking for readers to view the bible passages in reference to the money changers in order to have an understanding of what he, the poster, wrote which is his own interpretation from what is in the bible passages. It is not the bible passages themselves that are in question by me here, for the poster does not post a citation to them, but what the poster posted here.
I have offered the poster the opportunity to answer some questions that IMHO could give readers a more-informed knowledge of what is in question here. As long as the poster does not accept that opportunity, then readers could have various ideas concerning Jews from what is posted by the poster. {disgusted at their love for money}. These depictions of the money changers which could be Jews that could arise from what the poster wrote, could allow some readers to feel that Judaism is being insulted here as being supportive and in Mr. Hsiung's thinking will be good for this community as a whole and arouse hatred toward the Jews as the historical record shows. For Mr. Hsiung states that if a statement stands, it is not against his rules. Later he states that he could leave a statement that is against his rules to stand, because in his thinking it will be good for this community as a whole.
I say not. I say this because what the poster wrote could IMHHHO arouse anti-Semitic feelings. And the rule here is that it doesn't matter if what is in question is somewhat true or even if the bible says it, to have immunity from sanction as being uncivil. For being supportive takes precedence and posters are to be civil at all times according to Mr. Hsiung.
The Christiandom Bible passages concerning the scene in the temple are very problematic to both those with a knowledge of second-temple Judaism and those ignorant of it. This is also impacted by the fact that the poster has not accepted my offer for him to answer my questions so that I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly. In some jurisdictions, by not answering, {evasion} could be imputed to the one not answering and then the intent could be formulated.
The passages have been used historically to promote antisemitism and hatred toward the Jews and I see no reason to think that the furnace of hatred toward the Jews could not be stoked here from what the poster wrote being allowed to be seen as supportive and will in Mr. Hsiung's thinking be good for this community as a whole. In fact, a recruitment could be fostered here IMHO by Jew-haters to have easily persuaded readers join a camp of those bent on killing Jews by the nature that they could show the statement {...Jesus was smashing the tables of the money changers, disgusted at their love for money when so many people went without..] to be seen as supportive here.
Since I am prevented from posting my repudiation to the statement by the poster in question due to the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung, others, can post here even more insults to Judaism and Jews with impunity. But I say to you readers here, that just because hatred toward the Jews is being allowed to be seen as civil here, this could not only be a detriment to your mental-health, it could also corrupt the goals of this forum, which is to go by the Golden Rule.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 13, 2015, at 8:38:44
In reply to Lou's reply to ed-kerupp » ed_uk2010, posted by Lou Pilder on February 13, 2015, at 7:43:49
> > >the post could cause a subset of readers to think that Judaism was corrupt....
> >
> > There is corruption all around us, Lou, both within Judaism and outside of it. Since most people are not Jewish, most corruption occurs outside Judaism. Nevertheless, since corruption is within the very essence of human nature, I have little doubt that some Jews are corrupt.
>
> ed,
> You wrote,[...There is corruption...within Judaism...].
> The issues here involve the poster's statement,{...disgusted at *their* love for money when so many people went without...] and that the poster is referring to {the scene when Jesus was smashing the tables of the money changers...].
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20101230/msgs/996847.html
> The poster is asking for readers to view the bible passages in reference to the money changers in order to have an understanding of what he, the poster, wrote which is his own interpretation from what is in the bible passages. It is not the bible passages themselves that are in question by me here, for the poster does not post a citation to them, but what the poster posted here.
> I have offered the poster the opportunity to answer some questions that IMHO could give readers a more-informed knowledge of what is in question here. As long as the poster does not accept that opportunity, then readers could have various ideas concerning Jews from what is posted by the poster. {disgusted at their love for money}. These depictions of the money changers which could be Jews that could arise from what the poster wrote, could allow some readers to feel that Judaism is being insulted here as being supportive and in Mr. Hsiung's thinking will be good for this community as a whole and arouse hatred toward the Jews as the historical record shows. For Mr. Hsiung states that if a statement stands, it is not against his rules. Later he states that he could leave a statement that is against his rules to stand, because in his thinking it will be good for this community as a whole.
> I say not. I say this because what the poster wrote could IMHHHO arouse anti-Semitic feelings. And the rule here is that it doesn't matter if what is in question is somewhat true or even if the bible says it, to have immunity from sanction as being uncivil. For being supportive takes precedence and posters are to be civil at all times according to Mr. Hsiung.
> The Christiandom Bible passages concerning the scene in the temple are very problematic to both those with a knowledge of second-temple Judaism and those ignorant of it. This is also impacted by the fact that the poster has not accepted my offer for him to answer my questions so that I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly. In some jurisdictions, by not answering, {evasion} could be imputed to the one not answering and then the intent could be formulated.
> The passages have been used historically to promote antisemitism and hatred toward the Jews and I see no reason to think that the furnace of hatred toward the Jews could not be stoked here from what the poster wrote being allowed to be seen as supportive and will in Mr. Hsiung's thinking be good for this community as a whole. In fact, a recruitment could be fostered here IMHO by Jew-haters to have easily persuaded readers join a camp of those bent on killing Jews by the nature that they could show the statement {...Jesus was smashing the tables of the money changers, disgusted at their love for money when so many people went without..] to be seen as supportive here.
> Since I am prevented from posting my repudiation to the statement by the poster in question due to the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung, others, can post here even more insults to Judaism and Jews with impunity. But I say to you readers here, that just because hatred toward the Jews is being allowed to be seen as civil here, this could not only be a detriment to your mental-health, it could also corrupt the goals of this forum, which is to go by the Golden Rule.
> LouFriends,
The history of the persecution of Jews involves the passages and the interpretation of those passages as used to arouse hatred toward the Jews. You may be ignorant of how anti-Semitic propaganda has been used and how it is used today. In this discussion, the bible passages cited by the poster that has Jesus using a whip in relation to those that sold doves and the money changer in the temple, was used historically that resulted in millions of Jewish children having atrocities committed against them and murdered. It is through anti-Semitic propaganda that the uninformed could be persuaded to hate Jews. And it is so easy to persuade the uninformed. It's so easy.
Here is some information that I think could help if you intend to be a discussant in this thread or parallel threads. To see thisZ:
A. Go to Google and type in:
[ nobeliefs, compiled by Jim Walker, brandishing his whip, Eckart ]
It will be first and clicking on it brings up pictures. I would like for you to view the first three pictures and read the caption under them. You see, the passage with the money changers involves Jesus using a whip.
Lou
Posted by ed_uk2010 on February 14, 2015, at 18:56:08
In reply to Lou's reply to ed and friends-histrclheyt, posted by Lou Pilder on February 13, 2015, at 8:38:44
>...disgusted at *their* love for money when so many people went without...
>others, can post here even more insults to Judaism and Jews with impunityAre you suggesting no one should be able to mention that part of the Bible for fear of inciting anti-Semitism? I do not see any evidence that Judaism was insulted. That is entirely your interpretation, which appears to be profoundly skewed in the direction of seeing insults where none exist.
No doubt... some Jews do love money. Some Christians love money too. Some Muslims love money. Some non-believers love money. Jesus was, presumably, suggesting that it is not a good thing to love money. Although this part of the Bible may have been used to incite hatred against Jews at some points in time, I see no evidence whatsoever that that applies in this instance.
>could allow some readers to feel that Judaism is being insulted here as being supportive
That would be a stretch...
>in Mr. Hsiung's thinking will be good for this community as a whole and arouse hatred toward the Jews
I seriously doubt Dr. Bob would find it acceptable to arouse hatred against anyone. Although I cannot speak for him, the issue seems to be that Dr. Bob simply doesn't believe that any hatred was aroused. I would agree with that sentiment.
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 14, 2015, at 20:53:36
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to ed and friends-histrclheyt » Lou Pilder, posted by ed_uk2010 on February 14, 2015, at 18:56:08
> >...disgusted at *their* love for money when so many people went without...
> >others, can post here even more insults to Judaism and Jews with impunity
>
> Are you suggesting no one should be able to mention that part of the Bible for fear of inciting anti-Semitism? I do not see any evidence that Judaism was insulted. That is entirely your interpretation, which appears to be profoundly skewed in the direction of seeing insults where none exist.
>
> No doubt... some Jews do love money. Some Christians love money too. Some Muslims love money. Some non-believers love money. Jesus was, presumably, suggesting that it is not a good thing to love money. Although this part of the Bible may have been used to incite hatred against Jews at some points in time, I see no evidence whatsoever that that applies in this instance.
>
> >could allow some readers to feel that Judaism is being insulted here as being supportive
>
> That would be a stretch...
>
> >in Mr. Hsiung's thinking will be good for this community as a whole and arouse hatred toward the Jews
>
> I seriously doubt Dr. Bob would find it acceptable to arouse hatred against anyone. Although I cannot speak for him, the issue seems to be that Dr. Bob simply doesn't believe that any hatred was aroused. I would agree with that sentiment.ed,
You cited the statement in question:
[...disgusted at *their* love for money when so many people went without...].
Then you wrote,[...are you suggesting that no one should be able to mention that part of the Bible for fear of inciting anti-Semitism?
Let there be no misunderstanding here. The passage in the Bible is not posted. It is the poster's interpretation of the passage that is in question here. This means that readers that know of the passage, (actually there is more than one passage) are one set of readers, and there are those that search for the passage and examine it, and there are readers that are ignorant of the passage along with other subsets of readers.
As to if one could cite the passage here without arousing anti-Semitic feelings, that could depend on the context of the citation being used and for what purpose as it could be seen. Here, the poster writes about {*their* love for money}. The people could be the Jews to the subset of readers that know of the passage that the poster says to think of involving the money changers. But what the poster writes is {their love for money when so many went without}. It is that statement by the poster that readers could see as supportive and will be good in Mr. Hsiung's thinking for the community as a whole because it stands un repudiated by Mr. Hsiung. It is how Jews could be depicted by the statement in the minds of a subset of readers that think the people in question are Jews.
The passage does not use that language to say that Jesus was disgusted at their love for money. That is what the poster wrote and got it from some place, and many Christiandom groups purport that what the poster wrote is in their doctrines and depict Jews as in the following..
see: [ admin, 428781 ]
The statement could mean to a subset of readers that the people in the subset of {their}, in {their love for money,} are being shown in contempt and insulting their character as the poster writes that {*Jesus* was disgusted at their love for money} That part being allowed to be seen here as supportive could arouse anti-Semitic feelings to those readers that think that the people in the set of {their}, in {their love for money}, were Jews. That could be defaming to Jews and insulting to Jews to attribute the intent of those Jews to be motivated by the love for money. The passage could lead to stereotyping Jews as *Jesus* is said by the poster to be disgusted at *their* love for money, even though the passage does not contain that language.
I am prevented from posting my repudiation of the statement in the manner that I think could save lives here, due to the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung. But the poster can post his interpretation of the passage, that IMHO could cost the lives of some readers here and the lives of innocent Jews throughout the world that could become victims of anti-Semitic terrorists that could see the statement as by a psychiatrist that it will be good for his community as a whole in his thinking to have it seen as civil. Jewish centers and temples could be attacked. You see, one match can start a forest fire. The statement by the poster in question could be thought by some to be a flame. And the flame could induce embers that spread like the wind through the internet to homes all over the world. I see more than that in the poster's post. For he says that justice is somehow involved in the statement in question. Hummmmmmmmmmmm
Lou
Posted by ed_uk2010 on February 14, 2015, at 21:15:22
In reply to Lou's reply-pstill burning » ed_uk2010, posted by Lou Pilder on February 14, 2015, at 20:53:36
>I am prevented from posting my repudiation of the statement in the manner that I think could save lives here
Ok, could you post the Biblical passage in question instead?
Posted by ed_uk2010 on February 14, 2015, at 21:37:15
In reply to Lou's reply-pstill burning » ed_uk2010, posted by Lou Pilder on February 14, 2015, at 20:53:36
I replied to your post below with a link to some music. I lot of Handel's music uses themes from the Old Testament. I hope you like it.
>*Jesus* was disgusted at *their* love for money
Now here's a question for you. Do you think Jesus should be disgusted by love of money? Might you feel disgusted by love of money?
>And the flame could induce embers that spread like the wind through the internet to homes all over the world. I see more than that in the poster's post. For he says that justice is somehow involved in the statement in question.
I'm no Biblical scholar, but doesn't the justice you're discussing refer to the redistribution of money? ie. certainly not the harming of Jews in any way.
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 14, 2015, at 21:42:34
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-pstill burning » Lou Pilder, posted by ed_uk2010 on February 14, 2015, at 21:15:22
> >I am prevented from posting my repudiation of the statement in the manner that I think could save lives here
>
> Ok, could you post the Biblical passage in question instead?ed,
One could do a search and see it in 4 books.
But in order to understand the meaning of the passage, if they are ignorant of second-temple Judaism, they could be led astray.
It has been revealed to me meaning of what is in the passages and if I was allowed to post what has been revealed to me here, I think that lives could be saved, people could be healed, an could have a new life and sing a new song.
You see, the passages are about the Temple. And the Temple was for those from all over the Earth to come and pray. People today come to a wall left of the Temple. This praying could bring light to those there as in the beginning, God said, "Let there be light." And the light shines to dispel the darkness. And in these prayers, a light could shine in the hearts of those praying in the Temple to give light of The Glory Of God, illuminating the minds of those praying, revealing The World to Come.
One can come to the Temple today, even though it has been destroyed. Even if they can not go to Jerusalem. And the money changers were doing a service. The people selling doves were doing a service. This involved sacrifice. This involved a payment. I have come here to show readers that sacrifice and that payment so that the light of God could shine in your hearts and it could be revealed to you to be healed and be a new creation and return to the Greenfields, that you used to know.
Lou
Posted by ed_uk2010 on February 14, 2015, at 22:07:22
In reply to Lou's reply-lytoflyph » ed_uk2010, posted by Lou Pilder on February 14, 2015, at 21:42:34
>One could do a search and see it in 4 books.
True :) I was wondering which version and translation you prefer.
>if I was allowed to post what has been revealed to me here, I think that lives could be saved...
What is the source of this revelation? And what would happen if you were to post it here?
>people could be healed, an could have a new life and sing a new song...
If that is the case, would it not be the right thing to post it?
>And the money changers were doing a service. The people selling doves were doing a service. This involved sacrifice. This involved a payment.
I understand, I think. I've looked at some translations of the passage online. Was Jesus saying that trade should not happen inside the temple? Not that trade was bad?
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 15, 2015, at 20:39:04
In reply to Hey this is Jay_Original1, posted by JayOriginal2nd on January 20, 2015, at 10:47:53
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 16, 2015, at 9:42:40
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-lytoflyph » Lou Pilder, posted by ed_uk2010 on February 14, 2015, at 22:07:22
> >One could do a search and see it in 4 books.
>
> True :) I was wondering which version and translation you prefer.
>
> >if I was allowed to post what has been revealed to me here, I think that lives could be saved...
>
> What is the source of this revelation? And what would happen if you were to post it here?
>
> >people could be healed, an could have a new life and sing a new song...
>
> If that is the case, would it not be the right thing to post it?
>
> >And the money changers were doing a service. The people selling doves were doing a service. This involved sacrifice. This involved a payment.
>
> I understand, I think. I've looked at some translations of the passage online. Was Jesus saying that trade should not happen inside the temple? Not that trade was bad?
>
ed,
You wrote,[...I understand, I think...]
There is a great volume of understanding in the passage in question. But for me to post here what has been revealed to me concerning what is in the passage, is prohibited to me to post here due to the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung.
I will ask you ,though, to examine the passages and see if you can find any statement to the claims by the poster that substantiate, let's say, that[... Jesus was disgusted at their love for money when so many went without...] that I am asking for him to post answers to my questions to him and determine for yourself if I have a rational basis to object to the statement in question being allowed to be seen here as supportive and that in Mr. Hsiung's thinking it will be good for this community as a whole to allow it to be continually seen as civil here by those readers that have seen Mr. Hsiung's post that being supportive takes precedence and for members to be civil at all times in that the statement by the poster could arouse anti-Semitic feelings here.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20101230/msgs/996847.html
Posted by ed_uk2010 on February 16, 2015, at 14:09:05
In reply to Lou's reply- » ed_uk2010, posted by Lou Pilder on February 16, 2015, at 9:42:40
Hello,
Thanks for your reply.
>see if you can find any statement to the claims by the poster that substantiate, let's say, that [... Jesus was disgusted at their love for money when so many went without...]
I'll try to examine it. Translations differ but I've read several online, with interest.
In the New American Standard Bible, Matthew 21:12-13 it says...
'And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all those who were buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves. And He said to them, "It is written, 'my house shall be called a house of prayer'; but you are making it a robber's den."
It seems to me that Jesus was very unhappy, perhaps disgusted, that the temple was being used as a place of trade. There is an implication that the tradesmen were profiteering at others expense: they are variably referred to as robbers, or thieves - depending on the translation. A robbing tradesman presumably has a love for money, no?
I can see why you might find this passage anti-Semitic, since the tradesmen are thought to be Jews. I do, however, think you're looking at the original poster's statements from the wrong angle. I don't have any sense that he was being anti-Semitic at all. Instead, I feel he was drawing attention to Jesus' work in favour of the poor. This is what I meant by positive.
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 16, 2015, at 14:46:18
In reply to :) » Lou Pilder, posted by ed_uk2010 on February 16, 2015, at 14:09:05
ed,
You now see one version of the scene that the poster want to use to write what he wrote.
But let us look closely.
Notice that Jesus quotes a verse from the scriptures that the Jews use. For He says, 'It is written". He is not calling anyone anything here in this passage. The scripture quoted is in reference to a Hebrew word that has been translated "robbers" in the KJV but the passage can take on a different meaning than the one that is popularly stated as you say a Jew could see that the popular translation could be considered by Jews to be anti-Semitic.
I would like to explain the Hebrew translation from the passage quoted which could show a revelation here.
Lou
Posted by ed_uk2010 on February 16, 2015, at 15:10:41
In reply to Lou's reply-geramyah » ed_uk2010, posted by Lou Pilder on February 16, 2015, at 14:46:18
>Notice that Jesus quotes a verse from the scriptures that the Jews use. For He says, 'It is written".
A quote from the Old Testament, that the temple should be a place of worship?
>He is not calling anyone anything here in this passage.
Do you feel the words robbers and thieves are an incorrect translation?
>as you say a Jew could see that the popular translation could be considered by Jews to be anti-Semitic
I can see that. But, do you think it's an attack on Judaism, or rather an attack on the specific activity of trade inside the temple? ie. not an attack on Judaism at all.
>I would like to explain the Hebrew translation from the passage quoted which could show a revelation here.
Do you know of a better translation? I looked at various translations online but they all seemed fairly similar.
Thanks Lou.
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 16, 2015, at 18:11:34
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-geramyah » Lou Pilder, posted by ed_uk2010 on February 16, 2015, at 15:10:41
> >Notice that Jesus quotes a verse from the scriptures that the Jews use. For He says, 'It is written".
>
> A quote from the Old Testament, that the temple should be a place of worship?
>
> >He is not calling anyone anything here in this passage.
>
> Do you feel the words robbers and thieves are an incorrect translation?
>
> >as you say a Jew could see that the popular translation could be considered by Jews to be anti-Semitic
>
> I can see that. But, do you think it's an attack on Judaism, or rather an attack on the specific activity of trade inside the temple? ie. not an attack on Judaism at all.
>
> >I would like to explain the Hebrew translation from the passage quoted which could show a revelation here.
>
> Do you know of a better translation? I looked at various translations online but they all seemed fairly similar.
>
> Thanks Lou.ed,
You wrote,[...But do you think...].
It has been revealed to me the mysteries of what is in the passages. And if I was permitted by Mr. Hsiung to post the revelation here, I think that there could be a groundswell of people awaking here to be led out of their troubling suffering and into a new realm of peace. You see, the passages reveal that many here are like in a troubled sea, a raging sea, tossed to and fro. The passage reveals the way to a sea of glass where the storm is stilled. Those that know the revelation can be led to the still waters. They could return to the green fields, where rivers calmly run. Gone could be the dark clouds and one could see the flowers kissed by the sun.
What is in the revelation is a seed. A seed of deliverance, a deliverance from the raging sea.
The seed can fall on dry ground though. The seed can be snatched away by an evil one, robbing those the opportunity to have the seed implanted in them. And the seed can fall on good ground to those that understand and they could bring forth good fruit.
This revelation comes from a Rider on a white horse, that said to me, "Lou, my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
For as the rain comes down and the snow from heaven and does not return there, but waters the earth, and makes it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower and bread to the eater.
So shall my word be that goes forth out of my mouth. It shall not return to me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing where I sent it.
For you shall go out with joy and be led forth with peace; the mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands."
Lou
Posted by ed_uk2010 on February 16, 2015, at 18:34:10
In reply to Lou's reply-seedovrevel » ed_uk2010, posted by Lou Pilder on February 16, 2015, at 18:11:34
Lou, it sounds like a very beautiful revelation. Did it come to you in a vision?
>if I was permitted by Mr. Hsiung to post the revelation here...
Where does Dr. Bob say that you're not permitted? I do not see why he would object.
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 17, 2015, at 6:37:41
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-seedovrevel » Lou Pilder, posted by ed_uk2010 on February 16, 2015, at 18:34:10
> Lou, it sounds like a very beautiful revelation. Did it come to you in a vision?
>
> >if I was permitted by Mr. Hsiung to post the revelation here...
>
> Where does Dr. Bob say that you're not permitted? I do not see why he would object.ed,
You wrote,[...I do not see why he (Mr. Hsiung) would object...].
The objection posted by Mr. Hsiung concerns that I am prohibited by him to post here the revelation to me as it comes from a Jewish perspective involving the foundation of Judaism as revealed to me. The historical record shows what has happened to communities as countries that have done the same to Jews. This may give you more understanding of what you could read in my discussion here with Mr. Hsiung.
Lou
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.