![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 51 to 75 of 97. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on October 28, 2012, at 10:09:54
In reply to Academic exercise. » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on October 28, 2012, at 9:05:47
Is it really necessary to say the words "mentally ill" if they so upset Lou? I don't see it as a negative thing, but clearly Lou does.
If it ever appears that someone isn't aware of Lou's history with the board, perhaps it could just be pointed out that the Rider on the white horse gave Lou a mission to save Babblers from the lake of fire? I'm sure people would understand that his actions are based on that motivation.
Did I get that right, Lou? Did the Rider send you to Babble for that purpose? I'd really like to know, in order to understand you better. Besides, I've never particularly minded apocalyptic religious visions.
Right or wrong, religious experiences of that type are usually seen as a sign of mental illness in this society. I always say that I'd make a pretty rotten prophet, because I'd be most likely to take myself to a mental institution upon receiving a visitation of that sort.
But if the facts as Lou understands them are made known to those who seem to attribute negative motivations to Lou's behavior, people can draw their own conclusions about his negative views of psych meds, and his attributing a good deal to antisemetism, and his conclusions about the motivations of posters and Dr. Bob?
Not that I think his charge by the Rider to minister to this group absolves him from the responsibility of being a civil member of this community. I'd tend to think that he'd have a greater responsibility since he would be, in effect, a representative of the Rider. I'm reasonably sure that a just God would make sure of his accusations before making them.
This is why I suggested that Lou runs any posts he finds questionable by a Rabbi he trusts before accusing posters of fostering hatred against Jews.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2012, at 10:12:04
In reply to Academic exercise. » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on October 28, 2012, at 9:05:47
> Hi Lou.
>
> Again, you present a cogent argument. I don't know enough about law to be able to question some of your assertions.
>
> Regarding the equating of religious revelations with mental illness, it was not my intention of producing a definition. Like I said - rightly or wrongly - I think your description of having received divine revelations would prove to be an obstacle for you to overcome in court were you to sue for slander or libel. I'm glad that all of this is only an academic exercise at this point. It is likely that any attempt at litigation by you regarding statements made by others describing you as mentally ill would lead to scrutiny of your mental health. I think you would lose.
>
>
> - ScottScott,
You wrote about receiving divine revelation would be some type of obstacle in some way to show defamation by libel.
You know, let us look at a hypothetical example of a cross examination in a libel suit. The defense of the one that is being charged with libel by saying that the plaintiff is "mentally ill", has invoked that it is true that the palintiff is mentally ill by the fact that he states that he has received divine revelation, so thearfore it is true that he is mentally ill. Let us say that the plaintiff is a Christian. Here is the cross examination of the plaintiff:
defense attorny:
Are you a Christian?
Plaintiff:
Yes
defense attorny:
do you believe that Jesus is the Christ?
plaintiff:
yes
defense attorny:
How do you know that is true?
plaintiff:
It has been divinly revealed to me.
defense attorny:
Your honor, I demand a dismissal here because this man is mentally ill because he says that it has been revealed to him by divine revelation that Jesus is the Christ. He is insane and this proves it.
Now do you see a little bit more into what an accusation that someone is "mentally ill" can do as harm to a person?
Lou
Posted by Dinah on October 28, 2012, at 10:26:52
In reply to Re: Academic exercise. » SLS, posted by Dinah on October 28, 2012, at 10:09:54
I'm not trying to be sarcastic. I'd really like to know.
Is the Rider God? Did he charge you with a mission directly to Babble, or did you take that mission on yourself? Did the Rider give you specific instructions? Does he have ongoing conversations with you about your progress here? How do you understand on a day by day basis how he feels about your posts? Does he tell you how to interpret Babblers' posts, or is that your own interpretation?
Do you understand your mission to be to save Babblers from the shackles of addiction to psych meds? Or do you consider it to be to save them from the Lake of Fire? Does addiction put one in the Lake of Fire? Wouldn't the Lake of Fire be reserved for the truly wicked?
I could be mistaken. It's been a while since you spoke of your vision. Are Babblers concerned with the lake of fire at all? And wasn't there a boneyard beyond the lake of fire?
Posted by Dinah on October 28, 2012, at 10:39:18
In reply to Lou?, posted by Dinah on October 28, 2012, at 10:26:52
If you'd rather not answer, do you or anyone else have a link to the series of posts you made about the vision before you were forced to stop because of the civility implications of the lake of fire and the bones?
It's a shame that the civility guidelines make Babble just not the right venue for sharing your entire vision. Would it be possible to set up a personal blog? Don't they have them for very little money? Then you could write the entire thing there, and offer a link to anyone who wished to Babblemail you for it.
Then you could follow the civility guidelines *and* fulfill your mission from the Rider.
I also think my other suggestion might work. Go ahead and write about the lake of fire and the boneyard. But whenever you would explain how Babblers will end up there unless they repent (for example, I don't yet know the relation of Babblers in the vision), you could simply say "If you want to know who is in the lake of fire, please babblemail me". It might even get up people's curiosity and make them want to babblemail you.
I think there are better ways to go about fulfilling your mission. Perhaps if we understood your mission, we could help you so that your message could be better heard. People aren't terribly receptive when they're feeling attacked. As you might know from your own feelings right now. It doesn't guarantee that they'll follow your vision of course. But surely it would be better to have less animosity?
Posted by Dinah on October 28, 2012, at 10:48:42
In reply to Re: Lou?, posted by Dinah on October 28, 2012, at 10:39:18
You might be afraid to post such a personal revelation here. But I think it might be a good choice. I'm thinking people might be far less likely to ridicule your beliefs about the Rider than your statements about psychiatric medication. They might wish you to take them to the religion board, of course. And I'm guessing that the board in general would oppose any ridicule of the Rider or your vision.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2012, at 10:50:12
In reply to Lou?, posted by Dinah on October 28, 2012, at 10:26:52
> I'm not trying to be sarcastic. I'd really like to know.
>
> Is the Rider God? Did he charge you with a mission directly to Babble, or did you take that mission on yourself? Did the Rider give you specific instructions? Does he have ongoing conversations with you about your progress here? How do you understand on a day by day basis how he feels about your posts? Does he tell you how to interpret Babblers' posts, or is that your own interpretation?
>
> Do you understand your mission to be to save Babblers from the shackles of addiction to psych meds? Or do you consider it to be to save them from the Lake of Fire? Does addiction put one in the Lake of Fire? Wouldn't the Lake of Fire be reserved for the truly wicked?
>
> I could be mistaken. It's been a while since you spoke of your vision. Are Babblers concerned with the lake of fire at all? And wasn't there a boneyard beyond the lake of fire?D,
Is this the post?
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20111110/msgs/1002289.html
Posted by SLS on October 28, 2012, at 10:54:48
In reply to Re: Academic exercise. » SLS, posted by Dinah on October 28, 2012, at 10:09:54
> Is it really necessary to say the words "mentally ill" if they so upset Lou?
It is not necessary for me to use any words at all. Sorry, but the stigma of mental illness stops with me. I have my own agendas, and challenging the stigma to be found in the use of the words "mentally ill" is one of them. I would be curious to know what words you would substitute for the term "mental illness".
> I don't see it as a negative thing, but clearly Lou does.
That's his problem to resolve. He doesn't have to read any of my posts. This is a familiar piece of advice that I offer to anyone who becomes upset by my writings.
I have not called Lou Pilder mentally ill, by the way. My concern with his mental health includes the stress that he might be subjecting himself to in the execution of his self-described mission.
> If it ever appears that someone isn't aware of Lou's history with the board, perhaps it could just be pointed out that the Rider on the white horse gave Lou a mission to save Babblers from the lake of fire? I'm sure people would understand that his actions are based on that motivation.
Another mission? Why should such a thing be necessary? What might one conclude were they not to be presented with this information? Do you think that someone might confuse his postings as being the product of mental illness?
I guess we have allowed this thread to drift away from the goal of my initial post. I would prefer that Lou Pilder not be ridiculed for his posted views regarding psychiatric drugs. I prefer that no one be ridiculed about anything. I don't think that challenging another person's opinion and performing fact checks represents ridicule.
- Scott
Posted by Dinah on October 28, 2012, at 10:55:18
In reply to Lou's reply- » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2012, at 10:50:12
It has a bit about it. But what I'm talking about is a series of posts you did not long after you came to Babble. It was intended as a series.
As I recall, you described how the Rider approached you, and the journey up to the lake of fire. There you stopped for a determination of the civility of the lake of fire. And since Dr. Bob's civility guidelines only allowed the positive views of religion (i.e. God says you'll have eternal life if you follow me.) rather than negative views (God says that if you don't follow me, you won't have eternal life.), you felt you couldn't continue.
I'm trying to figure out ways for you to continue with the Gates. (Is that right? Weren't gates involved?)
It would likely need to be on the Faith Board though, since it's more related to Faith.
Posted by Dinah on October 28, 2012, at 11:01:47
In reply to Re: Academic exercise. » Dinah, posted by SLS on October 28, 2012, at 10:54:48
To object to incivility and counter it is one thing. I intend to do that myself. But you'll never convince him of your point of view. And to try just hurts you, and the peacefulness of the board. I tried myself, and have given up entirely.
I fear that often people see Lou's posts as the result of maliciousness. Perhaps I'm wrong. But people respond as if he's intentionally setting out to upset them. I think it might be helpful to point out his actual motivations. In this culture, people might consider that indicative of mental illness. In other cultures, it likely would not have been perceived that way. However people perceive it, whether as a mission from God or a delusion, I think it might lead to less on board discord to understand Lou's motivations.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2012, at 11:22:27
In reply to Re: Lou's reply- » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on October 28, 2012, at 10:55:18
> It has a bit about it. But what I'm talking about is a series of posts you did not long after you came to Babble. It was intended as a series.
>
> As I recall, you described how the Rider approached you, and the journey up to the lake of fire. There you stopped for a determination of the civility of the lake of fire. And since Dr. Bob's civility guidelines only allowed the positive views of religion (i.e. God says you'll have eternal life if you follow me.) rather than negative views (God says that if you don't follow me, you won't have eternal life.), you felt you couldn't continue.
>
> I'm trying to figure out ways for you to continue with the Gates. (Is that right? Weren't gates involved?)
>
> It would likely need to be on the Faith Board though, since it's more related to Faith.D,
The God that I give service and worship to, which is the same God that the Jews also do, has revealed to me that there is God's wrath as well as God's blessings.
There is a revealing to me that the wrath of this God is like a wine-press. I know the one that treads the wine-press and He has reveald to me a way for those in the press to be freed and not be one in The Grapes of Wrath. What I wanted to post here is positive because it is about being freed from addiction and death. The prohibition to me from Mr Hsiung concerned what this God prescribes to those that use mind-altering drugs, or panders them to others, or manufactures them ,or traffics in them in any way and such. The The Lake of Fire is also involved in the wrath of this God. It has been revealed to me how one escapes the Lake of Fire as to that they would not be harmed by it. The prohibititions by Mr Hsiung prevent me from posting here concerning that.
Now be advised, that what has been revealed to me concerning that lake of fire is not the same as what popular Christiandom groups purport. And if I was allowed to post what is being suppressed here to me by Mr Hsiung, I think that lives could be saved, addiction and suffereing from mind-altering drugs could be avoided and the frightening aspect of that taking a mind-altering drug that is given to you by a psychiatrist/doctor could cause you to have a life-ruining condition or addiction or death, would not be in the minds of those that are given those drugs that a psychiatrist can legally give you, because they would not be taking them into their bodies and minds.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on October 28, 2012, at 11:30:29
In reply to Lou's reply-wynprez » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2012, at 11:22:27
Hmmm... Well, I do see the problem.
It would be grossly uncivil to suggest that those here panders or traffics in drugs. And definitely uncivil to suggest that those who use psychiatric medications will be pressed in the grape press of God or burned in the lake of fire.
The God you describe is not very understanding. Isn't he aware of the pain of mental illness? Does he object to heart medication or diabetes medication?
Now, how to civilly express what is inherently not a civil thing to say to someone is a challenge.
Could you not explain about the Rider, and tell about the wrath of God and the Lake of Fire without linking those things to anything so specific as Babblers or users of psychiatric medications?
You could say that you were sent here by the Rider to tell people about the Wrath of God, and then tell people that if they would like to hear more, they could Babblemail you?
Have you asked the Rider for suggestions to better get across his message given the limitations of this board?
We probably should continue this discussion on the faith board.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2012, at 11:56:14
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-wynprez » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on October 28, 2012, at 11:30:29
> Hmmm... Well, I do see the problem.
>
> It would be grossly uncivil to suggest that those here panders or traffics in drugs. And definitely uncivil to suggest that those who use psychiatric medications will be pressed in the grape press of God or burned in the lake of fire.
>
> The God you describe is not very understanding. Isn't he aware of the pain of mental illness? Does he object to heart medication or diabetes medication?
>
> Now, how to civilly express what is inherently not a civil thing to say to someone is a challenge.
>
> Could you not explain about the Rider, and tell about the wrath of God and the Lake of Fire without linking those things to anything so specific as Babblers or users of psychiatric medications?
>
> You could say that you were sent here by the Rider to tell people about the Wrath of God, and then tell people that if they would like to hear more, they could Babblemail you?
>
> Have you asked the Rider for suggestions to better get across his message given the limitations of this board?
>
> We probably should continue this discussion on the faith board.
D,
Please do not insult the God that I give service and worship to by calling that God one that is not understandng. Your "Dr Bob" allows you to insult that God here but that does not annul the fact that insulting another's God can inflict emotional pain upon that person when it is allowed by the owner of the forum, that has rules against such as being uncivil, to stand, and could be seen as hatred directed to the person that their God is the God being insulted.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on October 28, 2012, at 11:59:10
In reply to Lou's response-antygwszm » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2012, at 11:56:14
You're right, Lou. I've no desire to insult your God.
I've moved the discussion to the faith board.
Here's a link.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20101230/msgs/1030075.html
Posted by schleprock on October 28, 2012, at 12:23:40
In reply to Lou's response-antygwszm » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2012, at 11:56:14
> > Hmmm... Well, I do see the problem.
> >
> > It would be grossly uncivil to suggest that those here panders or traffics in drugs. And definitely uncivil to suggest that those who use psychiatric medications will be pressed in the grape press of God or burned in the lake of fire.
> >
> > The God you describe is not very understanding. Isn't he aware of the pain of mental illness? Does he object to heart medication or diabetes medication?
> >
> > Now, how to civilly express what is inherently not a civil thing to say to someone is a challenge.
> >
> > Could you not explain about the Rider, and tell about the wrath of God and the Lake of Fire without linking those things to anything so specific as Babblers or users of psychiatric medications?
> >
> > You could say that you were sent here by the Rider to tell people about the Wrath of God, and then tell people that if they would like to hear more, they could Babblemail you?
> >
> > Have you asked the Rider for suggestions to better get across his message given the limitations of this board?
> >
> > We probably should continue this discussion on the faith board.
> D,
> Please do not insult the God that I give service and worship to by calling that God one that is not understandng. Your "Dr Bob" allows you to insult that God here but that does not annul the fact that insulting another's God can inflict emotional pain upon that person when it is allowed by the owner of the forum, that has rules against such as being uncivil, to stand, and could be seen as hatred directed to the person that their God is the God being insulted.
> LouLou, how exactly did we get to the point where mind-altering drugs are allowed to be pandered on such a public forum. Who are the responsible parties we could identify. Doctors? Drug companies? What are their primary motivations? Are they "evil"? (Is Dr. Bob evil?) What would "evil" mean in this context? Do they knowingly defy the (Christian?) Judaic God. Are they motivated by some other entity (Satan, Ball, The Mighty Thor, etc.) And what are the origins of perceived mental illness? These same alternative entities? Sin (against the Hebrew God.) Who put us in this wine-press that we can't get out of without giving up our mind altering drugs? If God is not uncaring, then the responsibility must fall to some other entity. In terms of revelation, is it possible to be given the cure without first understanding the disease? We must know what alternate agencies are involved if we are to begin negotiations (agressive negotiations, if need be) to allow you to communicate your revelation.
Posted by schleprock on October 28, 2012, at 12:39:39
In reply to Re: Academic exercise. » SLS, posted by Dinah on October 28, 2012, at 10:09:54
> Is it really necessary to say the words "mentally ill" if they so upset Lou? I don't see it as a negative thing, but clearly Lou does.
>
> If it ever appears that someone isn't aware of Lou's history with the board, perhaps it could just be pointed out that the Rider on the white horse gave Lou a mission to save Babblers from the lake of fire? I'm sure people would understand that his actions are based on that motivation.
>
> Did I get that right, Lou? Did the Rider send you to Babble for that purpose? I'd really like to know, in order to understand you better. Besides, I've never particularly minded apocalyptic religious visions.
>
> Right or wrong, religious experiences of that type are usually seen as a sign of mental illness in this society. I always say that I'd make a pretty rotten prophet, because I'd be most likely to take myself to a mental institution upon receiving a visitation of that sort.
>
> But if the facts as Lou understands them are made known to those who seem to attribute negative motivations to Lou's behavior, people can draw their own conclusions about his negative views of psych meds, and his attributing a good deal to antisemetism, and his conclusions about the motivations of posters and Dr. Bob?
>
> Not that I think his charge by the Rider to minister to this group absolves him from the responsibility of being a civil member of this community. I'd tend to think that he'd have a greater responsibility since he would be, in effect, a representative of the Rider. I'm reasonably sure that a just God would make sure of his accusations before making them.
>
> This is why I suggested that Lou runs any posts he finds questionable by a Rabbi he trusts before accusing posters of fostering hatred against Jews.This is similar to how Foucault defined mental illness. I've certainly forgot the exact wording, but it's more of an "unclarity" than irrationality. The delusional are still very rational (he uses the example of a patient who thought he was made of glass. He acted very rationally despite this untruth, e.g. moving very carefully, trying to avoid contact with other objects that could shatter him etc.) The role of the doctor is not to make the person "sane", but rather to bring them to a clarity of themselves (the metaphor of "light" was heavily used.) One method of cure he spoke of was that at one point doctors would go as far as theatrically indulging the patient's illness so they patient may gradually come to see their own absurdity.
Posted by SLS on October 28, 2012, at 12:49:01
In reply to Re: Academic exercise. » SLS, posted by Dinah on October 28, 2012, at 11:01:47
> To object to incivility and counter it is one thing. I intend to do that myself. But you'll never convince him of your point of view.
Which of my many points of view are you referring to here?
> And to try just hurts you,
Dinah - you don't know that.
> and the peacefulness of the board.
If my posts remain civil, but manage to hurt the peacefulness of the board, why would you lobby me to discontinue such behavior?
> I tried myself, and have given up entirely.
It is not my objective to change Lou so much as it is to offer challenges to his contentions and conclusions regarding the use of psychiatric drugs in the practice of psychiatry. I consider my agenda here to be in the best interests of the health of the board. I could be wrong, of course.
> I fear that often people see Lou's posts as the result of maliciousness. Perhaps I'm wrong. But people respond as if he's intentionally setting out to upset them.I can understand how people might react that way. It would be like my calling Lou Pilder mentally ill. If I were to do so, it would not be out of malice. However, I am under the impression that Lou would think that it was. He might even conclude that I am intentionally setting out to upset him. I am not.
> I think it might be helpful to point out his actual motivations. In this culture, people might consider that indicative of mental illness. In other cultures, it likely would not have been perceived that way.
>
> However people perceive it, whether as a mission from God or a delusion, I think it might lead to less on board discord to understand Lou's motivations.It does not take an explanation of perceived divine revelations to assert that Lou Pilder's intentions are honorable rather than malicious. Do you think it possible that Lou has delusions, or is it only other people who do? Would it be uncivil to suggest such a thing?
- Scott
Posted by Dinah on October 28, 2012, at 12:50:25
In reply to Re: Academic exercise. » Dinah, posted by schleprock on October 28, 2012, at 12:39:39
Sometimes the truth of a person's beliefs don't matter as much as understanding the person's actions in terms of their beliefs.
It's possible to show interest in a person's beliefs without trying to change them. And what possible way would we have of changing anyone's beliefs?
At this point, I'm just trying to understand so as to consider what possibilities (if any) there may be to ending the discord that currently exists on the board. I just want Babble to be a more pleasant place to be.
Posted by Dinah on October 28, 2012, at 12:57:43
In reply to Re: Academic exercise. » Dinah, posted by SLS on October 28, 2012, at 12:49:01
I've already said that if I myself were to meet with the Rider, I'd likely take myself to a mental hospital.
But I concede that I wouldn't much like people discussing my sanity around me, or suggesting that I was delusional except perhaps in the most matter of fact way of suggesting that help was at hand. Not even as I was on my way to the hospital.
I just want it to be a pleasant place to post again, and am looking for solutions that arrive at that end.
Likely it's as quixotic a quest as my previous one with Lou.
Posted by Dinah on October 28, 2012, at 13:27:41
In reply to Re: Academic exercise. » Dinah, posted by SLS on October 28, 2012, at 12:49:01
I hope you know it wasn't my intent to criticize or insult you.
I think you, more than most, have a similar view of the situation as I do. That there are dueling interests here, and that we want to try to find a resolution that respects all interests.
I appreciate your efforts to bring tranquility to the boards. I admire you no end. I've seen you graciously field comments that distressed me to just see made to you.
Posted by SLS on October 28, 2012, at 13:36:48
In reply to Re: Academic exercise. » SLS, posted by Dinah on October 28, 2012, at 12:57:43
> I just want it to be a pleasant place to post again, and am looking for solutions that arrive at that end.
Generalizations and exaggerations are no longer proscribed through moderation on Psycho-Babble. It is my opinion that Lou Pilder's posts regarding psychiatric drugs would be judged uncivil were a moderator present. Such a determination would in no way represent a judgment regarding Mr. Pilder's mental health.
I think I've said all that I would like to along this thread.
> Likely it's as quixotic a quest as my previous one with Lou.
It's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it.
:-)
- Scott
Posted by SLS on October 28, 2012, at 13:59:56
In reply to Re: Academic exercise. » SLS, posted by Dinah on October 28, 2012, at 13:27:41
Okay - maybe one more post...
> I hope you know it wasn't my intent to criticize or insult you.
I did feel challenged by you, but not insulted. I guess we have a mutual admiration thing happening here. I do appreciate your consistently honorable motivations and the sobriety with which you deliberate matters. I gave you a lot of crap, and you didn't flinch.
> I think you, more than most, have a similar view of the situation as I do. That there are dueling interests here, and that we want to try to find a resolution that respects all interests.I cannot now think of one other than to petition Dr. Bob to return to actively moderating Psycho-Babble. Of course, he would have to do it my way. :-)
We should probably continue this exchange on the Administration board.
- Scott
Posted by Dinah on October 28, 2012, at 14:30:01
In reply to Re: Academic exercise. » Dinah, posted by SLS on October 28, 2012, at 13:59:56
As you've seen lately, I do have my moments. When buttons get pressed, I'm not always all that civil. Or at least not always when I'm feeling impotent and without recourse.
It probably should be moved to Admin. In fact, the rigorous moving of posts to Faith, Politics, or Admin might go a long way towards making Medication more pleasant.
But I wouldn't count on Dr. Bob doing anything at all. Though he does seem to fix broken technical things. I think we'll have to provide any solutions. And frankly, I don't think that's feasible, since all we have is words.
Posted by schleprock on October 28, 2012, at 16:11:40
In reply to Re: Academic exercise. » SLS, posted by Dinah on October 28, 2012, at 14:30:01
> As you've seen lately, I do have my moments. When buttons get pressed, I'm not always all that civil. Or at least not always when I'm feeling impotent and without recourse.
>
> It probably should be moved to Admin. In fact, the rigorous moving of posts to Faith, Politics, or Admin might go a long way towards making Medication more pleasant.
>
> But I wouldn't count on Dr. Bob doing anything at all. Though he does seem to fix broken technical things. I think we'll have to provide any solutions. And frankly, I don't think that's feasible, since all we have is words.You scared them away Lou. What do you have to say for yourself now?
Posted by schleprock on October 28, 2012, at 17:09:01
In reply to Lou's reply- » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2012, at 10:50:12
> > I'm not trying to be sarcastic. I'd really like to know.
> >
> > Is the Rider God? Did he charge you with a mission directly to Babble, or did you take that mission on yourself? Did the Rider give you specific instructions? Does he have ongoing conversations with you about your progress here? How do you understand on a day by day basis how he feels about your posts? Does he tell you how to interpret Babblers' posts, or is that your own interpretation?
> >
> > Do you understand your mission to be to save Babblers from the shackles of addiction to psych meds? Or do you consider it to be to save them from the Lake of Fire? Does addiction put one in the Lake of Fire? Wouldn't the Lake of Fire be reserved for the truly wicked?
> >
> > I could be mistaken. It's been a while since you spoke of your vision. Are Babblers concerned with the lake of fire at all? And wasn't there a boneyard beyond the lake of fire?
>
> D,
> Is this the post?
> Lou
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20111110/msgs/1002289.htmlLou, why do you purport to have had revelations based on the foundations of Judaism when these revelations borrow so much from Christianity?
1. Lake of fire: borrowed by Christians from Greek conceptions of Hades. Traditional Judaism during and before Jesus time had a very vague at best belief in a neutral afterlife (if at all) that shared no imagery with current beleiefs of heaven and hell. (See Sheol)
2. Rider on white horse: no idea if the imagery is used in the Old Testament, could be referring to either death (pale horse) or maybe Christ as described in the book of revelations.
3. Son of Man: certainly a Christian phrase (reference to Christ). Might be found in the Old Testament, but probably bears little relevance to Jews today.
4. House of Lost Sheep: definite reference taken from the new testament, possibly verbatim. Very close relation to the parable of the prodigal son.
5. Flesh\Spirit dichotomy: not very prominant in the Old Testament. Something that was really more developed in Greece. Again, not very relevant in a culture with a very vague and underdeveloped eschatology.
6. Resurrection: Absolutely not a core Jewish belief. The only case of resurrection to occur in the Old Testament were Job's sons. This concept is essentially what made Christianity what it is, and what sharply divided it from Judaism.
7. Heaven: see number 6.
Lou, I don't know whether these are intended as metaphors or anything, but they certainly don't evoke the foundations of Judaism. Have you considered the possibility that these revelations were intended to motivate you to convert to Christianity in addition to starting your ministry? Maybe you know this deep down inside and it's causing you to project all this antisemitism on this forum, beacuse you're really scared of abandoning your Judaism. But Lou, you don't really come across as "semetic."
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2012, at 17:09:42
In reply to Re: Academic exercise., posted by schleprock on October 28, 2012, at 16:11:40
> > As you've seen lately, I do have my moments. When buttons get pressed, I'm not always all that civil. Or at least not always when I'm feeling impotent and without recourse.
> >
> > It probably should be moved to Admin. In fact, the rigorous moving of posts to Faith, Politics, or Admin might go a long way towards making Medication more pleasant.
> >
> > But I wouldn't count on Dr. Bob doing anything at all. Though he does seem to fix broken technical things. I think we'll have to provide any solutions. And frankly, I don't think that's feasible, since all we have is words.
>
> You scared them away Lou. What do you have to say for yourself now?schleprock,
Please do not post statements here that could lead one to think that you are using me as a scapegoat. The use of scapegoating can be from hatred toward the person that the scapegoating is directed to.
This is now allowed by Mr Hsiung for you to post such, but that does not annul the fact that Jews are very sensitive to any statement of scapegoating directed to them. Mr Hsiung has allowed this. That does not ligitimize the damage to me that it is causing. And Mr Hsiung states that he does what in his thinking will be good for this community as a whole. If you think that scapegoating will be good for this community as a whole, then hate is good for this community as a whole, for scapegoating comes from anger with someone which is what hate is.
Lou
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Medication | 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.