![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 94 to 118 of 159. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on July 22, 2002, at 2:11:21
In reply to Re: support... (and education),,,and support » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on July 22, 2002, at 2:07:16
Is there any way to build into the software of this site a control similar to the stockmarket. When you are out of contact, and the vitriol level reaches a certain point, the site could shut down to allow for time to bring some perspective, or until you got back.
Like when the stock market crashes below a certain point and the stock market is closed to allow people to gain perspective from panic.
Just a fruitless wish.....
Posted by tabitha on July 22, 2002, at 12:22:23
In reply to Re: support... (and education),,,and support » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on July 22, 2002, at 2:07:16
As I understand, one of the guidelines is to not make assumptions about others. Didn't Lou violate this when he called kiddo's posts anti-Semitic?
I think Dinah hinted at this, but what the heck, I'll go ahead and say it outright.
Posted by krazy kat on July 22, 2002, at 12:28:43
In reply to Re: support..., posted by kiddo on July 22, 2002, at 2:03:18
that's what makes it a belief! something which is supposed to be discussed in the faith board. If it doesn't matter which road one takes, then Lou's road posts are potentially offensive to others as well.
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 22, 2002, at 14:31:41
In reply to and Dr Bob, posted by tabitha on July 22, 2002, at 12:22:23
Tabitha,
I posted that Kiddo's posts *to me* crossed the line.... Now others may disagree and reasonable people do disagree. But it is the admin. that decides these types of things and Dr. Bob did post that the "right-wrong" road dogma could be offensive to jews and also others and that he as no going to allow it here. See the exact post above.
So, I beleive, I was not making an assumption. I cited the history of anti-Semtism in respect to Queen Isabella's expulsion of all jews in 1492 from Spainish lands to show that historically, jews have been persecuted for being jews. In nazi Germany, it was a crime to be a jew, punishable by death. Now I have not gone into that period of history yet, but when I do, then , perhaps, it will be known more why I consider the posts by Kiddo to "go over the line".
Lou
Posted by kiddo on July 22, 2002, at 14:41:07
In reply to Lou's response to Tabitha's post » tabitha, posted by Lou Pilder on July 22, 2002, at 14:31:41
> Tabitha,
> I posted that Kiddo's posts *to me* crossed the line.... Now others may disagree and reasonable people do disagree. But it is the admin. that decides these types of things and Dr. Bob did post that the "right-wrong" road dogma could be offensive to jews and also others and that he as no going to allow it here. See the exact post above.
Dr. Bob said that my post wasn't supportive in the fact that I said one road...NOTHING was said by Dr. Bob that my post was anti-semitic, or anti anything, he didn't mention it....as a matter of fact, he stated later that he didn't see it that way.> So, I beleive, I was not making an assumption. I cited the history of anti-Semtism in respect to Queen Isabella's expulsion of all jews in 1492 from Spainish lands to show that historically, jews have been persecuted for being jews. In nazi Germany, it was a crime to be a jew, punishable by death. Now I have not gone into that period of history yet, but when I do, then , perhaps, it will be known more why I consider the posts by Kiddo to "go over the line".
> LouA lot of people have been persecuted Lou. I'm sorry you feel it goes 'over the line', but it's scripture...BIBLE...and there's nothing you or I can do to change it.
Kiddo
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 22, 2002, at 14:44:41
In reply to it's just the only-one-right-road type..., posted by krazy kat on July 22, 2002, at 12:28:43
Krazy Kat,
You wrote that , that's what makes a belief!...
Now I understand that you are saying that Kiddo can continue with the christiandom dogma about the ...only one way... and right -wrong road dogma, and the jesus that Kiddo is referring to as the word dogma . Now Dr. Bob has said that those type of dogmas that tell others that they are "damned" are not permissible here. If they were permissible, then people could post Hitler's "Mien Kampf" here. They could claim that a book says this or that.
Himmler and Geobles' propaganda rhetoric could then also be posted here. Posters could then also post sites to white supremists web sites. If Dr. Bob did not flag Kiddo's post, then that is what could logically be the course that some could take here.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 22, 2002, at 14:48:48
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Tabitha's post » Lou Pilder, posted by kiddo on July 22, 2002, at 14:41:07
Kiddo,
i just reread Dr. Bob's post and he did say that your post could lead to , but not necessarily, to "anti" to jews and others.
Lou
Posted by kiddo on July 22, 2002, at 14:50:55
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Tabitha's post » Lou Pilder, posted by kiddo on July 22, 2002, at 14:41:07
Posted by krazy kat on July 22, 2002, at 14:53:41
In reply to Lou' response to Krazy Kat's post. » krazy kat , posted by Lou Pilder on July 22, 2002, at 14:44:41
If it doesn't matter which road one takes, then Lou's road posts are potentially offensive to others as well. His road to the crown of life is "just as bad" - it would have to be "the roadS to the crown of life" and then there could not be any definition of them or they would be exclusionary.
And, AGAIN, why is it that everything in the road posts comes from Revelations? Is no one else seeing this?
I wonder why Lou does not answer certain questions?
Posted by kiddo on July 22, 2002, at 14:56:05
In reply to again,, posted by krazy kat on July 22, 2002, at 14:53:41
> And, AGAIN, why is it that everything in the road posts comes from Revelations? Is no one else seeing this?
Absolutely. Amazing isn't it, that it's practically word for word too?
>
> I wonder why Lou does not answer certain questions?He did answer this one to me once, he said it wasn't scripture, but his experience...
Shall we go to the Faith board, KK? :-)
Kiddo
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 22, 2002, at 14:56:56
In reply to Where did he say he wouldn't *allow it here*??? (nm) » kiddo, posted by kiddo on July 22, 2002, at 14:50:55
Kiddo,
When an administrator issues an opinion and flags a post, he can not reverse it . So since he flagged your post, he will, in order to be fair, flag other similar posts that "damn" people.
Lou
Posted by kiddo on July 22, 2002, at 15:03:09
In reply to Re: Where did he say he wouldn't *allow it here*??? » kiddo, posted by Lou Pilder on July 22, 2002, at 14:56:56
> Kiddo,
> When an administrator issues an opinion and flags a post, he can not reverse it . So since he flagged your post, he will, in order to be fair, flag other similar posts that "damn" people.
> Lou
Ummmm,,,, where'd ya get that idea? He didn't *flag* my post for anything but saying one road, all others were wrong, and that was a mistake only in the fact that I didn't say it was my belief.....and I still hold that OPINION, just as it is your opinion/belief that you spoke with General Lee on that white horse.....Where did I 'damn' people? I didn't 'damn' anyone, I was QUOTING the Bible.....
Posted by krazy kat on July 22, 2002, at 15:31:33
In reply to Re: again,, posted by kiddo on July 22, 2002, at 14:56:05
I'm there right now if you want to post, but please help me keep my responses to a minimum - I don't want to get caught up in the Lou-a-thon (that is NOT uncivil, Dr. Bob - it is a Lou-a-thon and that's fine, but not for me anymore). Also, I need to make sure I don't get "addicted" to the site again...
- KK
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 22, 2002, at 18:34:52
In reply to and Dr Bob, posted by tabitha on July 22, 2002, at 12:22:23
> As I understand, one of the guidelines is to not make assumptions about others. Didn't Lou violate this when he called kiddo's posts anti-Semitic?
I already said I didn't think what she said was anti-Semitic, but I guess what Lou said is still an issue. (To digress a bit, I think there's some tension between administration and support. I can administrate better if people inform me about questionable posts, but that's inevitably somewhat accusatory.) Anyway, Lou did in fact say:
> your total thought, to me, was crossing the line and going into anti-Semitic rhetoric... your posts:
> 1. use defaming language toward the jewish leaders in the time of the jesus that you are referring to when you called the pharisees "hypocrites".
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020627/msgs/6468.htmlAnd in retrospect (sorry about missing this the first time), I do see that he was saying that her thinking *was* anti-Semitic (and not just that it could lead to anti-Semitism), which was both jumping to a conclusion and an accusation and therefore uncivil. Lou, please don't do that.
At the same time, he was responding to:
> > While I was on the Road, one asked the Rider about what degree of rightiousness is needed to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. The Rider said to me, " Unless your rightiousness exceeds the the rightiousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the Kingdom of Heaven."
> > Now the scribes and Pharisees were the most rightious people of Israel. They were the chief Rabbis. They obeyed the Law to the letter.
>
> The scribes and Pharisees said but they did not, they said, and preached, but they didn't live it. They said that Jesus cast out devils by the Beelzebub, the prince of the devils. These people were NOT the most righteous in all of Israel. They were hypocrites.
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/msgs/592.htmlI don't know anything about the scribes or the Pharisees, sorry, but if someone considers them righteous, I don't think it's so supportive to refer to them as hypocrites.
Bob
PS: OK, I looked into it a little, and of course it may not be so black-and-white:
> The Pharisees did not represent a political party or movement, and they were loosely organized. The Pharisees could well be defined first and foremost as a philosophy with many supporters.
> There were many sub-groups among the them, and most must be considered to be true and honest in their beliefs. But one group developed a hypocritical approach to Judaism, and became condemned both by scholars writing in the Talmud as well as the Jewish rebel Jesus.
> Christians have come to consider all Pharisees as hypocritical due to the stories in the Gospels, but this is seriously unfair to the majority of Pharisees.
> http://lexicorient.com/e.o/pharisees.htm
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 22, 2002, at 18:48:29
In reply to Re: Where did he say he wouldn't *allow it here*??? » Lou Pilder, posted by kiddo on July 22, 2002, at 15:03:09
> He didn't *flag* my post for anything but saying one road, all others were wrong, and that was a mistake only in the fact that I didn't say it was my belief.....and I still hold that OPINION...
>
> I was QUOTING the BibleSorry, I guess I wasn't clear. Your "mistake" was *not* stating it as fact rather than opinion. I don't think it's supportive even to state an opinion that there's only one "right" road. Please don't state opinions like that.
And coming from the Bible doesn't necessarily make it supportive, either.
Bob
Posted by Phil on July 22, 2002, at 19:09:56
In reply to Re: please be supportive » kiddo, posted by Dr. Bob on July 22, 2002, at 18:48:29
I don't think it's supportive even to state an opinion that there's only one "right" road. Please don't state opinions like that.
----------
Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, Dr Bob.
It's beginning to get confusing. Are you saying a Christian can't say that Christ is the only way?
That's central to the religion.Phil
Posted by krazy kat on July 22, 2002, at 19:15:39
In reply to Re: please be supportive » kiddo, posted by Dr. Bob on July 22, 2002, at 18:48:29
Then Lou is also being unsupportive. His is The "Road" to the Crown of Life - one road.
Posted by Greg on July 22, 2002, at 19:27:27
In reply to Re: please be supportive » kiddo, posted by Dr. Bob on July 22, 2002, at 18:48:29
> And coming from the Bible doesn't necessarily make it supportive, either.
>
> BobYou're walking on some EXTREMELY thin ice with this comment Bob.
Posted by krazy kat on July 22, 2002, at 19:29:25
In reply to one road... » Dr. Bob, posted by krazy kat on July 22, 2002, at 19:15:39
I don't see how it can be a board for "religious faith" as it states without allowing discussion about the aspects of a person's religion. Perhaps it had better be the "faith board", with a disclaimer that no one is allowed to post their religious beliefs unless those beliefs are that there are many ways to heaven, or nirvana, etc., and that everyone is O.K. The sort of "I'm O.K., you're O.K. way of thinking"?
No hellfire or damnation allowed. Sounds very boring to me, but I suppose there's no way that could be unsupportive, except for those who believe differently. But then they don't have to read the posts...
The definition posted for "faith" on the board is actually for "religion": the service and worship of God or the supernatural.
Faith is "something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs" as I posted earlier.
So, a Faith Board would be about faith in anything (faith in a tree), not just religious faith which is what Dr. Bob seems to have trouble with. Or the board may have to be canned. But then certain discussions are just going to pop back up on social.
It's really true - the best thing to do is just not respond to threads members want to go away, but without everyone doing that, it doesn't work. And here I am back again adding to it... :(
- KK
Posted by Dinah on July 22, 2002, at 19:36:11
In reply to Re: please be civil » Lou Pilder , posted by Dr. Bob on July 22, 2002, at 18:34:52
I learned the specifics on something I had only a vague understanding of before. Thank you.
Posted by kiddo on July 22, 2002, at 19:40:34
In reply to Re: please be civil » Lou Pilder , posted by Dr. Bob on July 22, 2002, at 18:34:52
May I ask where you found this information?
Kiddo> > The Pharisees did not represent a political party or movement, and they were loosely organized. The Pharisees could well be defined first and foremost as a philosophy with many supporters.
> > There were many sub-groups among the them, and most must be considered to be true and honest in their beliefs. But one group developed a hypocritical approach to Judaism, and became condemned both by scholars writing in the Talmud as well as the Jewish rebel Jesus.
> > Christians have come to consider all Pharisees as hypocritical due to the stories in the Gospels, but this is seriously unfair to the majority of Pharisees.
> > http://lexicorient.com/e.o/pharisees.htm
Posted by krazy kat on July 22, 2002, at 19:45:22
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by kiddo on July 22, 2002, at 19:40:34
http://lexicorient.com/ - see link in his post.
I know nothing about it - maybe Dr. Bob can explain its credentials?
Posted by krazy kat on July 22, 2002, at 19:50:55
In reply to Re: please be civil » Lou Pilder , posted by Dr. Bob on July 22, 2002, at 18:34:52
Dr. Bob:
I was accused in a round-about-way on this board of Bob-bashing. Phrases such as Dr. Bob was under siege (paraphrased) were used and these really hurt.
I certainly don't want anyone to think that's what I'm doing now. I think it was great of you to set up the faith board. However, you do not like debate here, which is why I left, so I don't know what it will become (that's what I meant by my email re: boredom).
But I have a very serious qualm with the item you posted re: the Pharisees:
"Christians have come to consider all Pharisees as hypocritical due to the stories in the Gospels, but this is seriously unfair to the majority of Pharisees."
That is absolutely, unequivicaobly bashing Christians. It does not even state "SOME Christians. Please acknowledge this.
Also, please explain the credentials of the source.
I am not a Christian (though I grew up as one and really know the Bible), so if I am offended, I'd say this is a big issue.
Posted by kiddo on July 22, 2002, at 19:56:25
In reply to it's from here... » kiddo, posted by krazy kat on July 22, 2002, at 19:45:22
Thanks KK-
I sure don't understand. I went there, and there are no links for Judaism or Christianity...I don't agree with what it said either....my opinion is that it was an overgeneralization...
Kiddo
Posted by Dinah on July 22, 2002, at 20:15:07
In reply to Re: it's from here... » krazy kat , posted by kiddo on July 22, 2002, at 19:56:25
Actually, although I didn't know the specifics, it is in accord with the information I have read from many sources. The Pharisees are, as I understand it, the basis for the rabbinic tradition of today's Judaism. The rabbinic tradition is one which I hold in high esteem. As in any group of people, some lived their faith better than others. To say they were all hypocrites would be akin to saying all Catholic priests are child molesters.
Now I'm not positive about the Saducees. I need to check my sources before I say more about that.
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.