![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 26 to 50 of 58. Go back in thread:
Posted by Phillipa on March 13, 2005, at 19:37:24
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Phillipa's post-clarfyit » Phillipa, posted by alexandra_k on March 13, 2005, at 18:05:18
I still say Matt's mental status was such that he was not responsible for his actions. I know if he demonstrated this behavior in a hospital setting or with crisis, he would be deemed unstable. I hope he is doing better. I realize he was being uncivil. Just that I don't think he was fully aware. He seemed desperate to be understood by someone because he didn't understand himself. I don't think I'm making much sense. Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by gardenergirl on March 13, 2005, at 22:09:34
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Phillipa's post-clarfyit, posted by Phillipa on March 13, 2005, at 19:37:24
Phillipa,
I agree his condition seems alarming. I wish he could get adequate treatment and also stick with it for a solid trial.You are a dear to be a champion for him.
Take care,
gg
Posted by Phillipa on March 13, 2005, at 22:29:12
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Phillipa's post-clarfyit » Phillipa, posted by gardenergirl on March 13, 2005, at 22:09:34
Thanks, I always try to give someone the benefit of the doubt. Yes, he needs help. Matt if you are reading this please go for Help! Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 14, 2005, at 7:26:58
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Scott- » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on March 13, 2005, at 10:29:24
> Hi Lou.
>
> As a spokesman for Jewry, how do you account for why the Jews commonly refer to themselves as "The Chosen People"?
>
> Do you not find that this self proclaimation is exclusionary? Wouldn't such presumed exclusion have the potential to put down those whom Jews do not consider chosen? How different is this than a Christian stating that one must go through Jesus Christ to arrive at the Kingdom of God everlastingly?
>
>
> - ScottScott,
In your questions to me above, could you clarify the following?
In your first question to me,[....how do you account for why the Jews ...refer to themselves as "The Chosen People"?...], could any of the following be what you think the jews are meaning when they refer to themselves as "The Chosen People" ?
A. Jews say that they are chosen by God to automaticaly be in the Kingdom of God, regardless of how they live their lives.
B. Jews say that they are chosen by God to be the instrument that God uses that brings salvation to all other people.
C. Jews say that they are the chosen people to bring God's laws of rightiousness to mankind
D. Jews say that they are chosen by God to be priests and a holy nation to be a light to the world.
E.Jews say that they are chosen from slavery by God in a miraculous deliverance to advocate to bring freedom from oppression to others because they were once enslaved.
F.A combination of the above
G. None of the above
H.something else
Lou
Posted by SLS on March 14, 2005, at 8:37:44
In reply to Lou's reply to Scott- » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on March 14, 2005, at 7:26:58
Lou.
Regarding:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20050111/msgs/469883.html
Lou, you began:
> > > > > Let us look at the gramamtical construction. Since "God" is set off by commas, could not the statement have the potential to mean that it is Christ that is "supreme"? If so, could that not have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings or to have the potential to put down jews and those that do not consider Christ to be supreme
> > > > I believe this is precisely the foundation of Christendom and is part of the Trinity. Obviously, you do not have to agree with it. I don't see why this person should not be able to express their beliefs in such a way that is neither unsupportive nor coercive. It is true that people whom are dedicated to promoting hate and resentment often find fodder for accomplishing their goals by perverting the tenets of various religions. For example, are not the Jews the Chosen People? What about those whom God has not chosen? Shouldn't they feel extremely subjugated and put-down?
> > > As a spokesperson here for Jewery, I am requesting from anyone here to comment as to how they think of the jews, after reading the above, so that I can post a response
> > As a spokesman for Jewry, how do you account for why the Jews commonly refer to themselves as "The Chosen People"?
> >
> > Do you not find that this self proclaimation is exclusionary? Wouldn't such presumed exclusion have the potential to put down those whom Jews do not consider chosen? How different is this than a Christian stating that one must go through Jesus Christ to arrive at the Kingdom of God everlastingly?
> In your questions to me above, could you clarify the following?
> In your first question to me,[....how do you account for why the Jews ...refer to themselves as "The Chosen People"?...], could any of the following be what you think the jews are meaning when they refer to themselves as "The Chosen People" ?
> A. Jews say that they are chosen by God to automaticaly be in the Kingdom of God, regardless of how they live their lives.
> B. Jews say that they are chosen by God to be the instrument that God uses that brings salvation to all other people.
> C. Jews say that they are the chosen people to bring God's laws of rightiousness to mankind
> D. Jews say that they are chosen by God to be priests and a holy nation to be a light to the world.
> E.Jews say that they are chosen from slavery by God in a miraculous deliverance to advocate to bring freedom from oppression to others because they were once enslaved.
> F.A combination of the above
> G. None of the above
> H.something else
> Lou
I am not taking a test.The questions I posed are for you to answer. If you do not wish to answer them, I am disposed to terminate this discourse.
I am still waiting for Dr. Bob to respond to your original question.
- Scott
Posted by Maximus on March 14, 2005, at 10:48:05
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Scott- » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on March 14, 2005, at 8:37:44
> I am not taking a test.
Hé! Hé! Hé! You're my hero Scott ;-)
Posted by alexandra_k on March 14, 2005, at 12:52:13
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Scott- » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on March 14, 2005, at 8:37:44
I think you asked Lou
> > As a spokesman for Jewry, how do you account for why the Jews commonly refer to themselves as "The Chosen People"?
He gave a variety of reasons why Jews might want to refer to themselves as "The Chosen People".
I think it was a genuine attempt to answer your question...
I quite liked E. Myself. Not that I am Jewish...
Posted by AuntieMel on March 14, 2005, at 13:31:43
In reply to Re: Lou's request » Dr. Bob, posted by SLS on March 12, 2005, at 20:10:16
Scott:
Under the guidlines of not saying any one faith is better than the other, I would think that this would be a violation.
The same sentence without "since he is the supreme" would be ok.
In my opinion.
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 14, 2005, at 14:09:18
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Scott- » SLS, posted by alexandra_k on March 14, 2005, at 12:52:13
Alexandra,
Thank you for your post. I was attempting to answer the 3 questions to me but the gramatical structure ofthe post directed to me is not clear to me and I asked for clarification in order so that I could possibly answer in 3 posts.
You see, I was asked the same type of questions by a group many years ago. They were a hostile group toward me, ridiculing me and taunting me with epithets of hatred toward jews, saying that the Jews thought that they were chosen to be in the Kingdom of God on the basis of their lineage only. My answer is not that, and I do not know of any Jews personally that think that. The Jews that I know ,including myself, think that they are no better or worse than anyone else because they are Jews.
But Scott's post has in it:
[...How different is this than a Christian stateing that one must go through Jesus Christ to arrive at the Kingdom of God everlastingly?..]
The grammatical structure of the post , with that statement following the other 2 questions to me, is not clear to me. I do not know if that means that the poster is saying that Jews refer to themselves as "The Chosen People" because of their lineage or not. The poster writes,[...How different is this than a Christian stateing that one must go through Jesus Christ to arrive at the Kingdom of God everlastingly?...] because the poster uses the phrase,[...how is it different?...].
Well, I could answer that, but to save a lot of time, a clarification of what the poster thinks that the Jews think about what it means to them to be chosen could help me to reply in 3 posts.
Although you wrote that you liked "E", if you think that you know what the post in question means as per the jews being chosen, could you tell me what they are chosen for, according to how you see the grammatical structure of the post in question?
Lou
Posted by SLS on March 14, 2005, at 14:33:32
In reply to Re: Lou's request » SLS, posted by AuntieMel on March 14, 2005, at 13:31:43
> Scott:
>
> Under the guidlines of not saying any one faith is better than the other, I would think that this would be a violation.
>
> The same sentence without "since he is the supreme" would be ok.
>
> In my opinion.
That's ok with me.I wish Dr. Bob would clarify this issue by commenting on the original post on the Faith board.
It must be difficult for someone who embraces their religious faith with passion not to make such statements when it is their desire to help people, especially if it is a guiding principle of their religion to do so.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 14, 2005, at 14:42:53
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Scott- » SLS, posted by alexandra_k on March 14, 2005, at 12:52:13
alexandra_k,
Another part of thr grammatical structure of the post in question that is not clear to me is that the poster writes,[...how do you account for why {the Jews}...].
It is not clear to me if the poster is refering to all the Jews that ever lived or some particular jews now, or ancient jews or jews that the poster personally knows, or jews that he has read about or something else. And I can only speak for myself, not other jews. So I do not think that I can answer for other jews and that is why I requested clarification as to what the poster could think that the jews think about what they are chosen for.
Lou
Posted by SLS on March 14, 2005, at 14:44:16
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Scott- » SLS, posted by alexandra_k on March 14, 2005, at 12:52:13
> I think you asked Lou
>
> > > As a spokesman for Jewry, how do you account for why the Jews commonly refer to themselves as "The Chosen People"?
>
> He gave a variety of reasons why Jews might want to refer to themselves as "The Chosen People".
>
> I think it was a genuine attempt to answer your question...
>
> I quite liked E. Myself. Not that I am Jewish...
>
If you were taking a test, you would have failed. The answer to the question posed has two right answers, neither of which was given as a choice.It was a test.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 14, 2005, at 14:57:23
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Scott- » alexandra_k, posted by SLS on March 14, 2005, at 14:44:16
> > I think you asked Lou
> >
> > > > As a spokesman for Jewry, how do you account for why the Jews commonly refer to themselves as "The Chosen People"?
> >
> > He gave a variety of reasons why Jews might want to refer to themselves as "The Chosen People".
> >
> > I think it was a genuine attempt to answer your question...
> >
> > I quite liked E. Myself. Not that I am Jewish...
> >
>
>
> If you were taking a test, you would have failed. The answer to the question posed has two right answers, neither of which was given as a choice.
>
> It was a test.
>
>
> - Scott
>Scott, You wrote above that [...there were two right answers, neither of which is given as a choice...].
Could not the choice,{something else} or the choice {none of the above} been an answer then?
You also wrote that [...It was a test...].
It was not my intention for it to be a test, for there are choices that could be used to indicate that there is a different choice or none of the above or a combination, so that ,in your case, you have the opportunity to offer clarification as requested.
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on March 14, 2005, at 16:20:30
In reply to Lou's response to alexandra_k's post » alexandra_k, posted by Lou Pilder on March 14, 2005, at 14:42:53
Lou,
You had earlier stated that you were a spokeperson here for Jewery.. "As a spokesperson here for Jewery" were your exact words.
Nikki
Posted by alexandra_k on March 14, 2005, at 16:37:58
In reply to Re: Lou's response to alexandra_k's post » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on March 14, 2005, at 16:20:30
Maybe he meant that he was a spokesperson for defending Jewery (given that he seems to be the only one here doing that?)...
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 14, 2005, at 17:09:14
In reply to Re: Lou's response to alexandra_k's post » NikkiT2, posted by alexandra_k on March 14, 2005, at 16:37:58
alexandra-k,
Thank you for offering that clarification. I think that anyone could be a spoksperson for anything here. I become that spoksperson for jewery when staements that IMO have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings are posted here.
There are many different branches of Judaism and I can not speak for individuals, but my speaking ,as you have written, is in defense of jewery. There is another poster here, Noa, that offered a brilliant defense of jewery and there are also others that I have seen here posting in defense of jewery. Dinah has also posted very good and enlightening defenses of jewery and she writes that she is not a jew. Others also.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on March 14, 2005, at 18:23:27
In reply to Re: Lou's request » AuntieMel, posted by SLS on March 14, 2005, at 14:33:32
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 15, 2005, at 3:17:57
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Phillipa's post-clarfyit » Lou Pilder, posted by Phillipa on March 13, 2005, at 17:24:13
> I just think it's "petty".
Sorry if this is more microscopic examination, but please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by AuntieMel on March 15, 2005, at 12:16:24
In reply to Re: please be civil » Phillipa, posted by Dr. Bob on March 15, 2005, at 3:17:57
I know you said he was blocked for something else, but folks here would like (as a reference) to know what the answer is.
Posted by Phillipa on March 15, 2005, at 17:04:44
In reply to Re: could you answer the original question? » Dr. Bob, posted by AuntieMel on March 15, 2005, at 12:16:24
Dr. Bob, I'm sorry. It was never my intention to put someone down. I feel this Board is a too sensitive one for me to Post on. Thanks for the warning. Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 15, 2005, at 22:21:46
In reply to Re: could you answer the original question? » Dr. Bob, posted by AuntieMel on March 15, 2005, at 12:16:24
> I know you said he was blocked for something else, but folks here would like (as a reference) to know what the answer is.
Sorry, but how about not crossing that bridge unless we come to it?
Bob
Posted by gardenergirl on March 15, 2005, at 22:39:09
In reply to Re: the original question, posted by Dr. Bob on March 15, 2005, at 22:21:46
I think we did come to that bridge, but somehow we got shuttled off to another path.
gg
Posted by SLS on March 16, 2005, at 6:11:45
In reply to Re: the original question » Dr. Bob, posted by gardenergirl on March 15, 2005, at 22:39:09
> I think we did come to that bridge, but somehow we got shuttled off to another path.
I would have to agree with this.
- Scott
Posted by Dinah on March 16, 2005, at 8:07:21
In reply to Re: the original question, posted by SLS on March 16, 2005, at 6:11:45
To me, the faith board rules seem pretty simple. You aren't allowed to claim exlusivity. So you can't say there is only one God, or only one right path to God, only one right religion. You are allowed to say that you believe in God, but restating a statement that there is only one right way to believe as a belief is not sufficient.
You can say that for me and my people this is what we believe WE need to do, but you can't say that for me and my people this is what we believe *everyone* has to do.
This may require that certain aspects of a person's faith shouldn't be expressed on the Faith board.
It's the exclusivity that is the problem area.
As regards "chosen people", I think it would be against Faith board rules to say we are *the* (only) Chosen People. But my understanding of the concept is that the concept does not necessarily mean that. (Perhaps it does for some or even many Jews; consensus is rare in any faith.) But the concept as I've read it is that the Abraham and his descendents were chosen by God to enter into a specific covenant with Him that required various specific responsibilities on the part of the people and various promises on the part of God. It does not necessarily follow that they believe that they are the only chosen people or that God did not make other specific or general covenants with other people and or peoples. I've read lovely writings on the subject where Judaism is described as a communal covenant with God while Christianity involves individual personal covenants with God. So "Chosen" doesn't imply superiority. It is referring to a specific covenental relationship and thus does not put down other faiths. Unless it is used in context in a way that does.
That's my understanding, and perhaps Dr. Bob could comment on the faith board aspects, and Jews could comment on the "Chosen People" aspect.
Posted by SLS on March 16, 2005, at 9:21:28
In reply to Re: the original question » SLS, posted by Dinah on March 16, 2005, at 8:07:21
Hi Dinah.
Thanks for the additional insight.
> To me, the faith board rules seem pretty simple. You aren't allowed to claim exlusivity.
Sounds simple enough.
> So you can't say there is only one God, or only one right path to God, only one right religion.
>
> You are allowed to say that you believe in God, but restating a statement that there is only one right way to believe as a belief is not sufficient.That must be extremely difficult and frustrating for some people.
> You can say that for me and my people this is what we believe WE need to do, but you can't say that for me and my people this is what we believe *everyone* has to do.
I see.
> This may require that certain aspects of a person's faith shouldn't be expressed on the Faith board.
> It's the exclusivity that is the problem area.> As regards "chosen people", I think it would be against Faith board rules to say we are *the* (only) Chosen People. But my understanding of the concept is that the concept does not necessarily mean that.
I can talk to my brother about this. He is a rabbi.
> But the concept as I've read it is that the Abraham and his descendents were chosen by God to enter into a specific covenant with Him that required various specific responsibilities on the part of the people and various promises on the part of God.
Not all of Abraham's decendents were to become Jewish and thus be chosen once more by God to receive the Law at Mt. Sinai. Isaac's two sons, Jacob and Esau went their separate ways; the decendents of Esau to become the Arab Nation; the decendents of Jacob to become the Jewish Nation. The Jews were thus chosen twice.
> It does not necessarily follow that they believe that they are the only chosen people or that God did not make other specific or general covenants with other people and or peoples.
I believe it does.
> I've read lovely writings on the subject where Judaism is described as a communal covenant with God while Christianity involves individual personal covenants with God.
That is interesting. I don't know if I agree with this or not. I tend to disagree having participated in orthodox Shabbos services, but I am nonetheless a lover of the New Testament, despite not believing in its most fundamental assertion.
So "Chosen" doesn't imply superiority.
It does imply something that is exclusionary. But that really is not the issue here. I think you covered the issue quite well at the beginning of your post.
I chose my example of Jews as being the Chosen People to point out to Lou that this assertion is no less exclusionary than that of Jesus being the Christ through which singularly comes salvation and the passage to the Kingdom of God. If my analogy was flawed or ignorant of religious doctrines, I apologize.
- Scott
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.