![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 4 to 28 of 28. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 28, 2006, at 19:19:16
In reply to Lou's clarification-, posted by Lou Pilder on August 27, 2006, at 17:09:36
> the Jews killed Christ
Please don't post anything that could lead others (such as Jews) to feel accused. Even if you're paraphrasing someone else.
But please don't take this personally, either, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please first see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceFollow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by SLS on August 28, 2006, at 20:33:38
In reply to Re: please be civil » Lou Pilder, posted by Dr. Bob on August 28, 2006, at 19:19:16
> > <Quote excised>
I'm not sure it makes sense to take these words out of the context within which they were written. They don't convey the intent of the author. Perhaps it would have been more instructive to have posted the full sentence that contained them.
> Please don't post anything that could lead others (such as Jews) to feel accused. Even if you're paraphrasing someone else.
I know this is difficult territory, but I think there is sometimes a need to refer to specific words by quoting them when discussing issues regarding their usage in certain arenas.
Perhaps there has been some flexibility exercised in allowing the repeated use of the phrase in question up until this point.
I appreciate the difficulties in striking a balance between expression and safety.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on August 28, 2006, at 20:43:21
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by SLS on August 28, 2006, at 20:33:38
> > > <Quote excised>
>
> I'm not sure it makes sense to take these words out of the context within which they were written. They don't convey the intent of the author. Perhaps it would have been more instructive to have posted the full sentence that contained them.On second thought, I guess that wouldn't allow the reader to identify the language being selected for review. Oh, well.
- Scott
Posted by NikkiT2 on August 29, 2006, at 12:46:07
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by SLS on August 28, 2006, at 20:33:38
"I'm not sure it makes sense to take these words out of the context within which they were written. They don't convey the intent of the author."
A point many of us have been trying to make for *years* with regards to our words being used completely out of context by another poser / posters / aliens / ghosts etc
Nikki
Posted by Tabitha on August 29, 2006, at 23:18:51
In reply to Re: please be civil » Lou Pilder, posted by Dr. Bob on August 28, 2006, at 19:19:16
That has to be the most ironic PBC ever.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 30, 2006, at 5:02:55
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by Tabitha on August 29, 2006, at 23:18:51
Friends,
I do appreciate any posts here that are interested in this and I thank those that have posted of their concern. If anyone would like to have discussion of this, I like to email concerning this.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by AuntieMel on August 30, 2006, at 8:39:52
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by Tabitha on August 29, 2006, at 23:18:51
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 31, 2006, at 12:07:24
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by SLS on August 28, 2006, at 20:33:38
Friends,
It is not my intention in this administrative discussion to put down Jews by identifying the statements that have been posted here that IMO have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings as to the context that they have been used here.
I have some posts that if you would like to see them concerning more about this, you could email me at
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Lou
Posted by Dena on August 9, 2008, at 15:07:34
In reply to Re: please be civil » Lou Pilder, posted by Dr. Bob on August 28, 2006, at 19:19:16
> > the Jews killed Christ
>
> Please don't post anything that could lead others (such as Jews) to feel accused. Even if you're paraphrasing someone else.
>
> But please don't take this personally, either, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person.
>
> If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please first see the FAQ:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforce
>
> Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bob~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is ridiculous and insulting.
Everyone knows that Lou, of all people, would not be promoting anything anti-Semitic.
To sanction him for merely pointing out what *would be* anti-Semitic language, and to let other things remain, which do lead others to feel put down, is beyond-absurd.
Yes, I'm bringing up old stuff. But because it's left here as seemingly condoned, it sets a precedent for others to follow suit. And, it's incredibly, obviously, blatantly partial.
Why are these allowed to remain, while Lou is ridiculously sanctioned?:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20080404/msgs/832658.html (re: Christianity is the only religion that brings people to God.)
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20051105/msgs/612282.html (re: no non-Christian will enter heaven.)
Why are those left intact, unsanctioned?
Why do entire conversations, which show gross partiality, suddenly evaporate?
Why does it appear that some religious expressions are endorsed here, while others are regularly sanctioned?
Why do the rules not apply equitably, to all here?
And why do I doubt this post will be taken seriously, or even answered?
Shalom, Dena
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 9, 2008, at 16:54:51
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by Dena on August 9, 2008, at 15:07:34
> > > the Jews killed Christ
> >
> > Please don't post anything that could lead others (such as Jews) to feel accused. Even if you're paraphrasing someone else.
> >
> > But please don't take this personally, either, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person.
> >
> > If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please first see the FAQ:
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforce
> >
> > Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Bob
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> This is ridiculous and insulting.
>
> Everyone knows that Lou, of all people, would not be promoting anything anti-Semitic.
>
> To sanction him for merely pointing out what *would be* anti-Semitic language, and to let other things remain, which do lead others to feel put down, is beyond-absurd.
>
> Yes, I'm bringing up old stuff. But because it's left here as seemingly condoned, it sets a precedent for others to follow suit. And, it's incredibly, obviously, blatantly partial.
>
> Why are these allowed to remain, while Lou is ridiculously sanctioned?:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20080404/msgs/832658.html (re: Christianity is the only religion that brings people to God.)
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20051105/msgs/612282.html (re: no non-Christian will enter heaven.)
>
> Why are those left intact, unsanctioned?
>
> Why do entire conversations, which show gross partiality, suddenly evaporate?
>
> Why does it appear that some religious expressions are endorsed here, while others are regularly sanctioned?
>
> Why do the rules not apply equitably, to all here?
>
> And why do I doubt this post will be taken seriously, or even answered?
>
> Shalom, DenaFriends,
Dena has posted a link to a post, it is the first of the two links offered here.
There is an offered link by the poster there that has Matt27 in the link.
If you click on that link, you bring up the 27th chapter of the christiandom bible of the book called Matthew.
In that link, you can see what I am refering to by reading verse 1 and then verse 25 and then the whole chapter.
Those verses were even redacted by Mel Gibson in his film. These verses are continually causing me deep emotional distress even though I have requested over and over not to post such, for they remind me of the horrors of Nazism and that 1 1/2 million Jewish children were murdered with that ideology put in the minds of the murderers and the people that supported them.
I thank Zeba and Dena and others that posted as to what can be seen and I think that it will be good for the community as a whole for others that know what can be seen to post here also.
Best wishes,
Lou Pilder
Posted by Deputy 10derHeart on August 10, 2008, at 1:07:33
In reply to Lou's request to members- » Dena, posted by Lou Pilder on August 9, 2008, at 16:54:51
>with that ideology put in the minds of the murderers and the people that supported them.
Please be sensitive to the feelings of others, such as Christians or other followers of the Bible (including the book of Matthew) by respecting their beliefs and interpretations of these writings, which may be quite different from what you've written about here. I think some posters reading this could feel put down by the ideology of Matthew being associated with murderers and people who support murderers.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternate ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow ups regarding these issues should be directed to Admin, and should of course, be civil. Dr. Bob has oversight over deputy decisions, and he may choose a different action.
Respectfully,
--10derHeart, acting as deputy for Dr. Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 12, 2008, at 22:53:14
In reply to Please be sensitive » Lou Pilder, posted by Deputy 10derHeart on August 10, 2008, at 1:07:33
> >with that ideology put in the minds of the murderers and the people that supported them.
>
> Please be sensitive to the feelings of others, such as Christians or other followers of the Bible (including the book of Matthew) by respecting their beliefs and interpretations of these writings, which may be quite different from what you've written about here. I think some posters reading this could feel put down by the ideology of Matthew being associated with murderers and people who support murderers.
>
> If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternate ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
>
> Follow ups regarding these issues should be directed to Admin, and should of course, be civil. Dr. Bob has oversight over deputy decisions, and he may choose a different action.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> --10derHeart, acting as deputy for Dr. Bob
>
Friends,
It is written above concerning the link posted by another member here. The deputy here cites one part of what I wrote concerning my objection to statements being allowed to stand here, and that other members also are objecting to those type of posts being allowed to stand.
If you read my post in toto, you will see that the statements in question, that the idea was {put} into people's minds. That IMO is different from people having a belief in something. Indoctrination, which is when something is put into a person's mind, IMO is a far distance from believing.
I need to explain the whole aspect of the post in more detail to show that there are different uses of the statements historically and that I could explain that here if I was permitted to post the foundation of my faith in relation that it has been revealed to me by the God that I worship and give service to, a commandment from my God to me, that I XXX(the foundation of Judaism).
The explanation that could give here to the members concerning the statement in question has been revealed to me. It is different from what has been stated as the meaning by popular teachings.
And if I was able to speak the entire matter concerning those verses posted here, if I was alive 1000 years ago, there might have not been the holocaust. The revalation that I received is from a Jewish perspective and I have been revealed that for others to understand what I would want to post about those verses, that a great amount of background would be needed by me to post what has been revealed to me. You may notice that I post line upon line , precept upon precept, here a little, there a little. And some day the entire picture could be seen when all the parts are visible.
Right now, I think that the chance for me to be allowed to do that is slim and that I do not see a way at this time for me to overcome what I need to overcome in order for me to post the full revelation that has been given to me that could reval a new thinking IMO concerning the statements here in question.
Lou
Posted by Sigismund on August 12, 2008, at 23:15:23
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by Dena on August 9, 2008, at 15:07:34
It's just adding offence to injury, is it not?
So we have to be considerate to the feelings of some Christians but not, it seems, to Nazis and their supporters?
>These verses are continually causing me deep emotional distress even though I have requested over and over not to post such, for they remind me of the horrors of Nazism and that 1 1/2 million Jewish children were murdered with that ideology put in the minds of the murderers and the people that supported them.
You are quite right, Lou.
The Nazi demonology came from somewhere.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 12, 2008, at 23:37:12
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by Sigismund on August 12, 2008, at 23:15:23
> It's just adding offence to injury, is it not?
>
> So we have to be considerate to the feelings of some Christians but not, it seems, to Nazis and their supporters?
>
> >These verses are continually causing me deep emotional distress even though I have requested over and over not to post such, for they remind me of the horrors of Nazism and that 1 1/2 million Jewish children were murdered with that ideology put in the minds of the murderers and the people that supported them.
>
> You are quite right, Lou.
>
> The Nazi demonology came from somewhere.Sigismund,
You wrote,[...You are quite right, Lou...came from somewhere...].
Where it came from is part of the revelation to me. You see, the statements in question are written by a Jew, Matthew, and the content has been revealed to me as from the perspective that a Jew could understand it. There is a great amount of symbolism in that chapter that has been revealed to me that makes it different from what could be seen on it's face in just the words. This involves the historical delivernce of the Israelites from bongage and the supernatural happenings as written in the book called Exodus and other books that the Jews use as their scriptures. All that I have posted so far here could be tied into that one chapter. And I wrote about the sheep and the goats and had to redact the revelation to me in that thread. That all could be tied into this chapter in question.
Where did the things that were put into the minds come from? I have been writing about that it has been revealed to me that we have two minds,(actually 3), one a mind that is darkness and death and another of life and peace. That is also tied into that chapter and that is why I explained that revelation before this. In fact, this chapter in question has been revealed to me to lead one to the Seventh Gate on the Road to the Crown of Life.
Lou
Posted by gardenergirl on August 13, 2008, at 1:38:35
In reply to Lou's response to deputy 10derHeart's post to me-, posted by Lou Pilder on August 12, 2008, at 22:53:14
> Right now, I think that the chance for me to be allowed to do that is slim and that I do not see a way at this time for me to overcome what I need to overcome in order for me to post the full revelation that has been given to me that could reval a new thinking IMO concerning the statements here in question.
You could start a blog or publish your own website. Write a book. Give lectures. Think outside of the Babble box.
Try it. You might like it.
Nah, let's get Mikey.
Mikey? He won't do it. He hates everything.
He likes it! Hey Mikey!Like Mike. If I could be like Mike....
gg
Posted by Deputy Dinah on August 13, 2008, at 8:27:51
In reply to Lou's response to deputy 10derHeart's post to me-, posted by Lou Pilder on August 12, 2008, at 22:53:14
> These verses are continually causing me deep emotional distress even though I have requested over and over not to post such, for they remind me of the horrors of Nazism and that 1 1/2 million Jewish children were murdered with that ideology put in the minds of the murderers and the people that supported them.
Lou, Administration interpreted the above as "that ideology" as meaning the verses you referred to as causing you distress. If you intended to say that it is not the verses themselves, but an improper interpretation of them as what put into the mind of the idea of the Holocaust, then thank you for clarifying.
And for note, in general, it is no more allowable under site guidelines to refer to portions of any religion's Holy Books as being the idea behind mass murder than it is to quote certain passages from those Holy Books. If someone posts something that you believe to be against site guidelines, including quotes from the Bible, or Koran, or any other book, please use the notification button and refrain from posting your objections on board. It is entirely true that certain portions of a poster's faith may not be appropriate to be posted on Babble under the site guidelines.
However, Dr. Bob's guideline has always been that two wrongs don't make a right. Which means that it is also not appropriate to post statements that a poster's faith, or verses from the books they consider to be holy, are the idea behind murders.
Dr. Bob has reviewed the actions on this thread. Further repetitions of what has deemed to be uncivil will result in the appropriate Administrative action.
Deputies *can't* change what decisions Dr. Bob has made in the past. Please send notifications about specific posts made from this point forward using the "Notify Administrators" function. Please send objections about Administrative rulings about specific posts made in the past directly to Dr. Bob by his email address. Please include both the link and a specific reason for considering it uncivil in the email (not on board). He'll see them sooner that way.
He has said he is no longer able to reply to every email, but if you do not see any action on his part, I would interpret that as saying he intends for his previous action to stand. It is my experience that he might not explain this in any great depth, and that his usual response is that he has reviewed the post and considered it acceptable under board guidelines, or that he prefers to look forward rather than back.
The administrative board is not the place for reporting individual posts, as that may lead posters to feel accused or put down. It is for discussing administrative policy in general.
I hope this clarifies Administrative policy for you.
Dinah, acting as deputy for Dr. Bob
Posted by Deputy Dinah on August 13, 2008, at 8:35:46
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by Sigismund on August 12, 2008, at 23:15:23
> So we have to be considerate to the feelings of some Christians but not, it seems, to Nazis and their supporters?
Dr. Bob reviewed this administrative action, and did not mention anything about incivility to Nazis and their supporters. If you believe a post to be uncivil in referring to Nazis and their supporters, please use the notify the administrators function rather than refer to it on board.
> >These verses are continually causing me deep emotional distress even though I have requested over and over not to post such, for they remind me of the horrors of Nazism and that 1 1/2 million Jewish children were murdered with that ideology put in the minds of the murderers and the people that supported them.
>
> You are quite right, Lou.
>
> The Nazi demonology came from somewhere.
>Please don't quote statements that have been deemed to be uncivil.
Dr. Bob is always free to override deputy decisions. His email is on the bottom of each page. Please feel free to email him if you believe this decision was made in error.
Dinah, acting as deputy to Dr. Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2008, at 10:15:35
In reply to Re: Lou's response to deputy 10derHeart's post to » Lou Pilder, posted by Deputy Dinah on August 13, 2008, at 8:27:51
> > These verses are continually causing me deep emotional distress even though I have requested over and over not to post such, for they remind me of the horrors of Nazism and that 1 1/2 million Jewish children were murdered with that ideology put in the minds of the murderers and the people that supported them.
>
> Lou, Administration interpreted the above as "that ideology" as meaning the verses you referred to as causing you distress. If you intended to say that it is not the verses themselves, but an improper interpretation of them as what put into the mind of the idea of the Holocaust, then thank you for clarifying.
>
> And for note, in general, it is no more allowable under site guidelines to refer to portions of any religion's Holy Books as being the idea behind mass murder than it is to quote certain passages from those Holy Books. If someone posts something that you believe to be against site guidelines, including quotes from the Bible, or Koran, or any other book, please use the notification button and refrain from posting your objections on board. It is entirely true that certain portions of a poster's faith may not be appropriate to be posted on Babble under the site guidelines.
>
> However, Dr. Bob's guideline has always been that two wrongs don't make a right. Which means that it is also not appropriate to post statements that a poster's faith, or verses from the books they consider to be holy, are the idea behind murders.
>
> Dr. Bob has reviewed the actions on this thread. Further repetitions of what has deemed to be uncivil will result in the appropriate Administrative action.
>
> Deputies *can't* change what decisions Dr. Bob has made in the past. Please send notifications about specific posts made from this point forward using the "Notify Administrators" function. Please send objections about Administrative rulings about specific posts made in the past directly to Dr. Bob by his email address. Please include both the link and a specific reason for considering it uncivil in the email (not on board). He'll see them sooner that way.
>
> He has said he is no longer able to reply to every email, but if you do not see any action on his part, I would interpret that as saying he intends for his previous action to stand. It is my experience that he might not explain this in any great depth, and that his usual response is that he has reviewed the post and considered it acceptable under board guidelines, or that he prefers to look forward rather than back.
>
> The administrative board is not the place for reporting individual posts, as that may lead posters to feel accused or put down. It is for discussing administrative policy in general.
>
> I hope this clarifies Administrative policy for you.
>
> Dinah, acting as deputy for Dr. BobDinah,
You wrote,[...if you intended to say that it was the improper interpretation and not the verses...put into the minds of people the idea of the holocaust then thank you for clarifying...]
That is correct and I am appreciative that you could see that possibility and post that here to clarify that.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2008, at 10:53:18
In reply to Re: Lou's response to deputy 10derHeart's post to » Lou Pilder, posted by Deputy Dinah on August 13, 2008, at 8:27:51
> > These verses are continually causing me deep emotional distress even though I have requested over and over not to post such, for they remind me of the horrors of Nazism and that 1 1/2 million Jewish children were murdered with that ideology put in the minds of the murderers and the people that supported them.
>
> Lou, Administration interpreted the above as "that ideology" as meaning the verses you referred to as causing you distress. If you intended to say that it is not the verses themselves, but an improper interpretation of them as what put into the mind of the idea of the Holocaust, then thank you for clarifying.
>
> And for note, in general, it is no more allowable under site guidelines to refer to portions of any religion's Holy Books as being the idea behind mass murder than it is to quote certain passages from those Holy Books. If someone posts something that you believe to be against site guidelines, including quotes from the Bible, or Koran, or any other book, please use the notification button and refrain from posting your objections on board. It is entirely true that certain portions of a poster's faith may not be appropriate to be posted on Babble under the site guidelines.
>
> However, Dr. Bob's guideline has always been that two wrongs don't make a right. Which means that it is also not appropriate to post statements that a poster's faith, or verses from the books they consider to be holy, are the idea behind murders.
>
> Dr. Bob has reviewed the actions on this thread. Further repetitions of what has deemed to be uncivil will result in the appropriate Administrative action.
>
> Deputies *can't* change what decisions Dr. Bob has made in the past. Please send notifications about specific posts made from this point forward using the "Notify Administrators" function. Please send objections about Administrative rulings about specific posts made in the past directly to Dr. Bob by his email address. Please include both the link and a specific reason for considering it uncivil in the email (not on board). He'll see them sooner that way.
>
> He has said he is no longer able to reply to every email, but if you do not see any action on his part, I would interpret that as saying he intends for his previous action to stand. It is my experience that he might not explain this in any great depth, and that his usual response is that he has reviewed the post and considered it acceptable under board guidelines, or that he prefers to look forward rather than back.
>
> The administrative board is not the place for reporting individual posts, as that may lead posters to feel accused or put down. It is for discussing administrative policy in general.
>
> I hope this clarifies Administrative policy for you.
>
> Dinah, acting as deputy for Dr. BobDinah,
You wrote,[..I hope this clarifies Administrative policy for you...].
I am unsure as to after reading your reply to me concerning some aspects of as to if particular aspects of the Administartive policy is clear to me. If you could clarify the following, then I could have a better undertsnading of the clarification that you have offered and respond accordingly.
A. In,[...It is..true that ..portions of a poster's faith may not be appropriate to be posted..under site guidlines...]
I undertand that that is the policy and that those portions could lead one to feel accused or put down. Could you post here what the criteria that are used by the administration to determine as to if a portion of a member's faith that is posted is or is not having criteria that constitutes that it could lead another here to feel put down?
Lou
Posted by Dinah on August 13, 2008, at 12:01:33
In reply to Lou's request for criteria-cnstahtutpuhtdn? » Deputy Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2008, at 10:53:18
The general rule is that it's fine to post those portions of your faith that are about what you believe for yourself, as long as you also respect that others have different beliefs.
So to take two common examples, my understanding is that it would be ok to say "My faith teaches that I and others of my faith reach salvation through faith in Jesus Christ." or "I believe that I will reach salvation through faith in Jesus Christ." It wouldn't be ok to say "My faith teaches that the only way to salvation is through Jesus Christ." because that wouldn't be respectful of the beliefs of non-Christians.
My understanding is that it would be ok to say "My faith says that those of my faith should worship God, and put no gods before him." or "I love the Lord, my God and but worship none but him." It wouldn't be ok to post "My faith teaches that everyone should worship God and put no Gods before him."
Those are just two examples.
It wouldn't of course be ok to post that anyone who doesn't believe something will burn in hell. It wouldn't be ok to post anything that could reasonably lead those of other faiths to feel accused or put down.
It doesn't matter if any of the above is prefaced by "The Bible/Koran/etc. says..." or "I believe..." or "My church teaches..." or "It was revealed to me..."
It's fine to have whatever beliefs you have, but Babble may not be an appropriate place to post some of those beliefs.
The idea behind all of this is that there are many people at Babble. Christians, Jews, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Wiccan, Athiest, and more. Religion can be a highly personal and highly charged topic. The main purpose of Babble is for support and education about mental health issues, not lively debate. Dr. Bob wants to foster a supportive and respectful environment.
As far as I know, you can post any part of your Revelation that you like, as long as it fits in with the above. If your revelation, for example, contains the imperative to worship one God, and put none before Him, that is fine to post as long as you limit it to what God told *you*, or you and those who believe as you do, to do, and don't generalize it to what everyone (including pantheists and atheists) should do.
My understanding of Dr. Bob's application of Faith Board guidelines is not as clear as I would like. I think part of the problem is that I have a different understanding of matters of faith than Dr. Bob does. I'm not claiming to be an expert on the topic, but theology is something of an interest of mine. I think that inevitably leads to a difference in how we read things. So... all of the above is my interpretation only, and I can't guarantee that Dr. Bob will see things the same way. However, if he decides something differently than what I said above, I'll take the blame if Dr. Bob doesn't see fit to correct what I wrote.
That's pretty much as detailed as I can make my understanding. I hope it's helpful.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 14, 2008, at 8:14:43
In reply to Re: Lou's request for criteria-cnstahtutpuhtdn? » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on August 13, 2008, at 12:01:33
> The general rule is that it's fine to post those portions of your faith that are about what you believe for yourself, as long as you also respect that others have different beliefs.
>
> So to take two common examples, my understanding is that it would be ok to say "My faith teaches that I and others of my faith reach salvation through faith in Jesus Christ." or "I believe that I will reach salvation through faith in Jesus Christ." It wouldn't be ok to say "My faith teaches that the only way to salvation is through Jesus Christ." because that wouldn't be respectful of the beliefs of non-Christians.
>
> My understanding is that it would be ok to say "My faith says that those of my faith should worship God, and put no gods before him." or "I love the Lord, my God and but worship none but him." It wouldn't be ok to post "My faith teaches that everyone should worship God and put no Gods before him."
>
> Those are just two examples.
>
> It wouldn't of course be ok to post that anyone who doesn't believe something will burn in hell. It wouldn't be ok to post anything that could reasonably lead those of other faiths to feel accused or put down.
>
> It doesn't matter if any of the above is prefaced by "The Bible/Koran/etc. says..." or "I believe..." or "My church teaches..." or "It was revealed to me..."
>
> It's fine to have whatever beliefs you have, but Babble may not be an appropriate place to post some of those beliefs.
>
> The idea behind all of this is that there are many people at Babble. Christians, Jews, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Wiccan, Athiest, and more. Religion can be a highly personal and highly charged topic. The main purpose of Babble is for support and education about mental health issues, not lively debate. Dr. Bob wants to foster a supportive and respectful environment.
>
> As far as I know, you can post any part of your Revelation that you like, as long as it fits in with the above. If your revelation, for example, contains the imperative to worship one God, and put none before Him, that is fine to post as long as you limit it to what God told *you*, or you and those who believe as you do, to do, and don't generalize it to what everyone (including pantheists and atheists) should do.
>
> My understanding of Dr. Bob's application of Faith Board guidelines is not as clear as I would like. I think part of the problem is that I have a different understanding of matters of faith than Dr. Bob does. I'm not claiming to be an expert on the topic, but theology is something of an interest of mine. I think that inevitably leads to a difference in how we read things. So... all of the above is my interpretation only, and I can't guarantee that Dr. Bob will see things the same way. However, if he decides something differently than what I said above, I'll take the blame if Dr. Bob doesn't see fit to correct what I wrote.
>
> That's pretty much as detailed as I can make my understanding. I hope it's helpful.Dinah,
You wrote, [...I hope it's helpful...].
After revewing the text in comparison to the issues at hand here concerning my want for infomation to the requests that are seen in the threads here on this board now, there is a want for information by me that I can not find clear answers for me in your reply to me to my concerns, in particular but not limited to as to all the criteria used by the adminstration to determine if a statement constitutes one that could lead another to feel put down.
In your reply to me, you wrote,[...it doesn't matter if...it is prefaced with "I believe..."...]. Your reply there in relation to your statement as to that you hope your reply to me is helpful, is bringing up what I am trying to get a resolution to and have not acheived as of yet to that kind of situation here. Your reply to me could mean IMO that you agree with me in respect to a particular situation that is ongoing and that I feel is unresolved to me here as to that use by a member of the prefacing with {I believe}.
In another ongoing situation here that to me I feel is unresolved here is in relation to that you wrote,[...it wouldn't be OK to post anything that could reasonably lead those of other faiths to feel accused or put down...]. Your statement could IMO be in agreement or not in agreement with me in relation to ongoing unresolved issues here for me, as to what the criteria are here that the administration uses to determine what constitutes a statement that could or could not reasonably lead one of another faith to feel accused or put down. I see a few examples here in your text, but I can not apply those few examples to all statements in relation to my ongoing concerns. I was looking for a reply that could be applied to the ongoing concerns of mine here that are as of now on the board as reminders from me to Mr. Hsiung in relation to the terms of service here for the administration board's purpose that I am awaiting replies to.
In that you wrote here,[..it is fine to post what God told you...]. I am unsure as to if you are or or not agreeing with me in relation that in the statement in question that [...{my} God has revealed {to me},supernasturally, a commandment {to me} that {I} XXX (the foundation of Judaism)...] is fine to post or not for there is adminstrative comment here concerning that that may be diferent from what I could understand from your statement concerning that ongoing concern of mine here.
You wrote,[..not the place to post some of those beliefs..]. I am unsure as to if you are agreeing with me or not in relation to the ongoing concerns of mine that posts of the nature in question, that could be of those that are some of those beliefs or not.
I think that for Mr. Hsiung to reply to the concerns of mine that are outstanding, that that could IMO be the most helpful here in knowing what all the criteria are that are used by the adminstration to determine as to if a statement does or does not lead another to feel accused or put down in relation to the ongoing concerns of mine here concerning that.
If anyone would like to see a comprehensive list of the posts here that could be in relation to this discussion, you could email me if you like.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on August 14, 2008, at 10:12:48
In reply to Lou's reply to deputy- » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on August 14, 2008, at 8:14:43
As I said, there are times when individual situations are seen by Dr. Bob differently than I would see them, particularly on the Faith Board. For example, "I believe..." is open to interpretation as to whether someone is referring to something that they should do, or something that everyone should do. Where there is room for interpretation, there is room for reasonable people to disagree. There is nothing I can do to override him. I'm his deputy, he's the administrator.
Lou, as I said to Dena, Dr. Bob has never to my knowledge gone back years to sanction anyone. I think he's said to you that he prefers to go forward rather than look back.
There may be things in the past you thought should have been sanctioned. That's true of me too. And true of most people on Babble. But Dr. Bob rarely goes into even the last archive, much less something years ago. If you report something going forward, we'll review it, and act if we are notified of something and agree that it is against board guidelines. If Dr. Bob has final authority, and can override us.
I'm sorry if my explanation was not sufficient clarification. Perhaps someone else could provide extra clarification.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 19, 2008, at 16:36:08
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to deputy- » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on August 14, 2008, at 10:12:48
> As I said, there are times when individual situations are seen by Dr. Bob differently than I would see them, particularly on the Faith Board. For example, "I believe..." is open to interpretation as to whether someone is referring to something that they should do, or something that everyone should do. Where there is room for interpretation, there is room for reasonable people to disagree. There is nothing I can do to override him. I'm his deputy, he's the administrator.
>
> Lou, as I said to Dena, Dr. Bob has never to my knowledge gone back years to sanction anyone. I think he's said to you that he prefers to go forward rather than look back.
>
> There may be things in the past you thought should have been sanctioned. That's true of me too. And true of most people on Babble. But Dr. Bob rarely goes into even the last archive, much less something years ago. If you report something going forward, we'll review it, and act if we are notified of something and agree that it is against board guidelines. If Dr. Bob has final authority, and can override us.
>
> I'm sorry if my explanation was not sufficient clarification. Perhaps someone else could provide extra clarification.Friends,
If you are considering responding in this thread, I would like for you to click on the offerd link here and consider what you see in the post and other posts in the thread that it is in and also another thread.
If you could, then I think that some issues here could be made clearer because there are new issues in this that I have not posted my concerns about. If you would like to see the issues from my perspective because they may be unbeknownst to you, you could email me if you like.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20060614/msgs/735373.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070702/msgs/776479.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 30, 2008, at 15:09:08
In reply to Lou's request-nohonhon, posted by Lou Pilder on October 19, 2008, at 16:36:08
Friend,
If you are considering responding here, I am requesting that you read what the link brings up in the posts in the thread and parallel threads. If you could, then I think that you could have a better understanding of the importance to me concerning the issues that are ongoing in this thread, or parallel threads.
If you would like to go direct -to- the- issues, without reading the thread's posts, you culd email me if you like.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 30, 2008, at 15:14:17
In reply to Lou's request-htparaid, posted by Lou Pilder on October 30, 2008, at 15:09:08
> Friend,
> If you are considering responding here, I am requesting that you read what the link brings up in the posts in the thread and parallel threads. If you could, then I think that you could have a better understanding of the importance to me concerning the issues that are ongoing in this thread, or parallel threads.
> If you would like to go direct -to- the- issues, without reading the thread's posts, you culd email me if you like.
> Lou
> lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Friends,
Here is the link:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070702/msgs/768043.html
Lou
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.