Psycho-Babble Administration Thread 943057

Shown: posts 1 to 9 of 9. This is the beginning of the thread.

 

Re: please be civil Lou Pilder

Posted by Dr. Bob on April 11, 2010, at 8:04:55

In reply to Lou's reply-crwnovlif Laney, posted by Lou Pilder on April 8, 2010, at 14:26:16

> The questions here in this thread are as to if taking mind-altering drugs classifies one or not as a sorcerer according to the bible discussed here.
> That bible says that the sorcerers will be in the Lake of Fire.

Please don't post anything that could lead others (including those who take drugs) to feel accused or put down.

But please don't take this personally, either, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person, and I'm sorry if this hurts you.

More information about posting policies and tips on alternative ways to express oneself, including a link to a nice post by Dinah on I-statements, are in 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 should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.

Thanks,

Bob

 

Lou's reply-pfalzahku? Dr. Bob

Posted by Lou Pilder on April 11, 2010, at 8:04:56

In reply to Re: please be civil Lou Pilder, posted by Dr. Bob on April 10, 2010, at 1:14:48

> > The questions here in this thread are as to if taking mind-altering drugs classifies one or not as a sorcerer according to the bible discussed here.
> > That bible says that the sorcerers will be in the Lake of Fire.
>
> Please don't post anything that could lead others (including those who take drugs) to feel accused or put down.
>
> But please don't take this personally, either, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person, and I'm sorry if this hurts you.
>
> More information about posting policies and tips on alternative ways to express oneself, including a link to a nice post by Dinah on I-statements, are in 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 should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bob

Mr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...do not post...that could lead...those who take drugs to feel accused or put down..].
Looking at the whole post in question, it says that there is a question here as to if the bible under discussion classifies or not those who take drugs to be in that catagory here in question. And the drugs in question are mind-altering drugs which is not the same as just drugs. I do not believe that I stated that those that take drugs are defined here to be in that catagory or not. This is a question of faith to those that post here that they are Christians and believe their scriptures to be truth to them and I am offering support from my perspective to those who are wanting to make that determination on their own. This, as I understand it, is the purpose of this faith forum and I have accepted your invitation to post here from my perspective which you say in your TOS here that different perspectives are encouraged to be posted here.
You have posted that the faith forum is for the discussion of what different faiths teach, meaning what the doctrins from their bibles state to them. What you have highlighted here is only what the bible that the Christians use state and the question here is to define who the sorcerers are or are not according to what that bible teaches as doctrin.
I am trying to save lives here by offering support to those that believe what is stated in their bible as truth to them. That is the function of this forum and your TOS here states that different points of view are ecouraged and that what a faith teaches is acceptable here to be posted as civil.
The fact that you did cite the whole statement by me that shows that it is a question here for Christians to think about makes it plainly visible that it is what it is, it says what it says. That is different from saying that I am saying that those that take drugs are determined in that bible to be in the catagory in question. I did not state that at all, only that one could want to make that determination on their own, and concerning mind-altering drugs, not just drugs.
There has been the question of Noah being drunk. Now if Noah was drunk accidently, then his drunkeness is not the same as a person drinking to get drunk. The God in question here has in the scriptures that that God looks at someone's heart which I was hoping to post here about in relation to giving support to those that are taking these mind-altering drugs.
Since your TOS states that the mission of the forum is for support and education, and I want to post what could be supportive and educational to Christians concerned about what their scriptures say about mind-altering drugs and the afterlife, I ask you if you would be willing to submit this to an impartial group to determine if what I have posted does or does not fall into your stated TOS here and abide by their determination. I suggest an ethics group to be used from a university. If you could, then I could have the opportunity to show numerous posts to that group that lead me to believe that what I had posted in question here is what the faith forum is for.
Since I did not say that those that are taking mind-altering drugs are or are not in the catagory in biblical question, but wrote that it is in question here as to if the bible does or does not say that, and you write here [...{including those that take drugs}...], your statement here is causing me a want for infomation as to why you posted that to me. Without me knowing why you posted that to me, that has the potential to cause me emotional distress. If you could post your rationale for posting this to me, then I could take that to another psychiatrist and have them determine if or if not there is a ligitimate reason for me to feel distress from what you wrote to me or not, for I am a guest here like anyone else and ask for you to post your rationale as you have stated you would do for those that ask you.
Lou Pilder

 

Re: Lou's reply

Posted by Dr. Bob on April 11, 2010, at 8:20:52

In reply to Lou's reply-pfalzahku? Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on April 11, 2010, at 8:04:56

> I do not believe that I stated that those that take drugs are defined here to be in that catagory or not.

Still, people might think the drugs they take are, and that could lead them to feel accused or put down.

> This is a question of faith to those that post here

Sorry, but being civil may mean not discussing some questions of faith here.

Bob

 

Lou's reply-phalzkunkel Dr. Bob

Posted by Lou Pilder on April 11, 2010, at 10:26:02

In reply to Re: Lou's reply, posted by Dr. Bob on April 11, 2010, at 8:20:52

> > I do not believe that I stated that those that take drugs are defined here to be in that catagory or not.
>
> Still, people might think the drugs they take are, and that could lead them to feel accused or put down.
>
> > This is a question of faith to those that post here
>
> Sorry, but being civil may mean not discussing some questions of faith here.
>
> Bob

Mr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...Still, people might think that the drugs that they take {are}...]
What could be a basis for a person to think that if there has not been a statement that says that?
Lou Pilder

 

Lou's reply-nhvrehygehn Dr. Bob

Posted by Lou Pilder on July 4, 2010, at 10:17:32

In reply to Re: Lou's request, posted by Dr. Bob on May 28, 2010, at 18:10:54

> > The ONLY reason given in God's Word that has or will ever cause someone to miss out on God's forgivness and Eternal life....is to reject the gift of His Son Jesus as Lord and Savior.
>
> He was referring to:
>
> > my Maker ... the God that [I give] service and worship to ... the God that the Christian Bible refers to
>
> so I considered it analogous to:
>
> > People of my faith have one God and no others before him.
>
> which I consider OK:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020918/msgs/7889.html
>
> Bob

Mr. Hsiung,
In your post here, you are allowing an antisemitic statement to stand on the basis that you drafted a rule that allows a antisemitic statement to stand if {see the rationale above}.
Now your rationale above gives something about the God that the poster gives service and worship to and the God that the Christian bible refers to. I am guessing that then you are wanting to mean that the poster is saying that he believes what is in the statement in question or that he believes what he thinks that bible says about what is in question here. You then state that that is analogous and OK.
But OK IMO coud mean that you are permiting the antisemitic statement to be posted here, and that the statement in and of itself, as to it being supportive or not, is not what is in question, for OK and supportive in my understanding need not be equivalent. I am asking for you to post here as to if you are wanting to mean or not that th stamtent in question, in and of itself is or is not supportive so as to eliminate any ambiguity that IMO could have the potential for some others to have here since you write that support takes precedence and that statements that could lead a Jew to feel put down are antisemitic statements.
Now the issue has been as is now the use of the word {only} which you write here t preclude others. Here is a link that you say would not be allowable here. The link brings up a post but then I would like or you to read your own post in that thread statement about how the use of the word [only} is to be taken elsewhere.
Here are some links to threads that I would like for you to look at your own posts there concerning that if the poster uses {only}, what you say about that
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20080809/msgs/918556.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041218/msgs/440617.html
Thedn here is a link to links for this discussion ongoing..
http://www.dr-bob.org/bable/admin/20100321/msgs951879.html
Lou Pilder

 

Lou's reply- corrected link and date of your post

Posted by Lou Pilder on July 4, 2010, at 10:17:35

In reply to Lou's reply-nhvrehygehn Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on July 3, 2010, at 6:07:00

> > > The ONLY reason given in God's Word that has or will ever cause someone to miss out on God's forgivness and Eternal life....is to reject the gift of His Son Jesus as Lord and Savior.
> >
> > He was referring to:
> >
> > > my Maker ... the God that [I give] service and worship to ... the God that the Christian Bible refers to
> >
> > so I considered it analogous to:
> >
> > > People of my faith have one God and no others before him.
> >
> > which I consider OK:
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020918/msgs/7889.html
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> In your post here, you are allowing an antisemitic statement to stand on the basis that you drafted a rule that allows a antisemitic statement to stand if {see the rationale above}.
> Now your rationale above gives something about the God that the poster gives service and worship to and the God that the Christian bible refers to. I am guessing that then you are wanting to mean that the poster is saying that he believes what is in the statement in question or that he believes what he thinks that bible says about what is in question here. You then state that that is analogous and OK.
> But OK IMO coud mean that you are permiting the antisemitic statement to be posted here, and that the statement in and of itself, as to it being supportive or not, is not what is in question, for OK and supportive in my understanding need not be equivalent. I am asking for you to post here as to if you are wanting to mean or not that th stamtent in question, in and of itself is or is not supportive so as to eliminate any ambiguity that IMO could have the potential for some others to have here since you write that support takes precedence and that statements that could lead a Jew to feel put down are antisemitic statements.
> Now the issue has been as is now the use of the word {only} which you write here t preclude others. Here is a link that you say would not be allowable here. The link brings up a post but then I would like or you to read your own post in that thread statement about how the use of the word [only} is to be taken elsewhere.
> Here are some links to threads that I would like for you to look at your own posts there concerning that if the poster uses {only}, what you say about that
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20080809/msgs/918556.html
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041218/msgs/440617.html
> Thedn here is a link to links for this discussion ongoing..
> http://www.dr-bob.org/bable/admin/20100321/msgs951879.html
> Lou Pilder

Mr. Hsiung,
The date of your post in the first link above is 9/27/09
The corrected link is:
Lou
http//www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20100321/msgs/951879.html

 

Lou's corrected link to the link to admin discuss

Posted by Lou Pilder on July 4, 2010, at 10:17:35

In reply to Lou's reply- corrected link and date of your post, posted by Lou Pilder on July 3, 2010, at 6:15:14

> > > > The ONLY reason given in God's Word that has or will ever cause someone to miss out on God's forgivness and Eternal life....is to reject the gift of His Son Jesus as Lord and Savior.
> > >
> > > He was referring to:
> > >
> > > > my Maker ... the God that [I give] service and worship to ... the God that the Christian Bible refers to
> > >
> > > so I considered it analogous to:
> > >
> > > > People of my faith have one God and no others before him.
> > >
> > > which I consider OK:
> > >
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020918/msgs/7889.html
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
> > Mr. Hsiung,
> > In your post here, you are allowing an antisemitic statement to stand on the basis that you drafted a rule that allows a antisemitic statement to stand if {see the rationale above}.
> > Now your rationale above gives something about the God that the poster gives service and worship to and the God that the Christian bible refers to. I am guessing that then you are wanting to mean that the poster is saying that he believes what is in the statement in question or that he believes what he thinks that bible says about what is in question here. You then state that that is analogous and OK.
> > But OK IMO coud mean that you are permiting the antisemitic statement to be posted here, and that the statement in and of itself, as to it being supportive or not, is not what is in question, for OK and supportive in my understanding need not be equivalent. I am asking for you to post here as to if you are wanting to mean or not that th stamtent in question, in and of itself is or is not supportive so as to eliminate any ambiguity that IMO could have the potential for some others to have here since you write that support takes precedence and that statements that could lead a Jew to feel put down are antisemitic statements.
> > Now the issue has been as is now the use of the word {only} which you write here t preclude others. Here is a link that you say would not be allowable here. The link brings up a post but then I would like or you to read your own post in that thread statement about how the use of the word [only} is to be taken elsewhere.
> > Here are some links to threads that I would like for you to look at your own posts there concerning that if the poster uses {only}, what you say about that
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20080809/msgs/918556.html
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041218/msgs/440617.html
> > Thedn here is a link to links for this discussion ongoing..
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/bable/admin/20100321/msgs951879.html
> > Lou Pilder
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> The date of your post in the first link above is 9/27/09
> The corrected link is:
> Lou
> http//www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20100321/msgs/951879.html

the correction to the correction to the link to the link to the admin discussion
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20100321/msgs/951879.html

 

Lou's reply--shezwhtidpsez Dr. Bob

Posted by Lou Pilder on July 25, 2010, at 23:39:13

In reply to Re: please be civil Lou Pilder, posted by Dr. Bob on July 22, 2010, at 17:51:45

Mr. Hsiung,
By you taking the words out of its complete context and not posting the whole statement that it is contained in, I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly if yuou post your rationale.
A. Are you wanting to mean that the statement by the other poster is not? If so, what is your rationale for such?
B. Are you wanting to mean that the statement in question by the other member is supportive? If so, what is your rationale for such?
C. Are you wanting to mean that it is good for the community as a whole in your thinking that the statement in question by the other member be allowed to stand without you posting in the thread where it appears as if you are wanting to mean that the statement is supportive or not? If so, what is your rationale for such?
D. other answers to questions not stated.
Lou Pilder

 

Lou's response-dhzawn Dr. Bob

Posted by Lou Pilder on August 5, 2010, at 17:55:19

In reply to Re: please be civil Lou Pilder, posted by Dr. Bob on July 22, 2010, at 17:51:45

Mr. Hsiung,
I posted an answer to you here and it has been moved away. If you did the redirtection,I would like for the protocol that you follow for other redirections to also be followed here by you posting a link to where it has been moved to. Also, I would like:
A. An explanation posted here, if you did the redirection, as to why your usual protocol for posting a link to a redirection has not been followed in this case.
B. An explanation by you to be posted here as to why you took what I wrote out of its context and also why the whole statement by me was not posted here by you.
C. An explanation posted here by you as to your raionale for posting your sanction to me here so that I can send it to a Jewish advocacy group to look at what they could (redacted by respondent)toward Jews here.
D. other relevant statements by you that could involve the Jewish people in relation to your action toward me here as to your definition of support here and why there is still the outstanding requests by me to you concerning the statement in question by the other poster.
Lou Pilder


This is the end of the thread.


Show another thread

URL of post in thread:


Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ


[dr. bob] 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.