![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 4 of 4. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by mi nación malvada on October 11, 2004, at 22:58:56
I just clicked on a link that claimed to be to the definition of religious faith and it instead lead to a definition of religion. Faith has nothing to do with "service" or "worship" ... those are other aspects of religion. Faith is simply belief. Some beliefs hold no requirement of either service or faith. The definitions provided here, and the rules imposed to support those false definitions, offend faiths that require neither service nor worship. Creating idiosyncratic definitions is a typical ploy of cultural and religous exploitation, used by believers to foist their faith to a loftier status than others. I get the sense somebody created this page in an attempt to quiet the ghostly voices of their Taoist ancestors.
Posted by mi nación malvada on October 12, 2004, at 0:13:37
In reply to That's bullshit, posted by mi nación malvada on October 11, 2004, at 22:58:56
I wrote: Some beliefs hold no requirement of either service or faith.
I intended to write: Some beliefs hold no requirement of either service or "worship". I am neither atheist nor agnostic, at least not all of the time. Sometimes I believe in the supernatural. Sometimes I don't. Sometimes I do and don't believe at the same time. Whose god am I supposed to serve and worship to be legitimately faithful by the standards of a Baptist practitioner of Western Psychiatry?
Maybe this board should be renamed "socially accepted sytems faith" and if somebody's faith doesn't fit the DSM requirements that separate "magical thinking" from collective magical thinking, then they can be harangued as non-civil. That DSM definition excuses majical thinking when it is consistent with an organized system, but labels it pathological when it is idiosyncratic.
But this is not about the way the board should be run, it is about my pain when people trying to impose their egocentric world view on me by manipulating language regarding faith. Attempts to legitimize or debunk my faith offends my FAITH that there is no being consistent with any of the widely accepted definitions of a deity and my FAITH that there is something we don't understand in nature that people like to call supernatural and that often relates to us in a very personal way.
But maybe we're not supposed to discuss this kind of faith here on this faith board, probably because this kind of faith, if shared, would quickly dismantle the house of cards some self-serving physician has constructed around his personal definition of faith in the context of his system of religion.
Posted by 64bowtie on October 14, 2004, at 1:49:51
In reply to Re: Correction, posted by mi nación malvada on October 12, 2004, at 0:13:37
...sometimes religions are designing God in man's image and likeness, not the other way around!
Rod
Posted by Sad sara on November 5, 2004, at 10:10:22
In reply to Re: Correction, posted by mi nación malvada on October 12, 2004, at 0:13:37
I wish everyone could express themselves as clear and understandable as yu do in these two posts. That would make internet life easier.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Faith | 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.