![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 27 to 51 of 54. Go back in thread:
Posted by NikkiT2 on September 13, 2001, at 14:39:11
In reply to Don't make this into an American versus others..., posted by Krazy Kat on September 13, 2001, at 11:24:22
I was not using an irrevorant tone as you insist, i was just trying to make my point without getting personal.
All I am trying to do is point out that war WILL kill innocent people. INNOCENT people. Yes, find the individuals responsible and take any action against them you wish, but it is not a nations fault, and the posts I have seen calling for war against Afghanistan, and (I quote) "To nuke the bastards" is going to waste yet more lives, and i don't see how killing more innocent people will help at all.
Nikki
Posted by Adam on September 13, 2001, at 16:08:09
In reply to But, it's not that easy, is it?-Adam, posted by Krazy Kat on September 13, 2001, at 11:36:09
Also, just to clarify, part of the reason I think a war in Afghanistan is a "stupid" idea is fairly practical: Fighting bin Laden on his home turf proved untenable for one superpower already, back when the Soviets were trying to root him out in the 70s. It is no exageration to say that Afghanistan was their Vietnam, and cost upwards of 100,000 Soviet lives in combat.
It's another one of those incredible ironies, when you think bin Laden, and the mujahadeen were "our guys" once too, a bit like Saddam Hussein was our guy before the Gulf War. We ally ourselves with fanatics against a common enemy, train them, fund them, sell them weapons and build up their infrastructure. Apparently bin Laden hides out in subterrenian fortresses in the Afghan mountains we built for the mujahadeen 25 some odd years ago. When something like that comes round and bites us in the arse, maybe it's a good time to reflect on "business as usual", realpolitik and the like, and consider what it gets us.
There is a saying: Nations have no friends, only interests.
Maybe we should focus on real international friendships. Even with Afghanis. The country is on the verge of collapse. The Afghani people have suffered under a radical regime of religious perverts for years, now, and drought threatens to kill millions. The country has been isolated already, which, as is usual in such cases, has served largely to strengthen the position of the oppressors (think Castro and Hussein). We've payed less attention to the plight of the Afghanis than even sub-Saharan Africa, and sent precious little aid to ease their suffering. If we start bombing Afghanistan, they will suffer the most, I'm sure, and bin Laden could conceivably escape entirely, as he did when the Soviets wanted him. We have to be careful, and considerate.
> Throw us some more thoughts, please Adam! :)
>
> - K.
Posted by Adam on September 13, 2001, at 18:26:19
In reply to Re: But, it's not that easy, is it?-Adam » Krazy Kat , posted by Adam on September 13, 2001, at 16:08:09
I guess 20,000 may be way too high. It seems to be speculation (NPR reporter) based on the number of body bags Giuliani had requested be sent to NY. The number of dead at the WTC may be well under 10,000. That's still a horrific number of people, and still ranks as the biggest single attack on US soil.
Posted by Krazy Kat on September 13, 2001, at 18:33:30
In reply to Re: please be civil » San, Krazy Kat, posted by Dr. Bob on September 13, 2001, at 13:03:05
> Dr. Bob:
You've chosen to chastise those who have feelings toward one side of the fence. Nikki has said offensive things as well, as have others.
I'm really upset.
- K.
Posted by Krazy Kat on September 13, 2001, at 18:35:37
In reply to Re: But, it's not that easy, is it?-Adam » Krazy Kat , posted by Adam on September 13, 2001, at 13:18:25
Posted by Adam on September 13, 2001, at 18:40:54
In reply to Re: More realistic numbers..., posted by Adam on September 13, 2001, at 18:26:19
Man, my memory really suffers on these things...I've been trying to be accurate in my recounting of history, just for perspective, but I think specifics are off.
Anyway, I think the Soviet-Afghani war was in the 80s, not 70s.
I think, in Vietnam, there may have been some carte-blanche bill or resolution or something on the part of Congress to allow the president (Johnson, it would have to be) to expand military efforts there, but it didn't amount to a declaration of war. I think the War Powers Act came about because, clearly, things went too far after that. I think the original approval of expanded activity in Vietnam had something to do with the Gulf of Tonkin incident. If I remember that incident correctly, it was a ruse, a made-up attack against an Amercina vessel to get the US more deeply involved. I think we were blockading the gulf at the time.
I'll research better and relate more, if people want. I acutally have good books and notes on this at home, if people are interested. I should double-check before I shoot off numbers and dates from my (often) incorrect memory.
Posted by San on September 13, 2001, at 19:00:25
In reply to Re: two wrongs... » San, posted by akc on September 13, 2001, at 6:24:31
> San,
>
> It may be hard for you to believe that there are people who believe that Jesus was a very compassionate person (who believed in a higher power). I can want to model my life after that of Jesus' -- serving others, not judging, not throwing the first stone, etc. -- yet choose myself not to believe in some concept of a diety. There is not confusion in that concept.
>
> akc
> (another godless heathen)
>Jesus was not just a compassionate man who preached goodness. He was and is the Son of God. T o wish to model your life after him while denying the existence of His Father who He is the embodiment of is like slapping Him in the face. You're confused too! San
Posted by San on September 13, 2001, at 19:25:31
In reply to Re: two wrongs... » San, posted by Elizabeth on September 13, 2001, at 6:49:18
> > > Oh really? And who defines "virtuous?" You?
> > >
> > > -elizabeth (godless heathen)
> >
> > >"Virtuous" (as defined by Webster)-having or characterized by moral virtue; of good, upright, moral. It can be deduced from this definition that the afore mentioned "virtuous inhabitants of this planet" are those who are good, upright, and moral. If I have to explain to you what is good, upright, and moral in this world, then you are truly one to be pitied. Moral, upright people do not sit on their hands and talk while thousands of innocent people are slaughtered.
> > I also found it interesting that on you next post, you say you can't help but think "what would Jesus do?" Then you sign you follow-up to my post as "godless heathen." You seem quite confused. I wish you well and will remember you in my prayers----------San
>
> Jesus was a person. A good person with a good message. You don't have to believe in supernatural powers to believe that. I assure you, I'm not confused. But from reading your post, I had to wonder if you meant only Christians or only religious people by "virtuous." It really did come across that way because you used the word "heathens."
>
> Non-religious people (who make up about 15% of the U.S. population) are one of the most marginalised groups in this country. Please try to be more considerate.
>
> -elizabeth>What is the point in believing in Jesus if is a liar? He said He was the Son of God and if you don't believe He is, then in your eyes, that must make Him a liar. As to the "heathen" comment- I would catagorize other people of the world who might be contemplating such a horrific act as heathens-yes! San
Posted by San on September 13, 2001, at 19:37:05
In reply to Re: two wrongs... » Elizabeth, posted by NikkiT2 on September 13, 2001, at 6:58:23
> Do you believe that England should go into Ireland and bomb the hell out of them. They have put England under the terror of attacks for the last 20 years... Infact one of their recent bombs was very close to my home.
>
> I know none of their attacks have been anything near as devastating as the recent attacks on America, but calling for blood and revenge is not going to help. Killing more innocent people is not the way to go.
>England should not bomb Ireland because it would be like bombing their own country------San
Posted by akc on September 13, 2001, at 20:35:18
In reply to Re: two wrongs..., posted by San on September 13, 2001, at 19:00:25
If I had refrained from my parenthetical comment, which appears to be sarcastic, I believe my response was civil when I shared my beliefs about Jesus. I respect your beliefs, and would ask that you do the same with mine. I'll be the first to admit that I do not know everything. This does not mean I am "confused." I use to think I knew all when I blindly accepted a doctrine given to me by another. I am now on my own spiritual journey. One in which I happen to believe -- my belief, not yours -- in the greatness of certain humans who have lived in history. About these humans much is written. I also believe -- my belief, not yours -- that not every thing that is written is necessarily correct.
I share this because right now there are many people in this country who are very scared. And in that fear, they are striking out in anger. My first response when everything that happened was anger. Let's get those bastards and all of that. But that is not part of my beliefs. My beliefs, from this spiritual journey that I am on, comes from Jesus, from Ghandi, from Mother Theresa, to name a few. And from those individuals, I have learned that killing is not the answer -- throw the first stone and all of that.
We all are trying to deal with this in our own way. I am certain that your faith in Jesus, as the Son of God, gives you great comfort now. And we share some same teachings -- the turning of the other cheek, the throwing of the first stone. In this time of fear, it is easy to strike out in anger. But instead of striking out at each other, let's find those things we share in common. Let's give comfort to each other. This doesn't mean you are less of a Christian. It just means we remain civil even though we disagree in our beliefs.
akc
Posted by Krazy Kat on September 13, 2001, at 21:17:17
In reply to Re: two wrongs... » San, posted by akc on September 13, 2001, at 20:35:18
> If I had refrained from my parenthetical comment, which appears to be sarcastic, I believe my response was civil when I shared my beliefs about Jesus. I respect your beliefs, and would ask that you do the same with mine. I'll be the first to admit that I do not know everything. This does not mean I am "confused." I use to think I knew all when I blindly accepted a doctrine given to me by another. I am now on my own spiritual journey. One in which I happen to believe -- my belief, not yours -- in the greatness of certain humans who have lived in history. About these humans much is written. I also believe -- my belief, not yours -- that not every thing that is written is necessarily correct.
>
> I share this because right now there are many people in this country who are very scared. And in that fear, they are striking out in anger. My first response when everything that happened was anger. Let's get those bastards and all of that. But that is not part of my beliefs. My beliefs, from this spiritual journey that I am on, comes from Jesus, from Ghandi, from Mother Theresa, to name a few. And from those individuals, I have learned that killing is not the answer -- throw the first stone and all of that.
>
> We all are trying to deal with this in our own way. I am certain that your faith in Jesus, as the Son of God, gives you great comfort now. And we share some same teachings -- the turning of the other cheek, the throwing of the first stone. In this time of fear, it is easy to strike out in anger. But instead of striking out at each other, let's find those things we share in common. Let's give comfort to each other. This doesn't mean you are less of a Christian. It just means we remain civil even though we disagree in our beliefs.
>
> akc
Posted by San on September 13, 2001, at 21:45:45
In reply to Re: two wrongs... » San, posted by akc on September 13, 2001, at 20:35:18
> If I had refrained from my parenthetical comment, which appears to be sarcastic, I believe my response was civil when I shared my beliefs about Jesus. I respect your beliefs, and would ask that you do the same with mine. I'll be the first to admit that I do not know everything. This does not mean I am "confused." I use to think I knew all when I blindly accepted a doctrine given to me by another. I am now on my own spiritual journey. One in which I happen to believe -- my belief, not yours -- in the greatness of certain humans who have lived in history. About these humans much is written. I also believe -- my belief, not yours -- that not every thing that is written is necessarily correct.
>
> I share this because right now there are many people in this country who are very scared. And in that fear, they are striking out in anger. My first response when everything that happened was anger. Let's get those bastards and all of that. But that is not part of my beliefs. My beliefs, from this spiritual journey that I am on, comes from Jesus, from Ghandi, from Mother Theresa, to name a few. And from those individuals, I have learned that killing is not the answer -- throw the first stone and all of that.
>
> We all are trying to deal with this in our own way. I am certain that your faith in Jesus, as the Son of God, gives you great comfort now. And we share some same teachings -- the turning of the other cheek, the throwing of the first stone. In this time of fear, it is easy to strike out in anger. But instead of striking out at each other, let's find those things we share in common. Let's give comfort to each other. This doesn't mean you are less of a Christian. It just means we remain civil even though we disagree in our beliefs.
>
> akc
>akc, I do believe in your right to choose what you want to believe--but can't you also see how I find it difficult to understand how you can say that you believe in Jesus and His teaching, yet make other statements that are in opposition to those teachings.
You say you also follow the teachings of Mother Teresa. She spent her entire life trying to follow the teachings of Jesus who she worshipped . To equate her with One who she so humbled herself to, adored, and knelt in prayer to, I think would appall her. Ghandi, while he had many good teachings, never claimed to be THE Son of God/Messiah. So I can't see why you don't "cut out the middle man" and simply follow Jesus who is who He said He was/is.You also say that Jesus taught "don't cast the first stone"--true. But we didn't cast the first stone--the terrorists did.
We, in this country, at this time, turn to God, because He is the only one who can help us. We alone, cannot save ourselves.If you want to disregard my expressions of my beliefs, I wholly accept that and will argue with you no longer. In closing, you must also note that in my faith, those who do not accept Jesus and do not follow His teachings in their totality will not be accepted into Heaven when they stand before God. All I am trying to do is point you in the right direction---the rest is up to you---YOU and ONLY YOU can make that decision for yourself. I wish you luck in your spiritual journey and my only hope is that you find the truth, just as I have journeyed and found the truth. Best Regards, San
Posted by Elizabeth on September 14, 2001, at 7:13:06
In reply to Re: two wrongs..., posted by San on September 13, 2001, at 19:00:25
> Jesus was not just a compassionate man who preached goodness. He was and is the Son of God. T o wish to model your life after him while denying the existence of His Father who He is the embodiment of is like slapping Him in the face. You're confused too! San
Uhh, Dr. Bob???
Posted by Elizabeth on September 14, 2001, at 7:16:48
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by Krazy Kat on September 13, 2001, at 18:33:30
> > Dr. Bob:
>
> You've chosen to chastise those who have feelings toward one side of the fence. Nikki has said offensive things as well, as have others.
>
> I'm really upset.I looked at Nikki's posts and didn't see anything "offensive." Can you say what you're referring to? Thanks.
-elizabeth
Posted by Krazy Kat on September 14, 2001, at 9:34:08
In reply to Re: please be civil » Krazy Kat , posted by Elizabeth on September 14, 2001, at 7:16:48
So, it is like Bush said.. that "terrorism on AMERICAN soil will nto be tollerated"...
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 14, 2001, at 15:16:49
In reply to Re: two wrongs..., posted by San on September 13, 2001, at 19:00:25
> You're confused too!
I already asked you not to post anything that others could take as accusatory or to put others down, so I'm going to block you from posting for one week. It's not an automated system, so if I forget to unblock you, please remind me by email.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 14, 2001, at 15:19:53
In reply to Re: please be civil » Elizabeth, posted by Krazy Kat on September 14, 2001, at 9:34:08
> So, it is like Bush said.. that "terrorism on AMERICAN soil will nto be tollerated"...
I'm not sure I see how that's offensive, either, could you say more about how you took it? Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Krazy Kat on September 15, 2001, at 9:12:31
In reply to Re: offensive? » Krazy Kat , posted by Dr. Bob on September 14, 2001, at 15:19:53
> I took the "AMERICAN" in caps as sarcastic, as if we didn't think it mattered elsewhere, and I don't think this should be made into an American thing which is how I responded.
Sorry, I'm just looking for all sides to be represented, and it seems so heavily waited. I certainly felt in the minority, and chastised, on those days....
- K.
> So, it is like Bush said.. that "terrorism on AMERICAN soil will nto be tollerated"...
>
> I'm not sure I see how that's offensive, either, could you say more about how you took it? Thanks,
>
> Bob
Posted by JahL on September 15, 2001, at 9:33:33
In reply to Re: two wrongs..., posted by San on September 13, 2001, at 21:45:45
> In closing, you must also note that in my faith, those who do not accept Jesus and do not follow His teachings in their totality will not be accepted into Heaven when they stand before God.
Whenever I read a statement like this I feel inclined to question how pure the motives of the author are (cos it sounds like a threat). I can be a good person, showing respect & consideration for others, without deferring to a 'higher power'. Are you saying that you believe because you fear the consequences [hell] of not believing (an action Pascal's Theorem would endorse, but only for reasons of logic) and that you want a second bite of the cherry [the eternal afterlife]? How selfless would that be?
Mmmm. I can be altruistic (most of the time) w/o the old carrot (heaven) & stick (hell) routine. Just thinkin' aloud...
J.
BTW It's not the 'Heathens' (ie non-believers or 'independent thinkers') who are at each others' throats.
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 15, 2001, at 12:54:49
In reply to Re: offensive? » Dr. Bob, posted by Krazy Kat on September 15, 2001, at 9:12:31
> > > > Do you believe that England should go into Ireland and bomb the hell out of them. They have put England under the terror of attacks for the last 20 years... Infact one of their recent bombs was very close to my home.
> > > This is a different situation from Ireland... Comparing them again and again is not going to help.
> > So, it is like Bush said.. that "terrorism on AMERICAN soil will nto be tollerated"...
> I took the "AMERICAN" in caps as sarcastic, as if we didn't think it mattered elsewhere...
I think maybe she thought you *did* think that. That terrorism on English soil didn't matter, just terrorism here...
> I certainly felt in the minority, and chastised, on those days....
Sorry about that. Probably it was misunderstandings like the above. Lots of us are more emotional than usual these days, plus electronic communication isn't perfect, either...
Bob
Posted by Elizabeth on September 15, 2001, at 14:11:18
In reply to Re: two wrongs..., posted by JahL on September 15, 2001, at 9:33:33
> Are you saying that you believe because you fear the consequences [hell] of not believing (an action Pascal's Theorem would endorse, but only for reasons of logic) and that you want a second bite of the cherry [the eternal afterlife]? How selfless would that be?
It would be completely selfish, of course. I also think it's intellectually dishonest to go through the motions of practising a religion when you don't really believe in it.
(It's "Pascal's Wager," BTW. A theorem is a proven statement, generally one derived from axioms of mathematics or logic.)
> Mmmm. I can be altruistic (most of the time) w/o the old carrot (heaven) & stick (hell) routine. Just thinkin' aloud...
That's because you're a good person -- you have more laudable motivations than self-interest. I think Jesus would say you're a good person too.
BTW, it's arguable whether Jesus ever claimed to be literally the "son of God," as San seems to believe he did. Even if he did say that and knew it to be false, of course, that doesn't negate all the good things he did and said, IMO. Everybody has told a lie at some point; more broadly, we're all "sinners." That doesn't mean there aren't any good people in the world. The universe isn't black-and-white/good-and-evil, as fundamentalists of many different religions seem to believe.
> BTW It's not the 'Heathens' (ie non-believers or 'independent thinkers') who are at each others' throats.
It's interesting, isn't it? The fact that some extremist religious leaders seem to be encouraging the violence (e.g., by telling young men that if they go on a suicide mission they'll be rewarded in the afterlife) may be contributing! My understanding is that murder is considered a Very Bad Thing in most religions, so it's hard for me to see how they can possibly justify acts like this to themselves, but I guess they do somehow.
-elizabeth
Posted by akc on September 15, 2001, at 14:44:19
In reply to Re: two wrongs... » JahL, posted by Elizabeth on September 15, 2001, at 14:11:18
I wish I had a board to discuss some of the theological/religious stuff with "independent thinkers." (I love that term -- because I am far from a heathen, even if I choose not to believe in a diety.) I would post some of my ideas, but I am afraid of being put down or told there is only one way or told that I am a heathen. Exhibit A, above. I would like to post some of my questions, but I am afraid of being told there is only one answer -- again, Exhibit A, above. This morning, as the AA meeting I attend was ending with the Lord's Prayer (I live in the midwest, so god forgive them) I had a thought on the afterlife that I would have loved to discuss with others. But, again, I live in the midwest, and I just have not yet found a safe space for many of my thoughts. I have one or two friends that it does feel safer with. But I would love a bigger forum. I know this board is not it -- but both of you would be great to share such a place with.
akc
Posted by JahL on September 15, 2001, at 18:03:19
In reply to Re: two wrongs... » JahL, posted by Elizabeth on September 15, 2001, at 14:11:18
>I think Jesus would say you're a good person too.Not if he heard what I've said about his Dad. ;-)
> BTW, it's arguable whether Jesus ever claimed to be literally the "son of God,"Unlike a good friend of mine (don't do LSD kids) who was eventually fixed with antipsychotics. But they weren't around 2000 yrs ago...
J.
Posted by Krazy Kat on September 16, 2001, at 11:07:31
In reply to Re: two wrongs...JahL/Elizabeth, posted by akc on September 15, 2001, at 14:44:19
I would like this, too, akc, as long as it could be open both ways...
Posted by JahL on September 16, 2001, at 12:25:06
In reply to Re: two wrongs...JahL/Elizabeth, posted by akc on September 15, 2001, at 14:44:19
> I wish I had a board to discuss some of the theological/religious stuff with "independent thinkers." (I love that term -- because I am far from a heathen, even if I choose not to believe in a diety.) I would post some of my ideas, but I am afraid of being put down or told there is only one way or told that I am a heathen.
Noone shld be calling anyone a heathen. It's an insult (deployed by religious types who like to feel superior) & as such contravenes board rules on civility. Having said that, people are welcome to call me a heathen. Better that than the faintly embarrassing prospect of being associated with any religion.
>I live in the midwest, and I just have not yet found a safe space for many of my thoughts. I have one or two friends that it does feel safer with. But I would love a bigger forum. I know this board is not it -- but both of you would be great to share such a place with.
Thanks. Were I more even tempered & patient than I am currently, I might join you. These sort of debates are generally a frustrating affair since the cornerstone of all religions-faith-is itself impervious to logic or reason. If someone's made their mind up that black is white there's only so much I can do to convince them otherwise.
BTW I remember reading that certain Southern States had outlawed the teaching of Darwinism and had made Creationism compulsory learning. Does anyone know if this is true? Scary if it is.
J.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Social | 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.