Psycho-Babble Administration | about the operation of this site | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re: Psychology Posters - other ideas? sigismund

Posted by SLS on December 17, 2013, at 7:09:10

In reply to Re: Psychology Posters - other ideas? SLS, posted by sigismund on December 16, 2013, at 22:30:01

> >Antisemitism is not a matter of faith. It is a matter of hate.
> Could it be either or both?

It can be based upon religious doctrine and faith in that doctrine, but the the antisemitism itself is still an intense dislike for and prejudice against Jewish people. Without the hate, there is no antisemitism - there are only difference.

> Wasn't it faith for Hitler? A kind of revelation?

I don't think so.

He got pissed off for not being admitted to a Viennese art school that was predominantly Jewish. Also, he became enamored of the policies and philosophy of the mayor of Vienna, who was antisemitic. He learned antisemitism outside the church (which he never attended). I believe his hate and segregation of Jews was more racial and cultural and based upon stereotypes rather than on differences in religious doctrine. Although born into Catholicism, he found this religion not to his liking and ridiculed it. I don't know to what degree he believed in any religion. His tolerance of Christianity was probably more political than religious.

Lou Pilder is critical of the following passage to be found in the New Testament:

John 14:6

New King James Version (NKJV)

"Jesus said to him, I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."

How do you interpret this? Do you agree with Lou Pilder that Dr. Bob ought to sanction against the posting of these word? I don't. I think it should be allowed to be cited by a poster as long is not directed at people personally.

I don't fully understand Dr. Bob's feelings on this anymore, but I was under the impression that saying something like this was acceptible:

1. "I subscribe to the fundamental tenet of my religion that no one gets to heaven without accepting Jesus as the one and only savior."

As opposed to:

2. "You won't get to heaven without accepting Jesus as the one and only savior."

If you are reading this Dr. Bob, perhaps you could clarify how you now view the acceptability of statement #1. If it is not civil, how would you word the description of one's belief in the biblical passage I cited?

- Scott

Some see things as they are and ask why.
I dream of things that never were and ask why not.

- George Bernard Shaw




Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post

Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.


Start a new thread

Google www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Administration | Framed

poster:SLS thread:1055291