Psycho-Babble Administration Thread 7713

Shown: posts 110 to 134 of 194. Go back in thread:

 

clarification for Nikki Lou Pilder

Posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 20:57:11

In reply to Re: Correction to other relevant posts (5) NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 20:49:29

Nikki,
After rereading you posts, I need to clarify that I am only listing posts that I feel are relevant to the discussion here. If you think that some are offensive, that does Not mean that I consider them offensive. On the contrary, for I welcome all faiths and I am not offended by people that have other faiths than mine and their faith is not disrespectfull to me for I beleive in freedom of religion.
Lou

 

Re: clarification for Nikki Lou Pilder

Posted by NikkiT2 on October 24, 2002, at 21:02:21

In reply to clarification for Nikki Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 20:57:11

Oh, I realise that Lou... I'm just pointing out where these posts differ from yours (the one you got the pbc for), and querying why you think these posts need to be flagged.

I apologise if my wording isn't as good as it should be.. its late here!!!

Nikki

 

other relevant posts (more)

Posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 21:02:57

In reply to Correction to other relevant posts (5), posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 20:28:10

Friends,
Below are some oter relevant posts that I feel could be included in this discussion:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20020715/msgs/504.html

http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20020715/msgs/506.html
lou

 

Re: clarification for Nikki NikkiT2

Posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 21:12:36

In reply to Re: clarification for Nikki Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on October 24, 2002, at 21:02:21

NikkiT2,
The discussion is about that Dr. Bob t will accuse me of not respecting others if I post the foundational beliefe of my faith, Jewdaism, that says that I should have no other Gods before me.
It is not about the other post.
And BTW, if you bring that up tha post again, could you be accurate in your quote? It is not that... a fool beleives that there is no God, but ...a fool(IN His Heart) beleives that there is no God.
If you are accurate in your quote, I will appreciate it , for accuracy is important so that others get the corect infomation.
Lou

 

Re: clarification for Nikki Lou Pilder

Posted by NikkiT2 on October 24, 2002, at 21:20:16

In reply to Re: clarification for Nikki NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 21:12:36

How about saying "I believe that *I* should have no other gods before me". This changes teh emphasis from the reader thinking you could mean them, to being clear that this is simply about YOU.

What do you think?

Nikki

 

other relevant posts (even more)

Posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 21:20:21

In reply to other relevant posts (more), posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 21:02:57

Friends,
Below are some other posts that I feel are relevant to this discussion:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20020715/msgs/521.html

http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20020715/msgs/527.html

http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20020715/msgs/628.html
Lou

 

Re: clarification for Nikki NikkiT2

Posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 21:31:32

In reply to Re: clarification for Nikki Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on October 24, 2002, at 21:20:16

NikkiT2,
It is my understanding that you are either in the "others" that Dr. Bob is referring to or you are speaking for the " others" , but you are not on the "others"
Either way, if the "others" are those that in their heart beleive that there is no God, I am not restraining you, or the people that you may be speaking for, to say that in your heart you beleive that there is no God. You can say that and I feel it is your right to say it without you being restrained to change it in any way. I am asking that I not be restrained from telling the foundation of my faith any more than others are not being restrained from telling of their foundation of their faith.
Lou

 

Re: clarification for Nikki Lou Pilder

Posted by NikkiT2 on October 24, 2002, at 21:35:22

In reply to Re: clarification for Nikki NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 21:31:32

Lou.. this is the last for tonight as I must get to bed.

I know its OK to say I don't believe in god, but it would not be ok for me to say "A fool, in their heart, believes in god". That would be suggesting that those who do believe are fools.

Do you see the difference?

Nikki

 

Re: guidelines and exceptions

Posted by Dr. Bob on October 25, 2002, at 1:30:13

In reply to I bow rather gracelessly out...., posted by Dinah on October 24, 2002, at 11:24:07

> Lou asked if he could say "the Rider said to me, "You shall have no other Gods before me"," and Dr. Bob says that is not OK, nor would it be OK to quote any particular scripture that states that only one God or one belief should be embraced, even if there is no insult implied to anyone else who follows a different belief.

To say that one belief should be embraced is to say that others should not. Which puts down those other beliefs. I think it's more civil not to tell others what to believe.

As a general guideline. There may, however, be exceptions, depending on the context, etc.

> So is it true that you could not say "The New Testament says that you should have faith in Jesus as your Lord and Saviour" or "The Koran teaches that there is no God but God".

A discussion of what different faiths teach would be a good example of such an exception. For one thing, various points of view would be represented, so there wouldn't be any implication that any one road was the only "right" one.

> Hmm, kind of does away completely with the idea of the faith board.

I think it should be possible to discuss faith respectfully. It's worth a try, at least...

> So one couldn't quote the first commandment, even if one was an atheist?

Telling people what to do is different than telling them what to believe -- but can be tricky, too. And would depend partly on what it was that people were being told to do.

> Is it so different than someone saying "My doctor told me that no one should ever prescribe antidepressants for an anxiety disorder?" Would that be a put down to anyone who is using antidepressants for an anxiety disorder?

Another factor might be the likelihood of reaching a compromise. After discussion of evidence, etc.

> So if I were to say, "I was reading the Bible one day, and I read "I am the Lord thy God, and thou shalt have no gods before me" and I was really struck by that passage and decided to adopt that as my belief." would that or wouldn't that be allowed.
>
> If I were to say "I was reading the Bible one day and I read "I am the Lord thy God, and thou shalt have no gods before me" and I don't really believe that because I am a nature worshipper" would that or wouldn't that be allowed.

It would depend partly on the context, but would the quote really be necessary? Why not just "I was reading the Bible one day, and I was really struck by a passage and decided to have no gods before Him" or "I was reading the Bible one day and didn't really believe all of that because I am a nature worshipper"?

> After all, we are allowed to quote other literature, or tell our experiences with people other than the Rider freely.

Well, not totally freely... There was that quote from Apocalypse Now, for example...

> Could I say that my mother told me I should believe in Jesus? Would it matter whether I was saying it in a positive or negative way?

Maybe just say she taught you to believe in Jesus?

> Talk about slippery slopes, Dr. Bob. You're standing at the top of the peak with slopes to each side of you. :)

1. If there are slopes to each side, then there's balance, which is good.
2. So I don't have to climb any farther? :-)

> The very nature of faith is that if you believe in one thing (including agnosticism or atheism) that you don't believe in other things.

Yes. And it's fine to talk about what you believe -- as long as you don't put down other beliefs.

Sorry about having vacillated on this. I think the questions you and IsoM asked really helped me clarify my thinking on this, thank you. I know I'm not perfect, but I do try to be open to feedback and to do what I think will be good for this community as a whole. Thanks for your patience,

Bob

 

Re: guidelines and exceptions Dr. Bob

Posted by NikkiT2 on October 25, 2002, at 5:42:48

In reply to Re: guidelines and exceptions, posted by Dr. Bob on October 25, 2002, at 1:30:13

So... its not OK to say "You should only have one god", but it IS ok to say "I feel I should only have one god"...???

Its all soooo confusing!!!

Nikki

 

Re: guidelines and exceptions Dr. Bob

Posted by Lou Pilder on October 25, 2002, at 6:44:42

In reply to Re: guidelines and exceptions, posted by Dr. Bob on October 25, 2002, at 1:30:13

Dr. Bob,
You wrote that ["to say one beleife should be embraced is to say that others should not. Which puts down these other beliefs.] I think that it is more civil not to tell others what to believe."
Are you saying, by implication, that I said that my belief in Judaism is the one religion that should be embraced? Are you saying that I told others what to believe? If you are, please do not use these type of tactics . They are uncivil for you are implying that what I said means that and I consider that for you to be jumping to a conclusion which is uncivil just as you have in the past accused others of here. I never said that, and there is no implication for you to see here any more than if I, or anyone else here, wanted to say, my God said, "You shall not commit any murder." Or, you shall love your neighbor as yourself."
I wrote that I wanted to tell of my experiance where the Rider, who is the Word of God in my experiance , said to me, "You shall have no other Gods before me." Please be accurate, for I never said what you are saying that I said, anymore than the Christian person said that they believe in the father , the son, and the holy ghost and that she is Catholic would mean that there is an implication that others should be Catholic.
Are you sayig that if I post the post in discussion here that you will accuse me of putting down Christian people or athiests, or poytheists or other religions?
If so, could you give me your descriminating rational for not accusing the poster that said [that Jesus became our salvation to All Those That Believe]? There is an implication here that you must believe to be saved, and that you must believe in Jesus to be saved also.And that you also Must Obey Jesus to be saved. This pharse has been used for almost 2000 years to arrouse bad feelings to the jews and others that do not beleive that you must obey the Christiandom's Jesus, throughout the world, for the implication is obvious here that obediance to Jesus is a requirrment for salvation and Jews do not include the Jesus of Christiandom to be requirered to obey in relation to their salvation. That is the plainly visible implication which obviously puts down all other religions that do not obey Jesus. If there is a post on this board that implies that you must be a particular religion, I would say that a reasonable man would think that it is this statement by the Christian person and not a statement that the Jewish poster's God told them not to have other Gods Before Him. I never said that other's salvation was connected with that. The Christian poster did imply that. Are you saying that you have a descrimintory rational that defines the Christian poster's "imply" as different from other "implys"? If you do, could you clarify that rational for me? If you could, then I could have a better understanding of your descrimintory rational and be better able to post here to accomodate your rational.
I am not ashamed to want to have equal opportunity to post here, and I am asking you to clarify the difference between the Christiandom's people's posts and my post that I want to post in the future . Their posts tell of their foundation to obey Jesus for salvation. You did not restrain that post. I never even implied such a thing when I wanted to post the foundation of my Jewish faith , to me,which is that I shall not have other Gods before Him. Yet you are going to restrain me to post that and accuse me of disrespecting others and not restrain the Christiandom people here from writing that Jesus became our salvation to all those that Obey Him?
Could you clarify what your rational is for that so that I can better undestand the implication that you are promulgating here? If you could, then I could better understand how Christian posters can post their foundation of their faith, that is to obey Jesus, and why I can not tell of the foundation of my Jewish faith without being accused of disrespect to others and not being accused by you of putting down others because I post the foundation of Judaism and the Christian foundation of their religon is not restrained or accused by you of putting down others or disrespect to others?
Lou Pilder

 

Re: guidelines and exceptions NikkiT2

Posted by Lou Pilder on October 25, 2002, at 7:05:44

In reply to Re: guidelines and exceptions Dr. Bob, posted by NikkiT2 on October 25, 2002, at 5:42:48

Nikki,
Thank you for your continued interest in this discussion.
As to what is OK here or not OK is relevant to this discussion andI appreciate your concern, for that is why I am asking for clarification from the administration here.
Nikki, cold I ak you to give your feelings about whether a post would be OK or not OK to you? If you could give me your thoughts about it, I would appreciate it for I beleve that you are guenuionally interested in this discussion and I welcomethat.
The question is, would you consider the following post OK or not OK and why?:
...and God said to Adam and Eve that if you eat of the fruit of the tree of he knowledge of good and evil you shall die...
Also, ...you must pay taxes...
Lou

 

Re: guidelines and exceptions

Posted by NikkiT2 on October 25, 2002, at 7:39:16

In reply to Re: guidelines and exceptions NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on October 25, 2002, at 7:05:44

Hi Lou,

Yes, i am very intersted in this.. its got my mind working for the first time in ages!!! And, though I may not believe in god, I do have a theological interest in many religions.

In my, humble, opinion, the line you posted is OK by me. It does not say that *I* will die if I eat the forbidden fruit, just that Adam and Eve would. It doesn't imply that I should, or must, do something to be a better person. If it said "...and God said to YOU that if YOU eat of the fruit of the tree of he knowledge of good and evil YOU shall die..." I wouldn't be comfortable with it, but the original clearly states that god is talking to a specific person.

I hope I making sense...

Nikki

 

Re: guidelines and exceptions NikkiT2

Posted by Lou Pilder on October 25, 2002, at 7:59:45

In reply to Re: guidelines and exceptions, posted by NikkiT2 on October 25, 2002, at 7:39:16

Nikki,
Thank you for your insight that you have given us reletive to your understnding of this discussion.
Then would you also say that if I said that the Rider said to ME, "you shall have no other Gods before me", would you consider that OK or not OK?
Also, you say that you maynot beleive in God. Are you saying that you do not beleive, or [you do not beleive in your heart that ther is no God?]
I am aking you becausethere is a great diference to me in the two phrases and I could better communicate with you if I knew which one you mean.
Lou

 

Re: guidelines and exceptions

Posted by NikkiT2 on October 25, 2002, at 8:09:02

In reply to Re: guidelines and exceptions NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on October 25, 2002, at 7:59:45

As long as you made it very clear the rider was talking to you, and you alone, I think it should be OK.. but thats hard to say. It does make it sound like you are preaching somewhat that others should also only follow one god, but with the other comments that have been allowed to pass, I think you should be allowed to say this.

As to my beliefs... well, I don;t think I believe in god at all.. I believe in Jesus and I believe in a powerful entity, but I don't believe in one person or creation etc. So I gues sits not just in my heart that I don't believe, but in my head also.

hope thats cleared that up!!

This is very difficult, to find the right balance between saying what you believe, and sounding like you believe everyone should follow your chosen path.

nikki

 

Re: guidelines and exceptions Dr. Bob

Posted by Lou Pilder on October 25, 2002, at 8:20:19

In reply to Re: guidelines and exceptions, posted by Dr. Bob on October 25, 2002, at 1:30:13

Are you telling me that you will deem what is [necessary] in my statement that my God says to ME that I should have no other Gods before me? I am asking you to clarify you rational that allows Christians to say that Jesus became their salvation to those that [obey Him] and why they are not told that it is not necessary to say the obey Him part, yet are you saying that it is not necessary for a Jew to say that their God says that they shall have no other Gods before them?
If you could clarify this, then I could have abetter understanding of your ratonal here and then determine if that rational is arbitrary or caprecious or descriminatory and reply accordingly.
Lou

 

Re: guidelines and exceptions NikkiT2

Posted by Lou Pilder on October 25, 2002, at 8:33:00

In reply to Re: guidelines and exceptions, posted by NikkiT2 on October 25, 2002, at 8:09:02

Nikki,
Thank you for your support for it is plainly visible to me that myself and the other posters are not telling others that they have to believe in their God. It is plainly visible that the Rider spoke to me and the people in my group, not to the people on this board for it has already been declared that I am recounting MY experiance only and I am not telling anyone in anyway anything otherwise. And niether are the Christians and the Zen and the Greek mythology people. They just say that it s what they beleive, and so am I saying that it is what I believe. The Christian that says she believes in the father , the son and the holy ghost is what her faith is founded on. My faith is founded on that I sould have one God and no others before him. To allow the Christians and not me to say the foundation of our religion is the topic of discussion her. Do you beleive that the Christians can say on this board that [Jesus became their salvation for all those that Obey Him] and I can [not] say that my God says that I shall obey him in respect to not having other Gods befor Him? If so, could you clarify your rational ?
Lou

 

Re: guidelines and exceptions Dr. Bob

Posted by Lou Pilder on October 25, 2002, at 8:49:50

In reply to Re: guidelines and exceptions, posted by Dr. Bob on October 25, 2002, at 1:30:13

Dr. Bob,
You citedthe quote from the Movie Apokolypse Now as being not being able to be said.
It is my understanding that it was not that the quote could not be said that was the topic of the discussion, but that the [source] of the quote was not given and that was the concern.
Could you clarify if you are saying that
1)the quote could not be made
or
2) the source of the quote was to be given in order to identify it for discussion?
Lou Pilder

 

Re: guidelines and exceptions

Posted by NikkiT2 on October 25, 2002, at 9:27:39

In reply to Re: guidelines and exceptions NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on October 25, 2002, at 8:33:00

Lou,

I think you have to treat us all as idiots, and make it clear in EACH post that it is not a general you, but you as in Lou that the rider is talking to.

Remember we have newbies join here all the time and they may not know all the history to your posts.

Maybe using wording such as "and the rider said "Lou, you shall have no other god etc""...

I really don't think any of this is anti-semetic, or against you per se.

Nikki

 

Re: guidelines and exceptions

Posted by Dr. Bob on October 25, 2002, at 11:20:32

In reply to Re: guidelines and exceptions NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on October 25, 2002, at 8:33:00

> So... its not OK to say "You should only have one god", but it IS ok to say "I feel I should only have one god"...???

That's the idea, yes.

> Its all soooo confusing!!!

> This is very difficult, to find the right balance between saying what you believe, and sounding like you believe everyone should follow your chosen path.
>
> nikki

You're not confused at all, you've seen the crux of the issue. :-)

> The Christian that says she believes in the father , the son and the holy ghost is what her faith is founded on. My faith is founded on that I sould have one God and no others before him.
>
> Lou

1. In general, these would be OK:

I feel I should believe in the father, the son, and the holy ghost.
I feel I should have one God and no others before him.

I believe in the father, the son, and the holy ghost.
I have one God and no others before him.

People of my faith believe in the father, the son, and the holy ghost.
People of my faith have one God and no others before him.

And these wouldn't:

People should believe in the father, the son, and the holy ghost.
People should have one God and no others before him.

My faith says people should believe in the father, the son, and the holy ghost.
My faith says people should have one God and no others before him.

My faith says I should believe in the father, the son, and the holy ghost.
My faith says I should have one God and no others before him.

2. A primary goal of this site is to be supportive. If the foundation of a faith puts down those of other faiths, it's not in my view supportive, so as a general rule, I'd rather it were discussed elsewhere.

Bob

 

Re: guidelines and exceptions Dr. Bob

Posted by Dinah on October 25, 2002, at 11:29:30

In reply to Re: guidelines and exceptions, posted by Dr. Bob on October 25, 2002, at 11:20:32

Thanks, Dr. Bob.

That's the sort of clarity (complete with examples) that makes posting a lot easier.

Dinah

 

Re: discussion on a internet board

Posted by Dr. Bob on October 25, 2002, at 11:32:30

In reply to Re: I bow rather GRACEFULLY out.... Dinah, posted by IsoM on October 24, 2002, at 12:35:47

> Exactly why I said that a person's beliefs (or lack of beliefs) aren't discussed easily on a internet board. It soon ends up enbroiled in a mess. It'll either degenerate into a free-for-all, with poster attacking poster for what the other will consider "hogwash", or like here, so many rules & restrictions that what one sis trying to say becomes watered down.

I agree that it's not easy, but I don't think it's impossible. There may not be face-to-face feedback, but it may be possible to compensate for that by explicitly asking for feedback in words. "Was that clear?" "Did you feel put down by that?" Etc.

Watering things down has negative connotations, but sometimes people prefer them that way, for example:

http://www.webtender.com/db/drink/787

:-)

Bob

 

Re: discussion on a internet board Dr. Bob

Posted by Dr.Eamerz on October 25, 2002, at 12:09:13

In reply to Re: discussion on a internet board, posted by Dr. Bob on October 25, 2002, at 11:32:30


Hey Bob...that got a craving in the pit of my stomache but I'm firmly strapped to the wagon . Can't understand why anyone would spoil a Scotch by adding water and ice.

Resume Administration....

 

Re: guidelines and exceptions Dr. Bob

Posted by Lou Pilder on October 25, 2002, at 13:21:56

In reply to Re: guidelines and exceptions, posted by Dr. Bob on October 25, 2002, at 11:20:32

Dr. bob,
Are you saying that by me posting that my God told me tthat I should have no other Gods before Him, that I would be putting others down?
If so, could you clarify how, if possible, the statement by another poster:
[Jesus became our salvation to those that obey him]
as to why that statement is not restrained, and I will be restrained from posting the post of mine in question here?
I have examined your post about what is and what is not OK and I am asking you to clarify this question for I did not see a clear rational in your list that gives the other's post acceptance, and that you will restrain my post.
If you could give me your rational for the one being OK and the other not Ok, then I can examine it and see if your answer is acceptable in regards to it establishing two different standards for the acceptance of one and restraining the other.
Lou Pilder

 

Re: guidelines and exceptions Dr. Bob

Posted by Lou Pilder on October 25, 2002, at 14:40:03

In reply to Re: guidelines and exceptions, posted by Dr. Bob on October 25, 2002, at 11:20:32

Dr. Bob,
You wrote that the primary goal of this site is to be supportive.
Are you saying that if I post that my God told me that I shall have no other Gods before me that you would deem that post to be (not) supportive? It is my understanding that the faith board was established by you to share what worked for us reletive to our faith. A reasonable person could conclude that you mean that they could tell of their experiance(es) with their faith that worked for them and that there could be the potential for their experiance that they are sharing to help others, which , to me, means support.
Then the other question I would have, if you are going to say that the post in question of mine here would be not-supportive, is then what is your rational for saying that the poster that said[Jesus became our salvation for those that Obey Him] would be supportive and my post not supportive? Or, better, what is your rational for being supportive? Is it that someone writes that they were able to sleep better for example after reading someone's post, or something like that? Or is it defined by the object associated with the word "support". To use the word "support", in my limited english language knowlege, means to me that something has to be supportED. To carry this to its logical path, are you saying that someone is non-supportive if they do not accept the post that Jesus became our salvation to those that Obey Him? I would like for you to clarify this so that I can have a better understanding of your rational that you use to determine if a post is suppotive or non-supportive so that I can post better to accomodate your rational. If you could clarify why one is supportive and the other will be non-supportive, then I could review your rational and determine if it arbitrary, or caprecious, or descriminatory and if so, we could have further discussion about your rational. As of now, it appears to me that the post that says that Jesus became our salvation to those that obey Him is glaringly opposit to your principle of "support". For it has been your past-practice, as I have seen it, that this post about Jesus is disrespectfull to others because of the implication that the word "obey" is connected to Jesus and Jesus is stated to be "our salvation" and it could be easily construed to have the potential for a reasonable man, to think that they are being put down because they do not obey, or even believe in Jesus. I feel that there is much more potential for someone to feel disrepected after reading that post than if they read the post that I want to post.
Now I do not feel disrespected by the poster posting that her Jesus became her salvation for those that Obey Him. I kind of like that. For she is saying that her faith is good for her and thearfore has the potential for others to go out and find out about her Jesus and be saved by Obeying Him as she wrote. That would be wonderfulll and I would hope that others find the kind of help that she has had in her faith. I wish that evrybodty could have a wonderfull faith like she is desribing. I find no fault with Jesus. I am not telling others to be jewish, I am only telling my experiance here because since it worked for me, it has the potential to work for others. But others might not like to hear that. They could be easily offended. But isn't that the primary goal of the faith board, to tell of their faith so that others will have the potential to have what worked for them be shared, without the condemnation that if another believes something else that the teller of the faith experiance will be deemed by you to be disrespectfull?
Lou Pilder


Go forward in 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.