Psycho-Babble Administration Thread 1070482

Shown: posts 72 to 96 of 96. Go back in thread:

 

Re: Lou's reply-turowdz

Posted by pontormo on September 16, 2014, at 11:28:00

In reply to Lou's reply-turowdz Phillipa, posted by Lou Pilder on September 16, 2014, at 6:35:49

Lou--

I said, that all people die, ie perish.

Then you said that not all die.

The common meaning of "die" refers to a death of the physical aspect of a person, which, might be identified with the person's spirit or not.

We all know what this meaning is.

So clearly I asked if you believed that you would die physically or not.

You said, no, you would not die physically.

Could you answer whether or not you'll die physically as everyone else does?

 

Lou's reply-treovlyph pontormo

Posted by Lou Pilder on September 16, 2014, at 16:47:26

In reply to Re: Lou's reply-turowdz, posted by pontormo on September 16, 2014, at 11:28:00

> Lou--
>
> I said, that all people die, ie perish.
>
> Then you said that not all die.
>
> The common meaning of "die" refers to a death of the physical aspect of a person, which, might be identified with the person's spirit or not.
>
> We all know what this meaning is.
>
> So clearly I asked if you believed that you would die physically or not.
>
> You said, no, you would not die physically.
>
> Could you answer whether or not you'll die physically as everyone else does?
>
> pontormo,
I am not claiming that my physical body will never die and return to the dust in the ground.
But death has been revealed to me to be an enemy. And death could be victorious or defeated.
You may already know that I have been writing here about two minds. One mind is the mind that you are born with, the flesh mind, the natural mind, the carnal mind. There is another mind that can be imputed into you from above, the spiritual mind. It has been revealed to me that to be carnally minded is death. And to be spiritually minded is life and peace. The spiritual mind has the victory over death and there is no sting in death to those that are spiritually minded. Death is defeated even though the carnal body dies. And then a spiritual body takes over the spiritual mind, in the spiritual realm. It has been revealed to me that there is no sting of death in those who die in the spiritually minded state, and have overcome the carnal mind. The grave has no victory over those and there is no sting of death and they are restored to eternal life as it was intended in the beginning, before the Great Deception caused death to come to all. This deception is still being promulgated in the world inducing death and keeping people from overcoming the carnal mind, the world and the deceiver.
And when I had an encounter with a Rider on a white horse, He said to me, "These things have I spoken to you, that in me you might have peace. In the world you shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world. For whatsoever is born of God overcomes the world. And he that overcomes, will I give to eat of The Tree of Life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God"
Lou

 

Re: Lou's reply-treovlyph Lou Pilder

Posted by SLS on September 16, 2014, at 21:36:47

In reply to Lou's reply-treovlyph pontormo, posted by Lou Pilder on September 16, 2014, at 16:47:26

Hi Lou.

> And when I had an encounter with a Rider on a white horse, He said to me, "These things have I spoken to you, that in me you might have peace. In the world you shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world. For whatsoever is born of God overcomes the world. And he that overcomes, will I give to eat of The Tree of Life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God"

I don't have the same spiritual belief system that you do.

I respect you.

I am tolerant of our differences.

I enjoy our similarities.

I acknowledge that there are opposing religious dogmas to reconcile if I am going to participate on the Faith board in a way that allows me to support myself and others.

I often encounter people whose passions run high when discussing religion. I try to be patient and strive to be tolerant of these passions while recognizing my own.

It occurs from time to time that someone will post something on the Faith board that I find challenging. Some things offend me. Some things scare me. However, I have concluded that it is best if the Faith board not become a battlefield. There is an abundance of Internet forums that serve as sites to wage war more efficiently.

A subset of readers could come to the conclusion that your writings along this thread suggest that Christians and non-believers of the Rider will be excluded from Eternal Life in Paradise.

I am tolerant of your expressing your beliefs, even though your posts could arouse antichristianism. Do you think I should petition Dr. Bob to sanction them, anyway?

I prefer to let your posts stand. They don't seem to attack anyone personally. Nor do they attack any named religions, even though your beliefs could be seen as being exclusionist.

We probably agree that there are very real dangers to be found in prejudice and institutionalized hate. Why have you chosen Psycho-Babble to be a battlefield?


- Scott

 

Lou's reply-tehykehywhey SLS

Posted by Lou Pilder on September 17, 2014, at 7:39:10

In reply to Re: Lou's reply-treovlyph Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on September 16, 2014, at 21:36:47

> Hi Lou.
>
> > And when I had an encounter with a Rider on a white horse, He said to me, "These things have I spoken to you, that in me you might have peace. In the world you shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world. For whatsoever is born of God overcomes the world. And he that overcomes, will I give to eat of The Tree of Life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God"
>
> I don't have the same spiritual belief system that you do.
>
> I respect you.
>
> I am tolerant of our differences.
>
> I enjoy our similarities.
>
> I acknowledge that there are opposing religious dogmas to reconcile if I am going to participate on the Faith board in a way that allows me to support myself and others.
>
> I often encounter people whose passions run high when discussing religion. I try to be patient and strive to be tolerant of these passions while recognizing my own.
>
> It occurs from time to time that someone will post something on the Faith board that I find challenging. Some things offend me. Some things scare me. However, I have concluded that it is best if the Faith board not become a battlefield. There is an abundance of Internet forums that serve as sites to wage war more efficiently.
>
> A subset of readers could come to the conclusion that your writings along this thread suggest that Christians and non-believers of the Rider will be excluded from Eternal Life in Paradise.
>
> I am tolerant of your expressing your beliefs, even though your posts could arouse antichristianism. Do you think I should petition Dr. Bob to sanction them, anyway?
>
> I prefer to let your posts stand. They don't seem to attack anyone personally. Nor do they attack any named religions, even though your beliefs could be seen as being exclusionist.
>
> We probably agree that there are very real dangers to be found in prejudice and institutionalized hate. Why have you chosen Psycho-Babble to be a battlefield?
>
>
> - Scott
Scott,
You wrote,[...I am tolerant of your expressing your beliefs even though your posts could arouse antichristianism ...].
I am unsure as to what your criteria are that allows you to state that what I have written here could arouse antichristianism. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
A. What is your rational basis, if any, for stating that my posts here could arouse antichristianism?
B. Which post, if any, substantiates your claim, if you post something here to do so.
Lou

 

Re: Lou's reply-tehykehywhey Lou Pilder

Posted by SLS on September 17, 2014, at 8:24:58

In reply to Lou's reply-tehykehywhey SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on September 17, 2014, at 7:39:10

> A. What is your rational basis, if any, for stating that my posts here could arouse antichristianism?

What is your rational basis, if any, for stating that there are posts existing in the archives that could arouse antisemitism?

> B. Which post, if any, substantiates your claim, if you post something here to do so.

If one were to examine the sum of all of your posts along this thread, they would see in your statements the suggestion that one will not reach Paradise nor receive Eternal Life unless they believe in both the god of the Jews and the Rider that you speak of. Christians do not believe in the god of the Jews. They believe in the Trinity. They also do not believe that it be necessary to believe in some Rider in order to reverse their direction down the Road you describe and turn towards the god that will guarantee that they not perish.

It seems to me that if you were to evaluate your words here as you have evaluated the words to be found in the posts of others that quote the verse contained in the book of John 14:6 of the New Testament, you must conclude that your writings could arouse antichristianism.

You have done here to others that which you decry others have done to you.

You now see how difficult it is to state one's beliefs without potentially offending or upsetting others. You have argued that stating the exclusionist principles of one's religion necessarily puts-down all other religions. That is exactly what you have done here.

Perhaps it is time for you to let go of your crusade to sanction those posts in the archives that you argue have the potential to arouse antisemitism. Your posts here have no less potential to arouse antchristianism.


- Scott

 

Lou's reply-triune? SLS

Posted by Lou Pilder on September 17, 2014, at 8:38:37

In reply to Re: Lou's reply-tehykehywhey Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on September 17, 2014, at 8:24:58

> > A. What is your rational basis, if any, for stating that my posts here could arouse antichristianism?
>
> What is your rational basis, if any, for stating that there are posts existing in the archives that could arouse antisemitism?
>
> > B. Which post, if any, substantiates your claim, if you post something here to do so.
>
> If one were to examine the sum of all of your posts along this thread, they would see in your statements the suggestion that one will not reach Paradise nor receive Eternal Life unless they believe in both the god of the Jews and the Rider that you speak of. Christians do not believe in the god of the Jews. They believe in the Trinity. They also do not believe that it be necessary to believe in some Rider in order to reverse their direction down the Road you describe and turn towards the god that will guarantee that they not perish.
>
> It seems to me that if you were to evaluate your words here as you have evaluated the words to be found in the posts of others that quote the verse contained in the book of John 14:6 of the New Testament, you must conclude that your writings could arouse antichristianism.
>
> You have done here to others that which you decry others have done to you.
>
> You now see how difficult it is to state one's beliefs without potentially offending or upsetting others. You have argued that stating the exclusionist principles of one's religion necessarily puts-down all other religions. That is exactly what you have done here.
>
> Perhaps it is time for you to let go of your crusade to sanction those posts in the archives that you argue have the potential to arouse antisemitism. Your posts here have no less potential to arouse antchristianism.
>
>
> - Scott

Scott,
You wrote,[..Christians do not believe in the god of the Jews...(the God that Jews give service and worship to)..].
By what basis do you make that claim? (be advised that not all Christians believe in the trinity)
Lou

 

Re: Lou's reply-triune?

Posted by pontormo on September 17, 2014, at 11:36:52

In reply to Lou's reply-triune? SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on September 17, 2014, at 8:38:37

The great preponderance of Christian sects DO believe in the trinity. The list of non-trinitiarians is mostly small and rather eccentric Christian groups. The modern groups include:

Latter Day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarians, Christadelphians, Cooneyites, Oneness Pentacostals, Swedenborgians, and some forms of Quakerism.

Most of these groups give some special being to Christ, although not the precise one developed by mainstream Chrisians.

The answer that not all Christians are trinitarians doesn't really dispose of Scott's question, since such a huge part of the world'religions do not accept the Jewish God, incluing of course, Buddhism, Jainism, Muslims, Shintoism, Confucianism, Hinduism and Sikhism.

I think you do owe Scott a searching answer, though, because I too had the question that he posed when I read your response.

Mustn't it be live and let live on the faith page by necessity? Each group has its own way of becoming one of the elect that necessarily excludes members of other faiths. Except in the case of extreme and offensive exclusion of the right of other religions to exist, and clear insult to another religion, religionists must really accept and embrace this discontinuity between their beliefs and those of other religions.

And occasionally these exclusive beliefs will momentarily surface. It defeats the purpose of the faith board to pursue people for mentioning this fact, if it is done respectfully and in pursuit of some personal understanding.

I don't see how it could be otherwise.

If it's done in hindrance or attack of other religions, then it's a different matter.

 

Scott's reply - mirrors Lou Pilder

Posted by SLS on September 17, 2014, at 12:14:05

In reply to Lou's reply-triune? SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on September 17, 2014, at 8:38:37

> You wrote,[..Christians do not believe in the god of the Jews...(the God that Jews give service and worship to)..]. By what basis do you make that claim?

I don't think that it is supportive for me to enter into a lengthy discussion of religion here. There are varying beliefs as to the interchangeability of gods.

> (be advised that not all Christians believe in the trinity)

How does that change anything for those who do?

1. Be advised that not all Jews believe in God.

2. Be advised that few, if any, religions or philosophies outside of the Abrahamic (Judeo-Christian-Islam) tradition believe in the god of the Jews.

3. Be advised that few, if any, people believe in the Rider that you speak of.

4. Be advised that many people are atheist.

Your stated beliefs exclude the above enumerated peoples from entering Paradise and receiving Eternal Life.

There could be many subsets of people who would renounce their current faiths in order to adopt yours. This could arouse hatred and incite violence by these people towards those who refuse to convert to your faith.

In order for you to retain your fidelity to a doctrine that would have the moderator of these forums sanction those posts on the Faith board that describe the tenets of an exclusionist religion, you must also petition the moderator to sanction your own.

I hope that you now see the equivalence of your posts along this thread to those you cite in the archives of the Faith forum as having the potential to arouse hate and incite violence because they describe the tenets of an exlusionist religion.

Do you still feel that your crusade is supportive?


- Scott

 

Lou's reply-huzonphurst pontormo

Posted by Lou Pilder on September 17, 2014, at 15:29:16

In reply to Re: Lou's reply-triune?, posted by pontormo on September 17, 2014, at 11:36:52

> The great preponderance of Christian sects DO believe in the trinity. The list of non-trinitiarians is mostly small and rather eccentric Christian groups. The modern groups include:
>
> Latter Day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarians, Christadelphians, Cooneyites, Oneness Pentacostals, Swedenborgians, and some forms of Quakerism.
>
> Most of these groups give some special being to Christ, although not the precise one developed by mainstream Chrisians.
>
> The answer that not all Christians are trinitarians doesn't really dispose of Scott's question, since such a huge part of the world'religions do not accept the Jewish God, incluing of course, Buddhism, Jainism, Muslims, Shintoism, Confucianism, Hinduism and Sikhism.
>
> I think you do owe Scott a searching answer, though, because I too had the question that he posed when I read your response.
>
> Mustn't it be live and let live on the faith page by necessity? Each group has its own way of becoming one of the elect that necessarily excludes members of other faiths. Except in the case of extreme and offensive exclusion of the right of other religions to exist, and clear insult to another religion, religionists must really accept and embrace this discontinuity between their beliefs and those of other religions.
>
> And occasionally these exclusive beliefs will momentarily surface. It defeats the purpose of the faith board to pursue people for mentioning this fact, if it is done respectfully and in pursuit of some personal understanding.
>
> I don't see how it could be otherwise.
>
> If it's done in hindrance or attack of other religions, then it's a different matter.

pontormo,
Why did you include in your list of religions that do not accept the Jewish God ( the God that the Jews give service and worship to), Muslims?
Lou

 

Re: Lou's reply-huzonphurst Lou Pilder

Posted by Phillipa on September 17, 2014, at 18:44:02

In reply to Lou's reply-huzonphurst pontormo, posted by Lou Pilder on September 17, 2014, at 15:29:16

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim

 

Re: Lou's reply-huzonphurst Lou Pilder

Posted by pontormo on September 17, 2014, at 19:59:22

In reply to Lou's reply-huzonphurst pontormo, posted by Lou Pilder on September 17, 2014, at 15:29:16

The exact list doesn't matter.

The point of my post was to wonder how you considered Scott's question.

What I was getting at is that this question had also occurred to me when I read the post that Scott was responding to.

 

Lou's reply-vurazzetee pontormo

Posted by Lou Pilder on September 18, 2014, at 11:26:28

In reply to Re: Lou's reply-huzonphurst Lou Pilder, posted by pontormo on September 17, 2014, at 19:59:22

> The exact list doesn't matter.
>
> The point of my post was to wonder how you considered Scott's question.
>
> What I was getting at is that this question had also occurred to me when I read the post that Scott was responding to.
> pontormo,
You wrote that the exact list does not matter. I am unsure as to what you want to mean by that. If you could post answers to the following, then I could respond accordingly.
True or false:
A. I do not know why you asked me, Lou, as to why I included Muslims in the list.
B. If I was to post here why I included Muslims in the list, Lou, then you could make a challenge to as if I told the truth or not by including Muslims in the list.
C. If I was to answer you, Lou, then a subset of readers could think that I was trying to mislead readers. They could have a rational basis to think that because they could understand that Muslims do not belong in that list.
Lou
>

 

Re: Lou's reply-are you avoiding the question?

Posted by pontormo on September 18, 2014, at 14:00:24

In reply to Lou's reply-vurazzetee pontormo, posted by Lou Pilder on September 18, 2014, at 11:26:28

Hey Lou,

You forgot to suggest the following:

5. because I was hoping that you, Lou, would answer the important question posed by Scott.

That's really all 'm trying to ask you to do.

thanks,

 

Lou's reply-eevehy pontormo

Posted by Lou Pilder on September 18, 2014, at 14:26:48

In reply to Re: Lou's reply-are you avoiding the question?, posted by pontormo on September 18, 2014, at 14:00:24

> Hey Lou,
>
> You forgot to suggest the following:
>
> 5. because I was hoping that you, Lou, would answer the important question posed by Scott.
>
> That's really all 'm trying to ask you to do.
>
> thanks,

pontormo,
I had asked Scott a question and then he asked me a question. I am waiting for Scott to answer my question before I answer his. This is my policy because it is my understanding that when someone asks a question and then the person that the question is directed to asks the questioner a question without answering the question posed to them, that by doing that constitutes the generally accepted meaning of evasion and I would rather wait for my original question to be answered so that I do not give the opportunity for the discussion go astray for it may be that I need his answer to my question in order to precisely respond to his question to me.
Now if you want to post here what Scott's question was to me, I will take a look at it and I might discuss it with you.
Lou

 

Re: Lou's reply-eevehy

Posted by pontormo on September 18, 2014, at 16:28:39

In reply to Lou's reply-eevehy pontormo, posted by Lou Pilder on September 18, 2014, at 14:26:48

I believe that Scott focused on a post in which you suggested that unless one repented, one would perish. You explained that unless one returned to the God that you served, which is the Jewish God, they would perish, because the wrath of God is so great that only those who return to him will not perish.

Scott had felt that this was parallel and similar to the statement in the old post that you want to have sanctioned, which states that unless people return to God through Jesus, they will not reach the Kingdom of Heaven.

I too had wondered about this similarity, although I had pointed out that it is inevitable that all religions will have some such exclusionary belief that their God and their way of reaching god (ie their religion) is necessary for reaching Heaven, or eternal life, etc.

Scott asked if you also saw the similarity between your statement and the older statement that you wanted Bob to sanction.

I was hoping you could pursue your thinking on that question: is your statement similar to the statement that you want sanctioned?

 

Lou's reply-what-different-faiths-teach pontormo

Posted by Lou Pilder on September 18, 2014, at 18:36:20

In reply to Re: Lou's reply-eevehy, posted by pontormo on September 18, 2014, at 16:28:39

> I believe that Scott focused on a post in which you suggested that unless one repented, one would perish. You explained that unless one returned to the God that you served, which is the Jewish God, they would perish, because the wrath of God is so great that only those who return to him will not perish.
>
> Scott had felt that this was parallel and similar to the statement in the old post that you want to have sanctioned, which states that unless people return to God through Jesus, they will not reach the Kingdom of Heaven.
>
> I too had wondered about this similarity, although I had pointed out that it is inevitable that all religions will have some such exclusionary belief that their God and their way of reaching god (ie their religion) is necessary for reaching Heaven, or eternal life, etc.
>
> Scott asked if you also saw the similarity between your statement and the older statement that you wanted Bob to sanction.
>
> I was hoping you could pursue your thinking on that question: is your statement similar to the statement that you want sanctioned?

pontormo,
The question here is of as if statements posted here are allowed or not {according to Mr. Hsiung's TOS}. There are some in question that I want sanctioned that are allowed to be seen as civil and supportive where they are originally posted. There are posts by me that Scott and maybe others think fall into the same category that are allowed to stand.
The question here is; {what say the rules?}.
Mr. Hsiung has addressed this many years ago. It comes in different parts as the statement being examined as to see if it passes the muster for being allowed to stand.
The first part is to examine the statement and see if it is not in accordance with the TOS/FAQ in relation to the stated part concerning what Mr. Hsiung means by being civil. If it is not, then we go to the exceptions.
One exception is to be allowed to post {what different faiths teach}. That is a very broad area open for members to post about. It is also so broad, that there needs to be some restrictions. And what is meant by what different faiths teach could be what the doctrines of those faiths purport as put forth by their scriptures and even the interpretation of those by the denomination leaders. We will see those restrictions and examples next.
Lou

 

Lou's reply-ISO vs Pilder

Posted by Lou Pilder on September 18, 2014, at 19:38:15

In reply to Lou's reply-what-different-faiths-teach pontormo, posted by Lou Pilder on September 18, 2014, at 18:36:20

> > I believe that Scott focused on a post in which you suggested that unless one repented, one would perish. You explained that unless one returned to the God that you served, which is the Jewish God, they would perish, because the wrath of God is so great that only those who return to him will not perish.
> >
> > Scott had felt that this was parallel and similar to the statement in the old post that you want to have sanctioned, which states that unless people return to God through Jesus, they will not reach the Kingdom of Heaven.
> >
> > I too had wondered about this similarity, although I had pointed out that it is inevitable that all religions will have some such exclusionary belief that their God and their way of reaching god (ie their religion) is necessary for reaching Heaven, or eternal life, etc.
> >
> > Scott asked if you also saw the similarity between your statement and the older statement that you wanted Bob to sanction.
> >
> > I was hoping you could pursue your thinking on that question: is your statement similar to the statement that you want sanctioned?
>
> pontormo,
> The question here is of as if statements posted here are allowed or not {according to Mr. Hsiung's TOS}. There are some in question that I want sanctioned that are allowed to be seen as civil and supportive where they are originally posted. There are posts by me that Scott and maybe others think fall into the same category that are allowed to stand.
> The question here is; {what say the rules?}.
> Mr. Hsiung has addressed this many years ago. It comes in different parts as the statement being examined as to see if it passes the muster for being allowed to stand.
> The first part is to examine the statement and see if it is not in accordance with the TOS/FAQ in relation to the stated part concerning what Mr. Hsiung means by being civil. If it is not, then we go to the exceptions.
> One exception is to be allowed to post {what different faiths teach}. That is a very broad area open for members to post about. It is also so broad, that there needs to be some restrictions. And what is meant by what different faiths teach could be what the doctrines of those faiths purport as put forth by their scriptures and even the interpretation of those by the denomination leaders. We will see those restrictions and examples next.
> Lou

Friend,
There are two principle precedents that give guidance to determine if a statement concerning faith is permissible here. One, I will call, ISO vs Pilder and the other, Hsiung vs Pilder
Let us look at ISO vs Pilder: This is allowed to stand:
[...He (Jesus) became the author of our eternal salvation for all those that obey him...].
For allowing the statement here by Mr. Hsuing is first that the statement is in the category of what faiths teach. The faith that is teaching it is in the doctrines of Christiandom and in their scriptures.
Now the dissenting opinion is that the statement puts down those of other faiths on the basis that the part,{for all those that obey him} would exclude those that do not obey Jesus, and hence will not have eternal salvation. but in order for that reasoning to apply,:
THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE A DIRECT STATEMENT TO THAT, *not* an implication. This is exemplified by Mr. Hsiung by him stating that the poster did not say that all had to obey Jesus, or *must* obey Jesus, to have eternal salvation. It is just one way to have eternal salvation, BUT NOT THE ONLY WAY. (emphasis mine)
The dissenting opinion , by me, is that the statement is analogous to what Mr. Hsiung says is not permissible, even though the word {must} or {only} is not there. Mr. Hsiung prevailed and the post stands today.
Next, Hsiung vs PIlder
Lou

 

Lou's reply-antisemprop Lou Pilder

Posted by Lou Pilder on October 15, 2014, at 10:41:53

In reply to Lou's reply-pruvnlyerz herpills, posted by Lou Pilder on September 10, 2014, at 15:17:14

> > > Friends,
> > > Here is the post where Mr. Hsiung states that being supportive takes precedence even over a statement that is in the bible. Look at the paragraph that starts with something like,[..Sometimes the goals of the forum conflict..]
> > > Lou
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020627/msgs/6477.html
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Lou,
> >
> > Could you provide an example where a statement from the bible should take precedence over being supportive?
> >
> > herpills,
> You wrote,[...where a statement from the bible {should} take precedence over being supportive..]
> Now if I understand the context from where your statement came from, it could have been written:
> [..Lou, could you provide a link to where a bible verse is posted that is not supportive and is allowed to be seen as supportive as being unsanctioned?...]
> Now if that is what you were asking for me to do, let us look at what is in this link from a post here:
> https://www.ds.org/scriptures/nt/John/5.39?lang=eng#28
> That link is in this post if it does not actuate
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20051105/msgs/656322.html
> Now if we look at verse#39, that is an accusation made to those Jews. Accusations even if the poster is quoting someone else, is according to the rules t be not supportive.
> Then in verse#42, another accusative statement that defames
> Then in verse #46, a put down to those Jews
> Then scrolling to verse #16, the false accusation of that the Jews were in a plot to kill Jesus is posted.
> Then in verse #18, the same
> Then in verse23, another accusation
> Then in verse #38, another defamation
> The bible verses are allowed to stand against my objections for years. They can arouse anti-Semitic feelings and I feel put down when I read them so other Jews could also feel put down when they read them. But it is much more than that. For this post is only one of many that defame the Jews or could lead a Jew to feel that their faith is being put down that are allowed to stand and be seen as civil, supportive and will be good for this community as a whole where they are originally posted.
> The false characterization of the Jews depicted in those verses, could stereotype Jews here as being seen as validated by Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record as not being sanctioned. The put down of the Jews in those verses being allowed to stand devalues Judaism and could dehumanize a Jewish reader here that is in depression to lead them down a vortex of hopelessness culminating in their suicide.
> Mr. Hsiung wants you to try to trust him in that he is allowing the statements to be seen as that the will be good for this community as a whole according to his thinking and that he is doing his best to be fair. Others in the historical record said the same and the historical record shows that otherwise. If you want to try to trust him in his allowing of anti-Semitic propaganda to be allowed o be posted here as civil and supportive, remember the historical record where those that propagated that they were doing what will be good for the country as a whole in allowing anti-Semitic propaganda to be good for their country as a whole, and were proven to be liars.
> Lou
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
The link to the post in question is stated in the post that has the link:
http://wwwdr-bob.org/babble/faith/20051105/msgs/656322.html
Then at the bottom of the post is the offered link to the bible verses in John 5
And the verses in question are:
39,42,46,16,18,23,38
Lou Pilder

 

correction to link: Lou's reply-antisemprop

Posted by Lou Pilder on October 15, 2014, at 10:44:24

In reply to Lou's reply-antisemprop Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on October 15, 2014, at 10:41:53

> > > > Friends,
> > > > Here is the post where Mr. Hsiung states that being supportive takes precedence even over a statement that is in the bible. Look at the paragraph that starts with something like,[..Sometimes the goals of the forum conflict..]
> > > > Lou
> > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020627/msgs/6477.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Lou,
> > >
> > > Could you provide an example where a statement from the bible should take precedence over being supportive?
> > >
> > > herpills,
> > You wrote,[...where a statement from the bible {should} take precedence over being supportive..]
> > Now if I understand the context from where your statement came from, it could have been written:
> > [..Lou, could you provide a link to where a bible verse is posted that is not supportive and is allowed to be seen as supportive as being unsanctioned?...]
> > Now if that is what you were asking for me to do, let us look at what is in this link from a post here:
> > https://www.ds.org/scriptures/nt/John/5.39?lang=eng#28
> > That link is in this post if it does not actuate
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20051105/msgs/656322.html
> > Now if we look at verse#39, that is an accusation made to those Jews. Accusations even if the poster is quoting someone else, is according to the rules t be not supportive.
> > Then in verse#42, another accusative statement that defames
> > Then in verse #46, a put down to those Jews
> > Then scrolling to verse #16, the false accusation of that the Jews were in a plot to kill Jesus is posted.
> > Then in verse #18, the same
> > Then in verse23, another accusation
> > Then in verse #38, another defamation
> > The bible verses are allowed to stand against my objections for years. They can arouse anti-Semitic feelings and I feel put down when I read them so other Jews could also feel put down when they read them. But it is much more than that. For this post is only one of many that defame the Jews or could lead a Jew to feel that their faith is being put down that are allowed to stand and be seen as civil, supportive and will be good for this community as a whole where they are originally posted.
> > The false characterization of the Jews depicted in those verses, could stereotype Jews here as being seen as validated by Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record as not being sanctioned. The put down of the Jews in those verses being allowed to stand devalues Judaism and could dehumanize a Jewish reader here that is in depression to lead them down a vortex of hopelessness culminating in their suicide.
> > Mr. Hsiung wants you to try to trust him in that he is allowing the statements to be seen as that the will be good for this community as a whole according to his thinking and that he is doing his best to be fair. Others in the historical record said the same and the historical record shows that otherwise. If you want to try to trust him in his allowing of anti-Semitic propaganda to be allowed o be posted here as civil and supportive, remember the historical record where those that propagated that they were doing what will be good for the country as a whole in allowing anti-Semitic propaganda to be good for their country as a whole, and were proven to be liars.
> > Lou
> >
> > Mr. Hsiung,
> The link to the post in question is stated in the post that has the link:
> http://wwwdr-bob.org/babble/faith/20051105/msgs/656322.html
> Then at the bottom of the post is the offered link to the bible verses in John 5
> And the verses in question are:
> 39,42,46,16,18,23,38
> Lou Pilder
correction:
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20051105/msgs/656322.html

 

Re: please be civil Lou Pilder

Posted by Dr. Bob on October 15, 2014, at 12:10:24

In reply to Lou's reply-theleast SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on September 12, 2014, at 20:27:38

> it has been reveled to me that He will say to them, "Get away from me, you that work iniquity, for if you do injustice to the least of these my brethren, you have done it to me."

Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.

More information about posting policies and tips on alternative ways to express yourself, 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

Thanks,

Bob

 

Re: posts in the archives

Posted by Dr. Bob on October 15, 2014, at 12:40:51

In reply to Re: SLS: How long?, posted by SLS on September 6, 2014, at 13:52:01

> 1. If you agree that there are posts in the archives that are identified by Lou Pilder as being prejudicial, why have you not edited the archives to reflect the appropriate sanctions to be placed on these posts?
>
> 2. If you do not agree that such posts exist, where might I find verbiage by you that asserts this fact.

My policy is not to sanction archived posts. I'd prefer to focus on the present (and the future).

> 3. Will you make any changes to this website's FAQ to reflect that which you have learned during your discourse with Lou Pilder?

What a job that would be, to articulate what I've learned here. :-)

Bob

 

Re: understanding genocides

Posted by Dr. Bob on October 15, 2014, at 12:43:05

In reply to Outbreaks of mass violence are not understood, posted by pontormo on September 11, 2014, at 22:04:52

> there have been repetitive outbreaks of genocidal violence, all during the 20th century and that, perhaps, this has occurred all through history. Perhaps a quest for some small beginning understand of genocides would be more helpful

It seems to me part of it is an us-them mentality?

Bob

 

Re: is heaven a gated community?

Posted by Dr. Bob on October 15, 2014, at 13:03:30

In reply to Re: Lou's reply-triune?, posted by pontormo on September 17, 2014, at 11:36:52

> A subset of readers could come to the conclusion that your writings along this thread suggest that Christians and non-believers of the Rider will be excluded from Eternal Life in Paradise.
>
> - Scott

> Each group has its own way of becoming one of the elect that necessarily excludes members of other faiths.
>
> pontormo

Maybe the "answer" is to posit different Paradises for different religions. Then each religion could be exclusive, but nobody would be excluded from Eternal Life.

Bob

 

Re: posts in the archives Dr. Bob

Posted by SLS on October 15, 2014, at 21:14:55

In reply to Re: posts in the archives, posted by Dr. Bob on October 15, 2014, at 12:40:51

> > 2. If you do not agree that such posts exist, where might I find verbiage by you that asserts this fact.

> My policy is not to sanction archived posts. I'd prefer to focus on the present (and the future).

I like this idea.

> > 3. Will you make any changes to this website's FAQ to reflect that which you have learned during your discourse with Lou Pilder?

> What a job that would be, to articulate what I've learned here. :-)

Great answer.

:-)


- Scott

 

Lou's reply-noemizundr SLS

Posted by Lou Pilder on July 17, 2015, at 8:05:10

In reply to Re: Lou's response-wrklez Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on September 1, 2014, at 13:04:02

> I appreciate your concerns. You make clear your logic for having these concerns.
>
> The Faith board is an invitation to accept that people will subscribe to alternate religious tenets that are often in conflict with those of others. How does one moderate narrative statements describing one's religious beliefs? I think that in order to allow the Faith board to function, it is necessary to exercise a certain amount of tolerance of the passions of others. Unfortunately, even Jews put down Jews for lack of tolerance.
>
> http://www.jta.org/2014/06/03/news-opinion/orthodox-condemnation-of-reform-and-conservative-nothing-new
>
>
> - Scott

Scott,
Let there be no misunderstanding here. The faith board has its rules posted as that it is fine to post what you believe:
[...as long as what you believe as posted does not put down/accuse those of other faiths...]
How would you react today to:
[ admin, 428781 ]?
Lou


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.