Posted by Lou Pilder on March 28, 2005, at 8:13:45
In reply to Re: guidelines and exceptions » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on March 28, 2005, at 3:08:05
> Couldn't the third pair of examples be removed?
>
> You've been moving in that direction anyway with your civility rulings. Saying things like "I think she meant that to apply to Christians" and things like that. Or "I think she meant that to apply to herself and Sue."
>
> There's not much of a leap from the one to the other.
>
> The problem with asking Lou to rephrase is that Lou is reporting an experience, not a belief. So he can't honestly say that he believes the Rider told him this or that. He has to say that the Rider told him this or that. But I don't see how it's offensive if the Rider told him, Lou, to do something or to believe something. That doesn't in any way follow that the Rider told everyone to do that. Especially if Lou made clear that he wasn't trying to say that the Rider's instructions applied to everyone.
>
> Besides, didn't you recently say that you were thinking of rethinking the Faith Board guidelines?
>
> I realize three o'clock in the morning isn't the time to make decisions, but maybe you could think of revising the guidelines to say things that apply to you or your group of believers is ok without actually using the word "believe", especially if you give a disclaimer.Dinah,
You wrote in your post above,[...couldn't the third pair of examples be removed?...].
There are tests to determine that. One test is ,[...is there a sound rational based on the same rationals as the first two pair of examples...]? Can there be a refereance from the same body that the other two examples are derived from? If not, then could the third pair of examples be an unsound mental health practice?
If not, then we could go to another test like,is the third pair of examples arbitrary, caprecious or discriminatory? If the third pair of examples could be determined as one or more of those, then could the examples be a sound mental-health practice?
Then we could go to another test as to if the rule to restrain what I would say has the effect of [...stilling the voice from the Jewish perspective...]. This could be determined in part by seeing if the perspective, let's say of Christianity is not stilled by allowing the foundation of Christianity to be not restrained here on links and quotes where the policy is that even quoting others does not overule the rule. It is my opinion that the allowing of ,[...{nothing but} the blood of Jesus can wash away my sins..],whether it be a quote of a song or not, is still posting,IMO, the foundation of Christinity. The poster writes that he/she likes the song, a favorite. If the poster did not like the song,a favorite, could the poster believe what the words say? Then could we determine if the song is posted so that what is written is for others to like also? If the poster did not want others to like what the song said,[...{nothing but} the blood of Jesus...]would he/she post it as a favorit Hymn?
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:476237
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050323/msgs/476664.html