![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 38 to 62 of 105. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 14, 2005, at 8:01:46
In reply to I GIVE UP!!! » Dr. Bob, posted by Angel Girl on January 14, 2005, at 4:30:21
AG,
You wrote,[...it (the faith board) is anti-Christian...].
If your statement is because the rules state that one can not post that[...salvation can {only} be obtained through Jesus Christ...],then IMO, the board is not anti-Christian
Lou
Posted by Angel Girl on January 14, 2005, at 9:26:12
In reply to Lou's respose to Angel Girl-[*]ntichrist? » Angel Girl, posted by Lou Pilder on January 14, 2005, at 8:01:46
> AG,
> You wrote,[...it (the faith board) is anti-Christian...].
> If your statement is because the rules state that one can not post that[...salvation can {only} be obtained through Jesus Christ...],then IMO, the board is not anti-Christian
> Lou
>
LouThat is your opinion, mine obviously differs. Also, I am HIGHLY OFFENDED by you putting the word 'antichrist' in the subject line with my name. I PLEAD that you ask Dr Bob to remove it IMMEDIATELY. As a Christian it SICKENS me to see that word attached to my name, regardless if it is your little shortform or not!!! Next time please use a little more sensitivity in what you choose for your references in the subject line.
AG
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 14, 2005, at 10:24:25
In reply to Lou you have HIGHLY OFFENDED ME!!! » Lou Pilder, posted by Angel Girl on January 14, 2005, at 9:26:12
AG,
The notation for my referrence has a question mark after the shorthand. So the shorthand notation is for [antichristian?] because the subject of your post was that you wrote that the board is antichristian. IMO it is not antichristian, but the question mark means to me that there is a discussion in the thread relevant to whether the faith board is or is not antichristian. The discussants are me and you so far, but it was you that innitiated the statement that the faith board is antichristian. I am responding to your statement of such and wrote that {if} you were saying that the faith board is antichristian because one can not post to be acceptable here that[... Jesus is the {only} way to salvation...], then I do not think that that constitutes that the faith board is antichristian. Others may want to join the discussion about that and that is why I put the question mark. I'm sorry that you were offended, but it is not my intention to offend you in any way, for the discussion IMO is an administrative one about what can be an acceptable post or not, and I do not consider the discussion to be about whether Jesus is or is not the only way to salvation, but whether is can be stated that {the faith board is antichristian}on the basis of if the statement in question is being determined as unacceptable by DR. Hsiung means that the faith board is antichristian.
Lou
Posted by coral on January 14, 2005, at 10:56:14
In reply to Lou you have HIGHLY OFFENDED ME!!! » Lou Pilder, posted by Angel Girl on January 14, 2005, at 9:26:12
Dear Angel Girl,
When I saw the title of the post you mentioned, I was taken aback to say the least.
Coral
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 14, 2005, at 11:00:14
In reply to I GIVE UP!!! » Dr. Bob, posted by Angel Girl on January 14, 2005, at 4:30:21
AG,
You wrote,[...as a christian, I believe that salvation can only be obtained through Jesus Christ...] and, [...it (the faith board) is anti-Christian...].
If the basis for that statement by you is that if the statment that [...Jesus is the {only} way to salvation...] is determined by DR. Hsiung to be unacceptable here, then I disagree with the statement that the faith board is antichristian.
I do not think IMO that whether the poster that posts the post is a christian or not is relevant to making a determination for acceptability or not on that basis.
Suppose some one wrote here, [..as a christian, I believe that the jews are not saved because they reject Jesus....]. Now I do not think that that statement could be determined as acceptable here. But the issue in this discussion is if the faith board is antichristian because the other statement is determined to be unacceptable by Dr. Hsiung because the statement could mean that since the poster writes that[..salvation can {only} be obtained through Jesus Christ...], the {only} is limiting salvation to {through Jesus Christ}.
I agree with Dr. Hsiung that the statement is not in accordance with his guidlines for the faith board because the potential IMO is there for jews and others that do not think that their salvation is through Jesus Christ could feel put down because the could feel that the poster's statement says that they are worshipping their God in vain because if salvation is only through Jesus Christ, then they could not have salvation since they do not believe that.
By Dr. Hsiung restraing the post in question, he welcomes all faiths and IMO is not antichristian. What if he did not restrain the post?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 14, 2005, at 11:31:23
In reply to I GIVE UP!!! » Dr. Bob, posted by Angel Girl on January 14, 2005, at 4:30:21
AG,
You wrote,[...it (the faith board) is anti-Christian...].
Now IMO if your post in question was determined to be acceptable here, then could the following also be posted, and if not, could the faith board be written to be antisemitic?
A. Salvation is only through keeping the Law of Moses
B. Only jews are saved because they are chosen by God
C. Non jews are only saved if they convert to jewdaism
D. Outside of the synogogue,there is no salvation
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on January 14, 2005, at 13:14:08
In reply to Lou you have HIGHLY OFFENDED ME!!! » Lou Pilder, posted by Angel Girl on January 14, 2005, at 9:26:12
I was also quite shocked at the title of that post. I know Lou uses a code to allow him to find posts easier or something.. but I think you deserve an apology for that, as someone unfamiliar with Lou's code could quite easily think that he is asking if you are the antichrist (which you quite obviously aren't)
Nikki
Posted by Angel Girl on January 14, 2005, at 13:30:46
In reply to Re: Lou you have HIGHLY OFFENDED ME!!! » Angel Girl, posted by Lou Pilder on January 14, 2005, at 10:24:25
Lou
I have no intentions of discussing what I last said anymore since I am HIGHLY OFFENDED by your subject line. As you can see, other posters agree with me. I don't care that it is a short-form, to put the word 'anti-christ' beside my name is totally disgusting and extremely INSENSITIVE. Are you not aware that that shortform is a word in itself?
And even though you say it was not your intention to offend me, you still go on and on about my previous comment like that subject line means nothing to me as a Christian.
IT MAKES ME SICK!!! PLEASE THINK BEFORE YOU DO SOMETHING SO . . . UGH!!! I AM AT A LOSS OF WORDS FOR THIS.
PLEASE E-MAIL DR BOB AND HAVE IT REMOVED IMMEDIATELY. I DO NOT WANT TO SEE IT AGAIN!!!
AG
Posted by Angel Girl on January 14, 2005, at 13:31:54
In reply to Re: Lou you have HIGHLY OFFENDED ME!!!, posted by coral on January 14, 2005, at 10:56:14
> Dear Angel Girl,
>
> When I saw the title of the post you mentioned, I was taken aback to say the least.
>
> CoralCoral, thank you very much for your support. I guess maybe you have to be a Christian to see the significance of the word.
AG
Posted by Angel Girl on January 14, 2005, at 13:37:56
In reply to Re: Lou you have HIGHLY OFFENDED ME!!! » Angel Girl, posted by NikkiT2 on January 14, 2005, at 13:14:08
> I was also quite shocked at the title of that post. I know Lou uses a code to allow him to find posts easier or something.. but I think you deserve an apology for that, as someone unfamiliar with Lou's code could quite easily think that he is asking if you are the antichrist (which you quite obviously aren't)
>
> Nikki
NikkiThank you for your support. I am recently aware of Lou's shortforms that he uses for easy reference but even with that, he needed to use more sensitivity in selecting one and you're right about somebody who is unfamiliar with his code. I agree that I deserve at the least an apology and yet he carries on with talking about my previous comment like that subject line is no big deal. That angers me even more. I feel he is being even more insensitive to me now than he was before. Again, thank you very much for your support.
AG
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 14, 2005, at 13:43:13
In reply to Re: Lou you have HIGHLY OFFENDED ME!!! » coral, posted by Angel Girl on January 14, 2005, at 13:31:54
AG,
You wrote,[...I guess ...you have to be a christian to see the significance of the word...].
I am not a member of christiandom so I do not see the significance that you see. Can I consider that you are apologising to me by writing that?
Lou
Posted by coral on January 14, 2005, at 13:52:33
In reply to Re: Lou you have HIGHLY OFFENDED ME!!! » coral, posted by Angel Girl on January 14, 2005, at 13:31:54
Dear AngelGirl,
No, I don't think you have to be a Christian to understand why that particular statement is so heinous. I'm sorry this has been so upsetting for you and I do fully understand why you're upset.
((((AG))))
Coral
Posted by NikkiT2 on January 14, 2005, at 14:45:24
In reply to Lou's resp[onse to Angel Girl's post-beachrstntose » Angel Girl, posted by Lou Pilder on January 14, 2005, at 13:43:13
Lou., I'm not a Christian but I can see why someone who is would be very very upset by having that word next to their name.
Maybe you could try thinking of it in the terms of using a word that you may fund offensive, being a Jew, but that someone who wasn't a Jew wouldn't find offensive.
I did, in the original version of this, include an example, but I have removed that as I thougt you would probably be offended, but if you would like me to do so, just say.
Nikki
Posted by TofuEmmy on January 14, 2005, at 15:31:41
In reply to Re: Lou you have HIGHLY OFFENDED ME!!! » Angel Girl, posted by Lou Pilder on January 14, 2005, at 10:24:25
Lou - I noticed that you used "beachrstntose" as shorthand. That has 13 letters. "antichristian" also has 13 letters so it could have easly been used instead of "antichrist". It fits right into your standards. I agree with those who say you owe an apology. I'm sure it was not intentional, but you obviously hit upon a sensitive issue.
emmy
Posted by Gabbix2 on January 14, 2005, at 16:50:29
In reply to Re: Lou's Shorthand, posted by TofuEmmy on January 14, 2005, at 15:31:41
I'm really surprised, I thought you could put yourself in Angel Girl's shoes, and see that by putting Antichrist right by her name, it would be like having someone puttting "Nazi" right by "Lou" in a subject heading.
I think you would likely find that both heinous and insensitive and worthy of an apology at the very least.
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 14, 2005, at 17:01:05
In reply to Re: Lou's Shorthand, posted by TofuEmmy on January 14, 2005, at 15:31:41
TofuEmmy,
You wrote,[...I'm sure it was not intentional...].
That is correct. I do apologise for what has happened as a result of my shorthand. I will rephrase the line to:
[...Lou's ressponse to Angel Girl antichristian?...]
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 14, 2005, at 17:22:41
In reply to Wow Lou, posted by Gabbix2 on January 14, 2005, at 16:50:29
Gabbix 2,
You wrote about the word,"antichrist". Could you clarify what the word 's meaning is? I am not sure of the word's meaning.
Lou
Posted by gardenergirl on January 14, 2005, at 17:36:33
In reply to Re: Lou you have HIGHLY OFFENDED ME!!! » Lou Pilder, posted by Angel Girl on January 14, 2005, at 13:30:46
>
> PLEASE E-MAIL DR BOB AND HAVE IT REMOVED IMMEDIATELY. I DO NOT WANT TO SEE IT AGAIN!!!
>
> AGAG,
I'm sorry you have been upset here on Babble. I had a similar experience with a subject line with my name in it and something I found offensive. I just wanted to point out that you could also email Dr. Bob and make the request yourself to have the word XXXd out.Although I have to admit, in my case, the subject line stayed, and I had to look at it until the board archived. Fortunately, many people chipped in and posted a great deal to make the board archive faster. I don't know if that's still an option, but either or both are worth a try.
Take care,
gg
Posted by Gabbix2 on January 14, 2005, at 17:42:29
In reply to Lou's reply to Gabbix2-clarfymenig » Gabbix2, posted by Lou Pilder on January 14, 2005, at 17:22:41
> Gabbix 2,
> You wrote about the word,"antichrist". Could you clarify what the word 's meaning is? I am not sure of the word's meaning.
> LouI'm not an expert, but I believe the anti-Christ is considered to be the embodiment of evil, and the opposite of truth. Some biblical interpretations say it will be a person, others say beast, who will appear near the end of time and convince people it is the actual Christ when it is the opposite, and spurred on by Satan.
Posted by Gabbix2 on January 14, 2005, at 17:43:55
In reply to subject line woes » Angel Girl, posted by gardenergirl on January 14, 2005, at 17:36:33
Posted by Gabbix2 on January 14, 2005, at 17:44:39
In reply to subject line woes » Angel Girl, posted by gardenergirl on January 14, 2005, at 17:36:33
Posted by Gabbix2 on January 14, 2005, at 17:45:21
In reply to subject line woes » Angel Girl, posted by gardenergirl on January 14, 2005, at 17:36:33
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 14, 2005, at 17:51:18
In reply to Certainly ,Lou, posted by Gabbix2 on January 14, 2005, at 17:42:29
Gabbix2,
You wrote,[...some say the antichrist will be a person ...some say a beast...appearing near the end of time...].
Are there any things that you know that preceed the advent of this person or beast?
Lou
Posted by Fallen4MyT on January 14, 2005, at 17:54:28
In reply to Lou's resp[onse to Angel Girl's post-beachrstntose » Angel Girl, posted by Lou Pilder on January 14, 2005, at 13:43:13
Lou I am shocked by this as you have always been imo a civil poster but in this case I feel you have been very offensive to Angel Girl and YOU owe her an apology.
> AG,
> You wrote,[...I guess ...you have to be a christian to see the significance of the word...].
> I am not a member of christiandom so I do not see the significance that you see. Can I consider that you are apologising to me by writing that?
> Lou
>
Posted by gardenergirl on January 14, 2005, at 18:12:28
In reply to Re: subject line woes Idea (nm) » gardenergirl, posted by Gabbix2 on January 14, 2005, at 17:45:21
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | 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.