![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 124 to 148 of 795. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on October 9, 2013, at 13:47:56
In reply to Lou's response-owebhulschd, posted by Lou Pilder on October 9, 2013, at 12:42:08
Much of the information in that post refers to sections of the Mormon scripture that echo New Testament terminology.
I always marvelled at the used of "the Jews" in the New Testament, given that Jesus and his followers were Jewish. However, it is there, and the Mormon scriptures use it as well.
However, Joseph Smith was philo-semitic. Early Mormons were Zionists. Jews were welcomed in Utah under Brigham Young.
"The Hebrew Benevolent Society was formed in 1864 and was the first instance of organized Judaism. Religious services were held in the rented Masonic Hall in the spring of 1866. This same year saw the first cemetery, on land deeded to the Jewish community by Brigham Young. High Holyday (Rosh Hashonah [New Year] and Yom Kippur) services in 1867 were observed in the Seventies Hall at the invitation of Brigham Young."
Latter-day Saints believe themselves to be either direct descendants of the House of Israel, or adopted into it. As such, Judaism is foundational to the history of Mormonism; Jews are looked upon as a Covenant people of God, held in high esteem, and are respected in the Mormon faith system. The LDS church is consequently very Philo-Semitic in its doctrine
http://www.jewishmag.com/136mag/mormons/mormons.htm
You are looking at one small part of a much larger history of Mormons and Jews. And one, moreover, where the Mormon scriptures were heavily influenced by similar passages in the New Testament. There are antisemitic Mormon individuals, no doubt. But the Mormon church *is* philosemitic, and everything in my personal experience with the Mormon church supports that position.
Posted by Dinah on October 9, 2013, at 13:52:37
In reply to Lou's response-49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56 ahdomoebeel, posted by Lou Pilder on October 9, 2013, at 13:39:47
On the face of it, that is true.
But I tell you that in all my not limited experience of the phrase, it refers to Christian churches who are not centered in the message of Christ.
It may reflect a certain assumption that in "organized religion" there is no need to specify "organized christian religion".
And of course Mormons are Christians. Of course they believe the best path includes Christ. But church belief clarifies that Jews have an existing covenant relationship with God.
Posted by Dinah on October 9, 2013, at 13:54:14
In reply to Re: Lou's response-owebhulschd, posted by Dinah on October 9, 2013, at 13:47:56
I forgot the quotes around the following:
"Latter-day Saints believe themselves to be either direct descendants of the House of Israel, or adopted into it. As such, Judaism is foundational to the history of Mormonism; Jews are looked upon as a Covenant people of God, held in high esteem, and are respected in the Mormon faith system. The LDS church is consequently very Philo-Semitic in its doctrine."
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 9, 2013, at 14:13:18
In reply to Re: Lou's response-owebhulschd, posted by Dinah on October 9, 2013, at 13:47:56
> Much of the information in that post refers to sections of the Mormon scripture that echo New Testament terminology.
>
> I always marvelled at the used of "the Jews" in the New Testament, given that Jesus and his followers were Jewish. However, it is there, and the Mormon scriptures use it as well.
>
> However, Joseph Smith was philo-semitic. Early Mormons were Zionists. Jews were welcomed in Utah under Brigham Young.
>
> "The Hebrew Benevolent Society was formed in 1864 and was the first instance of organized Judaism. Religious services were held in the rented Masonic Hall in the spring of 1866. This same year saw the first cemetery, on land deeded to the Jewish community by Brigham Young. High Holyday (Rosh Hashonah [New Year] and Yom Kippur) services in 1867 were observed in the Seventies Hall at the invitation of Brigham Young."
>
> http://ujgs.org/jews.php
>
> Latter-day Saints believe themselves to be either direct descendants of the House of Israel, or adopted into it. As such, Judaism is foundational to the history of Mormonism; Jews are looked upon as a Covenant people of God, held in high esteem, and are respected in the Mormon faith system. The LDS church is consequently very Philo-Semitic in its doctrine
>
> http://www.jewishmag.com/136mag/mormons/mormons.htm
>
>
> You are looking at one small part of a much larger history of Mormons and Jews. And one, moreover, where the Mormon scriptures were heavily influenced by similar passages in the New Testament. There are antisemitic Mormon individuals, no doubt. But the Mormon church *is* philosemitic, and everything in my personal experience with the Mormon church supports that position.Friends,
Here is a discussion forum that I would like for readers to view.
Lou
To see this:
A. Bring up Google
B. Type in:
[Recovery from (RfM)discussion forum,128634]
You will see: The ABCs of book of
Posted by Dinah on October 9, 2013, at 14:24:39
In reply to Lou's response-whtdhypsey, posted by Lou Pilder on October 9, 2013, at 14:13:18
Lou, I got into this discussion because I thought it was being incorrectly implied that Mormons considered Judaism an atrocity. I thought that was quite unfair to Mormons. Although I am no longer Mormon, I do not like them being insulted.
I know what Mormons believe, but I accept that you do not believe it. If you google Mormons and Jews, you will see many articles written for a Jewish audience that would disagree with your stance.
"The Book of Mormon even has Jesus presciently condemning anti-Semitism and "replacement theology" - the Christian doctrine that the divine covenant with the Jews was superseded when they rejected him as Messiah. "Yea, and ye need not any longer hiss, nor spurn, nor make game of the Jews, nor any of the remnant of the house of Israel," the Nazarene tells the Indian-Israelites of America, " 1/8F 3/8or behold, the Lord remembereth his covenant unto them, and he will do unto them according to that which he hath sworn.""
"Mormon leaders espoused Zionist sympathies decades before the Jewish national movement was born. In 1841, Joseph Smith sent his "personal apostle" Orson Hyde to Jerusalem, where on the Mount of Olives he beseeched God to "restore the kingdom unto Israel - raise up Jerusalem as its capital, and continue her people a distinct nation and government." Today, Jerusalem's very own Orson Hyde Park sits on the spot of that prophecy, just a few steps from BYU's Jerusalem Center."
You will believe what you wish. But I request that you refrain from stating or implying that the Mormon church is antisemitic. And I ask that Dr. Bob not allow the Mormon church to be miscategorized as antisemitic.
I've provided information on the point. I'm through with this discussion.
Posted by Toph on October 9, 2013, at 14:25:10
In reply to Lou's reply- » Toph, posted by Lou Pilder on October 8, 2013, at 19:59:45
> > My question to you is Lou, do you think that you have an alternative intervention to lithium that would relieve me of my manic and depressive symptoms better than lithium does? A simple yes or no would be helpful.
> >
> > Toph,
> Yes.
> Lou
>Lou, you are intitled to your opinion. Mine is that your beliefs are wrong, insulting and extremely dangerous as far as they apply to me.
End of conversation.
Posted by Dinah on October 9, 2013, at 14:25:11
In reply to Re: Lou's response-whtdhypsey » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on October 9, 2013, at 14:24:39
I forgot the link behind the quotes.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 9, 2013, at 15:52:13
In reply to Re: Lou's response-whtdhypsey » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on October 9, 2013, at 14:24:39
Friends,
It is written here,[...this discussion incorrectly implies that Mormons consider Judaism an atrocity....I request that you refrain from stating or implying that the Mormon Church is anti-Semitic...].
The statement here does not specify what in a post is implying that Mormonism is anti-Semitic. By not specifying such, readers can not be informed as to what is the statement(s) that are being said to consider that the statement implies that the Mormon church is anti-Semitic. This could put me in a false light for I am not categorizing the Mormon Church as anti-Semitic at all. The issues here are statements THAT COULD AROUSE ANTISEMITIC FEELINGS that are in discussion. There are two sides to this, but if anti-Semitism is to be discussed , I think that whatever post it is that says that the Mormon Church is anti-Semitic, it being posted could go a long way for me to defend myself, for I think that readers could think that I am the subject person here and the implication that readers could get about my character could be that there could be a decrease in the respect, regard and confidence in which I am held and there could be hostile and disagreeable opinions an feelings against me. You see, I never posted that Mormons consider Judaism an atrocity, and I do not know what post implies that. If I was to know the post, I could have the opportunity to respond to it.
The question as to if the Mormon Church is anti-Semitic or not can be made by your own determination. In order to do that, one has in their mind what anti-Semitism is. And there are different opinions concerning the identification of anti-Semitism. One is simple, {against the Jew}. Another degrades and dehumanizes Jews. Another is the accusing of the Jews of(redacted by respondent) Christ. Another is stereotyping Jews. There are many others.
In a discussion, there are usually two sides.
Lou
Posted by Phillipa on October 9, 2013, at 20:10:51
In reply to Lou's response-bothpsydz » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on October 9, 2013, at 15:52:13
I'm glad I don't belong to a formalized religion. Religion is all around me the sky, the oceans, flowers, I guess Spirtual is what I am. Although born a Protestant I've never practiced. All are entitled to their own beliefs. Phillipa
Posted by Dinah on October 9, 2013, at 20:17:26
In reply to Lou's response-bothpsydz » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on October 9, 2013, at 15:52:13
I'm glad you aren't calling Mormons anti-semitic. The quote you've been objecting to is from an LDS site, if I remember correctly. I felt defensive for the church I still love. I hope that you will try to be as respectful of the Mormon church as I always have tried to be of the Jewish faith.
I personally don't see much difference between accusations of being anti-semitic and arousing anti-semitic feelings. But if you say you do, I'll believe you.
Posted by Dinah on October 9, 2013, at 20:36:26
In reply to Re: Lou's response-bothpsydz, posted by Phillipa on October 9, 2013, at 20:10:51
There are advantages. I can have a faith community of people who can support and raise me in your worship. I have terrific conversations with my Sunday School that feed my mind and help me try to apply faith to everyday life. My heart soars with a beautiful hymn.
I don't have to agree with everything, at least in some denominations. Fortunately.
I wouldn't trade my Mormon upbringing for anything in the world, and am somewhat sad that my son didn't experience it. I may have left the Mormon church, but the Mormon church will likely never leave me. I'll always be Mormon at my core, no matter my beliefs.
I don't really understand inter-religion squabbles, though. I too believe all are entitled to their own beliefs.
Posted by Dinah on October 9, 2013, at 20:36:58
In reply to Re: Lou's response-bothpsydz » Phillipa, posted by Dinah on October 9, 2013, at 20:36:26
that should be "my"
Posted by Phillipa on October 9, 2013, at 20:55:15
In reply to Re: Lou's response-bothpsydz » Phillipa, posted by Dinah on October 9, 2013, at 20:36:26
I know how can one argue or discuss what one does not know or understand. I don't know your religion but it's yours and millions of others and it's fine with me. Phillipa
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 10, 2013, at 1:30:58
In reply to Lou's response-49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56 ahdomoebeel, posted by Lou Pilder on October 9, 2013, at 13:39:47
> If {what if} means that by modifying what can be seen would annul the fact that the post means, I have said that it would not.
>
> Lou Pilder> I have heard the words often enough, in context, to understand that it's generally meant as a condemnation of Christian churches who do not have Christ at their center.
>
> Dinah> if you think for one second that I am going to ever stop my efforts here to purge that statement .. then think again my friends
>
> LouI did think we might be able to agree on a way to modify it. Apparently not. Reasonable people can disagree. How about moving on to another statement?
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 10, 2013, at 6:06:42
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on October 10, 2013, at 1:30:58
> > If {what if} means that by modifying what can be seen would annul the fact that the post means, I have said that it would not.
> >
> > Lou Pilder
>
> > I have heard the words often enough, in context, to understand that it's generally meant as a condemnation of Christian churches who do not have Christ at their center.
> >
> > Dinah
>
> > if you think for one second that I am going to ever stop my efforts here to purge that statement .. then think again my friends
> >
> > Lou
>
> I did think we might be able to agree on a way to modify it. Apparently not. Reasonable people can disagree. How about moving on to another statement?Mr. Hsiung,
The statement says what it says. You even want to change it. You could do that and then I will post my response to you in that thread where you make the change. I have the following concerns and would like for you to post answers to the following.
A. Are you going to actually do some type of computer surgery to the statement and change it so that it will be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community? You do not need my permission to do that.
B. If so, would the original statement remain or not?
C. If you could do that to the statement in the post in question, could you also do that to other post's statements?
D. If so, what are the criteria that you will use to determine which ones you will change and make an unsupportive statement into a supportive statement?
E. When I read your TOS here, it said to not post anything that could put down those of other faiths. I took you at your word. So are you going to change your TOS from that to something like:
[...If you post a statement that could put down those of other faiths, I will use my features in my computer to change the statement so that it does not put down those of other faiths...].
F. Have you done this type of changing previously here? If so, could you post the urls of those?
G. If you do change the statement, would there be a disclaimer posted in the thread that you made a change to what another member posted and why you modified the statement?
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 10, 2013, at 9:21:22
In reply to Re: Lou's response-bothpsydz, posted by Dinah on October 9, 2013, at 20:17:26
> I'm glad you aren't calling Mormons anti-semitic. The quote you've been objecting to is from an LDS site, if I remember correctly. I felt defensive for the church I still love. I hope that you will try to be as respectful of the Mormon church as I always have tried to be of the Jewish faith.
>
> I personally don't see much difference between accusations of being anti-semitic and arousing anti-semitic feelings. But if you say you do, I'll believe you.Dinah,
You wrote,[...don't see much difference between accusations of being anti-Semitic and arousing anti-Semitic feelings..].
The difference is that a statement that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings could be seen, but if someone is anti-Semitic, that is a matter of the heart that can not be seen. There is, though, a test for that.
There is a rule here not to post anything that could put down those of other faiths. A statement that could put down Jews or Judaism itself, is an anti-Semitic statement agreed on by Mr. Hsiung. A posting of such a statement does not mean automatically that the poster of such is anti-Semitic. To prove that a person or a church organization is anti-Semitic is that the {policy} of the person or the group is anti-Semitic. That means that the definition of anti-Semitism could be applied to the person or group. The definition in its simplest form of {anti-Semitic}, is {against Jews}. If someone or some group is against Jews, there is a list of things that a person or group does that constitutes being against Jews. Now I think that you would agree that if a person or group {segregates} Jews, then that person or group is anti-Semitic. And if an employer, let's say, did not hire Jews, I think that you could agree that the employer is anti-Semitic, or if a hotel refused to allow Jews to stay there, the hotel would be anti-Semitic, because there is a {policy} against Jews.
Now when we look t the {policy} of a church organization, their policy is stated in their {doctrines}. If their doctrines are against Jews, then the organization has an anti-Semitic policy. The people in the group may not think of Jews as the doctrines of an anti-Semitic policy depict. But that does not annul the policy of the group.
If a church group states in their policy that they are the only ones that are the true believers in God, then that kind of statement could put down all other faiths when they read something like that, wherever thy read it. In the case in point here:
[..One of the top ten worst reasons for organized religion is if the organized religion has their agenda not centered in Christ....]. What could be thought by readers is that there are two groups of organized religions, one having their agenda centered in Christ, and the others do not. The statement can not be seen to mean that only Christiandom religions are being compared, for it is talking about organized religions, not just Christiandom religions. And Judaism and Islam and Hinduism and all the rest of religions that have their agenda not centered in Christ, are the ones that the statement says have one of the worst reasons for their being an organized religion. You see, if that statement stands here, then that could be thought to be POLICY here.
Lou
Posted by SLS on October 10, 2013, at 10:48:11
In reply to Lou's reply-policeeofheyt » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on October 10, 2013, at 9:21:22
This guy once bumped into me as I was crossing 33rd Street at 7th Avenue in Manhattan. Because I am Jewish, this act was certainly antisemitic. The perpetrator "could" have been intent on committing acts of violence against me and other Jews. This only follows from logic. That this guy had no idea that I was Jewish shall be disregarded, simply because he "could" have known this. Perhaps he was psychic.
Christendom is what it is. You may disagree with it, but for those who believe that its tenets are derived from the word of God, it is not very different from Judaism. What shall happen to uncircumcised males after their death?
----------------------------------------------
Genesis 17:9
"But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.
----------------------------------------------
This "could" be interpreted as such: Circumcision is of such importance that heaven and earth are held only by the fulfilment of that covenant.
As you can see, Judaism is not without its laws of discrimination regarding access to heaven.
You would argue that Christianity is not all-inclusive. I would argue that neither is Judiasm.
This is often the nature of religions - separation. I would suggest to you that the words you identify over and over again as being contrary to your belief system should be tolerated by you as others would tolerate your beliefs in God's intolerance of an uncircumcised penis.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 10, 2013, at 13:42:39
In reply to Lou's reply-policeeofheyt » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on October 10, 2013, at 9:21:22
> > I'm glad you aren't calling Mormons anti-semitic. The quote you've been objecting to is from an LDS site, if I remember correctly. I felt defensive for the church I still love. I hope that you will try to be as respectful of the Mormon church as I always have tried to be of the Jewish faith.
> >
> > I personally don't see much difference between accusations of being anti-semitic and arousing anti-semitic feelings. But if you say you do, I'll believe you.
>
> Dinah,
> You wrote,[...don't see much difference between accusations of being anti-Semitic and arousing anti-Semitic feelings..].
> The difference is that a statement that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings could be seen, but if someone is anti-Semitic, that is a matter of the heart that can not be seen. There is, though, a test for that.
> There is a rule here not to post anything that could put down those of other faiths. A statement that could put down Jews or Judaism itself, is an anti-Semitic statement agreed on by Mr. Hsiung. A posting of such a statement does not mean automatically that the poster of such is anti-Semitic. To prove that a person or a church organization is anti-Semitic is that the {policy} of the person or the group is anti-Semitic. That means that the definition of anti-Semitism could be applied to the person or group. The definition in its simplest form of {anti-Semitic}, is {against Jews}. If someone or some group is against Jews, there is a list of things that a person or group does that constitutes being against Jews. Now I think that you would agree that if a person or group {segregates} Jews, then that person or group is anti-Semitic. And if an employer, let's say, did not hire Jews, I think that you could agree that the employer is anti-Semitic, or if a hotel refused to allow Jews to stay there, the hotel would be anti-Semitic, because there is a {policy} against Jews.
> Now when we look t the {policy} of a church organization, their policy is stated in their {doctrines}. If their doctrines are against Jews, then the organization has an anti-Semitic policy. The people in the group may not think of Jews as the doctrines of an anti-Semitic policy depict. But that does not annul the policy of the group.
> If a church group states in their policy that they are the only ones that are the true believers in God, then that kind of statement could put down all other faiths when they read something like that, wherever thy read it. In the case in point here:
> [..One of the top ten worst reasons for organized religion is if the organized religion has their agenda not centered in Christ....]. What could be thought by readers is that there are two groups of organized religions, one having their agenda centered in Christ, and the others do not. The statement can not be seen to mean that only Christiandom religions are being compared, for it is talking about organized religions, not just Christiandom religions. And Judaism and Islam and Hinduism and all the rest of religions that have their agenda not centered in Christ, are the ones that the statement says have one of the worst reasons for their being an organized religion. You see, if that statement stands here, then that could be thought to be POLICY here.
> Lou
>Dinah,
Now I would like to introduce the items in this link concerning what constitutes antisemitismto further our discussion.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20080719/msgs/844756.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 10, 2013, at 13:48:05
In reply to Lou's reply-, posted by Lou Pilder on October 10, 2013, at 13:42:39
> > > I'm glad you aren't calling Mormons anti-semitic. The quote you've been objecting to is from an LDS site, if I remember correctly. I felt defensive for the church I still love. I hope that you will try to be as respectful of the Mormon church as I always have tried to be of the Jewish faith.
> > >
> > > I personally don't see much difference between accusations of being anti-semitic and arousing anti-semitic feelings. But if you say you do, I'll believe you.
> >
> > Dinah,
> > You wrote,[...don't see much difference between accusations of being anti-Semitic and arousing anti-Semitic feelings..].
> > The difference is that a statement that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings could be seen, but if someone is anti-Semitic, that is a matter of the heart that can not be seen. There is, though, a test for that.
> > There is a rule here not to post anything that could put down those of other faiths. A statement that could put down Jews or Judaism itself, is an anti-Semitic statement agreed on by Mr. Hsiung. A posting of such a statement does not mean automatically that the poster of such is anti-Semitic. To prove that a person or a church organization is anti-Semitic is that the {policy} of the person or the group is anti-Semitic. That means that the definition of anti-Semitism could be applied to the person or group. The definition in its simplest form of {anti-Semitic}, is {against Jews}. If someone or some group is against Jews, there is a list of things that a person or group does that constitutes being against Jews. Now I think that you would agree that if a person or group {segregates} Jews, then that person or group is anti-Semitic. And if an employer, let's say, did not hire Jews, I think that you could agree that the employer is anti-Semitic, or if a hotel refused to allow Jews to stay there, the hotel would be anti-Semitic, because there is a {policy} against Jews.
> > Now when we look t the {policy} of a church organization, their policy is stated in their {doctrines}. If their doctrines are against Jews, then the organization has an anti-Semitic policy. The people in the group may not think of Jews as the doctrines of an anti-Semitic policy depict. But that does not annul the policy of the group.
> > If a church group states in their policy that they are the only ones that are the true believers in God, then that kind of statement could put down all other faiths when they read something like that, wherever thy read it. In the case in point here:
> > [..One of the top ten worst reasons for organized religion is if the organized religion has their agenda not centered in Christ....]. What could be thought by readers is that there are two groups of organized religions, one having their agenda centered in Christ, and the others do not. The statement can not be seen to mean that only Christiandom religions are being compared, for it is talking about organized religions, not just Christiandom religions. And Judaism and Islam and Hinduism and all the rest of religions that have their agenda not centered in Christ, are the ones that the statement says have one of the worst reasons for their being an organized religion. You see, if that statement stands here, then that could be thought to be POLICY here.
> > Lou
> >
>
> Dinah,
> Now I would like to introduce the items in this link concerning what constitutes antisemitismto further our discussion.
> Lou
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20080719/msgs/844756.htmlFriends,
There is a prohibition to me here from Mr Hsiung that I am not permitted to post anything about the holocaust.
My apology, for I did not know that the post in the link contained a reference since it was made before the prohibition to me here by Mr Hsiung..
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 10, 2013, at 16:00:00
In reply to Psychics » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on October 10, 2013, at 10:48:11
> This guy once bumped into me as I was crossing 33rd Street at 7th Avenue in Manhattan. Because I am Jewish, this act was certainly antisemitic. The perpetrator "could" have been intent on committing acts of violence against me and other Jews. This only follows from logic. That this guy had no idea that I was Jewish shall be disregarded, simply because he "could" have known this. Perhaps he was psychic.
>
> Christendom is what it is. You may disagree with it, but for those who believe that its tenets are derived from the word of God, it is not very different from Judaism. What shall happen to uncircumcised males after their death?
>
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> Genesis 17:9
>
> "But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.
>
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> This "could" be interpreted as such: Circumcision is of such importance that heaven and earth are held only by the fulfilment of that covenant.
>
> As you can see, Judaism is not without its laws of discrimination regarding access to heaven.
>
> You would argue that Christianity is not all-inclusive. I would argue that neither is Judiasm.
>
> This is often the nature of religions - separation. I would suggest to you that the words you identify over and over again as being contrary to your belief system should be tolerated by you as others would tolerate your beliefs in God's intolerance of an uncircumcised penis.
>
>
> - Scott
>Friends,
It is written above by Scott.
Now the verse cited states that there would be a cutting off from their people. It did not say anything about heaven or hell or gehenna or hades or anything about the afterlife. The people would be cut off from his people, not heaven or anything about the afterlife. It goes on to say that those that do such are breaking the covenant.
Now I am prevented from posting here what I would need about the covenant to reply here due to prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung
But be it as it may be, circumcision is a symbolic act to be a sign of the covenant. It has to do with the shedding of blood. And if I was not prevented from posting here what I need to in order for readers to understand this, I could open your eyes to something that you may not understand. And the understanding could be great. SO great, that I think lives could be turned around from the darkness of depression and addiction to go to a marvelous light of peace and joy. Here is a link that could explain more about this situation that I find myself in here. Oh, the (redacted) of it all.
Lou
To see this post:
A. Go to the search box at the bottom of this page and type in:
[admin,7968] and look for the number in the colored strip, not the subject line.
Posted by SLS on October 10, 2013, at 16:47:13
In reply to Lou's response to Scott-bludofcvnant, posted by Lou Pilder on October 10, 2013, at 16:00:00
> Now the verse cited states that there would be a cutting off from their people. It did not say anything about heaven or hell
If circumcised Jews are in Heaven, and uncircumcised individuals are cut off from these people, then the uncircumcised do not go to Heaven.
- Scott
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 10, 2013, at 18:55:34
In reply to Lou's apology, posted by Lou Pilder on October 10, 2013, at 13:48:05
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 10, 2013, at 19:11:33
In reply to Psychics » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on October 10, 2013, at 10:48:11
> This is often the nature of religions - separation.
And maybe in the "religion" here, the sin is incivility and the uncivil are separated/cut off from the civil.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 12, 2013, at 17:26:56
In reply to Lou's reply-kowntrphit-The Hsiung-Pilder discusion » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on October 10, 2013, at 6:06:42
> > > If {what if} means that by modifying what can be seen would annul the fact that the post means, I have said that it would not.
> > >
> > > Lou Pilder
> >
> > > I have heard the words often enough, in context, to understand that it's generally meant as a condemnation of Christian churches who do not have Christ at their center.
> > >
> > > Dinah
> >
> > > if you think for one second that I am going to ever stop my efforts here to purge that statement .. then think again my friends
> > >
> > > Lou
> >
> > I did think we might be able to agree on a way to modify it. Apparently not. Reasonable people can disagree. How about moving on to another statement?
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> The statement says what it says. You even want to change it. You could do that and then I will post my response to you in that thread where you make the change. I have the following concerns and would like for you to post answers to the following.
> A. Are you going to actually do some type of computer surgery to the statement and change it so that it will be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community? You do not need my permission to do that.
> B. If so, would the original statement remain or not?
> C. If you could do that to the statement in the post in question, could you also do that to other post's statements?
> D. If so, what are the criteria that you will use to determine which ones you will change and make an unsupportive statement into a supportive statement?
> E. When I read your TOS here, it said to not post anything that could put down those of other faiths. I took you at your word. So are you going to change your TOS from that to something like:
> [...If you post a statement that could put down those of other faiths, I will use my features in my computer to change the statement so that it does not put down those of other faiths...].
> F. Have you done this type of changing previously here? If so, could you post the urls of those?
> G. If you do change the statement, would there be a disclaimer posted in the thread that you made a change to what another member posted and why you modified the statement?
> Lou Pilder
>
> Mr Hsiung,
If you are going to use your option to not respond to my requests in the above post from me to you, then here is the next post in our discussion.
The post is problematic for many reasons. But be it as it may be, the statements still stand that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings and IMHO could induce in the minds of a subset of readers the ideas that could lead them IMHHO to think of violence toward Jews, on the basis that some readers could think that the statements about Jews are conducive to the civic harmony and welfare here by you. What I am asking is for you to post there a statement that the statements about Jews are not considered by you to be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community. To see the post in question, go to the search box at the bottom of this page and type in:
[ faith,428781 ]
Lou PIlder
to
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 12, 2013, at 17:55:46
In reply to Lou's reply to Mr Hsiung-heytoardjz, posted by Lou Pilder on October 12, 2013, at 17:26:56
> > > > If {what if} means that by modifying what can be seen would annul the fact that the post means, I have said that it would not.
> > > >
> > > > Lou Pilder
> > >
> > > > I have heard the words often enough, in context, to understand that it's generally meant as a condemnation of Christian churches who do not have Christ at their center.
> > > >
> > > > Dinah
> > >
> > > > if you think for one second that I am going to ever stop my efforts here to purge that statement .. then think again my friends
> > > >
> > > > Lou
> > >
> > > I did think we might be able to agree on a way to modify it. Apparently not. Reasonable people can disagree. How about moving on to another statement?
> >
> > Mr. Hsiung,
> > The statement says what it says. You even want to change it. You could do that and then I will post my response to you in that thread where you make the change. I have the following concerns and would like for you to post answers to the following.
> > A. Are you going to actually do some type of computer surgery to the statement and change it so that it will be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community? You do not need my permission to do that.
> > B. If so, would the original statement remain or not?
> > C. If you could do that to the statement in the post in question, could you also do that to other post's statements?
> > D. If so, what are the criteria that you will use to determine which ones you will change and make an unsupportive statement into a supportive statement?
> > E. When I read your TOS here, it said to not post anything that could put down those of other faiths. I took you at your word. So are you going to change your TOS from that to something like:
> > [...If you post a statement that could put down those of other faiths, I will use my features in my computer to change the statement so that it does not put down those of other faiths...].
> > F. Have you done this type of changing previously here? If so, could you post the urls of those?
> > G. If you do change the statement, would there be a disclaimer posted in the thread that you made a change to what another member posted and why you modified the statement?
> > Lou Pilder
> >
> > Mr Hsiung,
> If you are going to use your option to not respond to my requests in the above post from me to you, then here is the next post in our discussion.
> The post is problematic for many reasons. But be it as it may be, the statements still stand that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings and IMHO could induce in the minds of a subset of readers the ideas that could lead them IMHHO to think of violence toward Jews, on the basis that some readers could think that the statements about Jews are conducive to the civic harmony and welfare here by you. What I am asking is for you to post there a statement that the statements about Jews are not considered by you to be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community. To see the post in question, go to the search box at the bottom of this page and type in:
> [ faith,428781 ]
> Lou PIlder
> to
Mr Hsiung and readers,
Here is a link and the links in the post to what I think could help readers understand the situation that I find myself in here.
Lou Pilder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/429340.html
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.