![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 35. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 24, 2005, at 19:13:28
To the administration.
I am requesting a halt to the thread on the faith board that has, [...nothing but the blood of Jesus...] written in posts.
I have tried to accept the reasoning offered to me here that says that it is acceptable to write these type of statements here that that type of statement can be posted here because it is a song or in a link. But OTOH, it has been written here that statements in links have been asked by Dr. Hsiung to be revised or deleted and even quoting does not allow statements to be posted if the statement is not in accordance with the guidlines of the forum.
It is my great fear that I will see this board filled with links that have statemnets in it that IMO have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelingg and anti other feelings toward those that do not accept that [...{nothing} but the the blood of Jesus washes away sins...].
I am requesting the halt because now there is another post with a hymn that you can click on to see the statement that [...nothing but the blood of Jesus...]. Nothing? Is this forum not a mental health forum that has a pleuristic population of posters and readers?
Could someone post a link to the web site of the Aryan Nation and claim that because it is in a link it is acceptable here? Could this type of posting be acceptabvle if the poster that posted the hymn writes that they just like the music and do not belive in the words?
This forum allows this, but if you read the opening page of the faith board under the offered links, you may see that it could be IMO have the potential for some to think that what is written by Dr. Hsiung about me could be interptretted that the foundation of my faith, Jewdaism , puts down those of other faiths. Is not one of the foundations of Christianity posted in the hymn in question? Is not the foundation of Christianity that the shedding of the blood of Jesus is the atonment for all sins of mankind that were commited brfore his death and for the sins committed after his death?
It may be a bad break that I can not post what the Rider said to me here about the foundation of my faith. Yet today, I consider myself, to be, the luckiest man, on the face of the earth.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on March 24, 2005, at 19:33:49
In reply to Lou's request to the administration, posted by Lou Pilder on March 24, 2005, at 19:13:28
He was listing the titles of favorite songs, Lou.
IMO, it was ok.
He wasn't saying anything about everyone needing to be saved by Jesus's blood. It can be one of his own favorite songs without it being a theological statement that *everyone* has to do something or another to be "saved". And Dr. Bob has previously ruled that it is ok for someone to say that they believe that *they* personally need to do something or another, as long as they don't say everyone does.
In the absence of further statements, I don't think it violates the Faith board principles. Dr. Bob may, of course, disagree.
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 24, 2005, at 19:38:16
In reply to Re: Lou's request to the administration » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on March 24, 2005, at 19:33:49
Dinah,
You wrote,[...he was listing titles of favorite songs...][...it was OK...]
Could someone here list (on the faith board) that their favorite book is "Mien Kampf"?
Lou
Posted by alexandra_k on March 24, 2005, at 19:45:31
In reply to Lou's reply to Dinah » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on March 24, 2005, at 19:38:16
What about that their favourite book is the Old Testament? Or the new testament? Or the book of mormon?
I don't see how saying what your favourite book is can be considered uncivil...
Posted by Dinah on March 24, 2005, at 19:50:29
In reply to Lou's reply to Dinah » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on March 24, 2005, at 19:38:16
Lou, I'm as PC as anybody (politically correct, not Partly Cloudy :) ). And I still don't think listing that as a favorite song can be considered a violation of the civility rules.
As I said, perhaps Dr. Bob will disagree.
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 24, 2005, at 20:02:28
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Dinah » Lou Pilder, posted by alexandra_k on March 24, 2005, at 19:45:31
a_k,
You wrote,[...I don't see how saying your favorite book...could be uncivil...].
What if one wrote here that their favorite book was,[..The Protocals of the Learned Elders of Zion...]?
It is my understanding that it is OK to write what you believe as long as what you believe {does not put down others}. The question then becomes if the poster believes what the book or song purports. Dr. Hsiung has asked another poster her in a similar situation if they belived that they were saying that (all) or just {them{. The poster replied {all}. Perhaps Dinah or Mark H could do what D. Hsiung did in this type of situation and ask the poster if the blood of Jesus is necessarry for all people to have their sins washed or that others can have their sins washed without the blood of Jesus
Lou
Posted by Dinah on March 24, 2005, at 20:09:58
In reply to Lou's reply to alexandra_k » alexandra_k, posted by Lou Pilder on March 24, 2005, at 20:02:28
Well, I'm not going to. Because the situations are completely different. The other person made a statement that could easily be read as [all]. This person listed a song title.
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 24, 2005, at 20:16:03
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on March 24, 2005, at 20:09:58
Dinah,
You wrote,[...not going to...this person listed a song title...].
Could a poster post a song title that the song had words that are offensive to others in it like some that Wal-Mart will not accept to be sold by them?
Lou
Posted by alexandra_k on March 24, 2005, at 21:45:37
In reply to Lou's reply to alexandra_k » alexandra_k, posted by Lou Pilder on March 24, 2005, at 20:02:28
> You wrote,[...I don't see how saying your favorite book...could be uncivil...].
Yup.
> What if one wrote here that their favorite book was,[..The Protocals of the Learned Elders of Zion...]?
IMO that would be one example of saying what your favourite book was. And so that would be fine.
> It is my understanding that it is OK to write what you believe as long as what you believe {does not put down others}.
Saying that something is your 'favourite' book doesn't really entail any beliefs except perhaps
'I believe there are books'
'I believe this book is my favourite book'
I don't see how either of those can be considered uncivil.>The question then becomes if the poster believes what the book or song purports.
But the poster didn't post anything about whether they believed what it purports or not. When people see whether posts are civil or not we have to go with what the poster actually says. We can't 'imagine how they might' answer further questions and consider their original post uncivil because of stuff that they didn't even say.
>Dr. Hsiung has asked another poster her in a similar situation if they belived that they were saying that (all) or just {them{. The poster replied {all}.
>Perhaps Dinah or Mark H could do what D. Hsiung did in this type of situation and ask the poster if the blood of Jesus is necessarry for all people to have their sins washed or that others can have their sins washed without the blood of Jesus
This seems to be worrying you, Lou.
Why don't you ask them?
Posted by alexandra_k on March 24, 2005, at 21:52:45
In reply to Lou's reply to Dinah » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on March 24, 2005, at 20:16:03
> Could a poster post a song title that the song had words that are offensive to others in it like some that Wal-Mart will not accept to be sold by them?
If the song title was uncivil, that might be one thing...
Sometimes there may be ambiguity between whether the author is
(a) expressing their personal belief
(b) expressing what they take to be true for everyoneor whatever...
In such cases it can be useful to apply what is called the 'principle of charity'.
To assume the best reading (ie the civil one) if at all possible.
In some cases that civil reading really doesn't seem to fit. IMO that is why some posts are considered uncivil. If there is a civil reading, though, then it is charitable to the poster to interpret what they say in a positive light.
I dare say that some song titles and some exerpts from what may be 'peoples favourite books' may well be uncivil.
Why don't you give the poster the benefit of the doubt.
Or ask them for clarification if this is really bugging you??
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 24, 2005, at 22:27:08
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on March 24, 2005, at 20:09:58
Dinah,
You wrote,[..."Im not going to...this person listed {a song title}...].
The statement in question is what I consider to be what could be what determines acceptability or not. If the fact that the statement is a song title means that whatever the statement is can be considered acceptable, then what about the {poem} by Mark Morford?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2005, at 5:35:45
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on March 24, 2005, at 20:09:58
Dinah,
The guidline for the faith board is that some foundations of some faiths can not be posted. I do not think that it matters if the poster believes it or not.
Also, whether the poster is telling others , I do not think that that has anything to do with if the foundation can be posted or not, which is my understanding from the past practice here.
That is why I am requesting that a halt be put on that thread so that we can determine if [...{nothing} but the blood of Jesus...] is considered to be a foundation of Christianity or not, and then if the foundation of chrisianity in relation to [...{nothing} but the blood of Jesus...]can or can not be posted here in accordance with the guidlines of the forum. Because since you are allowing it, I am asking for the halt so that when Dr. Hsiung returns from being away that he can make his determination as to the acceptability or not of being allowed to be posted as a song title if [...{nothing} but the blood of Jesus...] is in fact one of the foundations of Christianity.
Now the word {nothing} in, [..{nothing} but the blood of Jesus...] could also be a part of this determination by Dr. Hsiung because of other posts in the past here.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2005, at 6:28:10
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on March 24, 2005, at 20:09:58
Dinah,
As to the statement,[..nothing but the blood of Jesus..] could be determined as acceptablr here { because it is a song title, or words of the song} came up with me IRL.
My children attended a school where there were few jewish children. The school was going to put on a "Christmas' assembly with the song ,"Silent Night". I objected to the administration and their argument to allow it was that it was a song. My reply to them was then they could sing it in May.
Then the school told me that they would have a theater group perform a play for the children durring this time. The play was a Christmas play. I objected. They said that it was a {play} so that they could do it. I appealed and they did put on the play and I attended. When the singing of a song about christmas was inthe plsy, the theater members hummed the song. I was the only person then that objected. But I raised the issue of the school being used to {advance a particular religion}.. This is what made sense to some people in the community for the first time. Then the board issued a statement that they would not allow one religion to be {favored} and changed their policy about this at the christmas season. The Klu Klux Klan representative objected and the board did not back down. Today, that school district is in the top schools in the area and the community now understands my point that I was not against christmas, for anyone can celebrate christmas in their homes and such, but I was against the schools being used to advance a particular religion.
My point here is that this forum is made up of a wide veriety if different people and that any particular religion to be afforded any exemption from the guidlines is IMO an unsound mental-health practice. The question to me then is if the statement is acceptable or not in relation to the guidlines of the forum and if the statement[...{nothing} but the blood of Jesus is going to allowed because it is the words of a song or not, and if it would be allowed even if it was not the words of a song. because the guidlines write about [...foundations of faiths and putting down those of other faiths..]. If it is allowed here to post something that says that [... {nothing} but the blood of Jesus can wash away sins...], then could I not post what the Rider said to me?
Lou
Posted by AuntieMel on March 25, 2005, at 9:54:43
In reply to Lou's reply to Dinah-advnc » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2005, at 6:28:10
The faith board guidelines say you can tell your beliefs or feelings as long as they do not put down other faiths or say that those who believe differently are wrong.
To me listing a favorite book or song is like stating it as it is *my* favorite, not saying that others have to agree.
But I also understand that this is the time of year for extra vigilance. Easter has historically been the time for fire and brimstone type preachers to stir up the parishoners, who would then go out and cause great harm in Jewish communities.
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2005, at 10:23:39
In reply to Re: The way I see it (for what it's worth) » Lou Pilder, posted by AuntieMel on March 25, 2005, at 9:54:43
AuntieMel,
You wrote,[...as long as...not put down...not say...wrong..].
Let us look at the statement in question hypothetically{ as if it was not in a song}.
[...{nothing} but the blood of Jesus...can wash away sins...].
Now could there be the potential, in your opinion, for some others to consider that the statement could mean that Jews and others that do not accept that the blood of Jesus is the only thing,(because the statement uses the word {nothing} that can wash away sins are being "put down" according to the past practice of the use of that phrase?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2005, at 11:05:08
In reply to Re: The way I see it (for what it's worth) » Lou Pilder, posted by AuntieMel on March 25, 2005, at 9:54:43
AuntieMel,
You wrote,[...the faith board guidlines...not put down...not say others are wrong...]
In the statement,[...nothing but the blood of Jesus...wash away sins...]could there be another aspect of the guidlines for the faith board thatcould apply here?
There is also the guidline to be supportive. In your opinion, is the statement supportive if there is the potential in your opinion for it to mean that Jews and others that do not accept that [...nothing but the blood of Jesus...] can not have their sins washed away because the statement in question uses the word,{nothing} but the blood of Jesus?
Another aspect of the guidlines is if the statement will be good for the community as a whole. You wrote about historical events of Jews being harmed after easter services sermons. Do you mean that the statement in question , then, could have the potential to not be good for the community as a whole because there are jewish posters here and others that do not believe that nothing but the blood of Jesus can wash away sins and that there could be the potential, IYO, for that thread to escalate into ,perhaps statements that could have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings including, but not limited to that the Jews killed Christ?
Lou
Posted by AuntieMel on March 25, 2005, at 13:42:47
In reply to Lou's response to AuntieMel's post-~suprtiv? » AuntieMel, posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2005, at 11:05:08
A two pronged question ...
I went back and read the actual lyrics and what they said was "what can wash away my sins"
The key word there is *my*
If it said *your* instead of my - but still in song lyrics I would call it a grey area for Dr. Bob.
And if it said *your* and was *not* in a song I would have considered it against the guidelines.
When I read the lyrics they seemed to me to be reflective and inward-looking, which I don't think would be likely to incite anything. I think (my opinion only, which could be flawed) as long as people are inward-looking there will be no harm.
I think, too, when people list favorite religious songs they are usually considering the lyrics last. Before the actual words could come the music, or memories of happy times, or something else not word related.
I'm a bit partial to Amazing Grace, partly because I like the song, but mostly because of the history of how it was written.
Am I making any sense?
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2005, at 16:14:31
In reply to Re: Lou's response to AuntieMel's post-~suprtiv?, posted by AuntieMel on March 25, 2005, at 13:42:47
> A two pronged question ...
>
> I went back and read the actual lyrics and what they said was "what can wash away my sins"
>
> The key word there is *my*
>
> If it said *your* instead of my - but still in song lyrics I would call it a grey area for Dr. Bob.
>
> And if it said *your* and was *not* in a song I would have considered it against the guidelines.
>
> When I read the lyrics they seemed to me to be reflective and inward-looking, which I don't think would be likely to incite anything. I think (my opinion only, which could be flawed) as long as people are inward-looking there will be no harm.
>
> I think, too, when people list favorite religious songs they are usually considering the lyrics last. Before the actual words could come the music, or memories of happy times, or something else not word related.
>
> I'm a bit partial to Amazing Grace, partly because I like the song, but mostly because of the history of how it was written.
>
> Am I making any sense?Auntie Mel,
You wrote in your post above,[...the key word...is *my*...].
But in the statement in question , it writes, [...{nothing} but the blood of Jesus...].
Someone could think, IMO, that there is the potential for the statement to mean that {evryone's} sins are not going to be washed away unless they agree with the statement because the statement says [...{nothing}...]. Is there a difference between {nothing} and {only}?
But there is much more to this.
Lou
Posted by alexandra_k on March 25, 2005, at 22:51:34
In reply to Lou's response to AuntieMel's post-notigonly » AuntieMel, posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2005, at 16:14:31
Nothing but the blood of Jesus can wash away my sins.
Only the blood of Jesus can wash away my sins.
What is the difference???
They are both MINE not YOURS and besides which the poster just said they liked the song - not even that they believed what it was saying.
They didn't even post the lyrics to the whole song - they just posted the title.
A whole bunch of stuff has the 'potential' to be considered uncivil.
Personally, I prefer not to look for that...
There is enough that is glaringly uncivil without going looking for it...
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 26, 2005, at 6:17:06
In reply to Re: Lou's response to AuntieMel's post-notigonly » Lou Pilder, posted by alexandra_k on March 25, 2005, at 22:51:34
> Nothing but the blood of Jesus can wash away my sins.
>
> Only the blood of Jesus can wash away my sins.
>
> What is the difference???
>
> They are both MINE not YOURS and besides which the poster just said they liked the song - not even that they believed what it was saying.
>
> They didn't even post the lyrics to the whole song - they just posted the title.
>
> A whole bunch of stuff has the 'potential' to be considered uncivil.
>
> Personally, I prefer not to look for that...
>
> There is enough that is glaringly uncivil without going looking for it...A_k,
In your post above, you wrote,[...not even that they believed what it was saying...].
Did I not request for the poster to declare if they believed what it was saying? What is the poster's reply to my request for clarification?
If only the blood of Jesus can wash away the poster's sins, then could those that do not hold to that doctrine have a way to wash away their sins? If so, then could the statement,[..{nothing} but the blood of Jesus...]be accurate?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 26, 2005, at 6:29:42
In reply to Re: Lou's response to AuntieMel's post-notigonly » Lou Pilder, posted by alexandra_k on March 25, 2005, at 22:51:34
a_k,
You wrote,[...nothing but the blood of Jesus....only the blood of Jesus...can wash away my sins...They are both mine, not yours...they just posted the title...going looking for it...].
It is not my intention to [...going looking for it...] for the post was posted for the entire forum and plainly visible.
There is another aspect to the forum in the guidlines that write,[...be sensitive to the feelings of others...]. There are numerous posts exibiting what that means here as to the past practice here. If it is acceptable here to write,[...nothing but the blood of Jesus can wash away {my} sins...], could it also be acceptable here in your opinion, for me to write,[...The Rider said {to me}...]?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 26, 2005, at 7:35:00
In reply to Re: Lou's response to AuntieMel's post-notigonly » Lou Pilder, posted by alexandra_k on March 25, 2005, at 22:51:34
> Nothing but the blood of Jesus can wash away my sins.
>
> Only the blood of Jesus can wash away my sins.
>
> What is the difference???
>
> They are both MINE not YOURS and besides which the poster just said they liked the song - not even that they believed what it was saying.
>
> They didn't even post the lyrics to the whole song - they just posted the title.
>
> A whole bunch of stuff has the 'potential' to be considered uncivil.
>
> Personally, I prefer not to look for that...
>
> There is enough that is glaringly uncivil without going looking for it...
a_k,
There is another aspect of the guidline here that states,[...different points of view are encouraged...please be sensitive to the feelings of others...]. The POV of the poster in question,[...nothing but the blood of Jesus can...], I respect for that poster or anyone else here to write. What I am concerned about here is the opening page of the faith board under {guidlines} and {spacific examples}and the other writings of Dr. Hsiung concerning me, that could have the potential IMO for some others to think that taking all that Dr. Hsiung has written about what I want to post is unacceptable here because , IMO, the proposed post of mine according to what Dr. Hsiung has written concerning me, could fall into the guidline of the forum of {...putting down those of other faiths...] or fall thearfore in the guidline,[...be sensitve to the feelings of others...], or fall in the guidline,[... will not be good for the community as a whole...]. But in my proposed post, [...The Rider ...said {to me}...] is what I am bringing up for a determination as to if [...nothing but the blood of Jesus can wash away {my} sins...] is acceptable, then the statement does not [...put down those of other faiths...], and does not fall in the guidline od [...be sensitive to the feelings of others..] and does not fall in the guidlines of,[...will not be good for the community as a whole...].
Now if the statement [...nothing but the blood of Jesus can wash away {my} sins...] does not fall in the catagory in the guidlines of the forum as being unacceptable, then could you express why ,in your opinion,if [...the Rider said {to me}...], as to how would my proposed post be unacceptable here?
There is another guidline that states,[...some foundations of some faiths can not be posted...]I interpret that to mean that those foundations that can not be posted could fall into the catagory of,[...please be sensitive to the feelings of others...]. In Dr. Hsiung's writings concerning me, could not those writings have the potential for one to think,IYO, that the statements concerning me are saying that the foundation of my faith can not be posted here? And is whether I belive or not going to make it acceptable or not? It is the {foundation} that Dr. Hsiung writes that can not be posted. I do not think that if the poster belives it or not , or even quotes someone else, that one can post here a foundation of a faith that Dr. Hsiung has indicated [...puts down those of other faiths...] which I interpret as also falling into the catagory of,[...be sensitive to the feelings of others...].
In, [..The Rider....said {to me}...] and [...nothing but the blood of Jesus can wash away (my} sins...] are these both not foundations of the respective faiths? Then can one fall in the catagory of [...please be sensitive to the feeling of others...or their point of view...] and the other not fall into that catagory of,[...please be sensitive to the feelings of others...or their point of view...]?
Lou
Posted by alexandra_k on March 26, 2005, at 15:44:36
In reply to Lou's response to alexandra_k's post- » alexandra_k, posted by Lou Pilder on March 26, 2005, at 6:17:06
>In your post above, you wrote,[...not even that they believed what it was saying...].
Did I not request for the poster to declare if they believed what it was saying?Yes you did. But in the post that you are requesting a determination on they did not say whether they believed it or not. If they post ANOTHER post then perhaps you will go on to request determination as to the acceptability of the OTHER post. But in the post in question they did not say they believed it. As I said already we can't say that a post is uncivil because of things it didn't even say.
>If only the blood of Jesus can wash away the poster's sins, then could those that do not hold to that doctrine have a way to wash away their sins?
Absolutely. Just not the posters sins. It doesn't make any comment at all about the sins of other posters. So that leaves it open that other people may have different ways of washing away their sins.
>If so, then could the statement,[..{nothing} but the blood of Jesus...]be accurate?
Yes.
'Nothing but the blood of Jesus can wash away my sins' doesn't preclude 'nothing but the (whatever you like) can wash away YOUR sins'. Both can be true.>It is not my intention to [...going looking for it...] for the post was posted for the entire forum and plainly visible.
I know, Lou. That wasn't quite what I meant. It is ok. I am sorry if you felt hurt or indignant that I said that.
>If it is acceptable here to write,[...nothing but the blood of Jesus can wash away {my} sins...], could it also be acceptable here in your opinion, for me to write,[...The Rider said {to me}...]?
How about 'I believe that the rider said to me...'
But then you also need to consider what the rider is saying, and whether it is a message for YOU or whether it is supposed to be a message for EVERYONE (and in the latter case that might be considered insensitive to others faiths).>Now if the statement [...nothing but the blood of Jesus can wash away {my} sins...] does not fall in the catagory in the guidlines of the forum as being unacceptable, then could you express why ,in your opinion,if [...the Rider said {to me}...], as to how would my proposed post be unacceptable here?
Depends what the Rider said. Whether it was a message to you or to everyone. Is it revealing 'your truth' or 'THE truth'. If it is the latter then people of other faiths may feel put down or whatever.
> [...nothing but the blood of Jesus can wash away (my} sins...]That doesn't put down anyone elses faith.
> [..The Rider....said {to me}...]
I don't know whether that does or not. All depends on what the rider said...
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 26, 2005, at 15:58:37
In reply to Re: Lou's response to alexandra_k's post- » Lou Pilder, posted by alexandra_k on March 26, 2005, at 15:44:36
alexandra_k,
You wrote.[...it all depends on what the Rider said...].
Then does it depend also on what the song says?
Lou
Posted by alexandra_k on March 26, 2005, at 16:01:11
In reply to Lou's response to alexandra_k's post-dpndon » alexandra_k, posted by Lou Pilder on March 26, 2005, at 15:58:37
> You wrote.[...it all depends on what the Rider said...].
> Then does it depend also on what the song says?If the poster posted the lyrics to the whole song then yes, a civility determination would be made on that basis.
If you post what you believe the rider said to you then yes, a civility determination would be made on that basis.
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.