![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 7 to 31 of 31. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 8, 2005, at 22:20:44
In reply to Re: Separate Board for Christians?, posted by Mark H. on April 8, 2005, at 20:41:32
Friends,
It is written here that the faith board is simply not working.
I am requesting for members here that agree with that statement to list why such a statement could be made about the faith board. I just saw a post there thanking another for a prayer. Is that not a sign of "working"?
I just got an email from someone that saw one of my posts via a search. We are now in email dialog that could have the potential to have this person freed from the bondage of addiction and depression. Is this not a sign that the faith board is working? And has not a poster here wrote that they thanked me for the dialog because it gave christianity (something that I forgot what it was)?
And was there not a post here to me saying that after reading my posts that they could sit a little bit taller? And I got a babblemail yesterday commmending my posts, saying that they loved reading me. Can anyone make a conclusion that the board is not working? If so,what do you mean by "working"?
Lou
Posted by Spriggy on April 8, 2005, at 22:48:57
In reply to Lou's response to Mark H's post, posted by Lou Pilder on April 8, 2005, at 22:20:44
Now get over here and let me give you a big ole' Southern style hug!!!
That was precious what you wrote.. and it made me reevaulate what I had originally thought.
You actually made this stubborn, blonde, Alabama native change her mind.
Hats off to you. :)
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 9, 2005, at 11:47:39
In reply to Lou'es request to Dr. Hsiung, posted by Lou Pilder on April 8, 2005, at 10:14:49
> could you write a procedure that one can use here to stop what you are permitting here?
One can try to change my mind?
> you have not addressed ,[...The {deceiving} leaders...] which IMO has the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings, because is not the referrence to the religious leaders of ancient Israel? ... Can we look at Auntie Mel's post?
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20050312/msgs/481111.htmlSorry, but I don't see anything in that post about deceiving leaders...
Bob
Posted by rayww on April 9, 2005, at 14:53:39
In reply to Re: Lou'es request, posted by Dr. Bob on April 9, 2005, at 11:47:39
It was I (not AuntiMel) who made the comment about deceiving leaders, and offended Lou again. There are good leaders and leaders who are not so good. There have been and are now leaders who willfully try to deceive their people. Why should Jewish leaders be excluded from this group, when most other religions and governments openly admit to having them? I see no harm in mentioning that there were "some deceiving leaders" in ancient Israel. Ancient Israel refers to all 12 tribes, 10 of which are considered lost today. These lost 10 Tribes will someday return. (another political/religious prophecy).
http://scriptures.lds.org/bdi/isrlkngdDo you agree or not agree that there have been deceiving religious leaders in the world?
I liked what you said about the Faith board, and what spriggy? said about you. We need to all learn tollerance and strive for peaceful solutions (Pope John Paul)
Posted by rayww on April 9, 2005, at 14:56:05
In reply to Re: Lou'es request » Dr. Bob, posted by rayww on April 9, 2005, at 14:53:39
Posted by Phillipa on April 9, 2005, at 19:09:34
In reply to Previous post to Dr Bob, and Lou (nm), posted by rayww on April 9, 2005, at 14:56:05
Peace to you all! Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by SLS on April 9, 2005, at 20:45:16
In reply to Re: Separate Board for Christians?, posted by Mark H. on April 8, 2005, at 20:41:32
> The central tenets of Christianity include beliefs that there is one God, one Messiah, and only one true path to salvation.
If such a belief system were promulgated in the Faith forum, it would constitute a breach of the forum's stated mantra:
"But whoever dares to say: Outside the Church is no salvation, ought to be driven from the State."
It is not my contention that we ought to drive Christians from the State.
How do we reconcile such an obvious conflict?
Maybe Mark has it right.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on April 9, 2005, at 21:04:29
In reply to Re: Separate Board for Christians?, posted by SLS on April 9, 2005, at 20:45:16
And what's the deal with this?
"Chris Williams, MBChB BSc MMedSc MD MRCPsych, Director of the Glasgow Institute for Psychosocial Interventions and co-author of I'm Not Supposed to Feel Like This: A Christian Approach to Depression and Anxiety (UK link), will be at Psycho-Babble Faith."
I happen to know that the Jewish approach works better.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on April 9, 2005, at 21:11:17
In reply to Re: Lou'es request, posted by Dr. Bob on April 9, 2005, at 11:47:39
Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!
- Scott
Posted by Phillipa on April 9, 2005, at 21:41:28
In reply to Re: Separate Board for Christians?, posted by SLS on April 9, 2005, at 21:04:29
Maybe you're right. A separate Board for Christians, Jews, and one for those who are just open minded to all Faiths. I know I like aspects of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Judiasm, etc. I like to hear about all of them. I was born a Protestant, but was brought up without Religion. I developed my own Spirituality after reading Scott Peck's The Road Less Traveled. Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 10, 2005, at 1:38:09
In reply to Re: Lou'es request » Dr. Bob, posted by rayww on April 9, 2005, at 14:53:39
> There are good leaders and leaders who are not so good... most other religions and governments openly admit to having them... I see no harm in mentioning that there were "some deceiving leaders"
The potential harm is that followers of those leaders, in both religions and governments, might feel put down. At the same time, few leaders are perfect... I think it's something that should be done only with a lot of respect and sensitivity.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 10, 2005, at 1:38:18
In reply to Re: Separate Board for Christians?, posted by SLS on April 9, 2005, at 21:04:29
> I happen to know that the Jewish approach works better.
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel put down.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dinah on April 10, 2005, at 10:38:55
In reply to Re: please be civil » SLS, posted by Dr. Bob on April 10, 2005, at 1:38:18
I still think the part of the quotation that Scott quoted above (put by you on the opening of the Faith Board) would probably qualify as uncivil under Babble posting policies. (I'm not saying that Scott was uncivil, btw. I'm saying that your paragraph is.) I don't believe that we are allowed to say that even posters who clearly are in violation of Babble civility guidelines should be driven from the state. And doesn't your year long cap on blocks support that policy?
I renew my suggestion that people be allowed to say that their religion believes that its members should believe such and such or do such and such, as long as they don't speak of everyone, just members of their own religion.
To clarify the intent behind my request, I'll share a bit from my own belief system - which I emphatically state is only *my* belief system, and no else must, or maybe even does, share it.
I believe there are many roads to God. I believe that God revealed himself to different peoples in different times in ways that would fit their understanding given their cultures and pre-existing belief structure, because God wants people to find him. So I believe he doesn't make it too hard for people in completely different parts of the world, particularly in pre mass communication days, to do so by making only one path. But I also believe that once you've chosen a path, God wants you to live by its precepts. So I believe that a Christian (for example only) might say that God wishes Christians to follow the path that they have chosen, and as long as they don't say it's the only path it doesn't mean that others on their own paths aren't equally going to find their way to God, and aren't equally bound to follow the precepts of the path they have chosen.
So it's my opinion that a Christian could say that for Christians it's necessary to believe xxxx (although I'd likely dispute a fair amount of the necessity with church history), and that would not preclude that they also believe that for Jews it's necessary to believe yyyyy, and that for Muslims it's necessary to believe zzzzz, and that for Hindus it's necessary to believe aaaaa - or that Jews and Christians and Hindus and Muslims will all find God on their own paths.
That's my belief anyway. FWIW.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 10, 2005, at 12:21:51
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on April 10, 2005, at 10:38:55
> I still think the part of the quotation that Scott quoted above ... would probably qualify as uncivil under Babble posting policies.
Maybe it would. And this has come up before:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040307/msgs/333048.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040902/msgs/393500.htmlOK, would anyone like to propose a way to rephrase that quotation?
> So it's my opinion that a Christian could say that for Christians it's necessary to believe xxxx...
And another Christian could disagree? It would be better, IMO, to disagree about what people actually believe:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020918/msgs/7889.html
than what's necessary to believe...
Bob
Posted by Phillipa on April 10, 2005, at 14:46:07
In reply to Re: the quotation, posted by Dr. Bob on April 10, 2005, at 12:21:51
I get very confused by all this. But, even those of the same religion disagree on interpretations. They just agree to disagree. Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by SLS on April 10, 2005, at 20:21:22
In reply to Re: please be civil » SLS, posted by Dr. Bob on April 10, 2005, at 1:38:18
> > I happen to know that the Jewish approach works better.
> Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel put down.I was, of course, being facetious:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050323/msgs/482176.html
I question whether there is a place on this site for:
"This book is written for Christians who find that they are feeling depressed and/or anxious, and also for their fellow Christians and Church workers so that they can offer more effective and helpful support."
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0340786396/drbobsvirte00-20/002-9426227-9420820
You were, of course, going to invite an expert on the Jewish approach, no?
You were, of course, going to invite an expert on the Buddist approach, no?
You were, of course, going to invite an expert on the Shinto approach, no?
You were, of course, going to invite an expert on the Tao approach, no?
You were, of course, going to invite an expert on the Hindu approach, no?
You were, of course, going to invite an expert on the Muslim approach, no?
Etc.
It won't matter what religion is chosen, really. It should in no way be offensive to others of differing religions because each book represented will be written only to a select audience. Everyone else can simply choose not to read the threads, right?
This is outrageous.
- Scott
Posted by Dinah on April 10, 2005, at 22:24:43
In reply to Re: the quotation, posted by Dr. Bob on April 10, 2005, at 12:21:51
> > I still think the part of the quotation that Scott quoted above ... would probably qualify as uncivil under Babble posting policies.
>
> Maybe it would. And this has come up before:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040307/msgs/333048.html
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040902/msgs/393500.html
>
I know, Dr. Bob. Since you'll find my name prominently in the poster section of that thread. :)> OK, would anyone like to propose a way to rephrase that quotation?
>I thought it was illegal or something to rephrase a quotation...
My suggestion before was that you needed no external validation of your Faith Board guidelines. I still hold to that belief. Why don't you just replace the entire quotation with a simple and honest statement of your ideas on how the Faith board should operate, its purpose, and what its purpose isn't, restrictions on ability to post pertinent points of ones own belief, and better yet your idea of what the board should be used for (other than to free the other boards from religious content).
Posted by Dinah on April 10, 2005, at 22:25:07
In reply to Re: the quotation, posted by Dinah on April 10, 2005, at 22:24:43
Posted by SLS on April 11, 2005, at 7:44:44
In reply to Re: the quotation, posted by Dinah on April 10, 2005, at 22:24:43
> My suggestion before was that you needed no external validation of your Faith Board guidelines. I still hold to that belief. Why don't you just replace the entire quotation with a simple and honest statement of your ideas on how the Faith board should operate, its purpose, and what its purpose isn't, restrictions on ability to post pertinent points of ones own belief, and better yet your idea of what the board should be used for (other than to free the other boards from religious content).
This sounds reasonable. This is certainly a less provocative way to get a point across compared to the citation currently promulgated as policy. I think it should be recognized that it might be at the core of some belief systems that there be no tolerance of others. These should be included on a faith board as well. I feel this can be accomplished by detailing the modes of communication that will be acceptable to the forum without the use of quotations or citations.
- Scott
Posted by used2b on April 11, 2005, at 10:55:19
In reply to Re: the quotation, posted by SLS on April 11, 2005, at 7:44:44
> I think it should be recognized that it might be at the core of some belief systems that there be no tolerance of others.Exactly. Intolerance toward the intolerant only creates more intolerance.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 11, 2005, at 13:06:36
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by SLS on April 10, 2005, at 20:21:22
> I was, of course, being facetious
OK, but please be careful with humor, especially when it's a sensitive topic like faith...
> You were, of course, going to invite an expert on the Jewish approach, no?
>
> Etc.I'd be happy to invite other experts. Would you like to suggest someone?
> It won't matter what religion is chosen, really. It should in no way be offensive to others of differing religions because each book represented will be written only to a select audience.
Just because a book, or an approach, is intended for a select audience doesn't mean it won't be relevant to others. That's kind of the idea of Psycho-Babble Faith, that those of different orientations may have something in common. Let's see how this goes?
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 11, 2005, at 13:07:14
In reply to Re: the quotation, posted by Dinah on April 10, 2005, at 22:24:43
> I thought it was illegal or something to rephrase a quotation...
It's OK to paraphrase...
> My suggestion before was that you needed no external validation of your Faith Board guidelines. I still hold to that belief. Why don't you just replace the entire quotation with a simple and honest statement of your ideas on how the Faith board should operate, its purpose, and what its purpose isn't, restrictions on ability to post pertinent points of ones own belief, and better yet your idea of what the board should be used for (other than to free the other boards from religious content).
I could just replace the quotation with a link...
Bob
Posted by used2b on April 11, 2005, at 13:12:17
In reply to Re: the quotation, posted by Dr. Bob on April 11, 2005, at 13:07:14
> I could just replace the quotation with a link...
>
> BobOr you could remove it entirely and consider that many people consider suggesting someone should be "driven from the state" is a put down.
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 18, 2005, at 23:57:24
In reply to Re: the quotation, posted by Dr. Bob on April 10, 2005, at 12:21:51
> > I still think the part of the quotation that Scott quoted above ... would probably qualify as uncivil under Babble posting policies.
>
> Maybe it would. And this has come up before:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040307/msgs/333048.html
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040902/msgs/393500.html
>
> OK, would anyone like to propose a way to rephrase that quotation?It occurred to me that I could just leave out the second sentence:
> Tolerance should be given to all religions that tolerate others, so long as their dogmas contain nothing contrary to the duties of citizenship. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract, 1762
How about that?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on May 19, 2005, at 5:03:39
In reply to Re: the quotation, posted by Dr. Bob on May 18, 2005, at 23:57:24
Much better, Dr. Bob. Perfectly unexceptional to me.
:-)
This is the end of the 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.