Psycho-Babble Administration Thread 7713

Shown: posts 90 to 114 of 194. Go back in thread:

 

Re: Dinah's observations-Lou's response » Dinah

Posted by NikkiT2 on October 24, 2002, at 10:44:45

In reply to Re: Dinah's observations-Lou's response » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on October 24, 2002, at 8:54:58

Well said Dinah.

I don't object at all to people showing their faith or quoting it, I just object to people saying I *should* believe in this or that. (and that doesn't just go with religion!!!)

Thannks for making some sense of what I'm trying to say :o)

Nikki

 

Re: Correction to the URL in the above » Lou Pilder

Posted by NikkiT2 on October 24, 2002, at 10:47:56

In reply to Correction to the URL in the above » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 9:47:31

I have read that post and don't understand your problem with it Lou.

Never in that post did SandraDee say that anyone "should" do naything. Just that she believed xx church was better than yy church.

Nikki

 

Re: other relavant posts (2) » Lou Pilder

Posted by NikkiT2 on October 24, 2002, at 10:51:30

In reply to Re: other relavant posts (2), posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 10:29:08

And this one is simply Dinah's feelings towards your situation.

I didn't agree with others when they were "bashing" you, and I'm not bashing you now.. I hope I haven't said anything hurtful.

I am just hoping to help you understand some of the feelings toward some of your posts, to help avoid any painful situations in the future.

Nikki

 

Re: I think... » NikkiT2

Posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 10:58:05

In reply to Re: I think... » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on October 24, 2002, at 10:42:48

NikkiT2,
In regards to this discussion, I respect all faiths and I consider those that believe in their heart that there is no God is also to be respected. But the phase,(in their heart), needs to be clarified, for that is different from just not beleiving. The phrase (in their heart) is a spiritual phrase, not an intellectual one.
Actually, I think that you will be pleased when, and if I am allowed, I finish the 7 Gates on the Road to the Crown of Life.
I am again sorry that I can not go on and tell the rest of my experiance here untill the disagreement that I have with the administration of the board here is resolved, but if you would like, we could communicate via email and I could , perhaps, clear up the descepancy with you privatly.
Best Regards,
Lou

 

Re: Correction to the URL in the above » NikkiT2

Posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 11:22:53

In reply to Re: Correction to the URL in the above » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on October 24, 2002, at 10:47:56

NikkiT2,
One of the statements is ,"that He sent His only Son for you"
Now it is my understanding that by saying that, the poster is posting the foundation of christianity. This is what Christians (must)(should) (shall) beleive in order to be a Christian.
I am posting what myself as a jew must (should) (shall) believe to be a jew, and I will be restrained from posting that, yet the christian person is not restrained .
Also, when the Rider, who is the Word of God in my experiance, said to me, "you shall have no other Gods before me", He wasn't saying that to you anymore than the Christian person on this board is saying what they said in their post to you or me. I am only telling my experiance with my faith here and so are the others. The difference is that I will be restrained from telling the foundation of my faith and christians are not restrained from telling their foundation of their faith. And I am not being disrespected by the christians posting here by them posting about Christ and I am objecting to being accused by anyone here of being disrespectfull to anyone because I am a jew and the foundation of judaism is to beleive in one God and we shall have no other Gods before us . The foundation for Christiandom is that they must (shall-should)believe in Christ to be a christian. Are you saying that the christians can state theuir foundation for their faith and that I as a jew can not state my foundation for my faith on this board? If so, could you clarify why my foundation, to me, to be a jew, can not be posted here but the Christian foundation to be a Christian can be posted here? If you could clarify that, then I will have abetter understanding about the subject of this discussion and I will be better able to discuss it with you,
Lou

 

I bow rather gracelessly out....

Posted by Dinah on October 24, 2002, at 11:24:07

As I'm getting rather confused. I'm not sure I adequately conveyed my feelings on the subject of the faith board, nor am I even totally sure what they are. I think I am trying to say the same thing Nikki said.

I do, however want to reiterate my belief that Dr. Bob is not biased for or against any particular belief structure. And that I've never quite understood how the faith board fits into Babble, given the overall purpose of the site. The very nature of faith is that if you believe in one thing (including agnosticism or atheism) that you don't believe in other things. Of course that is also true of politics, etc. And I think with the faith board, Dr. Bob is balancing precariously, trying to achieve more than one goal, and probably doomed to have trouble with it.

Oh, I'm confusing myself again.

 

Re: I bow rather gracelessly out....

Posted by oracle on October 24, 2002, at 11:59:54

In reply to I bow rather gracelessly out...., posted by Dinah on October 24, 2002, at 11:24:07

> And that I've never quite understood how the faith board fits into Babble, given the overall purpose of the site.

And I think with the faith board, Dr. Bob is balancing precariously, trying to achieve more than one goal, and probably doomed to have trouble with it.
>

Yep, the beginning of the end

 

Re: I bow rather GRACEFULLY out.... » Dinah

Posted by IsoM on October 24, 2002, at 12:35:47

In reply to I bow rather gracelessly out...., posted by Dinah on October 24, 2002, at 11:24:07

Exactly why I said that a person's beliefs (or lack of beliefs) aren't discussed easily on a internet board. It soon ends up enbroiled in a mess. It'll either degenerate into a free-for-all, with poster attacking poster for what the other will consider "hogwash", or like here, so many rules & restrictions that what one sis trying to say becomes watered down.

It's futile & achieves nothing which is why I posted a definition of faith vs logic but refuse to participate further. I'm NOT trying to say "I told you so" - draw your own conclusions about the usefulness of a faith board.

 

Re: I bow rather GRACEFULLY out.... » IsoM

Posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 13:15:12

In reply to Re: I bow rather GRACEFULLY out.... » Dinah, posted by IsoM on October 24, 2002, at 12:35:47

IsoM,
Thank you for posting that the restictions water down what someone wants to say.
That is important because the restriction, in effect, is a denying one to make the speech, for the restrictions Stops the thought that one wants to say.
Also, though,I do not see a free-for-all here, just a disagreement.
Lou

 

The end of what, oh enigmatic oracle?

Posted by Dinah on October 24, 2002, at 13:41:31

In reply to Re: I bow rather gracelessly out...., posted by oracle on October 24, 2002, at 11:59:54


> Yep, the beginning of the end
>
>

the Faith Board?
Babble?
Dr. Bob's patience?
my sanity?
faith itself?
the world and life as we know it?

I enjoy your posts, oracle. You remind me a lot of Dr. Bob. :)

 

Not a free-for-all here but other boards can be... (nm) » Lou Pilder

Posted by IsoM on October 24, 2002, at 13:58:18

In reply to Re: I bow rather GRACEFULLY out.... » IsoM, posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 13:15:12

 

other relevant posts (4)

Posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 19:58:27

In reply to Re: other relavant posts (3), posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 10:42:19

Friends,
Below is another post that I feel could be relevant to this discussion:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20020715/msgs/606.html
Lou

 

Re: other relevant posts (4) » Lou Pilder

Posted by NikkiT2 on October 24, 2002, at 20:16:07

In reply to other relevant posts (4), posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 19:58:27

Again Lou, no where in that post did it say "you shall" or "you should" or anything like that.

Nikki

 

Re: other relevant posts (4) » NikkiT2

Posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 20:21:42

In reply to Re: other relevant posts (4) » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on October 24, 2002, at 20:16:07

NikkiT2,
The relevancy to th discussion that I feel is visible here in the post is:
(Jesus became the source of our salvation to all those that obey Him.)
Lou

 

Re: other relevant posts (5) » Lou Pilder

Posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 20:25:20

In reply to Re: other relevant posts (4) » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 20:21:42

Friends,
Below is another post that I feel is relevant to the discussion here:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20020527/261.html
Lou

 

Correction to other relevant posts (5)

Posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 20:28:10

In reply to Re: other relevant posts (5) » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 20:25:20

Friends, The link is:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20020527/msgs/261.html
lou

 

Re: other relevant posts (4)

Posted by NikkiT2 on October 24, 2002, at 20:35:24

In reply to Re: other relevant posts (4) » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 20:21:42

She only said that Jesus became the source of something, not that we wouldn't receive salvation at all if they didn't believe in him.

I agree that this one could be slightly dubious.. it sits slightly uncomfortably with me.

Like I have previously said, I understand Dr Bobs objections to be the use of words such as should and you shall...

Nikki

 

Re: Correction to other relevant posts (5) » Lou Pilder

Posted by NikkiT2 on October 24, 2002, at 20:35:52

In reply to Correction to other relevant posts (5), posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 20:28:10

I don't understand your objection to this one.. could you copy the line(s) you find offensive??

Nikki

 

Re: Correction to other relevant posts (5) » NikkiT2

Posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 20:49:29

In reply to Re: Correction to other relevant posts (5) » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on October 24, 2002, at 20:35:52

NikkiT2,
the part that I feel is relevant to the discussion here is:
"I believe in God. I believe in the Trinity (God the father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit)
Lou

 

Re: Correction to other relevant posts (5)

Posted by NikkiT2 on October 24, 2002, at 20:53:44

In reply to Re: Correction to other relevant posts (5) » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 20:49:29

Again Lou, she said "I believe", not "you should" or "you shall". That is where the distinction lies in my opinion.

Nikki

 

clarification for Nikki » Lou Pilder

Posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 20:57:11

In reply to Re: Correction to other relevant posts (5) » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 20:49:29

Nikki,
After rereading you posts, I need to clarify that I am only listing posts that I feel are relevant to the discussion here. If you think that some are offensive, that does Not mean that I consider them offensive. On the contrary, for I welcome all faiths and I am not offended by people that have other faiths than mine and their faith is not disrespectfull to me for I beleive in freedom of religion.
Lou

 

Re: clarification for Nikki » Lou Pilder

Posted by NikkiT2 on October 24, 2002, at 21:02:21

In reply to clarification for Nikki » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 20:57:11

Oh, I realise that Lou... I'm just pointing out where these posts differ from yours (the one you got the pbc for), and querying why you think these posts need to be flagged.

I apologise if my wording isn't as good as it should be.. its late here!!!

Nikki

 

other relevant posts (more)

Posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 21:02:57

In reply to Correction to other relevant posts (5), posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 20:28:10

Friends,
Below are some oter relevant posts that I feel could be included in this discussion:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20020715/msgs/504.html

http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20020715/msgs/506.html
lou

 

Re: clarification for Nikki » NikkiT2

Posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 21:12:36

In reply to Re: clarification for Nikki » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on October 24, 2002, at 21:02:21

NikkiT2,
The discussion is about that Dr. Bob t will accuse me of not respecting others if I post the foundational beliefe of my faith, Jewdaism, that says that I should have no other Gods before me.
It is not about the other post.
And BTW, if you bring that up tha post again, could you be accurate in your quote? It is not that... a fool beleives that there is no God, but ...a fool(IN His Heart) beleives that there is no God.
If you are accurate in your quote, I will appreciate it , for accuracy is important so that others get the corect infomation.
Lou

 

Re: clarification for Nikki » Lou Pilder

Posted by NikkiT2 on October 24, 2002, at 21:20:16

In reply to Re: clarification for Nikki » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 21:12:36

How about saying "I believe that *I* should have no other gods before me". This changes teh emphasis from the reader thinking you could mean them, to being clear that this is simply about YOU.

What do you think?

Nikki


Go forward in thread:


Show another thread

URL of post in thread:


Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ


[dr. bob] Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD, [email protected]

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.