Psycho-Babble Administration Thread 8577

Shown: posts 1 to 4 of 4. This is the beginning of the thread.

 

A request for clarification from Dr. Bob

Posted by Lou Pilder on December 23, 2002, at 16:03:50

D. Bob,
In response to Dinah's dialog with you concerning my proposed post,[...the Rider said to me, "You shall have no other Gods before me."] you wrote, "To say that one belief should be embraced is to say that others shoud not. Which puts down those other beliefs. I think that it is more civil not to tell others what to believe." This is included in your [guidlines and exceptions on the paith board opening page] for posting on the faith board and I am asking for you to clarify the above, for if you could respond to the following, then I could have a better undersanding as to what you meant and be better able to determine the qualifications for posts to be acceptable on the faith board.
1)You wrote,[...to say that one belief should be embraced...]. Are you saying that I am saying to others here that my faith is the [one] belief that should be embraced? If so, I will respond to your answer in a rebuttle post.
2)You wrote,[...more civil not to tell others what to believe...]. Are you saying that I am telling others what they should believe?. If so , I will respond to your answer.
Sincerely,
Lou Pilder


 

A request for clarification from Dr. Bob (2)

Posted by Lou Pilder on December 23, 2002, at 16:52:59

In reply to A request for clarification from Dr. Bob , posted by Lou Pilder on December 23, 2002, at 16:03:50

Dr. Bob,
You wrote that it s not OK to write [my faith says I should have one God and no others before Him]. My proposed post is not the same as that. You also wrote that it is not OK to write [People should, or my faith says people should, have one God and no others before Him]. My proposed post is not the same as that either. My proposed post says that the Rider said to me, "I am your God and you shall have no other Gods before me." My proposed post is clear that the Rider is speaking to me, and not to others, for it says that the Rider said to [me]....
It is abundantly evident that I have been telling of what [I] experianced in my faith experiance here and that I am not telling others that they should have the Jewish God as their God anymore than the Christiandom people here are telling others to be Mormons or Catholics or others. Could you clarify then if you are saying that Judaism is a religion that has a commandment to have no other Gods before their God and thearfore that part of Judaism is in someway what psychiatry is against and if so, could you tell me the branch of psychiatry that says that and a refference to such? If you could, then I could be better able to understand why you will prohibit me from posting the proposed post of mine in question.
Sincerely,
Lou Pilder

 

Re: clarification

Posted by Dr. Bob on December 24, 2002, at 14:15:13

In reply to A request for clarification from Dr. Bob (2), posted by Lou Pilder on December 23, 2002, at 16:52:59

> You wrote that it s not OK to write [my faith says I should have one God and no others before Him]. My proposed post is not the same as that... My proposed post says that the Rider said to me, "I am your God and you shall have no other Gods before me." My proposed post is clear that the Rider is speaking to me, and not to others, for it says that the Rider said to [me]....

Sorry, but I think it's still too close to that first example. Happy holidays,

Bob

 

clarification (2) » Dr. Bob

Posted by Lou Pilder on December 24, 2002, at 18:11:56

In reply to Re: clarification, posted by Dr. Bob on December 24, 2002, at 14:15:13

Dr. Bob,
You wrote that the posts were [too close].My proposed post that you wil restrain, says, [The Rider said to me ,"I am your God, you shall have no other Gods before me."]. Your post, that is an example of being not OK, says, [my faith says that I should have one God and no others before Him.]
In your [guidlines and exceptions], the rational for OK or not OK that you write after your discussion with Dinah about my proposed post, is: ["To say that one belief should be embraced is to say that others should not. Which puts down other beliefs. I think it is more civil not to tell others what to believe."]
Could you clairify the following so that I will be better able to understand your answer to the previous request of mine for clarification?
1) Are you saying that your [not OK example], which you write is [too close], is equivalent to my proposed post?
2) If so, are you saying that your [not OK example] violates your rational of [...not to tell others what to believe] and thearfore my post , being [too close], also violates your rational of [...not to tell others what to believe]? If so, could you clarify why your [not OK example] says that it is violating your rational of [...not to tell others what to believe] when your example post that you say is not OK says,[My faith says that [I] should have one God and no others before Him], not that [others] should have one God and no others before Him.?
Lou


This is the end of the thread.


Show another thread

URL of post in thread:


Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ


[dr. bob] 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.