![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 17 of 17. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 30, 2005, at 17:42:26
Dr. Hsiung,
I am requesting that you write a determination as to the acceptability or not of the following in relation to the guidlines of the faith forum.
The poster wrote,[...We can't get to God without Jesus...].
Lou Pilder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20050111/msgs/450253.html
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 1, 2005, at 2:27:52
In reply to Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung-, posted by Lou Pilder on January 30, 2005, at 17:42:26
> > We cant get to God without Jesus.
Maybe she meant them two?
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 1, 2005, at 7:01:23
In reply to Re: Lou's request, posted by Dr. Bob on February 1, 2005, at 2:27:52
> > > We cant get to God without Jesus.
>
> Maybe she meant them two?
>
> Bob
DR. Hsiung,In regards to my request to you for determining acceptibility or not here for the statement in question in relation to the guidlines of the faith forum, could uou clarify if you are saying that the one poster that wrote,[...we can't get to God without Jesus...] was telling the other poster that he/she could also not get to God without Jesus and that the first poster's statement to the second poster is acceptsble here? If so, then could not any poster post to anyone here that [...we can not get to God without Jesus...]?
If you could clarify that, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dinah on February 1, 2005, at 7:08:00
In reply to Re: Lou's request, posted by Dr. Bob on February 1, 2005, at 2:27:52
It's an old concept, Dr. Bob. I don't think it is defined individually. It's a quote from the New Testament, I believe. Something along the lines of none being able to get to the Father except through me (Jesus).
My understanding of Faith board rules as they were, unless you've changed them, is that it should have been preceded by "It is the belief of people of my faith..." or perhaps "It is my belief..." in order to be in compliance with the technical Babble faith board rules. But perhaps you've changed them.
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 1, 2005, at 7:44:59
In reply to Re: Lou's request » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on February 1, 2005, at 7:08:00
Dinah,
You wrote [ ...preceeded by,..{people of my faith} believe...].
The guidlines of the faith forum have incorperated in them that some foundations of some faiths are not acceptable to be posted on the faith board.
The criteria suggested for a foundation of a faith to be considered as a foundation that is unacceptable, or not supportive, to be posted on the faith board is if the foundation has the potential to put down those of other faiths. Dr. Hsiung has on the opening page of the faith board a statement by Jean Jacqus Rousseau that whosoever dares too say ,[...Outside the Church there is no salvation...]. You have cited an example. But is it not the foundation that can not be acceptable to be posted {even if one believes it}? or {even if people of that faith believe it?}.
So could not the statement, {...people of my faith believe that we can not get to God without Jesus...} still be unacceptable to be posted on the faith board?
Lou
Posted by Dinah on February 1, 2005, at 8:09:56
In reply to Lou's response to Dinah's post-pomf » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on February 1, 2005, at 7:44:59
My understanding of Dr. Bob's previous rulings is that such things can be posted if preceded by "the people of my faith believe" since it is framed as belief, not fact, other than as a fact about belief. I'm not sure about "I believe".
So that my understanding is that you could indeed say "People of my faith believe that there is only one God" or "People of my faith believe that Jesus is not the only way to God", but I'm not sure about statements that tell other people what they should do, even stated as a belief, and I'm reasonably sure that things that actually are insulting can't be stated as a belief.
So a belief that is stated as a belief would be ok. A belief stated as a belief, but also containing the statement that everyone else should believe the same may or may not be ok. "People of my faith believe that everyone should ..." may not be ok but "People of my faith believe that they should..." would be ok. And "People of my faith believe that xxxx people are doomed to eternal flames" would not be ok.
I guess I see "People of my faith believe that the only way to God is through Jesus" is a statement of faith alone, without a condemnation of other faiths. But I suppose it could be read as "People of my faith believe that everyone should find God through Jesus only" or "People of my faith believe that those who don't go through Jesus will never find God". I don't read it that way, but I guess that's a determination that only Dr. Bob can make.
You're right. I don't understand the rules enough to comment on this. I was just commenting on Dr. Bob believing the statement is one defined by the individual, when it is actually a tenet of the Christian faith that is defined broadly and does not need individual interpretation. At least that's my understanding, since it's a quote from the New Testament, and it has always appeared to be a tenet of the faith in my Sunday School experience.
I suppose I could be wrong about that too, though.
Anyway, it was a limited in scope post, and not intended to comment broadly on the post, the statement, or Faith board standards. Besides, didn't Dr. Bob recently say that he was rethinking Faith board standards? Perhaps he has changed them.
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 1, 2005, at 9:29:08
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dinah's post-pomf » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on February 1, 2005, at 8:09:56
Dinah wrote,[...I'm not sure about "I believe"...I'm not sure about statements that...may or may not be OK...I guess I see...I guess that's a determination that only...{You're right}...I don't understand the rules...I suppose I could be wrong...perhaps he has changed them...].
Could you clarify if your reply above is as a deputy or a poster?
Lou
Posted by Dinah on February 1, 2005, at 9:54:22
In reply to Lou's response to Dinah's post -deporpoter?, posted by Lou Pilder on February 1, 2005, at 9:29:08
Poster. My responses are almost always as poster. If I respond as deputy I say so.
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 1, 2005, at 10:34:37
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dinah's post -deporpoter? » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on February 1, 2005, at 9:54:22
Dinah,
You wrote,[...response...as a poster...].
Since the statement in question did not have ,[...people of my faith believe...] as part of what was written, could you write what could be your opinion as to if the statement in question is acceptable or not for the faith board?
Lou
Posted by Dinah on February 1, 2005, at 10:37:35
In reply to Lou's reply to Dinah-repotr » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on February 1, 2005, at 10:34:37
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050128/msgs/450926.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 1, 2005, at 10:48:52
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Dinah-repotr » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on February 1, 2005, at 10:37:35
Dinah,
Thanks for clearing that up as to being a poster or a deputy. Am I correct here that you as a poster consider the post to be not acceptable in relation to the past practice here but that as a deputy that you are not sure and that the guidlines for the faith board may have been changed?
Lou
Posted by Dinah on February 1, 2005, at 10:51:36
In reply to Lou's reply to Dinah- » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on February 1, 2005, at 10:48:52
Nope, both as a poster. No deputy hat on this thread at all.
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 1, 2005, at 11:02:36
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Dinah- » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on February 1, 2005, at 10:51:36
Dinah,
Let us look at the following;
[...I was just commmmenting on Dr. Bob believing the statement is one defined by the individual when it is actually a tenant of the Christian Faith that is defined broadly and does not need individual interpretation...].
I do not know if this is referring to an administartive decision or not. Could you give me some more infomation if there is any concerning the administrative aspect of the above?
Lou
Posted by Dinah on February 1, 2005, at 12:19:39
In reply to Lou's reply to Dinah- » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on February 1, 2005, at 11:02:36
No, nothing administrative. Merely attempting to inform. I suspect that matters of faith are sometimes unfamiliar to Dr. Bob, and if the historical background of the assertation was not known to Dr. Bob, I wished to let him know.
No large or weighty meaning behind my post, I assure you.
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 1, 2005, at 12:20:58
In reply to Lou's reply to Dinah- » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on February 1, 2005, at 11:02:36
Dinah,
The adminisrative aspect in the previous post is concerning Dr. Hsiung's reply to me and not the discussion between bme and you. His reply was that {...maybe...].
Well, how would one know which "maybe" it is? So if there is an administrative decision to my request to Dr. Hsiung, I do not know if the decision is that the statement is aceptible "if", or if the statement is not acceptable.
There is another aspect of this and that you have written about the statement as a poster.
Another aspect of this is that the staement is allowed as of now to go without administrative comment as to its association or not with the civility aspect of the forum. Now if you as a poster write something that has the potential to consider the statement as it is written to be unacceptable, and I am requesting a detrermination of such, then as of now posters here could have the potential to think that the post is acceptable.
I feel put down by this because of the threat by Dr. Hsiung to me to evict me from the community if I was to post the proposed post that is subject to discussion on the opening page of the faith board while allowing as of now the post in question that writes that [...we can't get to God without Jesus...].
I am requesting that you or Dr. Hsiung advise me of a procedure that one can follow here, if there is one, to appeal the decision , if the decision is to allow the post in question to stand, because I feel that if the statement in question is allowed to stand that there is the potential for the statement to arrouse antisemitic feelings and anti other feelings to those that do not think that[... we can't get to God without Jesus...] and I think that IMO there is the potential for some to think that if the post is allowed to stand that the forum endorses that you can't get to God without Jesus and could have the potential to foster a hostile environment to me as a jew and others that do not think that [...we can't get to God without Jesus...].
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dinah on February 1, 2005, at 12:36:08
In reply to Lou's reply to Dinah-, posted by Lou Pilder on February 1, 2005, at 12:20:58
I'm sorry Lou. I seem to have used up my fragile store of brain cells concerning this topic.
For what it's worth, which isn't much, I don't think there is anything wrong with stating that tenet of the Christian faith as a belief. But I don't think either (if I remember correctly) that there is anything wrong with your stating the tenet of your faith as a belief either. However, the guidelines of the Faith board are not mine to make, but Dr. Bob's. And I fear you must take up the percieved inequality with him.
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 2, 2005, at 2:26:08
In reply to Re: Lou's request » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on February 1, 2005, at 7:08:00
> > > We cant get to God without Jesus.
> >
> > Maybe she meant them two?
>
> My understanding of Faith board rules as they were, unless you've changed them, is that it should have been preceded by "It is the belief of people of my faith..."Sorry, what I meant was, if she was referring to herself and corafree, and they two both were of that belief, then I'm not sure a qualification would be necessary. But I asked her to rephrase to clarify. Thanks,
Bob
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.