Scandals in Singapore churches

last SG · 2006-08-26T04:55:59+00:00

lol, put in $50, take out $30.. =P Shrugs, I mean, if you cheat God, you're just giving yourself trouble i guess. what you sow, you reap?

Icemoon SG

But this has nothing to do with whoever translated the other versions. Even if KJV is the only version today, it is not as perfect anymore, due to progress in biblical scholarship.

I never tell them to accept other translations. I tell them to acknowlege their most cherished translation is not perfect anymore. Is this so hard?

An allegation is not the same as defamation. The defence has not refuted the allegation. Their defence is likely on the grounds of fair comment on a doctrinal matter that has been the position of the BP church for years. They will also show that there was no damage and if there had been any damage, it was not caused by the doctrinal dispute with the church.

Whether their actions were Christ-like or not has nothing to do with a legal dispute.

Fair comments? Doctrinal matter?

In his statement of claim against the pastors, he said they had repeatedly run him down in church in front of people with whom his firm may have business dealings.

I didn't know running people down is fair comment and a doctrinal matter.

True, their actions has nothing to do with a legal dispute, but it just shows how hypocritical some church leaders can be.

davidche SG

your stealing SIS's style dude. Very Happy

Icemoon SG

I use blitzkrieg tactics as far as possbile.

I pre-empt possible moves, stab questions into your face, parry away your blows .. so you break down in the least possible time. Twisted Evil

laurence82 SG

yesh, debates are all about strategies

Twisted Evil

oxford mushroom SG

sounds like low lives fighting in the gutter to me...

latterrain SG

To Agenda: WHo tell you Pastor Kong being paid 8k? You never check your facts or not. He is a non-salaried pastor in the church.

oxford mushroom SG

They never tell you to accept only the KJV for yourself. They are telling you that whatever cherished translation you are using, apart from the KJV, is a corruption of God's Word.

You hold to your opinion, they hold to theirs. Is this so hard to understand?

I didn't know running people down is fair comment and a doctrinal matter.

True, their actions has nothing to do with a legal dispute, but it just shows how hypocritical some church leaders can be.

Dude, this is a legal dispute before the law courts...the question is defamation, not a doctrinal dispute before an ecclesiastical court.

Hypocritical? The BP church would probably say that on the contrary, they have remained faithful to their doctrines. Those who hold heretical views ought to be ex-communicated if they would not repent.

Again, I am not a BP and I do not share their doctrinal views. But I will defend their right to hold those views within the boundaries of the law. But maybe that is also too hard for you to understand?
Mr. Green

oxford mushroom SG

I do not know this pastor but what's wrong with a salary of 8k for their top pastor if the church agrees that is a reasonable salary?

.

Icemoon SG

I never say my translation is not corrupted. By definition, as long as your are not reading the original manuscript in the original language, your bible is corrupted.

I can give you one example since I was discussing Genesis one on EH:

The Hebrew for Genesis 1:5 goes something like this - Vayikra Elohim la-or yom velachoshech kara laylah vayehi-erev vayehi-voker yom echad.

KJV claims to be a literal translation - And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Exactly how "yom echad" can become "first day" is beyond my understanding. The literal translation of "echad" is one, as evident in the Shema - Sh'ma Yisrael Adonai Elohaynu Adonai Echad.

The KJV is uncorrupted? PUI ..

I don't think it is opinion anymore. We are not arguing whether signing hillsongs is biblical. I am arguing for the KJV to be placed on equal standing with other translations since all words are filtered through the pens of the translators. And none of the translators is god-inspired, this idea is unbiblical.

Once again, no-one is asking them to renounce Christ. Is this so hard to understand?

Dude, this is a legal dispute before the law courts...the question is defamation, not a doctrinal dispute before an ecclesiastical court.

exactly. the question is defamation. The court is probably not interested in doctrinal sparring between the lawyers and expert witnesses. but this was what you wrote - Their defence is likely on the grounds of fair comment on a doctrinal matter that has been the position of the BP church for years.

Hypocritical? The BP church would probably say that on the contrary, they have remained faithful to their doctrines. Those who hold heretical views ought to be ex-communicated if they would not repent.

Let me show you the fallacious logic:

The statement also said it was a 'very sad day' when a church member took to suing his own pastors: 'Such an action is against the clear teaching of Jesus Christ in God's Holy and perfect Word.'

Questions:

1. Where is the basis that the KJV is the only and uncorrupted Word found in God's Holy and perfect Word?

2. When did arguing otherwise (that the KJV is corrupted just like any translation) become a heresy according to clear teaching of Jesus Christ in God's Holy and perfect Word?

If they endorse your suggested reply, then they really are hypocrites beyond any hypocrisy.

Again, I am not a BP and I do not share their doctrinal views. But I will defend their right to hold those views within the boundaries of the law. But maybe that is also too hard for you to understand?

Please enlighen me how come BP can endorse something unbiblical as their doctrine?

IMHO .. they have shot themselves on the foot.

If there is ever a verbal sparring on doctrine in court, I see how they are going to get out of this mess.

It will be the Scopes Trial in reverse. Mr. Green

oxford mushroom SG

I do not have to justify their doctrine and I have no intentin to do that as I am not a BP member and I do not hold to their doctrines. However, different groups have different understanding of the bible. What is unbiblical to you may not be to them. If gays out there can believe that homosexuality can be biblical and can endose something as unbiblical as that, I dare say lots of things can be considered biblical to different people. It's a matter of opinion. Ultimately, God will be the final arbiter.

If you disagree with a teaching, you can leave the group. If you submit to the authority of the church, you must accept their discipline.

The ongoing trial will be on the issue of defamation. There is no issue that the grounds of ex-communication is due to doctrinal difference. The court will not have to decide which doctrine is right and is not competent to judge that issue anyway. All that the court has to decide is whether it is fair comment for the pastor to point out the plaintiff's deviation from the church's doctrines. That the plaintiff deviated from the church's doctrine is clear from the newspaper report and is also not in dispute. So all the court has to decide is whether it is fair comment for church leaders to point out and warn its members against a deviant teaching among its own members. The question may arise as to whether the church can ex-communicate its own members. I dare say that courts will rule that ex-communication is a religious issue and does not contravene any existing secular laws.

Agenda SG

Newspaper also report...

Icemoon SG

This explanation is a betrayal of the fundamental Protestant belief of Sola Scriptura.

Where exactly is KJV as God's Word even suggested in the BIBLE? One can argue the Trinity is suggested, but KJV??

In short, it is not even biblical. They need to resort to no less than TRADITION to justify their belief.

If you disagree with a teaching, you can leave the group. If you submit to the authority of the church, you must accept their discipline.

Then they are no different from THE Magistrium.

All that the court has to decide is whether it is fair comment for the pastor to point out the plaintiff's deviation from the church's doctrines. That the plaintiff deviated from the church's doctrine is clear from the newspaper report and is also not in dispute. So all the court has to decide is whether it is fair comment for church leaders to point out and warn its members against a deviant teaching among its own members.

I agree that church doctrines are immaterial.

To "point out and warn" is miles apart from "gunning a person down".

How did attacking heresy became attacking a person (integrity, reputation etc.)?

Icemoon SG

yah .. newspaper reported Pastor Kong refused the paycheck from church, 'cos he claimed to earn more from his speaking tour.

Icemoon SG

Speaking of gays .. I think the church treats gays better (officially) than the plaintiff.

Because the church's official stand is condemn the sin, not the person.

But from the newspaper report, we all have the impression they are condemning the sin AND the person.

This is so ironical and indeed hypocrisy at the highest level.

M©+square SG

Hypocrisy of which?

the church members or the newpaper reporters? Laughing

Icemoon SG

Church leadership.

The statement also said it was a 'very sad day' when a church member took to suing his own pastors: 'Such an action is against the clear teaching of Jesus Christ in God's Holy and perfect Word.'

As if their own action is following the CLEAR teaching of Jesus Christ in God's HOLY and PERFECT Word.

Now suddenly everything becomes unholy and imperfect because of them. Laughing

M©+square SG

You believe the papers?

Icemoon SG

I believe what was quoted verbatim.

M©+square SG

Can show me the source of the quote?

Icemoon SG

by the way .. we only hear church leadership suing members.

never the other way round.

shi4 chu1 bi4 you3 yin1.

« Previous Page Next Page »