Church spending disillusion many- where's the governance?
-
Don't not single out the act of one to be that of the whole. Your way of generalising people is no different from being a racist.Originally posted by stupidissmart:I thought jesus used to say tat it is difficult for the rich to go to heaven similar to putting a camel through the eye of a needle
Jesus even ask the rich guy to donate all his money before serving him. -
Just an example of how he places words in the mouth of others. Quite typical of him really.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Then u r suggesting jesus is lying to misled the rich guy because he is the one tat left out the commandments The rich men just innocently ask which ones then jesus could have just tell him all, but he rather just give him a list instead. -
its not the wealth, its the willingness to give up all his wealth, treating it as, got oso good, dun haf oso good.Originally posted by SumOne:Don't not single out the act of one to be that of the whole. Your way of generalising people is no different from being a racist. -
Notice you look to make lots of references to certain types of individuals who may not really reflect the entire Christian/Catholic/Religous population. Nonetheless, it is typical of you to be rather singular and selective.Originally posted by stupidissmart:So wat r u suggesting ? Jesus ask him to donate all his fortune before following him and he did not. Wat is the difference of tis guy to the rich pastors who live a life of extravangance, a life beyond the reach of normal singaporean.
Furthermore, jesus is the one tat preach about rich people. He never mention anything about "slave to money" etc. U r the one tat say tis. Where in the passage does he mention anything about "slave to money" than rather, money. -
A lot of times, you don't understand because you are trying to see your own meaning in other people's words. Just like how you regularly say people are implying something when it was never their intention to say anything that you indicated.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Is it just me... I don't understand wat is he trying to say -
Yes, I agree. It's the rich man's emphasis on worldly possessions over the emphasis on spiritual treasure that Jesus had a problem with. Jesus wanted him to be able to let go and behold what was the greater treasure.Originally posted by Ito_^:its not the wealth, its the willingness to give up all his wealth, treating it as, got oso good, dun haf oso good. -
He will read his own meanings into what you say, rather than what you are trying to say to him.Originally posted by M©+square:You didn't get me from my first post already.
I've already showed you the contrast, yet you insist that Jesus wants Rich men to give up their possessions SO THAT they could follow him.
And he will probably respond to me by saying I am making personal attacks on him because I fear his "superior" logic and that I am trying to divert the attention away from his "sensible arguements".
He will thus self proclaim that it would be victory for him and only proves that all Christians are either liars or too stupid to know that they're telling lies. To him, any resistance or rebuttals against him is just proof that he is right and that the rest are wrong. -
Originally posted by stupidissmart:Now pray tell me wat the hell r u trying to say U never made any point except rich people=people who loves power and wealth which i have shown u to be wrong.
He does not see because he only wants to see and hear his own meaning in what others are telling him.Originally posted by Icemoon:SIS .. don't you understand? Vince and Mc2 are born again, you are not.
so there are certain things you cannot understand.
Before people tell him anything, he has already concluded that whatever others are telling him are all lies. And that only he is telling the truth.
And by his logic, people dislike him or try to shut him up is because he is telling the truth. -
Again he comes up with his very negative versions of the words of others(Jesus in this case).Originally posted by stupidissmart:I have nothing against rich people. Did I ever claim I hate rich people WHy suddenly give me tis label ? I was only pointing out tat Jesus himself like people to donate their riches and claim it is a way for eternal life. -
The main reason why SIS has such a problem with Christians and their practices is because he does not understand the rationale behind what is being said/taught/practiced. Hence all Christian practices seems meaningless and pointless to him.
What's more when you try to tell him what is the rationale, he will not listen and seeks only to find an oppurtunity to attack you with your own words.
He sees every reply to him as an opening to rebutt and to attack, rather than as a chance to listen.
Basically I've given up trying to talk sense into him. -
He takes things out of context pretty often. And in fact, he has a reputation for it.Originally posted by breytonhartge:First of all, you have gone off topic. You mentioned that most people can keep the commandments that Yeshua spoke about, I am just alluding to the fact that all of us at one time or another have told a white lie... this is giving false testimony. Males being males would tend to ogle a good looking female so this in Yeshua's definition would be adultery. Nothing to do with the rich guy.
But I do agree with what Vince said about this rich man's response, he is arrogant in saying that he can keep all the commandments. Only one person has ever kept all the commandments, that is Yeshua. You also forget that Yeshua is also God, so He would know the mans heart. -
To be a missionary, a Christian has to give up any chance of a regular job that would materially be much more satisfying than life as a missionary. Read into that what you will.Originally posted by stupidissmart:As said before, the passage which i have pasted many times already show god wanted the guy to donate every single cent he have. If there is no need to, then jesus had lied and misled the guy. The rich guy could just simply follow jesus without losing his possession. If there is a need to donate all their possessions, then the pastors here should lead a life of poverty, which is clearly lacking.
Besides, somebody has already given you a very good reply on this. Not sure if you've yet to understand the true meaning of what people are trying to tell you. -
Something very simple for others to understand, but not for SIS to understand. It's one of those things where if you see it you see it. Quite simply as that. Then again, for SIS, nothing is the simple truth.Originally posted by breytonhartge:The other point to make here is that the rich young ruler already knew the answer to how to inherit eternal life, but because he knew he had a problem, that is why he asked... to see if he can get out of it.... hence we see he went away sad because he could not give up his love of his wealth and as such, could have missed out on inheriting eternal life.... -
Because he refuses to, he has made up his mind already before others have said anything.Originally posted by M©+square: you still don't get it. -
It's in his nature to take things out of context and to intepret the replies of others to what best suits his thinking rather than to see what people are truly trying to say.Originally posted by breytonhartge:SIS you are side stepping the issue, I have already posted my thoughts on this, yet it is clear from your rebuttal that you purposely omitted the latter half of my post which answers all your supposed questions.
The rich young ruler broke the commandments. He put money before Yahweh.
You yourself cannot take the literal translation, and you yourself brought in the ideas about the persons family that Yahweh wanted the person's family to suffer because he had to donate all the money to the poor. I think you seem to conveniently forget this.... and this is not the case, see mark 10:29-30.
first, read the passage again carefully, when Yeshua asked the rich young man to give away his riches, he went away sad, what does this say? He could not let go of his wealth. Yeshua pharased His words exactly. The meaning is very clear. More than anyone of us Yeshua can tell the difference between being rich and being a slave to money.
Second, already said, the first commandment is thou shall have NO OTHER gods before me... but the rich young man did, his wealth was his god, his trust was in his wealth to gain eternal life. Yeshua went on to elaborate on this. In Mark 10:21 Yeshua said, "... ONE THING YOU LACK... " why would Yeshua say this unless He knew that there was a point of fault in this rich young man?
Third, read the whole of Mark 10 in context... what exactly did Yeshua say? in Mark 10:23 Yeshua said " How hard it is for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God!" and He elaborated on this in verse 24 Yeshua said "Children, how hard it is for those who trust in riches to enter the kingdom of God. When Yeshua spoke about it being easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Yahweh, He is using a hyperbole to show just how hard it will be for those who trust in riches to enter the kingdom of Yahweh. But this does not mean that there is no hope for the rich young ruler for Yeshua says this in verse 27"WIth men it is impossible, but not with Yahweh; for with Yahweh all things are possible."
Fourth, again you have misread this whole exchange, it is clear what Yeshua is emphasising... and the point is this that it is difficult for those who trust in riches to enter the kingdom of Yahweh. See Mark 10:24.
Fifth, you have missed the mark altogether, the way to inherit eternal life is not by giving money to the poor, but by trusting in Yeshua for your salvation. We are not talking about religion here, but the young man's personal relationship with Yahweh. Like many have said before, performing good deeds does not earn you your salvation. It is trust and faith in Yeshua Hamashiach that will save! Performing good deeds is a by product of this. The point of this whole story is not about giving to the poor, but about WHAT OR WHO YOU PUT YOUR TRUST IN. -
SIS, you may feel I'm making personal attacks on you, but from my point of view, I'm just trying to educate and warn others of the kind of forum poster you are.
How people will tell you something, but you will constantly choose to take it in a totally different direction altogether.
You accuse Christians of being deceptive and bending things or scriptures to suit their personal aims, yet I see you doing that with genuine good-natured replies from others to you. You find meanings in the words of others which were not there and you behave as if others are trying to force their thinkings on you when you are the one being forceful in nature.
I'm really see too many of these posts invovling you whereby your behaviour and reaction does not change.
You may think that others are being personal with you, but it's because of the manner of your own posts that you have a reputation really. -
Originally posted by sporty123:
Maybe it's time to change church.
At the Church AGM, I was told that members keep quiet and dare not quesiton about church spending, salaries, etc or they will be marked. Apparently even board members who questioned about extravagant car purchases, overseas trips or even accounting irregularties got kicked out the very next fiscal year.
Undeniably, I saw exotic cars that seems inappropriate for a pastor. But I am upset many matured members must accord and relent much faith (or fate) to God about the church leadership despite disapproving of this abuse - somethin must be done to bring back the confidence in the church, to remind people that God is watching and disapprove of such poor stewardship.
[b]Question: Is there any corporate goverance for churches? or an independent audit by an external party to check on reasonableness of their spending and to reassure members of good practices? ( other than the statutory audits by accounting firms.)
Please refrain from flamming or giving names here, I am only seeking sensible opinions, and if needed, we can put up a petition to bring this to the government's attention.
If you are free, please do not give mindless model answers here. eg
- submit to authorities
- trust in the leadership that God has ordained,
- give with a cheerful heart
- tithes belong to god anyway.
- nobody is perfect
- they will get their share one day.[/b] -
Don't not single out the act of one to be that of the whole. Your way of generalising people is no different from being a racist
Jesus di say tat statement. If it is generalising, he is the one tat did it. Now u r blaming on me ?Just an example of how he places words in the mouth of others. Quite typical of him really.
Just an example of personal attack. Why don't u elaborate why is it wrong instead of just attacking ?Notice you look to make lots of references to certain types of individuals who may not really reflect the entire Christian/Catholic/Religous population. Nonetheless, it is typical of you to be rather singular and selective.
Tat is very strange... Jesus did not reflect the christian/catholic population ? Wat r u talkin about ?A lot of times, you don't understand because you are trying to see your own meaning in other people's words. Just like how you regularly say people are implying something when it was never their intention to say anything that you indicated.
Why don't u refer to the point I am taling about and explain to me ? Otherwise u r really "reading ut of context" hereHe does not see because he only wants to see and hear his own meaning in what others are telling him.
And if I do not have sense in it, u r free to tear it to shreds. Why r u not doing it instead just concentrate on personal attacks.
Before people tell him anything, he has already concluded that whatever others are telling him are all lies. And that only he is telling the truth.
And by his logic, people dislike him or try to shut him up is because he is telling the truth.Again he comes up with his very negative versions of the words of others(Jesus in this case).
Tat is wat he said himself. Wat is your interpretation of it then ?
The main reason why SIS has such a problem with Christians and their practices is because he does not understand the rationale behind what is being said/taught/practiced. Hence all Christian practices seems meaningless and pointless to him.What's more when you try to tell him what is the rationale, he will not listen and seeks only to find an oppurtunity to attack you with your own words.
Own rationale ? So far it seems your rational is only just personal attack without any elaboration. Tat is, in internet term "bashing".
He sees every reply to him as an opening to rebutt and to attack, rather than as a chance to listen.
Basically I've given up trying to talk sense into him.To be a missionary, a Christian has to give up any chance of a regular job that would materially be much more satisfying than life as a missionary. Read into that what you will.
Then ? Father Kong is rich and live in condo and drive luxurious cars. Tat is not wat u claim as a missionary.
Besides, somebody has already given you a very good reply on this. Not sure if you've yet to understand the true meaning of what people are trying to tell you.SIS, you may feel I'm making personal attacks on you, but from my point of view, I'm just trying to educate and warn others of the kind of forum poster you are.
If u wanna educate and warn, then u better buck up your words with facts. The way I see it, u r just "bashing". Is tat how u "educate" people ? When people tell me something, u r insisting tat I must take it all without rebuttal. Is tis how u understand things ? The best way to know is through questions. If he give a good answer, pray tell me how am I gonna reply something against it ? If u feel tat my posts r lousy, ok, then let the readers decide for themselves. Do u "bash" people just just to support wat u believe ? Worse still u rather bash me than people like davidche !
How people will tell you something, but you will constantly choose to take it in a totally different direction altogether.
You accuse Christians of being deceptive and bending things or scriptures to suit their personal aims, yet I see you doing that with genuine good-natured replies from others to you. You find meanings in the words of others which were not there and you behave as if others are trying to force their thinkings on you when you are the one being forceful in nature.
I'm really see too many of these posts invovling you whereby your behaviour and reaction does not change.
You may think that others are being personal with you, but it's because of the manner of your own posts that you have a reputation really.
U r the real internet troll here. U bash people, u take the topic out of point, u write one sentence reply tat only meant personal attacks, u write replies tat u know people will react to it. U fit all the criteri ! I think people should ignore such a person like u instead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
In Internet terminology, a troll is someone who comes into an established community such as an online discussion forum, and posts inflammatory, rude, repetitive or offensive messages designed intentionally to annoy or antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion, including the personal attack of calling others trolls.
Voila ! U fit every criteria in tis single thread ! And u sippposedly write all these because u cannot sleep ! The real troll is exposed ! -
Honestly, I can't be bothered with davidche. You may think it's double standard, but really, I can't be bothered.Originally posted by stupidissmart:If u wanna educate and warn, then u better buck up your words with facts. The way I see it, u r just "bashing". Is tat how u "educate" people ? When people tell me something, u r insisting tat I must take it all without rebuttal. Is tis how u understand things ? The best way to know is through questions. If he give a good answer, pray tell me how am I gonna reply something against it ? If u feel tat my posts r lousy, ok, then let the readers decide for themselves. Do u "bash" people just just to support wat u believe ? Worse still u rather bash me than people like davidche !
I know of somebody who has been very much more aggressive in "educating" Christians on their own beliefs. You think I'm "bashing", many others also find that you're "bashing". It doesn't end.
I did not say you take everything and believe it at face value. But you have cynism that makes sceptics look like dolls. The problem is not with asking you to believe, but you knee-jerk reaction that what everyone else is telling you are lies. Worse still, you put meanings in the words of others that was not intended (you have a reputation for that).
U r the real internet troll here. U bash people, u take the topic out of point, u write one sentence reply tat only meant personal attacks, u write replies tat u know people will react to it. U fit all the criteri ! I think people should ignore such a person like u instead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
You have an opinion of me, others have an opinion of you. But I'm not like you in the sense I won't do this to people who are not like you. Even if they have different perspectives from me, I do not go on the offensive and say that they're brainwashes and too stupid to realise their mistakes just because they hold a different perspective. You come across as rebutting for the sake of rebutting.
I may seem to take the topic out of point but I don't see or rather I don't respect you and the likes of you enough to warrant a genuine discussion about the topic. You may think that's any excuse to protect my belief but really it's not. Being personal? Make of it what you will.
I made these posts not because I want a response from you, in fact, I appreciate that you just stop posting altogether.
Trolls enjoy the adverse replies they get, and you yourself said before how you like for other people to try and reply and rebutt you.
I can't sleep, hence I come into the forums to pass time. Not specifically to post about you. It just happened that I had things to say about you and the likes of you. It's a different thing to log on just to post about you.In Internet terminology, a troll is someone who comes into an established community such as an online discussion forum, and [b]posts inflammatory, rude, repetitive or offensive messages designed intentionally to annoy or antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion, including the personal attack of calling others trolls.[/quote]
You have a well deserved reputation of being a troll. I did not suddenly thrust upon you. What you're trying to lay on me is a different thing. Nice try though.[quote]Voila ! U fit every criteria in tis single thread ! And u sippposedly write all these because u cannot sleep ! The real troll is exposed !
I know most of the time you log on just to talk back against Christians. -
You're doing it again so I'm not going to bother about all this.Originally posted by stupidissmart:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't not single out the act of one to be that of the whole. Your way of generalising people is no different from being a racist
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus di say tat statement. If it is generalising, he is the one tat did it. Now u r blaming on me ?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just an example of how he places words in the mouth of others. Quite typical of him really.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just an example of personal attack. Why don't u elaborate why is it wrong instead of just attacking ?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice you look to make lots of references to certain types of individuals who may not really reflect the entire Christian/Catholic/Religous population. Nonetheless, it is typical of you to be rather singular and selective.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tat is very strange... Jesus did not reflect the christian/catholic population ? Wat r u talkin about ?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A lot of times, you don't understand because you are trying to see your own meaning in other people's words. Just like how you regularly say people are implying something when it was never their intention to say anything that you indicated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why don't u refer to the point I am taling about and explain to me ? Otherwise u r really "reading ut of context" here -
Nothing anybody can do about it if you keep putting words in other's mouth. It's not that you lack sense(different issue), you contrive your own sense in other people's words.Originally posted by stupidissmart:And if I do not have sense in it, u r free to tear it to shreds. Why r u not doing it instead just concentrate on personal attacks. -
Bashing? If that's what you think. That's what I feel you are doing.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Own rationale ? So far it seems your rational is only just personal attack without any elaboration. Tat is, in internet term "bashing". -
He is not a missionary. And not every Christian or pastor is like him. You may not believe it, but I'm not one of those who like City Harvest as a church. But I don't go on a hate campaign just because I don't like city harvest.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Then ? Father Kong is rich and live in condo and drive luxurious cars. Tat is not wat u claim as a missionary. -
Still can't sleep? Or didn't sleep well?
I haven't sleep yet, going to rest after my lunch, -
Slept. Not much but I did. Thankfully I could sleep in today. But going off soon though.Originally posted by M©+square:Still can't sleep? Or didn't sleep well?
I haven't sleep yet, going to rest after my lunch,