Scandals in Singapore churches
-
You want to appeal to authority? Don't regret.Originally posted by ventin:Icemoon,
before you started translating scriptures again, may i know what credentials do you have that warrants a correct translation? How much do you know about the works of the KJV, the blood and the sweat?
-
Say only. Who knows what he actually did.Originally posted by Icemoon:yah .. newspaper reported Pastor Kong refused the paycheck from church, 'cos he claimed to earn more from his speaking tour.
-
You can choose not to believe.Originally posted by iveco:Say only. Who knows what he actually did.
But I think if he is a master strategist he won't take the paycheck.
Imagine trying to bluff all the auditors and church leadership. You refuse the paycheck on national paper then you still take .. you instantly lose all respect.
furthermore if you are a strategist, you know there is one move called mai3 ren2 xin1.
Using 8k to buy the hearts of the congregation and other stinkaporeans .. it is much worth it.
Put it this way, I'm sure 8k is peanuts to him. You do know he lives in a multiple storey house with lift don't you? -
never heard of Westcott and Hort?Originally posted by Icemoon:Who cares about blood, sweat [and tears]? Are you appealing to emotion? Fallacious reasoning.
Show me in a paragraph or two, why you think the original is corrupt.
it doesnt take you to drink 1 bottle of poison to kill, just a drop will do. -
I have that translation in my sword project last time.Originally posted by ventin:never heard of Westcott and Hort?
it doesnt take you to drink 1 bottle of poison to kill, just a drop will do. -
Icemoon, you sound like you are always angry and ranting. Suggest you take a step back..this is just a discussion or debate over issues that do not directly involve you and I. As a doctor, I suggest you calm down...you are at risk of hypertension and heart disease.Originally posted by Icemoon: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.)?
Clearly the plaintiff has deviated from the orthodox teaching of the BP church on this issue and the defence will probably argue that it is their duty to fight heresies within the church. Therefore the BP church will probably rely on the defence of justification, that it is substantially true that the plaintiff had committed heresy against a long-established doctrine of the church he has chosen to associate with.
Secondly, the BP church could also argue that it was fair comment on a matter of 'public' interest within the BP church. If the pastors' criticisms of the plaintiff, however harsh or cruel, were disseminated only within the confines of the church or its internal publication, then they could rely on the defence of fair comment. That it was a matter of interest within the church can hardly be disputed, since it touched on a core doctrine of the BP church. As long as the pastors limited their criticisms within the church member population, they can rely on this second defence.
Much depends on what was said. It would be factual for the church to say that the plaintiff was a heretic for the reasons above. It would not be factual and definitely not a valid defence if the BP church had alleged that he was a wife-beater, adulterer or a cheat. The court will have to examine the facts of the case to give a just verdict.
Do you know the facts of the case? Do you know exactly what the BP church leaders said? Are you pre-judging the BP church by yourself alleging that the defendant had attacked the plaintiff's integrity? That's the plaintiff's allegation but the court has yet to come to a verdict. Until then, such matters are subjudice and I suggest we should leave that to the proper authorities.
My comment in this matter only went as far as the actions of the plaintiff when the conflict began. I find it strange that he continued to remain within the church and therefore tacitly submitting to the discipline of a church whose doctrines he disagreed with. -
Btw, the legal understanding of 'fair comment' may not sound fair at all to the layman. You can read up on the legal definition...here's a link for a start:
http://www.yourrights.org.uk/your-rights/chapters/right-of-free-expression/defamation/defences-to-a-claim-of-defamation.shtml
http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html#2 -
All right .. how much is the consultation charges?Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Icemoon, you sound like you are always angry and ranting. Suggest you take a step back..this is just a discussion or debate over issues that do not directly involve you and I. As a doctor, I suggest you calm down...you are at risk of hypertension and heart disease. -
This isn't strange at all.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:My comment in this matter only went as far as the actions of the plaintiff when the conflict began. I find it strange that he continued to remain within the church and therefore tacitly submitting to the discipline of a church whose doctrines he disagreed with.
Even Luther did not leave the Church after the theses were pinned. -
Actually I care not so much on the legal aspects of the case. I do believe that those remarks to "gun him down" were hurting to the platintiff, but like you said, it is up to the court to decide whether there is defamation.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Clearly the plaintiff has deviated from the orthodox teaching of the BP church on this issue and the defence will probably argue that it is their duty to fight heresies within the church. Therefore the BP church will probably rely on the defence of justification, that it is substantially true that the plaintiff had committed heresy against a long-established doctrine of the church he has chosen to associate with.
Secondly, the BP church could also argue that it was fair comment on a matter of 'public' interest within the BP church. If the pastors' criticisms of the plaintiff, however harsh or cruel, were disseminated only within the confines of the church or its internal publication, then they could rely on the defence of fair comment. That it was a matter of interest within the church can hardly be disputed, since it touched on a core doctrine of the BP church. As long as the pastors limited their criticisms within the church member population, they can rely on this second defence.
Much depends on what was said. It would be factual for the church to say that the plaintiff was a heretic for the reasons above. It would not be factual and definitely not a valid defence if the BP church had alleged that he was a wife-beater, adulterer or a cheat. The court will have to examine the facts of the case to give a just verdict.
Do you know the facts of the case? Do you know exactly what the BP church leaders said? Are you pre-judging the BP church by yourself alleging that the defendant had attacked the plaintiff's integrity? That's the plaintiff's allegation but the court has yet to come to a verdict. Until then, such matters are subjudice and I suggest we should leave that to the proper authorities.
My comment in this matter only went as far as the actions of the plaintiff when the conflict began. I find it strange that he continued to remain within the church and therefore tacitly submitting to the discipline of a church whose doctrines he disagreed with.
But I was ranting on was the hypocrisy by the church leaders.
Note that the Holy and Perfect Word of Christ is, at times, at variance with our law. Christ says you commit adultery when no judge in the world will convict you of adultery.
So the law says 'fair comment' .. but I say those 'fair comments' are not Christ-like behaviour.
That the KJV is the uncorrupted word of God is not a matter of faith in the biblical sense. It is an intellectual issue which can be discussed and debated on the round table.
If one maintain that the KJV is uncorrupted and other translations are corrupted, then he or she has to prove it. Prove it to the plaintiff. Prove it to the congregation. I suspect many BPs just take it at face value; they never question this doctrine, or should I say dogma.
The plaintiff was only asking for a public debate .. of which the outcome is still unclear. -
So which versions you hold dearly to?
-
The one that God put in our hearts.Originally posted by ventin:So which versions you hold dearly to?