My take on this forum
-
Originally posted by laurence82:
its ur opinion that its my stated opinion
Your stated opinion could be the same, could be different from what you really think in your heart. I leave it to you.
-
Originally posted by SomebodyInSG:
Your stated opinion could be the same, could be different from what you really think in your heart. I leave it to you.
nope, but i leave it to you and your opinion
-
Originally posted by Cck689461:
the forum is meant for a healthy discussion on christianity.
Rooney and laurence have brought up their viewpoint which are valid.
Christians should examine alternative viewpoint before commenting.
Scripture quoting holds no weight. Only logical and rational argument are of value.
It is improper for pastor to manipulate the church for his own well- being. that is for sure. the duty of the pastor is to care for the flock. but they have deviated from their calling and has fleeced the flock instead of caring for it.
This, the christians, cannot deny. The truth is the truth. CHC should not have invested in suntec . CHC should have used the money to help the poor.
This is why laurence and roony are so indignant at the matter. They have a right to show contempt because the Church has mismanaged its affairs.
Christians feel that non-christians have no right to judge the church. but has the church done right? have the pastor done right? have the church serve its true purpose as a house of prayer or has it become a clubhouse where the opposite sex flirt with each other?
Christians, do not be angry with rooney and laurence. Instead of bashing laurence and rooney, why dun the christians self-reflect on your own faults and misgivings.Admit your error and fault, repent and strive to be a better person. When you have achieve in doing that, laurence and rooney 's contempt will be resolved.
Hi there, there is nothing wrong with presenting an alternative viewpoint. To be fair, not everyone who has come to EH with an "alternative viewpoint" has good intentions. Sometimes it's not even about their viewpoint but all about the conflict in itself. We also have a few Christians (or that's what claim to be so we take at face value), who are more into the conflict as well.
It is sad, whether you are a Christian or not that you make posts and replies in good faith but the other party is only seeking to cause trouble and incite conflict.
This sub-forum has long ceased being a place of genuine discussion and sharing of views. To blame any one group would be wrong. Some people even knowingly add to it to make it worse.
There have been those of us who have admitted like you said that mistakes have been made by those who call themselves Christians and we even agree if wrong-doing has been done. We have also conceded since they have done wrong, and such people should be told and dealt with accordingly.
However, such comments are often largely ignored, and this is not true of all non-Christians, but only certain anti-Christians, they insist on focusing on negative stereotypes even when presented with clear examples of those who don't conform or practice the negative stereotypes. Which brings in the irony of being accused of not listening to alternative views.
For example, there have been Christians who have said they don't agree with how CHC gets money and how they use it, not just now but even in the past years ago. But this is ignored and sometimes blatantly even.
Once again, I stress again I agree with you that we should listen to alternative views. But not everyone with an "alternative view" is the same. At the same time, Christians at large should learn how to respond and handle these different types of people with "alternative view". I also believe your advice about listening to alternative views that any person can heed, not just one specific group of people.
-
And there are those who slide their way out of wormy arguments by laying blame on non christians, satan and their mothers
So easy, if you are in an argument you are unable to substantiate, question the sincerity or the intention of the defractor!
Woalah, problem solved
..joking abt the mothers
-
Originally posted by laurence82:
And there are those who slide their way out of wormy arguments by laying blame on non christians, satan and their mothers
So easy, if you are in an argument you are unable to substantiate, question the sincerity or the intention of the defractor!
Woalah, problem solved
..joking abt the mothers
the most hilarious and outrageous comments I read here was that I needed to provide the basis or the platform on which the question is being asked. so next time, before you question anything, you are supposed to provide an answer to the question before you posed it.
-
Originally posted by laurence82:
And there are those who slide their way out of wormy arguments by laying blame on non christians, satan and their mothers
So easy, if you are in an argument you are unable to substantiate, question the sincerity or the intention of the defractor!
Woalah, problem solved
..joking abt the mothers
The irony of your comments.
Still, while not true of every non-Christian posting in EH, there certainly have been those who come here with very malicious intent. Of this I'm sure you are very aware, you yourself have ever commented against a non-Christian or two who have gone too far.
Saying non-Christians at large are blamed is not true, neither do all of us always mention Satan when we talk about causes as to why this forum is in such a bad state. In fact, most of us don't.
And to some people, they are all about the arguement and conflict. It is not even what their stand is whether as a Christian or non-Christian. Certain individuals are all about the conflict and arguing because of arguing.
-
Originally posted by Rooney9:
the most hilarious and outrageous comments I read here was that I needed to provide the basis or the platform on which the question is being asked. so next time, before you question anything, you are supposed to provide an answer to the question before you posed it.
i also have learnt many things from them
1. if cannot answer the question or substantiate your answer, question the sincerity or intentions of your defractors
2. push the blame to non christians, satan and mothers, avoiding the trolling by some christians
3. u must prove things dont exist, like flying spaghetti monsters
-
Originally posted by Rooney9:
the most hilarious and outrageous comments I read here was that I needed to provide the basis or the platform on which the question is being asked. so next time, before you question anything, you are supposed to provide an answer to the question before you posed it.
actually the most hilarious one is this by you in the "Name calling and mud slinging" thread:
I have yet to see a coherent and logical replies posed by non believers.
absolute classic!
anyway, asking for warrant is not illogical because if you don't have a basis for asking those questions, how can you pose them in the first place? my questions logically precede yours. You're unable to justify your questions, there's nothing to answer because you don't even know what you're asking, just as your own comment shown above, you generally don't know what you're writing too.
-
Originally posted by TTFU:
I agree on the points that you have written. I dont think eternal hope needs to be closed down. Having at least two mods will be enough. To censor off the more obvious trolls in here. Rooney9 also provided some good arguments about science and views of a aetheist. No doubt some are quite offensive. The rest i have no comments
dont insult atheists... anyway where?
-
rise and shine people
time to blast a non-christian today
have you filled your quota for today?
-
Morning Trolls.
Hows the christian bashing today ? Must be feeling fullfilling today.
-
u mean bashing non christians? lets not deviate from our one true objective of eliminating non christians from this world?
will provide a status update by tonight, after my night trip to villa bali
-
Originally posted by 24/7:
dont insult atheists... anyway where?
ermmm, did you learn science in school ? if yes, you should know where. -
Non-Christian eliminationg non christians from this world ? Thats the true objective ?
-
Originally posted by Fairyfairy86:
ermmm, did you learn science in school ? if yes, you should know where.wow... so direct.
in that case, i ask if your understanding is intact? do you know how to read properly? i distinctly bolded the part that asserted Rooney9 had good arguments about science and asked, where it was? in effect, i'm asking where Rooney9's good arguments about science were. hope it's simple enough for you now.
One more thing, if you think that the science one needs to learn is in school, you're pathetically misguided. Science is tentative, questing to acquire new knowledge, hence its name. To presume that the science one learns in school is enough to base your worldview and beliefs, is tantamount to subscribing to dogma. A fatally flawed one.
-
to 24/7
u must understand that fairyfairy often takes things literally and at face value...this, i observed from her posts and replies...
-
i tot this topic is about christians bashing non christians
why talk about science??
-
Originally posted by laurence82:
i tot this topic is about christians bashing non christians
why talk about science??
besides that, this forum can read so many incoherent and irrational, not to mention absurdity comments from you know who here. talking about the basis and platform on the questioning earlier, I LOL when I read his illogical prose. but well, he is entitled his own opinions, but let see how other people make of this. another thing I find here is that they tend to copy your riposte and then frame it to counter at you lol.
-
Originally posted by 24/7:
wow... so direct.
in that case, i ask if your understanding is intact? do you know how to read properly? i distinctly bolded the part that asserted Rooney9 had good arguments about science and asked, where it was? in effect, i'm asking where Rooney9's good arguments about science were. hope it's simple enough for you now.
One more thing, if you think that the science one needs to learn is in school, you're pathetically misguided. Science is tentative, questing to acquire new knowledge, hence its name. To presume that the science one learns in school is enough to base your worldview and beliefs, is tantamount to subscribing to dogma. A fatally flawed one.
oh go to church and read the bible who is 2010 years old is not dogma, I see. your worldview is a objective one, I must agree
-
Originally posted by Fairyfairy86:
ermmm, did you learn science in school ? if yes, you should know where.Its true,Doesnt mean what you have learnt now is correct, it may be wrong 10 years later, science is fallible and falsifiable
-
Originally posted by TTFU:
Its true,Doesnt mean what you have learnt now is correct, it may be wrong 10 years later, science is fallible and falsifiable
yes but at least it made the effort to collect, observe, do experiments to prove the hypothesis. in fact it is not done by a lone scientist, but a community of scientist in the world. now with the benefit of the knowledge we have now and plus education, we know a lot of things about our world, but our ancient ancestors were not. the society they lived then was primitive and illiteracy is high among the population then. the role of women then was confined at home giving birth and rearing the children at home unlike the modern women now. sure science will made errors, but it will be corrected by new discovery or hypothesis. can you say the same for the........nvm.........
would you rather trusts a book whose authorship was unknown and written 2010 years ago where society was primitive and knowledge rudimentary and illiteracy high?
-
Originally posted by Rooney9:
yes but at least it made the effort to collect, observe, do experiments to prove the hypothesis. in fact it is not done by a lone scientist, but a community of scientist in the world. now with the benefit of the knowledge we have now and plus education, we know a lot of things about our world, but our ancient ancestors were not. the society they lived then was primitive and illiteracy is high among the population then. the role of women then was confined at home giving birth and rearing the children at home unlike the modern women now. sure science will made errors, but it will be corrected by new discovery or hypothesis. can you say the same for the........nvm.........
would you rather trusts a book whose authorship was unknown and written 2010 years ago where society was primitive and knowledge rudimentary and illiteracy high?
I have yet to see a coherent and logical replies posed by non believers - Rooney9
We trust you 100%, cretin.
Afterall, you are the author of Loony9 paradox.
-
Originally posted by googoomuck:
I have yet to see a coherent and logical replies posed by non believers - Rooney9
We trust you 100%, cretin.
Afterall, you are the author of Loony9 paradox.
more of your personal attacks
pls continue, we like it
-
Originally posted by laurence82:
more of your personal attacks
pls continue, we like it
fight the infidels at all costs seem to be their mantra. hence it is ok to justify personal despicable attacks.
-
Originally posted by Rooney9:
besides that, this forum can read so many incoherent and irrational, not to mention absurdity comments from you know who here. talking about the basis and platform on the questioning earlier, I LOL when I read his illogical prose. but well, he is entitled his own opinions, but let see how other people make of this. another thing I find here is that they tend to copy your riposte and then frame it to counter at you lol.
riposte? riposte?? You’re really deluded aren’t you? Riposte is a quick clever reply to an insult or criticism. First of all, that comment (in fact most of your comments) hardly qualified as clever. Secondly, it certainly wasn’t a reply because it was you who started the topic. (http://www.sgforums.com/forums/1381/topics/400932).
It’s like you’re trying to use the nunchuks to scare your opponents but end up beating yourself up silly first … If anything, I thought your “riposte” was more of a classic Freudian slip! Very amusing. If not very telling.