Originally posted by BroInChrist:I think you are still missing the point. It is not about denying pain or morality, but explaining it and providing a basis for it.
Yes, pain is real and felt in its various forms.
Violence is real too.
But on what basis do you we call violence wrong and immoral? Violence in the animal world is a reality, but do you call that wrong or immoral? Why do we not indict animals for preying on other animals? Why do we reserve moral judgement and accountability for human violence towards fellow humans but not animals on animals? In an evolutionary-atheistic world of nature red in tooth and claw, where the fittest survive, who is to declare that violence for the sake of survival is morally wrong?
Can you begin to see what I am driving at? Only theism supplies the pre-condition and basis for morality, moral absolutes, and moral judgement. Pain and violence are the effects experienced in a fallen world marred by man's moral rebellion against God. Moral laws presuppose a moral lawgiver. If you can even declare something to be wrong or immoral it already PRESUPPOSES the existence of moral absolutes or objective moral values, the very things that atheism CANNOT explain and does not supply. Any atheist who insists that there are objective moral values is sneaking theism into his belief system whether he realises it or not, or even if he denies it. Such an atheist is being inconsistent with his belief system.
If eveyrone can feel pain then why can't people come to a morality in which violence is wrong over thousands of years?
You are missing this point.
More parents than before worry about their children attending city harvest shiitty harvest church.
Hee loves money money and more money..
Originally posted by alize:If eveyrone can feel pain then why can't people come to a morality in which violence is wrong over thousands of years?
You are missing this point.
But you are still begging the question, on what basis do people say that violence is wrong? Are you talking about a majority consensus that violence is wrong?
I once went to CHC...
The atmosphere was good
Speaker is good...But i dun find it a place where i can commit
Therefore i'm a back slider =\
Scary.
a magician hate people exposing trade secrets
Originally posted by JT1983:Kong Hee strongly encouraged his followers ( I was told he was more pissed off than Jesus in the temple) to delete, burn, get rid off, never ever watch,...catch the drift… a documentary called Marjoe.
In this documentary, the youngest ever pentecostal minister, ordained at the age of 4, explains how he cheated people out of their money.
I posted 2 extracts so you get the idea. Definitely worth watching – can be downloaded via Isohunt…
Speaking in Tongues:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8bIhq-S2lY&feat…Miracle healings explained:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELHjeExNxvk&feat…
This man is a talent.... KH is just a rip off...
ZEELEEWONG
http://therealsingapore.com/content/sun-ho-filed-divorce-kong-hee-us
Originally posted by alize:ZEELEEWONG
http://therealsingapore.com/content/sun-ho-filed-divorce-kong-hee-us
Something more credible please alize... I find the link dubiously devious....
Ex-finance chief is sixth person charged in City Harvest probe
She faces 10 charges in court
NOT OKAY: Outside the courts, a sign with ‘objectionable contents’ being removed. TNP PICTURES: JONATHAN CHOO
REPORTS: SHAFFIQ ALKHATIB
NEIGHBOURS said she gave birth to her third child last month.
And while she was recuperating in her three-storey house in the east, her name was mentioned in several media reports as news broke that five people had been arrested and charged in the City Harvest Church (CHC) court case.
Serina Wee Gek Yin (right), 35, the former finance chief of CHC, was charged in court yesterday with six counts of being involved in a conspiracy to commit criminal breach of trust by an agent.
The charges involve more than $50 million in all.
Of the money, $24 million was allegedly siphoned off towards purported sham bond investments to fund the music career of Ms Ho Yeow Sun, the wife of the church founder, Kong Hee.
It is believed that $26.6 million was then used to cover up this sum.
Wee is also accused of four counts of being involved in a conspiracy to commit falsification of accounts.
She was among the first to arrive at the Subordinate Courts yesterday, stepping out of a car at around 8.30am, wearing a sombre black dress.
With a pair of sunglasses shielding her eyes, she ignored the press photographers as they snapped her picture.
The other five people involved in the case (see report at right) turned up within minutes of one another, with Kong, 47, being the last to arrive. Ms Ho, 42, did not accompany her husband to court.
Wee, represented by Senior Counsel Andre Maniam, was red-eyed when she left the courtroom.
Sunglasses
Slipping on her sunglasses again and with her head low so that her long hair formed a curtain over her face.she walked hand-in-hand with an unidentified woman, also in a black dress, towards a waiting car.
The vehicle sped off soon after she got in. The unidentified woman remained behind and disappeared into the crowd shortly after.
Last month, more than 200 of Kong's supporters turned up at the Subordinate Courts to show their support.
It was a quieter affair yesterday, with about 100 people.
Previously, the supporters - who accompanied Kong to his car after the court proceedings - bulldozed their way through a group of press photographers and journalists who were in his way.
It was less chaotic yesterday and Kong reached his awaiting vehicle smoothly.
In a statement e-mailed yesterday evening via his lawyer's firm, Allen & Gledhill, Kong said:"I do maintain my intergrity and will rigorously defend (it) against these charges."
He said he was confident he would be vindicated.
The New Paper found security especially tight around the court grounds yesterday morning.
A group of men, believed to be plainclothes police officers, removed a sign that could potentially have affected religious harmony.
The home-made sign, about 2m tall, was spotted at around 8am, propped up against a tree about 50m from the main entrance of the Subordinate Courts building.
It displayed a strongly-worded message.
Passers-by stared at it as they walked past, and many fished out their mobile phones to snap a picture.
Witness whom TNP spoke to said they spotted a man resting the sign against the tree before leaving the premises earlier that morning.
Responding to queries from TNP, the police said that they received a report at 7.54am yesterday about a poster with "objectionable contents" that was placed in front of the Subordinate Courts.
Officers have arrested a 57-year-old man in connection to the incident and investigations are ongoing.
The five others
BEFORE Serina Wee Gek Yin was charged yesterday, five others were charged in court on June 27.
1. Kong Hee, 47, founder of CHC
Kong is accused of three counts of being part of a conspiracy to commit criminal breach of trust by an agent.
His charges involve $24 million in all-allegedly used to fund the music career of his wife, Ms Ho Yeow Sun, 42.
Kong is represented by lawyer and Member of Parliament for Moulmein-Kallang GRC, Mr Edwin Tong.
2. Tan Ye Peng, 39, vice-president of the CHC management board and Kong's second-in-command
He faces 10 charges in all - six counts of being part of a conspiracy to commit criminal breach of trust by an agent and four counts of being part of a conspiracy to commit falsification of accounts.
The charges involve more than $50 million.
His lawyers are Senior Counsel (SC) C.R.Rajah and Mr N. Sreenivasan.
3. Lam Leng Hung, 44, CHC management board member
Lam is accused of three counts of being part of a conspiracy to commit criminal breach of trust by an agent involving a total of $24 million, purportedly used to fund Mrs Ho's music career.
His lawyers are SC Kenneth Tan and Mr Nicholas Narayanan.
4. Sharon Tan Shao Yuen, 36, CHC's finance manager
She faced seven charges in all. Based on three of the charges, she was allegedly part of a conspiracy to commit criminal breach of trust by an agent involving more than $26.6 million.
She is also accused of four counts of being part of a conspiracy to commit falsification of accounts.
She is represented by SC Kannan Ramesh and Mr Jeffrey Ong.
5. Chew Eng Han, 52, CHC's investment manager
Chew faces 10 charges in all - six counts of being part of a conspiracy to commit criminal breach of trust by an agent and four counts of being of a conspiracy to commit falsification of accounts.
The charges involve more than $50 million.
Chew is represented by SC Francis Xavier.
Penalties
Those convicted of being part of a conspiracy to commit criminal breach of trust by an agent could be jailed for life or up to 20 years and fined for each charge.
Those convicted of being part of conspiracy to commit falsification of accounts could be jailed up to 10 years and fined for each charge.
Like Wee, all five have been released on $500,000 bail each. Their pre-trial conference is on Aug 30.
News, The New Paper, Thurday, July 26 2012, Pg 13
Haiz.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:But you are still begging the question, on what basis do people say that violence is wrong? Are you talking about a majority consensus that violence is wrong?
The question you should ask is how there is right and wrong in the first place.
And it would not be hard for people to call the unpleasant wrong and the pleasant right, and to put violence into the unpleasant category because we all suffer pain.
Unless you think there must be a pre-existing notion of pleasant and unplesant too?
Do you need to be told that beating you is unpleasant?
If morality was god-given, it was given in the shitty and undeveloped form practiced in the dark ages, when might was right.
Originally posted by Zeeleewong:
1st was the cancellation of FOP, now a broadcast of a song to praise an individual plus a cheer for him to position outside the area of jurisdiction... Seriously, how can any christian celebrate Kong Hee's actions so far as thee?
Elaborate for me zee... I wanna understand you point of view...
Originally posted by alize:The question you should ask is how there is right and wrong in the first place.
And it would not be hard for people to call the unpleasant wrong and the pleasant right, and to put violence into the unpleasant category because we all suffer pain.
Unless you think there must be a pre-existing notion of pleasant and unplesant too?
Do you need to be told that beating you is unpleasant?
If morality was god-given, it was given in the shitty and undeveloped form practiced in the dark ages, when might was right.
The question you thought I should be asking is the question that I am posing to atheists! For a theist, objective moral values exist because God is the absolute moral lawgiver. God is all good. God as Creator tells us what is right and wrong. That's what make morality absolute and objective.
But your idea of moral values is subjective and more of a herd mentality or majority rules. Something being unpleasant is not the same as that thing being wrong. We don't like pain, but that does not make pain wrong. Pain is pain, it is what we experience. But pain can be due to you stubbing your toe or someone stomping on it. The former is not a moral issue but the latter is.
You take issue with God-given morality, but have you thought harder about man-given morality? Is it not also a might-makes-right idea or majority-makes-right notion? But if you appeal to some innate idea of morality aka conscience, then where does this inherent notion of morality comes from? Is it because we are made that way? The theist says YES, because we are made in God's image. But if man is made in the image of apes (which is what evolution says) then from where and when and how did animal instincts become human moral values?
Incest, rape, polygamy, slavery, lynch mob, war... were good while it lasted.... I spit on subjective morals and civilities.
Morality, even practiced by the most moral people, is not a consensus. It is subjective, imperfect and comes in many varied principles that contradict each other, which is the strongest evidence for something that evolved from different parts of humanity.
You are saying morality is perfect, objective and absolute, which is fanciful. Let alone that it is god-given.
You can't even tell us which of these principles has priority and is therefore the god-given one. It is also bigoted and disdainful of other established moral opinions.
If you told me god gave us a morality that is diverse, conflicting and imperfect, perhaps I could believe you.
If you told me he gave us a "perfect, objective and absolute" morality, he has done a piss poor job of giving it.
Originally posted by Zeeleewong:
Haha.
In the event he absconds, you people can blindly and fanatically worship a fugitive, man on the run.
When that happens, the authorities will see the full extent of your fanaticism and start paying attention to your bunch.
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
Elaborate for me zee... I wanna understand you point of view...
1 Thessalonians 5:12-13..."And now, friends, we ask you to honor those leaders who work so hard for you, who have been given the responsibility of urging and guiding you along in your obedience. Overwhelm them with appreciation and love!"
Originally posted by Zeeleewong:1 Thessalonians 5:12-13..."And now, friends, we ask you to honor those leaders who work so hard for you, who have been given the responsibility of urging and guiding you along in your obedience. Overwhelm them with appreciation and love!"
But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.
Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.
For if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church?
For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
And he said, “See that you are not led astray. For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am he!’ and, ‘The time is at hand!’ Do not go after them. And when you hear of wars and tumults, do not be terrified, for these things must first take place, but the end will not be at once.”
Yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment.
Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.
But the people of Israel broke faith in regard to the devoted things, for Achan the son of Carmi, son of Zabdi, son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah, took some of the devoted things. And the anger of the Lord burned against the people of Israel. Joshua sent men from Jericho to Ai, which is near Beth-aven, east of Bethel, and said to them, “Go up and spy out the land.” And the men went up and spied out Ai.
In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. ...
Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.”
You heard me say to you, ‘I am going away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.
Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him.
But he would withdraw to desolate places and pray.
And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them and said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, ...
Jesus said to him, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’”
Originally posted by alize:Morality, even practiced by the most moral people, is not a consensus. It is subjective, imperfect and comes in many varied principles that contradict each other, which is the strongest evidence for something that evolved from different parts of humanity.
You are saying morality is perfect, objective and absolute, which is fanciful. Let alone that it is god-given.
You can't even tell us which of these principles has priority and is therefore the god-given one. It is also bigoted and disdainful of other established moral opinions.
If you told me god gave us a morality that is diverse, conflicting and imperfect, perhaps I could believe you.
If you told me he gave us a "perfect, objective and absolute" morality, he has done a piss poor job of giving it.
If morality is subjective, then on what basis you declare something (e.g. rape, incest) to be morally wrong? You have no basis to give any moral judgement or expect that judgement to carry any moral weight.
I am saying that there are objective moral values. Why that is fanciful at all is something you did not elaborate. And for someone who espoused moral subjectivism and relativism, how do you go about judging my views as bigoted?
Read the Bible, it says that God has created man in His image. Man was created morally pure to begin with. But when man chose to rebel against God, we lost that moral purity. Now we are all morally depraved, sinners.
Originally posted by Zeeleewong:
LOL - When I watched the video this morning it had about 20,000 views.
450 likes and 8500 dislikes.