Church Goers
-
you'll never know.Originally posted by MrBach:Dear Fugue,
You mean he goes to church? Wow!
I didn't know that.
I hope you're not going to tell me next that he goes to the church of Satan.
Lol!
-
I think the only way not to take things too personal in forums is to cast away the ego in each of us.
just a personal feel.
not to attrack flammers.
gd luck.
-
Hmm...Originally posted by M©+square:Love one another la. Don't attack your own body. Haiyo....
-
pinkygal i am not with your religion but i agree with u on this one.....need to show some respect...moderator or notOriginally posted by pinkygal76:Church goers do know how to have fun...........
but not all church goers dress and and behave like that!!! YOUR church worship the DEVIL HA!!!
Dun noe a damn about real church goers.......PLS SHUT UP!!!!! Making my blood boil!!!!
I go to Adam Road Presbyterian church.... love the sermones by Pastor : Christopher
Chia...... my church dun have compulsory salary contribution!!!!
Antoh....join us for the sermones if you have time !!!
-
when people dun know how to respect themselves (by dressing indecent, how they present themselves online/offline...etc.), dun expect others to respect them.
simple as that! -
I always thought god created eve naked and walk around naked... In fact he made every animals naked... And he see nothing wrong with it...
nvm -
Well it used to be ok...until walking around naked proved to be a problem. People were having unwanted orgasms in public. So in order to prevent disturbances to public order, human decided to wear clothes.Originally posted by stupidissmart:I always thought god created eve naked and walk around naked... In fact he made every animals naked... And he see nothing wrong with it... nvm -
sigh......why is it we 24hour got Christianity bashing threads one ah?
and i think you guys should go dig up that old HYS topic where there is like 20pages filled with arguments on what people should wear and should woman lead etc..........
and well, the topic starter either meant to start some stupid trouble knowing what kind of attention this topic will attract, or is just wanting to know a little more about other church, which, in this case, posted this topic in the total wrong place...........omg, what the heck am i typing -
Just enjoy the discussion.Originally posted by snk86:sigh......why is it we 24hour got Christianity bashing threads one ah?
and i think you guys should go dig up that old HYS topic where there is like 20pages filled with arguments on what people should wear and should woman lead etc..........
and well, the topic starter either meant to start some stupid trouble knowing what kind of attention this topic will attract, or is just wanting to know a little more about other church, which, in this case, posted this topic in the total wrong place...........omg, what the heck am i typing -
ha, not really enjoyable if what your parent's do for a living is being play around as a joke horOriginally posted by M©+square:Just enjoy the discussion. 
-
christians bashing or christianity bashing?Originally posted by snk86:sigh......why is it we 24hour got Christianity bashing threads one ah?
and i think you guys should go dig up that old HYS topic where there is like 20pages filled with arguments on what people should wear and should woman lead etc..........
and well, the topic starter either meant to start some stupid trouble knowing what kind of attention this topic will attract, or is just wanting to know a little more about other church, which, in this case, posted this topic in the total wrong place...........omg, what the heck am i typing
anyway, its more wu feng bu qi lang thing
people started topics not realising such topics are potential avenues for conflicts... -
in fact, except for some peeps in the forum, my Christians frens outside arent like thatOriginally posted by F Bunta:I see it more like bashing of arrogant people. -
well said.. i believe if there was an argument.. it should be a constructive and factual one.. winning people over with facts instead of mere castigationOriginally posted by sassyfire:No Mr Fugue
because some members are apparently quite distress. So there's no need to do this further. There's nothing to defend. So what for?
You think I'm fighting a case. Like I said, everything's common sense. People can read and see. By using certain languages to verbally abuse someone doesn't mean you're better or more sincere.
Likewise even if you can memorise the whole bible doesn''t make you more right with God.
By arguing, it's not making things better. If you can't make constructive comments, it's you who should keep your peace -
Originally posted by laurence82:in fact, except for some peeps in the forum, my Christians frens outside arent like that
-
Why the shepherd cares for his sheep?
Because he wants to eat them afterwards! -
zun bor?Originally posted by Mr Fugue: -
ren xin nan cher.Originally posted by laurence82:zun bor? -
Your parents in there?Originally posted by snk86:ha, not really enjoyable if what your parent's do for a living is being play around as a joke hor
Of i'm sorry, It wasn't meant for them.
Please understand that the members themselves deserve it.
Self righteous and Stiff necked Christians.
I respect the full time staff so far.
But do you seriously think that HYS and other issues should not be addressed when there is indeed something wrong and people can sense it.
Like the frequently used. There's no smoke without fire.
Questioning is a issue in the forum.
Standing up and defending CHC as a Harvester(a godly one PLS) with the intention to resolve misunderstand is another.
Till date. We, well...i haven't seen any Harvest who deserves respect in terms of these CHC threads.
Take heart my friend.
Cheers -
Very hungry...
-
What argument specifically are you referring to, which appeared in your opinion not to be a constructive one?Originally posted by coffeeortea:well said.. i believe if there was an argument.. it should be a constructive and factual one.. winning people over with facts instead of mere castigation
Fugue had a sensible point, in insisting that, if the point of someone's post is to counter the post of someone else, then the post in question which is supposed to be performing this function, must comprise reasoned arguments.
Whether or not an argument is constructive or otherwise depends on one's view of the uses to which it is being put (presumably by the one putting it forth); but even if the argument in question appears to you to have been intended to serve a function which you cannot help but feel yourself constrained to regard as anything but 'constructive', this would not mean, however, that the said argument would not have been well-supported by cogent reasons.
In any case, Fugue's point remains incontestable: if you are going to suggest that what someone else has said is untrue, then you had better have at your disposal a set of reasons which could justify this claim, or otherwise you're the going to be one who will be guilty of doing the 'castigating'.
Now stop 'castigating' Fugue. -
lmfao.. i think you do not get what i mean.. my post was in support of mr fugue.. can you say.. owned?Originally posted by MrBach:What argument specifically are you referring to, which appeared in your opinion not to be a constructive one?
Fugue had a sensible point, in insisting that, if the point of someone's post is to counter the post of someone else, then the post in question which is supposed to be performing this function, must comprise reasoned arguments.
Whether or not an argument is constructive or otherwise depends on one's view of the uses to which it is being put (presumably by the one putting it forth); but even if the argument in question appears to you to have been intended to serve a function which you cannot help but feel yourself constrained to regard as anything but 'constructive', this would not mean, however, that the said argument would not have been well-supported by cogent reasons.
In any case, Fugue's point remains incontestable: if you are going to suggest that what someone else has said is untrue, then you had better have at your disposal a set of reasons which could justify this claim, or otherwise you're the going to be one who will be guilty of doing the 'castigating'.
Now stop 'castigating' Fugue. -
Very sleepy after lunch.... -__-'~~~
-
It appears that you are either lying or have poor powers of comprehension.Originally posted by coffeeortea:lmfao.. i think you do not get what i mean.. my post was in support of mr fugue.. can you say.. owned?
Fugue was admonishing the person you had quoted for having presumed to contradict someone else without offering a decent argument in support of her views.
She then responded to Fugue's admonition to her on this score, with a post, stating that she felt that she didn't need to defend herself; and that it was her view that in any discussion a space should be made only for 'constructive arguments'.
She seemed therefore to be saying that Fugue had been asking her to defend herself in a situation wherein it was impossible that she should ever defend herself by means of arguments that were 'constructive; and that was why she began her post with 'No, Fugue'.
Now in quoting with approval this particular post of hers, you were clearly giving us to understand that you endorsed her disparagement of an assumption that Fugue had made concerning the viability of any attempt that she might have made at defending herself by means of constructive arguments within the situation in question.
I therefore naturally concluded that you had taken the same view of Fugue's admonition which she herself had taken of it; and did not think that you were instead making a general statement to the effect that 'constructive arguments have a place in a discussion'.