• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Sign up for a DBS credit card in support of the NEW Aware

lockeliberal

Alfrescian
Loyal
Dear London, Kawoki


Firstly as a christian I would add that certain comments here do have a valid point. I was there and yes they were noisy, raccous, jeering booing etc etc all in all definitely louder, more vocal , more angry or passionate than supporters of Josie and her gang. Secondly the christian moral majority who were there yes all 761 of them were silent dignified and nor as loud and thus their voices were completely drowned, they came they voted, they saw the behaviour of the other camp, were disgusted and left.

I heard their comments as they left, heard their comment silently as I stood in the taxi queue behind them. perhaps some of them were here , perhaps not but the refrain stretches from the TOC to other more xtian friendly sites like Xtian Post.

1. It was not the lesbian women who were angry, it was ALL WOMEN from all walks of life. I believe some introspection is necessary and you have to ask whether these people had a right to be angry.

2. Angry at the comments from Darth Thio, Angry at Josie's evasiveness till it was way to late, Angry at the bullying from the Pulpit of COOS as admitted to by Pastor Derek. Angry at the denials , then angry at the clarifications over the denials, a classic.............it was not a coup but networking......insulting the intelligence of most women and all christians alike.

3. For those xtians who opposed you strongly, we did so not because we did not agree with your position with your views on homosexuality and sex, but as Dr Gwee put it the manner of your doing and what we saw as the need to protect a secular organization and a secular society.


4. So what gives ? Firstly Pro Family views have a place in any society, Lets put paid to the rubbishy notion that Pro Family views are being persecuted as dear Derek Hong stated in his sermon using an example from the US. Because last I heard COOS was COOS Queentown SG not Queenstown USA.

5. Next grow a brain nearly half of the US goes to church. The numbers in SG are a lot lot less, so however passionate committed you are.......there are secular limits to what you can do without destroying society as whole.

6. How does one go about promoting one's pro family values. Transparency for one, if you are inspired by faith then create a faith based organization , by the deeds that you do using the vehicle of a faith based organization seek the transformation that you want instead of using stealth and lies.

7. Finally stop seeking political positions of influence no matter how alluring to advance your cause or to shove ur views down the throats pf secular society by stealth. Instead seek to influence those in position through deeds and through your own acts. Remember that Jesus was offered dominion over the devil by man and he refused, remember that he rendered to Ceaser what was Ceaser's when the Romans were for orgies, hetrosexuality, homosexuality, competing faiths etc etc, remember all of that and then perhaps one will feel less indignant and self righteous when the homosexuality issue crops up again and some pastor takes it on himself to decide that the " Nation has crossed the line. "




Lockeliberal
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
Its was a simple question to substantiate your claims. You have not done so. You did not even make an attempt. I never said that I was right. I said that you are smearing innocent people if you leave it at that. It not a nice thing to do.

Lets leave it to the readers to draw their own conclusions and both of us to live with what we have posted in this thread.

Scroobal, you refused to see the possibility that your reading has erred.

You made your basis on the posts i made. And highlighted the particular points in these posts where you cite as evidence.

I took out the entire posts and highlighted the main points. Read your highlighted points in the light of the highlighted points by me and you may see that you have read in error.

But you insist that your reading is right.

And you want me to say that you are right in your points.
 

kakowi

Alfrescian
Loyal

Dear Lockeliberal,

I had some degree of discomfort with the method which they used to right what they felt was wrong. Thus if, as you said, there were anger then in my opinion, it is justified. There are better methods.

But not with their intention to correct what they felt is a wrong.

But this begs the question: how valid was their reading of the situation that prompt them to act in such a manner?

Unlike many who jump in one end or the other, I had not been definitely certain. All I am subjectively certain is that this is not a united christian conspiracy. And if it is not a conspiracy, then it must be something that they have seen or felt. But then for each accusation that was given, there was a corresponding answer. In the end, the entire episode gave rise to pockets of certainty - yes, i am sure this is right, that is wrong and those are uncertain. Most seems very sure of their points. But to me, the overall picture is very hazy because I can't decide on that basic question: did they read it correctly or mis-interpret it.

I would have been much more comfortable if they had seen themselves as a highlighter of issues, and having highlighted the issues to all women, voluntarily announced the date for another Election for all women to decide. I am not saying this from the benefit of hindsight. Rather this was something i had been hoping that they will do from day 7? of the fiasco.

Instead as time went on, Ministers, bloggers came in, culmulating in pastors from two churches getting their say - one unwillingly and the other does not appear to be that unwillingly.

And the issues by that time had polarized into two highly contentious segments.

Once it reached that stage, one can kiss all consensual decisions goodbye.

Rationality gave way to irrationality.

Kakowi
 

kakowi

Alfrescian
Loyal
To LondonTrader and Porfiro:

You can read what you want from my posts.

If you feel i am wrong, then be happy that you are right.

If you feel i am biased, then be happy that you are impartial.

And if you feel i lacked integrity, then, need i say it? Be happy that you have integrity.

With that, I end my points.
 

londontrader

Alfrescian
Loyal
Dear Kakowi,

You have mastered the art of writing a lot (322 words in total) and meaning very little. I think a promising career awaits you as a PAP Press Secretary (if you're not already one).

Best regards


Dear Lockeliberal,

I had some degree of discomfort with the method which they used to right what they felt was wrong. Thus if, as you said, there were anger then in my opinion, it is justified. There are better methods.

But not with their intention to correct what they felt is a wrong.

But this begs the question: how valid was their reading of the situation that prompt them to act in such a manner?

Unlike many who jump in one end or the other, I had not been definitely certain. All I am subjectively certain is that this is not a united christian conspiracy. And if it is not a conspiracy, then it must be something that they have seen or felt. But then for each accusation that was given, there was a corresponding answer. In the end, the entire episode gave rise to pockets of certainty - yes, i am sure this is right, that is wrong and those are uncertain. Most seems very sure of their points. But to me, the overall picture is very hazy because I can't decide on that basic question: did they read it correctly or mis-interpret it.

I would have been much more comfortable if they had seen themselves as a highlighter of issues, and having highlighted the issues to all women, voluntarily announced the date for another Election for all women to decide. I am not saying this from the benefit of hindsight. Rather this was something i had been hoping that they will do from day 7? of the fiasco.

Instead as time went on, Ministers, bloggers came in, culmulating in pastors from two churches getting their say - one unwillingly and the other does not appear to be that unwillingly.

And the issues by that time had polarized into two highly contentious segments.

Once it reached that stage, one can kiss all consensual decisions goodbye.

Rationality gave way to irrationality.

Kakowi
 

londontrader

Alfrescian
Loyal
Dear Kakowi,

You're unable to provide a simple answer to a simpler question ie.

Are you accusing AWARE of being pro homosexual?

You have 3 choices (a) Yes (b) No (c) No Opinion at all

It's really that simple

At the moment, you haven't said anything worth "feeling" about


To LondonTrader and Porfiro:

You can read what you want from my posts.

If you feel i am wrong, then be happy that you are right.

If you feel i am biased, then be happy that you are impartial.

And if you feel i lacked integrity, then, need i say it? Be happy that you have integrity.

With that, I end my points.
 

londontrader

Alfrescian
Loyal
"Firstly as a christian I would add that certain comments here do have a valid point. I was there and yes they were noisy, raccous, jeering booing etc etc all in all definitely louder, more vocal , more angry or passionate than supporters of Josie and her gang. Secondly the christian moral majority who were there yes all 761 of them were silent dignified and nor as loud and thus their voices were completely drowned, they came they voted, they saw the behaviour of the other camp, were disgusted and left. "

Dear Locke

Thanks for the insight
Just a point to make:

The boorish behaviour is unfortunate but understandable given the level of pure anger
Josie & Co have steadfastly ignored dissenting members since taking office = lots of anger gradually built up over time! I guess the time bomb had to go off eventually

I would point out that the Pro Josie lobby had fewer reasons to be angry, hence their quiet stoic demeanour. I wonder how stoic they would have been if some one had invaded their church and trashed their beliefs?
 

scoopdreams

Alfrescian
Loyal
... The boorish behaviour is unfortunate but understandable given the level of pure anger
Josie & Co have steadfastly ignored dissenting members since taking office = lots of anger gradually built up over time! I guess the time bomb had to go off eventually

I would point out that the Pro Josie lobby had fewer reasons to be angry, hence their quiet stoic demeanour. I wonder how stoic they would have been if some one had invaded their church and trashed their beliefs?

Should boorish behaviour ever be condoned? It's understandable, but cannot be encouraged, and must not be condoned. The old guard with their supporters truly cried havoc and let slip the dogs of war this time.

Anger should and must always be tempered, and the other party be given a listening ear too. Otherwise, how are you different from the other party who is trying to impose their agenda on you?
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
Looks like you found a genuine gripe - boorish and poor behaviour. I did like the bit about "dogs of war"

Could you think what else the old guard and their supporters are guilty of?

Should boorish behaviour ever be condoned? It's understandable, but cannot be encouraged, and must not be condoned. The old guard with their supporters truly cried havoc and let slip the dogs of war this time.

Anger should and must always be tempered, and the other party be given a listening ear too. Otherwise, how are you different from the other party who is trying to impose their agenda on you?
 

annexa

Alfrescian
Loyal
The best way to sabotage DBS is to sign up 200 accounts per person per day. You know how expensive it is to maintain an account?!

Idiot is either so stupid, or seriously just trying to sabotage DBS. Hahahahahahaha
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
Lots of words, do be concise. I don't think even you know what you wrote.

Dear Lockeliberal,

I had some degree of discomfort with the method which they used to right what they felt was wrong. Thus if, as you said, there were anger then in my opinion, it is justified. There are better methods.

But not with their intention to correct what they felt is a wrong.

But this begs the question: how valid was their reading of the situation that prompt them to act in such a manner?

Unlike many who jump in one end or the other, I had not been definitely certain. All I am subjectively certain is that this is not a united christian conspiracy. And if it is not a conspiracy, then it must be something that they have seen or felt. But then for each accusation that was given, there was a corresponding answer. In the end, the entire episode gave rise to pockets of certainty - yes, i am sure this is right, that is wrong and those are uncertain. Most seems very sure of their points. But to me, the overall picture is very hazy because I can't decide on that basic question: did they read it correctly or mis-interpret it.

I would have been much more comfortable if they had seen themselves as a highlighter of issues, and having highlighted the issues to all women, voluntarily announced the date for another Election for all women to decide. I am not saying this from the benefit of hindsight. Rather this was something i had been hoping that they will do from day 7? of the fiasco.

Instead as time went on, Ministers, bloggers came in, culmulating in pastors from two churches getting their say - one unwillingly and the other does not appear to be that unwillingly.

And the issues by that time had polarized into two highly contentious segments.

Once it reached that stage, one can kiss all consensual decisions goodbye.

Rationality gave way to irrationality.

Kakowi
 

SneeringTree

Alfrescian
Loyal
Dear Lockeliberal,

I had some degree of discomfort with the method which they used to right what they felt was wrong. Thus if, as you said, there were anger then in my opinion, it is justified. There are better methods.

But not with their intention to correct what they felt is a wrong.

But this begs the question: how valid was their reading of the situation that prompt them to act in such a manner?

Unlike many who jump in one end or the other, I had not been definitely certain. All I am subjectively certain is that this is not a united christian conspiracy. And if it is not a conspiracy, then it must be something that they have seen or felt. But then for each accusation that was given, there was a corresponding answer. In the end, the entire episode gave rise to pockets of certainty - yes, i am sure this is right, that is wrong and those are uncertain. Most seems very sure of their points. But to me, the overall picture is very hazy because I can't decide on that basic question: did they read it correctly or mis-interpret it.

I would have been much more comfortable if they had seen themselves as a highlighter of issues, and having highlighted the issues to all women, voluntarily announced the date for another Election for all women to decide. I am not saying this from the benefit of hindsight. Rather this was something i had been hoping that they will do from day 7? of the fiasco.

Instead as time went on, Ministers, bloggers came in, culmulating in pastors from two churches getting their say - one unwillingly and the other does not appear to be that unwillingly.

And the issues by that time had polarized into two highly contentious segments.

Once it reached that stage, one can kiss all consensual decisions goodbye.

Rationality gave way to irrationality.

Kakowi

You still have not provided any evidence that Josie and friends (and most importantly Thio Su Mien) are right to accuse Aware of promoting lesbianism. Amongst many of their specific accusations was that Aware taught school girls to experiment sex with other girls.

The evidence on the other hand suggests strongly that their beef with the lesbian issue stems from their particular church teachings and is nothing more than paranoia, scare-tactics and plain irresponsible bigotedness.

ps: Do you work hard at writing obtusely or is it a natural talent you are borned with?
 

Lydia

Alfrescian
Loyal
Did any of you watch Talking Point last night? It was so boring, I wonder why they ever bothered to air it. Did the programme provide any new information or insights we didn't already possess? Nope, it was a waste of our time.

Why couldn't the participants say what they really thought, for once? For instance, Josie and team should pay the $90k since the money was spent only because they engineered the takeover. And Pastor Hong shd graciously take responsibility and resign, never to be heard fr again.

How did yesterday's church service go? Was it business as usual? Or was there wailing and rending of garment, donning of sackcloth and mourning in dust and ashes? A period of meditation with a contrite spirit should do some good.
 

scoopdreams

Alfrescian
Loyal
Looks like you found a genuine gripe - boorish and poor behaviour. I did like the bit about "dogs of war"

Could you think what else the old guard and their supporters are guilty of?

"genuine gripe"? oh no, you mistake me, i'm not griping at all, not yet at least. :smile: Churlishness is recognized standard human behaviour when people amassed over a cause, inflamed by passions, and induced by frenzy. It's more like a "genuine sigh" that after millenias of evolution, human beings still have not conquered baser instincts and reached a civil state.

I prefer not to use the words "guilty of" - it brings up images of guillotines and hangings. All I'm saying is, if the old guard are truly of a reasonable and civil nature, should not they have attempted to rein in their supporters so a better discourse could have taken place? Were they taking advantage of the frenzy? Did they get political?

It's a perfectly valid course of action though. I was hoping to see some serious debates on the opposing perspectives with regards to key issues during the EGM, and learn something along the way. As it turns out, all I saw and heard was like the classic scene from Kubrick's masterpiece "2001: A Space Odyssey" - two groups of monkeys fighting over a watering hole. Lots of noise and waving of arms, one dead monkey, and the dispute was settled, with the losers leaving the territory, and the water-hole safe, but muddied with the seeping blood of the deceased.
 
Last edited:

scoopdreams

Alfrescian
Loyal
Did any of you watch Talking Point last night? It was so boring, I wonder why they ever bothered to air it. Did the programme provide any new information or insights we didn't already possess? Nope, it was a waste of our time.

There are many others who do not have the free time and liberty to know all the "new information or insights" that you already possess, and the media has the responsibility to cater to them. Also, the media has the responsibility to be a fair and neutral party in this whole episode, especially in the aftermath.

Why couldn't the participants say what they really thought, for once? For instance, Josie and team should pay the $90k since the money was spent only because they engineered the takeover. And Pastor Hong shd graciously take responsibility and resign, never to be heard fr again.
Are those the participants' thoughts? Or are those really YOUR thoughts? Because if you can truly read their minds just by watching the TV, I'll have to start wearing a tin-foil hat all the time.

How did yesterday's church service go? Was it business as usual? Or was there wailing and rending of garment, donning of sackcloth and mourning in dust and ashes? A period of meditation with a contrite spirit should do some good.
And a period of meditation with a contrite spirit for you should do some good too. Reflect carefully on your words.
 
Last edited:

scoopdreams

Alfrescian
Loyal
You rather the girls experiment sex with other guys?!

I sure do!

Sorry, I had to do a double-take when I read your line. Are you saying you approve of girls experimenting sex with guys?

Riiiigght... Now, if you could kindly direct me to the nearest registration counter, and pass me the sign-up form and a pen...
 

lockeliberal

Alfrescian
Loyal
Dear Kawoki

As a Christian who has been for a large part of his life in the evangelical and charismatic tradtition, trust me when I say moralizing, demonizing of one's opponent comes easy to some Christians. And yes I believe I have met enough fellow christians of Darth Thio and Lord Josie Lau to understand how they think.

Firstly they view the world in moral absolutes. No shades of grey here, the bible is the absolute literal truth. Secondly they are devout, if there was a bible study competition, or a bible reading competition (similar to Koranic reading contests) they would be there amongst the best. Lastly because of one and two we have three a deadly tendency to moralize not out of humility but out of a sense of self superiority.

Kawoki I am at best not a terribly good christian, I lust and I probably sin half the day but only think of god if ever five mins a day. Sigh but darth thio.......its not a coup...but its networking.....is the statement which best sums up their attitude. I have found that those who are the most self righteous christians are often the loudest and most strident in their condemnation and at the same time the least forgiving and the least understanding

Josie and her kind will never be able to understand liberal inclusiveness, cannot accept that teaching that homosexuality as neutral without condemnation is not the same as promoting homosexuality, cannot accept that to even discuss anal and oral sex, and condoms or providing information in a controlled environment is a lot lot better than having kids accessing it over the internet. The fact that CSE also taught kids how to say no or taught abstinence in some form was not enough........

The divides were always there, the ideological believes underlying. thus the twain never shall meet.

On a different note COOS preaches that homosexuality is well a sin but is no different from any other sin in the bible. But then self righteous actions speak louder than words. They have a ministry against homosexuality, but no ministry against drugs, prisons, community services etc etc , What they practice in effect is a believe that homosexuality is a special disgusting sort of sin and their attitudes show up in their members.




Locke
 

kakowi

Alfrescian
Loyal
...
On a different note COOS preaches that homosexuality is well a sin but is no different from any other sin in the bible. But then self righteous actions speak louder than words. They have a ministry against homosexuality, but no ministry against drugs, prisons, community services etc etc , What they practice in effect is a believe that homosexuality is a special disgusting sort of sin and their attitudes show up in their members.

Locke


Dear Lockeliberal,

I was surprised to read this portion because the last time i visited their website, their stand on homosexuality is one of the most reasonable stand i had come across. Thus I was surprised to read your conclusion.

Thus i revisted their website.

Under their Ministries section, they have special ministries for:
home and hospital visitation

to the deaf

hurting people

prisons and families of prisoners

to women and their self-esteem


postnote: their ministry to homosexuals does not even rank as a ministry but merely as one of four sub-ministries
 
Last edited:
Top