This is how handsome the Yaya @True Believer (self-proclaimed high SES ACS boy) looks like

[Dongyi]

Ok. I agree. Everything that happens now i will put blame on you! Got black and white you cannot run liao

You came back in one piece.

 

[k1976]

Not me. I'm fully focused on GS300.

U get one already?
U deserved an upgrade for your hardwork

Topup abit can get Limited Edition Avatr 12

 

[Dongyi]

U get one already?
U deserved an upgrade for your hardwork

Topup abit can get Limited Edition Avatr 12

I use Grab, Gojek and TADA. So far no chance to ride on a GS300.

 

[Nut]

You came back in one piece.

Yep. But clock a very lousy timing for breaststroke 5km. Couldn't hit my target 1hr30mins. Only managed at 1hr50mins +/-...also very exhausted, so took a150mg of CoQ10 supplement capsule to quickly repair my damaged muscles.

 

[Dongyi]

1. In ancient times when humans walked around naked, nudity is the norm, it carried no lewd connotations. We live in a modern age where civilized people are expected to dress appropricately. Using adam and eve is not relevant.

It is difficult to draw a clear boundary between what is considered “civilized” and “uncivilized” in matters of social perception and moral interpretation. At what precise point does one become the other? But that is not the debate at hand. More importantly, the reference to Adam and Eve is not a historical comparison between stages of civilization, as you seem to suggest. Rather, it is a theological reference to humanity’s state before and after the Fall, where the transition from innocence to the knowledge of good and evil is marked with surgical precision.

If you are passing judgment on the object perceived, then whether something is lewd is a subjective evaluation, and regardless of the framework, you are entitled to your opinion. If a picture evokes lust or appears lewd to you, who is anyone else to insist otherwise?

However, if you are passing judgment on the perceiver, then the perceiver’s subjective experience is what matters. If someone sees David by Michelangelo as a work of art rather than something lewd, it is not for an external observer to recast that experience as lustful from the outside.​

2. Where is your evidence that the Deacon is now in the state of being 'able not to sin'?

I am not defending the Deacon as an individual; I am defending the underlying concept of innocence he invokes, namely the idea that it is entirely possible for a true believer to apprehend what others perceive as lewd not as an object of sexualized interpretation, but as part of God’s creation, received through a mode of perception that is not structured by lust or impurity.

The distinction is subtle but important. It is analogous to a defendant in a court of law advancing a particular defense. To acknowledge that the defense is legally or logically available is not the same as concluding that the defendant has established it.
​

 

[Dongyi]

Yep. But clock a very lousy timing for breaststroke 5km. Couldn't hit my target 1hr30mins. Only managed at 1hr50mins +/-...also very exhausted, so took a150mg of CoQ10 supplement capsule to quickly repair my damaged muscles.

Breaststroke 5 km ? You really siasuay ACS.

 

[duluxe]

It is difficult to draw a clear boundary between what is considered “civilized” and “uncivilized” in matters of social perception and moral interpretation. At what precise point does one become the other? But that is not the debate at hand. More importantly, the reference to Adam and Eve is not a historical comparison between stages of civilization, as you seem to suggest. Rather, it is a theological reference to humanity’s state before and after the Fall, where the transition from innocence to the knowledge of good and evil is marked with surgical precision.
​

Ah beng spewing profanity, I would consider it a norm. But, if a deacon or a true believer were to behave the same, that is a different judgement. Objectively, we should be using modern age as yardstick. Citing and using the overplayed "Adam & Eve" narrative is barking up the wrong tree. The subject is why TB cannot pick a woman who is clothed appropriately for admiring her beauty.

Coolie gene is considered civilized or uncivilized?

 

[Dongyi]

Ah beng spewing profanity, I would consider it a norm. But, if a deacon or a true believer were to behave the same, that is a different judgement. Objectively, we should be using modern age as yardstick. Citing and using the overplayed "Adam & Eve" narrative is barking up the wrong tree. The subject is why TB cannot pick a woman who is clothed appropriately for admiring her beauty.

Coolie gene is considered civilized or uncivilized?

If he had not professed to be a true believer, your assertion that the Adam and Eve narrative is irrelevant would be correct. But since he does profess to be one, it is relevant because his conduct must be evaluated against the standards of the faith he claims to uphold. Just as you would not judge a Muslim by Christian standards, neither should you disregard the Christian framework when assessing someone who identifies as a Christian. ​

 

[duluxe]

If he had not professed to be a true believer, your assertion that the Adam and Eve narrative is irrelevant would be correct. But since he does profess to be one, it is relevant because his conduct must be evaluated against the standards of the faith he claims to uphold. Just as you would not judge a Muslim by Christian standards, neither should you disregard the Christian framework when assessing someone who identifies as a Christian. ​

We have already proved his is a false believer using the standards of his belief. To make your point, you even quoted biblical verses. He professed, doesn't mean he is one.

 

[duluxe]

If you are passing judgment on the object perceived, then whether something is lewd is a subjective evaluation, and regardless of the framework, you are entitled to your opinion. If a picture evokes lust or appears lewd to you, who is anyone else to insist otherwise?

However, if you are passing judgment on the perceiver, then the perceiver’s subjective experience is what matters. If someone sees David by Michelangelo as a work of art rather than something lewd, it is not for an external observer to recast that experience as lustful from the outside.

​

I am making an objective comment to the best of my knowledge and using modern age as the context. The dress code is lewd or not, you can observe what the majority are wearing during morning peak hours in the MRT as reference point.

Subjectively, you should ask TB whether he is comfortable for his wife to wear the same type of lewd dressing to work as highlighted by me. His response will be the "perceiver subjective experience" you are arguing.

 

[duluxe]

I am not defending the Deacon as an individual; I am defending the underlying concept of innocence he invokes, namely the idea that it is entirely possible for a true believer to apprehend what others perceive as lewd not as an object of sexualized interpretation, but as part of God’s creation, received through a mode of perception that is not structured by lust or impurity.

​

You said "..as part of God’s creation"? God's creations should be in their bare, natural state. The controversial has been the subjects of the photos shared by TB, they are dressed lewdly.

 

[k1976]

I use Grab, Gojek and TADA. So far no chance to ride on a GS300.

Ok lah…too tired better dun drive
Money let other earn abit for peace of mind

 

[k1976]

If he had not professed to be a true believer, your assertion that the Adam and Eve narrative is irrelevant would be correct. But since he does profess to be one, it is relevant because his conduct must be evaluated against the standards of the faith he claims to uphold. Just as you would not judge a Muslim by Christian standards, neither should you disregard the Christian framework when assessing someone who identifies as a Christian. ​

Christian no need to Potong birdie or cut Abalone de woh

 

[Dongyi]

Ok lah…too tired better dun drive
Money let other earn abit for peace of mind

No car drive similan ha?

 

[k1976]

No car drive similan ha?

Yeah loh
Hand tight tight, now drive Grab loh

 

[Dongyi]

Christian no need to Potong birdie or cut Abalone de woh

Potong birdie is 東廠 lah. Muslim potong the skin lah.

 

[duluxe]

The distinction is subtle but important. It is analogous to a defendant in a court of law advancing a particular defense. To acknowledge that the defense is legally or logically available is not the same as concluding that the defendant has established it.
​

So true, you should not conclude that TB has established himself as a True Believer even though he is legally and logically permitted to use the nickname.

 

[Dongyi]

So true, you should not conclude that TB has established himself as a True Believer even though he is legally and logically permitted to use the nickname.

When I said, "the true believer is now in a state of being 'not able to sin able not to sin,'" I was using the term true believer in its generic theological sense, not as a specific reference to the moniker @True Believer.

Whether any particular individual is, in fact, a true believer is not something that can be established with certainty on the basis of empirical evidence. It concerns the inward reality of faith rather than something that can be conclusively demonstrated from outward conduct alone. Consequently, a single act of sin, however serious, does not logically establish that a person's faith was never genuine.

If it did, then St. Peter himself would have to be regarded as a false believer. Yet in many Christian traditions, particularly the Roman Catholic tradition, Peter is understood to have a foundational role in the establishment of the Church, based on Jesus' words:

"You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church." (Matthew 16:18)

Peter nevertheless denied Jesus 3 times. His denial did not nullify Christ's earlier declaration, nor did it prove that his faith had been counterfeit. On the contrary, at the Last Supper, Jesus foretold both Peter's failure and his restoration:

"I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers." (Luke 22:32)

Jesus did not say, "if you turn back," but "when you have turned back." Peter's denial was therefore understood not as the absence of genuine faith but as a temporary failure under severe trial. Christ's intercession anticipated both Peter's fall and his restoration, after which Peter would strengthen his fellow disciples.

Peter's example thus illustrates an important distinction: a believer's identity cannot be conclusively inferred from a single moral lapse, however grave.

However, this is not to suggest that a professed true believer can regard Peter’s example as a license to plunder the grace of God. In many theological frameworks, “true faith” is defined in terms of persevering faith. Within this framework, to be in a state of grace is to be 'able not to sin.' This does not imply that one will not sin, but that sin is no longer unavoidable. A true believer may still sin; but unlike the prior condition of being 'not able not to sin,' the true believer now possesses the genuine capacity to refrain from sin.

On that view, persistent apostasy would be more decisive than a single moral failure, since it would indicate the absence of persevering faith itself rather than a momentary lapse within it.

Peter’s example, then, is not an excuse for sin, but a caution against hastily concluding that a professed true believer’s faith is inauthentic on the basis of an isolated failure.​

 

[duluxe]

When I said, "the true believer is now in a state of being 'not able to sin,'" I was using the term true believer in its generic theological sense, not as a specific reference to the moniker @True Believer.
​

The generic true believer can be a christian or a muslim. Should we center the discussion around the moniker "True Believer"?

Mattew 18:9
And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It’s better to enter eternal life with only one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.


Mattew 18:9 applying twice is the absolute solution to achieve the state of being "not able to sin".

 

[Dongyi]

The generic true believer can be a christian or a muslim. Should we center the discussion around the moniker "True Believer"?

Mattew 18:9
And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It’s better to enter eternal life with only one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.


Mattew 18:9 applying twice is the absolute solution to achieve the state of being "not able to sin".

I made a typo error in my previous post. It should be in state of being "able not to sin."

In the context of Christianity, true believer refers to only Christians.