City harvest invitation!!
-
It does not really that urgent, so is best not to move here and there. Just imagine, in the midst of the lesson, students walking here and there and talk here and there. How would the teachers feel. One more thing. We have live broadcasting in the internet all over the region. Think how much they view upon it, when the pastor is talking and you are walking around?? I know you have your own reason for leaving. But how would the people online view it. They will view it as a disrepect and dissorganised church.
The girl is not being unreasonable at all.. Even we christian and non-christian have different view and agreement about it. How about BGR relationship? One is willing, the other is not willing. One is christian, one is not. I guarantee they will have some conflicts about that. -
Wrong, since is economic downturn. So where do we get the money from.. AS I said earlier on, the work is not by the work of man by the work of GOD. That is why they are so many things you don understand about God thing. Of course, I also got a lot o things I dunno but I learn from that.
-
economic downturn pple still can donate one mahz...and u know this thing called reserves?
Like NKF...economic downturn still can pay CEO 12 mths bonus...why not? -
lol, please, i ask you, IS THAT A WAY TO TREAT A NEWCOMER? you see you care too much about your church's face, btw, i watched saddleback's life broadcast before, and i do see tons of people moving to go washrooms or attend to their things they NEED to attend to, don't know what saddleback is? go find out. serious.Originally posted by dO|pH|n3 a.k.a JaMiE:It does not really that urgent, so is best not to move here and there. Just imagine, in the midst of the lesson, students walking here and there and talk here and there. How would the teachers feel. One more thing. We have live broadcasting in the internet all over the region. Think how much they view upon it, when the pastor is talking and you are walking around?? I know you have your own reason for leaving. But how would the people online view it. They will view it as a disrepect and dissorganised church.
The girl is not being unreasonable at all.. Even we christian and non-christian have different view and agreement about it. How about BGR relationship? One is willing, the other is not willing. One is christian, one is not. I guarantee they will have some conflicts about that.
and lastly, while doing the work of God, do you care what PEOPLE FEEL? ask yourself this question, really -
I only know Jamie's answer is so jumbled and confused that i don't feel like replying her post.
Let her be in her way of 'righteousness' -
it is because of kids like her(or he, or it, whatever) that gives us christian community such a bad name...............Originally posted by M©+square:I only know Jamie's answer is so jumbled and confused that i don't feel like replying her post.
Let her be in her way of 'righteousness' -
Just care about your relationship with the high One.Originally posted by snk86:it is because of kids like her(or he, or it, whatever) that gives us christian community such a bad name............... -
yeah, true...just sad that people give me the general "stare" when i mention i am a christian, or when i silently say my grace before meals..........ha, ok, i admit that statement i made was pretty wrong in some senseOriginally posted by M©+square:Just care about your relationship with the high One. -
Christians are pretty 'extremists'...they are either farking nice or farking bad to the core...
Indeed, the friends i like most and the pple i hate most are both Christians...
-
Been some time since i give thanks for the food.Originally posted by snk86:yeah, true...just sad that people give me the general "stare" when i mention i am a christian, or when i silently say my grace before meals..........ha, ok, i admit that statement i made was pretty wrong in some sense
Some long time. haha -
if they throw the postcard away, it shows that they do not accept the invitation or w/e? you mean u want him/her to keep it if he/she doesnt want it? do you keep your leftover food in the fridge for no reason?Originally posted by dO|pH|n3 a.k.a JaMiE:I admit that day I was a bit agressive because some of the people really made my head boil..
Firstly, I DID NOT say you cannot rejected their invitaion. Hwat I was saying was to those who said they just THROW the postcard away when his/friend gave to them. What does it show.
Of course, we don't force people to go if they really don't want to. City Harvest Church is a charismatic church. The way MANY of them do is about the same but don't take it as a force or a pressuring things to go. WE DO NOT FORCE PEOPLE TO GO. I agree, some may be a bit pestering.
REMEMBER we do not want your sympathy kind of money. If you want to give this kind of money, then they will not accept even if you give $10 or $1000. We want people who will give willingly. The money they gave is not for them but for GOD. We use a these funds to build church,school,hospital in other countries such as Banda Ache & Malaysia.
You may be know the goodness in it. When you know it, ou may think it ortherwise. I am not trying to change your mindset but to explain why and how the things we do.
We are imperfect people including people. So don't think that CHC people should be a perfect people and set an example for others. We are all human, we do sin also.
Whoever seen a CHC member take a gun or knife to force people to go. Never right. You want or don't want to go is up to you. It's your decision. One of CHC goal, to take the nation by storm and to be a whole new generation for them.
You may not agree but you cannot stop they way they do. They do is not because they want to be yaya-papaya or what, they just want to do good thing for GOD. How many peoples here think that CHC will not be able to build a builing in 1998(Economic Slump). Maybe you thought of that right, but we proved it wrong, not by the work of man but by the words of GOd.
2 or more invitations is enough to piss people off already. think of it this way, forcing is doing everything you can to make something happen. imagine if person A pesters person B to go, isnt person A doing whatever he can to make person B go? please don't say that they only just ask, the people that have asked me to go to CHC were my friends, and they say things like " go with me lah, after that then we only go watch movie together lah.. i thought you said you wanted to watch "input movie name here" later then we watch together"
do not want sympathy kind of money? lmfao.. which church asks questions before offerings and donations, do they ask " are you doing this because you believe in god or are you doing this for sympathy " or anything similar? i dont know about other churches in singapore but from what i know, among approximately 10 churches or more, none of them do that.
so you say that we are not perfect. and yes i agree everyone is not perfect. so what makes chc people and the normal people different? are you trying to say that by going to chc we will be more more perfect and less imperfect? if thats the case are you trying to say that unless we go to church we will become better people? and if you're trying to say that we cannot become better people when we go to church, then why do you want to go to church in the first place?
you dont have to be wielding a weapon to be forcing. take the nation by storm? im not being very provoking, but just take a look at the goal and think about it. " take the nation by storm " this sounds forceful and obsessive, as we know itself, storms are powerful and natural disasters. don't you think using storm is a little too harsh? no offence but this goal sounds something like "kill the enemy by surprise" -
somehow i wish that christianity is similar to catholics, because i have catholic friends as well and i've been to their churches. yes the preachings etc is boring and stuff.. but i feel more comfortable whenever i was in a catholic church, there was no pressure given on me and i felt more at ease.. the catholics were more open and instead of trying to "take the nation by storm" they just "open their doors to the nation"
-
Christianity is similar to Catholics?
Catholics are Christians anyway, there is no separation or differences at all.
True, being the conservative ones, Catholicism appeal to people because they dont evangelise the way especially charismatic churches do. No wonder for the one billion number of Catholics worldwide. -
oo.. my bad, i didnt know they were considered christians.Originally posted by laurence82:Christianity is similar to Catholics?
Catholics are Christians anyway, there is no separation or differences at all.
True, being the conservative ones, Catholicism appeal to people because they dont evangelise the way especially charismatic churches do. No wonder for the one billion number of Catholics worldwide. -
the work is not by the work of men but by the work of god huh....Originally posted by dO|pH|n3 a.k.a JaMiE:Wrong, since is economic downturn. So where do we get the money from.. AS I said earlier on, the work is not by the work of man by the work of GOD. That is why they are so many things you don understand about God thing. Of course, I also got a lot o things I dunno but I learn from that.
so u r telling me that the church was built by yr god rite...
let me tell u this
"since is economic downturn. So where do we get the money from.. "
u get the $$ from 10% of yr church members IE: pple that the church have brainwashed
"AS I said earlier on, the work is not by the work of man by the work of GOD."
the work is done by bandaglesh workers. without these workers piling and laying the bricks...try telling yr god to build it by himself
u know something call TEAMWORK???
i've nothing against christians...infact quite a number of my friends are christians...but i've everything against the church. -
For goodness sake, can you at least try to type in proper English.Originally posted by libra_gal:the message which wrote (DUN MISLEADING)
1stly -just to invite, not converting ur to christian....(very important)
2ndly-givin nasty comments is not very nice also
(just a friendly invitation ONLY!if those who interested they might reply)
3rdly-Not every christian is "insane"(i admit there is)therefore making those non-believer a very bad image....)
(for this message i wrote is to let ur understand not for quarral....if u cant make a sense out of ite,is equal to those people out there saying"insane"
*if those who wanna find out,what i told here izzit the truth then why not prove to urself n go over there n JUST TAKE A LOOK!it will give the answer!
at last ,not i kpo or what just that i'm a christian n should do a christian mission.....
I am not comfortable with the way things are being done at CH including "Pastor" Sun Ho's dabbling in the pop music world and in the process, fanning the fires of idolatory among youths; as well as the Church's employing a bevy of lawyers to sue anyone who dares to criticise it.
But whether City Harvest has committed any transgressions or not is for God to judge. -
1) "Firstly, I DID NOT say you cannot rejected their invitaion. Hwat I was saying was to those who said they just THROW the postcard away when his/friend gave to them. What does it show."
Response:
Yes you did say that you disapproved of their action of throwing away this postcard in such a fashion and under the aforementioned circumstances; and my point was that in the circumstances in question, one cannot assume that their having thrown the postcard away in such a fashion is an act for which they should be liable to be held culpable by God.
In fact, under the same set of circumstances, it may very well behoove someone to throw away the postcard in such a fashion, so that if he were to have felt himself compelled by his conscience to throw it away in such a fashion (and under the selfsame set of circumstances in question) it may very well be a sin for him not to so throw it away.
This is the fundamental point that you have still pathetically failed to grasp.
2)"Of course, we don't force people to go if they really don't want to. City Harvest Church is a charismatic church. The way MANY of them do is about the same but don't take it as a force or a pressuring things to go. WE DO NOT FORCE PEOPLE TO GO. "
Response:
Stop trying to introduce red herrings into this discussion. No-one ever stated that your 'church' had 'forced' anybody to attend its services; and I am myself perfectly willing to concede, for the purposes of this discussion, that no-one from your church had ever compelled anyone else to attend your church's services through the use of force or other coercive means.
What I was objecting to rather, was your making it out that it would in every set of possible circumstances be improper that anybody should ever see fit to reject openly your invitation to him to attend the services of your church, by way of, say, throwing away a postcard that had been given to him by someone from your church, in the very presence of the person who had so given it to him.
3) "REMEMBER we do not want your sympathy kind of money."
Response:
Again, this is wholly irrelevant because by your very own admission you want people who 'willingly' give regularly to your church's coffers of their monthly income.
In any case, what if your church's position that it doesn't want to accept money given to it out of sympathy, is precisely a feature that renders it more probable than not that, all other things being equal, the average-income earner who finds himself (for whatever reason) attracted to your church's teachings and practices, will give regularly to your church's coffers out of his monthly income; and, more specifically, what if the leaders of your church were to be aware of the fact that this particular feature of your church can so be made to serve as a selling-point in the way that I have just described?
Can you deny that many advertisers, in hawking their products, appeal to a potential buyer's sense of pride, by way of the insinuation of the message that these products are so expensive as to be beyond the reach of the lower-earning classes of consumers?
4) "The money they gave is not for them but for GOD. We use a these funds to build church,school,hospital in other countries such as Banda Ache & Malaysia."
Response:
I won't question their sincerity in their use of the funds that they may have at their disposal, because I certainly am not in a position to be sure that every instance of their use of these funds is adapted by them to serve as a means to the end of their own enrichment.
However, I do question their teachings and their practices and the lavishness and flagrant ostentatiousness of the lifestyle of some of their principal representatives.
Their defects in this regard serve to mark them out collectively as a so-called 'church' that truly does not have any mission from God.
5) "You may be know the goodness in it. When you know it, ou may think it ortherwise. I am not trying to change your mindset but to explain why and how the things we do."
Response:
On the contrary, you haven't explained anything in the sense of your having been able to justify your position in the teeth of the various criticisms that I have directed against it.
Far from therefore 'knowing the goodness in it, I stand firm in the conviction that I know that what you have is at best a 'form of Godliness, which lacks the power thereof'.
6) "We are imperfect people including people. So don't think that CHC people should be a perfect people and set an example for others. We are all human, we do sin also."
Response:
Indeed we all sin from time to time, and nobody is expecting anyone in your so-called 'church' or anyone else, for that matter to lead lives that are wholly free from sin; this again is another red herring that you are deliberately introducing to obscure the real issue.
I fully admit that it would be unfair for anyone to single out the people of your church for criticism on the grounds that they have failed to be 'a perfect people' and so have failed to 'set an example for others'; but I also fully deny that this was precisely what anybody had ever been trying to do.
You have confused a sinning person who is under no illusions as to the fact that some of the patterns of his behaviour are sinful, with another person who may sin not a bit less than the first, but who, unlike the first person, continues to suppose that some of the patterns of his behaviour which are in fact sinful, are patterns of behaviour that are in conformity with God's moral will.
To my mind, this is the problem with your so-called 'church': not that its members sin, but rather that it promotes teachings and practices that directly and indirectly endorse a lifestyle that in my view would be repugnant to God.
There is all the difference in the world between a sinner who is willing to acknowledge himself as such, and another person who is as much a sinner as the first, but who refuses to acknowledge that some of his beliefs are false and that some of his habitual patterns of behaviour are sinful; and who accordingly therefore not only acquiesces in the fact that he is disposed to certain patterns of behaviour that are objectively sinful, but who also even commends these patterns of behaviour to others.
Stop fogging up the real issue, just as the Devil would have you do.
7)" How many peoples here think that CHC will not be able to build a builing in 1998(Economic Slump). Maybe you thought of that right, but we proved it wrong, not by the work of man but by the words of GOd."
Response:
So you think that you that the building of your so-called 'church' or the purchase of it at a time when the economy was in the doldrums, can serve to prove that the building of it or the purchase of it was not by the 'work of man' but wrought by 'the words of God'?
But if God makes the sun shine on the good and on the evil, how then can you be sure that the working of this accomplishement was not the operative effect of the kind of grace that God should be willing to give to anyone, regardless of whether or not such a person should truly be a child of His?
How can you be so deluded as to see in the building of a 'church' or the purchase of the relevant premises and structures, a miracle which ought to establish for everyone concerned that whatever it is that your church should have accomplished in this regard, was a work that had to have God's approval?
How dare you effectively equate the building or purchase of a structure by means of funds that were raised by the solicitation of donations, with the working of a miracle by God which has enough of a warrant about it as to commend itself to any reasonable person as a miracle wrought directly by God?
You are truly deceived.
Ps. Keep up the good work, Fugue! -
Originally posted by Profounder:
They do employ lawyers to sue anyone who critisize it?
[b]For goodness sake, can you at least try to type in proper English.
I am not comfortable with the way things are being done at CH including "Pastor" Sun Ho's dabbling in the pop music world and in the process, fanning the fires of idolatory among youths; as well as the Church's employing a bevy of lawyers to sue anyone who dares to criticise it.
But whether City Harvest has committed any transgressions or not is for God to judge. [/b] -
I wonder are pastors allowed to moonlight?
-
Hi Fugue,
You raise an interesting question.
I feel that the answer to it will have to depend on what exactly you mean by the term 'to moonlight'.
If by 'to moonlight' you are referring to the act of a person who is already employed in one profession, seeking to be employed in another profession, then I'm not sure whether it would be prudent that a pastor should allow himself to 'moonlight' in this way.
If the pastor already draws a salary that is paid to him out of his church's coffers, then I don't see why he would have to seek employment in a different profession, unless he feels that the remuneration his current salary affords him is insufficient for the purposes of meeting what he conceives to be his needs.
In a case where the pastor is truly paid by his church a salary that cannot meet what may truly be ascertained to be (with reference to objective criteria) his authentic needs (as opposed to whatever desires of his own that he would like selfishly to conceive of as corresponding to his authentic needs), then I think that it would be legitimate that he should seek to moonlight, in what would, of course, be a legitimate mode.
In contrast to what some of the other so-called 'Christian' posters here have declared, I do not think that there is anything that could in principle be wrong with the idea of a pastor moonlighting as a singer.
If my church truly pays me a salary that truly is insufficient to meet what are truly my authentic needs, then of course I may moonlight as a singer, insofar as it is the case that to moonlight as a singer would involve me in doing no more than the singing of songs, regardless of whether or not the songs which I should sing should win the approval of the few or the many; for I do not think that there could be anything that in itself would be wrong with the singing of songs so as to disqualify it as a mode whereby a pastor might legitimately seek to 'moonlight'.
In other words, I can conceive of situations wherein a pastor could legitimately function as a popular singer as part of an attempt on his part at 'moonlighting'.
The problem that people ought to have with a pastor moonlighting as a singer of popular music therefore should not turn upon the fact that the music in question should be popular; rather, what ought to perturb someone about a so-called pastor who 'moonlights' as a popular singer, is the question of whether or not it is the case that the songs which he or she sings or the music which he or she produces is calculated to appeal to the masses in a mode that is not legitimate and which accordingly involves him or her in the flouting of moral boundaries.
I hope this suffices to answer the question you have raised.
Ben -
Maybe this explains why ho sun (whatever is her name) moonlights as a singer...Originally posted by MrBach:If my church truly pays me a salary that truly is insufficient to meet what are truly my authentic needs, then of course I may moonlight as a singer...
*hint: decreasing church funds. -
It explains (in the sense of justifing it) it, if and only if, the salary Ho received from her church wasn't enough to meet her authentic needs; moreover, since she is married, we have to realise that whatever money her husband was making, might also be a factor that would have to be taken into account when forming an objective estimate of the shape of her authentic needs.Originally posted by Mr Fugue:Maybe this explains why ho sun (whatever is her name) moonlights as a singer...
*hint: decreasing church funds.
I don't know if Ho is in any way profiting from her career as a singer or whether, if she isn't profiting from it, her church is continuing to pay her a salary.
It would be odd, though, that her church should pay her a salary if it is the case that she is no longer willing to advertise herself as a pastor of her church.
In any case, we have to realise that her husband is obviously being paid a salary by her church (since he is its pastor) and whatever she may be doing as a singer could be profiting her church indirectly, in that it might be serving to attract a significant proportion of her fans into her church where obviously they will be expected, after having become members of her church, to wilingly contribute a portion of their monthly incomes to the church's coffers on a regular (possibly monthly) basis.
This line of reasoning, however, begs the following question: just how much is she being paid by her church (in the event that she is continuing to receive a salary from her church), and more particularly, what salary is her church paying to her husband?
It's odd that we expect the NKF to make the salaries of its directors public on the grounds that it subsists on donations solicited from members of the public; while we do not expect typically that a church, which subsists on the tithes paid to it by its members, should make the salaries of its staff public.
It would seem that we expect secular organisations to be more transparent than a 'church' in this regard - which to my mind, is one of the greatest of ironies.
Please continue to keep these pretenders on their toes, Fugue.
Ben -
I wonder if cars and condo are part of her "authentic" needs.Originally posted by MrBach:It explains (in the sense of justifing it) it, if and only if, the salary Ho received from her church wasn't enough to meet her authentic needs; -
hmm, so i would assume you think all pastors must live in rented 2room flats and use bus number 11?Originally posted by Mr Fugue:I wonder if cars and condo are part of her "authentic" needs. -
I suppose not everyone practise what they preach.............. esp, pastors.Originally posted by snk86:hmm, so i would assume you think all pastors must live in rented 2room flats and use bus number 11?