Do you consume "unclean" food?
-
Did I address the Chinese gods issue, no. Could I have done it, maybe, but it wasn't important to me at that time.Originally posted by laurence82:So u werent addressing anything on the chinese gods right? so whats the point of u saying u were on the standpoint of rectifying his erroneous beliefs which harp on unclean food while i am addressing the double standards on hims calling chinese gods as demons?
ever heard of 'all are equal, but some are more equal than others'. thats how your posts are anyway when you try to qualify that he have the rights to do the same thing which i am advised now not to do
The point of the rectification is from the angle of Biblical interpretation - meaning: how is Scripture to be read and the relevance to modern times. Realistically, it is rectification from the standpoint of (to borrow a computer term) peer-to-peer. Personally, I really don't care what you think of the Bible. So if you do not understand the context of correct manner of Bible reading, it's ok.
I am not sure how many non-Christians are offended by Johnnie boy's remarks on idols as demons, and realistically, I am not even sure whether your indignation was due to the fact that YOU, LAU, is personally offended, or that you think I am being partial.
Let me state again, I am not partial at all. If you don't think so, it's ok. Though I am not sure how many EH regulars agree with you. -
You need to establish if I had chosen to PURPOSELY ignore John's remarks...Originally posted by laurence82:i am more peeved that supposedly more 'sensible' lot chose to ignore what he said but harped on what i said, which is along the same line, establishing some sort of hypocritical double standards here
Let me state that I did not.....
Let's look at a scenario:
The two Tan brothers are quarrelling. Elder Tan makes a statement (for some unknown reason) that the Lims next door are a bunch of jerk.
Young Tan ignored this remarks because that is not the point of the argument.
Lim heard the remark by Elder Tan and scolded the father of the two Tans.
Young Tan ask Lim to be more polite when addressing his dad. Lim replied by
confronting Young Tan as to why he didn't say anything when Lim's name was being dragged in.
Young Tan said, it wasn't important at that time...... -
Again, i hate to repeat myself. How did this...
plus thisOriginally posted by Chin Eng:
respectfully, I think our views were from different angles, and if we differ, we differ because of where we are standing.
I was tackling the issue from as a Christian rectifying an erroneous Christian concept.
equal to thisOriginally posted by Chin Eng:Your concerns are different from mine. Your angle is a non-Christian being offended by posts of an overzealous Christian.
when ur rectifying of erroneous concept means thisOriginally posted by Chin Eng:I still don't see that as a double standard. Just different focus.
and i am talking about thisOriginally posted by Chin Eng:In case you forget I am visually impaired and you have amnesia
), I was trying to rectify the concept of what is definition of "unclean" food, which is what this thread is all about. I believe I have managed to correct some of his thoughts.
and the point of this means whatOriginally posted by laurence82:So u werent addressing anything on the chinese gods right? so whats the point of u saying u were on the standpoint of rectifying his erroneous beliefs which harp on unclean food while i am addressing the double standards on hims calling chinese gods as demons?
in relation to the topic?Originally posted by Chin Eng:The point of the rectification is from the angle of Biblical interpretation - meaning: how is Scripture to be read and the relevance to modern times. Realistically, it is rectification from the standpoint of (to borrow a computer term) peer-to-peer. Personally, I really don't care what you think of the Bible. So if you do not understand the context of correct manner of Bible reading, it's ok.
and even if i am offended, how does that qualify the double standards when
he is allowed to say this
and thisOriginally posted by Repented John 2:It is not so simple. Holding joss stick means worshipping the demons behind the idols. Why still hold joss stick? Afraid of persecution? When I was a hot Christian, I dont hold joss sticks even if my parents worship idols. But when i lost my fervour, I held joss sticks & worshipped false gods. You dont know the demonic forces behind them. It's not so simple. When my mum converted already, she still go and hold joss stick & she got attacked by demons!
when i am not allowed to?Originally posted by Repented John 2:chineses gods.
and yes from me, i think you had been partial. Had it occur to you I place importance on reasoning over the thoughts of EH regulars? If i do the latter, I wouldnt be continuing posting anything in EH at all.Originally posted by Chin Eng:Let me state again, I am not partial at all. If you don't think so, it's ok. Though I am not sure how many EH regulars agree with you. -
ok lah... your wish lah...
I'll let the forumites conclude for themselves if I'd been partial or not.... -
But its obvious that Lim has the equal right to scold the Tans' father in reflection of what Elder Tan has said. If you do not wish others to do the same thing to you, then dont do it.Originally posted by Chin Eng:You need to establish if I had chosen to PURPOSELY ignore John's remarks...
Let me state that I did not.....
Let's look at a scenario:
The two Tan brothers are quarrelling. Elder Tan makes a statement (for some unknown reason) that the Lims next door are a bunch of jerk.
Young Tan ignored this remarks because that is not the point of the argument.
Lim heard the remark by Elder Tan and scolded the father of the two Tans.
Young Tan ask Lim to be more polite when addressing his dad. Lim replied by
confronting Young Tan as to why he didn't say anything when Lim's name was being dragged in.
Young Tan said, it wasn't important at that time......
Secondly, the non-importance reason, has no bearing on whether Lim has more or less right to scold the Tans' father. Why should Tan ask Lim to be polite while wholly ignoring his elder brother's remarks because of the non importance issue?
Remember, that you guys have every opportunity to admonish RP2, but you guys did not do anything before what i said. Its like skipping a step, saying thats it not important.
Again, the ample opportunity does not justify the double standards. -
The so called majority has also voted for PAP. Is the majority right?Originally posted by Chin Eng:ok lah... your wish lah...
I'll let the forumites conclude for themselves if I'd been partial or not....
The walkover has been declared majority support for PAP. Is that the real reason?
I think getting to the root of the issue is far more important than support. -
like I'd said.... up to you lah as long as the other peeps understand where I am coming from, it's enough for me....
-
And yes, self denial.. i am loving it.Originally posted by Chin Eng:like I'd said.... up to you lah as long as the other peeps understand where I am coming from, it's enough for me.... -
the root of the issue is that both of us are looking at different angles at different times, I did not say you are wrong, but there is no point harping about it is there.....Originally posted by laurence82:The so called majority has also voted for PAP. Is the majority right?
The walkover has been declared majority support for PAP. Is that the real reason?
I think getting to the root of the issue is far more important than support.
what I don't understand is the level of aggression......
ok lah, self denial lah, no problem lah -
Looking at one issue from different angles or talking about two different issues?Originally posted by Chin Eng:the root of the issue is that both of us are looking at different angles at different times, I did not say you are wrong, but there is no point harping about it is there.....
You didnt really read my first post in this page right?
By the way, if u realise it, you haveto discuss from my angle.
Did i dispute the fact the bible call other religious figures false gods and all that?
I was focusing on the actual speech and action. If he doesnt, or for that matter, if you guys dont wish others to say blasphemous things about your god, then dont do it to others too.
So difficult to see meh? -
hiaz..... actually I don't understand your first post in this page. sorry, long day, writing in forums and managing a project in the office.Originally posted by laurence82:Looking at one issue from different angles or talking about two different issues?
You didnt really read my first post in this page right?
By the way, if u realise it, you haveto discuss from my angle.
Did i dispute the fact the bible call other religious figures false gods and all that?
I was focusing on the actual speech and action. If he doesnt, or for that matter, if you guys dont wish others to say blasphemous things about your god, then dont do it to others too.
So difficult to see meh?
like I said, I did not notice his statements because my focus was on the concept of "unclean" food. The only thing that I can be guilty of is "unattentiveness " to your issue. Johnnie's works are not exactly pulitzer prize stuff.
So, to you, lau, is it wrong that I DID NOT see those?
Upon seeing my "advice" to you, you started your tirade about me being bias and having double standard.
Not to sound offensive, but you behave like a kid who had his mother telling him not to hit his sister, and the boy's response, is she started it first.... Give benefit of doubt to this mother that maybe perhaps she did not see the young girl starting the fight.
Give me benefit of doubt that I did not see the idol/demon remark or even rate it as important. -
Dude, to summarise your fifth paragraph, its called the Theory of Justice View. Common term used in academics when it comes to ethics and governance.
One reason why i had partial belief in this theory, or perspective, if you like, is not because the world must be fair, but when you had AMPLE opportunity to rectify some erroneous actions, you do it. Simple as that. Thats why, as i mentioned earlier, you had every single opportunity to admonish him, unlike the Tan family case, before coming to me. But you didnt.
Its a good test of impartiality too. If you had been impartial, you wouldnt have done the things in the way you had just did.
Because I KNEW you didnt see the earlier remarks, I posted them. And you had to continue yakking about rectification and all that after I posted the relevant remarks, so its kinda strengthen the view, my view, if it pleases you, that you had been partial.
So is it non importance or non-knowledge that is the reason now?
Dude, i have rarely attempted reading forums like EH or Speakers Corner while i am in school or away from home. Go home then reply lar.... -
Thank you for reconciliatory-toned note above. This is important to me.Originally posted by laurence82:Dude, to summarise your fifth paragraph, its called the Theory of Justice View. Common term used in academics when it comes to ethics and governance.
One reason why i had partial belief in this theory, or perspective, if you like, is not because the world must be fair, but when you had AMPLE opportunity to rectify some erroneous actions, you do it. Simple as that. Thats why, as i mentioned earlier, you had every single opportunity to admonish him, unlike the Tan family case, before coming to me. But you didnt.
Its a good test of impartiality too. If you had been impartial, you wouldnt have done the things in the way you had just did.
Because I KNEW you didnt see the earlier remarks, I posted them. And you had to continue yakking about rectification and all that after I posted the relevant remarks, so its kinda strengthen the view, my view, if it pleases you, that you had been partial.
So is it non importance or non-knowledge that is the reason now?
Dude, i have rarely attempted reading forums like EH or Speakers Corner while i am in school or away from home. Go home then reply lar....
The fact that I may have ample opportunity to recity some erroneous action does not represent that I saw the error. This, you have see from my point of view.
Impartiality is also to be seen from the light that the "judge" saw and recognise all the facts.
It was primarily non-knowledge, until you brought it up to me. I don't believe I had a single comment on the idol/demon thing prior to that.
I try to avoid forums at home unless I have absolutely nothing to do, I have a family to look after.
Cheers..... and actually there's a kinda perverse humour that both of us are arguing about something that started with John The Sequel -
Like i always said, progess thru conflict...a term i wouldnt bother explaining to trolls like RP2Originally posted by Chin Eng:Thank you for reconciliatory-toned note above. This is important to me.
The fact that I may have ample opportunity to recity some erroneous action does not represent that I saw the error. This, you have see from my point of view.
Impartiality is also to be seen from the light that the "judge" saw and recognise all the facts.
It was primarily non-knowledge, until you brought it up to me. I don't believe I had a single comment on the idol/demon thing prior to that.
I try to avoid forums at home unless I have absolutely nothing to do, I have a family to look after.
Cheers..... and actually there's a kinda perverse humour that both of us are arguing about something that started with John The Sequel -
*fans the flame*
- rating officer -
no flame lerOriginally posted by Icemoon:*fans the flame*
- rating officer
waiting for opportunists to come in -
you fan the flame, i try to keep the peaceOriginally posted by Icemoon:*fans the flame*
- rating officer -
995Originally posted by Icemoon:*fans the flame*
- rating officer
-
I was reading Mark & I came across this passage in Mark 7:14-23 talking abt the pharisees & indirectly abt food. I was reading the NASB version so it has a bracket which talks abt food which NKJV doesnt say. Pls compare yourself.
14 After He called the crowd to Him again, He began saying to them, "Listen to Me, all of you, and understand: 15 there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man. 16 ["If F109 anyone has ears to hear, let him hear."] 17 When he had left the crowd and entered the R240 house, His R241 disciples questioned Him about the parable. 18 And He said to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, 19 because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is F110 eliminated?" (Thus He declared all foods clean.) R243 20 And He was saying, "That R244 which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man. 21 "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, F111 thefts, murders, adulteries, 22 deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, R245 F112 slander, pride F113 and foolishness. 23 "All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man."
So in NASB version, all foods are clean so I apologise to CE & the rest here for creating a lot of misconception. I couldnt get it from the normal reading. KJV also dont have this bracket. Very new to me & I hope it calms all fears abt unclean foods. KJV below:
14 And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand: 15 There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man. 16 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear. 17 And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable. 18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; 19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? 20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. 21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, 22 Thefts, covetousness, F26 wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: 23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.
It is also found in NLT:
14 Then Jesus called to the crowd to come and hear. "All of you listen," he said, "and try to understand. 15 You are not defiled by what you eat; you are defiled by what you say and do! F31 " 16 F100 17 Then Jesus went into a house to get away from the crowds, and his disciples asked him what he meant by the statement he had made. 18 "Don't you understand either?" he asked. "Can't you see that what you eat won't defile you? 19 Food doesn't come in contact with your heart, but only passes through the stomach and then comes out again." (By saying this, he showed that every kind of food is acceptable.) 20 And then he added, "It is the thought-life that defiles you. 21 For from within, out of a person's heart, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, 22 adultery, greed, wickedness, deceit, eagerness for lustful pleasure, envy, slander, pride, and foolishness. 23 All these vile things come from within; they are what defile you and make you unacceptable to God."
Thank God for showing me the truth thru His word the bible albeit NASB & NLT versions. Pls do this interesting comparisons yourselves with these versions. Have fun! -
which is why, Johnnie boy, you need at least two good versions of the Bible.... and commentaries, and concordances, and bible study guides....
and you can go and eat your char kway teow and bak kut teh without the feeling of guilt. -
No flame, no flame
At least me and Chin Eng have both clarified our thoughts, which is the result of a miscommunication rather than ideas.
-
deleted
-
Thanks MC for the advice and support
I really appreciate it -
I only bought my NASB version recently. I have KJV, NKJV, NIV, NLT, TLB, GNB versions etc but i only happen to read abt this in NASB. So great all settled.Originally posted by Chin Eng:which is why, Johnnie boy, you need at least two good versions of the Bible.... and commentaries, and concordances, and bible study guides....
and you can go and eat your char kway teow and bak kut teh without the feeling of guilt. -
Good for youOriginally posted by Repented John 2:I only bought my NASB version recently. I have KJV, NKJV, NIV, NLT, TLB, GNB versions etc but i only happen to read abt this in NASB. So great all settled. Peace.
Actually, I have not used NASB for a long time. My version of choice is NIV and seems to me NIV is clear enough for most purposes..... hmm....