So I’ve been reading page after page after page of comments on blogs, forums and bulletin boards trying to see what people are saying about Rony Tan vs Gays and everywhere I go, I see self-professed Christians taking upon themselves the divine role of apologist for Rony Tan in a massive, uncoordinated astroturfing campaign.
Many of these people will do one or more of the following:
1. Tell you “But he said nothing wrong, what” — followed by some ridiculous projectioning of Rony Tan as some kind of modern-day Elijah who’s warning people of their sin because he loves them. (Except, as I said many times before, nobody’s feeling his “love”)
2. Throw you heaps of Bible verses. Any attempt to engage these guys in a discussion that doesn’t involve the Bible is futile. Because they just will not listen to you. And because they really believe the state should run on Biblical principles (ie., anything that doesn’t fall in line with *their* interpretation of such principles should be BANNED).
3. Obsess over anal sex — how dirty, evil, unnatural or sinful it is — and I mean OBSESS.
I have something to say to all these people:
SHAME ON YOU. YOU KNOW NOT WHAT MANNER OF SPIRIT YOU ARE OF.
How, oh how, does one go about justifying, ignoring, downplaying, covering up Rony Tan’s out-of-this-world lies that gays = paedophiles = bestialists and claim to have the Spirit of God in his heart?
For those of you who say Rony Tan was well within his religious rights to say what he said, I now ask you: Rony Tan also sincerely believes that other religions are of the devil. Should he be also allowed to preach this on the grounds of religious freedom?
Religious rights cannot, should not and must not be unlimited and unfettered. If not, all hell would break loose and you would have faith leaders inciting followers to kill non-believers in the name of God — as has happened in the Middle East and in developed Western nations.
Spin it whichever way you will, but what Rony Tan said was NOT right. And if the man is not going to own up to it, then the least that his fellow-believers could do is to disavow themselves from his statements.
Also read:
Pastor Rony: “I’ve said nothing wrong, you know.”
“I’ve said nothing wrong, you know” Ctd
“Many of these people will do one or more of the following:
1. Tell you “But he said nothing wrong, what” — followed by some ridiculous projectioning of Rony Tan as some kind of modern-day Elijah who’s warning people of their sin because he loves them. (Except, as I said many times before, nobody’s feeling his “love”)
Considering how almost most of the prophets are pretty loathed by the people they preached to, comparing him to them is very apt actually. Jesus himself wept of Jerusalem’s habit of killing the prophets in very graphic ways.
2. Throw you heaps of Bible verses. Any attempt to engage these guys in a discussion that doesn’t involve the Bible is futile. Because they just will not listen to you. And because they really believe the state should run on Biblical principles (ie., anything that doesn’t fall in line with *their* interpretation of such principles should be BANNED).”"
You wish to talk religion and religious matters but you don’t wish to engage the source of the faith? Maybe we can discuss modern Singapore politics without discussing the PAP?
“3. Obsess over anal sex — how dirty, evil, unnatural or sinful it is — and I mean OBSESS.
Something I actually agree with! No need to into details of the dirty deed when we know what it is.
“have something to say to all these people:
SHAME ON YOU. YOU KNOW NOT WHAT MANNER OF SPIRIT YOU ARE O
Coming from someone who wishes to not discuss the Word condemning others of false spirits? What’s that about pots and kettles again?
“How, oh how, does one go about justifying, ignoring, downplaying, covering up Rony Tan’s out-of-this-world lies that gays = paedophiles = bestialists and claim to have the Spirit of God in his heart?
Calling out sinners for what they are….how does that contradict the Spirit of God?
“For those of you who say Rony Tan was well within his religious rights to say what he said, I now ask you: Rony Tan also sincerely believes that other religions are of the devil. Should he be also allowed to preach this on the grounds of religious freedom?
Why yes actually. Of course, I would do so only after changing the related laws and ensuring this can be done without violence erupting. Got to maintain order after all.
“Religious rights cannot, should not and must not be unlimited and unfettered. If not, all hell would break loose and you would have faith leaders inciting followers to kill non-believers in the name of God — as has happened in the Middle East and in developed Western nations.
Actually, most of the Middle East has religious related bloodshed due to a lack of religious freedom. Most of Europe suffered from non-religious based violence when restrictions on practice and preaching on other religions ceased.
“Spin it whichever way you will, but what Rony Tan said was NOT right. And if the man is not going to own up to it, then the least that his fellow-believers could do is to disavow themselves from his statements.
Considering what RT said about gays are the orthodox stance of most of Singapore Christianity abliet in more colourful language, how would this NOT be considered right?
jayf
Considering what RT said about gays are the orthodox stance of most of Singapore Christianity abliet in more colourful language, how would this NOT be considered right?
More colorful language, you mean the spin on homosexuality = beastiality + peodophilia?
The sad thing is, not only its wrong and without substantial facts, but by condoning it we are opening up to a whole lot of issues he can exploit just to get a few more hoo hah in his congregation.
What if, after homosexuals he wanted to target the overweight/obese people.
His sermon perhaps will say, a obese person is possessed by demon of gluttony therefore need to be saved via exorcism.
Then what?
“More colorful language, you mean the spin on homosexuality = beastiality + peodophilia?
For a Christian, the above mentioned are no different. Sin is sin and there is only one sin which is unforgiven, the blaspheming of the holy spirit which most Christians today interpret as the rejection of Jesus, who brought with him the Spirit of God.
It is a human definition that gives one matter more weight than the other. The wages of sin is death, and when Paul wrote it, he meant it as minimum wage.
“What if, after homosexuals he wanted to target the overweight/obese people.
His sermon perhaps will say, a obese person is possessed by demon of gluttony therefore need to be saved via exorcism.
Then what?
Speaking as a formerly morbid obese person who finally lost 80 kilos through stomach surgery and ten years struggling to lose weight, I’d say an excorsim = instant no more desire to overeat and not work out would be welcomed by 99% of obese people. The difference is obese people generally do not take pride in being more suspectible to diseases and having more trouble in doing almost all things.
[...] Skeptic: What is wrong with the whole Pastor Rony Tan affair. My belated 2 cents. – Kennethism: “He said nothing wrong, you know.” [Thanks [...]
JayF
Please tell me you don’t actually believe exorcism can truly cure, anything. . .
Or prayer for that matter. (sorry to christians out there).
My point in bring up the obesity example, is how the idea of sin can be use (or misused).
“The very concept of sin comes from the Bible. Christianity offers to solve a problem of its own making! Would you be thankful to a person who cut you with a knife in order to sell you a bandage?” …..Dan Barker
That’s the bottomline of my statement about what Rony Tan did, be it in the context of Buddism. Taosim or homosexuality.
Considering what RT said about gays are the orthodox stance of most of Singapore Christianity abliet in more colourful language, how would this NOT be considered right?
Again, considering that clergies around the world are tainted with child sexual abuse, so going by RT and the ‘orthodox’ standard. Church clergies should also be considered peodophiles.
How would this NOT be considered right?
Kenz,
“What if, after homosexuals he wanted to target the overweight/obese people.
His sermon perhaps will say, a obese person is possessed by demon of gluttony therefore need to be saved via exorcism.
Then what?”
That’s a bit of a slippery slope. The same kind of slippery slope that equated homosexuality with bestiality.
Just curious Kenneth, where exactly do you go where you meet self-professed Christians? Is it a certain kind of Christian or Christians in general that try to defend his words?
Sorry, one more thing:
Again, considering that clergies around the world are tainted with child sexual abuse, so going by RT and the ‘orthodox’ standard. Church clergies should also be considered peodophiles.
How would this NOT be considered right?
You are assuming that the orthodox church condones these practices. They do not.
I was being sarcastic about excorsim.
To say that the Bible originated the concept of Sin would be to give it too much credit really. Even the most primitive of societies would have some form of concept of rights and wrongs. Sin is merely wrongs commited against God.
Christianity didn’t cut you. It merely points out you are bleeding to death.
Firstly clergy is plural form. Secondly, the Roman Catholic church regarded the pedophilia among the ranks as being a scandal.
Since the church itself considers it something not right, I don’t really see how this can be compared to how the Singaporean churches condemn homosexuality since a) Christian churches do consider it profane and b) the laws of the land also consider it unpalatable.
How can it be considered right? This is Singapore, where it is.
You don’t seem to realise in Singapore, it’s perfectly acceptable to regard homosexuality as being morally wrong and their acts repungant. Online chatter among the liberals of various persuasions seem to create an echo chamber effect that creates the illusion of a vast gay friendly public, but in reality not one of them could move physical assets the way the mega churches do, all of whom are predominantly right wing and anti gay.
Jayf
Ah … when we mentioned the ‘scandal’ you automatically assumed i am talking about Catholics.
What about the protestant? in the rank of jehovah witness? just do a simple click on wikipedia on Child Sexual Abuse ?
Allow me to shortcut it for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&redirs=1&search=christian+and+child+sex+abuse&fulltext=Search&ns0=1
So please do say its uniquely to Catholics only.
Nobody pay off ‘victims’ in billions just because of scandal, ya.
packrat,
The example of obesity is only a response to RT’s homosexuality = pedophile / beastiality.
What orthodox churches condone or not, i think JayF is in better position to answer.
[...] Skeptic: What is wrong with the whole Pastor Rony Tan affair. My belated 2 cents. – Kennethism: “He said nothing wrong, you know.” [Thanks Kenneth] – Angry Doctor: Take our rights… please! – TOC: Let’s fight free speech [...]
[...] Skeptic: What is wrong with the whole Pastor Rony Tan affair. My belated 2 cents. – Kennethism: “He said nothing wrong, you know.” [Thanks Kenneth] – Angry Doctor: Take our rights… please! – TOC: Let’s fight free speech [...]