With regards to the Global Day of Prayer, this is what Munchy has to say:
my original concern was the nature of the letter that you sent to the organisers, which i felt was extreme.
Assume I am an organiser and church leader and even though I am not a fan of mass events, I would like my church to be involved in this event as it is a good opportunity for my congregation to come together in unity with other christians to pray and pray for singapore as well. Why? Being in CC I think you can empathise to a certain extent rite.
Now I do not know TD Jakes, and I see this utterly uncompromising email saying that is is "UNBIBLICAL to associate with a trinity-denying heretic" and it condemns the event and all that.. now seriously how do you expect me to respond. Cancel the event cuz of your email? Jus cuz someone who is a heretic is in someway associated with it? Does that alone automatically make the event a sinful one? The whole tone of the letter does seem to go overboard, and I dont really want to go into all the details about what I think is too extreme about the letter here. After all you do know that you are accusing them of a lot of things right?
Let us look at each of the points as stated above:
Assume I am an organiser and church leader and even though I am not a fan of mass events, I would like my church to be involved in this event as it is a good opportunity for my congregation to come together in unity with other christians to pray and pray for singapore as well.
Well, my question to you then would be: Should you obey God or obey Man? Do you think visible organizational unity is of enough worth that we can violate the commands of God to manifest it? If you really want to pray for Singapore, can't you do it privately? After all, a prayer of a godly person is powerful (Jas. 5:16b) and thus worth much more than the prayers of compromisers. And if you really want to pray in a group, I think I did mention in my blog that people who want to pray together can come together to pray APART from the event. Why is such a visible manifestation of unity important? Why is numbers important, anyway? Wasn't Elijah alone when he faced down the prophets of Baal at Mount Carmel? If God is for us, who can be against us? Why this unbiblical fascination with numbers?
Why? Being in CC I think you can empathise to a certain extent rite.
Let me just say that I can pray together with other Christians when no such compromise occurs. However, when they do, I seperate from them. See what I did on 4th June, the day of the GDOP, as an example of how I do not compromise the faith when the situation arises.
now seriously how do you expect me to respond. Cancel the event cuz of your email?
Well, this question should have been asked by Rev. Dr. Alfred Ong, who sadly is too proud and arrogant to even talk to me (Oh well, one of the pitfalls of ministry: Being too proud to be corrected by people who you deem beneath you). Anyway, back to the question. This is what I think the GDOP committee memebers should do:
1) Individual members should withdraw from the committee and warn their members against going for this event.
2) If all the members are penitent (perhaps they only realize their error when I mention it to them) then they should repent of their errors. They should then either
2a) Cancel the event OR
2b) Go ahead with the event BUT denounce T.D. Jakes as a heretic during the event AND disavow any linkage with the global GDOP movement during the event itself, alongside with repenting of their errors. As such, they should cut all links with all GDOP committees worldwide.
And, if you think that that would entail perhaps a loss of respect from the Christian community, I would just say this: Would you rather face the wrath of God because of your sin or just face the prospect of losing some of the respect of your fellow pastors and your church members? You decide who to fear: God or Man.
Jus cuz someone who is a heretic is in someway associated with it? Does that alone automatically make the event a sinful one?
Yes, it does. Go read 2 Cor. 6:14-18 for a start. Vincent and Jenson can also chip in on this one. Just to show you by way of analogy: Is it sinful to associate with a Satanist in ministry through prayer? If not, why? And is there any difference between a Satanist and a heretic? Why or why not?
The whole tone of the letter does seem to go overboard, and I dont really want to go into all the details about what I think is too extreme about the letter here. After all you do know that you are accusing them of a lot of things right?
Let's see. ... Rereading my open letter ... Hmmm..... Here's what I accuse them of:
1) Compromising on the Gospel (NOTE: not denial. Well... believing in the Trinity is part of the Gospel, and therefore by partnering with T.D. Jakes, they obfuscate the Gospel)
2) Not protecting the flock of God against the enemy (Well, if T.D. Jakes if protrayed as a Christian, as he is in the video, then the GDOP committee members have allow this wolf in sheep's clothing to come in. Thus, they didn't protect the flock of God against him)
3) Sinning against God and His Word (Anytime you misquote the Bible, twisting verses out of context, you are showing contempt for God and His Word [See Prov. 30:5-6 for starters]. Furthermore, don't you think that it is interesting that the master of twisting Scripture is the devil when he tempts our Lord in the wilderness?)
4) No scholarly intergrity (Why the miscitation of the Apostle's Creed? It is delibrate since they did not change it after I have informed them.)
OK, so which part is extreme about the letter? If your bone to pick is only because I, a nobody, dare to question all these reputable somebodies, then take heed lest you think the same way as how the Pharisees thought of Jesus and his unschooled disciples.
Also, you may want to take note of the fact that I have given them ample time (2 weeks plus) to think through the consequences. They are without excuse as with regards to their sin.
OK, with regards to your next comment-post:
I got your site link from Sharon [sic] whom you went on a mission trip with recently. we're in the same church, and im in nus vcf currently
Well, think I should thank Sharon then :P. But I wonder what was the catalyst for you getting the site link from her. ....
Anyway, my church is embarking on 40DOP soon and I must say though I have yet to read the book, I already have deep reservations about the program because to me it seems to 'sell' a very diluted gospel message
You can wait for my book to come out where I deal with all these issues and more. In the meantime, I would recommand a book by Pastor Bob DeWaay entitled Redefining Christianity - Understanding the Puporse Driven Life Movement. You can't get the book conventionally in Singapore, unfortunately; I bought my copy online. He does know what he is talking about, and provides substantial documentation to prove his points.
But im willing to submit and be a facilitator. 1) i think it is a gd opportunity to be doing something together as a church. 2) something is better than nothing, esp for the many nominal christians it is a chance for them to re-examine their lives 3) in my group i too have a chance to guide the discussion in a doctrinally sound manner 4) i am not in a position to propose AND carry out a better alternative than 40DOP for my church to embark on, not like im a church elder or something 5) 40DOP though dubious, has great opportunity to do good as well
Hmmm, let's see
1) Well, you can basically do almost anything together as a church, as long as someone hypes and markets it well. Therefore irrelevant.
2) Well, I would think that poison is worse than nothing, so it isn't necessarily the case where something is better than nothing. If you want a good book for Christians to examine their lives, may I recommand to you the book Hard to Believe: The High Cost and Infinite Value of Following Jesus by Pastor John F. McArthur, Jr. I have been greatly blessed by it. Unfortunately, it is not sold in Singapore also, though you may probably be able to get some from Grace To You ministries in Singapore.
3) Let's see how you do that. I would be interested to know. From friends that I know, this is done by basically 'transforming' Warren's teaching, which consists of censoring the questionable parts and addition of biblical content not found in the book. You might as well write your own book by then.
4) I understand this. You may be interested to know that I tried but was declared persona non grata in my former church. Thank God that I currently attend a church which is more biblically sound and oppose the Purpose Driven Life.
5) Just because good may result does not make something good in and of itself. David's lust of Bathsheba was evil and sinful, but out of that line came the line of Solomon and the Davidic Kingdom, a good outcome wouldn't you say? The crucification of our Lord was an evil deed, yet through that evil deed Christ purchased salvation for us his people. Just because something good may come out of if does not make the promotion and execution of this program good.
If you agree with my stand on 40DOP, then perhaps you to can understand a bit of what i am trying to drive at when i feel you are being too extreme in the case of the GDOP letter that you posted on your homepage
Believe me when I said that I once thought like you on a related subject, and have only ostracism, rejection and no fruits to show for this effort. As it is written,
I spread out my hands all the day to a rebellious people,who walk in a way that is not good, following their own devices; (Is. 65:2)
Maybe you would one day come to see the futility of your efforts, or perhaps Bethesda Frankel Estate is better than my previous church. Time will tell.
Trinity isnt even mentioned in the bible right? it is a doctrine that is biblically and realistically sound, but one that has been fleshed out in words by man (whilst being inspired by God [sic]).
Hmmm..... The term Trinity is not mentioned in the Bible but the concept is. However, do not try to play semantics with me. The word Trinity has a certain meaning due to its time-honored historical usage and therefore it should not be redefined or thrown aside just because 'it is not found in the Bible'. In that case, you can throw away the words ' rapture' as well (not found in the Bible), also 'sinner's prayer' and 'altar call' among others, and especially the 4SL.
i hope you do not rule out the possibility that different views and not necessarily conflicting views. (For eg. maybe such as arminiansm & calvinism ?)
You mean 'are not necessarily conflicting views', right? I agree that different views may not necessarily be conflicting views. However, the example you give is definitely not one of them. Both of them are antithecal to each other, and therefore one of them must be correct and the other wrong.
OK, that's all for now.
In a non-angry manner (not that i was earlier but just to clarify in case you assumed that i was angry now or earlier) I felt like giving short responses to some of the comments
ReplyDeleteI did not mention that numbers was impt wrt GDOP. Yet numbers are not impt but unity as a body of christ is and is one of the things commonly stressed in the bible. We should not unite and do wrong things but if our actions lead to disunity rather than unity then something is not right as well.
As for compromising, I think we are all compromisers and sinners, I 'rarely' regard myself as a righteous person wrt praying.
Why do I think its good to get together occassionally in inter-denominational events? Worshipping and interacting with pple of other denominations and nationalities helps to broadens one's perspective beyond his own church alone. Personally, this has been one of the great blessings I have received from participating in vcf and missions and I hope that others can come to know the greatness of God and how He is God of all kinds of pple in all kinds of settings.
Plus i did attend GDOP, and am still not convicted that it is a bad thing.
Numbers? Even Elijah was comforted by knowing there were still 7000 men of God
going ahead with GDOP but not linking ourselves in anyway to GDOP sounds rather strange to me, and i think it would not work out. Anyway on a semi-related note..im curious, do you think FOP should be abolished?
heh i knew you were going to use the line where i mentioned "heretic".. i was lazy to type "someone who might be a heretic". I have yet to regard TD Jakes as a heretic. Would you consider TD Jakes a satanist?
i believe that christian leaders have a duty is to lead pple to God, as opposed to protecting pple from the devil. Its hard enough to protect myself from satan yet alone ensuring that no one else gets in contact with him. But yeah we dont go n lead pple to the devil la obviously
God's word? I am sure i have misused the word before, and so have you.
Did I call you a nobody or imply that? I swear i didnt. If u took offense even if i didnt, pls dont blame me can? Anyway.. the anti-establishment me is trying to remind myself that my leaders in my life have been placed there by God, and so I should ermm.. heh.. respect them as such :)
Are you assuming that i got your link cuz of 40DOP? haha pls dont assume. i got it cuz i went to fop and thought i was a flop. Ed Silvoso was terrible speaker but seeing him as a tv evangelist sort at least that explains it. Me n my friend were very tickled that he used the word 'taken in context' in one of his points while explaining the concept out of context.
In ministry, thinking about the burdens and demands of taking care of pple, the responsibility is an overwhelming one. I can only lean not on my own strength but the one who can be depended on that He will carry out his will. By faith, my efforts will not be futile because it is God's effort.
I mentioned trinity as a side remark not to test you but to check with you. besides, the trinity to me is one of the great incomprehensible mysteries that i would not fully understand while one earth, (other mysteries for me include how Jesus was both fully divine and fully human.)haha.. and I dont really believe in the 4SL although I have learnt and use it before.
Im calvinist myself. But having heard arminianism state its case through pple who are familiar with it, it also does makes sense to me. I think both points of view are valid and that pple should come to appreciate the dynamic that exists between the two. Such as the dynamic between predestination and free will. The dynamic of prayer. I believe our God is a dynamic one not a static one. Plus extreme calvinism can become very exclusive and warped.
Hope this helps
Hello daniel,
ReplyDeleteLooks like there is more opposition from people day by day. Don't be too worried. It happens when the truth is preached and it pierces people by the heart.
To munchy,
I used to think like you 5 years ago. My church adopted the PDL and its principles, although we didn't do a 40day purpose.
Now, everyone's complaining that we are chasing after focus and feeling extremely lost. In addition, because we are so self-centred in our 'purpose', we become very selfish and cold christians. [vicar admitted this about the coldness]
The choice is yours munchy. You can stick around and keep quiet (thats what i did) and see what the poison of TD Jakes and PDL does to you. But Daniel has warned you more than enough.
If you choose to be stubborn, so be it, but the blood is on your own head.
5 years later, then we shall see the damage and you'll may be forced to leave the church even, to avoid risking compromise. You are always welcome to go Daniel's church, however.
To Wenxian,
ReplyDeleteit's ok. Munchy is reasonable, unlike certain others. He may very well be sincere; no need to treat it as true opposition.
To Munchy:
'but if our actions lead to disunity rather than unity then something is not right as well.'
I would much prefer disunity without compromise rather than unity with compromise. Of course, unity without compromise is desired, but is there such an option? Not with the GDOP.
'Why do I think its good to get together occassionally in inter-denominational events? Worshipping and interacting with pple of other denominations and nationalities helps to broadens one's perspective beyond his own church alone.'
I do not think I was talking about denominational or inter-denominational or non-denomintional activity. I was talking about being unequally yoked with unbelievers, NOT with other Christians. BIG difference!!
'Plus i did attend GDOP, and am still not convicted that it is a bad thing.'
I am not talking about the way the Singapore GDOP leaders handle the event in Singapore. I am talking about their affiliation with T.D. Jakes through their affliation with the global GDOP movement, which is significantly more heretical than Singapore's one, mind you. (Not to say that Singapore's is heretical, though)
'do you think FOP should be abolished?'
Why not? It has become an extension of CHC and NCC's events. What with all the hype and little substance, there is not much good left in it, if there is any left. Scriptural commands are openly violated there, e.g. speaking in tongues without interpretation (if they are genuine tongues), which constitute a disgrace to the Body of Christ.
'Would you consider TD Jakes a satanist?'
I consider TD Jakes a heretic. A heretic is no different from a satanist, as they both reject God. The only difference is that a satanist is the worst type of unbeliever in Christians' minds, thus I am using that repulsion to show you that unity with people in prayer is NOT the ultimate good in and of itself; the type of people you pray with is similarly important.
'God's word? I am sure i have misused the word before, and so have you.'
So? Does that make miquotation of the Word correct? When and if I misquote Scripture, which I had done before especially in my earlier days, I am wrong. Just because I was wrong before and may be wrong in the future has no bearing on whether it is right or wrong to misquote Scripture. Similarly, your reasoning if consistently applied would also say that sinning is alright since you have sinned before and will sin again in the future.
'Did I call you a nobody or imply that?'
I didn't say you did. The word was placed within an hypothetical statement (If ... then).
'If u took offense even if i didnt, pls dont blame me can?'
Don't worry, it takes much more than that to make me furious at a person. The only idiot so far I have ever talked with is a heretic named Troy Brooks who said I was unsaved and constantly misrepresent me, not to mention being impervious to reason.
'the anti-establishment me is trying to remind myself that my leaders in my life have been placed there by God, and so I should ermm.. heh.. respect them as such'
There is a big difference between respecting a persion and agreeing with what he/she says. I am not subject to people like TD Jakes, nor Ed Silvoso, nor the people in the GDOP committee so I do not need to submit to them. I am only subjected to my local church and my pastor. Furthermore, if any person in authority proves himself/herself to be heretical, I am automatically discharged from being subjected to them, since they have disqualified themselves from ministry. Maybe for you your church is under the NCCC umbrella or the Love Singapore umbrella, etc, but my church is not and thus I am not subjected to any of the leaders within the New Evangelical movement in Singapore.
'Are you assuming that i got your link cuz of 40DOP?'
No, I am not. I was wondering how and why you get the link from Sharon, and what makes you want to check it out instead of just ignoring it, that's all. After all, it's not as though I am paying or asking Sharon to recommand my blog and site to her friends and church mates.
'In ministry, thinking about the burdens and demands of taking care of pple, the responsibility is an overwhelming one.'
And I do know about it. I am currently involved in discipling others and have served in various ministries and capacities before. Do not think that I am talking from an ivory tower perspective, as though I do not know what effects whatever I do and write have on the visible Church of Christ.
'But having heard arminianism state its case through pple who are familiar with it, it also does makes sense to me.'
Are you sure you do know what Calvinism is, or you just comprehend an incomplete version of it?
'I think both points of view are valid and that pple should come to appreciate the dynamic that exists between the two. Such as the dynamic between predestination and free will.'
Two contradictory views can never be both correct. Why don't you tell me what you think Calvinism and Arminianism is? I do not think you understand the doctrine, since you think that both Calvinism and Arminianism can both be correct.
'The dynamic of prayer. I believe our God is a dynamic one not a static one.'
Explain the meaning of the words 'dynamic' and 'static' please.
'Plus extreme calvinism can become very exclusive and warped.'
Define the term 'extreme Calvinism [sic]' please. Are you getting your definition of Calvinism from Dr. Norman Geisler?
Dear Wenxian
ReplyDeletethe blood is on my own head? lol... im like quaking in my pants now... hahahahaha....
but at least i know your voice of accusation is not from the devil cuz it is totally ineffective here. I have much more assurance of my salvation than that i can assure you
but interesting point about the 40DOP after effects. But I totally expect that I shouldnt need to change church after 5 years
OK, Wenxian and Munchy, cut the rhetoric now, both of you. I am going to nip this in the bud now.
ReplyDeleteTo Wenxian:
try to be more gracious. Your words can be easily misunderstood by others.
To Munchy:
The phrase 'blood on your own head' has nothing whatsoever to do with your salvation or lack thereof. Your sarcasm is uncalled for. This phrase is found in Scripture in Mt. 27:25 where the Jews in Jesus' trail before Pilate said "His blood be on us and on our children" (ESV). Thus, this phrase just mean that you are responsible for, and reap and pay the consequences of your (wrong) actions. That's all it means.
Anyway, with regards to the after effects of the 40DOP, time will tell. We shall see. But I do know of the after effects in some of the churches in America. With regards to Singapore churches, the fruit doesn't seem to be good either, but we shall see.
lol im jus kidding la.. its joking sarcasm ...
ReplyDeleteyeah i know about the blood thing i encountered this kind of phrasing before, Pilate's case and also in Exekiel 3
Its just that this guy was like threatening me or something. and obviously im not scared la if u didnt realize so i was jus having some fun :P
Hello daniel,
ReplyDeleteThats exactly what i meant: that he is responsible for his own actions. It is a repeat of my previous paragraph.
I agree with Daniel. Let us wait and see.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletesigh ... posting on this blog does make me sometimes feel like im talking to a wall..
ReplyDeletedear jenson and others, hmm... all i can say now is that i hope i can challenge you guys to be more open and less close minded.. cuz it sometimes feels like whatever i have been saying.. isolated lines have been taken out and rebuked in a manner in which i never intended them to mean.. they have often been re-intepreted in a very closed manner and spat back at me...
i mean i've already been told that blood is on my head, to throw my bible away.. and all that u know? and my current patience to tolerate such unecessary abuse comes not from myself, a previously more hot-tempered me would have been like really worked up..i hope things can be more conducive for pple in the future, that pple can air views which help you know? instead of you guys (sometimes) jus trying to prove others wrong.
for jenson.. i have a passage i would like you to take into account wrt unity. Philippians 2:1-18. Worship? i dunno what point you are trying to make what kind is "seperate and sacred". :) I like worship.. and its more than just singing songs :)... As for the final about shepherding, yeah thanks for helping to (unwittingly) substantiate the point i made haha :)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEh Jenson... no.
ReplyDeleteBethesda Frankel Estate Church is Munchy's home church. I was formerly attending a "for all purposes Charismatic while being Presbyterian In Name Only (PINO)' church, which I do not want to reveal at the movement.
Hello Munchy,
ReplyDeleteit is not my intention, and I do not believe it is anyone's intention, here to insult you and to stonewall you. If you are offended by some less than gracious remarks, I apologise on behalf of my friends. However, this was never their intention, I believe. Wenxian here is still relatively young in the faith so he is still growing to be more like Christ. As for you, I think it is time for you to try to discern when people are talking about issues and when people are warning you on the path you are taking. Try to learn and apply Prov. 27:5-6 ; it will do good for your soul.
Your talk on 'open-minded' and 'close-minded' is troubling. As Christians, our ultimate authority is on Scripture alone, which I have covered in my blog post on the subject of Sola Scriptura. Christians are not to be 'open-minded' about anything under the Sun. We are to more 'open-minded' about the things of God, and 'close-minded' about things NOT of God. We care only about what Scripture teaches, period! I honestly don't care one bit what anyone think what a passage of Scripture say; I am only interested in what God says it means. Anything less is a denial of Sola Scriptura, or more specifically the authority and perhaps perspicuity of Scripture.
The reason why few so far have chosen to follow your path is quite simple. You have yet to prove that your objections are grounded on Scripture! When you mention unity, we know where you are coming from, because, at least for me, I was once like you and similarly as naive also. What we have done is to show forth from Scripture the unity that God desires, and you have yet to show that God desires unity even at the expense of truth i.e. compromise. Show us this from Scripture and at least we will be getting somewhere, otherwise you can mention unity all you want and it will not change anything, for we know the greater context of Scripture, as God opened our eyes and minds to the whole counsel of God. It would simply not do to have a few passages taken out of context while you ignore passages that contradict your position.
Munchy said:
... isolated lines have been taken out and rebuked in a manner in which i never intended them to mean.. they have often been re-intepreted in a very closed manner and spat back at me ...
Well, sometimes the words we use do indicate a problem somewhere we are blinded to ourselves. I was a former Neo-Evangelical (and Charismatic) so I know that sometimes the actions you mention that you did off-hand actually signify a deeper problem somewhere in your Christian worldview, or rather the New-Evangelical worldview. And as I have said before, try to be charitable. Regarding the spat with Wenxian, I have told both of you to cool off. If you know where he is coming from, you may understand better. [Hey, I am finally using New-Evangelical speak. 8-) lol ]
Oh ya, we do not just come to try to 'prove someone wrong'. At least this is not my aim. My aim is that we would grow together in the knowledge of Christ, and since this truth is absolute, we would therefore try to persuade people who hold to differing views that they are wrong. This is because since there only but one Truth, then all other viewpoints must be false.
If Jenson doesn't mind, I would like to just mention to you that Phil. 2:1-18 in its context is addressed to true believers, who are already united in the Truth, therefore your point is moot. This passage only proves that unity among true Christians is important, but it does not talk about Christians with false brethren in their midst, or cases whereby there would be unity between Chrstians and non-Christians. For the former, read the book of Galations. For the latter, read 2 Cor. 6:14-18 for starters.
Regarding worship, I would refrain from commenting, except to ask you, Munchy, whether you think worshipping in any way or fashion is acceptable to God? As an extreme example, what about those people who bow down to statues or icons of Jesus to worship Him? That is all I would say about the issue now. I would let more lerned men to talk about the Regulative Principle of Worship if they so wish to do so.
And finally, for sheperding, see my reply to your comment on the post regarding Paul Proctor's article.
Eh... one more thing.
ReplyDeleteMunchy, if you would want to, I do not mind meeting you in NUS to have a talk. Find me at Crusade Corner at the table outside LT24 if you so desire to do so. If you want to arrange a time, email me (my details are on my blogger profile). Alternatively, you can contact me via any friends you know in Crusade. Or ask Linyin for my number.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteyou are a bit close-minded in your interpretation of my usage of open-minded... and you tell me to be more charitable...argh nmind...
ReplyDeleteok i will attempt to properly state my stand on unity its a bit getting out of hand. I do not agree getting united to do wrong, I usually will not mind unity if nothing is wrong. Unity is important cuz we are all children of God together. There are times when unity among believers is wrong cuz they are wrong, and times where some conflict is for the better. BUT if there is anything PERSISTENTLY causing disunity much more than unity, I would totally suspect that something is wrong.
Hmm... worship... personally i feel uncomfortable when i feel for whatever reason that worship is too self/man focused instead of God focused. Apart from that i cant really think of anything else. If worship is truly God focused then it is highly unlikely that the worshipper sees any need to blindly bow before statues of Jesus or whatever.
Anyway if i meet you what you wanna talk about? Do u have something you wanna talk to me about face to face?
P.S. yeah im from a brethren church, BFEC. Its not perfect but its alright lah... quite orthodox.. and with a healthy missions focus.. been here ever since becoming christian in secondary one
Well ...
ReplyDeleteI thought that meeting up with you would be better since you seem to be rather aggrieved at what you think are slights against you, whereas the fact of the matter is that your arguments on things like unity so far have been fallacious. Other than that, it is up to you.
'BUT if there is anything PERSISTENTLY causing disunity much more than unity, I would totally suspect that something is wrong.'
I agree with that statement. However, why do you assume the party who is making the most 'noise' is the guilty one? Why not the other who has the 'upper hand'? After all, if they are winning, they could easily play the unity card to attempt to co-opt everyone to follow them.
"I agree with that statement. However, why do you assume the party who is making the most 'noise' is the guilty one? Why not the other who has the 'upper hand'? After all, if they are winning, they could easily play the unity card to attempt to co-opt everyone to follow them."
ReplyDeletewhy do you assume that i am assuming that the party who is making the most 'noise' is the guilty one?
(anyway whatever 'slights' i have felt on this board have largely been induced by pple (including yourself) jumping to conclusions without fully knowing what i am talking about. im typing blog comments, not writing books, i dont have the time nor space nor energy to explain every little detail in full)
Munchy:
ReplyDelete'why do you assume that i am assuming that the party who is making the most 'noise' is the guilty one?'
Perhaps it is because you are seen to be defending them ...
'im typing blog comments, not writing books, i dont have the time nor space nor energy to explain every little detail in full'
If you haven't realized it by now, people who have been commenting on this blog, myself included, are very particular about the words we use. If not, then the careless person has no right to complain when people 'misinterpret' them. After all, didn't you call Wenxian to account for the words he use? If so, doesn't that not remove from you the right to complain when others treat your words as how you have written them? I suggest that you be more consistent on your standards when applied to yourself or to others.
'Perhaps it is because you are seen to be defending them ...'Perhaps you are seeing it that way but I am not.
ReplyDeleteI dont really see where I misinterpreted or called Wenxian to account for the words he used. I was amused over them not complaining about them if I recall correctly. I think I have been consistent in my stds.
On occassion I saw a bunch of things I wanted to comment about, and I stand by my earlier view that I dont necessarily have the time, energy and/or space to write about everything in detail.
Though this might make it tempting for you to want to debunk whatever I have said because I have been rather vague sometimes (esp in a v carefully worded environment), I hope that you can be gracious in allowing me the benefit of the doubt and be willing to see things from my perspective.
In a sense I guess that was what I better wanted to say wrt to being more open-minded. I couldnt figure out how to phrase it properly earlier, but now I figured it out a lil. I meant open-minded in the sense to be more willing to look at things from others' perspective. Hmm... this explanation should at least be slightly more satisfactory to you I presume?
sometimes i read my previous posts and see errors in phrasing that i didnt mean to include. however, the format of posting comments means that i am unable to review my post. Hence this leads to mistakes, and mistakes to misunderstandings. (For eg. when I first mentioned unity and I said that when things do not lead to unity, something is wrong. That is not what I wanted to say, what i did mean to say has already been posted in this thread)
With respect to your feedback.. In future I will attempt to be more precise and detailed in my comments where possible.
OK, I'll accept that. Try not to say things you don't mean next time. And we try to be more understanding of your commmunication problems also.
ReplyDeleteAs for your remark on 'open-mindedness', the words you use are better. I can see what you are trying to say but your clarification is not good enough to be above reproach yet.
looking at things from others' perspective doesnt mean we have to agree with things that we disapprove of
ReplyDeletethere are several advantages of having some empathy towards others that i can try to think of, one is that it should reduce unnecessary misunderstandings, another one is that it enables christians to better minister to others.
Munchy:
ReplyDeleteEmphathy and open-mindedness are two different things! My last post was to tell you that I know what you are getting at (emphathy) but your choice of words is horrible!
i should imagine that being willing to look at things from the perspective of others involves some aspect of empathy does it not?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.m-w.com/dictionary/empathy
or are you refering to my earlier use of the word open-minded.. well i still think its impt what.. i need to be open to try to hear out n understand the opinions of others then i am more likely to be able to empathize w them... no?
Munchy:
ReplyDeleteI was saying that words mean something. Open-mindedness mean one thing, and emphathy mean another. Open-mindedness ≠ emphathy!!!
You said:
'i need to be open to try to hear out n understand the opinions of others then i am more likely to be able to empathize w them... no?
and what does the above desciprion have to do with being 'open-minded'? You are describing emphathy, NOT open-mindedness.
Open-minded:
1) (Neutral form) Being in a state of mind such that there is a willingness to accept and consider the rightness of another's view.
2) (PC form) The williness to accept and consider the rightness of another's view as being equally worthy and valid as any others including your own, often without passing judgment on the rightness/wrongness of any particular view but respecting all views (except the intolerant views)
Emphathy:
The action or state of being able to share in the feelings of another; being able to look from the other person's point of view.
NOTE:
Emphathy DOES NOT necessarily means agreeing with nor condoning any view, nor does it exclude considering the view held by the other person to be totally wrong, which is what open-mindedness often is used to mean (The PC form). In fact, emphathy does not have even such a PC connotation.
Munchy, before you use a word, next time please try to know what the word means and how people are using it in both ordinary and technical discourse.
ok so what is wrong with using open-minded in the neutral form which is what i was refering to? plus I can be receptive to ideas and/or people without ultimately agreeing with them what http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/open-minded
ReplyDeletei dont even know what pc stands for.. or unless it means politically correct?
im not a very politically correct savvy person so i dont usually mean things that way. neither is this a politically correct blog in general?
if i use the word open-minded in the future i must put a "open-minded (n)" ?
anyway yeah thats what i understood about empathy.. just as how you explained it
Munchy:
ReplyDeletepc stands for politically correct. The reason why I am against the use of the word 'open-minded' is because the way it is used in public discourse nowadays is the PC form, and the neutral form is used much less nowadays. Therefore, it is not correct to use it, especially in a Christian context where the PC form of the word is almost always meant.
Even if you use the word in its neutral form, it is not appropriate since the word 'open-mindedness' suggest only a unidirectional 'opening' up, and such an 'opening up' does not operate bidirectionally. By this I mean that open-minded is always used in the context of considering and accepting something which was once not considered, NEVER in the context of forsaking or rejecting something which was once accepted.
okie but to me .. truly being open-minded (n) would also entail being willing to reject something previously accepted..
ReplyDeleteesp if one has now accepted something which is in direct opposition to something one previously believed in