Saturday, March 07, 2009

Newsflash: Jamie Yeo and Glenn Ong have split

According to AsiaOne, celebrities Jamie Yeo and Glenn Ong have split up.

This will be the second divorce for Glenn, who married Kate Reyes, a deejay from the same station in 2000. They divorced in 2003.

Jamie was widely-rumoured to be the cause of the split, which she has denied. According to a report in Wanbao, the couple first started dating in 2001.

After Glenn's divorce, he and Jamie were married in Dec 2004 at the New Creation Church.

According to New Creation Senior pastor Joseph Prince:

I, Joseph Prince, am vehemently, completely, aggressively and irrevocably AGAINST SIN!

Sin is evil. I do not condone sin. A lifestyle of sin leads only to defeat and destruction. ...

[Joseph Prince, Destined to Reign (Singapore, Singapore: Joseph Prince Media), 30

According to Scripture:

And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” (Mt. 19:3-6)

So does Prince actually practices what he professes? Let's see.

21 comments:

Joel Tay said...

In the first place, he should not even condone the marriage since Glenn has had a previous marriage.

PuritanReformed said...

Joel:

Agreed. Trust Prince to be so open about his Antinomianism while denying it in words.

BEAST FCD said...

Well. Marriages and Divorces are common, and even more so amongst Christians.

Most marriages will end up in divorce irregardless of religion. The truth is that marriage is a lob-sided tripartite contract that is designed more as a financial and a status arrangement than a romantic one.

In short, marriage is designed to fail. Those who can somehow make it work are a rarity.

Beast FCD

PuritanReformed said...

Beast FCD:

As a social phenomenon, I agree. But that is not what it should be.

BEAST FCD said...

That's exactly how it should be. If you don't like your marriage partner, then the logical way out is a divorce.

BEAST FCD said...

http://atheisthaven.blogspot.com/2009/01/demystifying-sanctity-of-marriage.html

PuritanReformed said...

Beast FCD:

I disagree with your axiom of secular humanism, so I don't buy your entire argument. You assume that historical examples of immorality and cultural norms should have any bearing whatsoever on the definition of marriage, but I deny it.

BEAST FCD said...

Well, my argument is that, contrary to what Christians harp about "protecting the sanctity of marriage", there were, and there still are, many modes of marriages. Don't believe me? Ask your muslim brethren.

Marriage isn't sanctified by God, because there is none. Marriage is the business between both spouses and the state in its current mode. There is nothing sanctified or romantic about it. Its a financial arrangement that's all. Any other connotations exist in the minds and imaginations of deluded folks.

Beast FCD

BEAST FCD said...

Well I am a secular humanist. I don't see anything wrong with that.

1. I support free speech and human rights.

2. I think religion should have no business in government.

3. I do not support the death penalty.

4. I support abortion in as far as it being an option for pregnant mothers.

Yup, I am one of the rare liberals you will ever find in Singapore. In fact, I am so liberal that I support the use of recreational marijuana! (And I am not kidding)

Beast FCD

BEAST FCD said...

"You assume that historical examples of immorality and cultural norms should have any bearing whatsoever on the definition of marriage, but I deny it."

I am not assuming that the current norm should follow traditional marriages (no, I don't think they are necessarily immoral), but I just want to debunk the lies of some of your Christian brethren who seem to think that the current marriage mode is the only mode of marriage to have been passed down since antiquity.

Perhaps these Christians need to read the bible themselves: Most biblical characters also have multiple wives.

Beast FCD

PuritanReformed said...

Beast FCD:

>Well, my argument is that, contrary to what Christians harp about "protecting the sanctity of marriage", there were, and there still are, many modes of marriages. Don't believe me? Ask your muslim brethren

As you can see, I am not a Muslim. I am not interested in defending their belief as true.

>Marriage isn't sanctified by God, because there is none. Marriage is the business between both spouses and the state in its current mode. There is nothing sanctified or romantic about it. Its a financial arrangement that's all. Any other connotations exist in the minds and imaginations of deluded folks.

Mere ipse dixit argumentation. No proof here.

>Well I am a secular humanist. I don't see anything wrong with that.
1. I support free speech and human rights.

Upon what basis do human have rights? Why is free speech an "inalienable right"?


>2. I think religion should have no business in government.

I agree, including the philosophico-religious view of secular humanism. That should have no business in government too.


>3. I do not support the death penalty.

That is your perogative.


>4. I support abortion in as far as it being an option for pregnant mothers.

Let me rephrase that for you: "I support the murder of an unborn child as far as it being an option for pregnant mothers".

>Yup, I am one of the rare liberals you will ever find in Singapore. In fact, I am so liberal that I support the use of recreational marijuana! (And I am not kidding)

You should emigrate to the Netherlands then. At least you will be at home there.

>I am not assuming that the current norm should follow traditional marriages (no, I don't think they are necessarily immoral), but I just want to debunk the lies of some of your Christian brethren who seem to think that the current marriage mode is the only mode of marriage to have been passed down since antiquity.

Care to show me where anybody who has ever made such an argument as you have phrased it?

>Perhaps these Christians need to read the bible themselves: Most biblical characters also have multiple wives

Cain also murdered his brother, and your point is?

BEAST FCD said...

Lol.

1. If you do not understand the Muslim's mode of marriage, all you have to do is ask. You don't have Muslim friends?

2. Free speech is an inalienable right enshrined under UN law. Of course, Singaporeans are generally dumb, with a few exceptions. They won't know their rights even if it is put in front of them in a platter.

3.For your information, Amnesty International and almost all EU countries have banned the death penalty, because it is archaic, cruel, and does not deter crime. Go figure.

4. Secular humanism has every business in any functioning government because of its emphasis on the welfare of the people.

5. There are other liberal countries besides Netherlands, although Netherlands are by themselves quite successful because of their liberal ways.

6.If you need any proof about the real status of marriage, go to the registrar of marriages or re read your marriage contract, if you are married.

7. Many anti-gay Christians have used the "sanctity of marriage" crap as an excuse against gay marriages. Mc Cain himself also highlighted this excuse to exclude gays from marriages. You ought to get more in touch with your Christian brethren.

8. Abortion is not murder. If one is to equate humanity in cellular form, that I can also surmise that individual sperm cells and embryos are also babies. In that case, everytime I masturbate, I am potentially a mass murderer. So this is a very invalid argument. You can check out my latest post regarding a dialogue between sperm cell 1 and sperm cell 2 to see how silly and absurd this argument is.

http://atheisthaven.blogspot.com/2009/03/dialogue-between-sperm-cell-and-sperm.html

Beast FCD

BEAST FCD said...

"Perhaps these Christians need to read the bible themselves: Most biblical characters also have multiple wives."

My point is that even the bible does not stick to a singular conformist code of marriage, as it was actually quite common for Jews at that time to have multiple wives.

Beast FCD

PuritanReformed said...

Beast FCD:

1) You are not reading properly. I said "I am not interested in defending their belief as true." So what if Islam teaches that a man can marry four wives? Is that relevant?

2) Yes, it is enshrined under UN law. So what? If this is a majority vote in the UN, why isn't it the tyranny of the majority in imposing their view of human rights on others? Why is what the UN says authoritative for anyone for that matter?

3) So what if Europe and Ammesty International have banned the death penalty? Since when did they have the right to dictate what is right or wrong? Also, besides being an opinion, why should anyone care that they think that the death penalty is "archaic or cruel". Why should their opinions matter more than the opinion of anyone else? Is this communism again: "Some people are more equal than others"? With regards to detering crime, I believe that statistics is just not in favor of your position. If you want the statistics, I am sure you can find them easily enough.

4) Wrong, you disguise the religious component of Secular Humanism. I am sure you have heard of the Humanist Manifestoes I and II? And anyway, who defines what is in the interest of "the welfare of the people"? You? Atheists? Communist Soviet Russia sure talked a lot about acting for the "welfare of the people", up to and including gassing dissidents!

6) You mistake the sign for the reality. Does a married cert make a marriage, or rubber stamp it? How do marriages function in tribal areas without any modern government in your view?

7) If that is what you are trying to argue against, you clearly are not engaging the arguments at all.

8) Similar to 7, you clearly have no idea of the argument against abortion. Nobody have said that the germ cells are individuals, but fertilized embryos. Attacking a straw man will not convice anyone except your own choir.

PuritanReformed said...

Beast FCD:

>My point is that even the bible does not stick to a singular conformist code of marriage, as it was actually quite common for Jews at that time to have multiple wives.

You have not proven that, just a mere assertion. So let me try again.

You said: Some Jews in the Bible have many wives
I said: Cain murdered his brother Abel

You concluded thus: The Bible does not stick to a comformist view of marriage.
Usuing your reasoning thus to the issue of Cain: The Bible endorses murder.

I hope you can see the reductio ad absurdum.

BEAST FCD said...

Its clear to me that you support the death penalty and you clearly are a PAP supporter. In that case that is no point arguing, since we both have different perspectives.

Beast FCD

PuritanReformed said...

Beast FCD:

Giving up so soon? I am not a PAP supporter, as I have no respect for a party which worships the golden calf of Mammon. I am a conservative more conservative than the PAP or even the US Republican party (which is no more conservative after the pseudo-conservative George W. Bush, who used the conservatives to get into power then systematically turn against the cause).

Regardless, you have not addressed the real issue. Why do you think your perspectives are correct and others wrong to the extent that you will want to enforce them on others? Upon what basis can you [plual] force your liberal policies on society even if the people are against it, like what Stalin did to the millions of dissidents in the former USSR?

BEAST FCD said...

Nah. Its pointless debating with you anyway. Waste of my time. I am a liberal and a libertine living in a sea of conservatives. I have lived long enough to realize that conservative folks can't think outside of their own square box, and religious people simply think that the world revolves around their religion.

Besides, you practice censorship. At some point of time my views will be censored. It has happened before when I debate with christians, such as Marcus Mok (www.marcusmok.blogspot.com).

Feel free to come over to comment on my side, if you wish. But try not to convert me. I have been a Christian long enough to know that it is not what I want.

Beast FCD

PuritanReformed said...

Beast FCD:

>conservative folks can't think outside of their own square box

So you are now claiming you are immune from perspectivism? As if you can think outside your own liberal square box?

>Besides, you practice censorship

I only practice censorship when they violate the blog rules. If they don't, you are free to write contrary views. And anyway, the nature of blogs is different from forums. Forums are meant for discussion, blog discussion is secondary, information presentation first.

>Feel free to come over to comment on my side, if you wish.

Nah, I have lots of other stuff to do

>But try not to convert me. I have been a Christian long enough to know that it is not what I want.

I am sorry for you. It seems that you have either been immunized by a false presentation of Christianity, or you have apostasized. Regardless, I will exhort you to deconstruct your liberalism and turn back to the God who created you. Just because you disbelieve in a Creator does not mean He does not exist, and He will one day call upon you to give an account of your life before Him. Deep in your heart you know it (cf Rom. 1:18-20) but you continually suppress the Truth even to yourself. May God open your eyes to see your wickedness and sinfulness, and bring you to a saving knowledge of the only true God.

BEAST FCD said...

To be liberal is to be free. There is no box involved.

No, don't urge me to drop liberalism. Conservative thinking will cause the downfall of Singapore, just as it did for the Qing Dynasty.

History has a series of repetitions, and if you look more closely enough, you will find that emerging pattern.

Don't bother responding to this post. Its my last post here.

Beast FCD

PuritanReformed said...

Beast FCD:

>To be liberal is to be free. There is no box involved.

LOL! This is the strongest box ever made - a box that deludes people into thinking they are free when they are not. Isn't it strange that liberals throughout the centuries from Sodom onwards think along the same lines and are thus not original? But then, sin never is original and never makes anyone free, ever.

>Conservative thinking will cause the downfall of Singapore, just as it did for the Qing Dynasty.

Mere assertion. Traditionalism caused the fall of the Qing Dynasty, not conservatism. Conservatism is responsible for the rise of the US up until the late 19th century, and Liberalism will be responsible for the downfall of Europe and of America. Already, Europe is decaying from the inside out. One does not need to be an expert to see the signs of a dying continent. Soon, Europe will be known as "Eurabia", as Bat Ye'or convincingly presents the facts leading towards that conclusion in her book of the same name.

>History has a series of repetitions, and if you look more closely enough, you will find that emerging pattern.

I agree, but you are not looking. You imagine you see the truth, when the truth eludes you. Which culture in history has ever thrived for long after adopting liberalism in any of its forms? The Greek Empire? Internal rot allowed Rome to take over. The Roman Empire? After culling her Christian citizens and finally co-opting Christianity through Constantine (whose Christian conviction is in doubt), the Empire collapses as the tragic consequences of the culling of her citizens and the nullification of Crhistianity through co-option succeeded.