AWARE saga-very ironical

[Chrispie]

How abt a man to chair it nx time?

[Darth_mel]

  On 4/30/2009 at 10:12 AM, King said:

they should just disband AWARE.....and call BEWARE!!!

Get some sexy ladies to run the show and call it UnderWare !

 

Sure will garner plenty of support.

Edited April 30, 2009 by Darth_mel

[Vtim]

  On 4/30/2009 at 1:43 AM, Help1 said:

LOL...i am waiting for someone to say that out loud.....i dun want to say becos there are ppl out there who will denied such thing and just imagine that one fine day, when those experts found out and release the info to the world, i tell you, those followers will jump to the sea. Imagine you are praying to a divine thing but actually it turn out to be a man who have sex, have a child, drink etc etc....life is like a chocolate, you never know what you going to get inside.

 

 

there is this also, from BBC

 

[Sha_va]

very bad image...

[Vtim]

  On 4/30/2009 at 1:42 PM, Darth_mel said:

Get some sexy ladies to run the show and call it UnderWare !

 

Sure will garner plenty of support.

 

 

me sure support one

[Jdm77]

waste of time saga

[Elfenstar]

There's ONE catholic church and one Roman Catholic church. The former is used to denote the church at large, including all denominations, and the latter's head is the Pope we are familiar with. There are a few Orthodox churches - Eastern, Greek. They developed this way due to historical and cultural developments. You are using words like catholic and orthodox without regard and fragrantly.

 

>> There's one catholic church according to the Roman Catholics and to a certain extent the Eastern Orthodox Catholics. There are other christians that consider themselves to be catholic but are not recognised by the Roman Catholic Church, take for example some Anglican denominations, Old Catholics, Independant Catholics, etc. Some of them are called orthodox catholics for e.g. many churches under the oriental orthodoxy group. You may want to look at catholicism from an independant viewpoint rather than from a roman catholic viewpoint as each of these catholic denominations consider themselves to have come from the apostolic founded "universal" a.k.a. catholic church. Also for the Eastern Orthodox Catholics group (of which the greek orthodox is a subset rather than a different orthodoxy), I believe the pope is just a honorary position, and not a spiritual leader/head position. I would suggest you get your facts straight before accusing me of anything.

 

 

It is important with regards to giving details. You are using this one incident to make a sweeping statements that there are "few catholic bibles" that claim Jesus has a physical child. With such a serious allegations, how do you think you can back it up by your one reading 2 years ago. Let me ask further, which passage is that, what is the bible about, who compiled it, who uses it? I wouldn't have asked if you have not made your sweeping statement.

 

>> I admit, it may have made a sweeping statement as I had only read one orthodox bible similar to the catholic bible but with a section on Jesus fathering a child before he was crucified (and a bit). The rest was just hearsay from a friend from a different orthodox church from the bible i read. Who used it, I have told you. Who compiled it, I don't know. Which passage, if I get my hands on it again, I will let you know. Is this a serious allegation because it questions your faith? It is called faith for a reason you know.

 

Jesus was not a conqueror, not a commander of the army, not even a remotely famous person beyond the Jews of his days. He was crucified together with criminals, and no Roman aristocrats take note of him. When he died, his disciples fled and no obituary is written in the Roman Empire news. His disciples were not even known as Christians till a few years after his death and Christianity was considered just a cult of the Jews only for decades. THUS, would you expect notable historians of his time to write about him. It is even a miracle that the death of a man grew his religion to the biggest in the world, but of coz he wasn't dead now.

 

It is laughable that you deny the existence of the Jesus man when even non christians scholars would not. Just go to this link and you can find many scholastic references to the "historical" Jesus, and we are not even talking about his claim to divinity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

 

>> Even the wiki states pretty clearly that its scholarly hypothesis. There are no non-biblical evidence. These roman historians recorded a lot. Considering Jesus's threat to the political stability and the amount of recorded information on political dissent, are you so sure that there would be nothing about him?? There are also no Roman records that shows Pontius Pilate executed a man named Jesus (no obituary but oh yes crucification records do exist). I also find it odd that you would say non-christian scholars would not deny the existence of Jesus when there have been many that have questioned (and still are questioning) his existence. Hmm... I wonder if you know about the sun-god Mithra who was born of a virgin, was celebrated on 25 Dec, had magi's bring him gifts at his birth, had 12 traveling companions, and was slain on a cross to atone for the sins of mankind. Btw, this was all supposed to have happened around 600BC, but coincidentally became quite popular with in the Roman Empire around 1-4AD. There was also Horus, Adonis, etc with very similar stories. Its also quite a coincidence that there are so many Jesus like religious figures with similar stories isn't it. Btw, nevermind Roman historians and strangely similar gods/saviours from other religions. Isn't it also strange that Jewish historians who lived and wrote during the same period or a little later than the period Jesus was alive, didn't notice him as well as the religion supposed to have been founded by him since there was that much controversy about him (enough at least for a fair number of them to lobby together for him to be crucified due to sufficiently "annoying" the jewish priests)?

 

 

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. A little knowledge plus a big ego, and a bigot is born.

 

>> Errm that's just an attack on me. Instead of calling me irrational (from my viewpoint) names, at least explain to me where the prejudice is for me to be a bigot.

Edited April 30, 2009 by Elfenstar

[Silver_blade]

Wow...from AWARE to Christianity? Going quite off-topic isn't it?

 

Actually, have such 'in-depth' discussion in such forum is pointless. Better to bring it off-line or discuss in a more appropriate forum among like-minded members.

Edited April 30, 2009 by Silver_blade

[Jamesc]

  On 4/30/2009 at 10:11 PM, Silver_blade said:

Wow...from AWARE to Christianity? Going quite off-topic isn't it?

 

I don't think you realise how exactly correct you are!

 

Its exactly AWARE into Christianity!

[Felipe]

getting into debates putting down any religion is not in line with our nation's policy. i hope any writers in this thread can respect this approach

[Kusje]

  On 5/1/2009 at 1:47 PM, Felipe said:

getting into debates putting down any religion is not in line with our nation's policy. i hope any writers in this thread can respect this approach

 

This isn't a state forum?

[Felipe]

  On 5/1/2009 at 2:07 PM, Kusje said:

This isn't a state forum?

 

it isn't, but religious sensitivity i believe is part of what this forum believes in.

[Falc]

There's one catholic church according to the Roman Catholics and to a certain extent the Eastern Orthodox Catholics. There are other christians that consider themselves to be catholic but are not recognised by the Roman Catholic Church, take for example some Anglican denominations, Old Catholics, Independant Catholics, etc. Some of them are called orthodox catholics for e.g. many churches under the oriental orthodoxy group.

 

Earlier u wrote: There is no "one catholic church" as we roman catholics proclaim. there are also quite a few different catholic churches classified under the orthodox catholic title (not orthodox and catholic as there also just plain orthodox churches).

 

>> RC and Orthodoxy are separately governed churches. The word catholic just mean universal, so it can be used in the general sense. Your earlier statement on catholic and orthodoxy is badly worded, at the least misleading. That has been my earlier stand too.

 

I admit, it may have made a sweeping statement as I had only read one orthodox bible similar to the catholic bible but with a section on Jesus fathering a child before he was crucified (and a bit). The rest was just hearsay from a friend from a different orthodox church from the bible i read. Who used it, I have told you. Who compiled it, I don't know. Which passage, if I get my hands on it again, I will let you know. Is this a serious allegation because it questions your faith? It is called faith for a reason you know.

 

>> It takes us a few exchanges before you finally admit your wrong, and yet you are trying to wriggle. This just show you know little but claim alot.

 

Me earlier: Jesus was not a conqueror, not a commander of the army, not even a remotely famous person beyond the Jews of his days. He was crucified together with criminals, and no Roman aristocrats take note of him. When he died, his disciples fled and no obituary is written in the Roman Empire news. His disciples were not even known as Christians till a few years after his death and Christianity was considered just a cult of the Jews only for decades. THUS, would you expect notable historians of his time to write about him. It is even a miracle that the death of a man grew his religion to the biggest in the world, but of coz he wasn't dead now.

 

Me earlier: It is laughable that you deny the existence of the Jesus man when even non christians scholars would not. Just go to this link and you can find many scholastic references to the "historical" Jesus, and we are not even talking about his claim to divinity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

 

Even the wiki states pretty clearly that its scholarly hypothesis. There are no non-biblical evidence.

 

>> This is becoming a joke. Where does the word hypothesis appear in the wiki link? The only time is quoted here

"Martin Kaehler protested, arguing that the true Christ is the one preached by the whole Bible, not a historical hypothesis."

If you ever read intently, this following synopsis can be picked up easily.

"Though the reconstructions vary, they generally include these basic points: Jesus was a Jewish teacher[2] who attracted a small following of Galileans and, after a period of preaching, was crucified by the Romans in Iudaea Province during the governorship of Pontius Pilate.[3] The historical Jesus was a Galilean Jew living in a time of messianic and apocalyptic expectations. "

 

There's no doubt that Jesus the person exists, what's in scholarly doubt is the events surrounding hima s recorded in scriptures. BUT you deny the existence of the man itself.

 

 

>> These roman historians recorded a lot. Considering Jesus's threat to the political stability and the amount of recorded information on political dissent, are you so sure that there would be nothing about him??

 

Wrong again. There is not nothing about him as you like to loudly claim. Also as i have mentioned he posted no political threat to Rome. Nor political dissent. When he was accused to be crucified (and he was on the same day), it was the first time Pilate had ever heard and met him! And in the end they only crucified him, and with none of his followers together. What's a politician without follower huh. So pray tell how important a political dissent he was to to Romans?!

 

>> There are also no Roman records that shows Pontius Pilate executed a man named Jesus (no obituary but oh yes crucification records do exist). I also find it odd that you would say non-christian scholars would not deny the existence of Jesus when there have been many that have questioned (and still are questioning) his existence.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. A little knowledge plus a big ego, and a bigot is born.

 

Let's use a website that attacks the christian point to counter your own anti-biblical point:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

"Virtually all other claims of Jesus come from sources outside of Christian writings. Devastating to the claims of Christians, however, comes from the fact that all of these accounts come from authors who lived after the alleged life of Jesus. Since they did not live during the time of the hypothetical Jesus, none of their accounts serve as eyewitness evidence. " And the text goes on the list a few historians.

 

>> Again existence is not in denial. The exact circumstances surrounding Jesus are the points of contention.

 

Me earlier: A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. A little knowledge plus a big ego, and a bigot is born.

 

>> Errm that's just an attack on me. Instead of calling me irrational (from my viewpoint) names, at least explain to me where the prejudice is for me to be a bigot.

 

I said one with little knowledge but with large ego or obstinateness is prime material for a bigot. Just a warning, not a conclusion. But since you see a link (which is not bad), let's see how you fit in

(1) knowing little claiming much eg, your damning claim on a few catholic bibles. Only after questioning you pointedly a few times before your admission of error

(2) An obstinateness in the face of details. See all the above,

I reserve my judgment.

Edited May 2, 2009 by Falc

[Falc]

  On 5/1/2009 at 4:06 PM, Felipe said:

it isn't, but religious sensitivity i believe is part of what this forum believes in.

 

Clearly this thread has evolved from bitching about women to the religion of the women. But seems like no one has complaint? That's good maturity and showing a high tolerance despite the many religious taunting.

[Gnoikj]

Bro, guess its going very off topic...We should try to de-link AWARE frm Christianity...Whatever the new guard at AWARE is pushing for, its not representative of the entire Christian community in Singapore..meaning, not all Christians agree with their views, so its hard to claim they (NG) represent christians...and I do believe they have said they don't...

 

So all these attempts to link christianity to the new AWARE is tenous at best...

 

Arguments abt the authenticity of Jesus and Faith should be taken at some other topics...I note for one that most of those discussing abt religion here have practised control and tolerance but I'm not so sure that it will be maintained if allowed to go further...best for all parties to back off and see how the suntec situation develops...

 

 

[Elfenstar]

Hi Bro, I think some here are getting quite uncomfortable with what I am saying even though they are being pretty good about it, so I shall have to stop. However I did want to end off on this note as I was born a Roman Catholic, I still am a Roman Catholic, and I will die a Roman Catholic. Christianity is all about faith. I read up on most of what I told you to test exactly that. We all know that the bible was written by humans, and thus we have no guarantees that this isn't a gigantic con-job. However even though I know all this, I still do believe. This is what I call true faith. Knowing, accepting, and yet still believing.

 

Hope you have a good weekend

Edited May 2, 2009 by Elfenstar

[Vin002]

I am a neutral person as I am a free thinker and not siding the new or the old Exco.

 

However, this whole saga I feel that there is a lack of independence as the board of new Exco with key positions are taken over by a group of people from the same church of same agenda. Despite claiming not knowing each other, there is too much of a linkage and the actions to be taken.

 

Even if they want to fight for their cause, they should replace somebody from the Exco. At least not to have so many people from the same Church to promo for the same cause...

 

[Myturbo]

I like yr statement. dame boliao