Test 2

Please select your preferred language.





Remember Me

New to Fridae?

Fridae Mobile


More About Us

11 May 2007

theology professor supports repeal of anti-gay law in singapore

A member of the audience demanded to know what God's natural purpose for the mouth and anus was while another linked homosexuality with bestiality, paedophilia and incest... Find out what went on at the dialogue session on Christianity and homosexuality last night.

"Singapore is a pluralistic society," said Dr Tan Kim Huat, who is the Chen Su Lan Professor of New Testament and Dean of Studies at Trinity Theological College. "There must be spaces for it", referring to homosexuals in society. This was the reason he gave for supporting repeal of Singapore's anti-gay law, Section 377A of the Penal Code.

Top of the page (left to right): Dr Tan Kim Huat, Anthony Yeo, moderator Augustine Anthuvan, Edmund Smith and Rev. Dr. Yap Kim Hao. Photos by Alex Au.
He prefaced those remarks by saying, "There are lots of problems with criminalising homosexuality," and that the law itself was a "vestige" of the past.

In his view, where the problem lies now is that the Singapore government, while convinced of the need to repeal the law, has not yet thought through the consequences of repeal. "They don't know how to deal with it," he believed, referring to such questions as what should then be the age of consent, and how to respond to the issue of same-sex marriage.

However, he made it clear as well that he personally disapproved of homosexuality.

Tan was one of four panelists at a dialogue session, "Christian Perspectives on Homosexuality and Pastoral Care" organised by Safehaven, a ministry of the Free Community Church. It was held at the Amara Hotel on 10 May 2007.

The other panellists were Anthony Yeo, Consultant Therapist, Counselling and Care Center; Edmund Smith, the founder of ex-gay movement Real Love Ministry (headquartered in Malacca); and Rev. Dr. Yap Kim Hao, retired bishop of the Methodist Church in Malaysia and Singapore.

The session was moderated by Augustine Anthuvan, Senior Producer (English News), MediaCorp News.

The crowd of more than 250 might have expected the speakers to fall into roughly two camps with two persons on each side. Anthony Yeo and Rev Yap had previously spoken in gay-affirmative ways.

However, what came through clearly during the session was that the divide didn't actually lie there. The real gap was between those who approached their Christian faith thoughtfully, even intellectually, through the evidence and through hearing out personal witness, and on the other side, those who approached Christianity in what I'd call the "touchy-feely" way.

Interpretation and contextualisation
In Tan's presentation, he spoke about what the Bible said, "from my own reading of the evidence." To begin with, he reminded the audience, there were only a handful of passages that referred to homosexuality, and these should be looked at in context.

Yap, who spoke last, agreed, saying that readings must be "time-bound" and "contextually related."

"The teaching of the Church changes continually," he pointed out. For example, "the flat earth has been rounded," and divorce, which Jesus "explicitly condemned," is now allowed.

He also pointed out that the word "homosexual" didn't enter the Bible until 1946, which suggests that whatever the Bible was referring to, it wasn't quite the modern understanding of the word. Instead, he proffered the view that the same-sex acts mentioned in scripture related either to exploitative situations or to "heterosexual men exchanging their male role to that of an inferior role of women."

Tan felt however that "Jewish condemnation of homosexuality never mentions exploitation." In fact, the Bible's mention of homosexuality was not as context-specific as Yap made it to be. "Paul speaks generally here," Tan said.

But he did agree with Yap that the objection to homosexuality was because "it obliterates the gender distinction." Additionally, there was mention of its reproductive "futility."

For non-Christians especially, all these details are academic, but I included them for a purpose: to show why I say that it's not a big gulf between these two sides. They were both relying on evidence although they had different interpretations of it. They both allowed a role for modern awareness and circumstances to impact Christian teaching, though perhaps one allowed more than the other.

Likewise, both Tan and Yap agreed on the importance of the persons at the centre of the issue, whose witness we should hear. "When we tackle this," Tan said, "we think of it as an issue when actually there are people involved."

Moreover, as Anthony Yeo put it somewhat humourously during the Question Time, "whenever we discuss... homosexuality, we are hung up on genitals."

In his presentation, Yeo focussed on pastoral care. He stressed the importance of adopting a "high level of openness and be willing to associate with everyone," giving the example of Jesus who worked with all kinds of people.

Real Love Ministry
Edmund Smith's presentation was radically different from the other three.

"I have a conviction that it is a sin," he said, but "in Christ, all things are possible." Through Him, one "becomes a new creation... a person who is connected to God."

"My [ex-gay] ministry is only here for those who want to come out of homosexuality," he averred, using terms like 'gender confusion', 'homosexual lifestyle' and the like, terms that are very poorly defined. He also characterised "pro-gays" as people whose "goal in life is sexuality, not Jesus."

Through repetition, it seemed that his main point was that "God is the bread of life." And if one called himself a true Christian, then he's "got to consume the bread of life."

That's all "claptrap," said a participant from the floor.

Smith's position ultimately goes no further than personal conviction. Subjectivity is where it begins and ends. One gets the feeling that even if they referred to scripture, it would be used as rationalisation to support what would be a profoundly personal set of beliefs.

The problem then is how does one engage in meaningful dialogue with such positions? How does one debate with someone whose starting point is little more than mysticism ('I feel the spirit in me' - that kind of thing), who dismisses others' faith as superficial unless they too had consumed Jesus?

That was the gulf in question.

Thus, it occurred to me that the only way one could coexist with ex-gays was to allow for a high degree of religious relativism. Yet ironically, ex-gays demand moral absolutism.

Following the speakers' presentations, there were two Christian "witnesses," one gay and the other ex-gay.

Jaslyn spoke about how she became an ex-gay after a childhood with much rejection and abuse from her parents. "Before I was born," she said, "I was already rejected in the womb."

Later on, each time she was abused - she never quite explained what exactly was the abuse - she sought love and attention. "Without a mother's love, I had a vacuum issue and was attracted to girls." But, "today, you see me as really God's miracle."

We shouldn't be hurtful, but neither should we suspend all our critical faculties and accept her story without asking ourselves what really are the psychological issues here.

Kok Wei's testimony, by contrast, was so ordinary (for gay people), it hardly bears repeating. He had a normal, if strict family, felt ashamed of his homosexual inclination after imbibing social attitudes, went to church, dropped out of church, and finally found Safehaven.

"God has blessed me in my gayness. It's very hard to imagine that loving and caring relationships aren't part of God's grace."

Question time was lively, with about 15 persons speaking up, but most appeared to be gay. Three participants however, spoke up to question gay-affirmative positions. One demanded to know what was God's natural purpose for the mouth and anus. Another spoke about how "agape love" was important and people shouldn't just think in terms of "filial love" and "eros love."

One had the feeling that like Edmund Smith, they were almost in a different universe. Theirs were all subjective convictions, not something one could engage with intellectually. Not even the parts about bestiality, paedophilia, incest - yes, these were all raised from the floor - for they were used as rhetorical sandbagging, meant to defend dogmatic positions rather than a search for enlightenment.

Click this link to read the transcript of Rev Dr Yap Kim Hao's address at the dialogue.

Safehaven is holding Living Water 5, a support group in its fifth cycle in June 2007. The programme is aimed at gay male Christians who are struggling to reconcile their sexuality with their faith. For more info, visit www.oursafehaven.com.

Reader's Comments

1. 2007-05-11 18:53  
There r so many type of church....just go to those who accept us lo......

at the end of the day, we still love our GOD dearly no matter we r gay or not......

I believe God is the creator of all things in this world, we are here and we are real....so stop going too deep and try to disregard us.

Simple, God creates everything and we r gay and we r of his creation....simple easy and just let's go....

I dun need someone here to tell me other wise on my opinion...this is religion ...keep ur comment on other belief to urself...RESPECT :)
2. 2007-05-11 20:44  
all creatures big and small, jesus christ LOVES them all!
3. 2007-05-11 20:57  
I would love to go for a part 2 of this conversation, but we might need a bigger venue for that part 2. :)

But anyway, the talk was extremely enlightening, and it was, for the first time in Singapore, that you hear opinions from both sides of the coin, yet in a rather peaceful way (although I was grabbing my jeans tight throughout the talk) :p
4. 2007-05-12 02:23  
Who cares about what the church (any church) says about anything? A church is a collection of idiots believing in fairy tales, no serious government should even listen to these people. And we all know that real heterosexuals are very accepting of homosexuality, it is the closeted homosexuals (so many priests!) that we need to be afraid of.
5. 2007-05-12 08:12  
I really can't believe that these types of conversations are still going on in a "modern" society. They have tried to turn this issue into an intellectual one. It's not! It's a no brainer. It is about basic human rights, a five year old can understand that. Don't give us that conservative church and society rubbish either. Spain has gay marriage , it's one of the most Catholic Societies inthe world! It's really up to gay people in Singapore to stand up and be counted. Take to the streets. Do something! Who knows even you families and friends might join you if you just asked.
6. 2007-05-12 09:00  
Healthy discussion. The more exposure the better. Just do a few more "Will & Grace" sitcoms and let people laugh it off. That is the best way for acceptance. Really. As for me, I strive for success; a loving family, my boyfriend, and a challenging career. Be confident. I find that being gay is really a blessing!
7. 2007-05-12 12:08  
Take a larger perspective and look at the recent human rights movement: people can cite all kinds of 'reasons' for not allowing rights. That black Americans are not as smart. That women are too emotional to lead companies. The naysayers clutched at stereotypes. And when each stereotype is exposed, they fall back on religion. The truth is, despite the perceived flaws of each group of different people, the positive outweighs the negatives. African Americans become a vital part of the US economy, women contributed just as vibrantly to modern societies. Are gays hedonistic? That is another stereotype. We are a flawed group, but then, which group of people are perfect? Will gays make a big difference in Singapore society if we are recognised? You betcha. Watch and see.
8. 2007-05-12 12:16  
The latest excuse expressed to oppress gay people is that we're a hedonistic bunch, given in to our pleasures without regard for monogamy. Truth is, the best way to curb hedonistic behavior is a loving spouse coupled with the support of the law. Many straight men would certainly sleep around should they not be married. So, the best way to curb unrestrained gay sexual behavior is actually to allow for gay marraige.
9. 2007-05-12 18:14  
"A member of the audience demanded to know what God's natural purpose for the mouth and anus"
Well HE designed it for 'fuel-in' and 'waste-out' But that said; HE is the ultimate in creators right? So if HE was vehemently opposed to oral and anal sex HE would have simply created human orifices and appendages so they only fitted together in the sole reproductive combination HE wanted. Ever tried putting a square peg in a round hole ;-)
Comment #10 was deleted by its author
11. 2007-05-12 23:29  
"A member of the audience demanded to know what God's natural purpose for the mouth and anus"

To me, this is an irrelevant question. I think it is common sense. One thing I know is that these organs are as sensitive and erogenous as the genitalias. Human are intelligent beings who know how to explore and discover their own bodies.

Other irrelevant questions will be like asking what is the purpose of feet, armpit, etc.
12. 2007-05-13 01:55  
I was a member of the audience that night.
I'm an ex-christian gay, born-again non-christian.
The dialogue was important to me not because I care anymore about what christians have to say about homosexuality
but whether or not the Christian leaders in Singapore are showing signs of support for the repeal of 377A.
I'm dying for that day to happen.
It is not of any interest to me at all, how bigoted and ignorant the views of Christians can be. There is no need to change anyone's views. There will always be differences, each stubbornly defended over.
But I want to live in a Singapore that can embrace those differing views, that respect every (thinking) individual.
I'm glad to report that the only people who talked any sense that night were pro-gay Christians.
Edmund Smith is a flaming queen with much angst left in him. I don't trust him for a second.
13. 2007-05-15 11:12  
Tan Kim Huat says that the Church now allows divorce. This statement is not quite accurate. It is true that the Protestant Churches do allow married couples to divorce, and even allow divorced persons to marry other persons in their churches. However, the Catholic Church still maintains that it is a grave sin for married couples to divorce and does not allow divorced persons to remarry in the Catholic Church. The exception to this rule is that the original marriage of the legally divorced persons must be first annulled by the Church itself, or if the divorced spouses decide to reconcile, then only will the Church allow such legally divorced persons to remarry in the Church. Let me just say I am not a member of the Catholic Church's authoritative hierarchy. I am merely a gay Catholic expressing my own personal understanding of Catholic Church teaching. Thank you.
14. 2007-05-16 00:12  
Since when has the Church or any religious body here been the determining force in legalizing or criminalizing any activity here? As I remember, they were all very much against legalizing casinos and what do we have? Not one but TWO - oh yes, they're are called IR's now.
I do believe in God and I do so fervently but I'd be a fool if I allow some prissy organization decree what I can or cannot do behind my own bedroom door. Didn't Christ say - Let the first person who has not sinned throw the first stone?
Everyone has the right to believe or not believe in a God and definitely, everyone is answerable only to his God - not to some religious organization. God is about Love - unconditional Love, and I will continue to believe He will love me inspite of all my imperfections, and being gay is hardly the most major one - I really don't give a hoot how these organizations interpret the Bible or decree what is right or wrong accordng to their understanding. Haven't they read somewhere "Judge not lest you be judged"?
15. 2007-05-17 15:42  
To loverman2611, while it is true that in the gospel story about the woman caught in the act of adultery, Christ rebuffed her accusers with the line, "Let those who are without sin, cast the first stone," thus forcing the woman's accusers to face their own innate sinfulness, at the end of the same story, he not only forgives the woman but sends her on her way with the words, "Go, and do not sin again." You see Christ (in his capacity as God) may have forgiven the woman, but he still acknowledges that she has sinned, and he doesn't condone her sin because in the eyes of God any sin is an impediment to having an ideal and life-affirming relationship of true openness, love, faithfulness and fidelity to God. And only God, being the Almighty has the power and authority to forgive, and so completely remove this impediment. So, while he acknowledges the fallen nature of the woman, and forgives her of her sin and weakness, he still sends her on her way with the admonishment, "Go, and do not sin again," in the hope that she will repent from her sinful ways, and do all she can, with His help, to restore her now broken relationship with God, so that she may be reconciled with Him and so build a new life of grace with Him.
Once again, I am merely sharing this from my own personal understanding of the Gospel message. Thanks
16. 2007-05-22 16:26  
Fridae, are you saying that dkyl comment is appropriate? He stated that "Edmund Smith is a flaming queen with much angst left in him. I don't trust him for a second." I happen to be at the talk myself. Edmund did a good job. It wasn't easy to be in his shoes. Many ex-gay leaders fro Singapore did not have the guts to do what he did - being part of the dialogue. And I personally know Edmund who is my good friend. He respects every other gay person for what they believe in. Dkyl, you don't even know Edmund and it is unfair to make such a statement!
17. 2007-05-23 13:10  
I was at the dialogue session and I too am unconvinced by
Edmund Smith's suggestion that by simply "consuming" Jesus (whatever that means) I can become ex-gay or heterosexual like he has become.

Good to know that he has gay friends. When you sit at the same table as him, does he hate the sin and love the sinner?
18. 2007-05-24 18:14  
Edmund Smith never suggested that by consuming Jesus, one will become an ex-gay or heterosexual. He simply says what the bible says in Matthew 6:33. Consuming Jesus means finding Jesus (from Genesis to Revelation) and BELIEVING all (not some) that we discover. Edmund suggests that when one (a Christian) consumes Jesus, he/she will become the man / woman that Jesus has created them to be. Whatever that is - is Jesus business not Edmund's. And YES Edmund loves the marginalized community - not just the gays. If there is one person I know who respects others for what they chose to be - I would say that is Edmund. I have never met anyone like him before. Do check out his recent blog to how gay friendly he is!
Stop being anti-gay!
Dear Ruben and all anti-gays in Friendster,
(Address in friendster = roy_sarah995@hotmail.com)
Ruben, you are in my friend list in friendster. I just notice the statement below that you made in your profile
o Who I Want to Meet:
anywan......plz no gay......eeee...so geram wit this gay.....plz...anyone tat wan to be my fren......
I am an exgay (meaning I used to be gay). Nevertheless, unlike you - I am totally gay friendly. Gay friendly is OPPOSITE of antigay / homophobic. Some of my best friends are gays and I love them dearly. I take offence with what you wrote above.
To me, anti-gays like you - need to wake up, get educated and realize
1. Gays are human beings - not freaks. Some gay people I know are much better human beings than the straight people I have come across.
2. No one is perfect - not even the so-called straight guy like you. Only Jesus is perfect!
3. When a gay person wants to be friends with you - it does not necessarily mean that he wants to have sex with you. Do you know the meaning of platonic relationship? It means - non sexual / romantic relationship. There is such a thing as platonic attraction!
I pray you will not take offence with what I am saying. But instead repent from being an anti-gay.
No doubt you have a nice face. Many human beings (male and female) might admire or even get attracted to you. So what IF it is JUST a nice face?
I don't mean to hurt you bro. When I was gay for 11 years - I was tremendously ridiculed by people like you. What if your son / daughter tell you someday that he/she is gay? Are you still going to love him/her? What if it is your own flesh and blood?
Let's be real people
Ps Edmund Smith
(Address in friendster = edmundasmith@yahoo.com)

19. 2007-05-24 21:19  
Interesting Amuamanda Smith... It is great the way you joined Edmund in manipulating the community. I see that not much adults are listening to his brand of misinformation, so much so he had to target teenagers with untrained minds. But of course you would not mind that.

You would also respect your husband's say one thing then do another stance of his 'love'. Just tell me Amu, how many homosexuals and transgenders are Edmund's EX-friends?

How many have been cheated by him to join his group with such illustrations of 'gay-friendliness' like you shown below, only to find rejection, attempt of brainwashing and the utter non acceptance of gay being a valid orientation, but rather repeatedly calling it a 'lifestyle' again and again? How many had he turned away because they do not 'want his help' to change?

How many transgenders would be further insulted by Edmund's message of truth that they are 'gender confused'? Most importantly, his teaching of his own brand of science that even goes to find some connection to both homosexuality and GID; it is not even medically, socially, or even biblically soundly conotated; do you not find it dangerous to teach such misinformation to school children?

Could you live with more teasing and bullying of homosexual teens? Can you accept that perhaps one day, your son may realise he is born your daughter, be himself; but then finds everyone still calls him with male nouns, told that God will throw him to hell the sin in him, so becomes ex-Christian then kills himself when he cannot find acceptance. Can you live with that?

Edmund is a manipulative liar and a Pharisee of the new generation. You must really love your husband to condone his behaviour.

P.S. - You learnt from Edmund well. I learnt the same tactic of duplicity too, even on websites. I am just disappointed that you would join into this charade. You very well know what happened to both of you back in Salvation Army and Choices. So I would ask you, someone who is also a Pastor and his wife, to refrain from commenting or harping anymore on the issue of Edmund.
Comment #20 was deleted by its author
Comment #21 was deleted by its author
Comment #22 was deleted by its author
Comment #23 was deleted by its author
Comment #24 was deleted by its author
25. 2007-05-26 15:04  
i personally know Mr Edmund Smith and i can assure you that he is not the man you accuse him to be ( vivanchoe)..yes perhaps your views on the whole ex-gay and pro-gay may defer from each other but you have to see that he has both parties best interests at heart...
Comment #26 was deleted by its author
Comment #27 was deleted by its author
28. 2007-05-27 02:17  
Dear Lazerous, I already know Edmund. I accept your accusations as it is, unfounded. And I have not much interest in exgay-progays. There is enough people to comment on this man.

I have only interests in my transsexuals sisters in heart. Our saviour would love to bust up all the stigmatization, especially from the Christian world.

I know where I stand. It is enough for me. Thanks.
29. 2007-05-28 19:57  
A fellow friend of mine had the following to say...
Thus i am posting the following text on his behalf.

If we simply condone homosexuality simply because it is difficult or
impossible for someone to change to be a heterosexual, in that case, those
hardcore drug addicts, prostitutes, sex maniacs etc may also tell you that
please don't change them, but love them as sinners (together with their
sins) because they find it hard to change. So, where is our baseline? A
sin is a sin if it is possible and easy to change/cure/curb, but not a sin
if you find it hard to change?

Thanks and regards,
Mr Kong ;)

-Comments will be appreciated...
30. 2007-05-28 23:27  
I think we all come to the point where all the arguments are replays, getting stale and boring. Again and again, Christians would still judge homosexuality as a sin (and in the most blatant insult here, equivalent to drug addicts, prostitutes and sex maniacs).

Homosexuality is already considered normal by the general medical opinion by which most people already know about, in fact researchers are already studying on the specifications of homosexuality, for example a recent study on homosexuals with maths (I do not dare tell you the result though... :)).

Just like the general science consensus in regards to the earth. Do we still want to be stuck in the old times of the Bible where then it is mentioned the earth is flat and the sun revolves around it? If we do not open our minds to see what is outside in the world, but still seek to shelter ourselves in the church and be educated only within four walls, how are we as a society ever going to grow?

Homosexuality is not about changing as much as heterosexuality is not. It is love. Just shared among two consensual same sex adults. That is all.

And by implying homosexuals are equivalent to vices? Excuse me; but are not drug addicts, prostitutes and sex maniacs, mostly heterosexual? So why equate them that way?

Even the mention of the 'sin', it is really getting tiring. Just why the incredible focus on this when it is only vaguely mentioned in the Bible, but ignore other sins that resound by thousands of verses?

Would you have a couselling centre for liars? A reparative therapy program for divorcees? A new diet plan that does not include raw meat? Even a new ruling by the government not to allow woman to speak?

And having said that, just when did the Bible said it is a sin ever so clearly, except after the 1950's the word was placed in the Bible by us human beings? And as big as a sin as we judge it to be, Christ Our Saviour still said nothing.

I think it is time to put this matter to rest. No one would bother to comment except if someone still attempts to judge and would not leave it alone. After all, I do not think most people would be bothered what happens within a bedroom. Most of us would not pry and judge what happens in two heterosexual's bedroom, would we? After all, 'unnatural' oral sex still applies to heterosexuals... so should we still want to play God?
31. 2007-05-29 01:00  
well i hope my friend gets the answers he seeks out from your reply... anyway i was just curious abt the following text...

"And having said that, just when did the Bible said it is a sin ever so clearly, except after the 1950's the word was placed in the Bible by us human beings? And as big as a sin as we judge it to be, Christ Our Saviour still said nothing."

what exactly do u mean by the word was placed in the bible? are you trying to say that us mortal beings can edit the text in the bible as we see fits or as per changing times? do correct me if i am wrong. and i apologise for my ignorance...

32. 2007-05-29 01:32  
To know all about what could influence the Bible as it is inspired by God and later corrupted by Men ... you have to go back to 350AD during the Watershed of Nisea, then learn about the Roman Catholic church and the PROTEST-ants, the wars... all up to todays Christian Left (Democrats) and Christian Right (Republicans) in the good old US of A....

The topic of the accuracy of the Bible itself, I believe, should be the most important topic ever to befall the Christian mankind for discussion, not people's human attraction, do you not think so? Bye Bye. : )
33. 2007-05-29 18:48  
Hi all,
Read your comments. The fact is why is everyone so busy giving thier own interpretation of the bible. The bible is the very breath of God, the living word of God, the bread of life.. Just believe and follow and do not give suggestions of your own interpretation. The bible is very easy to understand especially when the bible says that it is a sin and do not do it example if one who are living in the homosexual lifestyle. The bible clearly says it is a sin. Just face the fact and live with it. Its either you follow the bible or you don't but don't try to use your own intellect to interpret the bible your own way to suit your own believes. The bible is direct, you either believe and live by it or you don't. Thats it, it is very simple.... Why make yourself so confuse..
To my experience, the bible is the best manual for a person who is tryin to search for answers. its there no need to think too much

34. 2007-05-29 23:09  
As you said sister Helga,

"Just believe and follow and do not give suggestions of your own interpretation. The bible is very easy to understand especially when the bible says that it is a sin and do not do it example if one who are living in the homosexual lifestyle. The bible clearly says it is a sin. Just face the fact and live with it."

The Bible clearly says the earth is flat and the sun revolves around it:

Psalm 93:1
Psalm 96:10
Psalm 104:5
Chronicles 16:30
Ecclesiastes 1:5
Psalm 104:5

The Bible clearly says (very blatantly) that slavery is a positive "lifestyle" to follow, commanded by God for both masters and slaves (and children) again and again, all across Genesis to Revelations:

Genesis 9
Genesis 12
Genesis 16
Genesis 24
Genesis 26
Exodus 21:
Joshua 9:23
1 Kings 8:2,6
1 Kings 9:20-21
2 Kings 4:1
Job 1:15-17
Job 3:19
Job 4:18
Job 7:2
Job 31:13
Job 42:8
Isaiah 50:1
1 Peter 2:18-20
1 Timothy 6:1
Ephisians 6:5-6
Luke 12:47
Revelations 6:15
Revelations 13:16
Revelations 18:13
Revelations 19:18

"The bible is direct, you either believe and live by it or you don't. Thats it, it is very simple.... Why make yourself so confuse..

To my experience, the bible is the best manual for a person who is tryin to search for answers. its there no need to think too much"

I could not agree with you more. God bless.
35. 2007-05-29 23:25  
I said,

"If we do not open our minds to see what is outside in the world, but still seek to shelter ourselves in the church and be educated only within four walls, how are we as a society ever going to grow?"

"The topic of the accuracy of the Bible itself, I believe, should be the most important topic ever to befall the Christian mankind for discussion, not people's human attraction, do you not think so? Bye Bye. : )"

To those I may have caused to stumble, let me share this. Why am I still reading the Bible and having faith in Christ in the midst of the Book being translated by value systems and politics?

Because whether we like it or not, the Holy Bible is the loudest voice from God we got in these end times. With it, I experienced much in my life in my walk. I do not wish to say more and comment more in this space. I believe everyone here has trained minds, and can anaylse while thinking intellectually, objectively, and not subjectively and not based on personal values.

Like one of the speakers of the above seminary said, not to make this into an issue, because there are people involved. Reconciliating the reality of the world with our faith is of most importance.

Please log in to use this feature.


This article was recently read by

Select News Edition

Featured Profiles

Now ALL members can view unlimited profiles!


View this page in a different language:

Like Us on Facebook


 ILGA Asia - Fridae partner for LGBT rights in Asia IGLHRC - Fridae Partner for LGBT rights in Asia