Tag: Christians

Beri Sokongan Kepada Wear White!

Gereja-gereja di Singapura akan pakai putih atau Wear White pada 13 Jun 2015 ini sebagai simbol tidak setuju mereka terhadap acara perhimpunan tahunan yang mempromosikan gayahidup kaum Sodom di Singapura.

Mereka sebulat suara akan memakai putih pada tarikh tersebut, sepertimana yang mereka lakukan pada tahun lepas secara besar-besaran. Inilah cara mereka menyuarakan keperihatinan mereka terhadap gejala negatif dengan cara aman, iaitu dengan hanya memakai putih.

Wear White ini sebenarnya bermula dari Wearwhite yang dipelopori masyarakat Islam tahun lepas apabila acara tahunan kaum Sodom itu bertembung dengan malam 1 Ramadhan. Tahun lepas, Wearwhite ini hanya menggalakkan Muslim untuk memakai pakaian putih pada malam 1 Ramadhan sebagai kesucian untuk Kembali Kepada Fitrah dan tidak menyokong acara yang mempromosikan gayahidup kaum Sodom. Golongan Kristian memberi sokongan kuat lagi padu dengan mereka memakai pakaian serba putih pada hari Sabtu (petang 1 Ramadhan) dan Ahad (1 Ramadhan) apabila mereka ke gereja masing-masing.

Golongan Kristian tahun ini meneruskan Wearwhite tahun ini dengan mengenakan pakaian serba putih pada hari acara mempromosikan gayahidup kaum Sodom dijalankan sebagai cara mereka menyuarakan keperihatinan mereka secara aman. Dan mereka pun sudah persiapan awal untuk menggalakkan anggota setiap gereja untuk Wearwhite pada hari tersebut.

Source: Mohd Khair

June 3, 2015
The Gay Revival

I’m going to address some very controversial topics today. If you have trouble with God moving outside your comfort zone, you may not want to read this article. I’m serious: be careful! This may push your buttons.

We’re going to talk about homosexual Christians, LGBT [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender] Christians.

The Bible is clear, Old Testament and New: homosexual behavior is sinful behavior. Since we’re talking about Christians, we could go on about how there are loads of sins that we overlook in the church, while we call out certain others, but that hypocrisy is another topic for another day.

One day, years ago, I was with a small group, praying for some folks we knew that were stuck in homosexuality. It was one of those prayer gatherings where you just know that God is hearing your prayers, even as he’s helping to shape them and encourage us in them.

In the midst of that, I had a vision: tens of thousands of people in the homosexual community were encountering Jesus. It was a huge movement, and God was in their midst. They were worshiping powerfully, and God was delighting in their praise. There were signs and wonders. Many were in tears, some because of His love, some because of their sin, but it wasn’t always the sin I had my own eyes on that they were convicted of. It was a genuine revival.

I began to praise God for that revival, for the many sons and daughters that were coming back to their Father, and as I did, the vision became even more real: I was in their midst as they were worshiping God.

And then I realized: they weren’t – most of them weren’t – leaving their culture. Nearly all of them stayed in the homosexual community, and a very large number of them didn’t appear to repent of their homosexual ways.

I began to react to that: That’s not right, I said in my mind. Father began to gently instruct me in this vision:

1)         When he calls people to himself, he does not call them to leave their culture. American Church Culture is not our goal. Relationship with Jesus is the goal. Hmm. OK. That’s true enough.

2)         When he finally got ahold of my life (after a longer fight than it should have been), I was not sin-free. There were several sins that he took decades to put his finger on. In fact, He said, There are some things I haven’t pointed out to you even yet. Yikes.

But it’s true. If he didn’t point out– and by pointing out, give me grace to deal with – some of my sins for decades, why should I expect him to be less patient with other sons and daughters?

3)         And son, he said so very gently: these are my children, not yours. I am their Father, you are not. I am capable of raising My own children without your getting in their way.

Since that experience, I’ve received a few reports that it’s beginning to happen, that substantial numbers of people inside the LGBT community are discovering the Lover of their Souls!

I have received credible testimony from different people in different streams that tell me about the revival that is going on among the homosexual population. (At their request, and for their safety, I will not be releasing their identities. Some people do not respond well when God moves outside their box.)

These people have been among gatherings of gay believers – we might call them church meetings or conferences – where the worship is powerful, where the Holy Spirit is present, where signs and wonders are in abundance, where Jesus is lifted up high. They have recognized God’s favor on the gatherings, and experienced His delight in them.

I have met believers who are homosexuals. Some appear to be your basic, timid churchgoers, some flaming transsexuals proclaiming the gospel to their community. Some are content with their homosexuality; some want out but don’t know how; some are proud of their status, though these seem to be the ones who’ve taken the brunt of the church’s accusations.

I’ve said all this to arrive at this conclusion: God is moving powerfully in ways that we never expected. And hold on to your hats, because he has more than this that he’s going to do.

So how shall we respond to homosexuals that call themselves Christians? That’s simple: we love them. Just like we’re called to love self-righteous people who call themselves Christians.

We surely have no right to challenge the faith of either group, and nearly always, we lack the right to challenge either their behavior or their culture. But we have the right to love them.

Let’s love one another, as Jesus commanded us, shall we? And let’s trust our good Father to raise His children well.

Source: www.pilgrimgram.com

May 30, 2015
Amos Yee: Christians Against Pink Dot Don’t Know What They Believe In

So in lieu of the upcoming event that is Pink Dot, fundamentalist Christian cunts have gone onto Facebook and tried to hope for the worst possible things to happen on that day, huge rainstorms, Jesus to open their eyes to their horrid sexual orientation, pray the gay away, as they say, the assonance is remarkable.

So let’s imagine, that we are in some kind of alternate reality, and all the bullshit in the Christian bible is for real.

And if that’s the case, then yes, we should condemn all the fucking gays and lesbian demons from ever having existed, those unnatural homosexual spawns of satan:

‘If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. -Leviticus 20:13

However, later on in the bible, God also tells us to:

Not wear clothes of mixed fabric:

‘Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.’ -Deuteronomy 22:11

To hate our families:

If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. -Luke 14:26

And in all circumstances, not to save money:

‘Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal’
– Matthew 6:19

So which verses do I follow? Oh my gosh I’m so confused. I mean the priest obviously takes and saves a lot of money, that church seems really fucking big.

As an Athiest,I have the luxury of not having to deal with all this shit, but for Christians, you guys must be stressed as fuck, which words of God do you follow? You guys aren’t following the words of god aren’t you, you’re just following whatever the hell you guys want and saying that it’s the word of God.

Ah hah, I got you there Christians, you can’t fucking hide from me.

Source: Amos Yee

May 25, 2015
Shyam Anand Singh: Logic And Empathy Should Guide LGBT Discourse

I refer to Mr Walid Jumblatt Abdullah’s letter “Don’t let secular fundamentalism be the norm” (May 15), and Mr Hairol Salim’s letter “Efforts of Pink Dot ambassadors should be lauded, not condemned” (May 13).

Although I agree that each of us possesses a unique code of values that conditions our moral beliefs, I contend that Mr Jumblatt has misinterpreted the context of Mr Hairol’s letter, which does not state that all religious beliefs are based on emotions.

Mr Hairol’s statement about not letting religious-driven emotions cloud our judgment was made in relation to personal attacks on Pink Dot ambassadors based on their religious affiliations, and was not a wider critique of the state’s secular principles.

Despite the fact that religious mores play a role in societal discourse, it is critical to distinguish between ideas rooted in logic and sentiments based on emotions, especially when discussing an issue as complex as LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) rights.

Given that religious doctrine has traditionally been wielded over centuries as a tool of persecution, it is vital to underscore that religious-driven emotions can often double as hate speech against LGBT individuals.

This is distinct from religious perspectives grounded in logical thinking. While the line between the two may be thin, the former has a tendency to vilify the self-worth of sexual minorities.

Religious views guided by logic, conversely, facilitate dialogue with a greater degree of self-reflexivity and openness to accommodating alternative notions of sexuality.

Such an approach would benefit religious sexual minorities facing difficulties reconciling their sexual orientation with their faith.

Often, these individuals encounter double discrimination: From religious groups for their sexual orientation and from segments of the LGBT community for their religious convictions.

Ensuring that religious perspectives refrain from mischaracterising homosexuality as a moral hazard would aid in the personal and social struggles of LGBTs, religious or otherwise.

Exercising logic and better empathising with the struggles of sexual minorities would therefore be a positive reflection on the progressiveness of our public discourse and be a harbinger for a more inclusive society.

*This article written by Shyam Anand Singh, was published in Voices, Today, dated 19 May 2015

Source: www.todayonline.com

May 19, 2015
Muhammad Fadli Mohammed Fawzi: Religion-based Ideas In Public Sphere Must Face Scrutiny

The writer of “Don’t let secular fundamentalism be the norm” (May 15) makes a simplistic argument for the unqualified acceptance and veracity of ideas based on religious or moral convictions in the public domain.

While we can accept that religious sentiments have a role to play in public discourse, this does not mean that all views based on religion or morality are therefore legitimate and deserving of consideration.

First, to play a constructive role, religious claims must be transparent and not be hidden behind vague assertions of common good, public interest or family values. Second, religion-based views must be subjected to the same analytical rigour and scepticism we extend to non-religious claims.

The writer seems to agree that any value, religious or otherwise, “must be open to scrutiny and critiques once they enter the public domain”. This is often difficult, however, since many of the proponents of religion-based views would allege offence against their faith when these views are criticised.

Third, we should distinguish between making a religiously inspired contribution to public discourse and simply making a religious demand.

For example, the former involves articulating support for certain policies in line with one’s religious convictions but simultaneously being cognisant enough to offer other public reasons in support of said policies.

These public reasons are those that people from different faiths and backgrounds could endorse, whereas making a religious demand limits itself to translating religious dictates into public policy demands.

Such demands are generally articulated in a non-negotiable manner and usually seek to confine the scope of freedom for others. This approach impedes further conversation and can potentially be divisive.

The role of religion in the public sphere is indispensable. Many progressive causes in history, such as the abolitionist and civil rights movements, have been spurred by religion.

We should also realise, however, that not all religious views are legitimate for public discourse, even if religion is dear to many people.

It is thus simplistic to rail against “secular fundamentalism” when the greater danger comes from those trying to narrow public space and conversation with their religious demands.

This article written by Muhammad Fadli Mohammed Fawzi, was published in Voices, Today, dated 19 May 2015.

Source: www.todayonline.com

May 19, 2015