Thursday, October 15, 2009

Lessons in Logic 101

We can derive precious lessons in informal logic by perusing the illogical statements and “arguments” of the venerable Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong.

As the readers would have known, there is a little debate occurring between Chew and Ming Liang at the Credo 500 website.

While the storm brews and darkness befalls the tiny island of Singapore, the titter of a sniggering Chew could be heard resounding through the corridors of a particular residential estate. As Chew sets out to “tear down” poor little Ming Liang, Chew pompously (and superciliously) announced:

Chew: “However, the Bible and its truth stand over and against your reasoning. I will now deconstruct your entire argument.” [thunder and lightning]

Narrator: I never knew Derrida’s method of “deconstruction” is such illogical child’s play. Derrida must be rolling in his grave. Let us enjoy the fun that follows.

In the ongoing debate over at Credo 500, Chew began his attack by making a bare assertion:

Chew asserts: "God however escapes moral culpability because sin and sinful actions are not directly caused by Him, but are caused by secondary agents under His control." [audience gasped in awe]

Narrator: Here, Chew insists that God “escapes moral culpability because sin and sinful actions are not directly caused by Him.” So, as any logical fellow would, Ming Liang asked for an argument for Daniel’s bare assertion. The burden of proof falls upon him who makes the claim.

So Ming Liang asked: “Why is it so that God “escapes moral culpability” just because evil are (allegedly) not directly caused by Him?”

Narrator: It follows that Chew commits a classic logical fallacy - shifting the burden of proof.

Chew snapped: “Why is it that God does not escape moral culpability just because evil is not directly caused by him?” [audience gasped further]

Narrator: It’s like the following (silly) debate between Tom and Jerry:

Tom: God exists.
Jerry: Prove that He does.
Tom: Prove that He doesn’t.

In conjunction with the above bare assertion (a logical fallacy as well) by Chew, Ming Liang asked, “Is evil (all kinds of evil?) not directly caused by God? What is your argument for this?” This is a reasonable question since Chew asserts that evil is not directly caused by God. Instead of arguing for his point, Chew repeats the same fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

Chew: “What is your argument for the contrary? How do you know either way?” [more lightning and thunder]

Narrator: But Ming Liang does not need to argue for “the contrary,” as Chew is the one arguing for the proposition that P = “God escapes moral culpability because sin and sinful actions [or evil] are not directly caused by Him.”

As an analogy:

Chew: “You are an idiot.”
Jason: “Why is it that I am an idiot?”
Chew: “Why is it that you are not an idiot?”

Narrator: It’s clear here who truly is the idiot – the one who couldn’t even conjure up a single argument for his proposition that P. P is still a bare assertion. There’s no way a sane, logical fellow can argue with dunderheads like Chew. In like manner, he’ll probably claim that a flying omnipotent earthworm Jim exists, and demands that you prove why a flying omnipotent earthworm Jim doesn’t exist (which is called proving the negative and shifting the burden of proof).

Chew claimed: “I was not trying to explain evil, but to give a viable philosophical explanation of how God can be the ultimate cause but not the author of sin.” [in the tune of Massenet’s Meditation from Thais]

Then Ming Liang asks a very simple question to clarify Daniel’s point, “What kind of evil are you referring to in “I was not trying to explain evil …’”?

Chew answered: “Precisely the point that I am not trying to explain why evil exists. I am only trying to explain how it exists given the axioms of Scripture.” [audience gasp in wonder]

Narrator: Chew doesn’t even seem to understand basic English. Poor Ming Liang asked “what kind of evil [was Daniel] referring to.” It’s really a simple question. But Chew ignored the question, and “argued” for something that wasn’t even asked in the first place, thereby committing the fallacy of ignoratio elenchi or an irrelevant conclusion.

It’s like this scenario:

Chew: “I like ice cream.”
Ming Liang: “What kind of ice cream are you referring to?”
Chew: “Precisely the point that I am not trying to explain why ice cream exists. I am only trying to explain how it exists given the axioms of Scripture.”

Narrator: What do you folks call this kind of debater – mentally challenged?

Ming Liang asked, “You referred to moral evil in “sin and sinful actions.” But does God escape moral culpability for metaphysical evil and physical evil? If so, why?”

Chew replied: “First of, upon what basis is evil defined as "evil". Secondly, why must God be culpable for "metaphysical evil and physical evil"?”

Narrator: Chew’s question (in reply to a question) is really amazing. As a Christian who exhorts sinners to do good and to eschew evil, he doesn’t even know what is the “basis” by which evil is defined! I thought he had the Bible, and I thought he would have at least said that the basis for the definition of evil is the Bible. But lo and behold, how can we trust such a “Christian” man to teach good and evil? He would perhaps even confuse good with evil! Chew’s other question, “Why must God be culpable for "metaphysical evil and physical evil," is merely his attempt to push his bare assertion further – without any argument whatsoever – simply by rephrasing that P. This shifts the burden of proof again, and saves his ignorance by rephrasing a question in the negative.

Chew: “God is not culpable for evil (which includes metaphysical evil and physical evil).”

Jason: “Why is God not culpable for evil (which includes metaphysical evil and physical evil)?”

Chew: “Why must God be culpable for "metaphysical evil and physical evil?"

Narrator: That “logic” and “argument” would surely earn him an honors in the BA in philosophy for chowderheads.

Ming Liang asked: “If God is the ultimate cause of all things, and if all things include evil, God is the ultimate cause of evil. Do you agree/disagree with this? If so, why?”

Narrator: It is clear that the arguments are already stated in the above sentence syllogistically:

P1 = God is the ultimate cause of all things.
P2 = All things include evil.
C = So God is the ultimate cause of evil. (Conclusion)

Instead of challenging the major and/or minor premises, and/or the validity of the syllogism, Chew – who is well versed in [the lack of] logic – answered:

Chew: “No, I disagree. Please elucidate the arguments for saying so.”

Narrator: Excuse me, Mr Chew. The arguments are already “elucidated” in the form of a syllogism in Ming Liang’s question. Chew apparently doesn’t even recognize the most basic of all logical arguments – syllogistic reasoning. I think a mutated monkey would disagree with Ming Liang in almost the same manner as Chew.

Monkey: “No, I disagree. But I don’t recognize your arguments or why I even disagree.”

Ming Liang wrote: “I’m sorry, but I believe you’re trying to convince me with circular reasoning i.e. we know that P (e.g. P=God is Good; God is sovereign etc) because the Bible says so; we know that the Bible is true because God inspired it (and God cannot lie); we know that God inspired the Bible (and God cannot lie) because the Bible says so. Hence, a circulus in probando … yeah right. Your direction of reasoning is illogical.”

Chew answered: “Logic, as Jason as said, is the manner of reasoning. It is nonsensical to say that a "direction of reasoning" is illogical.

Narrator: I guess we can all see why Chew’s reasoning is illogical. See all of the above logical fallacies.

Chew continued: “In fact, talking about circular reasoning, yours is also circular. After all, why it is that your axiom of the rightness of your moral sense is to be trusted?”

Narrator: This is truly an amazingly fatuous question from Chew. Ming Liang hasn’t even mentioned a single “axiom” of “the rightness of [his] moral sense,” and Chew somehow purports to know what Ming Liang believes in!

But don’t we all know how Chew utilizes bare assertions all the time to answer questions or to “argue” with those whom he disagrees with?

Chew said: “Since God hold [sic] all responsible for the actions they themselves do, therefore God cannot be the direct author of evil.”

Ming Liang replied: “The Bible claiming that “God [does] hold all responsible for the actions they themselves do” doesn’t mean that this ought to be the case. What if God shouldn’t have held them responsible i.e. **gasp** the Bible is actually incorrect here, or that your interpretation of the Bible is incorrect here, or there’s a mistake in your version, or … etc (e.g. Calvinists even believe that God actually made some humans unto destruction for His glory, depriving reprobates of effectual and particular grace, and these cannot choose otherwise etc)? The Is-Ought distinction must be clearly argued for, not merely asserted (is-ought fallacy plus bare assertion, yeah right).”

Narrator: Ming Liang tried to reason with Chew that he had committed the is-ought fallacy (which is, of course, another logical fallacy). But Chew replied:

Chew: “Sorry, you do not seem to understand what you [sic] talking about. I argue based upon what IS and OUGHT to be based upon the axiom of Scripture. Unlike you, who only argue based upon what IS.”

Narrator: That is again another amazingly fatuous statement! First of all, we haven’t seen a single argument from Chew; at a minimum, “arguments consist of one or more premises and a conclusion.” What premises, conclusions, and valid logical forms had Chew offered thus far? None. We have only seen bare assertions and logical fallacies all throughout Chew’s replies.

Ming Liang had previously tried to explain that, probably as a non-Christian himself, he didn’t accept Scripture to be divine revelation, and Daniel’s replies thus far had been based upon circular reasoning.

Ming Liang explained: “I’m sorry, but I believe you’re trying to convince me with circular reasoning i.e. we know that P (e.g. P=God is Good; God is sovereign etc) because the Bible says so; we know that the Bible is true because God inspired it (and God cannot lie); we know that God inspired the Bible (and God cannot lie) because the Bible says so. Hence, a circulus in probando.”

Narrator: But Chew here persists in his circular reasoning, and it is viciously circular indeed!

Chew: “I argue based upon what IS and OUGHT to be based upon the axiom of Scripture.”

Narrator: And hence, Chew finds circles coherent within his frame of mind and “logic”. [in the tune of Legrand’s Windmills of the Mind]

Lacking a definite argument for his bare assertion that P (where P = “God escapes moral culpability because sin and sinful actions [or evil] are not directly caused by Him”), Chew repeats the same formula of success – shifting the burden of proof.

Chew wrote: “Since God is sovereign, evil must be under His control. The only way IMO that the two can be put together consistently is that evil is indirectly caused by God.”

Ming Liang replied: “Here you acquiesce that “evil is indirectly caused by God.” GIVEN [emphasis here to emphasize that this is given to you, and not that I agree with you] that God is the indirect cause (and indeed, the ultimate cause) of evil, how would you argue from that fact (?fact) that He is not morally culpable?

Narrator: Here, Ming Liang is simply asking for Daniel Chew to argue his case that P. Notice that Ming Liang thus far is examining Chew’s beliefs via questions; Ming Liang never asserted any proposition.

But Chew predictably replied: “How can you argue that God is morally culpable for sin even if he is the ultimate cause of it? Prove your bare assertion.”

Narrator: Once again, he shifts the burden of proof by rephrasing the question in the negative, and asserts that Ming Liang made a bare assertion. Where is this “bare assertion” by Ming Liang, pray tell?

That would certainly earn Chew a Masters in Philosophy for chowderheads.

A hypocrite in the making

Chew: “As stated earlier, your epistemic direction is wrong. We must start off with the axioms of Scripture, then seek to understand how they logically cohere. We are not to start with our own autonomous human reasoning and question the teachings of Scripture.”

Ming Liang replied: “As stated earlier, your epistemic direction is wrong. We mustn’t start off with circular reasoning, and then seek to understand how “circles” logically cohere. We should not be afraid to use reason and logic. Isn’t it hypocritical if we must first use reason and logic to understand or to interpret scripture (how else would you understand scripture or derive these “axioms”?), then turn around and say that we should start from scripture, and not from “autonomous human reasoning”?”

Narrator: Ming Liang here tried to explain that, since Chew had started with “autonomous human reasoning” and logic in order to understand the writings, axioms and propositions of Scripture, it is really hypocritical to alleged that “we are not to start with our own autonomous human reasoning …”.

But apparently, Chew failed to see that fact.

Chew replied: “And of course, your own circular reasoning is off-topic for discussion, I presume. Aren't you doing the same, except instead of Scripture, you substitute your own moral sense?”

Narrator: My point is – what “circular reasoning” had Ming Liang committed thus far? None. But desperate times call for desperate measures. Chew had no choice, but to “save face” by making up allegations against his opponents. Or was he hallucinating or hearing voices in his head?

More importantly, Chew commits a classic tu quoque fallacy. Instead of defending himself from Ming Liang's allegation (of Chew's circular reasoning from Scripture), he accuses Ming Liang of the same. Worse, Ming Liang really did not commit the fallacy of circulus in probando.

Chew closes off the discussion with a classic ad hominem fallacy – poisoning the well.

Chew: “Yea, right. Tell him (or is it you) to make more sense, instead of talking rubbish. And btw, don't expect to go to AT's slanderous and blasphemous site.” [background music: Psycho]

Narrator: Is Antithesis’ blog really slanderous and blasphemous? Please check out the facts for yourselves, dear readers.

The truth hurts, doesn’t it?

When Chew has no arguments for his bare assertions, he commits logical fallacies one after another in order to appear erudite and scholarly.

Well, at least he deserves a Masters in Philosophy.

For chowderheads, that is.


Anonymous said...


Daniel should really learn to shut up when he has nothing to contribute. The harder he tries, the worse it gets.

Didn't he learn basic informal logic in junior college? Even my young niece is taking KI (i.e. knowledge and inquiry, a basic philosophy subject which includes logic) for A levels.

Maybe Chew can go back to his junior college and take KI.


The Heretic said...

I agree that Chew needs a supervised course in basic logic. One might benefit from a teacher when one's mind finds it hard to understand basic concepts from an undergraduate text.

Self-study can only do so much.

Quah said...

Hi AT and Heretic,

Did you saw Daniel wrote what today? Wah laoh eh, egghead cannot argue still wan to buay song!

He written “If not for the grace of God, all of us would be 10 times worse a blasphemer than AT.”

Guess what? To Watchman Daniel Chew, all who disagrees with him are “blasphemers.” It is seebeh obvious that he think he is GOD. Whoa laoh eh!

Anonymous said...

I have never seen a person like Daniel Chew Huicong.

A stupid person knows not and knows that he knows not.

A FOOL knows not and knows not that he knows not.

Ming Liang said...

That Daniel Chew deleted all my replies and comments to him.

AT, you are so right about Chew. When he couldn't answer you, he will just delete the replies.


That's how a bigot does his job. And all my replies were cordial, without any vulgarities, rudeness, or hatred.

A man of such a lack of integrity and honesty like Chew shouldn't even be allowed to participate in a "Christian" conference.

It is truly a shame to his religion.

Tom O'Hare said...

I really find it sad that Daniel took the expose of his fallacies as a personal attack on his character.

He should simply admit his mistakes and errors, brush up his logic, and move on. But perhaps he had been pampered so much by his fellow bloggers - who pat him on the back and tell him all is well - to the extent of loosing his sense of self-evaluation and self-awareness.

To call a critique of his post "cyber-bullying" or "outrageous and libelous comments" is really self-deception and ultimately, a denial of logic and reason.

See his comments here:

Tom O'Hare

Antithesis said...

Dear Tom,

Welcome to my blog! I enjoyed Heretic’s latest post; it is so heartening to see a self-conceited hypocrite exposed for who he truly is.

Well, Daniel is just the leading exemplar of self-deluded, prideful hypocrites, and this dump is simply a poke at such non-thinking dunces. The way a debate goes for Daniel had always been the same:

-If you quote the Bible, he’ll say that only his interpretation is correct, and yours is wrong with no exegesis whatsoever.
-If you do not quote the Bible, he’ll claim that you are an unsaved son of Satan who uses reason and logic.
-When he uses his brand of reason and logic, he’ll accuse you of “blasphemies” and cyber-bullying” when you expose his logical fallacies.
-When you do use reason and logic to expose him, he’ll delete your comments.

Look at the first series of posts in this blog; it has been predictably amusing to see his antics.

Well, Tom, do romp around a little longer. You are always welcomed here.

Anonymous said...


Check this out!

Chew is a sick puppy!

Tom O'Hare said...

A fool always finds a greater fool to admire him.
~ ~ ~ Nicholas Boileau

That is why Daniel Chew has his followers. ;)

Ron Hodgman said...

I detect that you have had the same misfortune as myself to come to know about Daniel Chew.

Naturally someone with his talent is a contributing editor to the great CRN.Net (Christians too lazy to do Research Network so we make up stories like the National Enquirer does and post gossip on Christians we don't like to get Goggle traffic to our blogs.).

I thank God that he has forgotten about me but if you keep posting weblinks to my blog; he may remember me and come back.

I believe he was taught logic by the great Robert Morey which appears to explain his inability to do a logical argument. Stephen Macasil who is one of Daniel Chews few friends is also a student of Robert Morey and suffers the same problem of not being able to do logical arguments. He also censors persons on his Biblical Thought blog and he is a contributing author to CRN.Net too.

A very interesting blog. Someone posted a link to this blog on my blog after noting that I had been attacked by Daniel Chew. He really is a very poor apologetic person as is Stephen Macasil too. Fortunately the future of Christianity doesn't depend upon the apologetics ministry of Daniel Chew and Stephen Macasil.

An observer said...

Oh dear Ron,

It would be an honor if Chew were to attack you; after all, one ought to be prominent enough for Chew to blog about IN ORDER to generate the required google traffic to his blog. ;)

That also explains why he fails so terribly at logic. The blind leading the blind ... heh heh heh.

The future of Christianity doesn't depend upon the "apologetics" ministry of Daniel Chew and Stephen Macasil, but the future of dunces does.

After all, how else would dunces show off their folly to the world, except by having fellow dunces blogging about/with them and supporting them.

The only apology their apologetics "ministry" needs to furnish is an apology for their lack of logic.

That would be nice. :)

Ron Hodgman said...

Daniel Chew's problems go beyond his inability to do sound logical arguments.

He claims to be knowledgeable about topics and persons that he is clueless about.

In my situation with him, he made no effort to have a discussion yet alone an argument. It appears as best as I can tell that he believed whatever lies that Stephen Macasil told him about me and simply tossed a red herring argument at me. He took no effort to respond to my valid claim that he had made no effort to deal with the real issues. He claimed that discussing the matter with me was a waste of his valuable time in a posting on the Biblical Thought blog whereas the red herring tossed at me was in a comment on my blog.

Like Stephen Macasil he appears to build strawmen of the persons he doesn't like and takes great joy in burning them. He rarely appears to attack what a person really believes as he is too busy attacking the strawman he has created of the person that he has decided to attack.

I have yet to read all that you have stated about him but I cannot help but notice that he is almost a mirror image of Stephen Macasil per what I have read so far.

Most of my exposure to Daniel Chew is what he has posted on the Biblical Thought blog. He doesn't post much there butlately he has posted more on Biblical Thought than Robert Morey.

I do not believe anything Daniel Chew claims to be true anymore than I have any faith in Stephen Macasil telling the truth. Truth to both persons is whatever they claim to be truth. Robert Morey who appears to be their teacher does the same thing. Circular reasoning, red herrings, and any logical fallacy argument that works in their favor is used. Anyone that uses a logical fallacy argument that doesn't work in their favor is quickly exposed as using bad logic. Anyone that starts winning the argument is suddenly banned from the Biblical Thought blog and postings do sometimes vanish. It is not easy being a perfect student of Robert Morey when persons exist that are smarter than your average Morey-ite.

You have the mission of exposing Daniel Chew and I have the mission of exposing Stephen Macasil. Robert Morey has left California and rumors are he is hiding in Pennsylvania because he fears that the California Secretary of State office may start asking too many questions about his past business dealings.

As far as where Stephen Macasil is now days; there is a rumor he has left California too.

As far as the great "Christian Research Network" that Stephen Macasil and Daniel Chew both are contributing writers; the number of satire blogs making fun of it on the internet is growing.o

Antithesis said...

Dear Ron,

What can I say?

You have said everything there is.

You are added to my blogroll ... ;)

Keep up the good work,

Ron Hodgman said...

I have become a follower of your blog and I added your blog to my blog roll.

Ron Hodgman said...


How is it we have not met sooner as we appear to have the same critics?

I got tired of TartanArmy trying to convert me to his hyper version of Calvinism and told him to get lost. He is by the way another student of Robert Morey. It appears that TartanArmy and Daniel Chew are allies? Loved the way you handled him and I am sure he deserved it.

Tron4JC was another person that TartanArmy kept picking on and he is now one of my Facebook friends. We had a online chat recently about TartanArmy's questionable ethical behavior on EzBoard. Tron4JC by the way is Lutheran.

It appears TartanArmy has not changed since my experience with him on EzBoard many years ago.


Monica C. said...

Tartanarmy is a sinophobic racist; wonder how he got to be a teacher in Australia. Hope he isn't teaching my nieces and nephews ... :D

But it's sure OK if he's teaching ninnies!

A reader said...

Hi AT,

Your fan-base is growing! Excellent post, by the way...

I enjoy your posts because I find that you have something useful to say. Why not broaden out and write something else?

The reader

Ron Hodgman said...

I was under the impression that TartanArmy was in the photography business but I could be wrong. Perhaps he switched into teaching? I got the idea from his email address which was as I recall something like motophoto.

I considered him more of a pest that wouldn't take "no" for an answer. I know that Calvinist don't believe in "free will" but seriously, they do not believe in "decisional regeneration" either.

He was and it appears he still is a rather strange and inconsistent Calvinist who many considered to be a Hyper-Calvinist. I was slow at referring to him as a Hyper-Calvinist.

How many times do I have to say "no" to you TartanArmy before you get a clue that "no" means "no" not "maybe" or "perhaps".

In addition to being a Robert Morey fan he was a hyper fan of James White. I was more into Tim Keller and Greg Bahnsen than James White. One reason I like Mark Driscoll is that he is a radical fan of Tim Keller as I am too. I love John Piper too more than James White. I think that getting too much into James White maybe dangerous and I use TartanArmy as a classic example.

I have yet to figure out if TartanArmy got weird by the teachings of Robert Morey or getting too deep into the teachings of James White. I tend to blame the Robert Morey influence. So any James White fans going to get upset? Really, James White is good if you don't get cultic in being one of his fans like TartanArmy became.

Any ideas that you have as to how TartanArmy got too Hyper in his Calvinism of the Baptist kind I would like to hear if it appears to have merit.

This seems a bit like gossip in an open forum so maybe this is Biblical Thought blog. However, telling the truth is not gossip.

Lately it seems like Stephen Macasil desires to allow Daniel Chew to do the offensive. See Daniel attack Tim Challies with Stephen Macasil's blessing. See Daniel attack Rick Warren with Stephen Macasil's blessing. Lately Stephen Macasil seems like an old war horse too tired to fight so he sends in Daniel Chew. What is amazing is that Daniel Chew charges in where fools may know better to go.

I suppose if Daniel Chew gets tired of the offensive perhaps TartanArmy will take his place if Stephen Macasil still has no desire to lead the charge anymore.

Stephen Macasil's offensive against Tim Keller was a disaster for Stephen Macasil. Stephen Macasil the great debater gets shot down by Stephen Murray before he opens his attack on Tim Keller. Stephen Macasil runs away with this tail between his legs. It sort of seemed like an ambush and it may have been.

I find your postings very interesting .....

William T. said...

Monica, haven't seen Daniel in THAT church for some time. He was visiting Emmaus Evangelical Free Church, and then ...

Whew, saw him lately, Moni?

Anonymous said...

To all who know Daniel Chew personally,

Is he still at Covenant Reformed Evangelical Church or is he a member of some other church?

I would like to know what his elders think of his 'ministry'?

Anonymous said...

He is still at CERC ... but is he also omnipresent :)

You see, he is found at many places, all at the same ... month.

Anonymous said...

To all who know Daniel Chew personally,

Has CERC leaders looked at his blogs and discussed the contents with him?

Or are they in full agreement with Daniel?

Anonymous said...

Cummon' man/woman/girl/boy ...

How is it probable that his pastor hasn't even taken the time to read his blogs?

His participation in the Credo conference (Creating REspect for DOdos) must have his pastor's approval, or at least his tacit agreement. Silence does not equate neutrality (more likely it equate agreement).

Silence is at best ignorance or indifference, which is worse!

He must have his church's total support then! They are probably nurturing him for some position for deified rookies! Haha!

Anonymous said...

Hi AT and gang,

Daniel Chew is talking rots again. :)

Want to give him a smack in the cheek? (hope he turns the other though)

Anonymous said...

Watchman visits a church which is part of the South African Apostolic movement. I though Daniel was Reformed.

Anonymous said...

You mean redemption hill church?

Anonymous said...

My Beloved Silly-Poreans,

I had actually wanted to stop going to the internet because at this age, my eyes are failing me. I actually have to get my granddaughter to check for spelling mistakes. She is the one who installed the pirated WinXP for me. A lovely filial grand-daughter isn't she?

I don't really mind any of you being anti-anything, as long as you don't anti me and anti my government.

It is confusing to have so many different religious analysis. I never knew that religious talk involves logic at all. As you know I am not a religious person but I give you Silly-poreans the freedom to play around with religion. However, it seems to be taking a lot of time away from economic activities in Silly-Pore.

By the way, do you think I am saved? You know some Silly-Pore Christians always try to preach the gospel to me. As the ultimate Watchman of Silly-Pore I have done a lot of great things for Silly-poreans Christians, which I think should be taken into account.

I should be back soon.

Sophia said...

You must be arnold schwarzenegger.

"You'll be back." Yep.

Welcome to this dump, Arnold.

Saved from what?

Which gospel?

Kwan Yew said...

Dear my children,

With the help of my granddaughter, I finally understand the issue of your long debate. Your topic on God allowing evil is an inspiring one. It triggers my thinking and reminds me of the way I have been fixing those people who rebel against me. Let’s put the scenario this way: I act like the God of this great Singapore, and those people who politically rebel against me are like the evil ones. So let me tell you my experience so that you learn something about your Father’s doing and at the same time understand this doctrine you have been wasting so much time debating about and yet have not found an answer.

In general, I will get rid of all evil against me. This is just a matter of time. In practice it does not have to be black and white. There are a few categories. For some evil, I make them self-disappear immediately. For some evil I allow to exist for longer time to show the rest of the world outside of our great nation how generous and tolerant I am. And I also allow some evil to play around for some time and while I do so, I WATCH them like a Watchman. The purpose is to expose more hidden evil, so that I can handle them appropriately.

So, why does God allow evil? Is God morally responsible for evil? Since I act like the God of your nation, the answers to these questions are now very practical and obvious. It should enlighten you about your Father’s art in dealing with rebellion and provide an answer to your longwinded discourse about the doctrine of evil.

G. Bush said...

Dear Kwan Yew,

Do you think I am morally culpable for the sufferings of war?

I planned the war, so that it is inevitable, but the agency of war was the soldiers who actually did the killing. I only allowed it (in fact, I am so powerful I can actually appoint it to be so, and what I foresee would happen cannot happen otherwise, for it is appointed to be so, like the Fall of Iraq). But no, oh no, I didn’t do the killing. The soldiers did. And the first two generals of Iraq freely chose to use the missiles of K.O.G.E. (knowledge of good & evil – a brand name), which resulted in the Fall. But little do they know I planted the K.O.G.E. missiles there (hee hee), and I foresaw they would use those phony missiles.

But hey, I couldn’t help it. What I foresee would come to pass. That’s because I am the big boy who operates from the Pentagon.

Why is America blaming me for their sins?

Kwan Yew said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
G. Bush said...

Dear Kwan Yew,

What about Goldie Selamat? If you are really in control, then Goldie wouldn't land on the other side of the causeway.

Perhaps you are becoming more Open, and hence, have no knowledge of certain issues?

Antithesis said...

Note: I'm sorry Kwan Yew, but your post is edited slightly to avoid problems from the real "one". Do mind your words when posting - we do not want the grand watchman to watch for YOU (we know your IP addy). Bring me some nougat, will you?

The following is Kwan Yew's post dated:

October 27, 2009 4:31 AM

Dear Mr Bush,

You have not even asked the right question. Your biggest problem is that you have a faulty government system. As a result, you cannot control the evil ones who rebel against you and even get kicked out by them. This will not happen to me because I have the right system in place.

Let me illustrate it to you in a simple manner. My government model can be compared to the Christian Trinity model -- Father, Son and Spirit. I am the Father and because I am old, I rule the nation through my Son. But everyone knows I am still the actual ruler. Now, the Spirit is the most important part because this is what makes the system work. My secret police WATCH over every S*'s life so they represent my Spirit that is present everywhere in S*. They know the Watchman is watching. This way, I am in full control of the evil ones in my country. Because of that, I do not have to get rid of every evil immediately. I can allow some evil to exist to accomplish some purpose, as I have said before.

You see, S* is ruled well by the Trinity government model I constructed. So if you ever have a chance to rule again, remember this model and you will be able to control evil.

My children, I never study theology but by reading your blogs I come to realise that all along I have been applying all those doctrines you are discussing about! More and more I discover that that I am a truly born talent and you are really privileged to have such a Father.

John the Baptist (Not Reformed) said...

Repent! Repent!

You need to get saved!

Stop listening to the elements, feng shui, political double entendre etc etc!

Look from $$$ to God.

Repent! Repent!

Lee Kwan Yew said...

Dear George,

As I said, there is no need to eliminate all evil immediately. Why the hurry? I do allow evil to exist and as I have told my children earlier, there are good reasons for that. Some of my decisions might seem counter-intuitive. But it just shows that my ways are higher than your ways and my thoughts are higher than your thoughts. Obviously this is consistent with the characteristic of God and I am the God of my nation.

We do not converse with the dead so don't worry about that call to repent. By the way, thanks for your treat to the exquisite restaurant last time. It was delicious but the meat was a bit too hard for my teeth. Next time when you visit I should let you try the chicken rice here. We can talk more about the superior Asian values, particularly their obedience. I am quite happy with how obedient my children are, except the fact that they are now marrying later and later. Quite a few are still unmarried after reaching 30 because they spend too much time blogging instead of dating. They should take the time to make love and produce more babies. As for retirees like us, we can afford to chat of blogs.

AT, this is the second time you offend your Father. You deleted my comments last time, and edited my comment this time. On account of the fact that you still acknowledge me as the grandwatchman you dare not watch even though you are the watchman of watchmen, I will forgive you this time. Remember that the fake is among the real and the real is among the fake. It takes wisdom to differentiate truly and this wisdom comes with age. So be careful before you find yourself offending the God of your nation.