To Condemn City Harvest Leaders or Not

Recent reduced sentence for City Harvest caused quite a stir. NewNation published an article on 9th April 2017 titled "No Highly Religious S'porean Condemn 6 City Harvest Leaders for Going to Jail". A commentor said "The leaders of our conservative religious leaders do not know what to say...".

On a FB share on the above report, I commented that "Other religious (faith) leaders will refrain from condemning to preserve religious harmony. Christians do not condemn (John 8:11). Indeed there is no one who condemn."

The topic is actually whether to condemn the church leaders. John 8:11 is a typical verse on the topics of condemnation. However, the story is about Scribes and Pharisees trying to trap Jesus. Jesus said "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her". After all have left, he then confronts the real issue person to person - the sin committed by the woman.

John 8:11 is the very verse that is applicable to the NewNation article for Christians. Why must we condemn people in public? Gal 6:1 says "You who live by the Spirit should restore that person gently".  Matt 18:15-17 starts with "if your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you". 1 Tim 5:20 fits the description of Mat 18:17 but not before other previous measures (vs 15-16) is done. James t:19 says the same thing as Gal 6:1.

Forgiving is better than condemning. 2 Cor 2:7. "so you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him". Luke 17:3-4 puts forgiving even further.

Ultimately, if a person refuses to listen, Matt 18:17 should be used rather than condemnation. 2 Thess 3:14 says the same thing. However, that is not the end of the story. Eph 4:32 say to forgive. 2 Cor 2:6-7 also says "forgive".

Boycott the Earth Hour Stunt?

Read the article "If you really care about climate change, you should boycott the ridiculous Earth Hour stunt" on "Independent" by Adam McGibbon.

He thinks that "Earth Hour" is a stunt. It is a stunt. It is a drive that bring the awareness of climatic changes to the public. The aim is not to actually make an effort to reduce the climatic change effect during the hour. It is just as a "symbol" (according to Wikipedia). Without the mass drive, many don't even get to be aware of such efforts without WWF drive.

I have not heard of the author or his activities before. He might be doing a great job to bring awareness on his part. However, his effort is limited to what he can do. Whatever he is doing has not reach to my end of the world yet. At least WWF is driving towards general awareness worldwide. Both are doing something towards bringing awareness of climatic change to the people. Why try to discredit what WWF is doing?

In is article he said "just 90 of the world's largest companies are responsible for 2/3 of all carbon emissions." What can he do to stop these companies? Isn't that the companies produced based on demand? Without bringing awareness to the general public, small bands of environmentalists could not even touch them.  

Let's just work on climatic change reduction in each's own way without trying to discredit other's effort.