佚名a / 2008-06-06 14:05:19

耶青講章blog上連結

佚名a / 2008-06-06 13:58:19

耶青講章blog

%E5%85%AC%E5%85%B1%E8%AA%B2%E7%A8%8B

據說裡面是耶穌青年會的講章，我未詳看。blog主以西結以"我們"來談耶青，表示了一些個人意見。連結列表間接承認了"共同體"的存在。

博客引導人-耶穌青年輕鬆做

有鑑於共同體的爭議蔓延，但卻鮮少人看過過相關的講道，雖然多馬在網路上分享了許多事情與看法，但我想儘可能的不帶任何觀點分享我留下來的講道內容，就讓這些寶貴的講道，攤開在陽光底下，讓人來彼此探討，我相信真理是越辨越明，沒有任何的道是不能攤開在陽光下探討，神的道不需要我們去隱藏與保護，神的量帶通遍天下，神的言語傳到地極。

佚名Anonymous / 2008-06-06 13:52:02

切勿被騙

GH 所作所為的惡行，已眾所周知，披著羊皮的狼，請不要再存任何幻想！也不要被人魚目混珠！

讀者 / 2008-06-06 12:32:10

一點點意見

希望GH可以確定兩點：

1.GH的同工有好好參與正統教會得到造就

2.經濟來源明確

大家都無必要針對甘多。睇睇佢地份報紙都無不良的訊息，始終都是值得鼓勵支持的。

Jay / 2008-06-04 10:10:15

Very useful. Thanks to you Hin

Same

Hin / 2008-06-04 06:13:52

This is how poor their ads are

Here are some observations for those who are interested:

On the front page of GH, for church or para-church ads:

For Amercian page, only one ad from abiblecamp,

For Hong Kong page, only one ad from DTS,

For Australia page, only one ad from Morling College,

For Taiwan and Canada, there is no ad at all.

For the directory page:

There is no directory page for Hong Kong and Australia.

For Taiwan page, church and para-church organization are combined into one and there are 18 links.

For Canadian page, there are 6 churches (in which 1 should be out), there are 4 organizations (in which 2 should be out).

For America page, there are 15 churches (6 are from Canada and 9 from USA, 1 of the 6 churches from Canada should be out), there are 10 organizations (in which 4 should be out).

When I said it should be out, meaning that I knew that those churches and organizations have requested GH to remove their link. For others, how many are there without knowing and how many are there because it is free, I don't know but I think GH should know.

If they are depending on ads to maintain, I don't think they could and it is a very unsuccessful business.

Among hundreds of churches and organizations all over the world, that is how effective their ad and directory are at the present moment.

Chan / 2008-06-03 23:00:57

Susanna:請回應華人教會對閣下的公開疑問

Susanna,

當你以真名字公開要求教牧回應時，你這封信就是寫給整体華人教會，要求見證。

從你的信中，你清楚表達：

1) 只要是免費，你有權濫用別人logo;

2) 就算人家反對，沒有每字清清楚楚，疑點利益仍歸於你

3) 沙浸要求除消banner數月，仍不予理會，也沒有問題

4) 你採取法律行動、宣稱顧問有問題，解散顧問团。跟着有411声明，要求斷絕一切交往，仍不是足夠通知

5) 到今天你仍未公佈那位顧問有問題，對所有前顧問不單止不公平，而且無禮

6) 對於公眾合理質疑，包括1,500,000擊點虛報事件，你置若罔聞

7) 還有報告所指出不當理財事件，從不回應

你是否在這次經驗後，應通知所有廣告用户﹖及在未得他人同意下，停止一切未授權廣告？連小孩子都知道，要得到別人同意才可用別人的logo。如果下一次再有人公開要求你停止未授權廣告，不要再說未有溝通。

整個華人基督羣体正等待Susanna Lam 你全面回應以上問題。

Chan

Hin / 2008-06-03 20:17:18

Same old tone, same old argument

I am not encouraging others to go to GH's site, but it is so much fun in reading their comments on their web page.

Everytime they posted a response, there will be many who will respond and the tone and content is basically the same, pretty subjective and sarcastic. Once again, I think they are doing more harm to GH than help.

I think they really need some advisors to help them since they are running out of tricks or ways or methods or approaches to deal with this, they can only use personal attack, sujective judgement, twisting of facts, presentation of partial truth.

After knowing that they are giving out so much free ads, I really wonder how do they survive.

As they said it is not easy to issue a joint announcement between four churches and one organization, how could they coordinate their web pages so well with so little support, again, this is just amazing.

Knowing that Dr. Leung In Sing has asked them to remove his link and joined in the joint declaration with the other four churches, I wonder if GH will take out his articles from their Hong Kong page. I really wonder!

Hin / 2008-06-03 19:33:14

Here comes again

I found the news about Rev. Enoch Lam's meeting on GH. Rev. Enoch Lam has stated with other former advisor that they don't want to have anything to do with GH but GH still reporting his event.

Is it due to their kindness or generosity or is it due to their unwise decisions (I don't want to say stupidity)?

It is like the breakup between a boy and a girl. The boy asked the girl to leave but the girl just refuse to go.

Hin / 2008-06-03 18:55:32

We are observing

I am glad to see GH starts to remove the ads from their directory page now, let's see what happened a month from now. May be the directory page will become a business page only soon of they will "dissolve" the page just as they dissolved the board of directors.

I realized that the way they reported the 525 and 530 are really different. When 525 had 150 people, they said it is "cold cold clear clear" but when they have only less than 10 people in their press conference (Media is not really a Christian news agency ) and only have GH as the media present, they didn't say they are "very very cold cold clear clear" at all.

When the report of 530 is first out, there is no photos, GH had one photo, now, the YD had two photos, still not good since one is just the screen with the words of the meeting on it and then the other one had 5 people in it.

Yes, I did heard that one of the Yeungs and Rev. Wu went but if I were they and seeing so few people there, I won't go in since it will be very confrontational. I also think that they can't go in since they are not representing any Christian media. They went just want to see how it goes and I think they know by now how it goes. No surprises!

Imagine if the 530 is from the other side, imagine how would they report the event!

Beware, we are observing!

Hin / 2008-06-03 18:16:57

About Shatin Baptist Church's ad issue

After reading the comments from both GH, Rev. Zhu and Susanna, here is my observation:

This is from GH:

上述四教會的Logo皆為06年年底便開始刊登，其中，沙浸朱世平牧師更曾於06年12月請求加長刊登時間。大部份廣告免費刊登已有一年半之久，四教會及一機構均未以任何方式聯絡本報，表示要求刪除廣告。直至上週末本報才收到沙浸來函，要求去除Logo。

This is from Susanna:

回應朱世平牧師:

1) 朱牧所指的合約內容針對另一項收費的廣告，不適用於《名錄》服務。當時基督日報提供免費刊登一個月教會名錄廣告(或作LOGO廣告)作為回贈，答謝廣告客戶的支持。而朱牧師獲悉此優惠後，的而且確請求本報加長免費刊登這項《名錄》服務的時間至一年。

2)至於朱牧稱以「跟風」或「撑場」為由下要求把Logo放在名錄上，這一點朱牧在刊登廣告時未有提及，本報也無法求證。然而，朱牧要求免費刊登《名錄》服務由一個月加長至一年則是客觀事實。

3)及4) 朱牧這裏提及的廣告非《名錄》服務。

5) 電郵中未有提及刪除《名錄》Logo之言。

6) 聲明中未有提及刪除《名錄》Logo之言

7) 雖然顧問團中曾有問題顧問作出損害【基督日報】的行動，但本報事奉動機不改，仍然誠然提供宣傳平台事奉眾教會。若有教會或機構認為未需要本宣傳報務，可聯絡本報申明，本報必尊重及配合，無需公開散佈對本報的揣測。

重申，此事原只需溝通便可簡單解決，但未先與本報溝通便公開散佈揣測言論，甚至稱要本報悔改的舉措實為不當，請有關教會機構收回言論，並公開澄清事實。

I think there are two kinds of ads, one is charged ads and one is directory ads. The key is since the directory ads is free of charge (it is not free but free to Shatin Baptist as a result of their charged ad) as a package for the charged ads for Shatin Baptist Church. When Rev. Chu requested to remove the charged ads at the end of the terms, the directory ad should removed at the same time as a package.

Rev. Chu is referring to the extension request about the charged ad and not the directory ad but it seems both charged ad and directory ad are not being removed at the end of the term. The charged ad is removed a few months after the term expired and after Peter reveived the written request from Rev. Chu but the directory ad stays on until this week.

Points 3 and 4 from Rev. Chu:

3. 當刋登廣告合同期快滿，本人已在 07年12月28日通知【基督日報】删除廣告（請参下列電郵）。

4. 但【基督日報】達數月都沒有删除，因此當時本會在【基督日報】之廣告 Banner都是過期數月之廣告，直至再去電 Peter Mak 才刪除。

For Rev. Chu's point 3 and 4, it seems referring to charged ad and not the directory ad. Based on Rev. Chu's wordings, Peter Mak didn't remove the charged ad even after the term is expired. Susanna didn't respond to this but only said that what point 3 and 4 is talking about is not directory ad. The meaning is that she admits that GH didn't remove the ad according to the request of the church.

Susanna's points 5 and 6 insist that the e-mail and statement didn't mentioned about removing the ad from the directory ad page. This is a very weak arguement. Since the deal came as a package, when you remove one, you remove the condition comes with it, I think this is common sense, how can that be a point at all.

If I purchase a car that will offer me lifetime free oil change. When I sold the car to someone else, can I still bring my other car to the dealer and ask for free oil change. It just didn't make sense. The oil change goes with the car as a package.

Also, when the statement of Apirl 1st stated that there should be any information for GH from the church, isn't that obvious that it includes the directory ad page's information. If that page is on GH, then they should remove the information about Shatin Baptist Church, that is again a very obvious point. If I said I don't want to give you anything, that means "anything", I think that is a very simple fact. Shatin Baptist church can't take out the link by themselves but GH needs to remove it from their page.

Regarding Susanna's point 7, I wish it is that easy to remove an ad from GH. I personally knew a few organizations who did that but the ad is still there. Some are being removed from one site but remain on another.

I just checked the American page of GH, I can see that they finally removed the Great Commission Centre but I can still see a few organizations there that I knew they have made the request to remove them from the page. Why is it?

The way GH is doing things and responding to other's questions is not doing them good but rather harm. We are not blind and we can think.

Again, what is the point? Aren't these all very minor things? Again, these all shows the integrity and honesty of GH. Can't we see it clearly now?

Hin / 2008-06-03 17:42:31

Try to see the usual trend of GH

Can't we see the usual "training" and "trend" of GH now?

Isn't that obvious? For any reasonable and logical person, we can see how GH argue and try to shake off their responsibilities.

As I said before, even they stated their statement of faith but if they can twist truth like that, how can we trust the statement that they made about their faith. That is my whole point all along.

The more they try to defend, the more they are going to show about their lack of integrity.

I am glad that we are finally coming to an end and this will be a good piece of history for all us to learn.

Chan / 2008-06-03 16:28:15

Susanna:我以肯定、直接的態度，要求你請直接回應基督羣体所提出的合理和重要問題

Susanna,

當你以真名字公開要求教牧回應時，你這封信就是寫給整体華人教會，要求見證。

從你的信中，你清楚表達：

1) 只要是免費，你有權濫用別人logo;

2) 就算人家反對，沒有每字清清楚楚，疑點利益仍歸於你

3) 沙浸要求除消banner數月，仍不予理會，也沒有問題

4) 你採取法律行動、宣稱顧問有問題，解散顧問团。跟着有411声明，要求斷絕一切交往，仍不是足夠通知

5) 到今天你仍未公佈那位顧問有問題，對所有前顧問不單止不公平，而且無禮

6) 對於公眾合理質疑，包括1,500,000擊點虛報事件，你置若罔聞

7) 還有報告所指出不當理財事件，從不回應

你是否在這次經驗後，應通知所有廣告用户﹖及在未得他人同意下，停止一切未授權廣告？連小孩子都知道，要得到別人同意才可用別人的logo。如果下一次再有人公開要求你停止未授權廣告，不要再說未有溝通。

整個華人基督羣体正等待Susanna Lam 你全面回應以上問題。

Chan

路人丙 / 2008-06-03 16:21:37

怎可話人厚顏無恥？難以入目。還請諸位自重！

話人厚顏無恥者，這是人身攻擊。時代論壇再怎樣是個自由論壇也好，讀者也總不應該這么輕率發言。太不堪入目了。至少保留一下基督徒應有的分寸。講人家基督日報有問題的發言，坦白的講，就算你有冤情，你這么攻擊他們也是不對。要么有憑有據的對質好啦。他訛詐了你，那么肯定你可以去討回公道。不要在這裡用些肮髒措辭來搞。弄得這裡烏煙瘴氣。

這裡是公開論壇，再這樣搞下去，公眾怎么看我們基督徒呢？說他們不好的時候還砸掉教會的顔面。不是嗎？

而且某某牧師也是，雖然你是牧師，但是你做的事情也太難看了。多次在這種地方貼上來你跟人家的個人郵件，想要證明自己做得有理。可是你的做法跟人家指你的又有什麽差別？更何況你是牧師，這樣做不合適吧。你若覺得人家做得不好，你豈不是更加要循著圣經的教導而行。緣何在這裡公開對個人發難，而且還發得如此難看，簡直就是人身攻擊一般。用著牧師身份做人身攻擊豈不成了街巷笑柄？

還請諸位自重！

佚名Anonymous / 2008-06-03 16:17:01

To Chan: 請問你是誰？

Chan對基督日報有這么多不滿，而且特別矛頭直指Susanna。請問你是誰？誠然你對日報有諸多不滿，但你的措辭似乎也有失儀態。若要人尊重你等，你等也當尊重他人。依照你的措辭，似乎你是某位牧師，但希望你不是。否則按照你的措辭，華人教會的教牧顔面也被你丟盡。

Chan / 2008-06-03 15:40:35

Susanna:請回應我們的公開信

Susanna,

當你以真名字公開要求教牧回應時，你這封信就是寫給整体華人教會，要求見證。

從你的信中，你清楚表達：

1) 只要是免費，你有權濫用別人logo;

2) 就算人家反對，沒有每字清清楚楚，疑點利益仍歸於你

3) 沙浸要求除消banner數月，仍不予理會，也沒有問題

4) 你採取法律行動、宣稱顧問有問題，解散顧問团。跟着有411声明，要求斷絕一切交往，仍不是足夠通知

5) 到今天你仍未公佈那位顧問有問題，對所有前顧問不單止不公平，而且無禮

6) 對於公眾合理質疑，包括1,500,000擊點虛報事件，你置若罔聞

7) 還有報告所指出不當理財事件，從不回應

你是否在這次經驗後，應通知所有廣告用户﹖及在未得他人同意下，停止一切未授權廣告？連小孩子都知道，要得到別人同意才可用別人的logo。如果下一次再有人公開要求你停止未授權廣告，不要再說未有溝通。

整個華人基督羣体正等待Susanna Lam 你全面回應以上問題。

Chan

佚名Anonymous / 2008-06-03 14:24:39

厚顏無恥

每次GH指控人，都被人有証有据篤爆 GH嘅大話！GH又衰一鑊！

GH個聲明講到自己免費幫人咁樣，扮偉大！其實係收錢合同一部份。講野講一半！

明明同幾間教會唔妥，又炒顧問團，人地又發聲明絕交，但係仲用人地 logo去呃錢！真係厚顏無恥！

人地明明叫 GH删 banner，又拖人地成半年！

加埋出律師信告人，GH手段低劣、全無誠信可言。冇他，一貫講大話本色是也。

Susanna / 2008-06-03 14:09:05

基督日報Susanna回應朱世平牧師

回應朱世平牧師:

1) 朱牧所指的合約內容針對另一項收費的廣告，不適用於《名錄》服務。當時基督日報提供免費刊登一個月教會名錄廣告(或作LOGO廣告)作為回贈，答謝廣告客戶的支持。而朱牧師獲悉此優惠後，的而且確請求本報加長免費刊登這項《名錄》服務的時間至一年。

2)至於朱牧稱以「跟風」或「撑場」為由下要求把Logo放在名錄上，這一點朱牧在刊登廣告時未有提及，本報也無法求證。然而，朱牧要求免費刊登《名錄》服務由一個月加長至一年則是客觀事實。

3)及4) 朱牧這裏提及的廣告非《名錄》服務。

5) 電郵中未有提及刪除《名錄》Logo之言。

6) 聲明中未有提及刪除《名錄》Logo之言

7) 雖然顧問團中曾有問題顧問作出損害【基督日報】的行動，但本報事奉動機不改，仍然誠然提供宣傳平台事奉眾教會。若有教會或機構認為未需要本宣傳報務，可聯絡本報申明，本報必尊重及配合，無需公開散佈對本報的揣測。

重申，此事原只需溝通便可簡單解決，但未先與本報溝通便公開散佈揣測言論，甚至稱要本報悔改的舉措實為不當，請有關教會機構收回言論，並公開澄清事實。

檸樂 / 2008-06-03 14:00:42

無D風度

朱世平牧師唔只一次喺時代論壇上爆料，登出與基督日報有關人物之間的email，我覺得呢D野唔喺咁好！佢甘勇，點解唔直接將D料爆給時代論壇，調查一下呢？

好似師奶買左嘢發覺貨不對版之後就潑婦罵街，一D風度都無，真喺唔好。

教內人士 / 2008-06-03 13:48:40

此致朱牧師

朱牧師，你好！

我想你跟基督日報之間的瓜葛可以私下跟他們解決，即使你覺得自己被騙的話，也不可以把事情搞大，非公告天下不可似的。你這樣做有什麽動機呢？

還有我認為如果這事件所涉及的是金錢的，最好還是由貴教會的董事會或者執事會的人出面處理。作為牧師，我想你還是不要在這方面多費神了。

资料库 > 专辑 > 《基督日报》事件专辑

报道

《基督日报》反驳擅登教会标志指控（6月2日消息）

舊回應107則

佚名a / 2008-06-06 14:05:19

質疑單位列表

共同體成員(靈)

共同體成員(魂)

佚名a / 2008-06-06 13:58:19

佚名Anonymous / 2008-06-06 13:52:02

讀者 / 2008-06-06 12:32:10

Jay / 2008-06-04 10:10:15

Hin / 2008-06-04 06:13:52

Chan / 2008-06-03 23:00:57

Hin / 2008-06-03 20:17:18

Hin / 2008-06-03 19:33:14

Hin / 2008-06-03 18:55:32

Hin / 2008-06-03 18:16:57

Hin / 2008-06-03 17:42:31

Chan / 2008-06-03 16:28:15

路人丙 / 2008-06-03 16:21:37

佚名Anonymous / 2008-06-03 16:17:01

Chan / 2008-06-03 15:40:35

佚名Anonymous / 2008-06-03 14:24:39

Susanna / 2008-06-03 14:09:05

檸樂 / 2008-06-03 14:00:42

教內人士 / 2008-06-03 13:48:40

资料库

更多標籤

登記收取論壇電郵

《基督日报》反驳擅登教会标志指控
（6月2日消息）