Daniel Wong’s Testimony

I thought I had posted this video back a few years ago when it originally came up on Youtube, but after searching my archives, I couldn’t find that I had. A twitter acquaintance linked to it yesterday, so I thought I would share.

A couple of thoughts to take with you after watching it:

First. A number of months ago I was tangled up in a tweeting debate with a bunch of smart mouthed atheists who insisted that atheism has never been the cause of suffering, horror, and cruelty that religion has. Of course they cite the Crusades, inquisitions, OT genocide, etc. When I pointed out Mao and the Chinese revolution, a few never even heard about it (an alarming fact if true), but a number of them denied atheism had anything to do with Mao’s red guards rounding up Christians and killing them.  Dr. Wong’s testimony debunks such stupidity.

Second. In light of all the back and forth between charismania enabling apologists and us Spirit-quenching MacArthurites, folks just have to appreciate John’s theological defense of inner promptings.

Advertisements

19 thoughts on “Daniel Wong’s Testimony

  1. Beautiful Fred, well articulated, as well as bittersweet, you had me crying here as soon as I opened my eyes this morning! I’m glad I watched this video, what a uplifting way to start my day. Blessings, Sharon. I think if I wasn’t already saved, that would do it.

  2. “Dr. Wong’s testimony debunks such stupidity.”
    ever heard of something called lying for Jesus? this man if he was actually from mainland China would not spell his name in English as “Wong” that is a big red flag for anyone who knows anything about Chinese. As well since atheism per se has no dogma, it is difficult to find a causal link between atheism and immoral behavior or the commission of atrocities. It is often much easier to find a cause rooted in some other belief held by the perpertrator. For example, the statement “Stalin ordered thousands of people executed because he was an atheist” is, on its face, a non sequitur. On the other hand, “Stalin ordered thousands of people executed because he thought they represented a threat to the establishment of communism”, at least enjoys a certain internal consistency.

  3. So you’re saying Dr. Wong is lying about living in China or that Mao’s revolution didn’t persecute Christians? Which one?

    And you seriously don’t think atheists have any dogma? That there exists some disconnect as to what atheists believe and how that belief is put into practice?

  4. that the idea that Dr. Wong is telling the truth about living in China seems to have many problems, like with the way he spells his last name , atheism its self has no dogmas, atheism is not a “worldview” though it is a PART of many worldviews

  5. “Many problems,” Tony? Because so far it sounds like you’ve only mentioned ONE….and not a very credible one at that.

  6. Tony Jiang said:

    that the idea that Dr. Wong is telling the truth about living in China seems to have many problems, like with the way he spells his last name

    Someone who spells his last name “Wong” instead of a more “authentic” English spelling of a Chinese last name is indicative of a lie? Would you prefer Wang? Or Hong? Or Huang? Or are these also indicative of a lie? This is a shoddy argument.

    atheism its self has no dogmas

    Does this include the dogma that atheism has no dogmas?

    As well since atheism per se has no dogma, it is difficult to find a causal link between atheism and immoral behavior or the commission of atrocities.

    No, that’s not the point. The point is, given atheism, can one ground objective morality?

    atheism is not a “worldview” though it is a PART of many worldviews

    Now you’re moving the goalposts. That’s not what you originally said. Nor what Fred originally asked you.

  7. Tony Jiang said:

    “that the idea that Dr. Wong is telling the truth about living in China seems to have many problems, like with the way he spells his last name”

    If a person spells his last name “Wong” instead of a more “authentic” English spelling of a Chinese last name, then it’s indicative of a lie? Would you prefer Wang? Or Hong? Or Huang? Or are these also indicative of a lie? This is a shoddy argument.

    “atheism its self has no dogmas”

    Does this include the dogma that atheism has no dogmas?

    “As well since atheism per se has no dogma, it is difficult to find a causal link between atheism and immoral behavior or the commission of atrocities.”

    No, that’s not the point. The point is, given atheism, can one ground objective morality?

    “atheism is not a ‘worldview’ though it is a PART of many worldviews”

    Now you’re moving the goalposts. That’s not what you originally said. Nor what Fred originally asked you.

  8. On the inquisition you may find this article from the very leftist British Guardian newspaper quite interesting : http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jun/16/artsandhumanities.internationaleducationnews

    You may want to add to Mao:

    Adolf Hitler (Germany) ” Between 1939 and 1945, the Schutzstaffel (SS), assisted by collaborationist governments and recruits from occupied countries, was responsible for the deaths of at least eleven million people,[314][302] including 5.5 to six million Jews (representing two-thirds of the Jewish population of Europe),[315][316] and between 200,000 and 1,500,000 Romani people.[317][316] Deaths took place in concentration and extermination camps, ghettos, and through mass executions. Many victims of the Holocaust were gassed to death, whereas others died of starvation or disease or while working as slave labourers.[318]
    Hitler’s policies also resulted in the killing of nearly two million Poles,[319] over 3 million Soviet prisoners of war,[320] communists and other political opponents, homosexuals, the physically and mentally disabled,[321][322] Jehovah’s Witnesses, Adventists, and trade unionists. Hitler never appeared to have visited the concentration camps and did not speak publicly about the killings.[323]” (Wikipedia) and that doesn’t include the deaths of the many armies involved in WWII that would never have happened if Hitler had not started it.

    Khmer rouge (Cambodia) atheist communist government “The U.S. State Department-funded Yale Cambodian Genocide Project estimates approximately 1.7 million (21% of the population of the country).” (Wikipedia)

    Ho Chi Minh (Vietnam) atheist communist dictator “The Human Cost of Communism in Vietnam,” US Government Report estimates that at least half a million were killed in the north and that up to one million will be killed in the south following the Communist victory. See the rest here,here, and here. Communist Lt. Col. Chuyen states that 5 million South Vietnamese are targets for persecution and that about 500,000 will be killed–which is almost exactly what happened. When asked if fears of a bloodbath are exaggerated, he says “they could not be exaggerated. It will happen.” It did happen.” (Links found @ Conservapedia)

    In fact you can even find a Wikipedia article entitled : Mass killings under Communist regimes :
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes

    All were nice gentle Atheist !

  9. By the way (just an afterthought) : why would Atheists who do not believe in God, His Word etc. would even pay attention to “genocide” accounts in the Old Testament ? Are they “versatile” Atheists ?

  10. The point is, given atheism, can one ground objective morality? first of all i would like to mention that Christianity cannot account for any kind of morality outside of a subjective and relativistic one and “If people regarded other people’s families in the same way that they regard their own, who then would incite their own family to attack that of another? For one would do for others as one would do for oneself.” – Mozi you ask for morality done.
    “Someone who spells his last name “Wong” instead of a more “authentic” English spelling of a Chinese last name is indicative of a lie?” No he said he was from the mainland, which means that he must spell his name as “Wang” not “Wong” only people from Hong Kong spell that way, Wong is not anymore authentic then Wang,but no mainlander would spell his name as “Wong” this is like if a Japanese person named Aoyama spelt his name in English as Qingshan! it shows that he mostly likely is not saying who he said he is that he might have made up this story to feed his Christian perscution complex. Also Patrick, could you not post the same message twice? And Fred/Fivepointer could you please refrain from answering my post, I want Patrick to do it,

  11. Tony Jiang said:

    first of all i would like to mention that Christianity cannot account for any kind of morality outside of a subjective and relativistic one

    This is an assertion without an argument.

    and “If people regarded other people’s families in the same way that they regard their own, who then would incite their own family to attack that of another? For one would do for others as one would do for oneself.” – Mozi you ask for morality done.

    1. That’s a big if. Not all families would regard “other people’s families in the same way that they regard their own.”

    2. Given atheistic naturalism and neo-Darwinian theory, why should families regard other families “in the same way that they regard their own”? Why not favor one’s own?

    No he said he was from the mainland, which means that he must spell his name as “Wang” not “Wong” only people from Hong Kong spell that way, Wong is not anymore authentic then Wang,but no mainlander would spell his name as “Wong” this is like if a Japanese person named Aoyama spelt his name in English as Qingshan!

    This is a dumb objection. Yes, generally, Wong is how people from HK would spell the last name if they came to an English-speaking country, and, generally, Wang is how mainland Chinese would spell it. But the point is the spelling of last names isn’t like a mathematical formula or proof; it’s not like a law of physics that’s universally true. Exceptions abound.

    For example, there are Malaysian Chinese with the last name Huang despite Huang being the more prevalent spelling from people coming from places like Taiwan. Likewise there are other Southeast Asian Chinese who spell their last name Wong as well as Wang. How do I know this? Because some of them are my friends and family.

    Or take my last name. It can be spelled the way I spell it. That’s generally how it is spelled among those who come from HK. But my family isn’t originally from HK. We’re originally from another part of Asia. I know families who also spell it Chen and even Chin, despite being from places where these last names aren’t generally the way they would be spelled in English, strange though it may sound to you.

    Also, you’re assuming Dr. Wong was in control over the spelling of his last name in English. But given what you’ve said so far in this thread, you’re in no position to know.

    it shows that he mostly likely is not saying who he said he is that he might have made up this story to feed his Christian perscution complex.

    You’re jumping to conclusions. You have no basis to draw this probabilistic inference given your previous statements. Even if it were true he should have spelled his last name Wang rather than Wong, there’s no reason to think the misspelling was intentional let alone dishonest. For instance it could’ve been an honest mistake.

    Also Patrick, could you not post the same message twice?

    Why? This isn’t your weblog. You don’t make the rules. That’s up to Fred.

    And Fred/Fivepointer could you please refrain from answering my post, I want Patrick to do it,

    Done.

  12. Unbelievable. The first response by some (or one) is to reject Wong as a complete liar? Based on how he spells his last name?

    Fred, I showed this my 6 year old daughter. I’m afraid she will face serious persecution. She said she’d never deny Christ. I pray that she remains firm.

  13. the way you spell your name can tell a lot about you, for example my last name can be spelt as “Kang”(Korean) “Kyo”(Japanese) and “Khuong”(Vietnamese) and if i did spell it that way no one would expect i speak Chinese, or come from there.
    but anyways Aaron thinking your children will face “persecution” is kinda laughable, Christians seem to have a great persecution complex, just because they no longer are privileged in government and society they cry prosecution! This kind of mentality is not healthy

  14. All,

    I’m a Chinese by birth, and born and gew up in Hong Kong, although I have long become a Westerner by both upbringing and nationality. There was a friend in my class back when I was a high school in my adopted country back in the mid 1990s. He came from Beijing with a fairly prominent Party background i.e. one of those “crown princes party”. He is a classical fenqing (angry nationalist Chinese youth) who dreams of [Communist People’s Rep of] China reclaiming the long lost glory of the Han and tang dynasties.

    Now the curious thing is that his last name is the Cantonese Cheung. He denies he is from Hong Kong and made it clear to me that he and I are from differfent worlds. Am I lying? He once took his Certificate of Identity to school in order for a Justice of the Peace to witness a copy of the travel document. The document was issued by the Immigration Department from the British colonial administration of Hong Kong. Now according to the Immigration statutes of the British colonial government, you are not entitled to a British Hong Kong passport if you were born outside Hong Kong. And most of non-Hong Kong born HK residents who were from countries outside China were issued passports of their countries of birth (Again, I have acquaintances who are Malaysian or Singaporean Chinese living in HK. They hold their countries of birth’s passports while usually resident in Hong Kong). The reason is simply this: China does not issue its own passports to its own nationals living in Hong Kong during the British colonial era because to do so is to tacitly acknowledge British authority over the territory! So my friend would have been a resident from Hong Kong, a stateless person who is almost certain to have been born in China. On top of this his Mandarin is perfect with the Beijing accent.

    Here is the crucial thing: the Immigration Department of the British colonial-era Hong Kong government do not accept any alternative Romanization of Chinese names other than the accepted Cantonese Romanization scheme. So even though my friend is from China, he was actually barred from using his Pinyin spelling on his identity and travel documents issued by the British colonial HK government, never mind this was never his first language. As things come by, his last name is known as Cheung in the English-speaking world, rather than Zhang had it been spelt using the Pinyin scheme.

    And my friend is around my age, which means his earliest living memory would be the early days of Chinese economic reform under Deng Xiaoping, Hu Yaobang, and Zhao Ziyang i.e. he would have been born quite some time after after Mao Zedong was laid inside the Mausoleum and would have no memory of the Cultural Revolution. Logic dictates that the nearer to our time, the more likely a Chinese-born HK resident would have kept the pinyin Romanization spelling.

    This brings my long digress and detour through colonial Hong Kong government policy and modern Chinese history to an end. Since I had established my friend as a Chinese born Chinese nationalist resident of Hong Kong born after the Cultural Revolution, and yet is known by the Cantonese spelling of his last name, it is not unreasonable to assume Daniel Wong would have also received a non-pinyin Romanized spelling for his Chinese name.

    Apparently someone hasn’t done his homework properly!

Leave me a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s