In the case of religious communities, as per each community there is an underlying coherence that makes them identify with each other, even as they do not fail to emphasize their differences.

I think your bus driver is very wise. It is indeed true that many religious – Christians and Muslims – place too much focus on the letter, and too little on the spirit. Even Jesus Christ himself chatised the Jewish priests of his time for just that. The Bible itself relates an occasion where Jesus is scolded by the Pharisees for healing a sick man on “the day of rest” i.e. violating the 4th Commandment.

On the other hand though, the letter is there to guide people on how to achieve the spirit, although the letter must first be understood fully in the context in which it was communicated, before porting it over to our context, lest we end up in anachronism or fail to see God’s accommodation to fallen nature.

The problem comes when these forms become set in stone. To a degree, that is a problem with all religions.

But people imitate/reflect the Light of God (whatever name they choose to call Him) when they live out the SPIRIT of their religions, which after all all derive from God, regardless of Theology and level of Human Corruption.

I think your point about the law overriding the capacity of any given community to forgive those who have wronged it is an excellent one, but somewhat overlooked in many of the comments.

We need to be wary, though, of presuming these communities to be coherent in themselves, or of suggesting as much for rhetorical reasons, even where we know it not to be the situation on the ground.

Suddenly, he made the point that, “Too emphasis is placed on the LETTER of the Book and not enough of the SPIRIT.”

If you apply this idea to every religion, you’ll see the “God” within the way they live their lives. It is better to have people who don’t follow every letter of the book but remain decent than to have people who are obsessed with following the letter of their religious books but fail to value humanity.

However, all religions have exclusive truth claims, and where these claims contradict, there are only possibilities: (1) The contradiction is an apparent one which can be resolved through filling in theological gaps; (2) The contradiction is an essential one that can only have one alternative correct. I would concede again that the Church perhaps focuses too much on option (2); but that is why we have liberal theologians like Hans Kung. Though, the number (1) variety of claims do exist.

And where they do, the Church has as much rights as other religions to present its particular case. Because after all, every religion seeks for the Highest Good and Highest Welfare for man, and everyone on earth deserves to have the best methodology for achieving that.

Besides, for the sake of equality too. Christians are not the only one who criticize other religions; Hindus in India do the same for instance.

Dialogue achieves nothing if it only involves the nodding of heads, which is why perhaps IRCCs in Singapore have not achieved as much as they were intended to.

The only way to attain spiritual growth is through self-challenge.

1) Hmmm, although I doubt that the terms I would replace it with would be the same to those you would replace it with. I have a sneaky suspicion about your use of ‘leopard’ though. (Why can’t non-believers/Atheists accept their sins too? Talk about hypocrisy!)

2) No, I didn’t intend to imply that I was flawless. I intended to imply that unless you yourself are so flawless, you are not in the position to judge the ‘deficiencies’ of the Church either, of any other religion for the matter.

I notice that Atheists – especially the followers of the New Atheists – like to talk as if they were flawless.

(to be con-d)

I apologize that my full reply to you isn’t available as the first two-thirds are still under “moderation”. I appear to be having a run-in with Andrew on this point.

Actually, yes, you did get the stance of the Church wrong. I went back to cross-reference the Catechism and official Encyclicals. I would recommend that you read para 22 off Dominus Iesus, the latest Encyclical on Evangelization released in 2000. The document was penned by the current Pope and approved by the previous Pope (may he rest in peace).

“””
22. With the coming of the Saviour Jesus Christ, God has willed that the Church founded by him be the instrument for the salvation of all humanity (cf. Acts 17:30-31).90 This truth of faith does not lessen the sincere respect which the Church has for the religions of the world, but at the same time, it rules out, in a radical way, that mentality of indifferentism “characterized by a religious relativism which leads to the belief that ‘one religion is as good as another’”.91 If it is true that the followers of other religions can receive divine grace, it is also certain that objectively speaking they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation.92
“””

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

(to be con-d)

please respond quickly. I do not like being misrepresented because someone thought that I hadn’t responded to them – and this has happened in the past – and I have but they haven’t seen the reply because it is still “under moderation”.

Plus, it mucks up the numbering of posts.

Fair enough on the length. But which is the comment that has “nothing to do with the article”? I was responding to sloo, and I think that sloo’s comments were relevant to the article.

Your posts are disallowed as they are way more than a thousand words long. Please keep your comments to within 500 words.

Also, one of your comments is disallowed as it has nothing to do with the article.

Thanks for the clearification. I hope I got the stand of the Cathooic Chruch right in my postings at least. But what is very enlightening is your statement:

“Apparently, the convenors of the Enlightenment felt the itch to exaggerate the ‘colours’ in the Church’s history and conflate the actions of the Papacy with the actions of secular monarchs who professed their loyalty (formally) to the Church, but were mostly un-Christian in behaviour.”

This sounds so so familiar even in our modern day settings if you were to relace some of the terms and words used. Apparently some leopard never changes its spots, regardless of time, denomination and country.

And to correct your misunderstanding, i never implied that you were flawless; i implied that cathoics, with their fragmented and troubled history, should really be in no position to judge other religion’s ‘deficiencies’ as you put it. Perhaps to contribute their moral stance on society and apply moral standards to their flock, but certainly not to judge or impose other religions. I would love to be flawless but recognise that perfection is impossible on this earth. We can certainly try to minimise our imperfections.

As for pointing out the defiencies of other religions vis-avis your own, that i do not agree. As another posting pointed out earlier, for one who has no understanding of another religious dogma and sees the world through their own religiously tainted glasses, such criticism or discussions would be bias, slanted and ultimately offensive. I agree to the stance of bearing witness, highlighting the good of your own religions and bee the perfect example of what your faith stands for.

**Niagara

“The author should also touch on WHY during fasting month (year after year), Muslims are still eating (including non-halah), drinking (including alcoholic), smoking, buying 4D, TOTO etc, especially those in s’pore? Next year, these group of muslims will join the Casino queues. Some muslims even put on songkok or tudung and walk into the 4D shop, high abortion rate and divorce cases.”

The point you have missed completely that the actions u mentioned do not interfere with the private belief and spaces of any othe rindividuals. This vital fact makes the actions of the christian fundie couple who mailed tracts condeming other religions an offensive one. Their actions impacts the private spehere, spaces and beliefs of others.

As Tang Li puts it, there are good and bad people regardless of their faiths; but what they do with their own lives is of no concerns to anyone else. Only when those actions impacts others negatively, then it becomes is cause of concern

To many Muslims, Hari Raya Aidilfitri, a day of celebration after a month of fasting, represents a moment of renewal……..by: Alfian Sa’at

The author should also touch on WHY during fasting month (year after year), Muslims are still eating (including non-halah), drinking (including alcoholic), smoking, buying 4D, TOTO etc, especially those in s’pore?

Next year, these group of muslims will join the Casino queues.

Some muslims even put on songkok or tudung and walk into the 4D shop, high abortion rate and divorce cases.

When a non-muslims marry a muslims, he or she must convert.
But a muslims cannot be otherwise.

Everyone knows (including govt) and it’s not a secret.
Maybe the writer should write on how to improve on muslims character & reputation.

you my friend, apparently do not have faith in your own faith that you are unconsciously implying that islam should be a perfect religion.

why do non-muslim and human beings other faith commit murder, rape and other crimes or sins, you mean is allowed in their religions?

why issit when a muslim do any wrong-doing which is wrong not only in religious terms but also in humanity as well, people immediately go “hey arent you muslim? do you know that you’re not supposed to do this and that?” are you subconciously trying to imply that muslims are supposed to be angels? we are like you, we are human beings too..

2.) That majority of Muslims do not condemn such acts and some even welcomed it. E.g. Palestinians cheering when hearing news of 911 tragedy. (contrast this with the anger and indignation of Christians against fellow Christians who commit atrocities in Yugoslavia, in WW2 Nazis against Jews)

while i agree with your other points, i beg to differ that the “majority” of Muslims to do not condemn 9/11. you cant use the Palestinians as a representation of the majority of Muslims. these people have been fighting with foreign troops(Americas and Israeli soldiers) for years. they are fighting for their own right and freedom not for religion. how many of these people left helpless as the world just watch by? for goodness sake the Palestinians are fighting with sticks and stones against guns and machines!

and as for your comments on what right muslim men has to marry up to 4 times, so you know, the idea was so men who can afford it take women who are suffering in life to have a better life.

as for the convert issues, it’s a personal choice, if a non muslim doesnt want to convert, he or she has to right NOT to convert to islam by choosing NOT to go ahead with the marriage. nobody is forcing anyone to convert, you have a choice. in any religious faith, its always between you and your god whether you want to sin on not. at the end of the day, you are the bearer of your own sin, if you choose not follow or disagree with any teachings of your own faith of choice, it is all on you.

“This is purely a technical point ….. But the fact is their names and addresses were handwritten on the envelopes. If I had received an envelope like that, I would feel quite distressed–why me? ….”

Perhaps it is also technical that the Christian couple acted out of love – a love they believe to be pure enough to share with the Malay in question – unfortunately, without giving due consideration to the contents of what they were delivering and how the contents were being delivered. A case of ‘love is blind’. A stupid argument I admit, but it could be the real reason why they did what they did.

“…in addition to the fact that the contents were malicious…”.

Another technical point of contention. What can be deemed malicious if what you believe in is deemed to be the truth that will bring you eternal salvation beyond the comprehension of this worldly life? The interpretation of ‘malicious’ therefore falls on the receiver and his reaction after that. That’s why I say, an overly sensitive recipient is equally guilty on the equation.

“…there persists a general impression that the Christians are the most over-zealous about this…”.

I agree, and this is what is doing the Christian in, time and time again. To understand the Christian and his zealous actions is to understand Christianity and the reasons of Christianity. Someone once said this in another thread; that to believe in (the Christian) God, is to surrender all you human faculties unto Him.

When the faith of the believer is such, no amount of forgiveness, counseling, reprimand and punishment is going to change him.

Taking action against such staunch believers will only provide them the martyrdom they think they deserve.

Forgiving them publicly will only make them bolder. That’s why we tolerate, using the terms spelt out by the government, in consideration of all religions living in a secular society. How else can we have it any other way?

5) Street Corners, no. But there are Missionary communities preaching in China, Thailand and Mongolia.

Deriding random strangers’ religious affiliations, no. But performing apologetics and polemics in favour of Christianity vis-a-vis other religions, and Catholicism vis-a-vis Protestantism, yes. Talking to potential converts about the deficiencies in other religions, yes.

Inviting non-Christians to Church, yes. But we get them to observe and decide if they wish to attend RCIA or Alpha Course.

Bearing witness and proclaiming the Good News by example, yes

6) I am a Roman Catholic at heart, albeit one of a more ecumenical persuasion.

7) And you think yourself so flawless?

The ‘Colourful’ History of the Church has been found to be more ‘dull’ than is usually portrayed. Apparently, the convenors of the Enlightenment felt the itch to exaggerate the ‘colours’ in the Church’s history and conflate the actions of the Papacy with the actions of secular monarchs who professed their loyalty (formally) to the Church, but were mostly un-Christian in behaviour.

8) The Pope – like all his predecessors – believes in the inerrancy and infallibility of the Catholic Faith, even vis-a-vis Protestant professions. He acknowledges the mistakes in the Practice of the Faith though.

One more point: Dr Thio is an Anglican, not a Catholic or Evangelical. Although I expect that COOS is considered a “Low” Church more than a “High” Church. “Low” Churches are closer to Lutheranism and Calvinism, whilst the “High” Church is closer to Catholicism.

Sloo,

I did reply actually, but the Editor deleted my reply.

I know my Catholic Doctrine.

1) Yes, I stand by the Catholic Stance. We revere the statues of the saints and Mother Mary (major conflict vis-a-vis Protestantism and Islam) but we do not pray to them as we pray to God. We don’t ask them for favours – or are not doctrinally permitted to anyway. We ask them to pass requests for favours to God for or with us.

We only consider Christ Divine, not the saints or Mother Mary.

It is different with the Taoists – at least – who worship the idols to worship individual divinities.

2) Merely holding the joss sticks is not a problem. Participating in rituals with these joss-sticks is still a problem. I haven’t misinterpreted Catholci Doctrine at all.

3) Once again, you are wrong. The Pope – and the official Catechism of the Catholic Church – says that all of religion has a ray of truth, but only Catholicism has the complete truth in the Revelation through Jesus Christ.

4) Firstly, it is RCIA, not ACIA. RCIA is Rites of Christian Initiation for Adults. It has counterparts RCIY (Youth) and RCIC (Children). I thought that you had made a typo in your previous post. Since you repeated it here, I can only guess that you think “ACIA” is the correct term.

Secondly, yes, Catholics do Deathbed Conversions. My mother used to work with nuns at hospitals who are involved in these. But Catholics do not force dying people to convert against their choice.

In fact, my Parish Priest just did one three months ago. he told us at Sunday Homily.

Deathbed converts do not need RCIA because after all, they are meeting God very soon.

*Sigh*

5) Wrong again. The term is “Evangelical”, not “Evangelists”. In fact, the Pope himself is concerned that Catholic Evangelization is not keeping up with Protestant Evangelization. He mentioned that in a Global Pastoral Conference in June, the start of the Year of Vocations. This Conference is not something reported by the generic press, but it is reported in the Catholic News, if you want to check.

In case you didn’t know, there are missionary efforts by the Catholic Church currently working in Africa and Mongolia.

6) Me? I am a Catholic at heart, and ultimately still a Christian.