Ravi Philemon
Shravasti Dhammika writing in his blog on Pastor Rony Tan’s saga says that the government sanctioned inter-religious dialogues do not work because those that really need such dialogues, “the bigots, zealots, fundamentalists and the evangelicals, won’t come.”
What Shravasti Dhammika fails to realise is that there is nothing wrong in being a ‘zealot’ – someone with zeal; that there is nothing wrong in being a ‘fundamentalists’ – someone who goes back to the fundamentals; and that absolutely no apology is needed to be an ‘evangelical’.
One question Shravasti Dhammika failed to ask himself when writing his blog is “How does negative labelling help the inter-religious dialogue?” How will this labelling help the almost 50 percent of Christian clergyman who are wary of inter-faith talks?
Of course a spade has got to be called a spade so that the waters are not muddled unnecessarily. But labelling groups that have very exclusive view of their faith as ‘bigots’, is not going to be very helpful; especially not when these groups do not see themselves as such, or even mean to be condescending or disrespectful.
One could say that a Buddhist could explain to death the ‘true’ understanding of core Buddhist concepts to an ‘evangelical’ Christian, but that he is not going to get it, as he is assumed to believe only in the ‘exclusive truth’ of the Bible.
But how can one tell another what is the ‘right’ view to have and what is not? As long as the view held, does not instigate violence (e.g. jihad), everyone should be entitled to his or her opinions and views. No matter how ‘skewed’ it may appear to another.
Of course in a society as diverse as ours, all ‘types’ of zealots and fundamentalists need to practise restraint. But then, one should exercise caution that even the call for ‘restraint’ is not an over-zealous one.
It is unfortunate that Shravasti Dhammika has allowed one Pastor Rony Tan to colour the entire evangelical community as ‘bigots’.
Although the ‘evangelical’ label is used to distinguish conservative protestant Christianity from liberal Christianity, the spectrum of theology within the ‘evangelical’ circle is too diverse, for they include many from the Methodists, to the Anglicans, to the Baptists, to the independent and small family churches.
In singling out the evangelicals in his “one or two particular groups (that are not) amiable and respectful towards each other”, Sharavasti Dhammika has done a great disservice to the inter-religious dialogue. He must surely realise that two wrongs do not make a right.
But perhaps the bigotry of one is the faith of another.
______________________________________________________
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
If you feel there is nothing wrong with the ‘labels’, then how did you get the ‘negative’ tones? Is it not the audience/reader who makes the association of negativity, and not the speaker/writer.
Does a conservative person bridle at being called a conservative? A liberal might see ‘conservative’ as a negative label, but not a conservative.
So who IS offended?
Actually, I have no idea what it means anymore when someone is proud to ‘get back to the fundamentals’. Someone might consider that the Scriptures of his religion were never meant to be taken literally, but meant to be understood the way the people who penned the Scriptures meant it to be – to him, he would be going back to the fundamentals, but to others who believe in a literal reading, he would be a ‘liberal’ or even a heretic.
So, really, everyone is a fundamentalist. :P
you said:
”
everyone should be entitled to his or her opinions and views. No matter how ’skewed’ it may appear to another.
”
and then you say:
”
It is unfortunate that Shravasti Dhammika has allowed one Pastor Rony Tan to colour the entire evangelical community as ‘bigots’.
”
oh well…..
simple.if you take the scripture literally, stand to be challenged literally.
i can tell you all kinds of excuses will surface from the literals to avoid a literal challenge.
they will never concede even you show them a dead corpse.
To Ravi Philemon, your article sounds fair, but from the cheap shot you take on the Arabic word “Jihad” to mean violence clearly shows your low level understanding of Islamic knowledge which I presume come from the mainstream media and/or Western media which propagated the wrong translation of that word.
I suggest you look up for yourself what the word “Jihad” really means from authentic sources. For your information, even Jesus did Jihad as stated in the holy bible.
The irony of religious conflicts is that religions are supposed to promote love and emulate their God(s)/prophets, but in their rigid faith they end up propagating hate. That’s not to say religions are bad, it’s just that every religion is managed by Man, who makes mistakes.
“To err is human, to forgive is divine.”
izam, can you enlighten us on Jihad? Asking people to look up themselves sounds so much like ‘school homework’. Thanks.
religion is about conformity.you comform, you are saved, if you don’t conform, you are doomed or condemned.
naturally, those outside your faith have not conformed to your ways are condemned or doomed.
therefore, all religion are messianic. they are as messianic as hitler or stalin.
so we say, you can be a hitler, or you can be a stalin but you must shake on it and promise not to shed each other blood.
so they get a few heads to shake on it,snap a few pictures, write a warm story about them and put it on print and whoala…harmony.
religion is about conformity. if you conform, you are saved. if you don’t, you are damned or doomed. therefore all religion are messianic. they are as messianic as hitler or stalin.
so we say to them. ok, you can be a hitler or you can be a stalin. but you must shake on it and not shed each other blood.
then we get a few heads to shake on it, take some pictures, write a warm story and put it in print and whoala…harmony.
” But perhaps the bigotry of one is the faith of another. ”
According to the dictionary..
Bigotry= stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.
So, then the question is, does this faith (whatever faith that seemed to be fueled with bigotry to ‘others’) promote peace then? Do they promote growth? Do they promote real discussions? Do they promote tolerance? Do they promote equality?
Or do they promote otherwise?
While I do welcome the idea that someone is only trying to save me from certain eternal suffering by preaching to me, it irritates me if this same someone is not prepared to listen to other rationalities, or rather this someone is not prepared to be saved from his own beliefs as well!
Which is why we must always promote debates. Debates of the minds, ideas and even (especially?) religious belief systems. Debates without the fear of violence.
This author has no basis of accusing Dhammika of doing a great disservice to inter-religious dialogue.
Why? Because he does not believe in inter-religious dialogue or inter-religious anything.
Couched in intellectually dishonesty, the author is simply saying :-
1.Zealots/Fundamentalists/Evangelicals – nothing wrong. Even your conventional understanding of this terms are biased.
2.We have a right to believe in the exclusive truth of our Bible therefore sorry, no compromise. End of argument. What inter-faith dialogue? You expect us to talk to liars & the misguided ?
3. Don’t be overzealous in calling for restraint. To tolerate the unbelievers is more than enough. You can forget about appreciation or mutual respect for other religions – there is only one – mine,ours that is the ONLY truth. What’s wrong with it when it is true mine is the ONLY truth? I mean others feel that way too? Then they are wrong.
4. So long as I don’t instigate violence, everything else is fair game. Count yourself lucky I am not like those barbaric jihadists. So you have no grounds for complaints if I denigrade, deride or mock your religions. How can I be wrong when God is on my side – I merely speak the Truth, so claimed my Bible. How is it wrong when I am merely pointing out the falsehoods & idiocy in your false ‘religions’.
The above is not an exaggeration. The writer even boldly profess : – “Of course a spade has got to be called a spade so that the waters are not muddled unnecessarily”. I don’t see myself as a bigot – all you unbelievers are for not being of the same faith as I.
All that in contrast to Dhammika’s candid observation that those who do not believe in religious harmony do not join the inter-religious advocates. It is a simple truism that hypocrites try to deny.
It is precisely articles & smug & snooty positions like these that will succeed in baiting the less cerebral into making extreme & unwholesome anti-Christian diatribes all over again.
Such a view as held by Ravi Philemon – I call a view akin to a fire-starter in a bush country.
shaking on it is not good enough. we are mindful that each sect has an intellectual class to add value to the meal they are serving to the masses. this could be problematic when the ayatollah types dominate a discussion and starts his offensive nonsense. so to counter it, we get our own moderate intellectuals to diffuse the discussion through selective arguments. it usually works because the dumb masses not knowing the complex history of the faiths usually enjoys having their ears tickled silly will swallow anything that’s romantic. and when you have the masses over your side handling out roses to each other, oh, harmony is harmonica does.
“There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4.12). So proclaimed the early preachers of the gospel of Christ. Indeed, this conviction permeates the New Testament and helped to spur the Gentile mission. Paul invites his Gentile converts to recall their pre-Christian days: “Remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world” (Ephesians 2.12). The burden of the opening chapters of Romans is to show that this desolate situation is the general condition of mankind. Though God’s eternal power and deity are evident through creation (1.20) and the demands of His moral law implanted on the hearts of all persons (2.15) and although God offers eternal life to all who seek Him in well-doing (2.7), the tragic fact of the matter is that in general people suppress the truth in unrighteousness, ignoring the Creator (1.21) and flouting the moral law (1.32). Therefore, “all men, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin, as it is written: ‘None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands, no one seeks for God…’” (3.9-1 1). Sin is the great leveler, rendering all needy of God’s forgiveness and salvation. Given the universality of sin, all persons stand morally guilty and condemned before God, utterly incapable of redeeming themselves through righteous acts (3.19-20). But God in His grace has provided a means of salvation from this state of condemnation: Jesus Christ, by his expiatory death, redeems us from sin and justifies us before God (3.21-26). It is through him and through him alone, then, that God’s forgiveness is available (5.12-21). To reject Jesus Christ is therefore to reject God’s grace and forgiveness, to refuse the one means of salvation which God has provided. It is to remain under His condemnation and wrath, to forfeit eternally salvation. For someday God will judge all men, “inflicting vengeance upon those who do not know God and upon those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might” (II Thessalonians 1.8-9).
Share we pray for your salvation without which, you will end in hell?
Comment : Tatau
Nowadays, you can also access “Russia Today” Tv to listen to their version of current affairs.
Here is the link….
http://www.youtube.com/russiatoday
Watch the “crosstalk” program between Norman Finklestein (a political scientist) vs Israel.
For definitions, sometime it can also be found in http://en.wikipedia.org
Nowadays, we called ourselves intellectuals and know everything, U know?
And remember, try not to be under Dr Fu Manchu’s control, U saw those movies ?
The verses were:
You got no brain
You cannot think
You obey what I command U to do !
//sanctioned inter-religious dialogues do not work because those that really need such dialogues, “the bigots, zealots, fundamentalists and the evangelicals, won’t come.”//
i dunno… it seems like bigots are separate categories from the rest, to be mentioned in the same sentence. So I don’t understand why Ravi gets the idea that bigots = all the rest. in principle, there is nothing wrong with being labelled zealot, fundamentalist or evangelicals. i think some christians will use the labels on themselves. it looks like ravi is the one who has all the negative associations in his head.
i think most religion believe in some kind of exclusivity.. if you don’t believe or do xx, you will not got to heaven. true or not, that is a theological debate. but the fact is some people have strong beliefs about it and want to help others go heaven. Although i may not agree with their beliefs/definitions, if the motivation is pure, i think it is admirable because it speaks about helping others.
but underlying that is also the belief that other religions are at best- irrelevant, at worst- bad. that sets us up in quandary where having low opinion of other religions is the faith another religion.
there are many levels to this:
1) preaching exclusivity and fostering a poor opinion of other religions.
2) openly attacking other religions etc. (like the couple spreading materials)
First level lead to the next level.
The second is outright wrong, but the first is somewhat protected by religious freedoms. For the govt to intervene in (1) is to go into a religion and tell them what to teach. That is going down a slippery slope for all Singaporeans- not just them.
As far as i can tell, the govt stance is to be hard on those in (2) but rely on community to self-moderate in (1). Why should the community compromise and find a middle point? Liberal minded people will think reason will prevail in the minds of the most religiously convicted people (which is an irony to me). I think they are more motivated to self-moderate with the sedition act hangs as a Damocles sword.
As recent events show, self-moderation and avoidance of conflict with other segments of society have not worked as planned. Reason or threats did not work. Some toc writers think it’s because of the lack of genuine discussions that led to failure. From the events, we can infer that the govt think it’s because the threat was forgotten. Calling RT to lim kopi was to remind him and everyone else that ISD is still around. A more measured, less trigger-happy approach than 1987, but the message is the same- ‘get your house in order or we will do it’.
@izam: I apologise. I referred to ‘Jihad’ as it is commonly or mistakenly understood. Thank you for pointing it out to me.
Shravasti Dhammika article focusses on groups of religious people who chose not to participate in inter-religious dialogues. And it is this group of people who have created the most fuss recently with their extreme actions and words. Every single incident involving christian fundamentalists came from a church that has not been part of the inter-faith council. It is also telling that since the Rony Tan incident, no other independent christian leader has spoken out against his actions.
So Ravi you are barking up the wrong tree. The facts speak for themselves and the truth is churches that are not part of the council or involved in the inter-faith efforts are the ones who have created the most trouble. They do so based on their fundamental beliefs, their over-zealous faith and pressing need to evengalise this to everyone. To pick on labels and not see the facts makes you truly blind; to actually write a piece on your shallow observations makes this even more tragic.
I wonder who Evangelises the Evanglist?
Firstly, there are many Inter religious organizations in Singapore. It is disingenuous to attend one and make a blanket statement about the composition all the groups that do exist.
It is, however, true that Interfaith dialogues do tend to be attended by people who are already receptive to the idea of it and thus, less likely to ‘need’ it. Ultimately, the wider goal is to have people well-versed in interfaith dialogue, to then engage within their faith communities in intrafaith dialogue.
But interfaith dialogue is first necessary to build the fundamentals of handling differing opinions from opposite ends of the spectrum.
even within 1 religion there can be different factions or sub-types, if you will, for lack of bettr word. so , i humbly ask, who holds the truth?
Jihad is not an issue or muslims or Islam for discussion here,
What is the meaning of jihad and why are you skewing us muslims with violence because we believe in jihad. Jihad is not violent and does not instigate violence, just because west associate jihad/jihadism with violence does not make it so. It is uniformed to accept such vulgarity.
The author is not genuine and doing likewise. but I don’t think that this make him a bigot but then only Allah knows.
See this is what happened when instigating using a wrong word or example, that I wrote the above comment before even reading the other comments like lobo76 , iszm and et al. and also Ravi Philemon reply, do I accept his apology? only Allah knows.
@tatau, I am not expert in Islam and prsusme to know all about Islam eventhough I am a muslim, Jihad is “struggle in the path of Allah” as such it involves many issues from very personal to social and geopoltics.
Izam, thanks for the Christian and Judaic perspectives on Jihad. So you are aggrieved because Ravi uses the word Jihad as a generic tern for violent struggle. Despite the Christian and Judaic examples given by you also depict about-to-occur violent acts. So, izam I take it you are now setting rules on loanword. Anyways, I use Japanese to say Arigato.
Thank you very much, Ravi.
Hey Sloo,
If you believed that Christian fundamentalists are the ones that have created the most trouble and discords and do not voluntarily subscribe to government approved Inter-faith council,why not go one step further by telling us that it should be made mandatory for all those Christian churches to participate in the inter-faith dialog.If not,their license to practice as a church minister be revoked.After all,this has to be done for the sake of peace and harmony in our multi-religious society.I am pretty sure you are rubbing your hands with glee in your face in agreement.
dr fu Manchu & bad example..
Pardon, excusez-moi for my bad manners and once again makasih for the info.
P.S. I just love using loanwords.
Has anyone ever pondered the real reason why religions are so disdainful to some? Look at the world around us today. What is the driving force behind it, or rather, what are the driving force behind it? It started with materialism, and the more material wealth we acquire and consume, the greedier we become.
Life became a long, drawn out attempt to be better than our neighbour in terms of material wealth and our ability to display this wealth, especially in secular society like Singapore. This is the modern day religion that gives rise to the advent of Atheism. No longer is there a need for God’s guidance. I beg your pardon, there is no longer a need for God. He no longer exists! God forbids too many things for the liking of the secular society.
So what has this got to do with the topic in question and what has it got to do with inter-faith dialogues? For starters, please ask yourself who is it who initiated these so-called inter-religious dialogues? Is it not the Atheistic society at large? Is it not the Atheist who feels threatened, limited and obstructed in his material expansion, in the name of secularism and under the disguise of being multi-racial and multi-religious?
There are opposing forces at work here and it is in the best interest of the Atheist and the atheistic society it embraces and governs, that requires it to make sure that all religions do not stand in its way to obstruct its progress and its pursuit of worldly treasures.
Sadly, in any inter-religious dialogues, the governing power happens to be the one that does not ascribe to any religion. In Singapore, religious dialogues are meant to serve the greater calling of the secular society.
Until we can rope the Atheist in, will religions have a place in society. How the world has turned topsy-turvy. It used to be the other way around. It is why the so-called fundamentalists or extremists (in its negative connotations) are rallying against the Atheistic and secular world. And, it is why the world does not understand their language.
Even Osama bin Laden has been quoted as saying: “There will be no need for bombs if only its enemies listen”.
Hey Preston
I am pointing out the FACT that independent christians who caused the most disruptions recently belong to churches that who refuse to join the inter-faith council or dialogues. And these churches are mainly fundamentalist and charismatic. And the labelling of these churches as such is factual, not bigotry, as espoused by Ravi.
How that point has lead to your point about mandatory licensing is strange.
What the Rony Tan episode goes to show is the selfish and arrogant attitudes of these independent christian denominations and their attitudes to anyone and everyone who is not part of their fold.
The authorities do not need mandatory licensing which would only drive these extreme fundamentalists underground; they will and most likely are keeping a very close eye on them while allowing them free play in the public space. Much smarter no?
To the Preacher: Your profuse quotes from your Holy Book should only be directed to your believers as only they believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. To attempt to win arguments by saying ‘because the Holy Book says so’ is so disingenuous;
To RW, thank you for your sharp observation of the ‘bigot’ then comma and the rest. This may be a moot point, but definitely helpful;
To Sloo, thank you for your measured & concise commentary of what is objectionable with Ravi’s article;
As for preston loon, why should we ‘rub our hands with glee’ at your sarcastic suggestion of mandatory participation ? To further your false ‘martyrdom’ & claims of persecution ?
Ideally inter-religious organizations should attempt to broaden the knowledge of all religious leaders. But this is a futile objective with strongly convicted participants.
Cynically then, it is a pragmatic get-together of people mindful of the common interest of peaceful co-existence. If some personal chemistry can result in good human relations, so much the better.
If those independent churches do not support the national cause of harmony enough to join the IRC voluntarily, then their enforced participation is equally meaningless.
Gemani,
Just a little nugget of information. During Roman times, the term atheist was used to describe those who didn’t subscribe to the Roman pantheon of Jupiter, Juno etc… meaning the early Christians were also considered ‘atheists’.
Two, you are confounding atheism (as people who do not believe in the supernatural) with secularism. I can have a spiritual faith, and yet believe in the need for a secular sphere, because it is the only guarantee in which I am allowed to practice my faith without being persecuted for it. And in return, I give up some of my ‘freedom’ – for eg, not to be too enthusiastic in the promote of my beliefs to the point it rubs others the wrong way.
And lastly, it is not atheists who alone are obsessed with ‘material expansion’. Greedy people are. And greedy people exists in all strata of society, regardless of language or religion.
Hi Zefly,
Thanks for the history bit but we are talking modern language and the modern equivalent of being an atheist and being secular.
Secondly, you have equated religion with the supernatural – no my dear friend – religion is not as supernatural as some non-religious have made them out to be. Basically, loving one another is reflection of religion in its purest form. No further interpretation needed.
Thirdly, you speak of persecution and fear, the fear of practicing your religion and thus giving in to the ‘secular sphere’ because it ‘guarantees’ the continued practice of your faith. Why so unless you are equating religion with something that is against the flow of what the world aspires to? No proof is needed for one to see that the secular world is more fearful of the religious world that it is the other way around.
Fourth, is the behaviour of the religious anything new to the non-religious? They have behaved they way they do for centuries. What makes you think it will change to accommodate the secularism of today when it was against it from the beginning of time?
Lastly, something I can agree with, that greedy people comes from all strata of society. True, but do you not see that to the religious, this is a bane to religiosity, very much like the bane that religions pose to the secular? Who is responsible for the dilution of religion?
And so the argument goes. Yours is an argument positioned from a non-religious standpoint. In the modern world of Singapore, all others take their bearings from this standpoint – why is it so? Oh yes; Secularism, a modern religion for a modern society.
gemami
Feb 19, 2010 8:33
Has anyone ever pondered the real reason why religions are so disdainful to some?
A bit. One of the things I came up with is, because some people use them to fuel their greed/materialism. As Zefly mentioned,”greedy people exists in all strata of society, regardless of language or religion”.
gemami
Feb 19, 2010 10:06
Secondly, you have equated religion with the supernatural
That has indeed, alway been my ‘definition’ of religion. Otherwise, people could have equated the love of money (or any other obsession) to be yet another ‘religion’ as well.
loving one another is reflection of religion in its purest form.
That would be your personal interpretation. Sounds good… but seemed to have come out of nowhere.
No proof is needed for one to see that the secular world is more fearful of the religious world that it is the other way around.
And that ‘secular’ world is fearful precisely because of the religions embedded inside it.
What makes you think it will change to accommodate the secularism of today when it was against it from the beginning of time?
Changes that have occurred in our history thus far? e.g gender equality, racial discrimination, etc. Of course, we aren’t ‘there’ yet. However, despite the ‘beginning of time’ values, I would say that females have gain much parity and and there is less racial discrimination. At least, these are now frowned on by the modern world. Quite a change, isn’t it?
So why not for secularism as well?
Thanks lobo76. I can now rest my case.
btw: ‘Loving one another is a reflection of religion in its purest form’ did not come from me and it is not something new and neither did it came our from nowhere. Think harder and I am sure you will remember what Love has bought for us.
Thanks lobo76. I can now rest my case.
btw: ‘Loving one another is a reflection of religion in its purest form’ did not come from me and it is not something new and neither did it came out from nowhere. Think harder and I am sure you will remember what Love has bought for us.
Hey Elephanto and Sloo,
If the interfaith dialogs and inter-religious organizations are doing the right thing in promoting peace and harmony,what is wrong in making it compulsory to participate.They are there not to indoctrinate or de-program those’ bigoted’ and ‘extremist’ Christian leaders.Unless you think otherwise.Why do we have compulsory national service and education for our children.Have you heard of Jehovah Witnesses?I find them they are the most gentle and peaceful believers and have never heard them uttered a word of bigotry or insensitivity to other believers of other faiths and best of all they keep to themselves.Sadly to say,they are being punished and jailed for their belief in pacifism.I hope you get my point.
preston loon
Feb 19, 2010 10:57
Hey Elephanto and Sloo,
If the interfaith dialogs and inter-religious organizations are doing the right thing in promoting peace and harmony,what is wrong in making it compulsory to participate
actually, it’s not hard to see that it will something like that of the HDB ethnicity quota. One of the few things from PAP, that I still support.
Preston…
As mentioned by elephanto, forcing them to join the IFC is pointless – not only would it force the churches underground, it would serve no purpose to have members that do not sincerely believe in the role of the IFC . The govt gives free rein to religious institutions but in return they expect religious leaders to contribute to the harmony here, not disrupt it like the action of a certain pastor.
Likewise all religious orders are dealt with an even and equal hand; the same way every male is expected to serve NS. Id the Joehovah Witnesses were to be excused from NS, i would expect them to be the main religious order for singaporean males in quick time.
Lets stop throwing fallacious and irrational arguments and think a little deeply of what we say that would contribute to the greater good.
Gemani
I wonder what you would call voodoo which in Haiti is revered as a religion. As a christian would you call it supernatural? Perhaps even Satanic?
And LOVE in its purest form is to love everyone regardless of their flaws and faults – and i certainly do not see pure love here emanating from certain religious orders….so how can pure love be religious?
Your world view is hopelessly dated; the global village these days has seen the rise of multi-religious societies and states. This in turn makes the secular society all the more relevant especially when competing religions maintain their moral superiority over the rest in the public sphere. Without secularism, would minor religions like judaism or even Taoism survive?
Secularism is not afraid of religion; its there to ensure the survival of religions in a multi-religious state like ours. Secularism is only wary of religions aspiring to take over and dominate the public sphere to impose their one world view and morality upon the whole society.
Comment: Preacher
Some really likes to quote.
But did it ever occur to anyone the bible has been abridged over the years !
SO…..
HEAR WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO HEAR ?
READ WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO READ ?
Well here is a quotation by a writer.
Gen 32:30
for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved
JOHN 1:18
NO MAN HATH SEEN GOD AT ANY TIME
Some assholes ?
So some preachers may preach that he has seen “god”, and having been ” anointed” to teach. ($$$$$)
So how to join IRO and participate ?
Taking into the present employment environment, do you think the Govt will encourage those still without jobs to be preachers?
No Income Tax ?
No Gst ?
Sing song sing song ?
sloo Feb 19, 2010 11:35
As mentioned by elephanto, forcing them to join the IFC is pointless – not only would it force the churches underground…
why would they have to go underground? They can still register as non-profit civil society (or something like that) and carry on. They are just not recognized officially/legally as a religion.
does anyone know how many religious fundamentalist extremists harbor resentment against other religions?
if not, will society continue to be divided?
So very difficult for discussion with one, when one doesn’t bother to really read up on history, educate themselves on exactly what they would like to discuss. Frustrating for so many when facing so many who do not understand the difference between materialism and consumerism, capitalism, social causes, when one doesn’t understand the term atheism, when one doesn’t even understand the term superstition.
I guess when rebutting simplistic arguments, we have to use simplistic rebuttals, which sadly could be counterproductive.
What arrogance is one when using the word ‘god’, taking for granted and ignorant stance that everyone understands their definition and THAT particular (whatever it is) version of an entity is the true one and widely accepted one or many.
Sloo,
To pick out one fundamental point of yours that tells the whole picture of why all these arguments are but a futile exercise for one side to convince the other. Yes, religion and its arguments are dated. You see, the basis of religion does not change, the world does. And for the world to expect religion to change along with it is where all these quarrels arise.
Of course you may argue and present factual incidences to support the argument that religion does change its stance from time to time but I must quickly add that these changes are only accepted if the basis for that particular religion is better reflected, not because it has to move with the times.
Your other argument that one would expect to see pure love emanating from certain religious orders if they profess to be religious is, at best, not seeing religion as it is. What you have essentially done is see the practitioners of religion not meeting this mark instead of religion not professing this degree of holiness.
Yet, no one is saying that secularism is not relevant. It is relevant and no religion can escape it. Do you not see that it has become overly relevant that religions now have to take a back seat and play a supporting role to it, even in affairs that affects the spirituality of a person?
It has become a chicken and duck situation and not until both can speak the language of a goose can we ever dream of coming to any conclusive agreement on where we should meet to accommodate each other.
Good Afternoon Gemami,
“It has become a chicken and duck situation.” Well my friend, what if I say, it has always been that way since time immemorial – only my take is every community has its place and no one community should disrespect another community’s belief, this includes free thinkers or even people who believe in the power of Reiki Crystals.
The problem IMHO does not lie with RELIGION per se, but rather the people who interpret HOW religion makes sense in the day to day scheme of things to Ah Kow, Muthu, Ahmad and De Souza – that to me is the root of the problem – when the “leaders” become so irresponsible they start to embellish, conflate and misinterpret RELIGION, that’s when they cross the line, that’s also when they begin to believe they are God. And we all know there is no RELIGION there not when a man begins to talk like God- so don’t blame RELIGION, every RELIGION is good. But the same cannot be said about the human factor.
Do have a great weekend ahead
SD (Internet Liaison officer – sponsored by the Interspacing Mercantile Guild)
I agree that ‘absolutely no apology is needed to be an ‘evangelical’’, but that doesn’t change the fact that many of such people would not come to an inter-faith seminar because it defies the core principle by which they live their lives – to evangelise, by definition to make people of other faiths believe what they do. There’s nothing wrong with wanting that (although undoubtedly it can be very annoying), but it is wrong when evangelists become disrespectful towards people of other faiths.
One reason is that being evangelical in itself is not wrong, but what often comes of it is, because of the premises of evangelising. If you are from the get-go unwilling to consider a belief other than your own, and if you set so much store by your belief that you think everyone should adopt it, you immediately set up a bias in favour of your own faith. It is clear that evangelists do not want what society does (or thinks it does) in terms of inter-religious tolerance, because multiple faiths coexisting would make their mission of conversion impossible. In that case, why pretend that the evangelists see inter-faith dialogue and understanding as anything more than a good short-term solution that happens to keep the peace for now? There’s nothing strictly wrong with that, even if many people may not like it. But we’re living in a society here, and we have to get along, or die.
The second reason is personal, and would probably sound a lot less like a contrived effort to promote harmony just for the survival of society. I agree that it’s difficult to agree on what’s the ‘‘right’ view to have and what is not’, and for this very reason I think it’s illogical to say that one religion is better than another (illogical, not morally wrong, but nevertheless gut-wrenchingly silly), because to me all are speculations about life and none can be said to be the truth. It’s then being very full of yourself to promote your religion like it’s more valuable than another (not less dissing another religion), but that’s just me.
Go with the first reason, I think it makes more sense. Hmm.
///Gemami
And for the world to expect religion to change along with it is where all these quarrels arise.///
In particular, Christianity has changed tremendously with time and moved on with the world.
The megachurches are employing all the new age marketing strategies and approach to evangelism.
Tele-evangelism too is so prominent in US.
But do all the denominations ‘embrace’ these changes? Don’t think so, just look at the bickering between denominations and one can see for themselves.
I personally dont think Love and Morality is the exclusive dominion of Religion.
Human are capable of love and moral behaviours with or without religion.
As much as we would love to allow the discussion to continue, let us now put the chicken, the duck and their eggs away and concentrate on other current developments, shall we? Thank you for all the valid points of discussion as well as for the passionate arguments that should be admired – regardless of your position on the matter.