Condo success: What's faith got to do with it?
-
argument? for what?Originally posted by laurence82:Clever argument, but providing needs and associating God with a non religious project are two different thing.
Besides, there was never talk of Christianity. Look at all the previous posts, where some even ask 'Which God?'
Also, God itself does not imply religion or religious belief? Which planet you hail from?
a housing project is non religious just like a dish of chicken rice, until it is declared that the chicken rice is prepared according to some religious practice and served in utensils deemed religiously clean. If the developer declared he need to thank God for the successful sales, he must believe that God has indeed helped him in the sales, one way or another. But that does not make the condos religious. and if there is nothing religious about it, why the big fuss? if God itself does not imply religion or religious belief, then why the argument that religion does not mix well with business?
-
I am often puzzled with statement like "halal food is to provide needs". I can understand that all the malay and indian food needs to be halal, but chinese food? the malay and indian muslims ever expressed their need for Chinese food?Originally posted by laurence82:Clever argument, but providing needs and associating God with a non religious project are two different thing.
sorry, a bit out for the thread. -
In the first place, who propose that religion does not mix well with business?Originally posted by sgdiehard:argument? for what?
a housing project is non religious just like a dish of chicken rice, until it is declared that the chicken rice is prepared according to some religious practice and served in utensils deemed religiously clean. If the developer declared he need to thank God for the successful sales, he must believe that God has indeed helped him in the sales, one way or another. But that does not make the condos religious. and if there is nothing religious about it, why the big fuss? if God itself does not imply religion or religious belief, then why the argument that religion does not mix well with business?
Whoever said the project is religious?
Seriously, i dont know what you are driving at.
How come you never answer the queston? Nobody said the project has anything to do with Christianity, so why are you bringing it in?
The use of God's name do imply religious belief, but nobody said the project is religious. That bring us to the original issue, which i want to ask you, do you really know what was the original fuss about? -
Excuse me, what are you driving at? Of course they do need to eat halal food. Can Muslims eat anything else? Or can the Jews of Judaism eat non kosher food?Originally posted by sgdiehard:I am often puzzled with statement like "halal food is to provide needs". I can understand that all the malay and indian food needs to be halal, but chinese food? the malay and indian muslims ever expressed their need for Chinese food?
sorry, a bit out for the thread.
And for your info, halal refers to food prepared according to Muslim rites and regulations, while Chinese food is a distinctly a genre of food associated with an ethinic group
May I know why are you mixing two diassociated groups together?
Malays, Indians and Chinese refers to ethnic groups while Muslims, Taoists, Buddhist, Christians refer to members of religious groups
Pls get your basic facts right and rephrase your questions if you have to. -
I did not start my post responding to any other posts. What question do I need to answer? I said in my earlier post, I didn't ask who's God was the sign referring to, I just assumed that the developer was a Christian, only Christians would do something like that, no? you don't have to agree with me.Originally posted by laurence82:In the first place, who propose that religion does not mix well with business?
Whoever said the project is religious?
Seriously, i dont know what you are driving at.
How come you never answer the queston? Nobody said the project has anything to do with Christianity, so why are you bringing it in?
The use of God's name do imply religious belief, but nobody said the project is religious. That bring us to the original issue, which i want to ask you, do you really know what was the original fuss about?
the letter from thomas lee zhi zhi asserted that the sign in Newton, "unfortunately did not shows great maturity and good understanding of the importance of religious harmony and the way to live with others in a tolerant manner." "but it will take only days to push it back to Day 1. So, it is everybody's duty to ensure that it will not happen." Here religious harmony is mentioned so the word "Faith" refers to religion, is "sprituality" also refering to religion? that I will not answer. Everything aside, the signboard is just a word of thanks to God, no different from a thank you to all supporters, why should the presence of God causes religious disharmony?
My position on this was stated earlier " Religious harmony comes with citizens who are more tolerant rather than more sensitive to religious expressions. " I will say Mr Thomas Lee is too sensitive rather than tolerant. What's your point? -
Not answering the questions. nvm.Originally posted by sgdiehard:I did not start my post responding to any other posts. What question do I need to answer? I said in my earlier post, I didn't ask who's God was the sign referring to, I just assumed that the developer was a Christian, only Christians would do something like that, no? you don't have to agree with me.
the letter from thomas lee zhi zhi asserted that the sign in Newton, "unfortunately did not shows great maturity and good understanding of the importance of religious harmony and the way to live with others in a tolerant manner." "but it will take only days to push it back to Day 1. So, it is everybody's duty to ensure that it will not happen." Here religious harmony is mentioned so the word "Faith" refers to religion, is "sprituality" also refering to religion? that I will not answer. Everything aside, the signboard is just a word of thanks to God, no different from a thank you to all supporters, why should the presence of God causes religious disharmony?
My position on this was stated earlier " Religious harmony comes with citizens who are more tolerant rather than more sensitive to religious expressions. " I will say Mr Thomas Lee is too sensitive rather than tolerant. What's your point?
So the basis for assumption that its Christians..? And would it help anything at all..?
Answer my questions if you want me to answer your questions.
Besides, as to your last questions I had already laid my answers in the thread. -
This is more of a courtesy issue than a religious issue.
If someone helps me, I thank him/ her, not my parents. Likewise, customers helped me in my business, I ought to thank the customers, not some nebulous beings. -
A very lousy analogy.Originally posted by Beyond Religion:This is more of a courtesy issue than a religious issue.
If someone helps me, I thank him/ her, not my parents. Likewise, customers helped me in my business, I ought to thank the customers, not some nebulous beings.
If someone helps you, he/she gets nothing in return.
If someone pays money to you, he/she gets a house in return.
Thus there will definitely a difference in the gratitude of thanks expressed.
Also, i feel(IMO) that you have violated the rules.(underlined) -
Actually, that would depend on the meaning that she attributed to the term 'spirituality'. One has to be precise here in view of the prevalence of sloppy language (and hence sloppy thinking) these days.Originally posted by laurence82:seriously, i agree with one of my business lecturer, she herself a Christian, that one should never mix spirituality with business
A lot of people, like the 2 letter writers, are of the view of religion should be 'privatised', meaning that people of faith should keep their faith to themselves and that there is no room for faith in the 'public arena' of a secular state.
Now again, the correctness of this view depends on the meaning(s) attached to the terms 'religion' and 'faith'. To many people of faith, their faith also include ethical systems that attempt to regulate their behaviour towards others and towards the larger social context. So for such people, living their faith is a matter of personal integrity, of speaking and acting in accord with one's beliefs and values.
Seen from this perspective, one can argue that what is advocated by the likes of the 2 letter writers is basically a denial of the freedom of expression of those who have faith, since they are impliedly saying that the 'public arena' should not include 'religion', which necessarily informs the views and actions of those who have faith.
Those of us who have faith (of whatever sort) ought to be mindful of the subtle erosion of our rights and freedoms.
regards,
obiterdicta -
God may be nebulous to you, but from a purely subjective perspective, how could you possibly know that God would be a nebulous being to the developer?Originally posted by Beyond Religion:This is more of a courtesy issue than a religious issue.
If someone helps me, I thank him/ her, not my parents. Likewise, customers helped me in my business, I ought to thank the customers, not some nebulous beings. -
i see nothing wrong in these 2 statements.Originally posted by sillyme:If I remember correctly.
It says in two separate lines,
"Fully sold"
"Thanks be to God"
If the author really intend to thank & priase God for it, so be it.
Who knows if God is really pleased with the statements made? -
she meant religions lar, and for her,specifically ChristianityOriginally posted by ObiterDicta:Actually, that would depend on the meaning that she attributed to the term 'spirituality'. One has to be precise here in view of the prevalence of sloppy language (and hence sloppy thinking) these days.
A lot of people, like the 2 letter writers, are of the view of religion should be 'privatised', meaning that people of faith should keep their faith to themselves and that there is no room for faith in the 'public arena' of a secular state.
Now again, the correctness of this view depends on the meaning(s) attached to the terms 'religion' and 'faith'. To many people of faith, their faith also include ethical systems that attempt to regulate their behaviour towards others and towards the larger social context. So for such people, living their faith is a matter of personal integrity, of speaking and acting in accord with one's beliefs and values.
Seen from this perspective, one can argue that what is advocated by the likes of the 2 letter writers is basically a denial of the freedom of expression of those who have faith, since they are impliedly saying that the 'public arena' should not include 'religion', which necessarily informs the views and actions of those who have faith.
Those of us who have faith (of whatever sort) ought to be mindful of the subtle erosion of our rights and freedoms.
regards,
obiterdicta
dont think too much