Board logo

標題: [轉貼]基督徒八大惡劣特徵 [打印本頁]
作者: katamari    時間: 2009-1-5 19:01     標題: [轉貼]基督徒八大惡劣特徵

林天民先生在《宗教與現代人生》一書中把基督徒分為成熟的基督徒與不成熟的基督徒，他歸納出幼稚不成熟的基督徒的特色是依靠性、服從宗教權威、沒有思考及不關心現實世界四點。(4)筆者感慨的是，現今社會上仍然存在著大量不成熟的基督徒，暴露出宗教信仰者醜陋的一面，筆者現將他們的特徵概括如下：

1）盲目信仰、訴諸權威
作為一個基督徒，將自己一生埋葬於基督宗教，無論如何都是人生一大事，然而極大多數基督徒，信主或決志前，是根本不曾仔細研究過基督教的。他們沒有把《聖經》通讀，考察基督教這個宗教的起源，《聖經》怎樣寫成等等一連串問題就胡亂信奉，牧師所言全部照單全收，甘願被牧，而那些無知的師奶嬸嬸基督徒，可能對進化論為何物更一無所知。

非基督徒與基督徒進行信仰討論，往往發現有一個現象就是當基督徒總是有一個訴諸權威的習性。舉例來說，麥道衛的《鐵證待判》一書是教會中比較權威的護教名著，該書對基督教信仰進行了理性上的論證，它也自然地成為了眾多基督徒的護身符，用來抵禦非信徒們對基督教的理性質問，我們經常遇到很多基督徒在討論宗教過程中理屈時，總喜歡搬出麥道衛的《鐵證待判》一書，說什麼：「對於你的質疑，我介紹你看一看麥道衛《鐵證待判》一書。」「你的問題在《鐵證待判》一書中己經解答了。」云云...其實這是訴諸權威不負責任的行為，試問當基督徒搬出《鐵證待判》一書時，有幾多個基督徒認真求證過這些所謂權威著作的可信性呢？

2）相信地獄、人性歪曲
基督徒渴望天國生活，不惜心理上承認不信主的人會下地獄，地獄是基督教一個以永恒烈火燒人的報復性教義，為有良知的人所不齒。相信和接受這些教義的人，其人本身的人性實已被歪曲及泯滅。

故此我可以歸結出，信耶穌就是出於自私心，因為每一個有良心的人都不會相信地獄，如達爾文就這麼說：

「而且實際上，我恐怕還不能夠理解到，無論什麼人怎樣會希望基督教的教義成為真情實事；因為如果它是這樣的話，那麼《福音書》中簡明的經文大概就表明：不信神的人，其中應當包括我的父親、哥哥和幾乎所有我的親密好友，都將會受到永世的懲罰了。這真是該死的教義！」(5)
而哲學家羅素亦說：

「我認為在基督的道德品性中存在著一個非常嚴重的缺點，那就是他相信地獄。我自己認為，真正非常慈悲的人決不會相信永遠的懲罰。《福音》書中描繪的基督無疑是相信永遠的懲罰的，我們也一再發現把不聽從他訓導的那些人視為寇仇的報復心理，這種態度在傳教士中並不少見。」 (6)
即使有些基督徒不願承認地獄中具體的火，但地獄至少也是令人精神痛苦的地方，單憑這一點，耶和華即已是一個邪惡之主。

3）仇視科學、指鹿為馬
基督徒極大部分都是反進化論的，這是很可悲的，因為科學界普遍來說已承認進化論是科學事實的時候，基督徒仍然躲在教會中發夢進化論已被推翻，而牧師卻大言不慚而且可恥地攻擊進化，愚弄教徒。

其實基督徒對科學的誤解及歪曲，稍有看書都知道他們對科學的無知。其實無知是不要緊的，最重要是虛心學習，然後由無知變有知，可惜基督徒偏執至極，既不懂又不願學，面對他們，實在是可悲復可憐。

4）背祖離宗、枉為國人
專指中國基督徒，稍微研究下基督教的發生史，都知道耶和華只是源於猶太人的部落神祗，到後來才被逐級提升，由部落神到護國神再到全人類救主，《舊約》中的耶和華只不過是以色列人的神，《馬太福音》亦清楚表明耶穌只不過是以色列人的救世主。
“外邦人的路，你們不要走。撒瑪利亞人的城，你們不要進。寧可往以色列家迷失的羊那裡去。”(太:10,5)
“耶穌說，我奉差遣，不過是到以色列家迷失的羊那裡去。”(太:15,24)
基督教本就是羅馬帝國統治壓迫下低下群眾自發形成的，後來基督徒向外邦人傳教才將以色列人的救世主升級到全人類的救世主。

現今中國基督徒全忘了當初洋人是怎樣用槍炮，怎樣一手拿《聖經》一手拿麵飽強行向中國人傳教的，中國人基督徒，甘做以色列宗教的狗，把以色列的宗教文化取代祖國的文化，棄中國偉大文化不顧，更甚者，有某些基督徒以中國文化附會聖經，認賊作父，實在是中國人的敗類及恥辱！

5）洗腦教育、誤人子弟
正如哲學家羅素所說：

「不顧事實的盲目信仰，是一切宗教的通性，也是一切國家教育制度的基本精神。在這種情況下，青年的心智發育備受阻礙，對於抱有別種盲目信仰的人，充滿了盲目的敵意，對於反對一切盲目信仰的人，更懷有惡毒的忿恨。」 (7)
這段說話對今日的教會中小學校而言仍然適用，學生年輕幼嫩，思想多未成熟，就要受教會學校每天上課日催眠式福音洗腦，在他們的潛意識裡被灌輸及植入迷信思想，正如某些教會開辦的中學，學生們每天早上集會都要被迫攜帶一本聖詩集，教會學校就是透過悅耳的歌唱，不斷歌頌主殘暴聖主耶和華，漸漸麻痺學生，從而達到“洗腦”的效果，這種手法不禁令人汗毛直豎。

課堂上，進化論被基督徒教師惡意歪曲並攻擊，學生接收的訊息不是客觀的事實，而是爭議性很大的偏見！在此情形下，學生的獨立思維能力及靈活性被嚴重破壞。

6）自命屬靈、排斥異己
基督徒最討厭的地方就是他們那種自高自大，自命為屬靈一族，以致覺得自己便是唯一得救的一群，自以為只有他們才獲得了最後真理，基督徒便是高人一等似的，從而鄙視其他學問知識，不信的就是“屬世者”，不配他們這些“屬靈人”，在婚姻上便是“信與不信原不相配”。

7）出賣尊嚴、自我作賤
基督徒在上帝前無疑盡失做人的基本尊嚴，基督徒決志的那一刻就注定要把做人的尊嚴交出，基督徒所謂的以榮耀神為屬靈生活的目標，其實只是為討上帝歡心，如此作賤自我的為令人側目，難怪羅素會說：
「當你聽見人們在教堂中自我貶斥，說他們是可怜的罪人這類話時，會感到是可恥的，是同有自尊心的人不相稱的。我們應當昂然奮起、坦率地正視世界。」

8）教派衝突、狗咬狗骨
基督教與天主教同出一根，但是自從新教改革以後，新教比天主舊教更邪惡，對社會的危害性比中世紀的舊教本質上有過之而無不及，而且總是不安分守己，某些新教教派更經常攻擊天主教，視為異端，而即使是新教教會與教會之間，也透露出各堂會之間的不和與勾心鬥角，當中不難嗅出教會之間的權力鬥爭與商業化的氣色。

Christians & non Christians, what do you think about this?
作者: mcjohnjohn    時間: 2009-1-5 19:31

小弟係基督徒, 上文講既內容, 是說出作者對"不成熟的基督徒"的看法.

文中一開首便將基督徒分為"成熟的基督徒" 和"不成熟的基督徒", 並舉出現今社會上仍然存在著"大量"不成熟的基督徒. 根據辭典, 大量即數量多, 但究竟有幾多? 然而作者未有對"大量"一詞作出解釋, 不知是否出自任何正式統計. 究竟"成熟的基督徒"多, 還是"不成熟的基督徒"呢?

小弟完全認同這世界一定有作者所謂的"不成熟的基督徒".  
作者: daimo    時間: 2009-1-5 19:38     標題: 宗教與現代人生

內容簡介
top

　　宗教與現代人生不能脫節，兩者需要互相對話，今日的宗教面臨許多現代的問題。
　　第一、宗教與理性：現代人不能接受迷信，宗教應該建立合理的信仰。
　　第二、宗教與科學：科學對現代人生有很大的貢獻，宗教應該與科學合作，因為兩者屬於人生的不同領域，兩者可以滿足人生的不同需求。
　　第三、宗教與無神論：宗教信徒不可敵視無神論者，雖然兩者有不同之處，但是倫理道德上兩者有共同之處，因此兩者可以合作，共同促進社會的公義與世界的和平。本書也從現代人生的觀點來討論神的問題、人的問題、以及聖經的問題。

　　如果一個宗教不能符合現代人生的需要，那一個宗教將失去意義和價值。本書作者一本初衷地關注宗教與現代的關係，秉持尊重世界各大宗教的開放態度，以自身的宗教（基督教）來討論宗教與現代人生的重大議題，層面涵蓋今日宗教所面臨新的問題和新的挑戰，期以宗教上的自我批評與檢討，來促進宗教不斷革新，以符合現代需求，幫助人生完善。

作者簡介：
　　林天民
　　民國二十四年生，高雄市人。國立台灣大學畢業，美國耶魯大學神學碩士，波士頓大學宗教學哲學博士。曾任美國密西西比州土加魯學院助理教授三年，賓西法尼亞州州立印第安大學哲學與宗教糸教授三十年，一九七五年獲選為該校最佳教授。現任真理大學宗教系與研究所客座教授。
　　中文著作有《基督教與現代世界》，外文著作有 Readings in the World\'s Living Religions、The Life and Thought of Soren Kierkegaard 、Introduction to Religion，以及多篇發表在學術雜誌之文章。


    *  作者：林天民/著
    * 出版社：台灣商務
    * 出版日期：2004年05月01日
    * 語言：繁體中文 ISBN：9570518596
    * 裝訂：平裝

http://www.books.com.tw/exep/prod/booksfile.php?item=0010258182

[ 本帖最後由 daimo 於 2009-1-5 20:40 編輯 ]
作者: ricrick    時間: 2009-1-5 19:41

e? katamari 是敵基督的人bor

其實每個宗教都有不足之處、解不通的事，但每個宗教都係導人向善
每個人也有自由去信什麼，只要不太扁激就得啦

我又想問katamari你是信什麼？
作者: starbug    時間: 2009-1-5 19:52

我話唔信你大佬你就咒我落地獄? 你食X喇.
作者: puZZle    時間: 2009-1-5 20:16

there are too many points to discuss here
so i will just pick a few for now

4）背祖離宗、枉為國人
作者明顯有斷章取義 (套用他自己的說法) "洗腦教育、誤人子弟" 之嫌


“外邦人的路，你們不要走。撒瑪利亞人的城，你們不要進。寧可往以色列家迷失的羊那裡去。”(太:10,5)
這一段跟本是指耶穌叫門徒 當時 去的地方

“耶穌說，我奉差遣，不過是到以色列家迷失的羊那裡去。”(太:15,24)
同上
耶穌所指的是他自己當時在世的任務

接下來的
太20:
19所以，你們要去，使萬民作我的門徒，奉父、子、聖靈的名給他們施洗
20 凡我所吩咐你們的，都教訓他們遵守，我就常與你們同在，直到世界的末了

就是門徒
和他升天後的工作了


3）仇視科學、指鹿為馬
"因為科學界普遍來說已承認進化論是科學事實的時候..."

um....before we talk about evolution... how about we solve the problem of where life came from first? science has never showed that life arose out of random chance has it?
Therefore, as far as we know by now, evidence towards creation is more abundant than evidence supporting abiogenesis
IMO, the burden of proof rests on the people who believe there is no creator first right?

just my 2cents

7）出賣尊嚴、自我作賤
教徒應罪就是錯
政.府高官不認錯 就大錯特錯?

[ 本帖最後由 puZZle 於 2009-1-5 21:18 編輯 ]
作者: shutterbug    時間: 2009-1-5 21:13

removed...

[ 本帖最後由 shutterbug 於 2009-1-5 22:23 編輯 ]
作者: daimo    時間: 2009-1-5 21:17

SB, 林天民 didn't write the article above.  Please read #2.
作者: Catpiano    時間: 2009-1-5 21:18

Again??  


Waste gas la...   
作者: shutterbug    時間: 2009-1-5 21:22

原帖由 daimo 於 2009-1-5 22:17 發表
SB, 林天民 didn't write the article above.  Please read #2.

oh...thanks for the clarification...and sorry Mr. 林天民 (whoever you are)

sigh...when I see so many words I will skip to the main points...LOL

now daimo, you made me look so stupid...j/k

[ 本帖最後由 shutterbug 於 2009-1-5 22:24 編輯 ]
作者: starbug    時間: 2009-1-5 21:24

原帖由 shutterbug 於 2009-1-5 22:13 發表
What do I think?

I just want to know who is this Mr. 林天民 and what was his purpose to write something like this.

I don't think he understands Christianity at all.  Just like a kid misunderstanding ...


佢無非都係講真相, 我都寧願信個神打佬都好過信個耶穌佬.
作者: shutterbug    時間: 2009-1-5 21:27

原帖由 starbug 於 2009-1-5 22:24 發表


佢無非都係講真相, 我都寧願信個神打佬都好過信個耶穌佬.

oh no...you quote me before I removed my post...LOL

well, not hard to understand cuz spirit possessed can really do extraordinary things in front of you...but the Bible also said that believing without seeing is more blessed (or stupid? up to you)
作者: starbug    時間: 2009-1-5 21:36

冇見過都會信先叫做信.., 我聽咗好多年咯, 恕我祗係愚民一名, 唔見過真係唔識信. 我一直都覺得呢句嘢係D神棍護身符.
作者: shutterbug    時間: 2009-1-5 21:44

原帖由 starbug 於 2009-1-5 22:36 發表
冇見過都會信先叫做信.., 我聽咗好多年咯, 恕我祗係愚民一名, 唔見過真係唔識信. 我一直都覺得呢句嘢係D神棍護身符.

Not really 護身符 geh...eyes are deceiving sometimes, what you see might not be the truth, on the other hand what you don't see might not be false.
作者: puZZle    時間: 2009-1-5 21:46

hmm
may I bring up an interesting question?

why do you guys think that 1st century Christians believed that Jesus is God, when so many eyewitnesses can prove that, if it was so, He had not done any miracles/had resurrected/did not even exist?

Either Jesus was lying or playing tricks to have the bulk of people in Israel area convinced that he was God (which is not likely)
or the apostles were lying about it ( then why did they, along with so many Christians in the first century, willing to die by the hands of the Jews and Romans?
作者: chunsh    時間: 2009-1-5 21:50

原帖由 mcjohnjohn 於 2009-1-5 20:31 發表
小弟係基督徒, 上文講既內容, 是說出作者對"不成熟的基督徒"的看法.

文中一開首便將基督徒分為"成熟的基督徒" 和"不成熟的基督徒", 並舉出現今社會上仍然存在著"大量"不成熟的基督徒. 根據辭典, 大量即數量多, 但究 ...


何謂"成熟的基督徒" 和"不成熟的基督徒"?

我想﹐這個世界上沒有一個可以稱為完全成熟的基督徒吧
人有7情6慾﹐自私﹐貪婪﹐凶殘......只要基督徒是人﹐就不可能有例外
早前有機會去join一個教會event, 發覺那些教友本身只係對"自己友"nice﹐但對不
認同他們 or 對他們的一些事有些意見的時候(註: 那個不是我哦﹐我承認我無gut,
但我覺得在人家地頭搞事﹐而搞完事後又改變不了他們的話是"waste gas")﹐他們
對會去群起攻之。那﹐他們是不是成熟的基督徒呢?

還有﹐我經常聽到一些基督徒說某些和他們不同見解的基督徒不是真的基督徒﹐他
們才是。那不是傲慢是甚麼? 聖經白讀了嗎?
作者: chunsh    時間: 2009-1-5 21:52

原帖由 starbug 於 2009-1-5 20:52 發表
我話唔信你大佬你就咒我落地獄? 你食X喇.


佢地唔係咒
係靠嚇o者
作者: chunsh    時間: 2009-1-5 21:54

To be fair
actually I found that people around me who are christans are pretty nice to be friends
but but but but but.........
I wouldn't mention anything about religion, especially I know I am not sharing the same religion (or church),if u value him/her as your friend
作者: soli    時間: 2009-1-5 22:00     標題: 回復 15# 的帖子

why do you guys think that 1st century Christians believed that Jesus is God, when so many eyewitnesses can prove that, if it was so, He had not done any miracles/had resurrected/did not even exist?

即使係21世紀末﹐都會有人信法輪功﹐當李洪志係神o甘拜﹐有D仲激到去自焚添窩。
作者: starbug    時間: 2009-1-5 22:04

原帖由 puZZle 於 2009-1-5 22:46 發表
hmm
may I bring up an interesting question?

why do you guys think that 1st century Christians believed that Jesus is God, when so many eyewitnesses can prove that, if it was so, He had not done any m ...


我認為呢段歴史可能祇係一講咗千幾年嘅大話, one of the marketing mix.
祇要有第一批人信咗, 信到爆咗廠嗰隻, 咁呢個歴史故事就會不停咁roll落去, 就算明知有錯有漏洞都會有人同佢摭摭掩掩落去, 尤其係一斑既得利益團體, 甚至不惜逼害異教徒, 甚至殺人滅口.
作者: puZZle    時間: 2009-1-5 22:16

the question is why did the very first Christians believe it if Jesus did not even resurrect, and that his body is still in the tomb (which brings us to another question, why didn't the Roman authorities just bring Jesus' corpse out to settle the rumor?)

Why were the Christians willing to die for a lie?

life > lie right?
作者: shutterbug    時間: 2009-1-5 22:16

原帖由 chunsh 於 2009-1-5 22:50 發表


何謂"成熟的基督徒" 和"不成熟的基督徒"?

我想﹐這個世界上沒有一個可以稱為完全成熟的基督徒吧
人有7情6慾﹐自私﹐貪婪﹐凶殘......只要基督徒是人﹐就不可能有例外
早前有機會去join一個教會event, 發覺那些教友本身只係 ...

Mature doesn't have to be right all the time, but if one can act in a certain manner most of the time that's sufficient to be called mature right?  Where to draw the line?  I guess the people around you should decide?
作者: mcjohnjohn    時間: 2009-1-5 22:18

何謂"成熟的基督徒" 和"不成熟的基督徒"?

我想﹐這個世界上沒有一個可以稱為完全成熟的基督徒吧
人有7情6慾﹐自私﹐貪婪﹐凶殘......只要基督徒是人﹐就不可能有例外


人當然有7情6慾, 人係自私, 貪婪, 凶殘, 因為人就係人.
冇呢D野既, 就係神.
就算係一個"完全成熟的基督徒", 都會有以上特徵, 因為佢地始終都係人.

早前有機會去join一個教會event, 發覺那些教友本身只係對"自己友"nice﹐但對不認同他們 or 對他們的一些事有些意見的時候(註: 那個不是我哦﹐我承認我無gut,但我覺得在人家地頭搞事﹐而搞完事後又改變不了他們的話是"waste gas")﹐他們對會去群起攻之。那﹐他們是不是成熟的基督徒呢?


"群起攻之"? 可否舉例並說明之?
有D學生做左D唔正確既事, 老師去教佢, 勸佢, 個學生都可能會覺得比老師"群起攻之"的...


還有﹐我經常聽到一些基督徒說某些和他們不同見解的基督徒不是真的基督徒﹐他們才是。那不是傲慢是甚麼? 聖經白讀了嗎?


基督徒就是基督徒. 什麼是不同見解? 我係天主教徒, 信基督, 我自認係基督徒. 基徒教都係信基督, 我都覺得大家都係基督徒. 如果一個信佛的人, 我真係會認為佢唔係基督徒, 咁係唔係有錯呢?
作者: shutterbug    時間: 2009-1-5 22:23

我認為呢段歴史可能祇係一講咗千幾年嘅大話, one of the marketing mix.
祇要有第一批人信咗, 信到爆咗廠嗰隻, 咁呢個歴史故事就會不停咁roll落去, 就算明知有錯有漏洞都會有人同佢摭摭掩掩落去, 尤其係一斑既得利益團體, 甚至不惜逼害異教徒, 甚至殺人滅口


Church is a 得利益團體?  Lots of church (some I don't want to mention cuz they push people to donate) gave pretty much everything for free, how is it making a profit?

Can you be more specific about "有錯有漏洞" and in what aspect?
作者: mcjohnjohn    時間: 2009-1-5 22:23

原帖由 starbug 於 2009-1-6 14:04 發表
我認為呢段歴史可能祇係一講咗千幾年嘅大話, one of the marketing mix.
祇要有第一批人信咗, 信到爆咗廠嗰隻, 咁呢個歴史故事就會不停咁roll落去, 就算明知有錯有漏洞都會有人同佢摭摭掩掩落去, 尤其係一斑既得利益團體, 甚至不惜逼害異教徒, 甚至殺人滅口.


教徒既睇法同你既睇法就唔同喇.
我信架. 點解? 因為我信law, 吹咩~
(小弟係自閉型教徒, 唔會主動叫人信教. 不過, 宗教信仰就好似跟大佬咁, 出面既人見你跟得幾風光, 好似跟左一個好既大佬, 就會有人一齊join)
作者: BiscottiGelato    時間: 2009-1-5 22:25

原帖由 puZZle 於 2009-1-5 20:16 發表
3）仇視科學、指鹿為馬
"因為科學界普遍來說已承認進化論是科學事實的時候..."

um....before we talk about evolution... how about we solve the problem of where life came from first? science has never showed that life arose out of random chance has it?
Therefore, as far as we know by now, evidence towards creation is more abundant than evidence supporting abiogenesis
IMO, the burden of proof rests on the people who believe there is no creator first right?

just my 2cents

7）出賣尊嚴、自我作賤
教徒應罪就是錯
政.府高官不認錯 就大錯特錯?


For 3): Science never showed where life arose out of. It seems that there just isn't sufficient information to make a strong enough claim that sides either the creationist or abiogenesist. If you say that there are more evidence towards creation than abiogenesis, what are these strong claims? Why is it by default that the burden of proof rests on people who believe there is no creator first? Personally, I am just waiting for the scientific community use objective methods to find more clues and develope fuller theory to get closer to what the truth might be. I just don't see how, in terms of the many theories surrounding the beginning of life, that the one preached by Christians is so bullet proof under the scientifc method such that it shall be taken as the 'truth' without further questioning.

I am not a believer in Science, as Science is not a blind religion. In Science, you don't believe, you observe results from the Scientific method. That is what sets Science apart from religion. Science tries to disproof what it found, and through this process gain a fuller understanding of the universe and it's history. Relgion on the other hand arrive at the conclusion right away through means that are un-objective (The Bible said so, some scroll said so, someone said so, God said so, a voice in my dream said so, etc). Which method gets you closer to the truth is quite apparent IMO.

For 7): 政.府高官不認錯 就大錯特錯? Of course! But I just don't see what it have to do with whether "教徒應罪就是錯"??
作者: mcjohnjohn    時間: 2009-1-5 22:25

原帖由 shutterbug 於 2009-1-6 14:23 發表
Church is a 得利益團體?  Lots of church (some I don't want to mention cuz they push people to donate) gave pretty much everything for free, how is it making a profit?

Can you be more specific about "有錯有漏洞" and in what aspect?


天主教既神父同修女, 都有收津貼(人工)既. 小弟讀既中學, 好多神父揸車出面, 我當年覺得佢地好以好富貴架!
作者: rockypath    時間: 2009-1-5 22:29

For me, the bottom line is whether there is a creation and whether there is a God (whoever He/She might be). My choice is there is creation and there is a God.  

The next step is to find which religion will give you (or me) the answer who is the creator (God).  

And this book -- 《宗教與現代人生》, I don't think it worths my time reading it.
作者: shutterbug    時間: 2009-1-5 22:32

原帖由 mcjohnjohn 於 2009-1-5 23:25 發表


天主教既神父同修女, 都有收津貼(人工)既. 小弟讀既中學, 好多神父揸車出面, 我當年覺得佢地好以好富貴架!

well, if one serves god and have wage I think it's not a big big problem, but once he wants money so he serves god then it's a big problem

If you take a look at the beginning of Revelations, it describes a few kinds of "church" and which one will last till Christ returns.  I hope you choose the correct one.

Btw, one of the problems with Christians these days is that they don't read the Bible and have a poor relationship with God...  I'm not saying I'm perfect but I'm just pointing out the truth

[ 本帖最後由 shutterbug 於 2009-1-5 23:34 編輯 ]
作者: BiscottiGelato    時間: 2009-1-5 22:39

To further elaborate my personal opinion:

I have nothing against any religion in anyways. Believing in something is a personal choice. Just that in my opinion, I don't see the reason behind why someone will believe in any certain religion. From a 3rd person perspective, I don't see why there is 1 religion that is more believable than another. If you just look at all of them from bird's eye view, all of them looks like a fairy tale story. Why believe in one but not in another one when they all are arrived with means that are unobjective? On the flip side, if people still choose to believe in something, I do not see why anyone else should be concerned about someone else's personal choice either.... UNLESS

To my second point, the only danger I see in religion is that, people who believe in it are heavily influenced by emotion. When people's ability to objectively reason is heavily compromised by emotional influences, these same people can be very vulnerable to be manipulated. Manipulation toward doing good is all fine and dandy. However history shows that religion can also be used as a tool to manipulate people in doing bad things. More over, people with power in religion can be corrupted. They can either be corrupted in the first place, thus starting or joining a religion. Or, they can simply be corrupted by the power that is afforded by the position in the heirarchy of their religion (aka, what they say heavily influences the disciples of the religion, such that it can sway it's disciples for various personal motivations).....

[ 本帖最後由 BiscottiGelato 於 2009-1-5 22:47 編輯 ]
作者: chunsh    時間: 2009-1-5 22:42

原帖由 mcjohnjohn 於 2009-1-5 23:18 發表




"群起攻之"? 可否舉例並說明之?
有D學生做左D唔正確既事, 老師去教佢, 勸佢, 個學生都可能會覺得比老師"群起攻之"的...

8）教派衝突、狗咬狗骨
基督教與天主教同出一根，但是自從新教改革以後，新教比天主舊教更邪惡，對社會的危害性比中世紀的舊教本質上有過之而無不及，而且總是不安分守己，某些新教教派更經常攻擊天主教，視為異端，而即使是新教教會與教會之間，也透露出各堂會之間的不和與勾心鬥角，當中不難嗅出教會之間的權力鬥爭與商業化的氣色。


not only between Catholic and Christian, even among the different churches.....
how? here is a classic conversation between 2 "christians"
A: your notion about XXX is not correct. It should be like this blah blah blah
B: hm....that somewhat different from what I understand about Bible (or from my group leader), it should be this way yada yada yada
A: you and your leader 曲解左聖經啦,應該係o甘架..lalalalalala
B (start getting mad): no, my leader told me that and this sentence of the bible should be tranlated in this way tatatatatatata
A: come on man, 你竟然有這樣的信念? 你跟本就不是一個真正的基督徒!!
B: what the holy hell!! shame on you!!
作者: shutterbug    時間: 2009-1-5 22:51

well, I don't know what Christians are you surrounded by but personally I haven't seen this kind of arguments around me very often....

Not related to your example...but do you think swearing is OK for Christians?  To me I don't think so, but to some they think it's not so bad...did the Bible mention any teachings about this...I'm sure it does!
作者: rockypath    時間: 2009-1-5 23:01     標題: 回復 30# 的帖子

Your points are well presented. Do you mind to answer my questions?

1) Do you believe in creation? Why do you believe or not believe?
2) Do you accept there is God? Why do you accept or not accept?

I totally undersand religions have been and continue to be munipulated or used by people in powers. My questions is totally relating to personal choice only. Just want to have inputs from different people.
作者: BiscottiGelato    時間: 2009-1-5 23:14

原帖由 rockypath 於 2009-1-5 23:01 發表
1) Do you believe in creation? Why do you believe or not believe?
2) Do you accept there is God? Why do you accept or not accept?


Again, I choose not to believe or not believe in creationist theories, or any other theories in regards to genesis. I find various theories that people come up with interesting (including the theory where there is a 'god' and that this 'god' created the 'world' and life in this 'world'), and is even more interested in what scientific findings or reasoning they have come up with to support their theories.

Why believe and accept any random thing AS the truth, instead of putting in the effort (or at least appreciate the people and effort that have been put in) in attempt to FIND the truth? There is no way to know the absolute truth in it's entirity, but you can always get closer to it. OR of course, you can always refuse to get closer to the truth and just find your nearest religion and simply accept that as the truth.

Again, what you choose is your personal choice, as long as your choice does not affect other people (aka, in the moderate cases, being motivated to preach your religion, and in the process annoy other people. Or in extreme case being manipulated to conduct terrorist attacks, etc).

A third point just came through my mind..

There is probably nothing more counter productive to civilization than to advocate the denial of the scientific method, which have been one of the most, if not the most brilliant thing that human kind have came up with. The theory of evolution, is probably the closest theory that the scientific method have came up with so far in explaining how living things have came about. It definately shall not be just accepted as the entire truth as it is, as that'd be nothing more than believing in any other random things such as religions. However complete denial of the result entailed by the theory of evolution is nothing short of denial of the scientific method and the basis of science itself. If that is what 'religion' is about, then that'd probably be the 2nd biggest danger I see that 'religion' is posing to society. This danger is that a religion can attempt to drive it's disciple away from science, essentially throwing the world backwards. This is because the scientific method is designed to 'disprove' something, making way to get closer to the 'truth', which is pretty much the absolute opposite of what religion is about...

[ 本帖最後由 BiscottiGelato 於 2009-1-5 23:26 編輯 ]
作者: katamari    時間: 2009-1-5 23:50

原帖由 ricrick 於 2009-1-5 19:41 發表
e? katamari 是敵基督的人bor

其實每個宗教都有不足之處、解不通的事，但每個宗教都係導人向善
每個人也有自由去信什麼，只要不太扁激就得啦

我又想問katamari你是信什麼？ ...


rickrick, I am not a Christian, posting this article up doesn't mean I am against the religion. Don't you think it's interesting to discuss this in a positive way?
作者: Ultraman    時間: 2009-1-6 00:20

原帖由 ricrick 於 2009-1-5 19:41 發表
e? katamari 是敵基督的人bor

其實每個宗教都有不足之處、解不通的事，但每個宗教都係導人向善
每個人也有自由去信什麼，只要不太扁激就得啦

我又想問katamari你是信什麼？ ...

We have no idea what religious background katamari is, he/she only brought up a discussion. But obviously you are a Christian or at least a Christianity believer and is trying to defend immediately. If there are really those two types of Christians-- "immature" and "mature" ones, you may fall into the "immature" category already.
作者: MyOMy    時間: 2009-1-6 00:38

I ain't no Christian. But according to Daimo's post about 林天民 and his book, the write-up that Katamari  posted should not be what 林天民's want to present.
作者: mcjohnjohn    時間: 2009-1-6 00:48

原帖由 Ultraman 於 2009-1-6 16:20 發表
We have no idea what religious background katamari is, he/she only brought up a discussion. But obviously you are a Christian or at least a Christianity believer and is trying to defend immediately. If there are really those two types of Christians-- "immature" and "mature" ones, you may fall into the "immature" category already.


Ultraman, what if there is someone on LYK who "greet" your whole family? Would you defend or fight back?
For me, I don't think defend or fight back is immature. If you treasure something and someone wants to damage it, it is normal to defend.

Do you think it is immature to classify someone's maturity? hahaha
作者: Ultraman    時間: 2009-1-6 00:49

My thoughts:
- Whether there is a god, or more than one god exist in the world?

- Assuming that there is a god, or more than one god, which one is the "true" god, or which ones are?

- There is only the Christianity God (the same one of Catholic) claimed Himself the "true" and "only" god, as well as He is the only "creator" of the world. How can we know if that is true or not? Would there be a chance that the real true one just didn't say anything? It doesn't mean/prove that the one who stood out is the true and only god.

- It was unlikely to have that many people telling the same lie that "Jesus" is the God and be His witness of all the miracles and His resurrection. However, it's like David Copperfield playing those "unbelievable" magics nowadays and some people still thinks there must be "magic" (super natural power). Would it be any chance that people in olden days were tricked by that "Jesus" cuz people at that time were even more naive and innocent?

- No matter how people identify Christians, say "mature" and immature" (or maybe more groups), I believe that human can't be perfect anyways. Even Christians could be in "mature" category, they're still imperfect and thus they still have different weakness anyways. Whenever people see "bad witness", Christians would say "oh, those are only occasional cases by immature Christians, mature Christians won't be like that..... " etc. But well, so called "mature Christians" are also imperfect, they can't be any standard or to represent their God in any way anyways. "Immaturity" is just an excuse.
And back to those comments, which might be valid is, "immature" Christians are still having their church lives, where those "mature" Christians had left their churches and back to their normal lives already.
作者: katamari    時間: 2009-1-6 00:53

原帖由 MyOMy 於 2009-1-6 00:38 發表
I ain't no Christian. But according to Daimo's post about 林天民 and his book, the write-up that Katamari  posted should not be what 林天民's want to present.


Sorry everyone if this is not really from 林天民, but I've already put up [轉貼] in my title. But whoever wrote it, this is NOT the point, I was asking what do you think about these 8 points, not 林天民.
作者: Ultraman    時間: 2009-1-6 00:55

原帖由 mcjohnjohn 於 2009-1-6 00:48 發表


Ultraman, what if there is someone on LYK who "greet" your whole family? Would you defend or fight back?
For me, I don't think defend or fight back is immature. If you treasure something and someone ...

So, since you're challenging me now, then I should or I can have license to smack you back with swear words? (just an example)
Do you understand why there are so many people (non-believers) who don't like Christians and Christianity? One of the reasons is, when non-believers are only asking questions (even in a sincere and kind way) Christians will turn on their defending mode automatically without a second thought most of the time. How can a peaceful and meaningful discussion continue?
作者: ricrick    時間: 2009-1-6 01:05

GOD Bless You All. Amen
作者: daimo    時間: 2009-1-6 01:06

原帖由 katamari 於 2009-1-6 00:50 發表


rickrick, I am not a Christian, posting this article up doesn't mean I am against the religion. Don't you think it's interesting to discuss this in a positive way?


But are you against the religion? (Y/N)

If the answer is Y, then I actually respect you for having the courage to say so.

作者: Ultraman    時間: 2009-1-6 01:14

原帖由 shutterbug 於 2009-1-5 22:51 發表
well, I don't know what Christians are you surrounded by but personally I haven't seen this kind of arguments around me very often....

Not related to your example...but do you think swearing is OK for Christians?  To me I don't think so, but to some they think it's not so bad...did the Bible mention any teachings about this...I'm sure it does!

Another example:
Why playing Mah Jong is not allowed (should say prohibited) in church but poker cards is (usually used for bridge games)? Christians' reason is, Mah Jong is a well-known gambling game/tool but bridge game is a kind of sport game. However, people can just play Mah Jong without gambling involved but on the other hand gambling can be involved in bridge games (even chess games). The key point is not the "impression" of the game but the actual playing part. Doesn't it?

Now back to the swearing case. Since a Christian shouldn't intend to do anything to hurt others, so he/she shouldn't swear to anyone (and probably that someone would be very likely to get hurt and feel upset and/or angry...). However, Christians can have anger feeling, and if they feel angry and want to vent out, they can drink a big glass of water, take a shower, shout out loud... , and why not swearing (to nobody) just to release their own anger?

Many Christians just like stated in the passage, they only followed the "rules" blindly.
作者: Ultraman    時間: 2009-1-6 01:15

原帖由 ricrick 於 2009-1-6 01:05 發表
GOD Bless You All. Amen

Mind me to ask, are you a Christian?
作者: rockypath    時間: 2009-1-6 01:16

I believe there are many immature Chritians arround and every single Chritian is not perfect. However, does it deny there is a God and there is a creator?

Maybe you dislike all Chritians, but it shouldn't be the reason you deny creation. It should be two seperate issues and should be dealt with seperately.

[ 本帖最後由 rockypath 於 2009-1-6 02:17 編輯 ]
作者: Ultraman    時間: 2009-1-6 01:25

原帖由 daimo 於 2009-1-6 01:06 發表


But are you against the religion? (Y/N)

If the answer is Y, then I actually respect you for having the courage to say so.


Mind to clarify, there is difference between "against" and "not believing". "Against" could include doing something to oppose in an aggressive way, hurting and hating the other party. "Not believing" could be in a neutral situation, not really doing anything to oppose but just want to ask and know more.
作者: Ultraman    時間: 2009-1-6 01:28

原帖由 rockypath 於 2009-1-6 01:16 發表
I believe there are many immature Chritians arround and every single Chritian is not perfect. However, does it deny there is a God and there is a creator?

Maybe you dislike all Chritians, but it sho ...

How to prove the Christian God is the true and only creator? Only because of He said so?
作者: rockypath    時間: 2009-1-6 01:33

原帖由 Ultraman 於 2009-1-6 02:28 發表

How to prove the Christian God is the true and only creator? Only because of He said so?


For me, I first believe there must be a creator. Then I try to look for the creator (including Chritian God).

Believing in "No God" is also a relgion in my opinion. Poeple become the God of themselves.
作者: Ultraman    時間: 2009-1-6 01:39

原帖由 rockypath 於 2009-1-6 01:33 發表


For me, I first believe there must be a creator. Then I try to look for the creator (including Chritian God).

Believing in "No God" is also a relgion in my opinion. Poeple become the God of themse ...

OK, my POV, "creator" is just a name, a title, "it" could be a "god", any god, or just the "mother nature", or something human and scientist can't understand and explain. For something human and scientist can't understand and explain not necessary related to "god", "spirits", "super natural power", .... etc stuff like that.
作者: ricrick    時間: 2009-1-6 01:43

佛家有云：信則有，不信則無，色即是空，空即是色，種善因，得善果，何必執著，苦苦痴纏到死時都帶不走的問題呢？神愛世人，甚至將祂的獨生子賜給他們，叫一切信祂的，不至滅亡，反得永生，冤有頭，責有主，放下屠刀，立地成佛。
作者: katamari    時間: 2009-1-6 01:44

原帖由 daimo 於 2009-1-6 01:06 發表


But are you against the religion? (Y/N)

If the answer is Y, then I actually respect you for having the courage to say so.



I am not against the religion particularly, but I do admit that there are many questions marks in my head regarding this religion. I found this article interesting because I agree on the term "immature Christian", and I dislike how immature Christians misrepresenting their religion, and worship their god blindly. 盲目 can be in 2 ways, if I'm against the religion without my own thinking and observation, that means I am 盲目 like these immature Christians. That's why I want to bring this up and see whether any mature Christians can explain.... but obviously not yet.

So I've answered your question, anybody dare to admit that they are "immature Christians"?

BTW just to let you know I really respect those "mature Christians" around me, they are rare... tho

[ 本帖最後由 katamari 於 2009-1-6 01:46 編輯 ]
作者: katamari    時間: 2009-1-6 01:45

原帖由 rockypath 於 2009-1-6 01:16 發表

Maybe you dislike all Chritians, but it sho ...


Who?
作者: Ultraman    時間: 2009-1-6 01:50

原帖由 ricrick 於 2009-1-6 01:43 發表
佛家有云：信則有，不信則無，色即是空，空即是色，種善因，得善果，何必執著，苦苦痴纏到死時都帶不走的問題呢？神愛世人，甚至將祂的獨生子賜給他們，叫一切信祂的，不至滅亡，反得永生，冤有頭，責有主，放下屠刀，立地成佛。 ...

I see. You are a polytheist.
作者: ricrick    時間: 2009-1-6 02:04

原帖由 Ultraman 於 2009-1-6 02:50 發表

I see. You are a polytheist.


其實我係信訓覺，我訓喇
作者: 一代烈士    時間: 2009-1-6 03:01
















作者: MoiRhapsody    時間: 2009-1-6 04:18

巧巧玩呀!!!
烈士都俾你地迫出山!!
作者: chunsh    時間: 2009-1-6 08:00

原帖由 mcjohnjohn 於 2009-1-6 01:48 發表


Ultraman, what if there is someone on LYK who "greet" your whole family? Would you defend or fight back?
For me, I don't think defend or fight back is immature. If you treasure something and someone ...


read the bible and see who offend who first
作者: chunsh    時間: 2009-1-6 08:04

原帖由 rockypath 於 2009-1-6 02:16 發表
I believe there are many immature Chritians arround and every single Chritian is not perfect. However, does it deny there is a God and there is a creator?

Maybe you dislike all Chritians, but it sho ...


who created "god"?
if we (us, living things on earth, solar system, milky way, etc) are so "brilliant" and "complex" that doesn't make sense to exist with one single explosion or evolution. Then what about god? He is even more brilliant and complex than all those examples I gave
When discussion came to this state, I encounter many christians said "you can't use human logic to judge god"
ironically, they were using human logic to convince us and other people to believe in them and deny other religions
作者: chunsh    時間: 2009-1-6 08:06

原帖由 rockypath 於 2009-1-6 02:16 發表
I believe there are many immature Chritians arround and every single Chritian is not perfect. However, does it deny there is a God and there is a creator?

Maybe you dislike all Chritians, but it sho ...

這裡沒有人說過"dislike all christians"
不要給我們任何一個扣帽子
作者: shutterbug    時間: 2009-1-6 08:32

Nobody created God and God doesn't need to be created.  He's not bounded by time or cause.

Just because there are bad examples of Christian doesn't have anything to do with Christianity itself.  Even Judah was Jesus' disciple, followed him for a few years, and what has he done?  He even saw the miracles that Jesus performed and listened to his teachings.  Having Judah or any other bad examples doesn't prove that Christ is not God.  In any kind of large organization, there are always good appples and bad apples.

[ 本帖最後由 shutterbug 於 2009-1-6 09:47 編輯 ]
作者: chunsh    時間: 2009-1-6 08:54

原帖由 shutterbug 於 2009-1-6 09:32 發表
Nobody created God and God doesn't need to be created.  He's not bounded by time or cause.

Just because there are bad examples of Christian doesn't have anything to do with Christianity itself.  Even ...



輸打贏要既最佳例子
用人既logic去說服人﹐但又deny人既logic

how do u know god doesn't need to be created? who told u he is not bounded
by any time or cause? Are u an experts of time and space and cause?
作者: chihiro    時間: 2009-1-6 09:30

雖然我唔係基督徒,
但係我知道並唔係個個基督徒都o甘無知o既~
作者: shutterbug    時間: 2009-1-6 09:48

原帖由 chunsh 於 2009-1-6 09:54 發表



輸打贏要既最佳例子
用人既logic去說服人﹐但又deny人既logic

how do u know god doesn't need to be created? who told u he is not bounded
by any time or cause? Are u an experts of time and space and ca ...

I'm surprised somone who actually asked who created God at this stage of the discussion.  For one thing I know for sure is that this is the "definition" that people came up with and is generally accepted.

If God is created, then who created the one who created God and so on?  There's no end!  So even without religious views, people came up with the definition of God for argument purposes.

You certainly don't need to agree on this but if you don't then there will be no discussion cuz nothing will stand anymore.

[ 本帖最後由 shutterbug 於 2009-1-6 10:51 編輯 ]
作者: siumaibb    時間: 2009-1-6 10:28

又黎？算罷啦
作者: starbug    時間: 2009-1-6 10:33

原帖由 chihiro 於 2009-1-6 10:30 發表
雖然我唔係基督徒,
但係我知道並唔係個個基督徒都o甘無知o既~


唉, 年中走幾個唔性嘅出嚟亂講嘢都夠澤洗啦.
作者: daimo    時間: 2009-1-6 11:37

let's guess when this post will reach by the end of this week ...

my guess ... page 15.

(and will come back in 1 form or another every 2-3 months from "someone" who doesn't hate Christians, who is not against Christianity ...)

and Chun, I just have to quote your "輸打贏要既最佳例子"
作者: goldie    時間: 2009-1-6 12:17

原帖由 chihiro 於 2009-1-6 10:30 發表
雖然我唔係基督徒,
但係我知道並唔係個個基督徒都o甘無知o既~


我都唔係基督徒。
我可以忍受周圍很多很多「不成熟基督徒」討厭的作風，
完全係因為我真心欽佩少數幾個「成熟基督徒」的為人。
作者: shutterbug    時間: 2009-1-6 12:18

I think this "基督徒八大惡劣特徵" started in "Golden"...someone ported this over...

but the point is if one really wants to challenge Christianity, he needs to come up with better stuff than this lor...LOL
作者: Ultraman    時間: 2009-1-6 13:02

I think the original passage is to point out "基督徒八大惡劣特徵", not "基督教八大惡劣特徵". Who dare to say those 8 characters are not commonly found within Christians (say "immature ones)? The writer didn't say/against anything of "Jesus" and Christianity at all. But then (as usual and expected), many Christians and believers came out to defend hard of what they believe without rational discussion. That's definitely not what non-believers want to see.

Every time starting this kind of sensitive discussion would be like that. Non-believers still have many unanswered questions in mind, and the bad impression of Christians is keep accumulating.
(I'm not challenging or against-ing, just want to tell people the fact.)
作者: BiscottiGelato    時間: 2009-1-6 13:08

Thus far, nobody dares to counter my points it seems LOL...

What I want to know is, for the believers, under the context of the points I posted on page 3 and 4, why did you believe in a certain religion in the first place? No offense, you can still believe in whatever you want, I just find the mindset behind choosing to believe in religion very intriguing and I think it will greatly benefit non-believers in understanding the perspective that believers held.
作者: chunsh    時間: 2009-1-6 13:17

原帖由 Ultraman 於 2009-1-6 14:02 發表
I think the original passage is to point out "基督徒八大惡劣特徵", not "基督教八大惡劣特徵". Who dare to say those 8 characters are not commonly found within Christians (say "immature ones)? The write ...


此乃一些believes在辯論中一些慣常用的技倆---轉移目標
無錯我曾經批評過神造論﹐但我係想引出他們的一些在辯論既時候既一些問題
you know what? 我成功了。一次又一次的顯露給別人看他們怎樣同時用同一個human
logic去支持自己的理念和deny別人對他們理念的質疑

more real-life example can be given
作者: Ultraman    時間: 2009-1-6 13:22

Why it is so difficult to understand why there are many people (non-believers) still not believing this Jesus God (Christinity)?
It's like to ask people to put a 7' tall crystal in purple  at home facing a window in the living room in the north-west direction, and then you'll be healthy and rich, no questions ask! How many people will truly believe and follow? Now is talking about Jesus the Christianity God, even 1000x times more abstract and 1000x times more incredible, also can't define/judge/understand by human logic and knowledge, plus many common bad examples around, how to convince people to believe?
作者: daimo    時間: 2009-1-6 13:22

原帖由 Ultraman 於 2009-1-6 14:02 發表
I think the original passage is to point out "基督徒八大惡劣特徵", not "基督教八大惡劣特徵", Who dare to say those 8 characters are not commonly found within Christians (say "immature ones)? The writer didn't say/against anything of "Jesus" and Christianity at all.


I have to say your statement is inaccurate.  Please read the original article carefully.


point 2) ... 故此我可以歸結出，信耶穌就是出於自私心 ... (this is against all Christians, not partial, mature or not)

         ... 單憑這一點，耶和華即已是一個邪惡之主。  ... (this is against the Christian God, directly)

point 4) ... 有某些基督徒以中國文化附會聖經，認賊作父，實在是中國人的敗類及恥辱！... (who is 賊?  again, against the God in this context)

point 8) ... "新教比天主舊教更邪惡" ...  (so both are 邪惡. again, against the whole Christianity ... ok, don't tell me just Orthodox isn't included)  


----

Anyway, it's up to you how to read it.  if you tell me it's not against Christianity or the Christian God, then we have completely different way of interpreting the article; and it's completely moot to continue the "debate".  (what debate? interesting?  positive?  some non-believer seeking answers? )
作者: chihiro    時間: 2009-1-6 13:26

原帖由 goldie 於 2009-1-6 13:17 發表


我可以忍受周圍很多很多「不成熟基督徒」討厭的作風，
完全係因為我真心欽佩少數幾個「成熟基督徒」的為人。


完全同我一樣
作者: chunsh    時間: 2009-1-6 13:26

原帖由 daimo 於 2009-1-6 14:22 發表
.. 故此我可以歸結出，信耶穌就是出於自私心 ... (this is against all Christians, not partial, mature or not)


against? this is more like a "stating the fact" sentence, while the fact is true or not is another issue

         ... 單憑這一點，耶和華即已是一個邪惡之主。  ... (this is against the Christian God, directly)


well, where do we know about christian god? its from certain believers
作者: chunsh    時間: 2009-1-6 13:27

原帖由 chihiro 於 2009-1-6 14:26 發表


完全同我一樣

same here
作者: daimo    時間: 2009-1-6 13:33

原帖由 chunsh 於 2009-1-6 14:26 發表

while the fact is true or not is another issue


Interesting statement.  I have to say that my jaw dropped.

作者: shutterbug    時間: 2009-1-6 13:33

原帖由 chunsh 於 2009-1-6 14:17 發表


此乃一些believes在辯論中一些慣常用的技倆---轉移目標
無錯我曾經批評過神造論﹐但我係想引出他們的一些在辯論既時候既一些問題
you know what? 我成功了。一次又一次的顯露給別人看他們怎樣同時用同一個human
log ...

I'd like to see your real life examples...how you "一次又一次的顯露給別人看"

[ 本帖最後由 shutterbug 於 2009-1-6 14:41 編輯 ]
作者: shutterbug    時間: 2009-1-6 13:40

原帖由 BiscottiGelato 於 2009-1-6 14:08 發表
Thus far, nobody dares to counter my points it seems LOL...

What I want to know is, for the believers, under the context of the points I posted on page 3 and 4, why did you believe in a certain reli ...

why are you asking such a fundamental question?

Why someone believe in something?  Let me ask you a question, why do you believe your mom is really your biological mom?  I assume you haven't done a DNA check yet.  So without any physical evidence, you believed already.  Why?  How about your dad?

[ 本帖最後由 shutterbug 於 2009-1-6 14:43 編輯 ]
作者: Catpiano    時間: 2009-1-6 13:44

Wah ..  SB ..  u still have "AIR" to continue ??


Well . it is actually good to see more anti-God and anti-Christ ..

For 2000 plus yr ..  more  anti Christ/God .. more grow in christianility ..  

When someone is already christian ..won't be affected by this kind of attack ..   but for non christian ..  this kind of anti-God/Attack ..  could bring more non christian to GOD ..  

Look at history ..    just keep repeating ..  as all written in Bible !!
作者: shutterbug    時間: 2009-1-6 13:57

CP, air or not is one thing, but I kind of enjoy thinking about the issues as these people bring them up.  It helps me to gain more knowledge in God/Bible when I have to research for an answer.  Their questions are answered by numerous people out there, and by reading their opinions, I gain more.  Lots of interesting views out there even from different Christians.  I'm not saying who's more right though because for some stuff there is no real answer unless God tells you himself.
作者: katamari    時間: 2009-1-6 14:04

無可否認基督教是很值得討論的宗教。是的我是在高登看到這文章，其實他們有帶出另一個很有趣的問題，係人與寵物的關係。如過聖經中人同動物根本係主人同奴隸o既關係 ，為何信基督教的人要養寵物有如親生兒女？

我轉載自高登，不等於我想反此宗教。反面教才是很有意思的
作者: daimo    時間: 2009-1-6 14:14

原帖由 katamari 於 2009-1-6 15:04 發表
無可否認基督教是很值得討論的宗教。是的我是在高登看到這文章，其實他們有帶出另一個很有趣的問題，係人與寵物的關係。如過聖經中人同動物根本係主人同奴隸o既關係 ，為何信基督教的人要養寵物有如親生兒女？

我轉載自高登 ...


whether you are against Christianity or not ... only you can tell.  (all i can tell you is that I'm not convinced)

Your article from Golden is against Christianity and Christians.  That's the only point I'm trying to make.
作者: shutterbug    時間: 2009-1-6 14:19

人與寵物係主人同奴隸o既關係?  I don't think so and I don't think the Bible said this.  In Genesis before Adam and Eve sinned, God ordered Adam to oversee the creatures and give them names.  How is this "supervision" a realtionship of  主人同奴隸?  At most I can say that Adam is only their "zoo manager"...LOL

Personally, I think it was the other way around.  Adam might have had good "friendships" with the creatures.

[ 本帖最後由 shutterbug 於 2009-1-6 15:24 編輯 ]
作者: BiscottiGelato    時間: 2009-1-6 14:54

原帖由 shutterbug 於 2009-1-6 13:40 發表

why are you asking such a fundamental question?

Why someone believe in something?  Let me ask you a question, why do you believe your mom is really your biological mom?  I assume you haven't done a  ...


The evidence is that she claims to be my mom and cared for me for my entire life thus far. Birth certificate also indicates so, along with all official documentations, etc. Thus, there are strong evidence that she is my mom. Now, if you go ahead and do a DNA test, which gives IMO an even stronger evidence, I will put that as part of the consideration when trying to determine whether my mom is my mom. That's called scientific method. I only trust something when there's sufficient evidence. I am also ready to reshape and refine my understanding when under further and alternative evidences. Note that in no where in this response did I use the word 'believe', because I don't need to blindly believe as there are things much stronger than just blind 'faith' that can reach the conclusion that my mom is my mom.

The difference here is that, religion try to shove their disciples a default 'conclusion' on what the 'truth' is. At least in the case of some religion, including Christianity, their principle is based on faith in believing in a pre-determined ultimate 'truth'. It is not a religion that can accept something like the scientific method, which goes in reverse, is shaped based on doubt with no pre-determined conclusion. Only theories which is continually reshaped and refined in order to get closer to what the truth might be.

Again, I'm not going to reiterate myself... As I have already said in page 3:

"I am not a believer in Science, as Science is not a blind religion. In Science, you don't believe, you observe results from the Scientific method. That is what sets Science apart from religion. Science tries to disproof what it found, and through this process gain a fuller understanding of the universe and it's history. Relgion on the other hand arrive at the conclusion right away through means that are un-objective (The Bible said so, some scroll said so, someone said so, God said so, a voice in my dream said so, etc). Which method gets you closer to the truth is quite apparent IMO."

[ 本帖最後由 BiscottiGelato 於 2009-1-6 14:56 編輯 ]
作者: katamari    時間: 2009-1-6 14:56

原帖由 daimo 於 2009-1-6 14:14 發表


whether you are against Christianity or not ... only you can tell.  (all i can tell you is that I'm not convinced)

Your article from Golden is against Christianity and Christians.  That's the only  ...


I'm not here trying to convincing people, not you, not anybody here. You asked then I answered, you're not satisfied?
作者: katamari    時間: 2009-1-6 14:58

原帖由 shutterbug 於 2009-1-6 14:19 發表
人與寵物係主人同奴隸o既關係?  I don't think so and I don't think the Bible said this.  In Genesis before Adam and Eve sinned, God ordered Adam to oversee the creatures and give them names.  How is thi ...


Thanks for your input, I appreciate that. 我聽過有朋友因為動物無得上天堂所以唔buy呢個宗教
作者: BiscottiGelato    時間: 2009-1-6 15:09

原帖由 shutterbug 於 2009-1-6 13:40 發表

why are you asking such a fundamental question?

Why someone believe in something?  Let me ask you a question, why do you believe your mom is really your biological mom?  I assume you haven't done a  ...


I stated objective reasons why I see science as a much more logical way in explaining the world and form opinions and decision in my life than religion. Instead of attacking me, my mom and also my dad in 1 sentence, which IMO destroyed your credibility in logical reasoning, why don't you state why the objective reasons I stated does not apply to you, and what was the primary motivator that initially swayed you into a believer of your religion?
作者: shutterbug    時間: 2009-1-6 15:10

原帖由 katamari 於 2009-1-6 15:58 發表


Thanks for your input, I appreciate that. 我聽過有朋友因為動物無得上天堂所以唔buy呢個宗教

I feel sorry that you had such a bad answer from before...but sometimes I wish more Christians read their Bibles more...
作者: shutterbug    時間: 2009-1-6 15:23

原帖由 BiscottiGelato 於 2009-1-6 15:54 發表


The evidence is that she claims to be my mom and cared for me for my entire life thus far. Birth certificate also indicates so, along with all official documentations, etc. Thus, there are strong ev ...

You think your method is more scientific than believing a religion?  I disagree.  Before you actually go and have DNA tested, what you think is evidence might not be real evidence.  People can give false witness just like any other beliefs.  Birth cert and docs can have human errors and such.  Baby swapped cases in hospital is not news in HK and docs can be fake.  Even if you went for a DNA test, the result is not 100% accurate.  In science, not 100% is not 100% and you can't say something that works 99.99% of the time is truth.  So unless you see yourself coming out from your mom's womb, which is kind of impossible, you have no way to determine whether you're really your mom's son.  To prove you're your dad's son, it's worse cuz you can't trace which sperm first fertilized the egg, and from whom it came?  Anyway, went too far and too exaggerated but you get the idea.  Science has been wrong a million times.

If I say not all Christians "blindly" believe, you probably disagree with me.

[ 本帖最後由 shutterbug 於 2009-1-6 16:26 編輯 ]
作者: Ultraman    時間: 2009-1-6 15:28

原帖由 Catpiano 於 2009-1-6 13:44 發表
Wah ..  SB ..  u still have "AIR" to continue ??


Well . it is actually good to see more anti-God and anti-Christ ..

For 2000 plus yr ..  more  anti Christ/God .. more grow in christianility ..  ...

This is another bad example, I say... . Why do you think your peer should have no air to continue just because of you quited already? Would your Jesus have no air already? Why do you assume people are anti-God and anti-Christ? They admit that? But thanks for your true-man example, another bad example, immature Christian attitude.
作者: shutterbug    時間: 2009-1-6 15:39

Ultra, I don't think that was a bad example.  CP was just trying to tell me to shut up and save air to warm my belly because these issues have been brought up too many times without any constructive results (who knows though).  Save air or not is a personal preference, it's not wrong to keep the mouth shut when people are arguing.  Obvioiusly, a kid can see that there are anti Christ people in this forum and CP did not give specific names so I don't think he was a bad example.

The title of this thread is really provocative for a Christian by the way...
作者: bluntbro    時間: 2009-1-6 15:50

I HATE CHRISTIAN..>>>> HATER~
作者: shutterbug    時間: 2009-1-6 16:04

原帖由 bluntbro 於 2009-1-6 16:50 發表
I HATE CHRISTIAN..>>>> HATER~

an example of anti Christian
作者: Ultraman    時間: 2009-1-6 16:06

原帖由 shutterbug 於 2009-1-6 13:57 發表
CP, air or not is one thing, but I kind of enjoy thinking about the issues as these people bring them up.  It helps me to gain more knowledge in God/Bible when I have to research for an answer.  Their ...

This is a much better attitude. This is how an open discussion should be. Don't all believers were non-believers before? Isn't it a very normal process for [non-believers] -> [question period] -> [become believers]? The question period could be short or long, mild or tough. But many believers/Christians tend to lack of patience.
作者: rockypath    時間: 2009-1-6 16:32

原帖由 chunsh 於 2009-1-6 14:26 發表


against? this is more like a "stating the fact" sentence, while the fact is true or not is another issue



well, where do we know about christian god? its from certain believers


You seems to be loosing your objective mind. that is a "fact"?
作者: Ultraman    時間: 2009-1-6 16:33

原帖由 shutterbug 於 2009-1-6 15:39 發表
Ultra, I don't think that was a bad example.  CP was just trying to tell me to shut up and save air to warm my belly because these issues have been brought up too many times without any constructive r ...
The title of this thread is really provocative for a Christian by the way...

Yep, the thread title might be provocative for Christians POV, but it could also be a very good chance to answer non-believers questions and to build up more positive image.
People (non-believers) want to seek, believers/Christians can handle the chance in a positive or negative way. There are quite a bit non-believers just want to ask and seek for possible answers, they have no intention to challenge or against Christianity at all. But even there are strong "againsters", what should Christians (or so called "mature" Christians) react? Christians/believers can admit that they are "immature", not knowing well about the religion/bible/Jesus, have not enough patience or skill to answer all the questions (or "attacking" questions). But disappointingly (well, get used to already) most Christians use a over-defending mode.
作者: rockypath    時間: 2009-1-6 16:47

原帖由 BiscottiGelato 於 2009-1-6 16:09 發表


I stated objective reasons why I see science as a much more logical way in explaining the world and form opinions and decision in my life than religion. Instead of attacking me, my mom and also my d ...


Science has never and I doubt it would ever be able to disapprove the existence of God. To prove that, scientists must elimiate all the possibilities which is impossible and not doable.

Human being invents and products automobiles, computers and other very advanced equipments. Can we believe and accept those equipments somehow came to existence by itself and by chance? The human being and the universe is much more complex that that. Can it come to existence by itself and by chance?
作者: chunsh    時間: 2009-1-6 17:24

原帖由 daimo 於 2009-1-6 15:14 發表


whether you are against Christianity or not ... only you can tell.  (all i can tell you is that I'm not convinced)

Your article from Golden is against Christianity and Christians.  That's the only  ...


又黎
又將其他人對他們所問的問題轉開



歡迎光臨 溫哥華老友記討論區 (http://loyaukee.com/forum/) Powered by Discuz! 7.2