puZZle

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?

shutterbug

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?

mcjohnjohn

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?

shutterbug

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?

mcjohnjohn

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)

BiscottiGelato

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"??

mcjohnjohn

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!

rockypath

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.

shutterbug

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 ]

BiscottiGelato

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 ]