tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post4721935486288847178..comments2024-03-22T08:04:05.869-07:00Comments on 魚之樂: 《哲人對話錄》之〈神蹟〉(四之三)Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-79532227633797757762013-10-14T16:24:35.696-07:002013-10-14T16:24:35.696-07:00咁你睇咗 「新約」 / 「舊約」未先? 我有講過 「聖經」中,沒有人講大話咩?! 係你連大話又睇唔出...咁你睇咗 「新約」 / 「舊約」未先? 我有講過 「聖經」中,沒有人講大話咩?! 係你連大話又睇唔出,真話又當係大話看待咁攪笑罷了。Nth 匿名noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-53410035449478447402013-10-14T10:17:44.440-07:002013-10-14T10:17:44.440-07:00唉..嗰啲乜約物約其實都係人寫嘅啫,真係人講你就信咩..有人係講大話唔出奇喎,我就唔信得過人寫出嚟啲...唉..嗰啲乜約物約其實都係人寫嘅啫,真係人講你就信咩..有人係講大話唔出奇喎,我就唔信得過人寫出嚟啲嘢就係真架喇..<br /><br />神洲http://gmue2008.mysinablog.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-41857062644729483882013-10-13T23:08:03.613-07:002013-10-13T23:08:03.613-07:00>> 問題係上帝到底有冇嗱,凡人又點知吖。
咪話咗「舊約」+「新約」都有答案囉。你鍾意...>> 問題係上帝到底有冇嗱,凡人又點知吖。<br /><br />咪話咗「舊約」+「新約」都有答案囉。你鍾意睇「新約四福音」又得、睇「舊約」又得、唔睇都重得。Your choice。(答咗架啦!) 咁你鍾意睇「新約」先、定「舊約」先?Nth 匿名noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-65520848043325307062013-10-13T22:39:02.713-07:002013-10-13T22:39:02.713-07:00問題係上帝到底有冇嗱,凡人又點知吖。凡人只係知道總之就係畀咗錢,至於啲錢係去咗上帝處抑或有人借上帝嚟...問題係上帝到底有冇嗱,凡人又點知吖。凡人只係知道總之就係畀咗錢,至於啲錢係去咗上帝處抑或有人借上帝嚟斂財,可能又係一個謎團吧.. :)<br /><br />神洲http://gmue2008.mysinablog.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-86449082862475529272013-10-13T22:16:33.338-07:002013-10-13T22:16:33.338-07:00答案已在「聖經」的「四福音」內。「舊約」也有提到,which provides an even be...答案已在「聖經」的「四福音」內。「舊約」也有提到,which provides an even better answer,但我唔想浪費你嘅時間...所以請從下文自取所需:-<br />祭祀禮儀和物品,是誰開口定立的? "小神"們接受祭祀物品時,用不用花上時間?(i.e.要唔要睇鐘做 "神"?) 年終收到之物放置到那裡去? (i.e.要唔要年年 "年尾清倉" 將殘餘物資打賞給"小小神"/ "小小小神"們?) 拜神的肥雞最終給誰吃了? 香燭、紙錢火化了,誰最得益? 當你流落荒島,連蕉都冇得食時,要唔要買香燭、衣紙至可以 "通神"? 交稅你尚且想知道稅金如何被好好利用,你捐獻了會不聞不問當無事發生過? 如果你認為用得其所,你會唔會覺得值得去用? 又如果你認為錢好重要,不如慳埋連飯都唔好食,咁就好快 (唔洗三五七日) 就唔洗再為錢而煩惱。如果你認為錢是上帝攞咗,對不起,耶穌說:「我父作事直到如今」, i.e. 開緊工 & thus too busy to care for your money。況且,上帝無衫袋、銀包及銀行戶口,亦冇地方洗錢。兩個標點、十一個字:「有錯唔關我事。去問你阿媽!」吧<br />Nth 匿名noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-35484100090477691302013-10-13T18:47:34.846-07:002013-10-13T18:47:34.846-07:00精神世界很大程度是現實世界的鏡子,現實世界有好人壞人,精神世界相信也有好神壞神。鄉村農家自己「供奉」...精神世界很大程度是現實世界的鏡子,現實世界有好人壞人,精神世界相信也有好神壞神。鄉村農家自己「供奉」神靈拜土地菩薩的供奉品很多其實是供奉者拜完神後自己吃了(可能是因為菩薩土地等神靈似乎很「廉潔」,沒有吃);反而教會教友們的「奉獻」金卻是「有獻出無獻入」一去不回,那麼教會的那個神是否反而更似有受賄之嫌?<br /><br />神洲http://gmue2008.mysinablog.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-80049640806161471902013-10-13T16:32:20.882-07:002013-10-13T16:32:20.882-07:00你話呢 ?!你話呢 ?!Nth 匿名noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-34828140941542783372013-10-13T15:52:26.762-07:002013-10-13T15:52:26.762-07:00「供奉」「奉獻」等等可否視作「變相受賄」?
「供奉」「奉獻」等等可否視作「變相受賄」?<br /><br />神洲http://gmue2008.mysinablog.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-39528175925240368262013-10-13T13:02:23.690-07:002013-10-13T13:02:23.690-07:00收受賄賂的不可能是 "真神"。收受賄賂的不可能是 "真神"。Nth 匿名noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-63777967152723022722013-10-13T11:07:17.647-07:002013-10-13T11:07:17.647-07:00把未能解開的謎團歸咎於神同樣也可以歸咎於有鬼,有土地有菩薩有玉皇大帝有海龍王閻羅王等等,那麼相信有神...把未能解開的謎團歸咎於神同樣也可以歸咎於有鬼,有土地有菩薩有玉皇大帝有海龍王閻羅王等等,那麼相信有神的人同樣也理應相信有玉帝海龍王閻羅王等等。<br />既然世上有不止一個神,信有神的人又怎樣能夠肯定他們所信的神才是最「有知有能」而不是最無知無能的那個神呢?<br /><br />神洲http://gmue2008.mysinablog.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-51684952699291436302013-10-13T06:03:24.337-07:002013-10-13T06:03:24.337-07:00Sorry, "(申命記 10:19)" should be "(申命...Sorry, "(申命記 10:19)" should be "(申命記 10:17)"Nth 匿名noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-37775669931162385332013-10-13T05:39:27.219-07:002013-10-13T05:39:27.219-07:00>> 哲人丁:若遇到這種情況,我可以理解很多人的確會相信那是神蹟,... 一、那真是神蹟...>> 哲人丁:若遇到這種情況,我可以理解很多人的確會相信那是神蹟,... 一、那真是神蹟,神聽了禱告後,運用超自然力量令那已死的人復活; ...所以我認為那信徒的信念是不合理的。 <br /><br />在小貓、小狗的眼中,以 "mouth-to-mouth resuscitation"救人 已經是 「超自然」技術。(因此 "甚麼是「超自然」" 是 subject-dependent。) 以我的了解(,and depends on the/my definition of "God"),"一、那真是神蹟" 是不會、也不需要發生,因為 "God is timeless"。As said in the Bible,在人未祈求之先,上帝已經做了。(這句話不等同 "predestined"論。)<br /><br />So what is your definitions of 「超自然」 & 「神」 ?<br /> <br /><br />>> 哲人丁:你知道我是個無神論者,我認為相信神存在本身就非常不合理, ...<br /><br />(打句佛偈,) 倘若真是無神論者,何如 「神」 字不離口 ?<br /><br />Then what is your definition of 「神」 for us to judge if "相信神存在本身就非常不合理" ?<br /><br />"暫時假設有一個神秘的神存在,但不知祂會否行神蹟。" -> still requires your definitions of 「神」 & 「神蹟」。 (不行「神蹟」的, 是 「神」? 還是 「神棍」?)<br /><br />"神似乎甚少干預自然規律,以致絕大部份的事情都可以用科學方法解釋。" -> you have ignored the possibility that 「科學」 could be part of 「神蹟」, and that 「自然規律」 might have to be part of 「神」。<br /><br />"假若有神存在,祂似乎沒有聽禱告,沒有行神蹟拯救無辜者。" -> as above, "God is timeless"。(再打句佛偈,) 就算神拯救了人,該人終歸要/會 "肉體死一次"。<br /><br />"玫瑰花叢" -> already replied in other sub-posts.<br /><br /><br />>> 哲人丙:謝謝你讓這一大步,... 神出鬼沒、莫測高深的神秘園丁。<br /><br />Can 「大自然」 be a part of 「神」 ? If yes, 何來 「神出鬼沒」 ?<br /><br /><br />>> 哲人丁:可能是莫測高深,... 我們又有甚麼理由否定其他人相信的「神靈」或「生神仙」存在呢?...<br /><br />Again, this depends on your definition of your 「神」。<br /><br />「聖經」 (申命記 10:19) 說: <br />"因為耶和華你們的神,他是萬神之神,萬主之主,至大的神,大有能力,大而可畏,不以貌取人,也不受賄賂。"<br />"For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes."<br /><br />So if someone chooses to believe in a smaller "「神靈」或「生神仙」" but not the "God of gods"... 合理 / 奇怪 嗎 ?<br /><br />So 哲人丁 是衝著 "耶教" 而說 ?!<br /><br />"有些「神靈」或「生神仙」據說也起死回生,... 慨嘆那些巫術騙案的荒誕和那些信眾的冒目嗎?" -> doesn't infer that a "God of gods" cannot exist。 So what is the point?<br /><br /><br />>> 哲人丙:假如神蹟是神存在的唯一證據,那麼你提出的無疑是一個難題...<br /><br />Again: Can 「大自然」 be a part of 「神」 ? <br /><br />If 「大自然」 is part of a bigger 「神蹟」, then I don't agree with your "那麼你提出的無疑是一個難題"。Is 「大自然」 as a 「神蹟」 NOT an acceptable idea, or is it a contradicting idea to your definition of 「神」 ?<br /><br /><br />>> 哲人丙:對,我們遲早要討論「有沒有神?」這個問題,...假如信徒有些證據支持復活的聲稱,無神論者會說證據不夠「超乎尋常」;...<br /><br />Obviously you have forced your 21st century idea of 「復活」 onto the writings of 1st century. & You think that it could be logical ?!<br /><br />You may suspect that their usage of the word 「復活」 might deviate from our 21st century understanding / definition of the same term。But unless you may find 1st century evidence to disqualify their claim, or unless you go back to 1st century yourself to examine the event with 21st century vision, you cannot dismiss their 「復活」 claim just so easily。<br /><br />For example, if someone in 1st century wrote that he ate tiger meat, would you, as a 21st century reader, argue if he had the money or mean, or if he had ever eaten tiger meat? Unless his writing or some other (near) 1st century writings or environmental evidences prove it otherwise, you may only read his writing as is。<br /><br />Another example, the usage of the word "mouse" depends on context. Real mouse? Or a computer mouse? But would 1st century writer have the same trouble as we do ? <br />Nth 匿名noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-32532353866779260282013-10-13T03:46:51.558-07:002013-10-13T03:46:51.558-07:00還有... 玫瑰花不耐 "嚴寒"。長 "viral disease&...還有... 玫瑰花不耐 "嚴寒"。長 "viral disease" 時要 "連根" 拔掉並燒燬,以防止病毒傳播。又有 "刺" 。現有的玫瑰花多已 "基因改良" 過。... 種過玫瑰花的 "園丁" 都知道 "玫瑰花" 不易打理。Nth 匿名noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-58737273049798604982013-10-13T03:30:37.177-07:002013-10-13T03:30:37.177-07:00(in general) 玫瑰花是非常惹蟲咬的。水少不能、水多根壞。潮濕天
葉子易長霉菌。缺肥料不...(in general) 玫瑰花是非常惹蟲咬的。水少不能、水多根壞。潮濕天 <br />葉子易長霉菌。缺肥料不長花 (甚至易死) 。(some species)不修剪枝子花葉小...。亦不易 自我繁殖 ...。比不上那 "野地裡的百合花" 咁容易 "話為"。所以 "玫瑰花叢" 來之不易。Nth 匿名noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-53448677975926781252013-10-13T03:12:30.234-07:002013-10-13T03:12:30.234-07:00//信徒先合理地相信神的存在,到經歷不可思議、並且和信仰經驗吻合的事時,便有理由接受那是神蹟;接受了...//信徒先合理地相信神的存在,到經歷不可思議、並且和信仰經驗吻合的事時,便有理由接受那是神蹟;接受了那是神蹟之後,則可以視之為新的、額外的、特強的證據,用它來進一步鞏固信仰。對比之下,那些「生神仙」、巫術、及其他明顯是迷信的民間信仰,例如關公顯靈,便不會有這樣的互相印證了,因為我們完全沒有證據或理由相信這些所謂神仙真的存在。//<br /><br />Even if this is granted, what about other established, organized religions and their gods? They can also be that ///信徒先合理地相信神(but different gods*)的存在,到經歷不可思議、並且和信仰經驗吻合的事時,便有理由接受那是神蹟;接受了那是神蹟之後,則可以視之為新的、額外的、特強的證據,用它來進一步鞏固信仰。//<br />* my words in ( ).<br /><br />哲人丁的「生神仙」 example gives too much room for 哲人丙 to maneuver. And 哲人丙 doesn't mention 「神靈」 but 巫術 and 迷信的民間信仰(例如關公). (Well, 「神靈」 is not defined here yet.) It seems to me that he tries to avoid getting into other religions and their gods. (But I have to give him the benefit of doubt here too.)<br />--zpdrmnAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-5491312462385035722013-10-13T02:51:11.337-07:002013-10-13T02:51:11.337-07:00//我們也應該討論討論宗教和迷信的分別//
I have problem with this. It...//我們也應該討論討論宗教和迷信的分別//<br />I have problem with this. It may mislead people to think that 宗教和迷信 have 分別. Maybe they have. What I mean is that it may mislead people to think that both are very different or completely different. But they may be very similar or even the same. Since I don't know if 哲人丙 does it on purpose or not, I can only give him the benefit of doubt. --zpdrmnAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-14024498577858356602013-10-13T01:38:57.355-07:002013-10-13T01:38:57.355-07:00//打個比方,如果你相信某花園有園丁打理,有一天你見到花園內新種了偌大整齊的一片玫瑰花叢,你會認為是...//打個比方,如果你相信某花園有園丁打理,有一天你見到花園內新種了偌大整齊的一片玫瑰花叢,你會認為是園丁栽種的機會高,是有外人偷偷栽種的機會高,還是玫瑰花無端自然長出來的機會高?//<br />这个//相信//是怎麼样的相信? 可能是沒什麼证據的信, 可能是迷信. 若然, 基於此信而//認為//的東東會是什麼? <br />跟著哲人丙更由相信跳至合理地相信: //合理地相信神的存在//. 这样是否"偷步?" --zpdrmn<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com