20131017

羅素問神

英國哲學家羅素是不可知論者agnostic),他晚年時在一個訪問裏被問到假如死後發覺原來神竟然存在,他會向神說些甚麼;羅素這樣答:『我大概會這樣問:「先生,為甚麼你不給我好一點的證據?』(“I probably would ask, ‘Sir, why did you not give me better evidence?’” ,見 Leo Rosten, ‘Bertrand Russell and God: A Memior’)。羅素說的證據,自然是指支持神存在的證據;他言下之意應該是:既然支持神存在的證據這麼薄弱,我因此而不信神,錯不在我啊!

輕信,不可取也。不只科學研究注重證據,就是在日常生活,我們也會認為輕信道聽途說是不對的。假如有人說飲雙氧水可以治病,你聽了便去飲雙氧水;在網上讀到周兆祥的文章,說疫苗百害而無一利,你又立刻停止子女的疫苗注射;在電視上看到不明飛行物體的報道,那些甚麼「專家分析」,你亦照單全收,就算人家不鄙視你輕信,也斷不會因此而稱讚你。反之,不輕信,凡事(或至少在重要的事情上)講求證據,是一種美德。

因此,羅素向神問的問題,是十分合理的。假如神存在,而人的理性和思考力是神賦予人的,那麼,人便應該好好利用這神賜的能力;既然神存在的證據這麼薄弱,人因證據不足而不信神,這是理性的表現,是可取的,一位講道理的神,是不應該為這理性的表現而怪罪於人的。

然而,宗教強調的卻不是理性和證據,而是信心;所謂信心,是在沒有證據的情況下仍然相信 --- 要有證據才相信的,便不是信心。據說,神特別欣賞有信心的人,沒有證據而相信神的人有福了。這個看法在英文有個名堂,叫 ‘fideism’;極端的 fideism 不但認為信心是美德,還認為理性和證據對信仰有害,應予以遏抑。可是,神既然賦予人理性和思考力,為何會特別欣賞信心,甚至不喜歡人運用理性、要求證據,那些 fideists 卻從來也沒有解釋清楚。

信心,說穿了就是在宗教信仰上輕信;會不會被視為美德,還要看你是否被認為是信對了宗教:假如你輕信摩門教,這是信心,不過,基要派基督徒肯定不會認為你這信心是美德,在他們眼中,你,還是要落地獄的。

以下短片是羅素的另一個訪問,談的也是神;哲學家當時已八十七歲,訪問者的一個問題顯示她相信羅素已離死期不遠,想不到羅素接受訪問後還活了十一年,到九十八歲才去世:

59 則留言:

  1. >> 據說,神特別欣賞有信心的人,沒有證據而相信神的人有福了。

    原文應該是... 耶穌復活後... (約翰福音 20:26-29) :

    "過了八日,門徒又在屋裡,多馬也和他們同在,門都關了。耶穌來,站在當中說:願你們平安!就對多馬說:伸過你的指頭來,摸(原文是看)我的手;伸出你的手來,探入我的肋旁。不要疑惑,總要信。多馬說:我的主!我的神!耶穌對他說:你因看見了我才信;那沒有看見就信的有福了。"


    The text is about believing in "Jesus as the Messiah", not about believing "if there is a God".

    Also, "有福了" (in the Four Gospels) roughly equivalent to "有福了 because he/she/we/they will be called a son(s) of God".


    "你因看見了我才信;那沒有看見就信的有福了。" -> Here the "那沒有看見就信的" means the people who believe that Messiah had arrived & God's plan on salvation has completed. Thus "有福了" might carry a double meaning: "有福了 in becoming a son of God" plus 字面上 "有福了".


    When you read (約翰福音 20:21-22)
    "耶穌又對他們說:願你們平安!父怎樣差遣了我,我也照樣差遣你們。說了這話,就向他們吹一口氣,說:你們受聖靈!"...

    The sentence "說了這話,就向他們吹一口氣,說:你們受聖靈!" most probably was not said by Jesus but a later addition. It shows that
    the "author" of this sentence (not necessarily "John") doesn't quite understand what "聖靈" is, and the mentioning of "吹一口氣" to pass out "聖靈" is absolutely absurd as it conflicts with the definition of "聖靈" as in the Old Testament. A similar situation may be found in 使徒行傳 第二章.


    About 羅素 & other issues, I will reply later.

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 我是神,這不是神是否存在的問題,快來信我,要有信心

      刪除
    2. If you are "神" as you claim, tell me what kind of "神" you are (i.e. your definition of yourself).


      >> 我是神,... 快來信我,要有信心

      Show me the writing where you said it, say, 2000 years ago. And show me proof(s) that you are what you claim to be.

      刪除
  2. 你引再多經文又有咩用?
    你點樣証明到經文內容係真?
    到最尾咪又係"不要問,只要信"~

    我引用西遊記內容黎叫人信佛教,你會唔會信?
    點解唔信EC蘭教? 點解唔信可蘭經?
    講歷史點解唔信古埃及果D狗頭神?
    講到尾,咪又係因為全部宗教都冇證據,任你演繹
    自己引一段模稜兩可ge經文(仲要內容任你解釋)就以為反駁到人地論點,
    同我引西遊記話你信錯白骨精有咩分別?

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. Obviously, 羅素's context was Christianity.

      No matter if you quote 西遊記 or not, I won't believe in 佛教, due to my understanding of 佛教 and 佛經 contents. Likewise, xx蘭教 & 古埃及果狗頭神 教.


      >> 你點樣証明到經文內容係真?

      By reading your words & from your writing, I know you are not logical. Likewise, by reading the Bible and from its contents, I found things that are amazing. If you don't like my choice... it is your choice, not mine.


      >> 同我引西遊記話你信錯白骨精有咩分別?

      Obviously you don't know "Logic".


      >> 全部宗教都冇證據

      Obviously I have 證據 to cause me believe in things that I believe in.

      刪除
    2. 睇完你打果D野真係笑左,一D內容都冇,
      完全冇理據,荒謬到極
      我比個例子你睇,等你明白你D"內容"有咩問題

      >>No matter if you quote 聖經 or not, I won't believe in 耶穌, due to my understanding of 聖經 and 耶穌 contents. Likewise, 基督教 & 天主教.


      >>By reading your words & from your writing, I know you are not logical. Likewise, by reading 西遊記 and from its contents, I found things that are amazing. If you don't like my choice... it is your choice, not mine.

      當你D"論點"個subject套用其他野都通果陣,同廢話有咩分別?
      我問你點解聖經係真,你就話我唔logical
      講到尾你都未答到點解聖經可信,就屈我做"dont like your choice"
      即係一句"你唔信唔關我事,總知我就信了"
      答唔出就認啦,懶醒 懶"logical"

      >>Obviously you don't know "Logic". (真心笑左,咁就當自己正確)

      >>"Obviously I have 證據 to cause me believe in things that I believe in."
      你話有就有? 講黎聽過? 唔係又話因為聖經amazing呀? playboy夠amazing啦

      唔好又話"you are not logical so i dont need to tell you"呀~
      你真係有料就唔洗迴避晒我D問題答晒第2D野啦~
      仲要懶醒踩低人~ 一句"you dont know logic"就"自我感覺良好"

      刪除
    3. Your original saying committed a logical fallacy. So you are not logical. (Period.)

      刪除
    4. Nth兄,多謝你
      你令我更加確信無神論,
      全靠你9唔答8, 迴避問題, 轉移視線,
      同特區政府一樣
      介唔介意我將我地對話貼上其他網,
      等更多人知道宗教點令人盲目?

      >>Obviously I have 證據 to cause me believe in things that I believe in.

      講左咁耐,仲係得個講,你話有就有,果然係立於不敗之地,勁!

      刪除
    5. 已於此版講咗係你睇唔明加開眼盲加 stupid 兼自暴其短.

      刪除
    6. 呢的形容詞最適合形容 Nth君你自己.

      刪除
  3. I once told a pastor :-
    1. I won't say "I don't believe in god" because by saying that, it seems god exists and just that I don't believe in him. I will say I don't believe in the existence of god.
    2. my faith on "no god" is as strong as your faith on "god". So....lam I religious?

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 1. What is your definition of "god" leading to your conclusion?
      2. If you are not religious to your "no god", you won't "jump out" when the current topic comes up. Please explain your behavior to yourself.

      刪除
    2. 1. I won't go and "define" god - if you try to do that you are trying to play the role of god, in the context of Christianity. So to answer your question, the "god" I'm referring to is the same as what you believe in. By the way, I rarely see Christian spells "god" without using capital letter G.
      2. When I said "am I religious" to the pastor, I'm asking him a question and it's not a statement I'm trying to make. To be more clear, before I asked this question, the pastor was saying "religion is all about faith". After I asked this question, he simply smiled.
      Nth, sorry if what I said is offensive to you. I have this feeling from your replies to my comment, and to others too. From what I understand, Bible, or at least the New Testament, is about love and forgiveness.

      刪除
    3. >> "god"

      It is you who put a small "g" to your "god" which I was referring to. God cares about people's mind & heart which should tell if "g" or "G" .

      >> I have this feeling from... love and forgiveness.

      I have very low tolerance for illogical & stupid questions.

      The Bible isn't just about "love and forgiveness", but "Truth", "judgement" and "punishment".... blah blah blah...

      刪除
    4. Agree that your smile was illogical.

      刪除
    5. "Do not judge, and you will not be judged; and do not condemn, and you will not be condemned; pardon, and you will be pardoned."
      (Luke 6:37)
      I am not a Christian but I wholeheartedly agree with this saying. I sincerely hope that you can digest this important teaching from Luke.

      刪除
    6. Go read & understand 約翰福音 5:22-30 first.

      刪除
  4. 羅素這位花花老公子當然也是很有美德的。(走筆至此,忽然想到,「美德」這東西也沒有什麼證據值得支持)

    另外,要支持無神論,歷來的論證已經車載斗量,好像不需要訴諸羅素之言。

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. >> 要支持無神論,歷來的論證已經車載斗量,好像不需要訴諸羅素之言。

      To me, 無神論 的論證 isn't convincing enough. So what is your point.

      刪除
  5. 羅素 said:

    >> I probably would ask, ‘Sir, why did you not give me better evidence?’

    >> 他言下之意應該是:既然支持神存在的證據這麼薄弱,我因此而不信神,錯不在我啊!

    In a court, could the person on trial said, "Sir, why did you not give me better description of the laws before I committed a crime?" Would such person be let go and got unpunished?


    This shows 羅素's 言語偽術.

    Rather, he should have said something like, "God, I am so sorry. I had been so wrong and mislead so many people. Blah..blah..blah..." Instead he kept arguing like those in 「約伯記」 which shows his cunning and stupidity. Poor 羅素... He was lucky (or unlucky) that he 咁早死 !!

    回覆刪除
  6. >> 宗教強調的卻不是理性和證據,而是信心;

    Just to let you know that the Old Testament doesn't say so (i.e. 強調信心), as it keeps saying that God shows people this and that (i.e. 證據) but yet they still disobey / don't believe. Thus in Christianity, it is the opposite.

    In New Testament, "信心" is about "Messiah has come and salvation has arrived", not "whether there is a God", as in such time, probably nobody believes in "no god".

    回覆刪除
  7. >> ... 神存在的證據 ...

    In the Old Testament, God keeps saying that the fulfillment of His "prophecies" (besides all of His creation) will be His "證據" to the world. So whether such "證據" is "薄弱", is quite a matter of opinion.

    If God's "證據" is already "薄弱", I don't see why I should believe in 無神論.

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 推背圖果D預言都好準喎,唔通又係神寫?

      " is quite a matter of opinion."
      咁即係討論黎都晒氣啦
      問你有咩證據你就話見仁見智
      人地版主就係講緊羅素話唔夠證據,不足以說服自己理性黎信有神,
      你就一味引經9唔答8,然後就話"信不信由你"
      一D實質證據都冇,
      邊個冇logic呀請問?

      你引聖經內容黎作證"神存在",
      同我引金剛經內容作證"佛存在" 有咩分別?,
      你點樣證明到聖經可信?
      純粹因為你覺得佢可信? 咁同D 3姑6婆信問米有咩分別?
      佢地都係覺得問米可信炸喎,點解佢地又要落地獄?

      唔好再引經文內容黎洗版, 冇人想知你點樣理解D經文
      除非你比到可靠證據證明經文內容可信
      唔係你引晒成本聖經出黎都係廢話,
      不過我諗你都講唔出架啦,講得出都唔洗咁樣洗版啦

      刪除
    2. 依 佛經 講,我咪係 「佛」 囉。你頂多係 「 覺有情」 搾 豉椒弼。重唔下跪?

      (教精你... 厘啲叫做 「佛都有火」 呀 !!!!! )

      刪除
    3. 你回覆內容已經係,就算我信主我都覺得你唔合理
      對你提出問題就通通扮睇唔到
      然後答D irrelevant 既野黎踩低人地抬高自己

      有你呢種信徒 真係可悲

      刪除
  8. >> 基要派基督徒肯定不會認為你這信心是美德,在他們眼中,你,還是要落地獄的。

    Obviously, 基要派基督徒 might (must??) not have fully understand 啟示錄 (but who would, anyways...). But if they have ever claimed that "non-believers will definitely 落地獄". Then I assure you that God's "salvation plan" doesn't work that way, according to the Four Gospels & 啟示錄.

    回覆刪除
  9. Nth 君, 你留咁多言, 以為自己好醒, 你知唔知點解無人理你? 因為你九唔答八呀!

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. I didn't write those replies for you. So you must be very "醒" ??!!

      刪除
  10. 羅素這樣答:『我大概會這樣問:「先生,為甚麼你不給我好一點的證據?』

    也許,上帝會這麼回答:孩子!我能不瞭解你嗎?當你抱持著這個問題時,不已相信了?

    人,並不是懷疑上帝,而是懷疑自己的存在。

    羅馬書1章20節:
    上帝不可見之事,即其永能與 上帝之真,自造天地以來,實可明知;因觀其所造之物而悟,致人無由推諉。

    希伯來書11章1節:
    夫信!使人以所望者為實,未見者之確據。

    凡信者,觀諸 上帝所造實可明知而信仰之,非無理性徒然熱心且愚昧於一時激然或自我欺謊也!真信者,真誠也。

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. >> "也許,上帝會這麼回答..."

      You are not God. So...???

      >> 懷疑自己的存在。

      ??? 懷疑自己的存在。 ??? !!! ??? !!! ??? What does it mean?

      >> 羅馬書 & 希伯來書

      One has to very carefully when reciting from Paul's & other apostles' teachings, as they obviously didn't fully understand Jesus' teachings, in Jesus' time.

      >> "觀諸 上帝所造"

      One of the themes of the Old Testament...

      刪除
  11. 一個有心 和 盡責的老師, 最害怕 + 最侮辱的說話, 是 "誤人子弟" 這一句。 小心 !!

    [Sorry for the many replies. I am in a hurry.]

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 叫人去相信一樣靠不住的嘢應該才叫做「誤人子弟」。例如最近菲律賓發生地震,不但有信以為可以保佑他們的神的信徒受傷亡,還連那些神壇教堂都被震倒塌,如果神真是存在或真是有能力的話,為何悲劇還是一樣會發生?
      叫人去相信如此無用的神才是「誤人子弟」啊!

      刪除
    2. 以此邏輯...

      嘩! 飛機會撞山、船會反艇、核子爐會漏輻射、手機會爆炸...咁靠唔住嘅科學理論啲大學都叫啲學生去學...啲大學真係頂級 「誤人子弟」 呀!

      刪除
    3. 飛機...果D係人唔係神呀, 神係咪都會撞山爆炸先?

      刪除
    4. God don't need any 神壇 / 教堂.

      >> 為何悲劇還是一樣會發生?

      Go read the Old Testament. Similar question was already asked and answered.

      刪除
    5. 神其實是人想像出來的一個精神的虛擬的存在,不同文化不同人種會虛構出該文化和人種的精神偶像。
      把精神存在當成是現實存在其實是精神分裂症的一種。

      刪除
  12. 眼見N如此回應,不禁令人想到康德之對「費希特學問論之公開信」。^^

    羅馬書1章20節:τοῖς ποιήμασιν νοούμενα καθορᾶτα
    τοῖς:藉著
    ποιήμασιν:受造物
    νοούμενα:經過細心地思想領會或理解某事,理解、領會、瞭解、看透
    καθορᾶτα:察覺、注意到

    新約中無不有理性充沛情感之探討內容,請詳查新約聖經。
    至初世紀開始,凡教父亦皆理性情感之人,諸如奧古斯丁、游士丁、俄利根、耶柔米、德爾圖良…等;至中紀記有尼古拉.庫隡、多瑪斯.阿奎那…等;啟蒙時代有笛卡兒、巴斯卡…等;至近代有巴特、潘霍華…所有人無不用盡心智與情感思索上帝之事。
    並非僅憑一時性起。

    回覆刪除
  13. Nth 匿名,
    想知你"晚年時"在一個訪問裏如被問到假如死後發覺原來神竟然存在,你會向神說些甚麼?

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. "竟然存在" ?????

      If God is God, He knows the answer already, even though I don't. So please ask Him yourself, and see if He tells.

      刪除
  14. //羅素問神 //
    三姑六婆, 二爺四叔** 不會問神, 只會求神及問米. Kidding.
    **trying not to be sexually discriminating
    --zpdrmn

    回覆刪除
  15. 羅素十多歲開始不再相信上帝。(It would be interesting to know) 之後的八十年中,他有否查看是否因為自己少不經事,以致誤解聖經內容? 可是從他講解為何不選擇做基督徒的影片中,似乎他沒有如此做。至少他沒有指出 (if he were a Christian),聖經中有否前言不對後語、看不明白或怪異的地方。我覺得奇怪,他作為一個數學邏輯大師,卻沒有利用邏輯推理去審視聖經內容的真偽,是甚麼原因? (那不是有點諷刺嗎? 誠然 邏輯推理 & 數學邏輯 沒有直接關連之處。或許他不懂邏輯推理?) 上帝給他學識,他卻沒有好好利用。上帝給他長壽,他亦沒有好好反醒。是上帝刻意給他機會,還是給他一個慢長的審判? (註: The meaning of "審判" is as implicitly defined in the Four Gospels, not as in our daily usage。) 一個有學識的愚昧人,其福份反不及一個虛心的人,這就是上帝之道。

    馬太福音 19:24
    我又告訴你們,駱駝穿過針的眼,比財主進神的國還容易呢!

    財主 藉著 基督 還可以進入神的國。愚昧人 比起 財主 更欠福份。

    回覆刪除
  16. 利未記20章26:
    當於我前聖潔,因 上帝聖潔,區別爾於萬民中,以屬於我。

    呂新吾.呻吟語(內篇.修身):
    攻己惡者,顧不得人之惡。若嘵嘵爾雌黃人,定是自治疏底。

    回覆刪除
  17. 箴言 26:5 要照愚昧人的愚妄話回答他,免得他自以為有智慧。

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 可惜到現在你都唔明,係呢到,愚昧人由頭到尾只有一個
      而果個人到E+都仲以為"眾人皆醉我獨醒"

      識引經又點? 你根本理解唔到個意義

      刪除
    2. Let's be sympathetic to Nth - he could have Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

      刪除
    3. Stupid (= you) is as you does.

      刪除
    4. Oh well......you reply is another symptom of this kind of personality disorder.

      刪除
  18. Wong,
    You may be interested in this:

    Obamacare: It's a different law in red states
    http://money.msn.com/health-and-life-insurance/article.aspx?post=4b46d0a7-9c55-48ef-9f1d-eacbc7829130

    --zpdrmn

    回覆刪除
  19. From the outside looking in
    About three thousand years ago the Jews started putting down their oral traditions on God in word (Not English, not on paper, none was there yet). Through many times of hand copying and editing, finally after the Babylonian exile, the bulk part of the Jewish Scripture was formed. God was given different names in the Scripture.

    I would say that men created God.

    One hundred years after Jesus death and a few decades after the destruction of the Temple, so-called the four gospels were more less written and used by (God forbidden) the Christian sects within Jewish communities.

    Both Jews and Gentile members in and out the Christian sects believed the same God. 500 yeas later the Muslims also believe the same God. Everyone claims that God is on their side and their God is the true God. Oh my poor God, which side are you in?

    Voltaire once said without believing in God men would eat their fellow men alive. Well, well, well, when believing in God, Catholic Christians eat human flesh and drink human blood weekly.

    Samson
    Ontario, Canada

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. >> I would say that men created God.

      I take/took long time to ponder on this:

      If there isn't a God as described in the Bible, then how the prophecies (written in the Bible) were created and are being fulfilled...??!!! (BTW, in the Bible, God [i.e. not "I"] said that He uses prophecies to show His existence.)

      I mean, as a believer, of course I can easily say that there are done by God.

      But putting on a non-believer's hat, I have to query whether the prophecies were just some day-dreamed stories by created by some (mentally-challenged ??) people, and some (i.e. "not all") Christians just wishfully match them against historical events to mark them as "fulfilled".

      But then, how to explain the "details" in the prophecies? How to explain the possibility of such "coincidences" when they were written >2000 yrs ago, but the actual events have been happening even now or rather recently? Plus the writings doesn't seem to be written by lunatics or liars (, not like the "你們受聖靈" case I mentioned above).

      For example, some Christians said that WWI & WWII were prophesied in Book of Revelation (and I went to check against the details)... (Of course, some people could attribute them to UFOs. But I would defer putting on yet another hat for now...)

      Anyways,

      >> Voltaire once said without believing in God men would eat their fellow men alive.

      This has happened in human history.... one example is the Chinese Cultural Revolution.

      >> (Catholic Church)

      For years, some Christians had matched it against the "whore" in Book of Revelation. I don't think it is entirely correct (i.e. only partially correct).

      >> ...Muslims...

      I also find it in Book of Revelation, but not playing a good & active role (i.e. not as one of the major "actors" in the book).

      Plus there are some other "unexplainable coincidences" both in OT... also for "rather recent" historical events... (I don't mean the "Israel" 復國. Of course some Christians count this one it in.)

      > (Jews, Gentile, Muslims, Catholics, Christians believe the same God.)

      There are deviations in their practices. So it could be same term ("God") for different "Gods". Another possibility is, as said in the Bible, someone adds a "little" here and a "little" there ->i.e. lies are packaged into the term "God" for a bad cause.)


      With both hats on, my advice is : Don't say it so loud with high confidence that "men created God" or "there is no God", as I suspect that such chance could be pretty low.

      刪除
    2. To Mr. Nth,
      You must believe that God created men 6000 years ago because it is written in the bible.

      I tell you a quote from a well known bible scholar John Dominic Crossan :”It is not that those ancient people told literal stories and we are smart enough to interpret them symbolically, rather it is that the ancient writers told symbolic stories and we are dumb enough to understand it literally” I cannot say it better than he did.

      Samson
      Ontario, Canada

      刪除
    3. Probably you didn't see one of my reply in the "《哲人對話錄》之〈神蹟〉" series (??). Some where there I already said :

      "洪水滅世" 一章中,有一重要 "線索",證明那極可能祇是一個 "神話故事"。


      >> You must believe that God created men 6000 years ago because it is written in the bible.

      If "洪水滅世" could be a story, "Genesis, the story" could also be one. So my observation does not conflict with John Dominic Crossan's saying.

      However, that still doesn't provide evidence to confirm that "there is no God".

      I may dismiss the biblical way that human beings are formed, but I cannot dismiss the fact that our lives have to follow all scientific rules and theories, which I would take as part of God.

      If I dismiss "Science as part of God", I still have to find an explanation for the "prophecy" phenomenon before I could decide if "there is / isn't a God".

      Since I cannot find evidence (yet) to rule out the prophecies as genuine, the prophecies become evidence to favor "there is a God" over "there isn't a God".

      That was my point.

      刪除
    4. To Mr. Nth,
      Sorry I do not quite get where you stand in terms of the bible. You seem to keep on cherry-picking the bible. As a Christian do you accept the bible as a whole or only partially? If only partially, your church must be in the extreme margin of the Christian community. I am amazed by your arguments that some verses in the bible are stories (…"洪水滅世" could be a story ), some are garbage to be dismissed (…dismiss the biblical way that human beings are formed ).

      Please go back to my first comment. I am saying that men created God. If the bible was never written by the Jewish people, there would not be God. Since God was created 3000 years ago, now there is a God for Jews, Christian and Muslims to worship.

      Samson
      Ontario, Canada

      刪除
    5. { Part 1 }

      >> Sorry I do not quite get where you stand in terms of the bible.

      [ I think this reply will be long & confusing... Sorry.]


      I believe in the same Christian God as other Christians.

      Each person has a brain to think. I used mine with my logical reasoning, scientific knowledge, biblical knowledge to try solving "biblical queries" of my interest, which some other Christians/pastors could have said "不要問 祇要信".

      So should I stop using my brain, but claim "聖經無誤" and stick with "Adam & Eve", so that we may argue about "Genesis" & evolution? Obviously I don't want to.

      My logical reasoning helps me spot some problems in the Bible. It is just like when you talk with a person, sometimes you could spot if he/she is lying, avoiding an issue, or with a hidden agenda. (Or couldn't you?)

      It isn't a big deal.

      Same thing with "洪水滅世", something rang the bell that there was a problem with it. "你們受聖靈" rang a different bell, and then some more other bells....

      Thus spotting problems in the Bible doesn't mean that I don't believe in the same Christian God. & It doesn't mean that I would take "the Book of Genesis" as garbage, as it helps me (in 21st century) understand what people were up to in their mind, in their time.

      >> If the bible was never written by the Jewish people, there would not be God. Since God was created 3000 years ago, now there is a God for Jews, Christian and Muslims to worship.

      No. Before Jews wrote down the Scripture, there were Egyptian gods. Before Egyptian gods, there were whatever was there. So if Jews didn't write down the Scripture, different people would still have different "god(s)", just like the Greeks & Indians have their own gods.

      So I guess your question was "If the bible was never written by the Jewish people, there would not be a Christian God". (right??)

      刪除
    6. { Part 2 }


      But human minds take curious paths to seek the Truth and find God(s). & There is no "IF"s in history that we could undo and retake (, i.e. most probably there isn't such thing as parallel universes as in science theory/fiction).

      Even if Jews didn't write down the Scripture "N" yrs ago, the whole universe & its scientific rules/principles would still be an evidence for some real God(s) [ or the "Truth" ].

      Since the Egyptian gods has to be older than the Scripture (if Moses wrote the Book of Genesis), should I take them as the real God(s)? Suppose we take the Egyptian gods as the real god, you would still ask the same question, only by pushing the "N yrs" (for Christian God) towards "Beginning of Time". Same cycle repeats again for another "God(s)"...until we reach the Beginning of Time, or we ran out of "gods". Then which one would come up first? If Beginning of Time comes up first, it means that there is God(s)!!. If we run out of "gods" first, is this option really possible? At such time, what would "we" be like?! A worm? A human being? Would we be all powerful so that we are already god-like so that we don't need to create "gods" for ourselves? Is it the same kind of human behavior that we have observed?

      If human beings didn't come up with "Atheism", would there be "Atheism"? So if "Christian God" is man-made, is/isn't "Atheism" also man-made?

      Since a name is just a label...

      Comparing with "Christian God", "Atheism" (or the "no-god") could be even younger. So which one is the real-er "God"?

      If there is a common real God(s) [not the "no-god"] in the whole universe, "Atheism" / "no-god" will be a man-made theory.

      Suppose if there isn't a common real God(s), "Atheism" / "no-god" wins. Then tell me how to solve our current "prophecies" query created by the Christian God, and also the being of our universe and its rules. By "不要問 祇要信" ?

      - end -

      刪除
    7. To Mr. Nth,
      The Christians only recognize one God that is the one written in the bible. All other “gods” are not true gods and must be condemned. You know as well as I do that in the bible how the true God destroys other “gods” and their followers. The scenes are not pretty. You may wish to read the First Commandment.

      It is my pleasure to have such discussion with you on the bible. I wish you well and success in your search of the truth. We shall meet again some other time.

      Samson
      Ontario, Canada

      刪除
    8. Atheism doesn't care which god is "God" or "god". I had showed you that Atheism isn't without logical problem when examining "[Christian] God was [merely] created 3000 years ago".

      >> ... in the bible how the true God destroys other “gods” and their followers. . The scenes are not pretty. You may wish to read the First Commandment.

      No. This is not true. You still see lots of "gods" in China, India, etc. and the "Holy Mary", where people still worship. Do you see Christians trying to wipe out those worshipers nowadays?

      As about why the "First (or all Ten) Commandment(s)", what did Jesus say? Does it tell you anything on what Jesus would want Christians to do in the same situation?

      (Switched to / creating another issue without reaching conclusion to one issue isn't wise.)

      If you read the entire Bible, and if God is God, obviously He doesn't want people to waste time in superficial things (such as praying in front of people, needless sacrifice that you cannot afford, doing "things" that leads to nowhere, etc.) but to distinguish what is true and not true, what is real and not-real.

      Similar to your query, people who are in "Polygamy" could argue that our legal system deprives their "right to marriages". People who are gay could argue that they have "rights to do whatever in their private room". But what is the "Truth" and what is "real"?

      Glad to talk with you in such "peaceful" way. Hope that you learn a few things (such as thinking by "induction") which you may apply to daily issues.

      刪除
  20. Nth 君,請你唔好再污染王教授個blog了。

    回覆刪除