GOOD，有分爭就有進步，所以我冇偷食蘋果，我冇罪
**** 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽 ****
便論唔會死人，冇便論盲目跟隨真會死好多人，死了都唔知為什麼，所以我只說文章分爭才有進步，
又寫錯字辨論至真
justin_lun兄,
[b]挪亞方舟[/b]電影中採取既行動(即親身去山上尋找歷史證據)係研究既方向(direction of research) - 因為之前冇人俾上山去0的政治敏感既地方去視察。
挪亞方舟呢個聖經既故事若然喺毫無證據下被認為係實史就係混淆歷史。
唔該你喺出帖話我之前﹐諗諗先﹐好唔好? 你既少少思考省卻我既多多解釋﹐當係幫幫忙。
mememe, 既然挪亚方舟是研究方向，就已说明了并未公认为实史。基督徒本身如此相信，但从未有强迫他人去认同，也没有歪曲事实或抹煞其他可能，最多只是提出自己的信仰而已，又如何会变成混淆歷史？神创造世界本身也是无法确认的，基督徒如此相信，难道也变成混淆歷史吗？阁下才应该多思考，“混淆歷史”可是很严重的指控。
前言不對後語和攻擊他人也是很嚴重的指控
指控需要證據﹐雖然證明不到挪亞方舟存在﹐但同樣證明不到不存在。那麼根據mememe的
推論﹐“若然在毫無證據下被認為係實史就係混淆歷史。”在無證據下就認為“挪
亞方舟是混淆歷史”是事實﹐又算是甚麼﹖
justin_lun兄,
[quote]基督徒本身如此相信，但从未有强迫他人去认同，也没有歪曲事实或抹煞其他可能，最多只是提出自己的信仰而已，又如何会变成混淆歷史？[/quote]
我想知道﹐若然基督徒本身[b]只係[/b]相信,請問點解要去Mount Arafat探索呢?
若然只係單純既[b]相信[/b]﹐又何需證據呢? 有0左證據就係[b]知道[/b]而唔係[b]相信[/b]啦!
[b]基督教根本就希望用證據(註:冇)去支持佢哋既信仰﹐然後將佢哋既信仰粉飾成事實。[/b]
你要證據嗎? 現代既Young Earth Creationism好嗎? 往時既Geocentrism又如何? 你可唔可以解釋一下點解淨係[b]本身如此相信[/b]既基督徒需要用聖經作基礎既假科學理論去解釋呢個世界呢? 乜呢0的係[b]只是提出自己的信仰[/b]咩?
[quote]雖然證明不到挪亞方舟存在﹐但同樣證明不到不存在。那麼根據mememe的
推論﹐“若然在毫無證據下被認為係實史就係混淆歷史。”在無證據下就認為“挪
亞方舟是混淆歷史”是事實﹐又算是甚麼﹖[/quote]
呢句簡直經典。
冇證據證明既嘢客觀上根本就唔需要考慮。
如: 獨角獸﹐美人魚﹐飛馬。
歷史係客觀既。
在無證據下就認為“獨角獸不存在”又算是甚麼呢﹖
好一個方便的理論。我就舉一些例子給大家看看﹕
挪亞方舟﹕
根據考古發現﹐現時考古隊尚未有足夠科技開發挪亞方舟所在的亞拉獵山﹐只能發
掘表面的碎木﹐證明與方舟建造時間吻合。而唯一的歷史記載就是聖經指出挪亞曾
建方舟﹐那麼﹕沒有足夠證據證明挪亞方舟的存在﹐是混淆歷史。
隕石滅絕恐龍﹕
根據考古發現﹐現時人類尚未有足夠科技推斷出恐龍滅絕的真正原因﹐只能發掘恐
龍的化石和隕石坑﹐證明兩者發生時間吻合。而唯一的歷史記載根本就沒有﹐那麼﹕
沒有足夠證據證明隕石滅絕恐龍的存在﹐也是混淆歷史。
秦始皇墓﹕
根據考古發現﹐現時中國尚未有足夠科技開發秦始皇墓﹐只能發掘墓旁的兵馬俑﹐
證明與陵墓建造時間吻合。而唯一的歷史記載就是秦漢文獻指出秦始皇曾建陵墓﹐
那麼﹕沒有足夠證據證明秦始皇墓的存在﹐也是混淆歷史。
太空人登月﹕
根據普遍認識﹐現時尚未有其他國家能夠登陸登陸月球﹐只能靠美國單方面的電視
廣播﹐證明有太空人曾登陸月球。而唯一的歷史記載就全被美國政府列為機密﹐普
通人無法知道﹐那麼沒有足夠證據證明太空人登月的發生﹐也是混淆歷史。
釋迦成佛/耶穌復活﹕
根據考古發現﹐現時人類尚未有足夠科技回到過去﹐只能靠耶路撒冷的墓穴和印度
的文獻﹐證明釋迦和耶穌曾經出現。而唯一的歷史記載就是聖經和佛經﹐那麼﹕沒
有足夠證據證明釋迦成佛/耶穌復活曾經發生﹐也是混淆歷史。
輪迴/天堂地獄﹕
根據科學研究﹐現時人類尚未有足夠科技追溯人類死後的確實狀況﹐只能靠部份人
的憶述或催眠﹐證明前世今生﹑天堂地獄的存在。而唯一的歷史記載就根本沒有。
那麼﹕沒有足夠證據證明輪迴/天堂地獄的存在﹐也是混淆歷史。
看看﹐多麼方便的說法﹐一切的歷史﹑信仰﹑甚至已經發生的事﹐都可以用這個簡
單得不能再簡單的“混淆歷史”說推翻﹐隨你喜歡代入什麼時間也行。真的很好用﹗
只要求得好不傷害他人，信甚麼亦不重要，我愛耶穌，喜 歡佛祖，但書始終由人寫，得閒問個真，得過明，知道又如何、、得過笑
[quote]Originally posted by [i]justin_lun[/i] at 2005-10-19 02:11 PM:
好一個方便的理論。我就舉一些例子給... [/quote]
所以你所提既例子我全部係抱懷疑態度
隕石滅絕恐龍, -----滅絕恐龍最大可能是環境變化,隕石只是科學家推斷出引致環境變化的“其中一個可能性”,
秦始皇墓的存在,-----秦漢文獻,兩個朝代“不止一份”不是唯一,又有文物發現等等
釋迦成佛/耶穌復活曾經發生,-----這不是歷史,是民間傳說,只有信徒會叫歷史
輪迴/天堂地獄的存在,-----這不是歷史,這是民間傳說
justin_lun
如果跟你說法
“魔戒”三部曲,會比較可信,有三本書記載這事,全世界也有人睇過這電影,
現時人類尚未有足夠科技推斷“魔戒”三部曲中其他種族滅絕的真正原因....
因為我們可以這電影為硏究方向,以所以是真的。
這“硏究方向”真的很好用﹗
釋迦最後死了火化,
有人說成佛是一個人精神上或靈魂上,去到一個境界,超越生死。
這不是歷史,而且沒有人証明過,
如果我精神上超越生死,還會介意你們知不知嗎?
Juntin_lun兄﹐
從你所提既論點﹐睇得出你既無知。
第一點
唔使我講﹐DXneo兄好簡潔0甘指出0左你既死穴:
[b]滅絕恐龍最大可能是環境變化,隕石只是科學家推斷出引致環境變化的“其中一個可能性”[/b]
[url]http://library.thinkquest.org/C005824/extinction.html[/url]
"隕石滅恐龍"根本無被認為係[b]史實[/b]﹐點樣混淆歷史呢?
第二點
[b]如果真係[/b]"沒有足夠證據證明秦始皇墓的存在",0甘秦始皇墓咪未必係史實咯! 冇問題0架噃!
同樣冇證據支持下,你無法接受挪亞方舟唔係史實﹐但係我可以接受秦始皇墓唔係史實。
你有你既主觀偏見﹐我有我既客觀理性。
第三點
你太孤漏寡聞喇!月球上有laser reflector去證明登陸既痕跡.
[url]http://news.space-explorers.com/display.asp?v=3&i=5&a=3[/url]
第四點
呢點我又唔使出聲﹐DXneo兄一矢中的。
[b]釋迦成佛/耶穌復活曾經發生,-----這不是歷史,是民間傳說,只有信徒會叫歷史[/b]
舊約既神,耶穌同槃古﹐女媧無乜唔同0架咋﹐爭在一個係西方神話﹐另一個係東方傳說。
第五點
乜你都知道"沒有足夠證據證明釋迦成佛/耶穌復活曾經發生"0架咩? 我仲使講乜? ^_^ 你鐘意既話咪話係混淆歷史咯!
第六點
[b]只能靠部份人的憶述或催眠﹐證明前世今生﹑天堂地獄的存在。[/b]
0下?! 我冇聽錯嘛? [b]部份人的憶述或催眠[/b]都"靠"得住? 仲可以[b]證明[/b]前世今生﹑天堂地獄的存在?! 你既gullibleness令我嘆為觀止。
mememe, 既然"隕石滅恐龍"根本無被認為係史實﹐點樣混淆歷史呢?
挪亞方舟亦只是研究方向﹐更加未被認為是史實﹐又如何混淆歷史﹖你是自相矛盾還是無知﹖
justin_lun兄,
好一句"[b]挪亞方舟亦只是研究方向﹐更加未被認為是史實﹐又如何混淆歷史﹖[/b]"
[url]http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/noah.asp[/url]
[quote]Although biblical skeptics often dismiss this account as pure mythology, Christians should accept the word of God Who was there rather than the opinions of fallible men who were not.[/quote]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah[/url]'s_ark
[quote]Liberal Biblical scholarship concludes that the Biblical account was based upon Mesopotamian models. A majority of Christian Fundamentalists believe that the prevalence of the story points to its origin in an actual, historical event. They argue that the high level of detail given in Genesis makes it an inherently reliable account, and that the other stories are accounts of the same historical event which were distorted into mythology over time. They claim that the Epic of Gilgamesh is merely a corrupted retelling of Genesis (though this is rejected by liberal biblical historians and archaeologists, who regard Genesis as having been written considerably later than Gilgamesh).[/quote]
未被認為是史實?
乜嘢"研究方向"會叫人晌作出研究之前接受"研究結論"?
[url]http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day5pmsession.pdf[/url]
(page 94-96)
[quote]
Q. What about Adam as the first man?
A. Even the Hebrew Bible uses the notion of Adam in the universal sense for mankind.
Q. Does the church believe that Adam was actually the first man?
A. The church believes in these ideas only in connection with the doctrine of original sin, and that means simply that all of us are born into a world that's pretty messed up and we are all contaminated by that and we need redemption from. The key point of the whole virgin birth idea, Adam and Eve, is to emphasize, to make a place cognitionally to understand the meaning of what we call the Savior or theme of redemption.
Q. So they're just --
A. Everything is focussed in that way. So to ask atomistically questions like, do you believe in the virgin birth, do you believe in Adam and Eve, is to miss the whole point theologically.
Q. But the church believes that, does it not?
A. The church is primarily interested in communicating to people the salvific significance of the man Jesus. And throughout the ages it does this in many different ways, and sometimes it has to revive and revise catechisms in order to make that mission something that can be accomplished.
Q. What about Eve, do you believe there was a woman named Eve?
A. That's the same sort of question.
Q. So Adam and Eve to you are not individuals?
[b]A. I don't look for scientific information. I don't look for scientifically factual information in a text which, by genre, fits in the category of what all biblical scholars today call myth rather than history.
Q. I didn't ask you for a scientific explanation. You're a theologian. As a matter of faith, do you believe --
A. You're asking a historical question, and the whole concept of history, as we understand it today,was in many ways fashioned by the scientific revolution with its concern for factual evidence. So history is not able to be disassociated from the whole scientific movement.[/b][/quote]
聖經係神話﹐基督徒相信 - 0甘本身並無問題。
但係唔知點解﹐基督徒唔安份於"相信" - 佢哋需要證實﹐需要用證據去證明聖經唔單止係神話﹐而係事實。
用舊約既字眼製造成無稽既Heliocentrism推翻天文學說。
用YEC既半咸淡理論去推翻考古學﹐地質學﹐同生物學既理論。
[quote]Flood geology, a doctrine advanced by young-earth creationists, holds that the global flood of Genesis actually occurred and that many geological formations of today are best explained in terms of a global flood in the recent past. This includes phenomena such as submarine river canyon extensions, layered fossil fuel deposits, fossil layers, and layered sedimentary strata.[/quote]
[quote]Biology as understood by creationists holds that the animals on the ark were representatives of the created kinds, not representative of every species known to modern taxonomy. These 'kinds' had significantly more genetic information and a significantly superior genetic structure than the animals of today, and that speciation from these 'kinds' followed the flood as a result of reproductive isolation and loss of genetic information. Although it is unknown exactly how animal 'kinds' relate to modern taxonomic classifications, the creation narrative in Genesis indicates that a 'kind' is a category that was reproductively isolated from other 'kinds'.[/quote]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah[/url]'s_ark
你既所謂"現時考古隊尚未有足夠科技開發挪亞方舟所在的亞拉獵山﹐只能發掘表面的碎木﹐證明與方舟建造時間吻合。"係謊言。
[quote]In 2004, yet another expedition went to Mount Ararat in Turkey to try to locate the Ark (formerly in Armenia)- see Ararat anomaly. Samples from Turkey tested by Geological and Nuclear Sciences, a New Zealand government research institute, were found to be volcanic rock rather than petrified wood.[/quote]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah[/url]'s_ark
呢0的係基督教既[b]一貫[/b]作風 - 假裝研究﹐實質暪騙。
Justin_lun兄,
喺度我加多個link。希望你睇完先覆帖
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoarchaeology[/url]
[quote]The term pseudoarchaeology is used by many to refer to those religious perspectives that [b]do not follow the accepted norms of scientific inquiry[/b], such as Creationism, as well as to the pursuit of untestable hypotheses or theories, such as the influence of UFOs or ancient astronauts on past civilizations. [b]Pseudoarchaeology is most often associated with the investigation of theories generally discounted by scientific investigators, such as the existence of Noah's Ark on Mount Ararat[/b], lost continents such as Atlantis or Lemuria, and the idea of direct contact between the ancient civilizations of Egypt and the Maya. [b]Religious groups may engage in pseudoarcheology in order to legitimize some present-day action[/b].[/quote]
明未?
說甚麼“混淆歷史”﹐那裡的歷史說過挪亞方舟不存在﹖沒有相反的史實說挪亞方舟
不存在﹐那裡去找歷史給基督徒去混淆﹖不過是mememe你自己相信挪亞方舟是假的﹐
你的認知中“沒有挪亞方舟”就是歷史﹐你才如此說。你可有證據證明“挪亞方舟”
不存在﹖電影中出現的“錨石”﹐在香港﹑加拿大﹑美國等地也有展出﹐也有化驗
證明時間與聖經記載的洪水吻合﹐你有去留意嗎﹖沒有。電影中的證據﹐你找到任
何相反的證據嗎﹖你大概沒有發現﹐你所用的那些“證據”﹐由 [url]http://en.wikipedia.[/url]
org/wiki/Noah's_ark 提供的消息﹐是任何人也可以更改的﹗就例如﹐我已經將那
個所謂的“2004紐西蘭報告”由發現熔岩改成發現動物化石﹗不信你自己去看﹗那
個所謂的證據根本就可以說是毫無根據﹗你找到電影中說過“挪亞方舟就是歷史”
的任何言論嗎﹖更沒有。日本人做成南京大屠殺﹐他們不是說“南京大屠殺”不存
在嗎﹖不是也說“南京大屠殺”是混淆歷史嗎﹖日本人從沒有舉出“南京大屠殺”
不存在的證據﹐只單單挑出證明“南京大屠殺”存在的證據中的錯漏﹔而mememe你
呢﹖你甚至連挑出證據中的錯漏都沒有做﹐就說“挪亞方舟是混淆歷史”﹐究竟無
知的是誰﹖
挪亞方舟這發現﹐是基督徒去研究﹑“並且希望證明聖經不單是信仰﹐更是歷史事
實。”到現在為止﹐固然證據未曾足夠﹐無法去說﹕「挪亞方舟在歷史上是存在的。」
沒有基督徒敢這麼說。但是﹐你這樣就抹殺了基督徒去證明聖經是真確的機會﹖說
“但係唔知點解﹐基督徒唔安份於"相信" - 佢需要證實﹐需要用證據去證明聖經唔
單止係神話﹐而係事實。”如果連證明所相信的是否真實都不能去求證﹐這才真的
是“迷信”﹗mememe你不是這樣嗎﹖一句“挪亞方舟是混淆歷史”就定案﹐甚麼事
實也不看﹐連證據也是亂來﹐這才是混淆﹐不過不是歷史﹐而是混淆事實﹗
那裡的歷史說過挪亞方舟不存在?[size=5][color=Red]這發言十分有問題[/color][/size]
[size=4][color=Red]這地球上那裡的歷史會記下[/color][/size]“[size=6][color=Red]不存在[/color][/size]”[size=4][color=Red]的事嗎?[/color][/size]
不存在真的是歴史記載的任務嗎?
世上不存在的那麼多,要全記下嗎?
[size=5][color=Red]歴史是[size=6]白痴[/size]寫的嗎?[/color][/size]
所以真的只有這樣[color=Red]無[/color]所不[color=Red]知[/color]的,才能為全知全能的那位寫出這種[color=Red]歪理[/color]
明明是要寫給“[size=4][color=Red]所有人[/color][/size]”看的書,
為甚麼還要[color=Red]年年改,日日修[/color],還要找[size=5][color=Red]專人[/color][/size]解釋?自打嘴巴
[size=5][color=Red]前人捅的洞,要後人來補,所知有限吧...[/color][/size]
失禮說一句~~[color=Purple]扮[/color]全知全能也要有點智慧吧...
[[i] Last edited by DXneo on 2005-10-25 at 10:30 PM [/i]]