[轉載]基督教問答篇

leeyanta

http://www.redbeangarden.com/rbg06.htm
有排睇............................................................:cool:

[ Last edited by leeyanta on 2005-10-30 at 05:01 PM ]

research2005010

你咁樣同宣傳人地個壇有甚麼分別 ?

rest365days

Originally posted by research2005010 at 2005-10-31 06:00 PM:
你咁樣同宣傳人地個壇有甚麼分別 ?

not sure if this is appropriate to promote..
just want to see the same standard applies to all ...

http://www.26fun.com/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=87855&fpage=1
http://www.26fun.com/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=88019&fpage=1

brightlee

Originally posted by research2005010 at 2005-10-31 20:00:
你咁樣同宣傳人地個壇有甚麼分別 ?

我真係好唔明你為何這想講
事實上是否基督教的言論過多?

(就算有,大多數是護教了!)

我想好多人在這裡看到了!
我知道你不是太喜歡基督教,雖然我不知道因由.
但平心而論,你這樣做法,外人一看,只覺得你有問題

希望你明白,我寫這篇文章,
不是維護基督教,
亦不是去攻擊你
或者其他人在信仰上的立場


希望你可以中肯一點點去看每件事,每篇文章

Bright上

p.s.我好少打中文,但我覺得今次我需要這樣欲

research2005010

先前愛與誠網友的link即被delete, 等我想睇下誠哥去左邊都唔得,  仲有上面 quote的兩條link第一唔係我post, 第二我無看過。你既然係版主, 你見到有問題, 就交番俾你,

如果我係版主, 我會解釋下佢同愛與誠個case有甚麼分別, 等我地知多d關於呢個post link 的standard, 又或者原本全部都係左版主睇漏眼, 咁你就幫手提下佢

不過我唔係教你做野, 我只不過係有感而發

仲日唔好成日以為人地針對基督新教, 唔通問條問題都唔得?

[ Last edited by research2005010 on 2005-11-3 at 12:42 AM ]

research2005010

但平心而論,你這樣做法,外人一看,只覺得你有問題

我的「問題」好簡單, 就係如二樓所問, 你係版主, 如果你認為唔係就可以解決, 唔駛拉埋d歷史來說, 又抹黑我不中肯.

[ Last edited by research2005010 on 2005-11-3 at 12:49 AM ]

k-key

我覺得壬何好宗教都有一些好處，不應針 對，只是言論對對就算。不應打罵他人

rest365days

Originally posted by research2005010 at 2005-11-3 12:47 AM:
我的「問題」好簡單, 就係如二樓所問, 你係版主, 如果你認為唔係就可以解決, 唔駛拉埋d歷史來說, 又抹黑我不中肯.

我觀察到嘅係: 宣傳佛教講座, 版主無delete. 宣傳基督教網頁, 版主同樣無delete.

brightlee

Originally posted by research2005010 at 2005-11-3 02:47:


我的「問題」好簡單, 就係如二樓...

sorry, I am not the board moderator in this section
I didn't do anything in here. (this section)

Gretzky

Originally posted by research2005010 at 2005-10-31 06:00 PM:
你咁樣同宣傳人地個壇有甚麼分別 ?

I agree with you!

For the record, this forum should be free for all to express their view points in matters of religious faith. So comes the tolerance level in 'promoting' the beliefs.The line should be drawn by the moderator of this particular sub-forum (other sub-forum moderators need to exercise collective responsibility when participating) and while no regularotry remarks are clear enough to illustrate the principles, members need to trust the moderators as a rule of thumb on crashes of opinion. This is a basic etiquette of a cyber community.

Nowadays most cyber identities are either a) the extension of the actual personality or b) the supressed super-ego (using Freud's term). On a forum like this crashes are not uncommon especially in the current affairs and spirituality sub-forums. I may have my ideas towards a particular relgious faith (isn't that true for EVERYONE here?). Chances are the religious faiths we have the strongest emotional responses is either the one we embrace wholeheartedly or the one we have much animosity against. We are who we are intrnisically and it is not fair to stereotype others (this is to you bright and other Christian friends who are eager in evangelism),however hard this is.

EF is not a religious cyber community. We can not expect anyone to abide to any religious dogmas here. EF is also not a place for hard selling of any sort. This maybe sound troublesome for members who are actively involved with their inclusive religious faith (i.e., Zen Buddhism, the Evangelical branch of Protestant Christianity, some animistic beliefs). I don't think this is our marketing bulletin board, nor shall this forum ever be dominated by any sort of beliefs.

Religion is a matter of life experience. We live in a postmodern world and hurting others' feelings is the cardinal sin. If anyone's faith is important to him/her, maybe showing it through his/her authentic journey of life speak way louder than puddling through the uncertainities of the cyber world.

Let's take this less personal and move on. If you ask my opinion, I think Bright needs to make an apology to our friend research2005010 here. But it is not my postion to impose anything here.

To this I renounce:
a) promotions of any sort of religious thoughts (even boarder line threads) as there are others who do not concur with postors' thoughts.
b) threads on topics and replies by members that viciously attack any beliefs.
c) Thought-less comments on religious matter by members and their stubbornness to admit damages to the atmosphere of the forum as well as their unwillingness to stop the futile arguments.

Here I stand.
Gretzky