bengrace50

Originally posted by 聖里斯 at 2005-8-19 12:20:
即是我要先買定海青才好皈依？
戒衣也可以買？但我看過"佛哲書舍"的網，只有海青賣，沒有戒衣啊，另外雖然買鞋嗎？即是出家人穿著那些？因為穿波鞋會否怪怪的？
只有佛哲書舍及佛光緣書局才可以買衣服嗎？

應該唔止，但我只知咁多。
鞋？隨你啦。

很難了，現在媽媽好像不太想我去皈依及守戒，她說泰國的姑姐、阿牆還有香港的親戚大多是佛教徒，但他們就沒有說皈依及守戒。因為我向她說皈依是有一套黑色的衣服要穿在身上，受戒就加多條，而且皈依三寶才算是佛教徒，但媽媽說不是，我們的親戚都沒做過皈依，而且可以食肉。

皈依後都可以食肉，但要是三淨肉。

就以昨晚為例，她就煮雞了，今早就拜神及燒衣紙，還說要我幫手摺，但信佛的是不會拜神的，而且還要用肉去供奉，這是不可以的啊。你又說過，如果要用肉去拜神，那麼即是該神仍然有貪，不應該拜的。
我又不方便說，所以只是望一望就算了，因為我不可能叫媽媽不準再買肉去拜神的。

慢慢來啦。  可以一下就被你攪掂，仲駛乜佛菩薩咁忙呀。佢地度我們都幾千萬劫咁來啦。你一下就想講掂你媽？  要慢慢教化家嘛。  你自己先皈依受戒，自然有三寶力加持，你度人都有力d ka，好神奇ka。

魔術師

ben兄我想問泰國佛同中國佛有咩分別?
我阿媽佢信泰國佛 今日我免為其難陪佢去 見到佢係信泰國佛 個位人兄係到解答人野 D人話係導人向善 聽人講有好多差佬 前任既黑社會大佬都信 黑社會信左之後就無再做
我想問下有2者中國佛同泰國佛有咩分別?個人講既都係好似佛教有咩南無十方佛 大悲x 好多好多 但係好呃錢- - 我阿媽買2個佛都要一千蚊 我阿媽重去成日買

bengrace50

Originally posted by 魔術師 at 2005-8-20 20:39:
ben兄我想問泰國佛同中國佛有咩分別?
...

睇下佢講的是泰國佛、四面佛還是泰國佛教的佛。  南傳小乘佛教也有傳去泰國。  但四面佛不是佛，祂只是神。

而有些人借泰國佛教之名也賣泰國的佛，例如：佛牌。 你要看看你媽信的泰國佛的道場是否由小乘佛教的出家人主持。如果是的話，多數無問題，但如果是由在家人主持的話，你要叫你媽小心，因為無乜可能由在家人主持的，尤其是小乘佛教。還有，小乘佛教的出家人是無可能收錢的，尤其在家人只可以供養衣服、藥物及食物，他們的戒律是不可以接觸錢的。 小心。
建議你依我的簽名欄內的網址內的佛教道場資料，帶你媽去些正宗佛教道場！

mememe

silverxing兄﹐

阿justin_lun讲既根本就系“點解神要俾自由意志人類”，你就当左系人地讲紧“人点解要有自由意志”

你0甘講完全係斷章取義。你係唔係同我講話當justin_lun兄同我討論既時候佢冇講到點解佢覺得有自由意志? 我隨手都可以揾到幾個例子去駁回呢點。 齎係睇番茄比諭既辨駁已經知道justin_lun兄係解釋緊點解佢認為自由意志確實存在。你無理取鬧。

而"并存"同"同时存在"既分別，明明就系你明白唔到阿justin_lun讲既野，所以你先觉得唔紧要。

你呢句完全係廢話。有嘢你就講﹐唔好懶係神秘0甘。既然你覺得0甘重要﹐0甘你講出"并存"同"同时存在"既分別吧。

我唔系话你讲既野错，系话你根本做唔到复述阿justin_lun D point呀！

你講既兩點所謂"錯誤"都已經被我駁回。你一係就俾證據﹐一係就唔好再無理取鬧。你齎講就只有廢話。

你用All A are B代表神系全知既话，就代表任何人一改自己个名做“神”都会变成全知！用A ∈ B反而可以，但系就即刻变成特定个案，意思完全唔同。

根本就係。如果我話All Gods are Omniscient﹐所有既神都會係全知既subset﹐即所有神都會被我歸納為全知既物體 - 不過﹐唔係齎係名稱上﹐而係實際上。

你完全冇解釋到"A ∈ B"係點解。我對你哲學既認識嚴重存疑。

连我E个唔多睇圣经既人都知圣经话全知既神警告左亚当唔好食禁果啦！白纸黑字写明架！你E个No C are B点讲都唔会成立。[quote]

你既結論係由定論(dogma)引出﹐而唔係從邏輯結論出﹐你用定論嚟到反駁邏輯推理實在錯得太離普喇。

[quote]我自问唔识答，费事乱讲。但系“意志上不能选择”又点会有自由意志呀！始终唔明你个机械人比喻点可以成立。

唔明就唔好話人錯。俾個機會你睇多兩次﹐真係唔明就問我啦!

魔術師

Originally posted by bengrace50 at 2005-8-20 10:41 PM:


睇下佢講的是泰國佛、四面佛還是...

個到係旺角商場一間商店黎賣好多佛有晝啦等等 俾鬼上身佢叫你買D佛黎帶住係身
但係d佛個樣比起中國既怪左少少 如個(俾)係象(俾)黎

bengrace50

Originally posted by 魔術師 at 2005-8-21 04:37:

個到係旺角商場一間商店黎賣好多佛有晝啦等等 俾鬼上身佢叫你買D佛黎帶住係身
但係d佛個樣比起中國既怪左少少 如個(俾)係象(俾)黎

OIC.  建議你依我的簽名欄內的網址內的佛教道場資料，帶你媽去些正宗佛教道場！

bengrace50

Originally posted by 魔術師 at 2005-8-21 04:37:

個到係旺角商場一間商店黎賣好多佛有晝啦等等 俾鬼上身佢叫你買D佛黎帶住係身
但係d佛個樣比起中國既怪左少少 如個(俾)係象(俾)黎

有時間就同你講多幾句，中國、泰國、西藏的佛的形相是有分別的。

還有，佛教要皈依修行先得保祐，不是拜下就得。叫佢d錢用來做善事好過。

silverxing

First, I need to justify one thing. Even though you said, "I can easily find a couple of evidence to support my point of view," you have provide no evidence whatsoever. You're just as guilty as me in the matter of not providing evidence.

Now let me show you the "evidence" you need. In the old forum called "See the true God from Old Testament", justin_lun already said the following words in the very first few posts, "God created us to be servant and take care of this world." He even provide Bible verse for support, and if you read page 5 of this forum carefully, shinge1233 ask justin_lun the usage of freedom of will, justin_lun answered, "God give us free will to let us take care of this world more efficiently." He's talking about "why God give us free will", not "why human have free will". And as Christian, justin_lun only answer of "why human have free will" is "because God give it to us".

For your so-called evidence, the analogy of tomatoes, justin_lun reply, "there're way too many unknown reason for why the tomatoes can't grow, there's no such thing as given certain resource and the outcome will be unchanged." What justin_lun is talking here is why Fatalism is wrong, it has NOTHING to do with free will. You evidence doesn't even match the topic.

For the difference of "exist as the same time" and "co-existence", justin_lun once said the following, "God's power to know all is an ability, while free will is a promise. God can choose whether to use his ability or not, but he must keep his promise. Thus God need to give free will higher priority than knowing everything." Despite it is correct or not, we can see here free will and knowing everything is 2 unrelated things. The word "co-exist" require 2 things to work together for existence, if one is gone, so will another one. Thus we will say man and women "co-exist" together in this world, but we won't say human and snake co-exist in this world. Man and woman need each other to exist, but man and snake don't need each other. For the power to know all and free will, they simply exist as part of what God is, but they're unrelated, thus have no neccessity of one another for each one of their existence. It's importance because we'll need to clarify the property of both characteristic of God.

As I say, you've misinterprete each and all of justin_lun points of view, thus asking others to repeat your own point of view is unreasonable. Even in the court of law, each lawyer only need to provide their own side of view, asking another side to clarify your own point is unthinkable.

silverxing

Now I'll show you the flaw in your logic. You're saying it's unreasonable to decline your usage of "All God are omniscient." and "No God that know all will warn Adam to see the fruit of knowledge."

Fist, NOT all God are omniscient! In Greek mythology, Egypt, and other religions and countries who has more than one God in their believes, most of their Gods are NOT omniscient! It's wrong in basic concept to say all God are omniscient.

Second, in what way you can prove "No God that know all will warn Adam not to eat the fruit of knowledge"? Every basic information for logical analysis need to be completely true to start with. You can't provide even one bit of support for "No God that know all will warn Adam not to eat the fruit of knowledge", while the bible clearly stated otherwise. It's the same as you can't use "No God ever exist" in an logical analysis, cuz no one ever prove that correct!

Last but not least, for A ∈ B, YOU are the one whose using it. Doesn't you need to know how it use? I'm only pointing out what you use wrong. Do you mean now I am responsible to explain everything in philosophy to you? and for what? to "prove I'm really know philosophy"? From what we have so far, you're the one making all the logical mistake here, what makes you qualify to judge how good my philosophy is? When you want to learn something from someone, the proper and decent way to do is ask NICELY!

[ Last edited by silverxing on 2005-8-23 at 05:08 AM ]

聖里斯

我自己的屬會有位阿姐小時候是契了觀音的，但到現在為止也沒拜過觀音，一樣會食肉，是否不好？其實"契"的意思是否認觀音做媽媽？
我有向他們說食素如何好，但他們說不可以不食肉，最多只是少食。
但好奇怪，當中有些人說是從不吃牛、豬肉的，其他肉就吃，例如我的親戚就有一位也是不吃牛/豬肉的，一吃就嘔。是否代表他前世吃這類肉太多或者本身就是這種動物，因此今生不能吃？