"沒錯呀~ 反之亦然. 基督徒作壞見證, 就未必是因為信仰的問題. 我也同意很多非基督徒也能無私奉獻的. "
1. Yes. The argument would be ok as long as sufficient cases are considered.
"只是就個人經歷, 及認識的基督徒親身經歷, 信仰確能使人有勇氣及力量去改變, 去面對困難."
2. Maybe. But many terrorists are also brave in their attack, because of their religious belief, and some people are not brave enough, even if they have religious belief (e.g. those Christians from Korea...). For me, 對得住良心就ok lu...
"只是為何跌得咁應都仍然有人願意堅持, 你當然可以說他們傻, 但我更認為是因為他們覺得值得. 沒有經歷過與神同行那種喜悅的人, 要放棄信仰當然容易之極. "
3. Not necessary. Certain religions are attractive in after-life reward. Even if "沒有經歷過與神同行那種喜悅", they could still have incentive to hold their belief. I don't think it is "容易之極" for them to give up.
Also, there could be many other reasons for a person to give up a certain religious belief. For example, when people know more, they would find some doctrines of a certain religion silly, and thus 離教.
"我覺得, 信仰是要摸索的. 即使信了多年, 這個階段仍然是進行式. 沒有經過摸索階段,沒有真正尋求過的, 擺在你面前的事物, 也不是你真正想要的. 就是因為要摸索, 就總有摸不到的時候. 有些人會放棄了, 但也有些人仍然繼續尋找. 只因他們覺得值得. "
4. I think exactly the opposite.
a. I believe in something since you have already get some idea about it. For people to get some ideas, they have finished the "摸索" process they need. I don't think most people believe in Christianity read though the whole bible before they believe. But they have already gone though the "摸索" process they need to believe. At least, they would get a basic idea of "Jesus"... People may "摸索" for some more after they believe, but this extra "摸索" process is for another set of beliefs then... Of course, the things you believe may be actually false, but this is another matter.
b. There are so many things that I don't want. But I don't need to 摸索 all of them before I know that I don't like them. I don't like being sick, but I don't think I need to get sick before I can know that I don't like them. By the way, do you like the photos of the sexual behaviors of the artist? If you don't like them, and didn't watch them, do you think you need to "摸索" them before you know that you don't like them?
c. "摸不到" something could be the result of that thing doesn't exist at all. Some people "放棄" could also be the result of 摸索到something is bad...
"曾經聽過, 個人也覺得說得不錯的一個譬喻: 信仰其實是一個賭博. (大前題是: 我們"證明"不了神的存在, 也"證明"不了神的不存在). 付出了一生去信, 就算輸了, 最多損失了幾十年時間, 可能也有一些感情(但如沒有神, 這些時間感情原也浪費掉居多). 但如果真是有神, 但又沒有去信. 這個損失可大了.
(註: 我並非希望有人因這功利說法而去信. 這不是全部.)"
5. This gambling argument, for me, suggests that believing in Christianity is a silly choice. For two reasons:
a. If we are to gamble, why don't choose those Gods in religions that allows many other Gods to be worshipped? It is silly for us to choose those religions that holds 一神論. If we are to gamble, the probability of winning is surely higher if we bet on more choices. Think of a game of throwing a fair die. If I bet on "1", "2", and "3"; and you bet on "4" only. Who are more likely to win? In here, I am basically assuming that all religions are equally likely to be true. Of course, a good choice would depend also on other evidences.
b. It is logically impossible for a 全能God to exist. Therefore, it is not possible for the Christian God to exist (for Christian, God is 全能). As such, it is silly to bet on the "God" that won't exist. If you know that a die is not fair, and the die will never get "4", will you still bet on "4"?
"排他性是很多宗教的特性(包括"無神論"教)"
6. "無神論" could not be 宗教, since there is no "God" to believe in. See http://exchristian.hk/forum/view ... &extra=page%3D2
"排他性是很多宗教的特性(包括"無神論"教), 但這不代表排他性的思想就是在社會以至世界上造成紛爭及戰亂的元凶. 更多的是人的仇恨, 利益衝突等."
7. "排他性是很多宗教的特性(包括"無神論"教)" is NOT the premise for the conclusion that "排他性的思想就是在社會以至世界上造成紛爭及戰亂的元凶". The conclusion that "排他性的思想就是在社會以至世界上造成紛爭及戰亂的元凶" comes from many cases of tragedy caused by "排他性的思想". What you were doing is simply attacking a straw man ("稻草人謬誤" in http://www.atypical-christianity ... s.htm#observational ). By the way, "排他性的思想" could lead to "仇恨" of people...
"解決紛爭, 並非全世界都成了無神論者就可解決."
8. God (hopefully, not Christian God) knows. Can't verify till now... |
2008/2/15 21:38
| 
