返回列表 回覆 發帖

[搞笑] 原罪和一次得救永遠得救 by淚兒

就算一個基督徒係呢度傳教, 都只能呃得一時, 呃唔到一世.  被你騙返去既人始終會離教.   如果唔離教, 可能佢同你一樣智力接近弱智.

你以為係度狂打英文就證明到基督徒唔係接近弱智?   正如係外國出世既先天智障人士, 佢地用英文溝通無問題添.
=== Alice

本人很認同.  亦很喜歡你講既廣東話. 呢d 叫正宗.


另 bbchan: 呢個世界, 少左人犯罪, 係咪己經是一件好事

你用呢個角落講無錯的. 但係人本身就係無罪.  assume 有罪只係一種盲信.唔健康的.  人一怪自己係唔可以好好愛自己的. 有責怪只會令人有負擔. 係無謂既負擔.  我見到既係基督教既教會用呢d 技倆去操縱人,叫人聽話.


但... 想犯罪同有犯罪(有罪/有罪性)跟本就唔一樣.
一信基督教就已經係罪人. 唔信就唔係. 越多人信就越多罪人..而傳教都就係最罪大惡極(個人意見).
死後審判跟本就係老吹.  

不過如果只係睇聖經會令你犯少d罪. 我都認為係一件好事.. 但傳教就唔係, 因為又加多左一個罪人.
回復  Alice


咁我只好講一句: 第一個狂打英文既回覆係dye貼既. 你可以提一提佢. ...
出位基督徒 發表於 2010/7/19 12:47


狂打英文而又寫錯漏百出的英文者, 也是dye
(他豈不是連洗廁所.............都.............)
唔使打英文啦, 反正我唔會睇.
Alice 發表於 2010/7/19 12:37

是否你跟本不懂英文?
本帖最後由 beebeechan 於 2010/7/19 18:52 編輯
只係提醒一d 心智未成熟既人, 唔好以為狂打英文代表有思想, 不智障.
雖知, 先天智障既人都識講母語.   正如 ...
Alice 發表於 2010/7/19 12:44


唔係嘛
將打英文與智障, 弱智, 愛國掛釣?

有人以英文出帖
用英文回, 好應該

乜反基既人, 反到無腦
言論簡直係會嚇你一驚!
回復 109# Alice


咁我只好講一句: 第一個狂打英文既回覆係dye貼既. 你可以提一提佢.
只係提醒一d 心智未成熟既人, 唔好以為狂打英文代表有思想, 不智障.
雖知, 先天智障既人都識講母語.   正如係大陸, 洗厠所既阿嬸/ 阿叔都識講國語, 識寫中文.
毅力並非長跑, 而是一次接一次的短跑
本帖最後由 出位基督徒 於 2010/7/19 12:45 編輯

回復 107# Alice

我諗你太過陰謀論啦.
我見 dye 用英文答我, 我先至用英文回應佢姐. 禮貌上要既. 冇咩特別意思.
唔使打英文啦, 反正我唔會睇.
毅力並非長跑, 而是一次接一次的短跑
回復 103# beebeechan

咩好似好知?? 我從來無話過知.
係你自己話信主後減少犯罪, 但係一直只講你自己, 亦証明唔到你自己減少犯罪, 既然你都承認唔知其他教友有無犯更加多既罪, 咁你又講信主後可以減少犯罪?

自己推返自己.
就算一個基督徒係呢度傳教, 都只能呃得一時, 呃唔到一世.  被你騙返去既人始終會離教.   如果唔離教, 可能佢同你一樣智力接近弱智.

你以為係度狂打英文就證明到基督徒唔係接近弱智?   正如係外國出世既先天智障人士, 佢地用英文溝通無問題添.
回復 104# dye

An excellent conclusion for yourself, dye…

I never have expected you to be this serious on the topic. That day I started all these conversations, I was just bored and joined a few of the forum discussions. As you have said that you would like the conversation to be stopped right here, then let it be. However, such action has given me a very strong feeling of you are trying to run away from the fact that you yourself know there are obvious  flaws in your explanations, and that your explanations can easily be denied.

Below are for the information to others who would like to know the flaw in dye’s explanation and his(her) ignorance:

First, he(she) is focusing too much on signs and notice. All examples above given by dye are stating that the use of signs alone is NOT enough. I agree. ALL precaution steps must be taken as well in order to be free from responsibilities. However, the whole discussion here is not about NOT taking precaution steps, but is about people’s disobedience of the precautions.

Secondly, he(she) is ignoring the reason of why such the hazard exists. Let’s talk about the bomb in the market. Dye keeps insist that if one puts the bomb there and not taking it away, that person is guilty. However, if the purpose of the bomb has not been fulfilled (things meant to be blown have not been blown), why should one takes away the bomb from the area?

Let’s apply this concept back to the tree of wisdom. This tree is a test for human’s obedience to God. If this test were meant to last for X years, why should God takes away the tree if it is still within the X years period? God has specifically told Adam and Eve NOT to eat from that tree, and have made sure that they understand and knowing why. All notice and “precautions” have been given and done by God already. The disobedience to God’s notice and “precautions” has nothing to blame God for.

Great, that’s that. In my opinion, blasting out all the words and just stating “This is the conclusion” is an act of a baby. If dye is to believe what is wrong, it is his(her) choice. For others who would like to find out more, we can continue.
I think the talk on these negligence should end here.  If you fail the grasp the meaning of it, you have just no common sense.

The principle behind neglience has a Christian root.  "Love thy neighbor".

The idea is that people should pay "reasonable" effort in keeping others safe from harm.  By reasonableness, you consider

1) Whether the harm is foreseeable.   People are expected to act in a reasonable manner.(In the case of God, however, it is totally forseen)

2) The degree of the foreseeable harm.  If it result in death or injury, the responsibility is high. (In the case of God, it is a couple billion death at least)

3) The price of the preventive measure (In the case of God, the price is little)

4) The ability of the defendent to pay the price (In the case of God, the ability is infinite)

Other factors to keep in mind:
5) The forseeable capacity of the plaintiff.  The less the capacity, the higher the responsibility (In the case of God, the capcity of human is suppose to be none before eating from the Tree)
-------------------

So a swimming pool with a notice but no lifeguard is not good enough.

If there is many previous death on a dangerous cliff even after the notice is there, a notice is not good enough

Also, putting a warning on a pack of cocaine will not save you from the crime you committed.

Putting a child alone at home no matter how you warn him/her will not let you escape from child abuse.

Again, placing a nuclear bomb in the market with only a notice is not good enough.  Even a builiding demolition will clear the building before placing explosive to it.  If and when you apply for such a permit, I am absolutely sure that just placing a notice and warning people is not good enough.  'Heavy measures' has to be taken with checks everywhere.
-------------
On the opposite, if any measure to protect the public to the cliff is 'too expensive', the responsibilty can be lifted.   

There is no problem if you do not place a warning over an obviously dangerous cliff because you expect people to be reasonable.  (In human case ONLY because we are not all knowing!)

The responsiblility of handling a pencil is ofcourse very different from handling a nuclear weapon

The responsibility of a doctor is higher than a layman in medical practice.  It is ok if you fail to do anything your neghbour from bleeding to death if you are just Joe Doe.  But if you are a doctor (even novice), there is very high expectation.

-------------
As a matter of fact, God has demonstrated what he should have done to the tree of knowlegde.  If he has protected fruit from the tree of knowlegde in the same way as he has protected the tree of life after the fall, billion will be saved.

It is that simple, a few swords of fire and maybe a gate.
----------
And THAT is the conclusion.
教友有無犯罪, 你自己都唔知啦. 佢地個腦唸咩, 你都唔知啦.
Guest from 219.79.26.x 發表於 2010/7/18 23:15

但你就好似好知咁囉
本帖最後由 beebeechan 於 2010/7/18 23:31 編輯
咁我自己有無因為敬畏天主而減少了犯罪
唔通我自己都唔知咩?
Guest from 219.79.26.x 發表於 2010/7/18 23:16


呢個世界, 少左人犯罪, 係咪己經是一件好事
即使是只得一個人犯少了罪, 都係好
我有無犯少了罪, 我自己知
其它人有無同樣犯少了罪我唔知
不過...我只是一個普通人
其它人也是普通人
咁我自己有無因為敬畏天主而減少了犯罪
唔通我自己都唔知咩?     <---- 你自己話你自己減少左犯罪唧.  你依然都係唔知其他教友有無犯罪啦.
教友有無犯罪, 你自己都唔知啦. 佢地個腦唸咩, 你都唔知啦.
I did not cased any injury or death by posting in incorrect grammar.

Read.  Idiot!
dye 發表於 2010/7/18 22:58


I did not cased (cause?) any injury or death by posting in incorrect grammar.
I did not cased any injury or death by posting in incorrect grammar.

Read.  Idiot!
回復  出位基督徒
It IS the railway companies (company's)fault if it has not place (placed) a 'reasonable' safeguard against it (its) happening.

dye 發表於 2010/7/18 22:45


Now, should I blame the web administrator for allowing you to put up post written in improper English?
有時, 是你責任就不要推在別人身上

push

本帖最後由 dye 於 2010/7/18 22:56 編輯

回復 91# 出位基督徒

Negligence has a very different meaning.  The fact that you place the bomb there IS enough.

----------------
Why do you think they made people buy third party insurance on cars, and every part of the building?

-------------
Please read the WHOLE SENTENCE

"(1) 任何人不得藉合約條款、 一般告示或 特別向某些人發出的 告示, 而卸除或 局限自己因疏忽引致他人死亡或
人身傷害的 法律責任"
咁你解釋一下一個殺十個人的惡人, 變成只去殺一個, 九個活下
為甚麼不會是好事?
白痴的也知是好事囉 ...
beebeechan 發表於 2010/7/16 15:04

因為您計錯數咯白痴
一個殺十個人的惡人, 變成只去殺一個,

結果係死咗11件嘛
返回列表
高級模式 | 發新話題
B Color Image Link Quote Code Smilies
換一個