返回列表 回覆 發帖

投訴聖經大行動

因為害怕而不公開也無可口非,讙人公開也不懷惡意。

同志的比喻好。其實如果還相信法治,沒什麼好怕。但怕也值得體諒,始終冒徇道的險是有很多考慮的。

—————
我見解是:如果抽刀、奧賣葛肯自願站出來解釋,會絕對有助此行動。現在給人感覺是抽中大學生報水。
Facts of the day

[url=http://www.psychologicalscience. ... es/2007/bushman.cfm]http://www.psychologicalscience. ... es/2007/bushman.cfm[/url]

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bbushman/Nature.pdf

When God Sanctions Killing, the People Listen

New research published in the March issue of Psychological Science may help elucidate the relationship between religious indoctrination and violence, a topic that has gained renewed notoriety in the wake of the September 11th terrorist attacks. In the article, University of Michigan psychologist Brad Bushman and his colleagues suggest that scriptural violence sanctioned by God can increase aggression, especially in believers.

The authors set out to examine this interaction by conducting experiments with undergraduates at two religiously contrasting universities: Brigham Young University where 99% of students report believing in God and the Bible and Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam where just 50% report believing in God and 27% believe in the bible.

After reporting their religious affiliation and beliefs, the participants read a parable adapted from a relatively obscure passage in the King James Bible describing the brutal torture and murder of a woman, and her husband's subsequent revenge on her attackers. Half of the participants were told that the passage came from the Book of Judges in the Old Testament while the other half were told it was an ancient scroll discovered in an archaeological expedition.

In addition to the scriptural distinction, half of the participants from both the bible and the ancient scroll groups read an adjusted version that included the verse:

"The Lord commanded Israel to take arms against their brothers and chasten them before the LORD."

The participants were then placed in pairs and instructed to compete in a simple reaction task. The winner of the task would be able to "blast" his or her partner with noise up to 105 decibels, about the same volume as a fire alarm. The test measures aggression.

As expected, the Brigham Young students were more aggressive (i.e. louder) with their blasts if they had been told that the passage they had previously read was from the bible rather than a scroll. Likewise, participants were more aggressive if they had read the additional verse that depicts God sanctioning violence.

At the more secular Vrije Universiteit, the results were surprisingly similar. Although Vrije students were less likely to be influenced by the source of the material, they blasted more aggressively when the passage that they read included the sanctioning of the violence by God. This finding held true even for non-believers, though to a lesser extent.

The research sheds light on the possible origins of violent religious fundamentalism and falls in line with theories proposed by scholars of religious terrorism, who hypothesize that exposure to violent scriptures may induce extremists to engage in aggressive actions. "To the extent religious extremists engage in prolonged, selective reading of the scriptures, focusing on violent retribution toward unbelievers instead of the overall message of acceptance and understanding," writes Bushman "one might expect to see increased brutality"

[ 本帖最後由 dye 於 2007-5-21 15:39 編輯 ]

回復 #118 Cottbus 的帖子

<<只要您地答覆唔攻擊果間教會..>>

你指的攻擊是什麼活動?

1)發動聖戰?
2)火燒教堂圖書室?
3)用政治影響力去監禁教徒,甚至火橈教徒?
4)HACK/破壞 教會網站?
5)在生活和工作上歧視教徒?

還只是
6) 在這裏文誅筆代

回復 #126 Paul 的帖子

<<在街上阻礙基督徒傳福音>>

你指的<阻礙基督徒傳福音>是什麼活動?

1)發動聖戰?
2)火燒教堂圖書室?
3)用政治影響力去監禁教徒,甚至火橈教徒?
4)HACK/破壞 教會網站?
5)在生活和工作上歧視教徒?

還只是
6) 在這裏文誅筆伐

-------
為什麼<<阻礙基督徒傳福音>>便要改名《反/敵基督教團》?
那基督教改了名為《反/敵佛教、道教、無神論……團》未?
還是基督教改名為《反科學、反理性、反人性團》來得明白?

—————
阻礙

阻擋﹑妨礙。宋史˙卷九十四˙河渠志四:金水河透水槽阻礙上下汴舟,宜廢撤。三國演義˙第一一六回:此皆崎嶇山險之地,當令軍填平道路,修理橋梁,鑿山破石,勿使阻礙。


攻擊

1)以武力、語言或文字對人施加傷害。如:他因賄選事件受到各方攻擊。
2主動進攻,襲擊敵人。三國演義˙第一○八回:今他築起大堤,左右又築兩城,以防巢湖後面攻擊,諸公須要仔細。


[ 本帖最後由 dye 於 2007-5-24 11:47 編輯 ]

回復 #129 Paul 的帖子

我又引:

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

Steven Weinberg

「宗教是對人類尊嚴的侮辱。沒有宗教,你有好人做好事,壞人做壞事。但如果要好人做壞事就需要宗教。」

---------------------------
"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the bible is filled, it would seem more consistent that we called it the word of a demon than the Word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind. "

Thomas Paine

------------------------

"It ain't those parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it's the parts that I do understand"

Mark Twain

「困擾我的並不是聖經中我不理解的部份,而是我理解的部份。」

[ 本帖最後由 dye 於 2007-5-24 14:08 編輯 ]

回復 #131 Cottbus 的帖子

So, Cottbus, what about a debate on other boards?  A letter to the Church?  A letter to the Editorial of popular newspaper?  Will those constitute as an attack?

What if the same is done by, say Taliban while they condemned the equally innocent women in their respective "church"?

Christian or not, it is something that deserve some deep thought.
--------------

Do you see the difference in meaning?  When non-believer speak of "attack", they meant anything from 1-6.  Historically, Christian did those things in the name of Christianity.

But when believer speak of attack, they only mean something like 5 or 6.  Historical, atheists do not do anything in the name of Atheism.

When you roll a 6 consecutive 6 in a roll, it is only reasonable to suspect the next roll will be a 6.  (Barring the mathematician who live in an ivory tower.)

-----------

Why a neccessity of hatred?  Can a complain be made on behalf of someone else?

Who is most harm in the end?  People in this forum?  NO!  But the people listening to the dude!

For the love of the fellow Christian, YOU may want to be the first to do something.

[ 本帖最後由 dye 於 2007-5-24 19:30 編輯 ]

回復 #134 Cottbus 的帖子

From what I undestand, the member on this board has a very differernt type of organization.  People here may not heed to 抽刀斷水's call.

What exactly do you think people on this board will do anyway?  You don't believe HK as a civil society?

<<看今日生果報指奧賣葛因為人身安全問題而不接受報章訪問,我未免感到他唔知道做此事的後果.如果發起人認為此事係正確..應該出來面對公眾去陳述您所做的是正確>>

同理

<<看今日COTTBUS指教會因為不想被攻(口誅筆伐?)而不公開身份,我未免感到教會唔知道做此事的後果.如果教會認為此事係正確..應該出來面對公眾去陳述教會所做的是正確>>>>

只是奧賣葛的害怕有大量前科為理據,教會就沒有。

==========
The Equal Opportunities Commission in their newsletter

"The Bill of Rights Ordinance only binds the Government and public authorities in respect of discriminatory acts on the grounds or race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Discriminatory acts which do not fall under the ordinances on sex, disabilities and family status occurring in the private sector or between individuals cannot be redressed legally. "

Message from the Chairman

-------------------
In fact, I note that there are nearly 2 times unhandle case that EOC find them out of their scope to handle (Possibly religious?).

Also, as I read SDO on the exception, I figure that you are allowed to ban women from entering certain places for religious reason.  Also allow is banning woman to compete for certain position for religious reason.  Interesting, isn't it?

I am unaware of latest work from the governemnt about the issue (other than that they are working on the 'racial' on the blue section).  Feel free to inform me about it.

[ 本帖最後由 dye 於 2007-5-24 23:56 編輯 ]
返回列表
高級模式 | 發新話題
B Color Image Link Quote Code Smilies
換一個