同埋你要睇係咩教會，唔係個個識分邊啲教會係基督新教，攝正教都係基督教出嚟
不過係邪教，摩門教又係基督教，不過係異端如果係正統福音派基督教嘅受訓牧師係絕對唔會咁樣講，喺香港做牧師係要讀神學同培訓先可以做終於有人成功用哲學摧毀基督教！
凱撒暴龍獸
438 回覆
71 Like
578 Dislike
得連登係咁講
同埋你要睇係咩教會，唔係個個識分邊啲教會係基督新教，攝正教都係基督教出嚟不過係邪教，摩門教又係基督教，不過係異端如果係正統福音派基督教嘅受訓牧師係絕對唔會咁樣講，喺香港做牧師係要讀神學同培訓先可以做
同埋你要睇係咩教會，唔係個個識分邊啲教會係基督新教，攝正教都係基督教出嚟
不過係邪教，摩門教又係基督教，不過係異端如果係正統福音派基督教嘅受訓牧師係絕對唔會咁樣講，喺香港做牧師係要讀神學同培訓先可以做基本道理
你要反擊人地嘅觀點當然係一定要了解對方嘅觀點
如果你只係停留喺個人層面上嘅質疑 當然可以質疑 係無任何問題 但如果你要擺上枱面去質疑對方 唔了解對方嘅觀點 咁樣討論嚟會有乜結果？最終只會係抒發自己感受
你要反擊人地嘅觀點當然係一定要了解對方嘅觀點
如果你只係停留喺個人層面上嘅質疑 當然可以質疑 係無任何問題 但如果你要擺上枱面去質疑對方 唔了解對方嘅觀點 咁樣討論嚟會有乜結果？最終只會係抒發自己感受
神依加的確無管地上嘅嘢喎
有管就唔會係依加咁嘅樣
但永生係咪誘餌 審判係咪威脅
我睇法其實同依加地上法律差唔多
難度你認為殺人唔需要填命？
善有善報 惡有惡報唔係人類應該追求嚮往？
法律寫咗如果你謀殺要坐監 咁起你眼中又係唔係威脅？
利申：非基督徒
有管就唔會係依加咁嘅樣
但永生係咪誘餌 審判係咪威脅
我睇法其實同依加地上法律差唔多
難度你認為殺人唔需要填命？
善有善報 惡有惡報唔係人類應該追求嚮往？
法律寫咗如果你謀殺要坐監 咁起你眼中又係唔係威脅？
利申：非基督徒
https://youtu.be/Wyy6G-opHnU
依個論點我中學之後已經無聽過人講
依個講法本身邏輯上就係錯
見到你好似中學生聽完人哋講之後就如獲至寶咁揸住雞毛當令箭真心燥
學條片入面條友話齋 我都反耶
但見到同一陣營啲人水平咁低真係更加睇唔過眼
影衰哂反耶撚
依個論點我中學之後已經無聽過人講
依個講法本身邏輯上就係錯
見到你好似中學生聽完人哋講之後就如獲至寶咁揸住雞毛當令箭真心燥
學條片入面條友話齋 我都反耶
但見到同一陣營啲人水平咁低真係更加睇唔過眼
影衰哂反耶撚
這段片將基督三個字換落去共產黨一樣行得通
基督教特別既地方，係聖經講果個神你係可以經歷到，係活神，唔係淨係本聖經講佢，而係佢會直接同你溝通，隨時隨地提醒你、引導你、安慰你、教導你、幫助你。
我自己都係經歷過神先肯定到佢信得過。
我諗唔可以一概而論 靈恩派先咁強調紅字
福音派以基本上同你溝通只係用聖經作為啟示去認識神
同時作教導同指引
而唔係無時無刻神會傍住你 提醒你 安慰你
我自己都係經歷過神先肯定到佢信得過。
我諗唔可以一概而論 靈恩派先咁強調紅字
福音派以基本上同你溝通只係用聖經作為啟示去認識神
同時作教導同指引
而唔係無時無刻神會傍住你 提醒你 安慰你
其實唔止基督教
印度裔都有幫華人
印度裔都有幫華人
睇見第一節就笑咗，基督教就係猶太教個仔
1.using your logic who created the creater????
2. Elaborate.
Also, evolution is the most probable hypothesis we've got. That's it. nothing more , nothing less. No scientists is making the claim that it is the truth.
Even evolution is false, that doesn't make creationism more true.
3.Your sentences doesn't make any sense. please rephrase
4. Elaborate. Is that a refutation? what exactly is your point?
2. Elaborate.
Also, evolution is the most probable hypothesis we've got. That's it. nothing more , nothing less. No scientists is making the claim that it is the truth.
Even evolution is false, that doesn't make creationism more true.
3.Your sentences doesn't make any sense. please rephrase
4. Elaborate. Is that a refutation? what exactly is your point?
1.1 可以推，不會因果律即爆，唔信你可以推
1.2 神既定義？
2.1 呢個根本唔係科學問題
2.2 仲有，我冇話進化論唔岩所以創造論岩。我意思係信進化論既係一種信
3. 無限猴子講到尾佢唔係實證同埋呢個theory 既作用係撐隨機搞到個宇宙
我咁講係想話形而上既存在，無限猴子同進化論一樣，一去到形上學既實存根本唔work
4. 有說上帝不道德
上帝係舊約殺人，耶穌係新約上十架，三位一體
如果要打神殺人故不道德，咁點解神上十字架？
May we talk in Chinese
Google translate sucks , trust me
1.2 神既定義？
2.1 呢個根本唔係科學問題
2.2 仲有，我冇話進化論唔岩所以創造論岩。我意思係信進化論既係一種信
3. 無限猴子講到尾佢唔係實證同埋呢個theory 既作用係撐隨機搞到個宇宙
我咁講係想話形而上既存在，無限猴子同進化論一樣，一去到形上學既實存根本唔work
4. 有說上帝不道德
上帝係舊約殺人，耶穌係新約上十架，三位一體
如果要打神殺人故不道德，咁點解神上十字架？
May we talk in Chinese
Google translate sucks , trust me
I can humbly tell you that the fight between atheists and theists is already over
Pts you guys made are not new and we Cristian can cope with those because of Gods mercy
God dose that for his name and his glory
Pts you guys made are not new and we Cristian can cope with those because of Gods mercy
God dose that for his name and his glory
Flying spaghetti monster does the same for you too, so does Allah, so does some random African tribe idol. why do you believe in the biblical god, not those ? they also show you mercy and glory
If you are professional, I’m out
If you are not , why would you do that ? I believe you already knew that you won’t make it
This is too schoolboy
If you are not , why would you do that ? I believe you already knew that you won’t make it
This is too schoolboy
You are not seeing this through brother, resulting to personal attack won't get you anywhere. I won't be provoked 
The question is, why the biblical god? If your basis of belief is simply faith, why is this faith directed to this god alone, but not equally distributed to other gods? What is your reasoning?
The question is, why the biblical god? If your basis of belief is simply faith, why is this faith directed to this god alone, but not equally distributed to other gods? What is your reasoning?
你不如講返中文
1.1. Demonstrate.
1.2. If you are trying to say, because god by definition is the start of everything, thus the definition proves itself, this is basically to give up reasoning.
I can also claim that the flying spaghetti monster by definition created the biblical god and the story follows. How so is the creationism proposal more probable?
2.1 Elaborate.
2.2. I partially agree. However, evolution is relatively a more educated and informed guess than blind faith. There are scientific evidence that supports evolution, while creationism relies on an old book.... The idea of an educated/ informed guess is key here. The weather report is not a 100% right, but it is a bette guess than a coin toss.
3.This is the most puzzling point you've made in your argument. By 實存，what do you mean? it doesn't make sense.
It is amusing to see someone who argues from practical existence, with a conclusion about metaphysics. This can be interesting.
4. Again this point does make sense. A bad person can occasionally do right things. A bandit can be murderous and thieving , while being incredibly generous with his gang. that doesn't make him a good person.
the biblical god kills the innocent, and he also kills his own son. surely that somehow makes him a good person. I guess that bandit above can be called a saint after he spare a child or two by your logic.
1.2. If you are trying to say, because god by definition is the start of everything, thus the definition proves itself, this is basically to give up reasoning.
I can also claim that the flying spaghetti monster by definition created the biblical god and the story follows. How so is the creationism proposal more probable?
2.1 Elaborate.
2.2. I partially agree. However, evolution is relatively a more educated and informed guess than blind faith. There are scientific evidence that supports evolution, while creationism relies on an old book.... The idea of an educated/ informed guess is key here. The weather report is not a 100% right, but it is a bette guess than a coin toss.
3.This is the most puzzling point you've made in your argument. By 實存，what do you mean? it doesn't make sense.
It is amusing to see someone who argues from practical existence, with a conclusion about metaphysics. This can be interesting.
4. Again this point does make sense. A bad person can occasionally do right things. A bandit can be murderous and thieving , while being incredibly generous with his gang. that doesn't make him a good person.
the biblical god kills the innocent, and he also kills his own son. surely that somehow makes him a good person. I guess that bandit above can be called a saint after he spare a child or two by your logic.
你係味睇到我上面認柒左所以起Q定用左chatgpt
你睇真d先，我認柒左係我有個小mistake比個應該係飲同一隻奶大既人周到，我冇大錯到
我上網搵到既主要講點仲係solid
仲有你引用飛天意麵神係捉錯用神，因爲咁你等如跳入去同聖經打
至於咩神係放棄reasoning 就更加別開生面，老老實實，哲學雖然搵唔到食，但都未到會咁比你欺負
我既pts 我老實承認我係裝哂彈弓，你睇真d先
你睇真d先，我認柒左係我有個小mistake比個應該係飲同一隻奶大既人周到，我冇大錯到
我上網搵到既主要講點仲係solid
仲有你引用飛天意麵神係捉錯用神，因爲咁你等如跳入去同聖經打
至於咩神係放棄reasoning 就更加別開生面，老老實實，哲學雖然搵唔到食，但都未到會咁比你欺負
我既pts 我老實承認我係裝哂彈弓，你睇真d先
Chat gpt可以邏輯化嗎唔等如佢識哲學，雖然我都係唔識
一推就爆
一推就爆
我係想講我冇就住我應個個人既論點再反推故有神
不過我講粗左又比你周到咁應我都無謂解釋而你又周得咁令
不過我講粗左又比你周到咁應我都無謂解釋而你又周得咁令
你假設我無讀過
I don't think I possess the wisdom to understand your so call philosophy.
it seems that you , again, resulted to personal attack, claiming that I am using Chat gpt. I don't really know where do you get this idea, or simply that you can't read English. Interesting. This only makes you less creditable.
You haven't replied directly to my argument. I would see that as an escape from my challenge. If I can't see any direct refutation, I would consider that you simply ran out of arguments.
What do you mean by同聖經打？？ That expression does not make a point, and doesn't make anything more clear. Isn't it your responsibility to make your own points clear? I was speculating your argument , from your insufficient expression of an argument. If I get you wrong, correct me. if you cannot respond directly to my challenges, I can only see that you fail to defend your stance.
Again, what do you mean by 裝曬彈弓？？？？ These expressions are simply beyond understanding. I advice you to refrain from using these in a logical discussion, if this is any.
I am really interested in your argument about metaphysics. I have never seen anyone made an argument like that, and I am genuinely curious.
Also, if you think what you are conducting is philosophical debate, you sir are doing it in an exotic manner.
it seems that you , again, resulted to personal attack, claiming that I am using Chat gpt. I don't really know where do you get this idea, or simply that you can't read English. Interesting. This only makes you less creditable.
You haven't replied directly to my argument. I would see that as an escape from my challenge. If I can't see any direct refutation, I would consider that you simply ran out of arguments.
What do you mean by同聖經打？？ That expression does not make a point, and doesn't make anything more clear. Isn't it your responsibility to make your own points clear? I was speculating your argument , from your insufficient expression of an argument. If I get you wrong, correct me. if you cannot respond directly to my challenges, I can only see that you fail to defend your stance.
Again, what do you mean by 裝曬彈弓？？？？ These expressions are simply beyond understanding. I advice you to refrain from using these in a logical discussion, if this is any.
I am really interested in your argument about metaphysics. I have never seen anyone made an argument like that, and I am genuinely curious.
Also, if you think what you are conducting is philosophical debate, you sir are doing it in an exotic manner.
呢個係普世解讀，我無話係神嘅本意
根本傳教嘅人一早已經扭曲晒「神嘅意旨」
根本傳教嘅人一早已經扭曲晒「神嘅意旨」
睇AV打飛機，就緊係「想」住去搞個女優㗎啦⋯⋯
搞唔到，只係現實問題
聖經字面上的確無講明反婚前性行為，但你去問十個基督徒應該十個都會答你係唔可以，當然佢哋自己有無犯禁就緊係唔會同你講啦
搞唔到，只係現實問題
聖經字面上的確無講明反婚前性行為，但你去問十個基督徒應該十個都會答你係唔可以，當然佢哋自己有無犯禁就緊係唔會同你講啦
唉屌你咪撚再覆我
九唔搭八
九唔搭八
打英文做乜9