宗教之起源和基督教百年盛業

for example
For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder, and His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." isaiah 9
I will however be surprised if I can see a counter example.
人為君子
本帖最後由 deusnonest 於 4-11-2010 16:18 編輯
for example
For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder, and His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince  ...
hkau 發表於 3-11-2010 22:52
Your example requires several conditions to be valid:

1. That the bible is a book to be relied on for truth to be found.

2. That the figure of Jesus was historical.

3. That Jesus is God.

Firstly, I do not wish to debate the reliability of the bible. There are many publications regarding this. While the followers of Christianity certainly believe that the bible is the true word of their god, it is no more than a collection of ancient middle-easten myths and stories, punctuated with a certain amount of unclear history. These studies nevertheless indicate that, without its religious context, the bible is no more than an interesting collection of books written by ancient men. (You can refer to 11# and 57# above.)

Secondly, historical reference to the figure known as Jesus is only found in one instance, i.e. that of Josephus, centuries after the purported appearance of Jesus. I cannot say that Jesus did not exist, except that his existence is not substantiated objectively or widely in the historical record.

Finally, please look at this line of logic:

  (i) the bible is the word of God;
  (ii) the word of God predicted that there would be a Son of God who would be wonderful etc. etc.;
  (iii) Jesus claims to be Son of God;
  (iv)the Son of God is God, therefore Jesus is God;
  (v) {back to (i)}

This is blatant circular logic. Even if you allow such logic, the only "proof" of fulfillment of the prophecy lies in (iii). However, a claim is not evidence. Apart from tons of theology written by men in the first centuries, there is no objective evidence to substantiate this claim. The fulfillment of your quoted prophecy is founded on faith, not on objectivity.

Maybe you have a better example.

想當年,只得當年想;望明天,方有明天望。
I did not expect you to believe this simple example.
However, I am expecting that someone will give me a counter example which shows that one of the prophecies seems failed . I will not challenge it if it is right. In fact, I may even be unable to challenge it.
Then I will put up the second example.
No worry as I am not doing preaching. I just want to see what counter-examples are?
At the end of the day, I will like to see if those I have believed are outnumbered by those I did not know before.
I am also very happy to present the second example if you could not figure out any counter example at all or for the moment.
人為君子
hkau:

It is unfair to challenge anyone to come up with a counter example in which a prophecy (I suppose biblical prophecy) is proven to have failed. Although it is simple to prove that a prophecy has been fulfilled by demonstrating clearly and objectively its prediction and its outcome, it is not possible to prove that any prophecy which is not specific (as almost all religious prophecies are) has failed simply because there is an infinite scope and future for the prophecy to be exhaustively tested.

Throughout history people have believed that certain things or beings exist but which have never been found, for example bigfoot, ufo's, unicorns, dragons etc. It is not possible to say that these things definitely do not exist, although one can be quite confident that they don't. However, if you can produce a dragon tomorrow, show it to the world and allow it to be objectively studied and examined, you would have proven its existence. To ask for negative proof is onerous, but positive proof is not.

To be fair, the burden of proof is upon the one who raises the argument, not on the one who objects to it. One only needs to look at how the communists treat people accused of wrongdoing (and particularly political ones). They never lay out any substantial evidence to prove the accusation, but require the accused to prove that he or she has not committed any crime.

If I am not mistaken, I think that it is not the intention of the owner of this thread that we debate religious dogma here. I think we should confine any discussion to the ORIGINS, the HISTORY and the DEVELOPMENT of religion including Christianity.

I have responded in the same language in which your two replies have been written. I think that we should resume any debate (if you wish) in Chinese so that a wider audience can share our thoughts.

閣下提出 是否有人可以指出一個不實現的預言(本人估計你說的是聖經預言);我認為這是一個不公平的挑戰。要證明預言是否實現十分簡單,只要指出預言預測了什麼可以客觀審定的結果,然後觀察實際結果就可以。但是提出一個不確定的預言(所有宗教預言如同一轍),要證明他不實現是沒有可能的;原因很簡單,這樣的預言有無限可能發生的結果,也有無窮盡的時間去接受考驗。

歷史上不時有人相信某些事情或事物存在,例如 大足怪、不明飛行物體、獨角獸、龍 等。這些東西從來未有實實在在地現身,但是我們卻不能說他們絕對不存在。要是你明天帶來一條龍讓人們仔細客觀觀察和研究,你馬上就可以證明龍的存在。要求找到不存在的證據十分困難,但找到存在的證據卻十分容易。

提出論點的人有責任同時提出論據,而質疑這論點的人不應該需要提出反證。這是不公平的。君不見共產黨對待被檢舉的疑犯(尤其是政治犯),就是要被檢舉者提出無罪的證明,而不是列出被檢舉者犯罪的證據。

我相信樓主出帖的原意是希望大家討論一下宗教的起源和歷史,而不是辯論某宗教教義是否真偽。

閣下以英文出了兩帖所以我以英文回答。為了方便師兄師姐們分享,希望隨後大家用中文發言。
1

評分次數

  • 212770


想當年,只得當年想;望明天,方有明天望。
這樣的預言有無限可能發生的結果,也有無窮盡的時間去接受考驗
同意,冇時間性嘅預言=戲論
各位網友,首先請罪,弟英文水平屬於有限公司,跟D兄更有一段距離.
只不過中文一弊有執筆忘字.二需要手寫板.最近在外不方便使用.所以絕不是班門弄斧.

談到預言,我也知道如果沒有時間性,預言就真的有問題.但聖經預言是有時間順列的.我們可能不能確定何時,但可以敢說它們的發生在時間上的先後.

如果各位網友覺得這論題有點難道,我們可用創世紀一,二章來談談基督教的理論基礎.

我再聲明,小弟不是傳導人,也只是看過一,二遍聖經,也不敢說是practising christian,更不是regular church goer.

我只是接受它的理論基礎,我要討論也要花時間查考.更非以專家自居.

總之,基督教能有百年盛業,絕非偶然.

如網友願賜教其它"宗教"的理論基楚,小弟也樂於學習,我們也可另開帖討論.不過也需要提供它的"聖經"以作參考.

我們一齊拋磚引玉.

不知各位網友覺得如何?
人為君子
本帖最後由 deusnonest 於 5-11-2010 06:45 編輯
... 總之,基督教能有百年盛業,絕非偶然. ...
同意,這是史實。何只百年!在歐洲有一千六百多年強盛歷史,在美洲有五百多,在亞洲也超過一百年。當下耶教遍及全球,其平均普及程度更在伊斯蘭教之上。

耶教在歐、美兩洲是多數人生活的一部分。至於信徒熱誠程度,顯然已經不能與過去光輝歷史相比。據我所聞(對不起,沒有詳盡數據),嚴緊奉行教義者實在少得很。美國基督徒佔大多數,但教派繁多,四分五裂,三數十人也可以自成一派:最近焚燒可蘭經事件的教派牧師也只有五十多名追隨者而已。

樓主一針見血,一般人的確需要某些信仰,前面幾個轉帖已經客觀講述原因。但是,耶教在世界上保持過去的優勢有一定困難。人們的道德倫理觀念和科學知識相對於聖經裡面的教條,漸漸格格不入。例如:天主教教廷一方面想與時並進,對宇宙學、進化論等認同,但另方面卻不能放棄千百年來的僵化道德教條,真是前路唯艱。百年盛業,恐怕會成為明日黃花了。

想當年,只得當年想;望明天,方有明天望。
... 我們可用創世紀一,二章來談談基督教的理論基礎 ...
我有興趣聽聽高見。先此聲明,如果本人據理批評而有所衝撞,見諒。

想當年,只得當年想;望明天,方有明天望。
人們的道德倫理觀念和科學知識相對於聖經裡面的教條,漸漸格格不入。例如:天主教教廷一方面想與時並進,對宇宙學、進化論等認同,但另方面卻不能放棄千百年來的僵化道德教條,真是前路唯艱。百年盛業,恐怕會成為明日黃花了。
deusnonest 發表於 5-11-2010 01:21 [/quote]
虔誠的基督教徒,達爾文很煩惱,當他觀察生物數十年,明白了生物變化而寫<進化論>,都不敢馬上將心血公開於世,當時的宗教是令到科學家卻步於教會的權力。
當年基督教盛業是有牢固基礎,但<進化論>擊破了<創世紀>的理論;從而令人對科學事實和上帝創造人的信仰有了很大的衝擊。
我有興趣聽聽高見。先此聲明,如果本人據理批評而有所衝撞,見諒。
You know I won't.
I will be back after I get back the writing pad.
人為君子