| [1] < [4] [5] 6 > [8] |
咁我自己有無因為敬畏天主而減少了犯罪 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 | |
教友有無犯罪, 你自己都唔知啦. 佢地個腦唸咩, 你都唔知啦. 但你就好似好知咁囉 | |
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. | |
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. | |
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 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. | |
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. | |
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. 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! | |
唔使打英文啦, 反正我唔會睇. 是否你跟本不懂英文? | |
回復 Alice 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.............) | |
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. | |
但係亦不代表我支持基督教. | |
大部份香港人都識英文啦, 傻瓜!! 我考 law 取 b架, stat 取a架 | |
是普遍的事囉. | |
| |
死後審判跟本就係老吹. 死後是否需要面對審判, 獎賞? 視乎你怎看死後還有無「世界」, 一個我們不認知的世界, 還是人死如燈滅? 世上幾個大宗教, 基教, 猶太教, 回教, 佛教, 婆羅門教...等 都給人的默示是死後仲有世界。 世上百份之八十幾的人都認為死後尚有世界。 | |
回復 beebeechan 我只是質疑你只因人打一篇英文便講成背宗背祖, 拋棄民族的罪人囉. 也許有人是不懂打中文, 又想發表呢? | |
 回復 120# beebeechan |
| [1] < [4] [5] 6 > [8] |
