林俊他妈说的真好,有这样的中国人让我感到骄傲.

[车前草]

圣经中哪句话说了人人平等，人人待遇都一样了？我只记得圣经中说，你们做奴仆的服侍主人要从心里顺服，做主人的也不能恶待仆人，并且服侍7年后要让他自由。还说，有的人生来就是畜类，没有灵性。呵呵。没有看到说人人平等，待遇都应该一样的，可能我理解的不对。呵呵。

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28)

算吗？一，跟你说的不一致啊？:blink:

狗来的，免责 :blowzy:

 

[9981]

我觉得你在这个帖子里有一点为了争而争。这恐怕也不是神的旨意。 既然大家观点都亮相了， 不如歇一歇， 熟虑一下别人的观点。

我去看奥运了， 拜拜

 

[joanna777]

瞎子摸象和管中窥豹是大家都熟知的。同样，对神的认识也是一样。神只有一位，但是从不同的角度看，就有了不同的理解。从某个角度看的人称他是佛，从另个角度看的人称他是耶稣。季羡林跟我持同样的观点。

所以，不同信仰的人应该相互尊重，攻击别人的信仰，很可能也就亵渎了你信仰的那位至尊。

我们是引用上帝的话来的，攻击拜偶像的行为，不是我攻击的，是耶和华攻击的，做仆人的是听命于主人的。你们想要讨说法，自己去跟神辩论，别来找我，我是授命行事。
你知道有个教，叫做“撒旦教”吗？撒旦也有教会的。你知道撒旦如何使人活体献祭吗？不是所有信仰都一屡平等，要知道你信的是善还是恶。

 

[joanna777]

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28)

算吗？一，跟你说的不一致啊？:blink:

狗来的，免责 :blowzy:

加拉太书3:27 你 们 受 洗 归 入 基 督 的 ， 都 是 披 戴 基 督 了 。
3:28 并 不 分 犹 太 人 ， 希 利 尼 人 ， 自 主 的 ， 为 奴 的 ， 或 男 或 女 。 因 为 你 们 在 基 督 耶 稣 里 都 成 为 一 了 。
3:29 你 们 既 属 乎 基 督 ， 就 是 亚 伯 拉 罕 的 后 裔 ， 是 照 着 应 许 承 受 产 业 的 了 。

这段经文的意思是说，人如果是受洗归入基督，都和基督合为一体，就不能有什么分争了，都是一家人了，都是兄弟姐妹了，心里想的是同样的事情，做的也是同一件事情，彼此没有分别，而是互相关心和服侍，也一同承受神的产业。

所以我们要努力传福音，使人人都信主，就可以过幸福和谐的社会生活了。
这段并没有说信主的和不信主的都一样。相反，圣经说“信和不信的不能同负一轭”。

关于分别人的不同，并非对人人的要求也一样
林前 7:34 妇 人 和 处 女 也 有 分 别 。 没 有 出 嫁 的 ， 是 为 主 的 事 挂 虑 ， 要 身 体 灵 魂 都 圣 洁 。 已 经 出 嫁 的 ， 是 为 世 上 的 事 挂 虑 ， 想 怎 样 叫 丈 夫 喜 悦 。

 

[joanna777]

圣经上有句话，叫做“字句叫人死，精义叫人活”，就是这个意思。如果断章取义的从圣经里截出来一段话，而不考虑写作目的，结论可能并不是把人引向真理的。神的心意是要全人类都合而为一，彼此建立同理心，和谐的相处。

 

[车前草]

加拉太书3:27 你 们 受 洗 归 入 基 督 的 ， 都 是 披 戴 基 督 了 。
3:28 并 不 分 犹 太 人 ， 希 利 尼 人 ， 自 主 的 ， 为 奴 的 ， 或 男 或 女 。 因 为 你 们 在 基 督 耶 稣 里 都 成 为 一 了 。
3:29 你 们 既 属 乎 基 督 ， 就 是 亚 伯 拉 罕 的 后 裔 ， 是 照 着 应 许 承 受 产 业 的 了 。

这段经文的意思是说，人如果是受洗归入基督，都和基督合为一体，就不能有什么分争了，都是一家人了，都是兄弟姐妹了，心里想的是同样的事情，做的也是同一件事情，彼此没有分别，而是互相关心和服侍，也一同承受神的产业。

所以我们要努力传福音，使人人都信主，就可以过幸福和谐的社会生活了。
这段并没有说信主的和不信主的都一样。相反，圣经说“信和不信的不能同负一轭”。

关于分别人的不同，并非对人人的要求也一样
林前 7:34 妇 人 和 处 女 也 有 分 别 。 没 有 出 嫁 的 ， 是 为 主 的 事 挂 虑 ， 要 身 体 灵 魂 都 圣 洁 。 已 经 出 嫁 的 ， 是 为 世 上 的 事 挂 虑 ， 想 怎 样 叫 丈 夫 喜 悦 。

其实没什么好争的，人说话都是怎么对自己有利怎么说，教会更不例外
俺今早闲得，狗篇文章来，跟俺一样闲的愿意看就看。
俺买菜去了

"All Men are Created Equal"

The Declaration of Independence states, '…all men are created equal…' The founding fathers said that we were created equal because they believed in a creator. This means that they believed that those who believed in a creator have a natural right to rule those who do not, and all others have a natural duty to obey.

This is, in essence, the political philosophy of the religious right. It is an absurdity that contradicts itself almost immediately. Whereas the Declaration of Independence is founded on the principle of political equality, the religious right wants to interpret it as a document that recognizes their divine right to rule over all others.

The Function Of "All Men Are Created Equal"

The function of the phrase "all men are created equal" is to serve as a premise in an overall argument. That argument's purpose was to prove to a candid world that the United States had a right to break its political chains with Great Britain and to establish an new nation. In order to prove that they had this right, they had to counter any argument that said that they owed their allegiance to England.

The doctrine that they most needed to challenge was one that said that governments get their authority from God. On this theory, the citizen's duty to yield to the authority of the king was the same as his duty to yield to the authority of God -- because the King was said to be somebody that God had picked to rule over man on Earth.

It was a very convenient doctrine for the monarchies of the Middle Ages to foster and promote, because it kept the peasants in line. Questioning the King was no different than questioning the Bible, which no citizen would dare do, allowing the King to exercise absolute authority over his subjects.

This was a part of a tradition that held that the Bible was literally true, and measured all evidence according to how well it conformed to scripture. If a collection of observations appeared to support a conclusion that the Bible (according to the Church) said was not true, then these 'observations' were dismissed as the work of the devil trying to deceive us away from truth. People were told that they had to be constantly vigilant against heresy and lies that Satan weaved to distract people from God.

Any individual who did not dismiss these observations that challenged Church doctrine, and continued to defend their theories, was branded an enemy of God and of all good men. This is why "Giordano Bruno" was burned at the stake, and why Galileo was told that he would endure the torture of inquisition unless he recanted his "proof" that scripture (as the Church interpreted it) was mistaken about the earth being the center of all things.

Rejecting Church Authority

Yet, even Bruno and Galileo were working on a tradition that Martin Luther had started. Martin Luther challenged the idea that the Church had a monopoly on truth, asserting that he could interpret the Bible better than anybody in Rome, thereby calling into question the idea that we must trust to Rome to deliver the truth. The Church doctrine was that all truth was contained within scripture, and that they knew the one true interpretation of scripture -- an interpretation that they received through communication with God. Luther dared to say that their interpretation was flawed.

The Church tried to preserve its authority by insisting that "truth" could only be found in its declarations of right and wrong, that "wisdom" meant recognizing the authority of the church and the dictates of its leaders, and that all people of good moral character recognized their own weaknesses and the need to submit to the higher authority of the Church.

However, Luther did not recant his statements, and he inspired others to get into the habit of questioning the Church. Countless new interpretations sprang up as each person put their own mind to the task of trying to discover what the Bible really said. They started to look elsewhere for evidence that they could apply to determine which answers were right or wrong.

The Age of Reason

Bruno and Galileo were working within a new tradition that said that humans could look at nature, make empirical observations, and from these deduce natural laws. They shocked the world with the things that they were able to discover -- truths that were hidden, but were available to those who looked.

Isaac Newton used this method and identified laws of nature that were simply too obvious to ignore. They contradicted the Church’s stand that the Earth was the center of the solar system – the claim that got Bruno executed. However, by this time, people were in the habit of thinking that where empirical research contradicted Church doctrine, this only meant that the Church had to update its doctrine.

What the "natural philosophers" were doing with the physical law, others thought they could do with moral law. They thought that they could look at man in a state of nature and determine natural moral laws that did not require referencing religious texts. As with the physical laws, if these natural moral laws contradicted accepted biblical interpretations, then the Church needed to correct those interpretations as well.

John Locke

One of the most significant efforts in this quest for moral knowledge was John Locke's "Second Treatise on Civil Government." In this essay, Locke looked at man in a state of nature and found it to be a state of perfect political equality. There was no natural right to rule, and no natural duty to obey. Kings did not get their power and authority from God. Rather, men, in a state of nature, in order to better secure their life, liberty, and property, invented a tool called the State as they would invent a hammer or a saw, and designed this tool to better secure these rights.

Because men had the authority to create a government, they also had the authority to bring it down. If that government became dangerous – if it threatened the rights that all men have by nature – then men are within their natural rights to throw this defective tool away and replace it with a new and better tool.

Locke still believed in God. He still believed that human beings were created. He believed that God created a universe that was governed not only by natural physical laws, but natural moral laws. He believed that, just as natural physical law can be determined philosophically without referring to any Bible or religious text, that people could look at man in a state of nature and discover moral laws independent of what could be found in scripture – truths that could then be used to understand scripture.

The Declaration of Indepedence

Thus, it was written into the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

When this was written, it still contained a couple of mistakes, some of which took more than a hundred years to work out. The founding fathers did not yet apply this principle to people in Africa. Nor did they hold that these principles applied to women.

It took this country another four score and nine years to realize that men in a state of nature would not accept slavery – that this clearly violated the idea of political equality. It took over a century to realize that the same arguments that showed that no man had a natural right to rule over another man also showed that man did not have a natural right to rule over women, thus they gave women the political right to vote (recognizing a moral right that had always existed).

However, it took only a decade for the founding fathers to realize that men in a state of nature would not have approved of a theocracy. Thus, when they wrote the Constitution ten years later, they wrote a document that did not mention God except to say that no religious test will be required of anybody seeking public office. This said, in effect, that people of different religions came to the State as political equals. There was no natural right that gave one religion a right to rule, nor was there a natural duty on the part of those of any other religion to obey.

There is an easily applied rule of thumb to use in determining if a law is consistent with this view of government. Ask yourself if two equals, meeting in a state of nature, would agree to those terms. If a group of Muslims met an equal group of Christians in the state of nature and agreed on a government, they would clearly not agree to a Christian government, nor would they agree to a Muslim government. They would not agree even to a majority rule (out of fear that they would find themselves in the minority). The only government they would reasonably agree to is one that managed the peaceful interactions between the two groups while showing favoritism towards neither.

The only sensible rule would be one like, "I may not prohibit you from building any temple that you want on your own land, and you may not force me to pay for it, and neither of us will claim dominion over the neutral territory between us -- the common meeting ground -- that is the state. We declare that the state is neutral territory. As such, you may not hoist your religious symbols there as if to claim it as your own, and neither shall we."

So, now, what can we say of those who look at the Declaration of Independence, see the phrase, “All men are created equal,” and argue from this that Christians (and, certainly, they mean their own brand of Christianity) have a natural right to rule and everybody else has a natural right to obey?

We can say that they are tearing the heart out of the principles upon which this country was founded and stomping it underfoot. They are saying, in effect, "We reject the philosophy that was laid down in the Declaration in Independence, and demand that the United States adopt a moral and political philosophy explicitly rejected in its founding document. We reject the idea that we are to think of ourselves as political equals to all others and demand instead a right to rule."

The Declaration of Independence does not say, “Only those who believe in a creator are equal, and all others are their political inferiors.” It says, “All men . . .”, a phrase that we now know should have said “All people . . .”.

What part of “all” do you not understand?

 

[汪洋中的一叶舟]

百思不得其解。在国内没有觉得很多人信教啊，就算相信，也不过是信佛的人初一十五烧香。信洋教的，去教堂祷告祷告。觉得好多人本来不信教的，一来加国，现在都好多和教会扯上关系了

 

[joanna777]

百思不得其解。在国内没有觉得很多人信教啊，就算相信，也不过是信佛的人初一十五烧香。信洋教的，去教堂祷告祷告。觉得好多人本来不信教的，一来加国，现在都好多和教会扯上关系了

人的DNA里已经被神写上了“需要神”的密码，在中国吗，人找不到神，所以就去寺庙烧香去了，其实寺庙里的“神”是中国人自己造的，佛教最早从印度传来的，印度正宗佛教是不相信有神的，所谓佛并不是神，都是被中国人给发展了的。中国人信耶稣的很多人不去教堂，自己在家里读读圣经祷告一下而已。但是其实人是有寻求神的基因的，否则无法得到心灵深处的满足感。

 

[车前草]

妈呀，不能不上来感叹一下。刚从地下室翻出一本中英对照的圣经，打开扉页，竟然是1996年4月，一个徐姓大帅哥送的

弹指16年啊！回忆涌上心头。妈呀，原来除了那本书，他还送过我这一本。。。:blowzy:

 

[白苹果.]

坛子里常有关于信仰的讨论。作为旁观者，总的感觉基督徒发言比较理性，有的非基督徒发言不够理性。希望你们的讨论在互相尊重的基础上进行，表达观点既可，不要宣泄情绪。

我对三大宗教（佛教，基督教，伊斯兰教）都怀有敬重，愿闻其祥。佛教中的慈悲为怀与基督教中的宽容博爱有何不同？mimige，佛教舍身饲虎的故事可知否？再给你看篇佛教中宽容的故事：
当佛陀在世时，有位“阿阇世”王，为了夺取王位，害死了自己的父王“频婆娑罗”王，自立为王。不久，他全身发热生疮，臭秽不可闻，经治疗后，病情不但没有减轻，反而越发严重。频婆娑罗王虽被儿子杀害，但他生前信佛虔诚，深知身心的虚幻无常，故不只没有任何的怨恨，而且在知道儿子的情况后，反而显灵劝告儿子，告诉他，他是佛陀的弟子，愿以佛陀的慈悲来原谅他，受到父王的宽宥和催促，阇世王因此前往求见佛陀，因而得以获救。

感觉你的发言跟你信佛有出入。按照佛教的观点，每个人的心里都有佛心和魔心，佛心就是慈悲、宽容，教人向善的心。世上并无可瞋可恨而非杀之不可的人，唯有「瞋」、「恨」才是该「杀」之物，这也是佛教的观点。宽容仇敌，不是宽容邪恶，这是两码事。在《金刚经》、《大般涅槃经》、《大毗婆沙论》中，皆提及佛过去生为忍辱仙人时与歌利王的一段因缘。某日，忍辱仙人在林间坐禅，适逢歌利王率领宫女到野外游览。美丽的宫女们利用国王休憩时漫游林中，无意间来到仙人面前。以残暴著称的歌利王突然仗剑而至，不分青红皂白地怒斥仙人：“你胆敢以幻术诱惑我的宫女！该当何罪？”无辜被冤枉的仙人始终以忍为戒，平心静气地消受暴君的无理取闹，甚至当歌利王以剑截断他的手足耳鼻时，不但心中依然存着慈悲心，还主动发愿：“愿我来世得道时，先度化大王！”忍辱仙人因能忍无嗔，招感到恢复完好身形的果报；用慈悲心原谅误会他的歌利王，而将彼此的恶缘化为菩提善缘。这个故事相必你也是熟知的。

 

[joanna777]

妈呀，不能不上来感叹一下。刚从地下室翻出一本中英对照的圣经，打开扉页，竟然是1996年4月，一个徐姓大帅哥送的

弹指16年啊！回忆涌上心头。妈呀，原来除了那本书，他还送过我这一本。。。:blowzy:

愿神祝福您！可以从新约马太福音开始读，愿圣灵亲自带领你明白神所说的每一句话！

 

[车前草]

愿神祝福您！可以从新约马太福音开始读，愿圣灵亲自带领你明白神所说的每一句话！

没打算看 :blowzy:
这哥（其实比我小）1米85，黝黑特帅，当年要是看了他送的那些书，俺个人的历史可能就改写了。因为那时俺已婚，他未婚 :blowzy:

上帝怎么看待出轨，注意，是出轨，不是出柜 :blowzy:

 

[focus on today]

觉得林俊妈妈对杀自己儿子的宽恕，个人认为是缺乏母爱的行为。因为这个杀人恶魔到现在都不认罪。这不仅是心理变态那么简单，而是太凶恶了。世上任何母亲都不会原谅这么残害自己子女的恶魔的。林母愿意建立基金帮助问题青年，还可以理解。但是，对杀害自己儿子的凶手产生同 情，我觉得不是一位好母亲。

有心帮助其他孩子的母亲不是一位好母亲？结论未免太快了点。

 

[focus on today]

呵呵，我没说错吧，你没看过，估计教会也会以同样的理由不让林母看到。

赤裸裸的洗脑，自己儿子咋惨死的都不知道。还宽恕，宽恕个大头鬼。

脑子瓦特了。

为什么一定要看录像呢？估计警察也会劝说他们不要看的。

记得，被渥太华河水夺去生命的两个年青人吗？其中一个找到了。 据说 家长没有去看尸体，倒是那个没有找到的孩子的家长看了，说是很可怕。

负面的东西： 言语，行为，画面，想像，意念 。。。对人的精神和身体上的摧残是我们还不太了解的东西，它门的破坏作用不可低估。

人要远离恶。。。

 

[hellobb]

原谅别人最大目的其实是解脱了自己。 这个我认为任何一个人如果曾经被伤害过的话都应该能理解。 永远不原谅别人对自己的伤害的话就是永远不停的拿别人的错误伤害自己。 为什么要这样？