Jesus was a Hindu Monk and Survived the Cross
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
sgdiehard
1. "You dont bother to find evidence"? So now pls clarify CLEARLY, is there any evidence to prove your miracles in the bible? Yes or No?
2. Oh so you dont acknowledge the miracles in other religions but only acknowledge christian miracles. Well I guess muslims will also only acknowledge muslim miracles ?
I don't look for evidence to prove a miracle.
What are the muslim miracles, the buddhist miracles, the taoist miracles?
-
Originally posted by sgdiehard:
what is original version of this word å‡ ?
八 is numeric, 扒 is verb, meaning to strip off, to dig up.
sgdiehard
Did you see my previous post?
Here --
It shows that you have very limited knowledge of the chinese language.
Prior to china simplifying the chinese words, the word 船 was also written as 船.
The word 船 has never been changed. It has never been "simplified". The word 八 has also always been 八 and never been simplified.
So the difference has always been there between å…« and å‡ or å¹¾. The difference is irreconcilable.
So the å‡ on the 船 has always been a å‡ and not a å…«. So how can you say that å‡ refers to å…«?
-
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
er... ur explaination for those 2 words are as of simplified chinese if you are explaining it that way. look up those old ah ma calendars where they tear of a peace of paper day by day, you will see the word 8 is written as wad i've told u. I tink u got a bit confused too. Original version of å‡ i tink is å‡go check your chinese dictionary.
-
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
er... ur explaination for those 2 words are as of simplified chinese if you are explaining it that way. look up those old ah ma calendars where they tear of a peace of paper day by day, you will see the word 8 is written as wad i've told u. I tink u got a bit confused too. Original version of å‡ i tink is å‡imdestinyz
You can check with online conversion. å…« has always been å…«. and å‡ WAS å¹¾
-
Originally posted by sgdiehard:
go check your chinese dictionary.
LOL chinese dictionary is all on simplified chinese. u wan to know the original version of the word, please go beyond chinese dictionary. Please go baidu it. Or u can relearn your chinese. -
-
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
LOL chinese dictionary is all on simplified chinese. u wan to know the original version of the word, please go beyond chinese dictionary. Please go baidu it. Or u can relearn your chinese.Go find dictionaries in HK and Taiwan, all using the original version. go beyond chinese dictionary? hahaha
-
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
LOL chinese dictionary is all on simplified chinese. u wan to know the original version of the word, please go beyond chinese dictionary. Please go baidu it. Or u can relearn your chinese.imdestinyz
My point to sgdiehard is -
He says the the å‡ on the 船 is a å…«.
So I am showing him that both words are different
He needs to explain why he thinks å‡ is a å…«.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
1. sgdiehard, I have learned this 義 and 船 when I was a christian. But I also ask myself now whether all these are coincidences. Because in the chinese written language, there are thousands and thousands of words. So actually we can derive a lot of things from these thousands of words. So for example for this word 義 , the muslims can also derive it as the goat that Abraham sacrificed in place of Ishmael. For 船 the å‡ is not å…«. It's different, if we want to be specific.
Tcmc,
One Chinese character, maybe we can attribute it to coincidence and forget about it. But what if there are many such "coincidences"? See the book "The Discovery of Genesis" that you can read for free here http://www.bibleetnombres.online.fr/genesis.pdf
Of course at the end of the day, you can still say "So what? It proves nothing, you just want to see what you want to see." I would say, suit yourself then. You don't have to believe if you don't want to. Making an argument for something is like building a house, it takes effort and time to make a good argument. Demolishing a house is easy. Press detonate or just anyhow whack at it, don't think too much. Atheists like to see how they can whack the Bible and the Christian faith, but all too often they will evade making a case for their own belief system or defending it. A classic tactic will be to engage in elephant hurling and asks, "what about this, that, this, that......" always attempting to put the Christian on the defensive so that everyone forgets that the atheist also need to defend his own worldview. Of course, a classic excuse would be for the atheist to say "I don't know the answer, so what's there to examine about my beliefs? But since you say you know, I attack you lor! Hoot Ah!"
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Tcmc,
One Chinese character, maybe we can attribute it to coincidence and forget about it. But what if there are many such "coincidences"? See the book "The Discovery of Genesis" that you can read for free here http://www.bibleetnombres.online.fr/genesis.pdf
Of course at the end of the day, you can still say "So what? It proves nothing, you just want to see what you want to see." I would say, suit yourself then. You don't have to believe if you don't want to. Making an argument for something is like building a house, it takes effort and time to make a good argument. Demolishing a house is easy. Press detonate or just anyhow whack at it, don't think too much. Atheists like to see how they can whack the Bible and the Christian faith, but all too often they will evade making a case for their own belief system or defending it. A classic tactic will be to engage in elephant hurling and asks, "what about this, that, this, that......" always attempting to put the Christian on the defensive so that everyone forgets that the atheist also need to defend his own worldview. Of course, a classic excuse would be for the atheist to say "I don't know the answer, so what's there to examine about my beliefs? But since you say you know, I attack you lor! Hoot Ah!"
Sure...Lol...
Some use simplified characters to derive, some use traditional characters to derive...so consistent.
Anyway, the word 船.
Why do christians say å‡ is a å…« on the 船 word?
-
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
My social Studies teacher back in secondary school.. and my uni lecturer has been telling me that if the source itself is unreliable, the content itself will be unreliable. So you are asking TCMC to interact with unreliable content?
This is begging the question, has Tcmc proven the content to be unreliable? Nope. He has done NOTHING to even remotely prove that. He simply say "Christian source ah? CANNOT! BIAS!" Like that he conveniently excused himself from having to take the time and effort to evaluate the article on its own merits.
-
Originally posted by sgdiehard:
Go find dictionaries in HK and Taiwan, all using the original version. go beyond chinese dictionary? hahaha
LOL... and when china was the origin of chinese words? u refuse to take a look at that? hahaha... posted a link and u can take a look at it. I believe you claimed TCMC has a closed mind? hmmm.... pot calling kettle black =D -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
This is begging the question, has Tcmc proven the content to be unreliable? Nope. He has done NOTHING to even remotely prove that. He simply say "Christian source ah? CANNOT! BIAS!" Like that he conveniently excused himself from having to take the time and effort to evaluate the article on its own merits.
Yes BIC.
I will reiterate what I said.
Quoting all from christian sources is bias. And all professors and lecturers will agree with me and sadly, not you.
I tell you many times but you seem to be blinded.
I have no problem with christian sources.
I have a problem when you quote all from christian sources.
That is when you become extremely biased and your views warped.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
imdestinyz
I have no problem with religious sources, if they are sound.
But what BIC is doing wrongly is to quote all his sources from religious websites and books and insists he's being objective.
It's wrong. The correct method is to quote from both religious and nonreligious.
Thats what I do too. E.g, When i look up the age of the dead sea scrolls, i look at both religious and nonreligious sources.
Tcmc,
So what's your problem, that my religious sources are NOT sound? You are being inconsistent. You said you have no problem with religious sources, and you never even proved that my sources are unsound, and all you did was whine about my sources being Christian.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
This is begging the question, has Tcmc proven the content to be unreliable? Nope. He has done NOTHING to even remotely prove that. He simply say "Christian source ah? CANNOT! BIAS!" Like that he conveniently excused himself from having to take the time and effort to evaluate the article on its own merits.
er... but he said that we cannot use a christian source to prove a christian source ma. If u can find some non christian source, u can straight shut him up already. -
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
LOL... and when china was the origin of chinese words? u refuse to take a look at that? hahaha... posted a link and u can take a look at it. I believe you claimed TCMC has a closed mind? hmmm.... pot calling kettle black =DYea I know what you mean about the originals of the words.
I accept that i might be wrong.
But my issue with sgdiehard is him saying that å‡ is a å…« on the 船 word
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
imdestinyz
In essence you are correct and I do agree with you.
We take christian sources only if they are sound, just like how I took christian sources about the age of the dead sea scrolls. But if a christian source says that the earth is 6000 years old because it uses another christian text (the bible) to prove its claims, then that source is committing a fallacy and I will not take it.
So I do take religious sources into consideration, only if they are sound.
BUT for a start, i just want BIC to TRY to quote from both religious and nonreligious sources cos he's not even trying....
Tcmc,
Why not for a start you actually interact with the arguments? All you did is to say "What? You believe in 6000 years of world history? Wah, that means EVERYTHING ELSE you say is unreliable liao." This is the fallacy of hasty generalisation. For one, other than appealing to authority for saying that the world is billions of years old, you have done nothing to refute the belief that the world is about 6000 years old.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Tcmc,
So what's your problem, that my religious sources are NOT sound? You are being inconsistent. You said you have no problem with religious sources, and you never even proved that my sources are unsound, and all you did was whine about my sources being Christian.
BIC
You are a liar.
1. I have shown you why the wbesites you gave were unsound and inaccurate but it is you who refuses to accept the facts. So dont say I have not shown you. Say, you do not accept.
2. Again your think skull can no longer accept what others say.
I say i got no problem with christian sources. But any lecturer or professor would agree with me that if you quote all from christian sources, you would be very biased.
I would also be very biased if I quote all my sources from atheists websites!
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Before you assume naturalism and evolution are all "faith topics", why dont you really spend about 20 minutes reading the years and years of studies, research, evidence and lab reproductions?
Just spend 20 minutes.
I am not asking you to believe in all of that, but I am telling you to seriously read them up.
You can dont believe in them, but they are definitely not "faith topics"......
You're seriously misguided.
Tcmc,
Have you ever heard about EXPERIMENTAL science and HISTORICAL science? Tell me, do you know the difference? And do you know the question of origins fall under which category? Don't know feel free to ask, I will tell you.
-
Originally posted by sgdiehard:
Go find dictionaries in HK and Taiwan, all using the original version. go beyond chinese dictionary? hahaha
http://wenda.tianya.cn/wenda/thread?tid=281ad74d971edabaanother website regarding the �体of 八. Please show some evidence of your HK and Taiwan dictionaries leh? Before u start ur mocking of ppl?
-
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
din the christians attacked the atheist's worldview too?There's nothing wrong with attacking worldviews and ideas per se, but we should try to refrain from attacking people. I know it is hard to do that, but at least we should try. Agree?
-
Originally posted by Demon Bane:
I'm not saying he did...I also wanna know the answer to that question....thanks for the illustration....
Demon Bane,
So what did you think about the answer I gave? Reasonable, or cannot make it?
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Yes BIC.
I will reiterate what I said.
Quoting all from christian sources is bias. And all professors and lecturers will agree with me and sadly, not you.
I tell you many times but you seem to be blinded.
I have no problem with christian sources.
I have a problem when you quote all from christian sources.
That is when you become extremely biased and your views warped.
Tcmc,
Complaining about bias is not the same as proving that the content is WRONG.
Like I said, all of us are biased to begin with. Bias by itself does not mean it is wrong. You have still to argue for the truth of your argument.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Demon Bane,
So what did you think about the answer I gave? Reasonable, or cannot make it?
I'm inclined to believe that Jesus was a saint and had saved many people....but I also believe that there were many saints in other religions too....their objectives were to save people and guide them towards everlasting happiness......what do you think of this ?
-
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
er... but he said that we cannot use a christian source to prove a christian source ma. If u can find some non christian source, u can straight shut him up already.Do atheists use Christian sources to prove atheism?
It's like saying that a Jew cannot write a history about the holocaust because he is biased. You buy this reasoning?