5. ALL GOD ARE OMNISCIENT. This is where you've made another logic analysis mistake. When you use "All", you mean all. Example, If I said, "All apple is red." It means not only Fuju Apple is red, it means all apple is red! When you said "All God is omniscient", you include every one and all of the God in history in your filter-004ion. You can't just say, "Oh, I just mean Christian God, the other are exclude." It's NOT how it works in logical analysis. As long as one can find an exception in the example, you CANNOT use the word "all"! You doubting me not knowing philosophy? Should I post a link here about the use of the word "all" here to prove what I said is correct?
6. NO OMNISCIENT GOD WILL EVER WARN ADAM NOT TO EAT THE FRUIT OF KNOWLEDGE. Yet another fatal mistake you've made in your logical analysis. I'll make it more detailed this time.
a) Double negative is NOT allow in logical analysis. I don't think you know, so I'll make it clear. One of the most basic rule of logical analysis. When you see 2 or more "no" in a sentence of logical analysis. That sentence is simply WRONG and need to rephase!
b) A logical analysis with the word "no" or "all" need to be universal, which means it need to apply in every situation and no exception at all. Now at least I find one exception, in bible say, "The God warn Adam not to eat the fruite of knowledge, for the day you eat you'll die." Now, should I again post a philosophy website to prove the previous rule are correct? Or do you at least know these simple rule before you ever talk about philosophy? Finding information is not hard, you know. Using it is another business.
7. Last but not least, you said I've posted evidence that justin_lun talking with others and not related to you? Now... what are we talking here? We're talking what justin_lun saying, not what mememe saying, right? "Repeating justin_lun point of view correctly" is the topic, right? so.... should I say it again? "YOU CANNOT REPEAT JUSTIN_LUN POINT OF VIEW CORRECTLY, CUZ YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT HE'S SAYING. YET YOU WANT JUSTIN_LUN TO REPEAT YOUR OWN POINT." I rest my case.
If you still think I'm unreasonable, feel free to "report" me to admin. In fact, I'm looking forward to it. Silverxing兄,
第一: 你話我[b]無法正確覆述justin_lun既論點[/b]係錯誤。你之前指出幾個你認為我覆述上既錯誤以經被我駁回﹐亦即係話我既覆述冇錯。由此可見﹐請justin_lun覆述我之前既論點並唔係你所講0甘難(甚至無法做到)。如果你認為你既大呼小叫依然有立錐之地既話﹐請你從新指出我對justin_lun論點覆述上既錯誤。你之前既所為"錯誤"根本就係無事生非!
[quote]第二: [b]MY INTENTION IS TO STATE WHY IT'S IMPRACTICAL TO ASK OTHERS TO REPEAT YOUR POINT。。。 I ONLY WANT TO TELL YOU IT'S WRONG TO REPEAT OTHERS POINT[/b][/quote]
我鬧緊既就係呢個完全無稽既intention!!
我發表完我既觀點之後﹐如果其他人問或帶起既問題反映出佢(哋)對我既論點一竅不通﹐我當然會問佢(哋)有冇睇清楚我既帖。
如果對方答"有"﹐但依然繼續問或帶起一0的只要有稍為望過0下我0的帖都識答既問題﹐我[b]當然會質疑對方究竟有冇睇清楚及消化我帖既內容[/b]。
請對方覆述自己既論點可以減少誤解同增加共識﹐根本就再practical不過。
只有本身冇理解到對方既論點就隨便批評別人既人先至會無能力覆述對方既論點而需要諸多推搪。你同justin_lun兄喺呢方面實在相似。
[quote]第三: [b]But from your application of the logical analysis, you're using them incorrectly. Even yourself admit that, Even yourself admit that.[/b][/quote]
你搞錯0左一樣嘢。我承認我喺帶出我既推論時用錯表達方式﹐但並唔代表我既推論有任何錯誤。我note緊既唔係你既correct analysis﹐因為你冇。你做到既就只係(再一次)批評我已經修改0左既論點﹐同埋批評我請justin_lun覆述我論點呢個要求(到依家你仍然冇辦法講出究竟點解0甘難)。
你都識講啦﹐[b]YOU POST THE CORRECT WEBSITE BUT USING IT WRONG WHILE I POST NO WEBSITE BUT MAKE NO MISTAKE[/b]﹐你話你啱﹐0甘你就啱0架喇咩? 你冇俾過任何證據證明你講既任何一句說話唔係順口開河(例如: The word "co-exist" require 2 things to work together for existence, if one is gone, so will another one)。你指控我用錯我既link入面既資料﹐你除0左齎[b]講[/b]之外又有冇解釋到我點用錯法呢?
你0的含糊既[b]論點[/b]相對于justin_lun兄真係有過之而無不及。睇睇呢段"解釋":
[b]你用All A are B代表神系全知既话，就代表任何人一改自己个名做“神”都会变成全知！用A ∈ B反而可以，但系就即刻变成特定个案，意思完全唔同。[/b]
點解[b]用A ∈ B反而可以[/b]呢? 乜解究會變成特定个案呢? 講開又講﹐乜嘢係"特定个案"呢? 意思又點變成"完全唔同"呢? 受過哲學教育既人又點會寫埋0西0的0甘含糊又冇建設性既嘢呢?
係唔係好含糊呢? 你係唔係唔係好知講緊乜嘢呢? 你解釋0下好噃!
[quote]第四: [b]In the view of the whole filter-004ion, the freedom of will is related with whether fatalism is correct or not...THE ANALOGY ITSELF TALKS ONLY ABOUT FATALISM, BUT HAVE NOTHING ARGUE ABOUT THE TRUTHNESS OF FREEDOM OF WILL AT ALL.[/b][/quote]
呢0的咪叫主觀咯! 你用緊聖經記載, 無法辯駁既教義(dogma)自由意志(Freedom of will)嚟到推斷理論(宿命論)既可信性。正確做法係用可以辯駁既理論(theory)嚟到證實或推翻教義。就好似話"聖經記載有大洪水﹐所以可以由此斷定數千年前既水位同天氣狀況"係錯既 - 正確做法係應該用理論推論出數千年前既水位同天氣狀況﹐從而證實或推翻聖經既記載。你依家知道乜嘢係本末倒置啦?
番茄既比諭絕對有牽涉到自由意志既真偽 - 就係如果神既全知包括所有事情既連帶關係﹐而神既全能包括創世時既因素﹐人(即殺手)既自由意志就會被剝削。
你依家開始明白為何"神點解俾自由意志俾人"同我既理論完全無關未?
[quote]I'M THE ONE ACTUALLY GIVING EVIDENCE HERE WHILE YOU ONLY REPEATING YOUR OWN VIEW WITH NONE OF HIS WORDS AT ALL.[/quote]
你既"證據"同我哋討論既話題無關。聖經記載"神點解俾自由意志俾人"完全唔會影晌到我既推論﹐因為同我講既嘢無關。你依家俾緊我既係一個strawman argument(熟讀哲學既你﹐大概知道呢樣係乜吧)。
[quote]第五: As long as one can find an exception in the example, you CANNOT use the word "all"! You doubting me not knowing philosophy? Should I post a link here about the use of the word "all" here to prove what I said is correct?[/quote]
好。我由原本既”All gods are omniscient” 改為”All [i]Christian[/i] gods are omniscient” - 本質一成不變。(你鐘意話Christian god 係三位一體而所以唔應該用”all” 既話﹐我就改做”all forms of Christian god are omniscient”)
[quote]第六: Double negative is NOT allow in logical analysis. I don't think you know, so I'll make it clear. One of the most basic rule of logical analysis. When you see 2 or more "no" in a sentence of logical analysis. That sentence is simply WRONG and need to rephase!
Now, should I again post a philosophy website to prove the previous rule are correct? Or do you at least know these simple rule before you ever talk about philosophy? Finding information is not hard, you know. Using it is another business.[/quote]
你唔使揾philosophy website去證明你啱﹐因為你唔會揾到。
[url]http://entrypoints.com/AhaPage/Aha!DoubleNegs.html[/url]
[url]http://web.linix.ca/pedia/index.php/Double_negative_elimination[/url]
[url]http://www.jimloy.com/language/double.htm[/url]
[url]http://www.isoeasy.org/Logic.htm[/url]
[url]http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=logic+double+negative+&btnG=Search&meta=[/url]
你放” logic double negative” 入Google﹐頭五個link都有記載Double Negative, 全部都冇話logic唔用得。你話”simply wrong”? 你讀咩philosophy0架?
你既斷言開始越嚟越順口開河﹐你仲厚顏到話” do you at least know these simple rule before you ever talk about philosophy? Finding information is not hard, you know. Using it is another business.”。
隻手遮天﹐賊喊捉賊叫得0甘大聲﹐真係明欺26FUN無人。
[quote]第七: We're talking what justin_lun saying, not what mememe saying, right? "Repeating justin_lun point of view correctly" is the topic, right?[/quote]
0甘你不如將justin_lun兄喺其他論壇既帖link埋出嚟﹐然後指控我冇覆述到justin_lun對時事﹐經濟﹐文化﹐音樂﹐運動﹐等等既睇法? 佢同第二個人講0的同我無關既嘢你都要我覆述﹐你冇嘢吧? 就算係覆述﹐都係覆述”題內話”﹐ 你扯到牛頭唔答馬嘴既話題做乜? 你rest your case? 乜你有咩?
P.S. 你有冇發覺每當你發現自己既斷言有錯(例如"同時存在"既論點)﹐你就會放棄呢點然後轉移目標對第二點咬住唔放。到我解釋完第二點既時候﹐你就會對第三點死纏爛打。你無聊時無理地糊亂評擊其他人既帖已經好冇禮貌﹐你知錯之後唔改又唔道歉就真係好冇品。
你既言論已經顯露0左你又幾多斤兩。唔好再盲目0甘批評一0的挑戰你信仰或價值觀﹐但你又冇膽量接觸既理論。係要評論既﹐就首先熟讀對方既論點﹐用證據推翻對方既論說。你識英文﹐大概知道religious bigot點解吧?
我上個帖喺幾個地方要求你俾證據。你冇做到。如果你有誠意繼續討論既話﹐請你先為你既斷言加上證據支持。 1. Repeating justin_lun point: The first thing you've stated is that "I(mememe) have repeated justin_lun point of view correctly. It's not as hard as you(silverxing) have stated." Yet, you said the following in your last post: 呢0的咪叫主觀咯...(Just to save space, not repeating the whole phase)....你依家知道乜嘢係本末倒置啦?
And why did you have such response? It's to reply my post as follow: In the view of......THE TRUTHNESS OF FREEDOM OF WILL AT ALL.(Just see you own post, not wasting too much space here.)
Do you see the problem? You intention is to aruge whether my post is correct or not. But what I do is simply REPEATING JUSTIN_LUN WORDS AND WHAT HE SAID IN HIS POST. So, the siutation is: I(silverxing) said, "justin_lun said fatalism is wrong." Then you(mememe) said, "you(silverxing) cannot said Fatalism is wrong, because of .....(what you said)". I'M NOT SAYING FATALISM IS WRONG. I'M REPEATING WHAT JUSTIN_LUN SAID IN HIS POST. You're treating justin_lun word as my(silverxing) word and now you want to argue with me about Fatalism.
You said you know well about what justin_lun said? For just 4-5 posts I've made, you already mix up what I said!!!! And in those 4-5 posts, I keep repeating and repeating and repeating, "I'm not here to argue religious problem! That's not what I intend to do here!!!" Yet, you keep asking me to repeat your point, stating what you've said is correct, and arguing about religious problem. You already mistaken MY(SILVERXING) point of view. What did I said in the very first post again? I said, "It's almost impossible to repeat others' point of view. If you(mememe) really want others to do it, how about you do it first and show everyone it is possible?" But now and here, for just 4-5 posts I've made, you've already mix up my point of view. Do you still think it's possible to repeat others' point of view?
2. Co-existence. Here, I need to confess. I've made a trap in this argument, to simply trick you! Once I've said co-exist and exist in the same time is different. You've put a lot of evidences, links, and more to support you point, that both thing is the same thing. So that you can stand strong at the argument, "justin_lun think Freedom of will and omniscience coexist and exist the same time, because it's the same thing."
Now let me tell you something, with justin_lun own words. In justin_lun argument, he once said, "Omniscience is an ability, Freedom of will is a promise. In God's view, promise is more important than ability. God can choose whether to use an ability or not, but God need to keep his promise no matter what. So when it comes to priority, FREEDOM OF WILL ALWAYS COMES FIRST, OMNISCIENCE NEED TO PUT INTO SECOND PRIORITY." So what justin_lun mean is THERE IS SITUATION THAT FREEDOM OF WILL CANNOT CO-EXIST WITH OMNISCIENCE!!! No matter it's exist at the same time or co-exist, both are NOT what justin_lun said!!!! The difference between "co-exist" and "exist the same time"? I simply make it up, just to make you stand strong on the argument "justin_lun think Freedom of will and Omniscience exist the same time". Becuase justin_lun said just the opposite!!!!
This time, I match up all your requirement, using justin_lun's word (That's the evidence), using the argument he argued with you, not other people. Yet, you CANNOT REPEAT HIS POINT OF VIEW, BUT SAYING JUST THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT HE SAID.
3. Philosophy/Logical Analysis. "All form of Christian Gods are omniscient." All A ∈ B, now that's correct. But may I add a footnote. It's totally different from "all Gods are omniscient." Please don't think they're the same, because they're not.
Now about double negative. Who's 隻手遮天? The site you've provided, just take a clear look at the one about "double negative elimination". You'll see that you need to "eliminate" double negative before you ever start an logical analysis. The proper term is called "The Law of Dobule Negation". You don't even know what the site you've provided talking about! If you still don't believe, check out the following site. [url]http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fitch-paradox/[/url]
And now with your "All A ∈ B" correct, your "No C ∈ B" are still wrong!!! You've said I ignore the argument about coexistence? How did you explain your ignoration of the fault on "No Omnicient being will warn Adam not to eat the fruit of knowledge"? There's only one document ever mention about the relationship of "Omnicient being", "Adam" and "the fruit of knowledge". That document is call Bible. What did the bible said? It said, "The All mightly God warn Adam not to eat the fruit of knowledge. Just OPPOSITE from what you state. There's no evidence AT ALL to support your "No C ∈ B". Enough evidence for you?
bengrace50兄請進，小弟有野想請教你
幾年時開始已經有輕生的念頭，可惜到現時為止，我都無咁做過，我試過一隻腳已踏出窗外，不過我想死前都做返件好事救人。我人生道路上好唔如意，我一無事處，每日就係浪費
請問ben兄可否指點下？ [url]http://www.26fun.com/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=81508&fpage=1[/url]
:( **** 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽 **** Silverxing兄,
第一: “The Truthfulness of Freedom of Will” 同埋” 我同justin_lun兄既討論” 無任何牽連。所以我覆述justin_lun既論點時唔需要提及“The Truthfulness of Freedom of Will”。亦即係話你認為我既覆述[b]因為冇提及The Truthfulness of Freedom of Will[/b]所以一定”唔明得哂人地讲乜”(post 269)係廢話。
[quote] You intention is to aruge whether my post is correct or not. But what I do is simply REPEATING JUSTIN_LUN WORDS AND WHAT HE SAID IN HIS POST. [/quote]
錯。你敢話呢句”THE ANALOGY ITSELF TALKS ONLY ABOUT FATALISM, BUT HAVE NOTHING ARGUE ABOUT THE TRUTHNESS OF FREEDOM OF WILL AT ALL”係justin_lun兄講既? 我上個帖第四點用0左成個paragraph去話俾你聽你呢句有幾錯。你仲敢咩都推0西落justin_lun身上? 哼! 除非你係justin_lun啦!
[quote] Then you(mememe) said, "you(silverxing) cannot said Fatalism is wrong, because of .....(what you said)".[/quote]
我有咩? 乜我同你有討論過宿命論咩? 乜我有同你講過呢句咩? Quote我呀?! 口講無憑呀!
[quote]I keep repeating and repeating and repeating, "I'm not here to argue religious problem! That's not what I intend to do here!!!" Yet, you keep asking me to repeat your point, stating what you've said is correct, and arguing about religious problem.[/quote]
你喺一個宗教論壇同我講話你唔係討論緊”religious problem”認真一絕。你就算係用邏輯為基本(雖然你唔係)你都冇可能話你唔係arguing religious problem。你冇講及Freedom of Will咩? 你冇提及omniscience咩? 你除0左識得一邊話自己唔係討論緊religious problem而又一邊討論religious problem之外你仲識咩?
講到0甘淺你都唔明我就真係幫你唔到。
[quote]It's almost impossible to repeat others' point of view. If you(mememe) really want others to do it, how about you do it first and show everyone it is possible?[/quote]
你再次講出我喺post258既覆述有咩問題罷啦! 你指出既” 問題”我早就解釋0左喇。再講唔出就承認你無理取鬧啦!
[quote] Here, I need to confess. I've made a trap in this argument, to simply trick you![/quote]
[quote] No matter it's exist at the same time or co-exist, both are NOT what justin_lun said!!!![/quote]
[quote]The difference between "co-exist" and "exist the same time"? I simply make it up, just to make you stand strong on the argument "justin_lun think Freedom of will and Omniscience exist the same time".[/quote]
第一: 你可以唔使讀哲學喇。你既”橫蠻無理拳”同”無賴神功”已經練到登峰造極﹐天下無敵。無論面對任何靠”邏輯”或”道理”既對手﹐對方都註定一敗塗地﹐因無奈而七竅噴血而死。
第二: 其實講真﹐你寫過既0甘多個帖﹐邊一編唔係”a trap”嚟到”trick me” 0架? 你講過既0甘多個論點同證據﹐邊一樣唔係你”simply make it up” 0架?
第三: 如果”老吹”都唔算係”無理批評別人”﹐我真係唔知點先算”無理”。
[quote] "All form of Christian Gods are omniscient." All A ∈ B, now that's correct. But may I add a footnote. It's totally different from "all Gods are omniscient." Please don't think they're the same, because they're not.[/quote]
With reference to my argument兩者[b]一模一樣[/b] 。請解釋點解” totally different”。
[quote] You'll see that you need to "eliminate" double negative before you ever start an logical analysis. The proper term is called "The Law of Double Negation"[/quote]
“Need to”? 邊個話一定要0架? “The Law of Double Negation” 係話”可以”(can), 唔係”必需”(need)。 你憑”可以”就結論出”必需”﹐有冇搞錯? 再問多次: 你讀咩哲學0架?
[quote] How did you explain your ignoration of the fault on "No Omnicient being will warn Adam not to eat the fruit of knowledge"? [/quote]
EASY. 如下:
[quote]他(mememe)不斷用“神的全知”來支持宿命論﹐卻故意忽略了宿命論根本違背了“神的全善”﹐[b]若神早知人必定吃禁果而不去阻止﹐神就根本不是全善﹗[/b] [/quote]
(Post 199 by Justin_lun)
[url]http://www.26fun.com/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=59912&fpage=2&highlight=&page=4[/url] 让我来说句公道说话吧！我之所以久久不再贴帖子，正是因为网友mememe的无理取闹，他只会一味攻击反对他的人，根本就不讲什么道理。作为一个基督徒，我又怎么会问“人为什么有自由意志”这种问题呢？网友silverxing的“神为什么要给人自由意志”还比较符合我的观点。何况网友silverxing真的有引用我的帖子。
关于“自由意志”跟“全知”，我的论点确实模糊不清，可以说两人也说得对，不再多述。
最令我气愤的是网友mememe说的“没有全知的存在会警告人不去吃禁果”部分。他竟然断章取义我的帖子！我不知说了多少次“神警告人不要吃禁果”，而他竟用我的帖子去传相反的道！请大家看清楚，我早已说了十数次神的全知有其规则，也就是“人‘必定’吃禁果”这可能性根本不存在。神早就警告了人不要吃禁果，而网友mememe竟然歪曲我的话，说成了完全相反的道理！
网友silverxing，我在此劝告阁下千万不要被他的说话蒙蔽，这人反白为黑、说非成是。他说的什么“橫蠻無理拳”跟“無賴神功”正是他的绝技！ Thanks for justin_lun to come back to support me. Now you've said I'm correctly present your point, (at least partly correct,) I'll come back to my last point.
Mememe, even justin_lun said you cannot repeat his point, and he's really angry on your misinterpreting his point. NO ONE SHOULD BE FORCED TO REPEAT OTHER PEOPLE POINT!!!! And more, who makes you qualify to force me to talk about religious problem? Don't I have to right to decide what I'm willing to talk about?
For your logical analysis problem, justin_lun already give you enough "punch" on wrongly said "No omniscient will warn Adam not to eat the fruit of knowledge". I don't think I need to repeat any of these. If you know nothing about logical analysis, for example, double negation elimination, go study it in university and don't pretend you know! 哈哈哈哈 我一早解釋過呢個問題 誰料答左之係始終比反神者諗到d新問題!無止境產生新問題
你可知道佛家中的一切煩惱盡皆自尋!佢一日心中固執有成見點都難以睇得清 看得明 給眼睛雪亮的有緣人﹐
所有有緣讀到這帖的讀者﹐請聽我一言。我從這論壇討論中穫益良多。最大得著就是能夠親身體驗到人類的無恥。
以前的我是無法想像得到任何人會當街當巷(互聯網上)掩耳盜鈴﹐亦無見識過任何人會厚顏無恥到用其僅有的知識拋書包﹐充智囊﹐被發現後還無賴到不停以謊言來自完其說。
以前的我是無法想像得到任何人會因本身的主觀信念而隻手遮天﹐以為全世界人都如自己一搬井底之蛙﹐對自己相信的事不聞不問﹐對可能否決自己信念的事因恐懼而拒絕接觸﹐對其他敵對既觀點因信念不加思索就判以無理。
以前的我是無法想像得到任何人會逃避問題逃得如此狼狽﹐被問時支唔以對﹐被追問時耍太極轉移話題﹐被追得急時索性拒絕回答視若無睹﹐或無中生有招搖撞騙。
以前的我是無法想像得到任何人會說"你沒可能覆述我說的話"。
以前的我是無法想像得到任何人會說"並存"異於"同時存在"。
以前的我是無法想像得到任何修讀哲學之人會對哲學一竅不通﹐連邏輯之基本也未明便邀請他人向他"討教"。
以前的我是無法想像得到任何人會如此不屑於認錯﹐寧願用謊言粉飾也無勇氣承認錯誤。
或許我在描述某人﹐又或者我在形容自己﹐不過有緣人啊! 請你別憑我一面之詞就妄下結論。我在此虛心請求你能花費你寶貴的時間去閱遍整編討論﹐研究每個重點﹐然後用你的智慧作出一個客觀的結論。或許在你當中會有人感受到我的經歷。
mememe上。 **** 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽 **** [quote]Originally posted by [i]成班67on99[/i] at 2005-10-17 09:23:
正所謂『成班瓜玩上網，亂說一通當秘... [/quote]
你又返黎呀
多謝你既意見先
連板務區, 政治區
都有咁獨家既回應
真係難為左你
記住下次申請個「型」d既會員名啦
遲d見:) 呢度？ [quote]機密：
其實靜坐不一定要盤膝、交叉、跏趺而坐吧？因為我做不到，腳太易抽筋了。不過要找寧靜的地方就真的不易，因家中長期有人，我今早要5時起床才可以做一會兒數息。
念佛禪是否只是不斷念佛號？
左輪仔說可以在【滿天神論】內說啊，那麼我就不用再開主題了。
[/quote]
靜坐起初一定會腳痺，日子久了就不會。 克服怕腳痺都是訓練定力之方法，所以你不要怕。
不過老實說，靜坐不一定要盤膝、交叉、跏趺而坐，但這是最好的方法。
念佛禪是不斷念佛號，將佛號作為話頭來參，參他的來處。 我來這裏問問題啦~~~
大家今早有看報紙、電視、收音機嗎？又有學生因感情問題而自殺了，這類新聞，報紙每隔一段時間就會出現。
我想知道在佛教立場來說，自殺的人會怎樣？是否一定落地獄？不論生前做了多少好事、積了多少福德、功德，是否一旦選擇自殺就必定落地獄？如果是這樣的話，那麼以前的歷史人物，有些被稱為英雄的人他們有些為公正、尊嚴、不滿而自殺的人是否也要落地獄？例如屈原。
之前聽寬濟法師說，有一妓女死後，有人請法師幫她超渡，法師當時就看到她的腳板底是唯一有熱力的，即是說她要落地獄，於是不斷誦經，最後變成心臟有熱力，即代表下世可以做人。
那麼像今次的這對情侶學生，是否只要他們的家人請法師幫忙都可以令他們免除落地獄之劫？
寬濟法師說，人死後最後的熱力在天靈蓋，即代表xx(不記得)，在兩眉間的是生天，在心臟是生人，在xxxxxxx(這個不記得)，在膝蓋的是生餓鬼，在腳板底是地獄。(大約是這樣，有說錯請指點。) 可惜我已經上了好幾次靜坐班了，每次仍然會腳痺，現在靜坐班只剩餘2課了，你會來嗎？18日早上是阿彌陀佛誕，下午1時我又皈依啦，再重授。然後下午4時就上最後一課的靜坐班，你有時間就來呀。
是否學靜坐應該每天都做才有成果？因我是等到星期日有靜坐班才打坐的，在家有人很難做啊，又沒有「拜箭」。
不斷念佛號，是否無時無刻都念？只念一個佛號？
我是因情況而念不同佛號，有病念地藏菩薩，沒病就觀音菩薩，但有時又會改念阿彌陀佛。其實參禪即是做甚麼？昨晚在護生會胡居士就告訴我們要參禪。
另外他又說出他的觀音菩薩感應事件給我們聽，太神奇了，我大約告訴你。
他說以前是做紡織業的，那時未信佛，有次小學畢業旅行去了青山寺玩，在那裏遇到一比丘尼，她捉著他的手，給一本白色的書他，說叫他念，對你有用，原來是白衣大士神咒。(這裏我已經有問題了，為何只是給他而不給他其他同學？)
然後胡居士說覺得幾有趣，又好念，於是經常念。到他長大後，他說由於與上司關係好，上司又信他，於是給了一條鎖匙給他看，這條鎖匙可以開啟一個放有大量絲綢的房間，說當年絲綢比黃金還要值錢。
跟著不記得怎樣(我不記得)，他又信了佛，有一次他要去赤柱觀音寺(我以為只有大嶼山那個觀音寺)放焰口，又說那個年代很難學佛，亦不像現在一樣有人教你，所以單是學"讚"都很難，他說好比心機學，當時在中華佛教圖書館跟暢懷法師學，說學完回家搭巴士時還不斷念(清涼~~~~)應該是淨水讚吧？
到回家時(他住27樓(好像是))，才發現掉了鎖匙包，內有那條看絲綢的鎖匙)，他說好緊張地衝回巴士站找，當時是11時多，而且他說鬼影都無隻(幾十年前的香港晚上應該少人吧)，於是他在垃圾桶找，突然見到有隻人手伸向他面前，問他是否找這個？他一看竟然就是他的鎖匙包，他好高興地說是呀是呀~~~然後轉身離開，他說當時只是走了三步，因為想到這麼晚還有街坊在路上，還替他找到鎖匙包，所以一定要多謝，但一轉頭，那個人已經消失了，三步啊，怎樣跑及躲都不可能消失。所以他說是觀音菩薩幫他，因當日他去了放焰口，巴士上又念淨水讚，是無心之下掉了錢包的，所以得到幫助。
後來的事就不說了，因為太長了。 對了，再說一件事，又是胡居士說的，他說有位朋友(佛教徒)有晚回家時給人打劫，他立刻念"南無觀世音菩薩"，那個壞人竟然呆了一呆，然後走了。他說觀音真是靈驗。
不過胡居士說應該是因為中國人大多有信神佛，尤其是做"偏門"的，多數行動前會拜神的，而觀音菩薩在中國人的思想上是最熟悉的，可能如果你是念阿彌陀佛，那個壞人就沒有反應，但因為你念觀音菩薩，令他聽到想起因果，所以才不敢再打劫你。 另外胡居士再有說過，他說眾多人中，以佛教徒最執著，很奇怪啊，明明佛教說的是空、無我、無執，因為有執著是一定不能去西方淨土的，但偏偏就有。
他說我們經常念四弘誓願，但念時卻有煩惱，很多時都做不到，之前我都說過，他說我們發誓當吃生菜，要知道這個"因"是要我們去承擔的，我們向佛菩薩發了願、發了誓，就要做，不能空口說白話，就算做不到也不應該完全不做。
但他說佛教徒大多太執著，例如一些xx表，通常都會寫上某某捐了多少錢，他說只要當中寫漏一位人名，那個人就會向法師投訴，說為何自己的名稱沒有在上面？
之後又說說我家中的事，昨晚又因佛菩薩的事與媽媽吵鬧。
在我未信佛前家中電視機對上位置是一直放了一張泰國的「女麻女麻」在寺廟內拍的照，背景是釋迦牟尼佛像，而此畫像前就擺放一尊黃大仙的像，另一邊就是泰國佛。
在以前我沒甚麼感覺，但信佛後就不同了，知道這三尊神佛是不應該同時放在一起的，更加不能一起拜。
我又向媽媽說，她又說佛不是無分國界嗎？我說泰國佛是小乘的佛，實際只是神，她又罵我不准亂說話，又說泰國佛是佛，我說黃大仙呢？這個她無話說，所以隔天已經拿走了，但泰國佛仍然與釋迦佛放在一起，遲些我是會在那裏擺放觀音菩薩的畫像的啊，都不知怎樣做。
至於拜方面，因為我每天做早課時都會點香，由於桌子太細，香經常被我吸到，不舒服，所以才改為放在電視機上(即放釋迦佛的前面)，已經在幾天前開始這樣做，我雖然心是想著此香是供奉給各諸佛菩薩的，但擺在上面，豈不是變成連黃大仙、泰國佛都拜？因為佛教徒不可以拜佛菩薩以外的神啊。 [quote]Originally posted by [i]聖里斯[/i] at 2005-12-9 10:47:
我來這裏問問題啦~~~
大家今早有看... [/quote]
超度是有一定的效果，但其實仍要看那人生前的惡業有多大，法師以及家人的功德有多大。 但據地藏經所講，無論誰給亡者做超度，亡者所得的都只有1/7功德，其餘的6/7都是生人所得的。 所以佛都教我們要生前自己多做善業不做惡業。 其實超度的作用就只是將善種子種入亡者識田，以及做善業將功德回向給亡者，希望藉最後機會，在他輪回前由惡道超度上善道，善道者往生極樂，若生極樂者品位提高。
自殺即是犯下殺人之罪。 殺眾中除殺聖人、父母外，殺人是最大罪，且不論殺誰，殺人皆是不可悔罪。 同時，六道之中以人最有機會修行脫六道，所以殺人是最大罪。 但如果你是女子為保貞節而自殺、國家人民為保家國而作敢死隊等，你自殺就不單無罪而且有功。 但屈原不滿而自殺是否這類我就有疑問。
殺戒及自殺願炯法師以說得非常清楚，我不班門弄斧了。你有興趣就聽聽他的講座吧。
不殺戒與自殺 (願炯法師)
[url]http://www.poyin.net/yuantong2.php[/url]
其餘的今晚有時間才覆你，現在又要出門了。
[[i] Last edited by 機密 on 2005-12-9 at 04:38 PM [/i]]