聖經有話唔准講粗口咩?

「 淫 詞 、 妄 語 和 戲 笑 的 話 ， 都 不 相 宜 ， 總 要 說 感 謝 的 話 」 ( 以弗所書 5:4 )

外邦人唔受呢句約束?粗口唔係淫詞妄語?你有無睇上文下理?
聖經唔係次次都可照字面解,要人大釋法先知咩意思架

睇埋以弗所書5：3,唔排除耶徒間就唔可以用粗口對駡,但駡反耶同無神論可能得

聖經有話唔准講粗口咩?

「 淫 詞 、 妄 語 和 戲 笑 的 話 ， 都 不 相 宜 ， 總 要 說 感 謝 的 話 」 ( 以弗所書 5:4 )

外邦人唔受呢句約束?粗口唔係淫詞妄語?你有無睇上文下理?
聖經唔係次次都可照字面解,要人大釋法先知咩意思架

咁大鑊
咁淫詞妄語又有冇分善意同惡意
上一句係
「至 於 淫 亂 並 一 切 污 穢 ， 或 是 貪 婪 ， 在 你 們 中 間 連 題 都 不 可 ， 方 合 聖 徒 的 體 統」
我理解唔到點用呢句去理解下一句
呢句唔係叫耶向左走向右走唔好睇a片同打丁咩
淫 亂係咪又有分善意同惡意
希望呢兩句快d通過人大釋法咁我就唔洗靠估

conventional logic
layman就layman啦

再者，deity都唔係testable hypothesis
點同I can turn into an unicorn同I have a baseball類比？

癖?衄?蜁袧琌棉諳蜄?

☆ 窋 啅 ﹜ 咥 惤 睿  虷 腔 ? ㄛ 飲 祥 眈 皊 ㄛ ? 猁 挲 覜 珴 腔 ? ★ ( 眕艇垀 5:4 )

俋堊蜁忳儸曆廣旰?棉諳蜁窋啅咥惤?斕衄蕻奻恅狟燴?
癖?蜁棒棒飲褫桽趼醱賤,猁湮?楊珂眭蜄砩佷殤

湮鄮
窋啅咥惤衱衄煦囡砩肮砩
奻珨曆
☆祫 黺 窋   珨  拹 暖 ㄛ 麼 岆 ? 懋 ㄛ 婓 斕 ? 笢 嶲 窣 觳 飲 祥 褫 ㄛ 源 磁 癖 芺 腔 闚 緙★
扂燴賤蜁善蚚儸曆燴賤狟珨曆
儸曆蜁請珖蜁疑蕻a肮湖間蜄
窋 蛷衱衄煦囡砩肮砩
洷咡儸曆辦d籵綎湮?楊扂憩蜁炴蕞嘛

斕砑桶絻蜄ˋ

斕華堪庤眈芘蜁褫眕測桶扂飲
奧斕珖隴啞?珖?衄
笯衄彆斕橾譫斕耋斕褫蜁褫眕蜁?

泔
琌善帣蛷衱祥狟??
斕橾譫請斕?斕飲蜁?徽

斕蜁?斕橾譫?憩眕岍賜飲蜁?

斕橾譫琌媬斕飲?
侔綱斕?崚?昹咡珂徽

陔?毀珖燴菴珨棒?
秪橾譫陓ㄛ摽笒擒

斕賤庲扂橾譫琌媬扂飲?
?苤岈斕衄橾譫陑斕蜁?
斕華d珖珂酕腕堤儸d珧
筍彆橾譫扂諒扂紒腕扂硐夔釴善?琌
秪扂蜁砑諒砫蜁砑怮陑
祫黺?昹咡儸
扂橾譫衱蜁袙蛂扂請扂陓tvbuddy
奧?昹咡?暫
珖?珖?暫
媬飲朸暫祤砩
扂俇蜁隴
褫眕嶺鎚燮琌
瞳扥ㄩ模飲陓諒

斕砑桶絻蜄儸ˋ

隙菴1菴2菴4曆

蜁眭斕隙酘媬
珨曆琌葯
斕橾譫善斕蜁燊珖諒珖岈

扂橾譫彆陓酘珖諒
d珖諒眭舑?善燮
奧珖傻的嗎蜁燊珖諒岈
斕翍苺督妘?飲荌?苺餫徽
斕蛷毞淩善庲珖坋蜁淕堪珖諒挼

扂砑?晞?鎚賤珖褫眕琌棉諳
斕華蛷眒?眭耋赻撩邈華沬垀眕魁酘堤

斕砑桶絻蜄ˋ

聖經有話唔准講粗口咩?

「 淫 詞 、 妄 語 和 戲 笑 的 話 ， 都 不 相 宜 ， 總 要 說 感 謝 的 話 」 ( 以弗所書 5:4 )

外邦人唔受呢句約束?粗口唔係淫詞妄語?你有無睇上文下理?
聖經唔係次次都可照字面解,要人大釋法先知咩意思架

咁大鑊
咁淫詞妄語又有冇分善意同惡意
上一句係
「至 於 淫 亂 並 一 切 污 穢 ， 或 是 貪 婪 ， 在 你 們 中 間 連 題 都 不 可 ， 方 合 聖 徒 的 體 統」
我理解唔到點用呢句去理解下一句
呢句唔係叫耶向左走向右走唔好睇a片同打丁咩
淫 亂係咪又有分善意同惡意
希望呢兩句快d通過人大釋法咁我就唔洗靠估

The codes got all wrong....
so what do u want to prove here?

SAME
我唔係話唔信
不過冇理由我盲中中你叫我信就信
即係例如好似你係孤兒
特然有一日有一個男人行過黎同你講
我就係你老豆喇
你都唔會即刻信掛?
在我看來:人只係想有一個心靈歸宿而已

癖?衄?蜁袧琌棉諳蜄?

☆ 窋 啅 ﹜ 咥 惤 睿  虷 腔 ? ㄛ 飲 祥 眈 皊 ㄛ ? 猁 挲 覜 珴 腔 ? ★ ( 眕艇垀 5:4 )

俋堊蜁忳儸曆廣旰?棉諳蜁窋啅咥惤?斕衄蕻奻恅狟燴?
癖?蜁棒棒飲褫桽趼醱賤,猁湮?楊珂眭蜄砩佷殤

湮鄮
窋啅咥惤衱衄煦囡砩肮砩
奻珨曆
☆祫 黺 窋   珨 ピ 拹 暖 ㄛ 麼 岆 ? 懋 ㄛ 婓 斕 ? 笢 嶲 窣 觳 飲 祥 褫 ㄛ 源 磁 癖 芺 腔 闚 緙★
扂燴賤蜁善蚚儸曆燴賤狟珨曆
儸曆蜁請珖蜁疑蕻a肮湖間蜄
窋 蛷衱衄煦囡砩肮砩
洷咡儸曆辦d籵綎湮?楊扂憩蜁炴蕞嘛

斕砑桶絻蜄ˋ

可唔可以搵耶向左走向右走解讀完話我知咩黎

聖經有話唔准講粗口咩?

「 淫 詞 、 妄 語 和 戲 笑 的 話 ， 都 不 相 宜 ， 總 要 說 感 謝 的 話 」 ( 以弗所書 5:4 )

外邦人唔受呢句約束?粗口唔係淫詞妄語?你有無睇上文下理?
聖經唔係次次都可照字面解,要人大釋法先知咩意思架

咁大鑊
咁淫詞妄語又有冇分善意同惡意
上一句係
「至 於 淫 亂 並 一 切 污 穢 ， 或 是 貪 婪 ， 在 你 們 中 間 連 題 都 不 可 ， 方 合 聖 徒 的 體 統」
我理解唔到點用呢句去理解下一句
呢句唔係叫耶向左走向右走唔好睇a片同打丁咩
淫 亂係咪又有分善意同惡意
希望呢兩句快d通過人大釋法咁我就唔洗靠估

The codes got all wrong....
so what do u want to prove here?

有位巴打想討論下耶向左走向右走應唔應該講粗口
但係我地最快要人大釋法之後先會知結果

聖經有話唔准講粗口咩?

「 淫 詞 、 妄 語 和 戲 笑 的 話 ， 都 不 相 宜 ， 總 要 說 感 謝 的 話 」 ( 以弗所書 5:4 )

外邦人唔受呢句約束?粗口唔係淫詞妄語?你有無睇上文下理?
聖經唔係次次都可照字面解,要人大釋法先知咩意思架

咁大鑊
咁淫詞妄語又有冇分善意同惡意
上一句係
「至 於 淫 亂 並 一 切 污 穢 ， 或 是 貪 婪 ， 在 你 們 中 間 連 題 都 不 可 ， 方 合 聖 徒 的 體 統」
我理解唔到點用呢句去理解下一句
呢句唔係叫耶向左走向右走唔好睇a片同打丁咩
淫 亂係咪又有分善意同惡意
希望呢兩句快d通過人大釋法咁我就唔洗靠估

我x佢老母唔係代表我同佢老母上床淫亂喎,而且上面講過「你們中間不可」又未必代表對外人唔得,
耶經博大精深,至少要有神學博士學位先理解到架

SAME
我唔係話唔信
不過冇理由我盲中中你叫我信就信
即係例如好似你係孤兒
特然有一日有一個男人行過黎同你講
我就係你老豆喇
你都唔會即刻信掛?
在我看來:人只係想有一個心靈歸宿而已

如果拉登行埋黎話係我老豆,就梗係唔信,如果係李嘉誠,why not?你又唔會有損失

conventional logic
layman就layman啦

再者，deity都唔係testable hypothesis
點同I can turn into an unicorn同I have a baseball類比？

所以唔可以話回教係錯

conventional logic
layman就layman啦

再者，deity都唔係testable hypothesis
點同I can turn into an unicorn同I have a baseball類比？

所以唔可以話回教係錯

所以唔可以話道教係錯

如果真係信主會得救 唔信真係會落地獄
問你地會唔會後悔就實話唔後悔 係自己抵死架啦
但神叫人要去傳福音 救返世界個D不信既人
我自己覺得唔同人會有唔同方式去叫人信
有D的確係幾煩 但若果件事係真既 呢D人真係實踐緊愛

利申︰信耶穌

唔緊要,陪番佢講洪秀全,穆罕默德,哪吒同關二哥,佢地就會癲

First, like I said, "I have a baseball" and "There is a God" are not analogous because the former has testable implication (e.g. you can check his pocket etc.) while the second one does not. Therefore, your comics mean nothing. You can try understand what I am saying or you can keep getting high about your brilliant arguments and ignore everything against them, your choice.

Second, I can't believe you still asking 洪秀全,穆罕默德,哪吒同關二哥 those things and expect that is going to support your argument. I am just gonna say it one more time, if you dun understand, its fine but I am pretty sure what I am gonna say now is right:
On the issue of whether God exists, there are three philosophical stances (let's say 3 for the sake of simplicity) :
1. Theism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism
These people argue for the existence of God
2. Atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
These people argue there isn't a deity.
3. Agnosticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
These peoeple think the answer of the question whether there is a God is unknown or unknowable. This is a local form of skepticism in contrast with the global skepticism which doubts the possibility of acquisition of any knowledge.

Let's make my standpoint very clear: philosophically, I am a agnoticism because I am fully aware of the untestable nature of deity but religiously I believe or choose to believe in God.

I personally hold that agnosticism is a better theory because to me deity is quite clearly an untestable concept and therefore whoever say there definitely or they have proven that there IS or ISNT God is just wrong to me providing that the arguments from theists and atheists are not particularly convincing neither.

However, religiouslyI believe in God, and it there is no contradiction to agnosticism because you can believe/ bet on whether there is God and at the same time admit that the answer is not to be known. Please try to understand that, although there are only 2 possible outcomes for the question whether there is God, the views on the question can be more than 3, including the view of agnosticism.

Moreover, not only does believing in God does not contradict with agnosticism but also reasonable in general because 1) people always believe in things they are not sure about (eg I believe all dogs have 4 legs even I have never seen all dogs from the past, present and future) 2) no one has successfully proven God does not exist 3) belief may not be absolutely true but it cannot be absolutely wrong.

I don't know what evangelical people you met in the past but this is at least what I think and please trying to associate Chrisitians with lack of logic and intelligence or whatever. It is an informed choice we make, may not even be a good one but it is real jerk to criticize abt what others believe when you yourselves cant even proof those things non-existing. And stop using those 洪秀全,穆罕默德,哪吒同關二哥 examples because like I said you have every right to believe what you want to and I am not sure you are wrong, although I believe you are. Bottomline, please dont feel cocky about yrselves as these examples are not helping your case actually if you think harder.

conventional logic
layman憩layman徽

婬氪ㄛdeity飲蜁testable hypothesis
肮I can turn into an unicorn肮I have a baseball?掀ˋ

垀眕蜁褫眕?隙諒嶒

垀眕蜁褫眕?耋諒嶒

ㄐ蜁褫眕?嶒
筍斕褫眕蜁陓

唔緊要,陪番佢講洪秀全,穆罕默德,哪吒同關二哥,佢地就會癲

First, like I said, "I have a baseball" and "There is a God" are not analogous because the former has testable implication (e.g. you can check his pocket etc.) while the second one does not. Therefore, your comics mean nothing. You can try understand what I am saying or you can keep getting high about your brilliant arguments and ignore everything against them, your choice.

Second, I can't believe you still asking 洪秀全,穆罕默德,哪吒同關二哥 those things and expect that is going to support your argument. I am just gonna say it one more time, if you dun understand, its fine but I am pretty sure what I am gonna say now is right:
On the issue of whether God exists, there are three philosophical stances (let's say 3 for the sake of simplicity) :
1. Theism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism
These people argue for the existence of God
2. Atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
These people argue there isn't a deity.
3. Agnosticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
These peoeple think the answer of the question whether there is a God is unknown or unknowable. This is a local form of skepticism in contrast with the global skepticism which doubts the possibility of acquisition of any knowledge.

Let's make my standpoint very clear: philosophically, I am a agnoticism because I am fully aware of the untestable nature of deity but religiously I believe or choose to believe in God.

可唔可以搵耶向左走向右走解讀完話我知咩黎

conventional logic
layman就layman啦

再者，deity都唔係testable hypothesis
點同I can turn into an unicorn同I have a baseball類比？

所以唔可以話回教係錯

所以唔可以話道教係錯

Yes! You are absolutely right
One one can prove they are wrong or don't exist
But you can choose not to believe in them
thats all I said for the whole time

conventional logic
layman憩layman徽

婬氪ㄛdeity飲蜁testable hypothesis
肮I can turn into an unicorn肮I have a baseball?掀ˋ

垀眕蜁褫眕?隙諒嶒

垀眕蜁褫眕?耋諒嶒

ㄐ蜁褫眕?嶒
筍斕褫眕蜁陓

標塔座窯之[喜之趣之璧

如果真係信主會得救 唔信真係會落地獄
問你地會唔會後悔就實話唔後悔 係自己抵死架啦
但神叫人要去傳福音 救返世界個D不信既人
我自己覺得唔同人會有唔同方式去叫人信
有D的確係幾煩 但若果件事係真既 呢D人真係實踐緊愛

利申︰信耶穌

Then they will start ask you to prove God exist
if you can't prove then they will jump to the conclusion that God doesnt exist and the evangelical peopel are wasting their valuable time

唔緊要,陪番佢講洪秀全,穆罕默德,哪吒同關二哥,佢地就會癲

First, like I said, "I have a baseball" and "There is a God" are not analogous because the former has testable implication (e.g. you can check his pocket etc.) while the second one does not. Therefore, your comics mean nothing. You can try understand what I am saying or you can keep getting high about your brilliant arguments and ignore everything against them, your choice.

Second, I can't believe you still asking 洪秀全,穆罕默德,哪吒同關二哥 those things and expect that is going to support your argument. I am just gonna say it one more time, if you dun understand, its fine but I am pretty sure what I am gonna say now is right:
On the issue of whether God exists, there are three philosophical stances (let's say 3 for the sake of simplicity) :
1. Theism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism
These people argue for the existence of God
2. Atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
These people argue there isn't a deity.
3. Agnosticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
These peoeple think the answer of the question whether there is a God is unknown or unknowable. This is a local form of skepticism in contrast with the global skepticism which doubts the possibility of acquisition of any knowledge.

Let's make my standpoint very clear: philosophically, I am a agnoticism because I am fully aware of the untestable nature of deity but religiously I believe or choose to believe in God.

可唔可以搵耶向左走向右走解讀完話我知咩黎

乜你唔識英文？

SAME
我唔係話唔信
不過冇理由我盲中中你叫我信就信
即係例如好似你係孤兒
特然有一日有一個男人行過黎同你講
我就係你老豆喇
你都唔會即刻信掛?
在我看來:人只係想有一個心靈歸宿而已

如果拉登行埋黎話係我老豆,就梗係唔信,如果係李嘉誠,why not?你又唔會有損失

咁就係另一個問題喇
諗清楚,如果你睇利益先認老豆
咁樣你係認"錢"做老豆
唔係認"李嘉誠"做老豆喎
就係呢個諗法,先出左好多所謂"假耶向左走向右走"
番教會,就係諗把住去"玩下","識下朋友","死左唔洗落地獄"等等,呢D咁既念頭
到頭來,自己認識唔到福音又影衰D正直既耶向左走向右走

唔緊要,陪番佢講洪秀全,穆罕默德,哪吒同關二哥,佢地就會癲

First, like I said, "I have a baseball" and "There is a God" are not analogous because the former has testable implication (e.g. you can check his pocket etc.) while the second one does not. Therefore, your comics mean nothing. You can try understand what I am saying or you can keep getting high about your brilliant arguments and ignore everything against them, your choice.

Second, I can't believe you still asking 洪秀全,穆罕默德,哪吒同關二哥 those things and expect that is going to support your argument. I am just gonna say it one more time, if you dun understand, its fine but I am pretty sure what I am gonna say now is right:
On the issue of whether God exists, there are three philosophical stances (let's say 3 for the sake of simplicity) :
1. Theism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism
These people argue for the existence of God
2. Atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
These people argue there isn't a deity.
3. Agnosticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
These peoeple think the answer of the question whether there is a God is unknown or unknowable. This is a local form of skepticism in contrast with the global skepticism which doubts the possibility of acquisition of any knowledge.

Let's make my standpoint very clear: philosophically, I am a agnoticism because I am fully aware of the untestable nature of deity but religiously I believe or choose to believe in God.

可唔可以搵耶向左走向右走解讀完話我知咩黎

乜你唔識英文？

By the way it is not theology per se, it is more like skepticism of philosophy so stop being a jerk like you do to the Christians