Zouti pou teste ki sa nan Bib la ki pawòl Bondye

Post Reply
Gelin_

Post by Gelin_ » Tue Nov 01, 2005 4:09 pm

Zouti nimewo 1: pale de bagay ki pral rive anvan yo rive</B>

Bibla gen 2 kalte pawòl ladann sou kesyon listwa. Li gen bagay ki te pase deja (anpil nan yo verifye avèk akeoloji pa ekzanp), e li gen bagay ki gen pou vini (sa yo rele pwofesi yo). Sou kesyon bagay ki rive deja yo, yo ekri nan bibla apre yo te fin rive, e nan moun ki te ekri yo a gen ladan yo ki te pase tès (pa nan men moun) anvan pou moun te arive kwè ke kreyatè a te pale ak yo tout bon vre.

Yon ekzanp se lè moyiz tal di wa faraon pou l lage pèp izraèl paske se sa bondye te vle. Repons wa faraon te bay la te senp: ki lès ki bondye a pou m ta obeyi l la? Lè sa a, moyiz te oblije montre l pouvwa moun ki voye l - nan di kisa ki pral rive, kijan ak poukisa yo pral rive :

<I>Seyè a di Moyiz konsa: - Ale bò kot farawon an, w'a di l': Men sa Seyè a, Bondye pèp ebre a, voye di ou: Kite pèp mwen an ale pou yo ka fè sèvis pou mwen. Si ou derefize kite yo ale, si ou
kenbe yo toujou, <U>men sak pral rive</U>…(Egzòd 9:1-2).</I>

Pi devan, li ekri ke tout bagay sa yo te rive vre e esklav yo te rive jwenn libète yo.

Aprè anpil anpil ane pase, te vin gen yon diskisyon ant 2 pwofèt ki tap pale nan non bondye, men ki pat dakò youn ak lòt. Youn te rele Jeremi, lòt la te rele Ananya. Men kijan diskisyon an te fini:

<I>Apre sa, pwofèt Jeremi di pwofèt Ananya konsa: -Koute byen, Ananya! Se pa Seyè a ki te voye ou di sa, tande. Ou twonpe konfyans pèp la. Se sa ki fè men sa Seyè a di: Li pral disparèt ou sou latè. Anvan lanne an bout, w'ap mouri, paske ou pouse pèp la pou l' te kenbe tèt ak Seyè a! <U>Menm lanne an vre, nan setyèm mwa a, pwofèt Ananya mouri</U> (Jeremi 28 :15-17).</I>

Bagay sa yo te bay youn nan fason pou etabli ‘kredibilite' moun ki te di ke yap pale nan non kreyatè a – kit se te ak yon moun ki pat kwè (wa Faraon), kit se te ak yon fo pwofèt (Ananya). Moyiz te ekri liv, e Jeremi te ekri liv tou.

Menm tès sa a ka itilize jodi a p
ou moun ki di ke yap pale nan non kreyatè a.

gelin

Gelin_

Post by Gelin_ » Wed Nov 02, 2005 11:05 am

Byenke sa m pral ekri la a ontijan diferan de sa kap diskite a, men pawòl leonel yo fè m sonje on lòt kize.

[quote]...Jan bagay la ye la, gen lE li pi bon pou mal nan lanfE. Paske, se la plezi yo ye. Paradi ya sanble l trE boring...[/quote]
Kisa ou panse de refleksyon (jis pou n amize n) Blaise Pascal te fè yo? Sa rele "le pari de pascal, pascal's wager":

[quote]If you erroneously believe in God, you lose nothing (assuming that death is the absolute end), whereas if you correctly believe in God, you gain everything (eternal bliss). But if you correctly disbelieve in God, you gain nothing (death ends all), whereas if you erroneously disbelieve in God, you lose everything (eternal damnation).[/quote]

gelin

User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2152
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 7:03 pm

Post by admin » Wed Nov 02, 2005 11:31 am

You call it " Pascal's wager" . I call it "the basis of christian faith" .

But, let's get back to the topic. You reviewed "Zouti nimewo 1" (which I would call the "Nostradamus" or "Antwan Nan Gomye" factor). I am looking forward to " Zouti nimewo 2".

Gelin_

Post by Gelin_ » Wed Nov 02, 2005 11:55 am

[quote]You call it " Pascal's wager" . I call it "the basis of christian faith"...[/quote]
Two things, Guy:

1-I am not the one who called it that way.
2-Pascal's wager cannot be seen as the basis of christian faith, as you put it, and here is why: a) the basis of christian faith was established long before even pascal's parents were born. Pascal himself lived from 1623 to 1662. b) this kind of reasoning can apply to most religious faiths, including islam and judaism.

[quote]But, let's get back to the topic. You reviewed "Zouti nimewo 1" (which I would call the "Nostradamus" or "Antwan Nan Gomye" factor). I am looking forward to " Zouti nimewo 2".[/quote]
Yes, it's a lot like Antwan nan gomye or nostradamus. If I remember well, even in our culture, a hougan/manbo who cannot "connect" with the unseen (if you will) and show evidence for it (relative evidence) is bo
und to fail in the profession or at least remain "dèyè manman", ti hougan, ti manbo elatriye. The point is if you claim to be connected to some higher power/authority, there must be some evidence for it. Otherwise, you are just a fake, or something like that. Especially true in matters of faith and religion.

Zouti nimewo 2 will come soon.

gelin

User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2152
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 7:03 pm

Post by admin » Thu Nov 03, 2005 2:37 am

[quote]1-I am not the one who called it that way. [/quote]
Of course, Gelin! I have known about that wager for a long time. I was in the Seminary, you see. Anyway, when I said "you call it...," do not take me so literally (like a good fundamentalist christian).

[quote]2-Pascal's wager cannot be seen as the basis of christian faith, as you put it, and here is why: a) the basis of christian faith was established long before even pascal's parents were born. Pascal himself lived from 1623 to 1662.[/quote]
Gelin, Pascal did not invent that so-called wager. He merely expressed it in literary terms that made it easily digestible and memorable. However, when I said that "Pascal's wager is the basis of christian faith", this has absolutely nothing to do with when pascal was born and when he died. I was of course referring to the thought embedded in "Pascal's wager" (Le Pari de P
ascal). Don't you think that since time immemorial, anyone who has believed in the eteranl after-life was able to make consciously or subconsciously the same bet?

You see, you [guys] at times interpret someone's writings to the letter, but when contradictions appear in the Bible, great leaps in interpretation are performed to reconcile them and of course, submit to the inerrancy of the Book.

Then the inerrancy becomes "factual" [what else could it be, Tayi?] Since the inerrancy is unchallengeable, it remains obviously unchallenged even after all the study (or some would say "mental acrobatics" with a pre-determined objective).

[quote]b) this kind of reasoning can apply to most religious faiths, including islam and judaism. [/quote]
True that! I did not mean to imply that it applied to christianity exclusively.

Bon, Gelin, mwen gen yon bèl ti kesyon pou ou. Mwen te kontan wè jan ou sèvi ak premye zouti a. Men yon bagay ki dwòl, ou sèvi ak zouti a nan
yon sèl sans. Zouti sa sanble ak yon machin ki kab vire adwat, men li pa kab vire agoch. Ou pa site okenn egzanp kote yon moun kab sèvi ak zouti sa pou detèmine ki pawòl nan Bib la ki pa pawòl Bondye vre.

Monchè mwen sispèk zouti sa. Sanble se nan sèvis "inerrancy" sèlman li rete.

Gelin_

Post by Gelin_ » Thu Nov 03, 2005 10:33 am

[quote]...Kesyon m'gen pou ou: Eske-w kwè Moyiz te pase tès lan toutbon? Daprè sa nou li nan menm bib la, Moyiz te kenbe tèt ak Bondye tou; misye te menm frappe pye-l sou Seyè-a; nan kòlè-l li te mande Seyè a pouki li vle lage tout chay sa-a sou do-l… Nou jwenn Seyè a te bay Moyiz madichon pou li pa mete bòt ansanglante-l yo sou tè li te promèt pèp li an...[/quote]
Se vre ke moyiz te fè grandizè e se sa ki lakoz li pat rive ap pèp la nan peyi kote yo tap ale a. Moyiz te soti ak yo an ejip men li pat rive ak yo kanaan paske li te manke moun li tap sèvi a twòp dega. Ou pa ka mòde dwèt kap ba w manje.

Istwa lanmò moyiz la ka montre tou ke se kreyatè a ki te konn di l ki sa k pral rive, e se pat pwòp kapasite moyiz ki te fè l wè lwen, pi lwen pase rès pèp la. Menm kreyatè ki pale ak youn moun nan, menm kreyatè sa a ka fache ak menm moun sa a pidevan si li derespekte l twòp. Se konsa istwa a ye.

[quote]Youn nan mirak ki pa fè fyète kretyen, Moyiz te ekri liv esplike kijan-l te mouri. (Viv Bondye Aba relijyon!)[/quote]
Moyiz te gen sekretè (scribes) avèk asistan avèk li. youn ladan yo sete jozye ki te vin ranplase l apre l mouri...

[quote]M'pral jete you kout je sou sa Jeremi te di sou Ananyas. Antouka pou nou ta fè you bon jijman fò nou ta konn sa ki te nan tèt Ananyas (li pa-t ekri liv, podyab).[/quote]
Daprè jan bagay la ekri a, kesyon an se pa tèlman kisa k tap pase nan tèt ananya (ananyas se yon lòt moun). Kesyon an se eske kreyatè a tap pale ak jeremi oubyen ak ananya...?

gelin

Gelin_

Post by Gelin_ » Fri Nov 04, 2005 11:16 am

[quote][quote]1-I am not the one who called it that way. [/quote]
Of course, Gelin! I have known about that wager for a long time. <u>I was in the Seminary, you see</u>...[/quote]
Ou tande de koze mesye!!! Kifè la a, Guy, yon gwo koze konsa ou gen lekouraj kenbe l sekrè jiskaprezan..:-) Kase moso ban mwen non....

gelin

User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2152
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 7:03 pm

Post by admin » Fri Nov 04, 2005 12:18 pm

Gelin, mwen tap chache kouman pou mwen di " Juvenat" an angle, mwen pa te kab panse a li tout suit. Men mwen te pase dezan nan Jivena Petyonvil nan lide pou mwen vini yon frE yon jou (pa yon pE). Mwen te sibi dezan lavaj sEvo, men manman mwen se moun ki te toujou ankouraje m pou m devlope yon espri kritik. Mwen fini pa wE lavaj sEvo a pou sa li te ye a, epi mwen krazerak.

Mwen regrEt mwen te itilize mo "seminE" a, men se paske mwen pa te konnen mo ki apwoprye a an angle pou Mezon Lavaj sEvo Timoun ki anvi sEvi Bondye tankou frE Enstriksyon KretyEn yo ki te pran tEt mwen alepOk. Men zafE pari Pascal la, se youn nan zo pwason yo pa te manke lage nan gOj nou ak anpil lOt zo pwason ankO. Erezman mwen pa te fin tounen zonbi nEt. Mwen pito lougawou toujou.

Gelin_

Post by Gelin_ » Fri Nov 04, 2005 4:56 pm

[quote]...Men zafE pari Pascal la, se youn nan zo pwason yo pa te manke lage nan gOj nou ak anpil lOt zo pwason ankO. Erezman mwen pa te fin tounen zonbi nEt. Mwen pito lougawou toujou.[/quote]
Mèsi tonton...:-)

Sou koze pari pascal la, moun kap fè rechèch syantifik toujou itilize menm rezonman sa a lè yap teste 2 ipotèz pou yon rechèch. Se sak fè yo pale de erè 1 ak erè 2 (types 1 and 2 errors) nan zafè fè rechèch. Se yon bon rezonman li ye, e menm si ou retire kesyon bondye ak lavi etènèl la ladan fòmil la bon anpil pou balanse risk ak benefis nenpòt ki gwo desizyon on nonm ka gen pou w pran.

Kenbe la,

gelin

User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2152
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 7:03 pm

Post by admin » Fri Nov 04, 2005 9:32 pm

Pardon me, Gelin, I know that you are a man of science (and Pascal certainly was too) but there is nothing scientific about Pascal's wager.

Let's examine it in detail, so I can show that it is in fact a leaky bucket.

A. If you erroneously believe in God, you lose nothing (assuming that death is the absolute end)

The first hypothesis says that you believe in God but God does not exist. Then you die, and you lose nothing. The big understated assumption here is that there cannot be an afterlife if God (most certainly meaning the Biblical God) does not exist. But if the biblical God does not exist, it does not follow necessarily that there is not an afterlife. Some people believe in reincarnation for example, without any faith in the biblical God. And what if in a different divinity system, you would be penalized in the afterlife for believing in the biblical God? Then you would certainly lose your shirt, Gelin!

I am
not trying to tell you what I believe or do not believe. I am just demonstrating to you that this logic does not meet the rigorous logical standard most sciences require (at least the physical sciences) because there are all sorts of unproven assumptions built in the premise.

B. whereas if you correctly believe in God, you gain everything (eternal bliss).

The second hypothesis says that you believe in God and God does exist. Then you die, and you gain everything.

Again, the conclusion is not truly mandated by the premise. The biblical God may exist (because whenever you say "God", that's all you really are thinking of, Gelin) and he may say to you after your death: "Don't hold me to all the promises made in that wild book you attributed to me. I hardly can recognize myself in it, since you distorted my nature so much for not having the capacity to truly comprehend it. In fact, because you were gullible enough to believe all those lies they said about me, I'll give you one mor
e chance by sending you back to earth. Next time, I will not be so clement. In fact, I may just get angry, very angry, and then you'll lose everything.

Eternal bliss? You have figured it all wrong!

C. But if you correctly disbelieve in God, you gain nothing (death ends all)

The third hypothesis says that you do not believe in God and God does not exist. Then you die, and you gain nothing.

Not necessarily. Suppose that there is another divinity system that rewards you with eternal bliss for not believing in the biblical God. Then you will have gained everything.

D. whereas if you erroneously disbelieve in God, you lose everything (eternal damnation).

The fourth hypothesis says that you do not believe in God but God does exist.

Yes, in this case, God does exist but the idea of eternal damnation is anathema to him. He does not believe that his creation could come up with such a crazy idea. In fact, he does not believe in any sort of damnation. He says:
Gelin, let your brother in, because he is poorer in spirit in you are. I goofed when I made him. In fact, I am going to reward him by giving him your place next to me. Hurry up and let Bouli and Jaf sit to my left and my right, and go look out for Guy. Thank you, Gelin. Now you've done such a good job, I want you to go out and look for all of your brothers and sisters who were poorer in spirit than you are. You've already been blessed, my son. I don't need to give you anything more. Keep searching...


My point is Gelin, the whole argument is couched in deeply held assumptions about the nature of "God". When you examine the argument, based on those standards, it certainly appears to make sense. But the "logical truth" of the matter is that the conclusions that a) "you gain nothing" and b) "you gain eternal bliss" and c) "you gain eternal damnation" are purely based on faith, your faith and your understanding of "God" which certainly are not universal.

I am not saying that you are
not "right". I am saying that your wager (all right, all right, "Pascal's wager") is not conclusive scientifically or otherwise. It is still based on your absolute faith in the inerrancy of the biblical texts and your personal concept of God.

Anacaona_

Post by Anacaona_ » Fri Nov 04, 2005 11:28 pm

About Pascal wager, I have to say that I agree with the way that Gelin presented it. When I first read it on the forum, the first thing that came to my mind was type I and type II error. I did not want to say anything because I did not see how to connect it to the religious discussion. However, now, I felt that I have to add something.

Gelin wrote:
[quote]Sou koze pari pascal la, moun kap fè rechèch syantifik toujou itilize menm rezonman sa a lè yap teste 2 ipotèz pou yon rechèch. Se sak fè yo pale de erè 1 ak erè 2 (types 1 and 2 errors) nan zafè fè rechèch...[/quote]
And Guy repplied:
[quote]Pardon me, Gelin, I know that you are a man of science (and Pascal certainly was too) but there is nothing scientific about Pascal's wager.[/quote]
He then split pascal's wager into four hypotheses. And that is why i decided to add something.
Personnaly, I do not see four hypotheses in
the wager. I have been able to identify 2.
1. Do not believe in God!
2. Believe in God!

Then, there are consequenses in testing the hypothesis as we would say in statistics. Now, if someone correctly believe in God (i.e. 1 is true and 1 is picked), then the decision is right. On the other hand, if 1 is picked, but 2 is true, then you have a type II error. If 2 is picked, but 1 is true, you have a type I error (Significance/confidence of the test). And lastly, if 2 is picked and 2 is right, then the decision is right.

Statisticians usually say that type I and II errors should be kept small because there is a need for a high statistical power (power = 1-type II) and others should be able to replicate the analysis (high significance level).

So, the result in the wager is truly based on faith as you said. However, the reasoning behind it is truly useful in scientific research.

Anacaona!

User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2152
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 7:03 pm

Post by admin » Sat Nov 05, 2005 8:06 am

Hi Anacaona! Though I can relate to your argument for having studied statistical methods as well, I would hate to turn the discussion into some sort of jargon that only Applied Mathematics majors could understand. That's why I chose to break down Pascal's wager into what it fundamentally is: a four-way logic truth table.

In this particular analysis, the type I and II errors hardly apply because we are not dealing with statistical sampling. We have two sets of discrete events that are (reasonably) mutually exclusive, within the sets themselves: I [a) you believe in God OR b) you do not believe in God] AND II [a) God exists OR b) God does not exists]. Then you draw the (supposedly logical) inferences of the cross-product of those two sets. That is to me a lot closer to functional analysis than to statistical sampling! Wouldn't you say?

What I really tried to show however is that even if you applied statistical reasoning, the con
clusions would be far from convincing because of the heavy assumptions built in the inferential process. You come up with assumed relationships between "God" (which is not universal in concept) and an afterlife (which is neither universal in concept). Based on Pascal's restricted concepts of God and the afterlife, his argument carries a lot of weight -- of course (God is heavy!) Pascal knew it, because he was one of the great analytical minds. However, for the same reasons that I exposed, I believe that René Descartes would have told him: "Not so fast, buddy!"

The religious and cultural assumptions in Pascal's wager simply take his argument out of the scientific realm. Step away from those assumptions and you can clearly see that it falls apart (mathematically speaking). Can one loosely relate his reasoning to hypothesis testing in statistical sampling, the way you have done? Sure, one can. But what does that show, other than a free mental association?

[quote]So, the
result in the wager is truly based on faith as you said. However, the reasoning behind it is truly useful in scientific research.[/quote]
Thank you for that! Believe me, I did not set out to show that the reasoning behind Pascal's wager could not be useful in scientific research. That was not my point, and I think you understand that. My point is exactly what you stated: "the result of the wager is truly based on faith".

<center>==================================================</center>
By the way, Anacaona, did you know about the widespread belief in scientific circles at one time that if you let out some rancid flour in a basement, mixed with some old woman's clothes that spontaneous creation would happen in the form of mice, worms, and other creatures?

Let's be wary of "false friends" when applying faith to science or science to faith. The results could be ideologically unsound and socially tragic.

Jonas
Posts: 238
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 11:53 am

Post by Jonas » Sat Nov 05, 2005 10:39 am

Pascal and Fermat in 1654 laid down the principles of the theory of probability, his "wager" was a way in which he was trying to reconcile his scientific pursuits to his religious pursuits.

Remember we were in the first half of the 17th century, when the Inquisition was still lurking.

Remember too that Blaise Pascal had uttered such thoughts as:

"It is the heart which perceives God and not the reason.

"To deny, to believe, and to doubt well are to a man as the race is to a horse.

"Reason is the slow and tortuous method by which those who do not know the truth, discover it.

If the argument of PASCAL is worth anything, it is a claim for religious tolerance.

This argument should apply equally to any religion which promises eternal happiness to those who accept its doctrines.

Gelin_

Post by Gelin_ » Sat Nov 05, 2005 10:42 am

Oh Man! I didn't want to go that far with Pascal's wager, but I am really delighted with Guy and Anacaona. I brought it up in the first place to tease leonel for saying that he would pick hell voluntarilly.

Another aspect of the question is that according to the bible itself not everyone who believes in (the biblical) God will actually be saved at the end. But that's a whole different point.

Kenbe la,

PS Anacaona, your silence does do us any good here...:-)

gelin

Gelin_

Post by Gelin_ » Mon Nov 07, 2005 12:46 pm

M ap eseye bay kèk repons sou kesyon zouti # 1 an, jan m te prezante l piwò a.

[quote]M'kontan wè ou kenbe pwomès ou. Pou premye tès lan ou dakò moun verifye yo ak zouti lasyans you bò. <U>You lòt bò ou pa kite moun pwoche. M'reziye-m pran-l konsa tou.</U>[/quote]
M pa fin konprann sa w vle di a, Bouli. Pale piklè epi si m kapab m a ba w yon repons sou kijan m wè kesyon an. An atandan, gen 2 bagay: a) li posib pou akeyològ dekouvri tras sodòm oubyen jeriko paske se te vil vizib ke yo te ye lontan; b) li pa posib pou akeyòg dekouvri lafwa Lòt oubyen Jozye paske tou senpleman sa pa posib.

[quote]Bon, Gelin, mwen gen yon bèl ti kesyon pou ou. Mwen te kontan wè jan ou sèvi ak premye zouti a. Men yon bagay ki dwòl, ou sèvi ak zouti a nan yon sèl sans. Zouti sa sanble ak yon machin ki kab vire adwat, men li pa kab vire agoch. <U>Ou pa site okenn egzanp kote yon moun kab sèvi ak zouti sa p
ou detèmine ki pawòl nan Bib la ki pa pawòl Bondye vre.</U>[/quote]
Gen anpil ekzanp, e goumen jeremi te fè ak lòt pwofèt yo te rele ananya a se te youn nan yo. Gen anpil ekzanp ni nan ansyen kontra ni nan nouvo kontra a. Okontre (daprè listwa Bibla) Bondye li menm menm te di ke se yon gwo tès pou konnen eskè se li vre ki voye yon moun pale nan non l.

[quote]Guy pwoblèm fondamantal ki genyen la a, sèke zouti sa a "Pale de bagay ki pral rive anvan yo rive" a se yon zouti ki fèt ak yon kokennchenn defo fabrik paske menm lè pwofèt la lage pwofesi li nan lari a, limenm ankò, li fè konnen bagay yo ka chanje - selon sikonstans yo. Bondye gen dwa chanje lide li. Poudayè, se li sèl ki granmoun. Kidonk, tout jan se nou ki bannann ![/quote]
M pa konn sa a. Se pa konsa m wè l nan liv la.

Pa ekzanp si se yon pwofesi pou yon moun/pèp repanti ak chanje kondwit li pou sispann fè sa ki mal, anpil fwa pawòl la konn di yo " men sa kap rive si yo pa chanje. " Nòmalman
si yo chanje, deblozay ki te pale a pa rive yo.

M pa konn si Jonas ka vin ak kèk ekzanp pou nou nan lòt relijyon oubyen "liv sakre", men zafè pale de yon bagay anvan l rive a se youn nan gwo eleman ki bay Bibla enpòtans li pou moun ki vle etidye l.

Nan nouvo kontra, yo rakonte ke Jezikri pou kont pa l te chita anpil sou sa ki te ekri anvan l yo, ni sou lavi l ni sou lanmò l:

<I>...Epi li [Jezi] di yo: Men sa m' t'ap di nou an lè m' te la avèk nou toujou a. Tou sa ki te ekri sou mwen nan lalwa Moyiz la, nan Liv pwofèt yo, menm nan sòm yo, fòk tou sa te rive.</I>

gelin

Gelin_

Post by Gelin_ » Mon Nov 14, 2005 5:24 pm

Zouti nimewo 2 : travay avèk siy oubyen mirak ki soti bò kot bondye</B>

Nou toujou anndan bibla…

Youn nan bagay ki montre ke yon moun gen kontak ak kreyatè a, oubyen ap pale vrèman pou li, se lè gen anpil bagay dwòl (tankou siy yak mirak) ki rive nan travay ke l ap fè a.

Sa te rive nan lavi moyiz, sa te rive nan lavi anpil ansyen pwofèt, li te rive nan lavi jezirki, e li menm te rive nan lavi apot yo ak anpil lòt sèvitè bondye. Men pou ki rezon ki fè ke bagay sa yo te enpòtan nan tan yo:
<I>Disip yo pati, y' al anonse Bon Nouvèl la toupatou. Seyè a t'ap travay ansanm ak yo: Anmenmtan li t'ap fè anpil mirak tou <U>pou moutre sa yo t'ap di a se vre</U>. (Mak 16 :20).</I>

Menmjan ak zouti # 1 an, siy ak mirak vin konfime ke sa ki tap pale a se te vre. Makònen 2 zouti sa yo ansanm, epi w a wè poukisa mesaj jezikri a te gen anpil siksè konsa a lè l te fèt kòmanse.

gelin

Leonel JB

Post by Leonel JB » Tue Nov 15, 2005 5:32 am

Mesye, eskize m. KOm se mwen ki pi kreten nan klas sa. Mwen mande eskiz davans. Paske, mwen pa wE klE menm nan tou lE de zouti ke frE nou Gelin prezante yo? Mwen bwE pwa.
Gelin, banm on ti limyE souple. Kisa ki bon nouvEl la? Poukisa on kreyatE si puisan konsa oblije gen on pakEt difikilte pou l eksprime pou tout moun kapab konprann? Poukisa se seleksyone lap seleksyone moun ki pou pote BON NOUVEL banou? Nimewo sekrE ke KReyatE a bay ak Pitit li yo oudimwen ak pitit li panse ki kapab konprann li an pou kominike ake li a, se yon ak on kreyatE ki pa bezwen on malere tankoum bal on ti kol.
Menm on 800 nimewo misye pa banou, li prefere bay lOt moun ki pi close avEl. Pouki tout sekrE sa? Se pE li pE nou, oudimwen se renmen li pa renmen nou?

Eskize m ankO pou keksyon estipid sa yo map poze la, vye frE.
Sou zafE majisyen yo menm, mwen gen on kouzen manmanm kite konn chante nan Dejean. Misye ap mache ak nou, mwen menm ak on onk mwen. Nou
tap bwE on ti byE. LE misye fini, li manje boutEy la. Map mande eske se siy mirak Dye le pE toujou kap manifeste oudimwen se ilisyon???

ban m ale, byeneme.
leonel

Jonas
Posts: 238
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 11:53 am

Post by Jonas » Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:21 pm

Gelin,

Your Hindu priest friend believes there had been 10 incarnations of Krishna. It's just but one of the interpretations of the GITA.

Some Hindus believe that there has been one Incarnation, some believe that Krishna has yet to come to Earth.

Hinduism, recognized as the oldest "organized" religion on Earth, never spoke as a single voice; there never was a "Vatican" for Hinduism.

The Bhagavad GITA is also not the only "sacred " Book of Hinduism.

There are at least six "sacred" books, like the BIG VEDA, SAMA VEDA, YAYUR VEDA, ATHARVA VEDA etc.

The GITA is attributed to the Sage VYASA.

Some Hindus believe that this "poem" which describes a conversation between a warrior ARJUNA and the God KRISNA was a masterpiece of Hindi litterature.

In what concerns us, Hinduism is a lot like the religion of the Haitian people: Vodou.

Hinduism and Vodou are what are called "henotheistic religions
", as opposed to politheistic or monotheistic.

Both of these religions believe in a Supreme Being and myriad other Gods which represent facets and manifestations of that Being.

From what I know of Vodou, when a faithful invokes AZAKA, ERZULIE etc, he calls on that God or Goddess, not the supreme being.

It's the same for an Hindu, when he calls on the Gods Skanda, Surya or the goddesses Shakti, Lakshmi etc... or the thousands of other gods of the Hindu religion.

One thing about henotheistic religions, they have the reputation to be the most "tolerant" religions on earth.

I am sure that your priest friend didn't tell you that his way to serve his God(s) was the only way to Salvation.

Gelin_

Post by Gelin_ » Mon Nov 21, 2005 10:53 am

I would like to read a comparative study between vodou and hinduism. They have a lot in common. Some see them as 'animistic' religions, and there is some truth to that, too.

As for the tolerance you mentioned, it's partly true. In India, fundamentalists persecute and kill dissidents frequently. In Haiti, some ougans/manbos do not tolerate it when members of their groups switch their faith/allegiance, especially if they become protestants - and some fight back.

gelin

Gelin_

Post by Gelin_ » Wed Nov 23, 2005 5:44 pm

M gen pou m eseye reponn anpil nan kesyon ki poze yo. Annatandan, fòk m fè nou remake ke zouti # 2 a gen rapò ak moun ki te komanse pale nan non kreyatè a - anndan bibla.

M pa tap pale de moun kap fè egzibisyon andeyò bibla, kwake gen egzibisyon anndan bibla tou. M vle di ke anvan bibla te ekri, moun ki te ekri l yo te bay " prèv " ke gen yon fòs dèyè yo ki voye yo.

Men yon grenn ekzanp kote Jezi makonnen teyoloji ak mirak li te konn fè yo:

<i>Se pou nou kwè m' lè m' di nou: Mwen nan Papa a, Papa a nan mwen tou. Osinon, se pou nou kwè akòz sa m'ap fè a. (Jan 14:11).</i>

Li te vle di yo ke si yo gen pwoblèm kwè nan ansèyman l yo, omwens yo ta ka konsidere bon zèv ak mirak lap fè yo pou konprann ke se bondye vre ki voye l.

Nan sans sa a, zouti # 2 makonnen ak zouti # 1 an pou fè moun ki te vle ontijan reflechi pou mande tèt yo: ou kwè se pa ta vre sa msye ap di yo? Apre ke gen moun ki vin kwè, bann nan vin fò
me, EPI LIV YO VIN EKRI POU ANKOURAJE KWAYAN SA YO.

gelin

Gelin_

Post by Gelin_ » Mon Dec 05, 2005 5:22 pm

[quote]...mwen pa wE klE menm nan tou lE de zouti ke frE nou Gelin prezante yo. Mwen bwE pwa.[/quote]
M te prezante yo kòm zouti ke nou ka itilize lè nap etidye bibla pou teste si se vre gen verite ladann.

[quote]Gelin, banm on ti limyE souple. Kisa ki bon nouvEl la?[/quote]
Kesyon bòn nouvèl la, se jezikri ki gaye l lè li te komanse preche. Men kijan l te komanse:

[quote]Jezi ale lavil Nazarèt kote l' te grandi a. Jou repo a, li antre nan sinagòg la tankou l' te toujou konn fè. Li leve kanpe pou l' li pou yo.

Yo renmèt li liv pwofèt Ezayi a. Lè li louvri l', li jwenn kote ki te ekri:

<I>Lespri Bondye a sou mwen. <U>Li chwazi m' pou m' anonse bon nouvèl la bay pòv yo</U>. Li voye m' pou m' fè tout prizonye yo konnen yo lage, pou m' fè tout avèg yo konnen yo kapab wè ankò, pou m' delivre moun y'ap maltrete yo, pou m' fè yo k
onenn lè a rive pou Bondye vin delivre pèp li a.</I>

Apre sa, Jezi fèmen Liv la, li renmèt li bay moun ki t'ap ede nan sèvis la. li al chita. Tout moun ki te nan sinagòg la te gen je yo fikse sou li.

Lè sa a li kòmanse di yo: Jòdi a, pandan n'ap tande pawòl ki ekri la a, li rive vre. (Lik 4:16-21).[/quote]
Mo Bon nouvèl la vle di mesaj delivrans ke jezikri preche, e ke li vle pou moun kap swiv li preche tou: delivrans pou pòv, delivrans pou moun ki pa wè (je pete ak tout je peteklere), delivrans pou moun ki grangou, pou moun ki malad, elt...

Kèk lòt kesyon ankò:

[quote]Poukisa on kreyatE si puisan konsa oblije gen on pakEt difikilte pou l eksprime pou tout moun kapab konprann? Poukisa se seleksyone lap seleksyone moun ki pou pote BON NOUVEL banou? Nimewo sekrE ke KReyatE a bay ak Pitit li yo oudimwen ak pitit li panse ki kapab konprann li an pou kominike ake li a, se yon ak on kreyatE ki pa bezwen on malere tankoum bal on ti kol.
Menm on 800 nimewo mis
ye pa banou, li prefere bay lOt moun ki pi close avEl. Pouki tout sekrE sa? Se pE li pE nou, oudimwen se renmen li pa renmen nou?[/quote]

An reyalite, m ta ka di menm bagay yo nan yon lòt sans. M ta ka mande poukisa yon bondye ki si pisan jwenn mwayen gen 2 moun ki pa vle kwè nan li. Natirèlman, se pa voye m voye chay la sou do moun pou m ka defann bondye non - menmsi pawòl mwen yo sanble ak sa. Sa m vle di sèke menm anndan bibla, nou jwenn istwa kote bondye te kominike ak moun (e yo te konnen se bondye kap kominike ak yo), men moun sa yo te derefize sèvi bondye, menmlè yo te konnen byenpwòp yo te an afè ak kreyatè a. Sa vle di, poukisa gen dezobeyisans ak inkredilite...?

[quote]Eskize m ankO pou keksyon estipid sa yo map poze la, vye frE.[/quote]
M pa panse kesyon estipid non paske yo mennen nan pwofondè sijè nap pale a.

[quote]Sou zafE majisyen yo menm, mwen gen on kouzen manmanm kite konn chante nan Dejean. Misye ap mache ak nou, mwen menm
ak on onk mwen. Nou tap bwE on ti byE. LE misye fini, li manje boutEy la. Map mande eske se siy mirak Dye le pE toujou kap manifeste oudimwen se ilisyon???[/quote]
leonel monchè, manje boutèy ak mache sou dife se bagay anpil moun te konn fè plizyè kote nan platosantral. Anpil fwa granmoun konn di ke se djab yo ki monte yo. Se pa mirak bondye sa yo paske tout mirak toujou fè pou sipòte yon ansèyman oubyen pou deplwaye yon delivrans ke bondye ap bay kèk moun, oubyen ankò pou reponn kèk priyè.

M pale twòp....kite m al fè yon lòt bagay. Kenbe la,

gelin

Gelin_

Post by Gelin_ » Mon Dec 19, 2005 11:16 am

M pral sispann pale de kesyon sa a, men anvan kite m prezante yon dènye zouti ke nou ka itilize pou teste pawòl, zak ak deklarasyon moun fè sou do bondye.

Zouti nimewo 1: pale de bagay ki pral rive anvan yo rive

Zouti nimewo 2 : travay avèk siy oubyen mirak ki soti bò kot bondye

-------------

Zouti nimewo 3: fè konnen ke nou tout soti nan yon sèl bondye ki te kreye nou, e ke se li sèl pou nou adore tankou frè ak sè.</B>

Anndan bibla, dènye zouti sa a melanje ak 2 premye yo nan lavi moun ke bondye te voye, moun ke li te kominike a yo. Touletwa zouti sa yo te nan lavi Moyiz, pwofèt yo, Jezikri ak disip li te chwazi yo.

gelin

Post Reply