基督教涉嫌的二次創作 / 抄襲
| « 1 | < | > | 26 » |
實事求是，是非黑白不可混淆 (1) 說解釋太大膽和擔心朋友走向懸崖，這兩句算是哪門子的「反意見」？有何參考價值？ (2) 我一直都沒說是「事實」，事實上正如你所說，這是難以證實或證偽，因此連本主題都用上「涉嫌」字眼。 | |||||
你的斷章取義也很驚人 全文中你只抽出一節字面上是你想要的， 覺得合用的一句： Conrady [33] found in the Virgin Mary a Christian imitation of the Egyptian goddess Isis, the mother of Horus 無視全文都是在反駁瑪利亞個處女產子係抄襲Isis生荷魯斯的說法。 你的閱讀能力是否出了問題？ 文中打後便一一列出理據： In general, the derivation of the virgin birth from pagan mythology through the medium of Gentile Christians implies several inexplicable difficulties: Why should the Christian recently converted from paganism revert to his pagan superstitions in his conception of Christian doctrines? How could the product of pagan thought find its way among Jewish Christians without leaving as much as a vestige of opposition on the part of the Jewish Christians? How could this importation into Jewish Christianity be effected at an age early enough to produce the Jewish Christian sources from which either the Evangelists or the interpolators of the Gospels derived their material? Why did not the relatives of Christ's parents protest against the novel views concerning Christ's origin? | |||||
今日『有些人』只管在網上左搬右貼， 比當年的小同學更渣 | |||||
經一輪討論後， 這是否你作出的澄清？ | |||||
這種輸打嬴要的手法來誹謗 我以為只有小報的編輯才會用上。 | |||||
我不否認， 只是如你所說， 『這是難以證實或證偽』， 我也尊重這是學界中的一門說法 | |||||
您係左搬定右貼還是中間quote呀? "文中打後便一一列出理據： In general, the derivation of the virgin birth from pagan mythology through the medium of Gentile Christians implies several inexplicable difficulties: Why should the Christian recently converted from paganism revert to his pagan superstitions in his conception of Christian doctrines? How could the product of pagan thought find its way among Jewish Christians without leaving as much as a vestige of opposition on the part of the Jewish Christians? How could this importation into Jewish Christianity be effected at an age early enough to produce the Jewish Christian sources from which either the Evangelists or the interpolators of the Gospels derived their material? Why did not the relatives of Christ's parents protest against the novel views concerning Christ's origin?" | |||||
我有講錯咩？斷章取義左尐咩呀？誤導左尐咩呢又？我又無話：原來天主教一早已承認／證實瑪利亞個處女產子係抄襲Isis生荷魯斯既。 同埋呢個荷魯斯媽處女生子，#2樓表列中都已標註「有爭議」，我地再爭議有乜重大意義？咪又被指係一班無相關學歷既業餘人士在無引用原始銘文的情況下既無水準討論之嘛。 | |||||
同埋呢個荷魯斯媽處女生子，#2樓表列中都已標註「有爭議」，我地再爭議有乜重大意義？咪又被指係一班無相關學歷既業餘人士在無引用原始銘文的情況下既無水準討論之嘛。 問題就是在：『業餘人士』，『無水準』的人在談尚「有爭議」的事。 難怪Gauss 說了： 不要製造誤導。 | |||||
當然講錯。 你應該是說：『原來天主教一早有人發現瑪利亞個處女產子係抄襲Isis生荷魯斯的說法。』 與 『原來天主教一早有人發現瑪利亞個處女產子係抄襲Isis生荷魯斯』 是兩個不同的訊息。 你經常修改， 重組別人出帖內的行句 無理由你不懂上邊兩句的分別 | |||||
就係恰您難以證實或證偽, 所以猶太佬唔怕抄 若然容易證實或證偽, 佢地就唔會抄啦老襯 | |||||
同樣，也是有人引用「難以証偽」 於是亂膠翕 | |||||
乜原來你都知道？ | |||||
幾時？ | |||||
喂唔夠人喎, 您有冇點過人數先出帖咖? | |||||
現在不是談瑪利亞是否處女生子 是談「瑪利亞處女生子」的情節是否抄襲 | |||||
可能你早已習慣成自然 不察覺你自己有此嗜好: | |||||
「瑪利亞處女生子」正正係耶教BS 中的 BS！ 古人無知又話信啫，現代人仍然有咁低B既人都要去信，其白痴程度簡直爆燈！ 有孕已不能是處女( 車，話之你一陣風受孕 )，生咗仔就更不能維持處女之身 (唔使畫公仔畫出腸囉 )， 瑪利亞當時係人唔係神，生理係同人一様，白痴冇啲生理醫學常識！ 白痴教所以有白痴教徒！ 「瑪利亞處女生子」的情節是否抄襲已好明顯，見人地用JJ都可以生B，抄襲嗰件白痴諗處女生子咪一如JJ生B！ 但係件白痴冇諗到人地Isis係神，(神噃)！ 你瑪利亞係神咩？成班白痴！ | |||||
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleo-Hebrew_alphabet 二次創作/ 抄襲根本就係佢地嘅優良文化傳統 | |||||
今時今日唔少人以貼條拎便是 博學才多了。 不管明， 只管貼 |
| « 1 | < | > | 26 » |