返回列表 發帖
Found this article to be interesting...different topic though...I think the little brother and little sister's example is quite good

“屬理”與“屬靈”

作者: 傳聲筒

最初發表: ACT


一本小小的聖經,不同的人能讀出截然不同的滋味來。有人看到的是愛
和拯救,有人看到的卻是恨和咒詛。為什麼會如此?方博士舟子給了一
個不無道理的解釋:

但聖經讀得比舟子多的未必沒有,一樂、以琳對聖經就都讀得很多嘛
,只不過他們對聖經的理解是“屬靈”的,而舟子對聖經的理解是“
屬理”的,說不到一快去而已。
方舟子

原來是讀或者說理解的方法不同。為什麼會有這些不同?難道是“屬靈
”理解的人都沒有那“屬理”的腦袋嗎?恐怕不見得。能有方博士那樣
才和智都高過十二斗的人固是不多,但怕也不是一個沒有。象下面回帖
的一樂就似不弱。一樂的帖子我總得做完腦保健操之後再來讀,否則的
話,理解起來就有困難。但他們兩個對於聖經的理解卻剛好處於兩個極
端。為什麼?請看一樂的解釋:

其實我并沒有論述過自己對“釋經”的看法。舟子兄既然提到了,就
稍微談談。聖經是上帝的啟示,自然是“屬靈”的。這里我用到“屬
靈”一詞,主要是指啟示的超越性--它直接從上帝而來,并不是作
人的靈魂與身體的對分。當我們讀一本書時,必然用到理性,否則不
可能理解書的內容,也就失去了讀書的意義。讀聖經也一樣,理性是
必不可少的。所以要努力理解經文的字面意義,了解成書時的歷史、
地理、風俗等背景,以便明白作者所要表達的意思。但是不是唯理呢
?其實不止聖經,讀任何一部書,都必然卷入我們的世界觀、價值觀
、人生觀、…這種現象并不局限於讀書,日常生活中也是如此﹔我們
每一個人都帶著自己的一副眼鏡在看人、看這個世界。有的人堅信自
己的眼鏡無色透明,有的人知道自己的眼鏡有問題。忽略了世界觀、
價值觀而純粹地談理性,必然導向拆毀一切的虛無。因此真正的終極
權威才能賦予理性存在的最大意義。許多時候,對聖經的不同理解不
是出在理性上,而是因為領受了不同權威的世界觀、價值觀各自做出
“理性”的“解釋”。如果聖經出自上帝的啟示,對聖經的真正了解
,尤其是牽涉到最基本的世界觀、價值觀的部分,自然必需以對上帝
權威的回歸與認同為前提。否則就是拿中文當日文讀。而這個回歸與
認同是一個不斷的過程,有上帝的工作,人也要有意志上的決定,也
要努力。在討論聖經時,肯定理性的作用與看清理性的局限性,同樣
重要。

這是再清楚不過的了。除了“理”以外,還有許多“觀”在起作用。先
入為主的許多東西在“理”的前面導引。雖然對於許多基督徒來講這麼
說有點冤枉,因為他們原來的許多“觀”與方博士接近(我不敢說一樣
,因為方博士不喜歡)。從這個角度上講,基督徒們可能還更“屬理”
一些。當然,這種說法是與“教義”相“悖”的,因為聖經上說“這些
事向聰明通達人就藏起來,向嬰孩就顯出來”(太11:25,路10:21)。
想想吧。

編一個故事:媽媽給不滿三歲的一兒一女端來一碗湯元。小兒特“屬理
”,且有“世界觀”,一看之下就嚷嚷:“白白,圓圓,是乒乓球球,
爸爸說,乒乓球球不可以吃,咽不下,噎,危險!”。媽媽告訴他們是
湯圓,不是乒乓球,可以吃。小兒“屬理”,拒不吃。小女雖然也知乒
乓球白白圓圓,吃了危險,可是卻接受媽媽的勸告,吃了。

其實,確如方博士所看到的和一樂所指出的,除了“屬理”和“屬觀”
之外,“屬靈”的引導在讀聖經時應該占有很大的地位。再引一下一樂
的話:“如果聖經出自上帝的啟示,對聖經的真正了解,。。。自然必
需以對上帝權威的回歸與認同為前提。”就是說聖經是一個特別的東西
,需要特別的對待。也就是說需要“聖靈的引導”。

可是有位問了:

再提問:讀聖經是否要有上帝的做工才讀得懂?如果我讀不懂,老覺
得聖經錯誤百出,耶穌老罵人,是不是說沒有上帝在我心里的工作?
怎樣才能把他老人家請過來,化腐朽為神奇?
一丁

我猜(猜錯的話請原諒)這位的意思是說:要麼你們說的聖靈不存在,
要麼“他老人家”不公平。其實,上帝并沒有不公平。“他愿意萬人得
救,明白真道”(提前 2:4)﹔“不愿有一人沉淪”(彼後 3:9)。你
只要有一顆謙卑愿意受教的心,不是總想著自己的理性能跟“他老人家
”一較高低,那麼,“我又告訴你們,你們祈求就給你們。尋找就尋見
。叩門就給你們開門”(路11:9)。

接著編上面的故事:

媽媽告訴小兒,“這是今天的夜宵,你不吃待會兒要餓的。”小兒大叫
,“你真壞,要我吃乒乓球球。還詛咒我,要我餓!”

TOP

原帖由 mcjohnjohn 於 2009-1-8 02:25 發表


如果冇記錯, 係神父同我講耶穌降生, 廢除左舊約既種種戒條, 重新同人與人之神建立新盟約.
新盟約就係愛天主, 同愛人如己.

拿, 我講到明唔知自己有冇記錯架. ...

Maybe I think you don't remember correctly...

『莫想我來要廢掉律法和先知。我來不是要廢掉,乃是要成全。我實在告訴你們,就是到天地都廢去了,律法的一點一畫也不能廢去,都要成全』(太5:17-18)

成全 = fulfil

TOP

原帖由 BiscottiGelato 於 2009-1-8 01:14 發表


Why can't I demand an apology if I feel offended? It's up to your own perception and moral standard, perhaps things like arrogance might influence your judgement as to whether you want to give that  ...

If you really feel really unhappy, you have my apology, just because I don't want you to feel unhappy.

I need to reiterate that I did not make false claims as example nor make fun of your parents at all!  You can certainly switch the example so it is between me and my parents.  I don't mind.  An example/analogy is just an example/analogy, doesn't have to be real life, the intention is to reinforce a claim, and I did not claim you're not your parents' son at all.  If by giving a valid example hurt your feelings, I don't know how to debate on anything with you.

It's nothing my arrogance, my conduct or my Christian belief, it's about reasoning and fairness.

If I have to apologize, the first one is to Nam, not you, because I was confused and thought that she was a believer and evaluated her comments based on that.

[ 本帖最後由 shutterbug 於 2009-1-8 10:01 編輯 ]

TOP

原帖由 chunsh 於 2009-1-8 10:03 發表


So that include the rules that if a woman sleep with a man before getting married, she should be 被群眾以石頭打死?

Do you remember what Jesus did to the woman who commited adultery when people tried to kill her by throwing her stones?  You do your research well most of the time so I don't think I need to do it for you this time.

TOP

原帖由 chunsh 於 2009-1-8 10:29 發表


well, that is written down in the older part of the bible
and u said that the came of Jesus wouldn't cancel any of those laws....

My understanding might not be 100% correct but here is what I think...we're not trashing 律法, but Jesus salvation surpasses/more superior than 律法 and we're living under the "New Testement" era.  This is just a quick answer.  If you want very detailed notes, then PM me.

TOP

There's is the Bible, you can always go and study hard yourself.  That is the standard.  You should verify the stuff yourself even if the stuff is coming out from a Christian's mouth....that's the key and right attitude.  Really, anybody can say anything they want even Christians.  The reponsibility lies on you to confirm if what's being said matches the Bible.  If you don't verify, you might fall into the hole of "blind" believe too.

TOP

原帖由 chunsh 於 2009-1-8 16:11 發表

u know what? 愛人如己 is just violating the laws of all living things (except for parents die for protecting their own off-springs)

why lie to yourself

I'd like to know why you say "愛人如己 is just violating the laws of all living things".  First, can you tell me what's the "laws of all living things"?  The term is very vague to me.

TOP

原帖由 mcjohnjohn 於 2009-1-8 18:49 發表


佢又問, 你又問, 問咁多仲乜鬼woh.
比人challenge下就答啦, 唔好再challenge番人喇.
乜唔係比人打完左邊面, 要比人打埋右面咩?

How can I answer if I don't really know what he meant ah?  I try to give an as accurate answer as I can, not "ma fu" ga.

[ 本帖最後由 shutterbug 於 2009-1-8 19:10 編輯 ]

TOP

原帖由 mcjohnjohn 於 2009-1-8 18:33 發表


我一向都覺得係用"愛天主, 同愛人如己"去"成全"舊法乍woh, 我覺得幾make sense架woh.
d 舊法唔work 啦, 比人扭曲哂, 耶穌基督基詭降生就係要同大家講新盟丫麻. ...

Not you 去成全律法, it's Jesus who did that

TOP

原帖由 mcjohnjohn 於 2009-1-8 22:24 發表


你唔諗住幫下耶穌手架?
雖然幫唔到幾多, 但都幫下啦~
首先, 就o係LYK呢個宣揚愛既訊息啦, 好唔好?

get your facts right buddy...

TOP

返回列表