|
作者
|
內容
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2003/5/1 上午 12:14:59
|
|
|
Dear Augustine,
Many many years ago, a man thought the Earth was round but most people at that time believed that the Earth was flat. Although these people could not prove the Earth was flat, they laughed at that man. They thought that man was 'naive' and 'irrational'.
I can say nothing more.
Simon
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2003/5/2 上午 11:12:33
|
|
|
Yes I do think they are naive and irrational.
Are we discussing about empirical truths(like Earth around Sun vice versa)? As far as I know, empirical facts are just there to be verified, there is no point whatsoever to "discuss" empirical truths.
Those 16th century clergymen mixed up these two:empirical truth and revealed truth so they got trouble.
But that doesn't affect my notion of "naive" or "irrational" as predicate of your optimism., if, indeed, "false optimism" sounds too hard to your ears.
|
|
歸一
管理人員
|
Posted -
2003/5/2 上午 11:30:26
|
|
|
有兩點想提出：
(1)據聞本站有許多英語不佳的人都很喜歡看的，所以大家如能用中文來討論就更佳。
(2)Augustine兄的說法，總結來說，就是信者一定得救，不救者唔知得唔得救。兩句我都同意，但是我想問的是：不斷強調別人唔知得唔得救，是否對福傳有幫助呢？
某些基督教派就去得絕D，直情話唔信佢就唔得救，在市場上的效果好似好一點。當我們話，我就得救，你呢，我就唔知啦，不過穩陣計，你都係我個教。這種傳教態度，是否我們想要的呢？
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2003/5/2 下午 04:59:16
|
|
|
Dear Augustine,
Let me tell you another story:
A long time ago, a man came to the city, telling the crowd many new ideas. These new ideas contradicted to the traditional belief of the people in the city. The people could not prove that man was wrong. But simply because his ideas contradicted to the traditional belief, they scolded that man. They said to him,"You are crazy, naive, irrational......" That man was finally sentenced to death.
Surely you know that man was Jesus.
Simon
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Dear No.1,
My English is easy to read. I am sorry that I cannot type Chinese at this moment.
Simon
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2003/5/19 下午 01:03:31
|
|
|
Simon:
It depends what you mean by those "new ideas", in fact, the "new ideas" are rather those invented by the Pharisees whom Jesus condemned. As these Pharisees were not keeper of the Law themselves, but were merely adding external rituals to the Law and forces everybody to keep them AS A SIGN Of their faith(who seldom have any faith but just external acts, acts, acts.....)
Sounds familiar? Remember what you said:"Do charity acts, then you will be saved."
The "traditional" idea is really what Moses taught, the spirit of the Law (foreshadowing the summary made by Jesus---Love God above all and THEN your neighbors), he made observable laws with the Jews due to their stubborness.
Jesus did not brought any new ideas, his message (to the Jews) is just the "traditional one":
renewal of the spirit of their familiar Law of Moses...turn to God and honor Him in every act.
If you think the Gospel is a "revolution" (sic.) from the legalistic old Law, sorry, you are wrong.
"I have not come to abolish even an iota from the Law".
.......................................................
The Galileo example carries no force here, as it is just a matter of empirical truth. When I say those 16th century clergymen navie/irrational(like you), I merely meant their lack of scientific knowledge and confusion of revealed truth and empirical truth.
Your case is different, you try to claim unjustified sentence to support your argument of "External acts ==>salvation". So you are naive and irrational.
You are indeed teaching new ideas, which are unfortunately, unjustified.
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2003/5/19 下午 01:37:44
|
|
|
Let me tell you another story:
A long time ago, a man came to the city, telling the crowd many new ideas:
> What new ideas you mean? scientific facts? 1+1=3?
These new ideas contradicted to the traditional belief:
> What belief? that the world was flat? or that you be a just man in the eyes of God just because you be nice and keep the external stiffs, as the Pharisees said??
of the people in the city.
The people could not prove that man was wrong. But simply because his ideas contradicted to the traditional belief:
>Neither could your man prove his claim. But Jesus, unlike you, simon, shows his divine authority by his deeds, they scolded that man.
They said to him,"You are crazy, naive, irrational......" That man was finally sentenced to death.
> It seems that it is the Jews themselves who have gone away from the traditional law
Surely you know that man was Jesus.
> Luckily you are not Jesus or any of the Fathers of the Church
|
|
peter_k
|
Posted -
2003/7/3 下午 07:37:21
|
|
|
Dear Simon,
'對於誰可上天堂，可參考瑪竇（馬太）福音，第二十五章三十一至四十六節。'
此段為比喻, 信德不同有不同的看法, 敬請小心....
我有不同的看法, 但也不能(無權力)說你的是錯....
如你相信但凡有愛心的好人，必會得教----請問耶穌是否要為'有愛心的好人'釘十字架呢....
人若不值著我, 就不能到父那裡....
|
|
peter_k
|
Posted -
2003/7/3 下午 10:33:35
|
|
|
上面記錯了, soory...
若望福音 John 14:6
耶穌回答說：「我是道路、真理、生命，除非經過我，誰也不能到父那裡去。
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2003/7/19 下午 09:18:04
|
|
|
Peter_K,
天主就是愛，耶穌當然也是愛。一個凡人，生活上處處實踐愛德，我相信，他應有資格進入天國，因為他已是藉著耶穌（愛）到達父那裡。
Simon
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2003/7/19 下午 09:21:21
|
|
|
Augustine,
看來你動氣了。
我當然不是耶穌，我只是祂的追隨者，並嘗試了解祂。
主佑平安。
Simon
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2003/7/20 下午 06:11:20
|
|
|
You still haven't faced my questions posted on 19 May, exactly two months ago.
|
|
PAUL
|
Posted -
2003/7/20 下午 06:28:19
|
|
|
Simon 兄,
相信你一定有聽過孟子曰:"無惻隱之心者非人也....."等等的字句,作為一個善人,只是完成了人的道德善舉,怎可能與得救扯上關係呢,第二次奧良會議明定:nulla facit homo bona, quae non Deus praestat, ut faciat homo,人是不能靠自己行善,除非天主助人完成善工",假使多行善者便能得救,那麼不需要傳教啦,不需要教會啦,福音上清楚說明:ego sum vitis, vos palmites, qui manet in me, et ego in eo, hic fert fructum multum, quia sine me nihil potestis facere.(Jn 15:5) 請記著最後個句""sine me nihil potestis facere.""離開了基督,我們甚麼都不能作.
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2003/7/20 下午 09:52:30
|
|
|
Augustine,
你在五月十九日的留言中，說我 naive and irrational，你現在要我回答你的提問。我倒有興趣反問：要一個 naive and irrational的人回答問題，是一種甚麼心態呢？
你又說：「幸好你不是耶穌。」
其實我只是主張（或相信），好人即使沒有在生時相信耶穌，死後仍可以上天國。
你說我「幸好」不是耶穌，是否表示，如果最終的真實情況真的如我所說，你會感到不快樂，因為你不值天主那麼仁慈？
我當然不是耶穌，但你用上「幸好」一詞，應好好反省下筆時自己的心態。
願與你分享，瑪竇二十章十五節：
難道不許我拿我所有財富，行我所願意的嗎？或是因為我好，你就眼紅嗎？
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2003/7/20 下午 10:00:22
|
|
|
Paul，
謝謝你的資料。我也明白你的意思。
我也相信，人單靠善行，不能自動直接上天國，因為天國的門，由上主把守。
我只是相信，善人死後，還是有機會了解天主並接納祂的愛，進入天國。
在現實環境中，我認識不少人，他們正直善良，但不能肯定或否定基督信仰，如果這類人死後全數入地獄，那麼我信的天主，是太殘忍了。
Simon
|
|
peter_k
|
Posted -
2003/7/21 上午 09:11:23
|
|
|
Simon
"一個凡人，生活上處處實踐愛德，我相信，他應有資格進入天國，因為他已是藉著耶穌（愛）到達父那裡。"------------------不同意..
"他應有資格進入天國"-----同意..基督是將珍貴的天國禮物(注1)送了給他.......... 他可以接受,
但也可不珍惜/不接受...----------------不願/不能和基督一起在天國了.
(注1)
天國禮物----是指基督為世人的聖死和光榮復活, 接受的就可和基督一起在天國了.
主佑平安。
|
|
peter_k
|
Posted -
2003/7/21 上午 09:56:49
|
|
|
Simon
由於"他們正直善良，"-------我們並無分辨(/審判)世人的權力(恩賜),
所以將你的話"他們正直善良，但不能肯定或否定基督信仰，如果這類人死後全數入地獄，那麼我信的天主，是太殘忍了。"
改為"理論上正直善良的人, 但不能肯定或否定基督信仰，如果這類人死後全數入地獄，那麼我信的天主，是太殘忍了。"
世人(正直善良的人)如果未得基督免罪, 如果升天國, 但在天國整日躲避基督, 又殘忍嗎??
Genesis
3:8 天 起 了 涼 風 、 耶 和 華 神 在 園 中 行 走 。 那 人 和 他 妻 子 聽 見 神 的 聲 音 、
就 藏 在 園 裡 的 樹 木 中 、 躲 避 耶 和 華 神 的 面 。
天國是和基督一起的地方, 是給愛基督的人居住的...
Simon 兄,救世方法, 天父有天父的方法
你有你的方法(/意見)
我有我的方法(/意見),
但我會說" 然 而 不 要 照 我 的 意 思 、 只 要 照 你(天父) 的 意 思 。 "
Matthew
26:39 他 就 稍 往 前 走 、 俯 伏 在 地 、 禱 告 說 、 我 父 阿 、 倘 若 可 行 、 求 你 叫 這 杯 離 開 我 ． 然 而 不 要 照 我 的 意 思 、 只 要 照 你 的 意 思 。
主佑平安。
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2003/7/21 下午 04:13:45
|
|
|
Please stick to the question please, ad hominem rhetoric is of no point here (a forum for discussion).
"我倒有興趣反問：要一個 naive and irrational的人回答問題，是一種甚麼心態呢?" When you posted your grand theory on (the self-claimed proposition of) universal salvation, I suppose you are not thinking yourself as "naive" or "irrational", did you?
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2003/7/21 下午 04:24:08
|
|
|
You said: "其實我只是主張（或相信），好人即使沒有在生時相信耶穌，死後仍可以上天國"。
Augustine倒有興趣反問："可以上天國" means:"Will go to Heaven",or just Augustine's view: "May go to Heaven"?
From previous postings it seems that you support the former rather than the latter.
Please clarity.
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2003/7/22 上午 12:27:27
|
|
|
說了那麼久，我的想法是建基於三點：
天主是慈愛的；
天主是公義的：
天主是全能的。
大致善良正直的人，只因在生時沒有接受基督信仰，若死後必然入地獄，我看不出天主慈愛，除非死亡真的是個分界，連全能的天主也無法挽救。
善良的人死後，站在天國的門外，天主問他們是否會接受祂的愛，願意接受的，經過補贖，該可進入天國；還不願意的，繼續站在門外，但天主有永恆的時間去等待。善良的人死後「可以」進入天國就是這個意思，他們可以進入，如果他們願意。
我一再強調，死後作補贖是必需的，因為犯了罪便要作補贖，那叫「公義」。
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXxx
善良有愛心的人，即使在生時沒有信主，還是可以進入天國，這個想法，我以為已是普遍被天主教會接受的，願來不是嗎？這個觀念，是我直接親耳從兩位在聖神修院任教的神父口中聽來的，不是我個人創作。
如果要說「個人創作」，我是相信所有人最終都會得救，討論可在另一論題中看到。但其實那又不是我最先想出來的，因為原來早有人提出「普世得救論」，我只是未聽過此論時，自己從思考與讀經中想到。
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2003/7/22 上午 12:37:56
|
|
|
Paul,
你說：「假使多行善者便能得救,那麼不需要傳教啦,不需要教會啦。」
傳教仍是必需的，因為基督的道理，能把現世變成天堂，減少不必要的痛苦。
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
你又說：「離開了基督,我們甚麼都不能作。」
我完全同意。基督就是愛，那裡有愛，那裡就有基督。
XXXXXXXXXXX
Peter K 和 Paul，
有時間可看看另一題目：地獄空廢論。
主佑晚安。
Simon
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2003/7/22 下午 02:06:34
|
|
|
"大致善良正直的人，只因在生時沒有接受基督信仰，若死後必然入地獄..."
No one here is advocating this. I said:"We cannot be sure if those 善良正直的人 will actually be admitted to Heaven. God alone knows if they are hypocrites or not."
Simon, please be honest, don't avoid my question:
1)Have you claimed that "善良正直的人"(in your words) will surely go to Heaven? Or just reduces to my view that this is a mere possibility?
2)Augustine倒有興趣反問："可以上天國" means:"Will go to Heaven",or just Augustine's view: "May go to Heaven"? PLEASE CLARIFY: Former or latter?
(It is OK to change your original view, but please tell us so to avoid confusion.)
3)Do you accept the possibility that God's Justice is not comprehensable in human eyes? Do you dare to judge God in your human concept of "justice"?
Yes or no questions, no ambiguity please.
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2003/7/22 下午 02:10:56
|
|
|
基督的道理，能把現世變成天堂...?
Augustine倒有興趣反問: So our earthly life is no longer a pilgrimage to Heaven, we are not just travellers on earth? So God's final destruction of this world foretold by Christ is void? And the verse:"Heaven and earth is to pass..." becomes void?
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2003/7/22 下午 08:37:29
|
|
|
Augustine,
我不是迴避你的問題，我是不答你的問題。
你既然認定我是naive和irrational，我說甚麼也是白說的。你似乎還沒有收回上述兩個形容詞的意圖。
雖然我不答你的問題，我仍會為你祈禱。
Simon
|
|
去非
|
Posted -
2003/8/5 下午 03:44:19
|
|
|
我是來了這個網站沒多久的(大概一個月)﹐這幾天花了一定的時間看了這版五頁的討論。這裡的討論其實是甚有意思﹐我覺得討論到最後成了這樣的結局是有點兒可惜了。
我大致上同意Augustine的說話﹕確實信奉Catholic faith的教友可以肯定得救﹔在這個範圍以外的人士(包括一些有愛心的好人)﹐我們不知道他們能否得救﹐結論是inconclusive的﹐只有天主才能根據他們的良心公平的去judge這些人。
對於Edward所指出的case 1以至case 3(b)(i)﹐我同意Augustine的分析﹐即結論是inconclusive。而對於case 3(b)(ii)裡那些明知基督的福音是真理及求恩肯定的途徑﹐但卻因本身的自私或軟弱也拒絕耶穌的人﹐我也基本上同意Augustine的論點。但我想補充一點﹕根據我們(作為人類)所能理解的真理﹐這些人是很可能不能得救。然而﹐我們是人､是受造物﹐我們無法可以完全明瞭天主的所有真理或奧妙。天主是全能的﹐祂可以在我們所能理解的真理或奧妙之外﹐以我們作為人所無法得知或理解的大能﹐去令case 3(b)(ii)的人得到救恩。我以為我們無權說一定不會有這樣的情況發生﹐因為我們不能完全理解天主的大能。所以﹐雖然依照我們的的理解(這理解是正確的﹐因為是天主透過教會啟示給我們的﹐但我們的理解並不可能包括天主全部的奧妙)﹐case 3(b)(ii)的人是不能得救。但天主的大能可以在我們所能理解之外。
然而﹐對於確實信奉Catholic faith的人士﹐答案始終是絕對肯定的﹐這就是現在一般教友都會說的"the guaranteed way"了。
|
|
jj
|
Posted -
2003/8/7 下午 01:55:37
|
|
|
Hi Simon,
Would you please let me know what is mean by 地獄空廢論?
Thanks!
|
