Hi Garfield Catlady:
I will respond to this part first (I have trouble posting this on your blog)
這信徒的觀念並非傳統基督教教義所講的﹐ 而是近100年北美福音派教會為了籠絡更多人信耶穌﹐ 於是D人一信就話他們得救﹐ 有新生命﹐ 必定得救﹐ 必定上天堂﹐ 一次得救永遠得救等﹐ 但宗教改革時代﹐ 不論馬丁路德或者加爾文講的概念都不是如此的﹐ 前者不會這樣說﹐ 後者更加說神揀選的得救﹐ 但沒有人知道自己是屬於神揀選行列﹐ 後來北美教會希望更多人加入教會﹐ 就會在有人舉手決志信耶穌就會宣佈他得救﹐ 這種做法是十分新近﹐ 而且古老基督教信仰從來﹑沒有說“信耶穌有新生命”絕對不會離開基督教/離開耶穌的。
I do believe the Book of James was written for such people. There were probably this type who may have take Pauline message of faith to the extreme. Something that neglected action other than simply faith.
I would make a distinction between American Evangelicalism and ancient Christianity. I would propose here that Ancient Christianity was more about living a life worthy of the calling and to love others as self. I do believe ancient Christianity expects the world to end suddenly and in their life time, which did not happen. And that Jesus of Nazareth and his teachings were unique in his time, about loving their enemies and occupiers, since the world would have ended in their life time. They would not have thought that their religion would have became the Imperial Roman religion ( and that is not what this religion was about), and after being codified as Romans, and quite legal about eliminating the traits of ancient Christianity. Having Greeks to help them to build a more sophisticated Platonic-metaphysical framework, and having the Roman to legalize this form. Christianity became 'universalized' within the Roman Empire. And wherever they went, they conquered others and forced them to accept this form of faith, on the pains of death.
Jesus became so elevated, that he lost his humanity, he looked more like Roman sun god Sol Invictuis and Caesar himself. Arius was trying to defend his humanity, then he was forced to give up this teaching, on the pains of death. This arch enemy of Arius was St Athanasius who taught the co-eternity of Jesus with the Father, until then it was a new teaching, much like your concept here about American evangelicalism and the eternal security teaching. Cyril of Alexandria (in this first part about publicly stripping a pagan woman and murder her) was also doing to same about St Nestorius, where the argument about the completed humanity of Jesus that it was distinct and unique in such a way, that it was not mixed up into this new definition of 'mia physite' and not to condone the elevation of Mary the mother into the mother of God. Marian worship in the Ephysus was big and the worship was about the Queen of Heavens, which was nicely transferred to Mary.
Maybe ancient Christianity was about love and tolerance. Jesus the founder comes from a questionable paternity. He has no earthly father figure, so he projects to a God in the heavens. He teaches that love is from God and to love is how we experience God. He hates death and senseless killing. He loves the prostitutes and sinners. He hates those who used God to oppressed others.
I am sure this "Garfield lay" does not object, nor would she blames Jesus for American Evangelicalism, neither will I.
So I make a distinction between ancient Christianity and modern Christianity. First I do propose to remove its Roman characters, and the enforced universalization. (scaring folks that with believing in Christ we will all perish), that is not true. we certainly need to come to know his teaching, but it is not for all people. It is not something every should be doing. God is not one, but many, and we each a god and find one to worship. Some worships safety, some money, some beautiful partners, others children. They want whatever their god can supply them.
And second we should each live a life worthy to the teachings of the available Gospels. I tend to ignore Pauline letters. He being a Pharisee (Parish - to separate from others for the sake of purity). His teachings sometimes damages the teachings of Christ, esp about equality of women and gays. Some of these are cultural bias. We ought to try to focus on the primary source first, and leave out Revelation, it is too bloody and ectastatic.
The third is to remove capitalism from my religion, that is why Jesus broken ranks with priests of his days, challenged them and ultimately got himself killed. This removal is to reduce religious taxation on the vulnerable. No religious tax on money, time and resources. There is not need to excessively do outreach and calculate which methods get most results.
Yours truly,
Ben
http://hkatheist.blogspot.com/2009/04/blog-post_25.html
No comments:
Post a Comment