拍马屁, 上帝, 基督徒

约拿·杨

作者：羽毛乱飞　

抛开“拍马屁”这三个字的负面含义不谈，我乐于承认我写的文章从某个角度而言是一篇拍马屁的文章。但是我并不认为这是一篇奴才式的文章。
　　
我们人一般而言会在三种情况之下拍别人的马屁——至少我到目前为止只想到这三个，他们是：
　　
　　1）出于恐惧而拍马屁，
　　2）出于利益而拍马屁
　　3）出于爱而拍马屁，
　　
第一种，出于恐惧而拍马屁是当拍马屁者如果不拍这个马屁，他就可能利益受损，甚至有身家性命的危险。
　　
但是基督徒和对于基督教了解比较多的人都知道，那就是不论基督徒犯什么错，只要愿意悔改，都能蒙神的赦免，主耶稣基督十字架上的代赎和宝血的洁净是永远有效的，一次献祭，就除去全部罪恶。这一点往往是很多人攻击基督教的原因，因为看上去这个神很纵容基督徒。
　　
但是这恰恰体现了神的爱是无条件的。神许诺他爱我们，他和我们订立永远的契约（新约，旧约）承诺永远爱我们，所以基督徒根本不必担心因为得罪神而没有被赦免的机会，因为我们知道神爱我们。正如圣经所言：
　　
　　“爱里没有惧怕。爱既完全，就把惧怕除去。因为惧怕里含着刑罚。惧怕的人在爱里未得完全”。
　　
所以基督徒不会出于恐惧而拍神的马屁。
　　
第二种，出于利益而拍马屁。同样，基督徒和对于基督教了解比较多的人都知道，基督徒得蒙神的爱不是因为各种好的行为，不是因为人格高尚，乐善好施，不是因为积了很多功德。基督徒从神那里得到好处，仅仅因为基督徒“信上帝”，这就是“因信称义”的道理。正如圣经所言：
　　
　　“亚伯拉罕信神，这就算为他的义。所以你们要知道那以信为本的人，就是亚伯拉罕的子孙。并且圣经既然预先看明，神要叫外邦人因信称义，就早已传福音给亚伯拉罕，说，万国都必因你得福。可见那以信为本的人，和有信心的亚伯拉罕一同得福。”
　　
可见，不管基督徒是否拍神的马屁，基督徒都有神完全的赐福，基督徒甚至在还不认识神的时候，神就爱他们，赐福给他们了，我们为什么要多此一举去拍神的马屁呢？拍神的马屁不能使基督徒得到更多的好处。
　　
既然基督徒不必因为不拍神的马屁而担心害怕有什么后果，既然基督徒不去拍神的马屁也能得到神的赐福，基督徒为什么喜欢拍神的马屁呢？——因为爱。
　　
在这个世界上，只有我们真心爱的人，我们才心甘情愿的去讨好他，拍他的马屁，希望用自己的行动令对方快乐。我们会拍女朋友的马屁，会夸她漂亮，聪明伶俐什么的，因为我们爱我们的女朋友；我们会拍父母的马屁，我们会说贴心的话，会给他们买补品，给他们添置他们需要的物件，因为我们爱我们的父母；我们会给爷爷奶奶过寿，祝他寿比南山，长命百岁，尽管我们知道很少有人能活到一百岁，我们这样的拍马屁是因为我们爱我们的爷爷奶奶……
　　
不是因为恐惧，不是因为利益，是因为爱，使得基督徒在不相识的人面前心甘情愿的拍神的马屁，这是每一个被神爱到的人对于神自然而然的爱的回应——抛开这个词的负面含义，我们就是喜欢拍马屁，这不才不是什么奴才心理呢。

把我天父的腦袋當足球踢來踢去

耶和華
把祢腦袋砍下來當球如何?

我只想親手砍下我天父的腦袋

ctaya

原帖由 prussianz 於 2008-9-8 22:59 發表


>>>>>>>>> 耶好並沒有宣稱自己為神

sorry , who is `````耶好"""" ?? Jesus ?? o'Jesus !!!

手寫版出錯了字，一時不察，便發了帖。 已改正了。

prussianz

原帖由 ctaya 於 2008-9-8 22:42 發表


耶好並沒有宣稱自己為神。

你們並不是神，所以你們不是傻子、就是騙子。

>>>>>>>>> 耶好並沒有宣稱自己為神

sorry , who is `````耶好"""" ?? Jesus ?? o'Jesus !!!

ctaya

原帖由 Mara但以理 於 2008-9-6 13:42 發表
宣稱自己為神的不是傻子、就是騙子、或者真的是神。

耶穌並沒有宣稱自己為神。

你們並不是神，所以你們不是傻子、就是騙子。

[ 本帖最後由 ctaya 於 2008-9-9 08:43 編輯 ]

ctaya

原帖由 Guest from 123.2.245.x 於 2008-9-6 00:45 發表
i believe in the bible because its not absurdities.. so i'll not commit atrocities.. ...

Most probably, before your conversion into a Christian, if someone told you that killing babies, children and animals were justified, you would dismiss that as absurd.

But now you have well accepted such actions as described in the Bible.

So someone might have convinced you of such absurdity.

Once convinced of absurdities, I cannot see how you would not be convinced further from committing atrocities when situation demands.

Ask yourself the following question.

Suppose now is the End of the World, the sinners have to be destroyed. Jesus comes back and leading an army to fight the Anti-Christ, Satan, the devils and their followers. You are honorably selected as a fighter for God and Jesus.

Your God ask you to kill all the non-believers that you know, including family members who can be your parents, brothers, sisters, relatives, those whom you love, friends, ... etc, because being non-believers and sinners, they are effectively followers of the Anti-Christ and should be punished by everlasting torment. In fact you have to push them into hell by yourselves to show your faith.

Would you do it?

Can you pass this great test to show that your are truly faithful to your God?

It is very easy for you folks to curse non-believers to be punished forever, to be burnt forever in fire and brimstone in hell. But it would be a different matter if you map familiar faces and names into these poor creatures in everlasting torment.

Next time when you curse, think of these faces and ask yourself the question that I present to you: would you do it?

Absurdity --> atrocity

That is a hard lesson learnt from history.

[ 本帖最後由 ctaya 於 2008-9-8 21:00 編輯 ]

prussianz

原帖由 秀雲 於 2008-9-7 16:03 發表


對狗來說，屎尿是香的---------這就是真相

對人來說，屎尿是臭的---------這就是真相

請問哪個是真相？？？

i have not expected you are so brave

prussianz

原帖由 劈柴 於 2008-9-6 15:27 發表
為什麼定要信有神或冇神, 有一神或多神其中之一才算有立場? 真相是只有一個...但真相的可能性就有很多...at least 多過你所列出的...我的立場是既然不知道, 就什麼都不信...本身覺得這樣才最接近真相... ...

+
the most objective////objectivest .,;==^)

秀雲

原帖由 Mara但以理 於 2008-9-6 13:42 發表
我當然知Nomad 唔係既信亞拉又信黃大仙啦。我只係覺得人應該要有用同一個critical thinking 在自己的 信仰信仰的立場。信有神或冇神? 有一神或多神? 真相只得一個，

對狗來說，屎尿是香的---------這就是真相

對人來說，屎尿是臭的---------這就是真相

請問哪個是真相？？？

ctaya

原帖由 Guest from 123.2.245.x 於 2008-9-6 00:45 發表
you are right.. human lives have no value without God.
...

(1) "human lives have no value without God."

(a) God has no value without human beings. Without human beings, there is no concept of God. His vanity can only be satisfied with human's worshiping.

(b) In the eyes of Hitler, Jews also have no values.


(2) "its for God's love that we become valuable and have hope"

This kind of thinking can also be found in Judaism, Islam, ... and many other religions.

People like you find that their lives are empty without fitting into a grand plan.
They would be so despaired to invent something to believe in so as to feel important -- even God needs to baby-sit them, looking after their well beings.

I cannot see how being in an imaginary plan makes us more valuable.  


(3) "i believe in the bible because its not absurdities.. so i'll not commit atrocities.. "

If accepting the killings of children and animals is not absurdities and atrocities, I do not know how to describe it.

Accepting the absurdity of Sola Fide (Faith Only) is immoral and can turn people in committing atrocities because good deeds are no longer required for salvation. Goodness and kindness have lost their values in the face of faith.

If you are not sure whether you are a Protestant, I am not so sure what you are believing in.


(4) "good luck with your antichrist-ing"

(a) I do not count on luck and would care less on what the outcome is. Just want to inject some humanity into the minds of those die-heart Christians, who have lost their way in despising human lives.


(b) Anyway, anti-christ is not the same as anti-Jesus.

(c) Messiah is not necessarily a divine entity. Cyrus was a messiah and he is no divine.


(5) "there were only 120 believers after Jesus died on the cross how many there are now?"

(a) The same comment can apply to Islam and Buddhism. They started with few and see how many there are now. Islam has become the largest religion in the world now.
So what? More believers in a certain religion does not turn the religion into truth.

(b) Nearly all the Europeans were believers in the dark age. Are there more now?

(c) The fever of Christianity has been fading away in Europe. The process has started in the States already. Its only hope is in the less developed regions such as Africa and Asia.


(6) "1 John 2:18-22 Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. ... Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist--he denies the Father and the Son."

(a) I would never claim that I know all the truth. No rational men would. We only have limited knowledge. We are humbled by the vast amount of knowledge out there to be acquired, to be understood. I would not be so arrogant to say that all the truth is in one book as the Christians do.

(b) John said that almost 2000 year ago and obviously he had got it wrong. The early Christian founding fathers thought that the end of world was coming soon, even in their generation. They preached and acted in that way. But unfortunately, events turned out to be otherwise. Then they changed tune and collaborated with the Romans in bringing in Hellenistic elements into Christianity. What you believe now is not the teaching of Jesus but Pauline Christianity. Please study the history of religion.

(c) By the way, who can cheat the Christians, except those who disguise as Christians or those who claim knowing the truth from God? So, do not look for Ant-Christ from the non-Christians but among the Christians. Surely, we would not claim good relationship with God nor Jesus.


(7) "God bless you all.."

We do not need your blessing but would be glad if you folks stopping cursing against us.  

[ 本帖最後由 ctaya 於 2008-9-8 21:03 編輯 ]

weakest

"真相只得一個，不是信則有不信則無。用同一個critical thinking 在自己的 信仰的立場中，才能更接近真相。冇立場的信仰只是滿足自己在不同時候的需要，如果只站在做旁觀者、宗教審判者，這些信仰都和你們的生命和生活沒有關係。"

----------->1. 用同一個critical thinking 是不同於把基教教義強加於其他宗教, 再因其他宗教的教義不同於基教而說其他宗教是有問題的...後者根本不是critical thinking....

                 2. 有倒因為果的嫌疑. "做旁觀者、宗教審判者", 是因為該宗教的勢力大, 影響深遠(影響可是好的, 亦可是壞的...), 才會對該宗教作出judgement. 但對宗教作出judgement便是"宗教審判者"?? 普通人可沒有這權力...但基教以前出現了不少"宗教審判者", 還可以殺害異己...

"信基督教也許會面對有時候不明白神。信無神論何嘗不會面對人生義意、道德標準、生死的問題。多神論面對的問題仲多，因為很多時那些宗教彼此有contradiction，都唔知出路如何。
只有沒有立場的人才不會面對這些問題，但永遠不能接近真相。"

-------------->1. 等等!!! 沒有立場是指沒有明確的conclusion...但如果面對一些問題, 而沒有滿意的answer, 為何一定要人妄下結論, 才算是"面對這些問題"?? 嘗試面對這些問題, 但沒有好的answer, 便說自己沒有answer, 有何問題?? 我再說一次: 在自己還不了解問題時便硬說某些宗教為真, 這不是好的態度, 不是一種謙卑的態度

劈柴

為什麼定要信有神或冇神, 有一神或多神其中之一才算有立場? 真相是只有一個...但真相的可能性就有很多...at least 多過你所列出的...我的立場是既然不知道, 就什麼都不信...本身覺得這樣才最接近真相...

Jom

真相可能有好多個,咁講係因為貴教同樣地用緊"輸打贏要"既宗旨去界定所有物事.係唔同場合就有唔同既解釋,總要係為老耶去開脫.活脫脫就係一班擦鞋仔.耶經既矛盾係要你放低耶經,放低輸打贏要先睇得見架啦.塵世間既所有事都可以用正反互證既,但唯獨是耶經既矛盾就算用番耶經都解唔通.

你講既乜q又人生意義又道德標準,其實將所有野歸返去原點都只不過得一個結論 - 生存.我諗都無乜人可以唔去面對呢D問題.非耶徒我唔覺得特別差,耶徒亦唔見特別好.sorry,對升斗小民一句講晒耶會係無乜存在價值既,但對政府就有價值啦.

係穌哥存在與否之前,閣下既猜想並唔得上可以列入參考範圍.

Mara但以理

我當然知Nomad 唔係既信亞拉又信黃大仙啦。我只係覺得人應該要有信仰的立場。信有神或冇神? 有一神或多神? 真相只得一個，不是信則有不信則無。用同一個critical thinking 在自己的 信仰的立場中，才能更接近真相。冇立場的信仰只是滿足自己在不同時候的需要，如果只站在做旁觀者、宗教審判者，這些信仰都和你們的生命和生活沒有關係。

信基督教也許會面對有時候不明白神。信無神論何嘗不會面對人生義意、道德標準、生死的問題。多神論面對的問題仲多，因為很多時那些宗教彼此有contradiction，都唔知出路如何。
只有沒有立場的人才不會面對這些問題，但永遠不能接近真相。

宣稱自己為神的不是傻子、就是騙子、或者真的是神。
我不覺得耶穌是傻子或騙子。

Nomad

>----------> Poor argument. Simple facts about human beings' born and death is irrelevant of their value.

It's called Natural fallacy.

>------------>1. So, What if the Christian God is not loving? The "value" of human beings depends on other things? Again, there is a problem: Killing people is loving them?? Would you like to be "loved"??

Maybe real the question is, what the heck is love to them? The Freudian sex drive (which ironically is one of the few sex theories that includes violence as a property of human "love" affairs)?

Nomad

其他的weakest都回了囉
唯獨這句

原帖由 weakest 於 2008-9-6 01:48 發表 [url=redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=29659&ptid=2361][/url]
我信基督耶穌，因他是唯一宣稱自己為神而且充滿知慧、慈愛、神跡奇事、勝過死亡的人。

同這句：

原帖由 weakest 於 2008-9-6 01:48 發表 [url=redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=29659&ptid=2361][/url]
我不覺基督教教義有什麼矛盾的地方。亦不覺得自己以迷信的心態來信神。

去片。
http://exchristian.hk/forum/viewthread.php?tid=2427&extra=page%3D2&page=3
再去片
http://exchristian.hk/forum/viewthread.php?tid=2335&extra=page%3D2&page=7
再去片
http://exchristian.hk/forum/viewthread.php?tid=1787&extra=&page=3

weakest

"you are right.. human lives have no value without God.
we are born with nothing.. and we take nothing with us after we die.
our body will go back to the ground after all..."

----------> Poor argument. Simple facts about human beings' born and death is irrelevant of their value.

"but its for God's love that we become valuable and have hope
anyway.. i don't think i will convince anything"

------------>1. So, What if the Christian God is not loving? The "value" of human beings depends on other things? Again, there is a problem: Killing people is loving them?? Would you like to be "loved"??

                  2. I don't know if you can convince someone. But if you can't, one possible reason is that: your argument is poor.

"good luck with your antichrist-ing
there were only 120 believers after Jesus died on the cross
how many there are now?"

-------------->1. Hopefully, your word is not to threathen others...... Even if your story is true, this shows that minority group can grow, and why can't the group of "anti-Christianity"?

weakest

"(2) Prof. F. F. Bruce 當然是人，我只是想帶出參考資料的可信性。我實在討厭和一些在信仰上沒有立場、只是人云亦云、左quote右quote 的人對話。(我想你們應該不是)

(3)"如果你認為不了解耶神而信是沒問題的, 這不是一種謙卑的學習態度....."
我真的不認為有太大的問題。首先， 我覺得因為我不能全面了解全能的神 (好像我不知道不受時間限制看事會怎樣?怎樣才能令愛與公義並存?等等..) ，所以我唯有信，但這不代表我不追求對神的認識。我信是基於基督十架的愛和人生命的改變。 On the other hand, 我覺得如果要對神學有認識的人才能信，神的救恩就不是給所有人。"

------>Ok. 只是如果你真的這樣認為, (2)亦適用於基徒, (3))亦適用於不相者. 除非你覺得可以對基徒寬, 對其他人嚴.

"你喜歡信亞拉,黃大仙或者是宙斯，我都唔反對。我只係覺得要信就要信得認真點。如果唔係日後死鬼左，亞拉神問你為什麼又拜我、又拜黃大仙，果陣真係都唔知點答。"

--------->1. Nomad話"一知半解而信亞拉,黃大仙或者是宙斯的人", 是用"OR"的, 不是"AND"的...你可能看錯了一些東西...

              2. 其他宗教不是全都和基教一樣的...有些宗教對多神是接受的. 就這樣把基教教義套入其他宗教, 再說其他宗教的人因不符合那些基教教義, 而不是"認真地"信那些其他宗教, 這還是公道的做法嗎?? 別ignore有其他宗教, 而這些宗教和基教教義不同的可能性...

"我唔信黃大仙因為我一點都唔覺佢有神的形象，佢唔保守我，我可以連香都唔俾佢食。"

----------->1. 是不是你可以對付黃大仙的意思?? 你唔俾佢食香又如何?? 這便可以"餓死佢"?? 很多人仍然排住隊俾佢食wor...而且, 如果黃大仙真是神仙, 唔食香又如何?? 誰告訴你黃大仙一定要食香ka??

                2. 如果你覺得這樣便令你"一點都唔覺佢有神的形象", 同樣的亦適用於耶神: 佢唔保守我，我可以連錢(十一)都唔俾佢. 何以如此"厚此薄彼"??

"我唔信宙斯因為佢同我既生活一點都沒有關係。"

------------>1. 只因為較popular, 有promotion network extend 到這便信?? 你信不信的考慮與該教的真假無關??

"而你又認識亞拉、穆罕默德有幾多?"

------------>1. 又"厚此薄彼"了...信耶教便是"On the other hand, 我覺得如果要對神學有認識的人才能信，神的救恩就不是給所有人。", 信其他教的便換來這些質詢??

"我信基督耶穌，因他是唯一宣稱自己為神而且充滿知慧、慈愛、神跡奇事、勝過死亡的人。我愈看聖經，愈覺得耶穌既thinking 一點都唔似人既thinking，真的像神在說話、教導。"

------------>1. 只能說: 小心被騙... X宣稱自己為Y不代表X真的是Y嘛........同樣地, 我亦可宣稱: "我是神而且充滿知慧、慈愛、神跡奇事、勝過死亡的人", 這代表了甚麼??

                 2. 又不是甚麼特別的thinking, 我倒不覺得這是神在說話、教導.

"我不覺基督教教義有什麼矛盾的地方。亦不覺得自己以迷信的心態來信神。"

------------>1. 不少(尤其是為了escape from 不同的argument, 自己的interpretation會inconsistent with 以前說過的interpretation).

"只是我會覺得信是因為接受、明白神對你既愛，而不是因為對神了解有幾多。"

--------------->1. 即耶教的真實性不重要??

                      2. 再強調一次: 神不一定=/=耶神. 基教有"神"這個字的版權麼??所以, 我信有神(maybe...), 但那不是耶神.