svētais 
|
Iesūtīts:
2011.11.01 10:42:08
|
|
svētais |
# Iesūtīts: 2011.11.01 12:19:48
Mārtiņš
Tas pats ir ar anti-inkluzīvistiem. Viņi uzskata (es primitivizēju), ka cilvēka dzīves liecībai nav nozīmes (vai tā ir salīdzinoši vērā neņemama) un viss svars ir uz Jēzus vārda (nosaukuma) piesaukšanu un Evaņģēliju kā dokumentu pārzināšanu.
šim aspektam piekrītu. |
Memekija  |
# Iesūtīts: 2011.11.01 12:20:19
svētais
Nu rakstā jau arī ir diezgan konkrēts viedoklis , nevis vispārīgi aprakstī.ts |
svētais |
# Iesūtīts: 2011.11.01 12:21:24
Memekija
nu jā. bet tomēr vienpusējs. taču intervijā vairāki. |
Mārtiņš  |
# Iesūtīts: 2011.11.01 12:46:27
Paklausījos to raidījumu. Skumji.
Jo milzīgs uzsvars uz demonu spēku, radot iespaidu, ka ir bažas, ka tie ir stiprāki par Dievu.
Jo ļoti voluntāri tiek izvēlēts, kur Rakstus interpretēt burtiski, kur pieļaut pārnestas nozīmes, un savai interpretācijai piešķir absolūtu ekskluzīvismu. |
Memekija |
# Iesūtīts: 2011.11.01 13:10:37
Mārtiņš
tas gan |
Jošs Mulders  |
# Iesūtīts: 2011.11.01 13:53:11
Bet vai tas nozīmē, ka pasaule apstājas
Absoluuti nee... Tieshi otraadi... taa pa iistam saak kusteeties. |
dafne  |
# Labojis dafne: 2011.11.01 14:03:16
Noklausijos raidijumu.Es nesaskatiju,ka taja tiktu likts uzsvars uz demonu speku..vairak gan uz Kristu,uz to,kas ir Rakstos rakstiits..un lai ka mums negribetos to redzet,Jezus runa par citiem gariem un macibaam...vairakkart bridinot.
tad kapec mums gan neiet kopa zem viena jumta ar jehoviesiem,mormonjiem u.c.? |
Aivars  |
# Iesūtīts: 2011.11.01 14:30:20
Neesmu vēl noskatījies to raidījuma ierakstu, bet ja runā par J. Uļģa rakstu, tas vienkārši uzrāda šo dažādo pieeju redzamākos pārstāvjus un ieskicē konsekvences. Manuprāt, tur ir grūti kaut kam iebilst. Var jau strīdēties par kādu atsevišķu izteikumu, bet ja autoram šķiet, ka zināms universālisms ir plaši izplatīts, gan jau viņam ir sava pieredze saskarsmē ar kādiem cilvēkiem. |
svētais |
# Iesūtīts: 2011.11.01 14:58:32
dafne
tad kapec mums gan neiet kopa zem viena jumta ar jehoviesiem,mormonjiem u.c.?
nesapratu kā tu to domāji? |
Mārtiņš |
# Iesūtīts: 2011.11.01 15:29:22
Varbūt es pārprotu Tālbergu, bet viņam ir tika daudz uzbrūkošas retorikas, sarkasma utt., ka ir tiešām jāiedziļinās, lai izsekotu kas un kurā brīdī ar kādu intonāciju ir teikts, un vai saprotams burtiski, vai arī domāts kā jautājums "pretinieka satriekšanai".
Par bailēm no demoniem es saucu tās bažas, ka ticīgs kristietis varētu novērsties no Dieva, teju vai padzirdot kādus citreliģiju uzstādījumus bez skaidra "kristīgā" nosodījuma. |
svētais |
# Iesūtīts: 2011.11.01 16:05:57
Varbūt es pārprotu Tālbergu, bet viņam ir tika daudz uzbrūkošas retorikas, sarkasma utt., ka ir tiešām jāiedziļinās, lai izsekotu kas un kurā brīdī ar kādu intonāciju ir teikts, un vai saprotams burtiski, vai arī domāts kā jautājums "pretinieka satriekšanai".
es atkal domaju, ka vins pat loti labi tureejaas un bija loti tolerants. |
dafne |
# Iesūtīts: 2011.11.01 16:48:00
svētais
nu,tas avairak ja mes pieljaujam to domu,ka visas religijas var pulceties zem viena jumta..tad kur ir problemas pulceties kopa ar tiem,kurus saucam par sektantiem...tadi pasi cilveki.. |
svētais |
# Iesūtīts: 2011.11.01 16:50:47
dafne
bet vai tad var pulceties religijas zem viena jumta? nedomaju, ka var. |
svētais |
# Labojis svētais : 2011.11.01 16:53:14
dafne
10 Ja kāds nāk pie jums un nesludina šo mācību, tad neuzņemiet viņu savās mājās un nesveiciniet viņu.
2. Jāņa 1:7 Jo daudzi maldinātāji ir izgājuši pasaulē; kas neapliecina miesā nākušo Jēzu Kristu, tas ir maldinātājs un antikrists.
2. Kor. 6:14 Nevelciet svešu jūgu kopā ar neticīgiem. Jo kāda daļa ir taisnībai ar netaisnību? Kas ir gaismai kopējs ar tumsību?
2. Kor. 6:15 Kā Kristus savienojams ar Beliaru, vai ir kāda daļa ticīgajam ar neticīgo?
|
dafne |
# Iesūtīts: 2011.11.01 16:57:15
svētais
es jau ar nedomaju,ka var
bet ta ir interesanta diskusija..labi ka ieliki un Tālbergs tiešām šoreiz turējās..ir bijis tā,ka es vienu otru diskusiju vienkārši "izslēdzu" |
Raimonds  |
# Iesūtīts: 2011.11.01 21:25:51
Pēc ieraksta noskatīšanās un ilgākām pārdomām.
Iespējams, ka vairāk kristiešu pārstāvam nevis tīru ekskluzīvu vai tīru inkluzīvu pārliecību, bet inkluzīvi - ekskluzīvu. Kas varbūt labāk atbilst kristīgās ticības raksturam un Garam. Respektīvi, ko tas nozīmē? Līdzīgi kā ģimenē ar daudz bērniem, vecāki mīl visus savus bērnus, bet vai visi bērni vienmēr un visur ieklausās un paklausa tam, ko saka tēvs vai māte? Tas, ka Dievs mīl šo pasauli, liek saulei spīdēt par labiem un ļauniem, kristiešiem ir pašsaprotama lieta un sacīt, ka kristiešiem kāda daļa cilvēku tādēļ vien, ka viņi ir nekristieši, būtu jāienīst, ir kaut kas pretdabisks. Bet tajā pašā laikā kādus Dieva mīlestības un piedošanas bagātību, plašumus un dziļumus atklājis un dāvājis ir Jēzus, neviens cits nav atklājis un sniedzis. Viņš ir ceļš, patiesība un dzīvība no Tēva sirds uz cilvēku. Kristiets ar to dzīvo un to noliegt arī būtu kaut kas pretdabisks. 
Tāpat no pieredzes zinām, ka ir situācijas, kad jārīkojas ekskluzīvi, kad - inkluzīvi. Ne velti tāpēc Jēzus ar saviem apustuļiem runā kā ar pieaugušiem cilvēkiem, kuri saprot Dieva mīlestību, savu ticību, savu atbildību. Jo ir risks, ja kristīgo ticību padara vienīgi par atsevišķu principu saukļiem vai traktātu dalīšanu. Bet tas nav tas, ko Jēzus māca un sagaida no mums, jo Jēzus runā par dziļi personīgām, gudrākām, pieaugušākām attiecībām ar Dievu. |
dafne |
# Iesūtīts: 2011.11.01 23:19:33
Raimonds
Man atkal šķiet ,ka runa negāja tik daudz par cilvēku(citai religijai piederošu)ienīšanu,bet vairāk..par kristiešu atbildību |
Aivars |
# Iesūtīts: 2011.11.02 12:14:37
noskatījos beidzot to Tālberga raidījumu.
Nu ja neskaita dažas atsevišķi diskutējamas lietas, ļoti loģiski jautājumi, uz ko diemžēl vulgārais inkluzīvisms nespēj sniegt Bibliski pieņemamas atbildes. Saprotu, ka raidījuma vadītāja "Karalis ir pliks` var šķist pārāk `neekumenisks` attiecībā uz dažu 2. Vatikāna dokumentu, bet vai tad tikai laicīgo politiķu tukšvārdīgas un muļķīgas deklarācijas var kritizēt, bet baznīcpolitiķu radītās ir kaut kādas `svētās govis`?
Kas likās simptomātiski, bija tā `hipotētisko ķīniešu` piesaukšana, ar kuriem it kā kristieši jāveido dialogs. Ja nu kāds te par `galda teologiem` te forumā ko žēlojās, tad te būtu klasisks piemērs kā atrasties teorētiskā dialogā ar teorētiskām personām, kas no savas puses pat nenojaušs par šāda dialoga esamību.
Acīmredzot tas atšķir rietumu inkluzīvistus un universālistus (arī tas pats Karls Rāners nebija nekāds praktizējošs misionārs), no tiem kas tiešām kopā ēduši un runājušies ar tiem pašiem ķīniešiem, indiešiem un afrikāņiem, tiem Kristu sludinot.
|
Aivars |
# Labojis Aivars: 2011.11.02 12:18:51
Tas viss rosināja iekopēt noslēguma lappuses no praktizējuša misionāra un atzīta misioloģijas teorētiķa Leslija Ņūbigina grāmatas "The Open Secret", kur viņš šķiet šo dialogu starp kristiešiem un nekristīgo pasauli misijā apcer daudz nopietnāk
On the basis that has been laid down, one can speak briefly of the purpose with which the Christian enters into dialogue with people of other faiths. This purpose can only be obedient witness to Jesus Christ. An) other purpose, any goal thai subordinates the honor of Jesus Christ to some purpose derived from another source, is impossible for Chris¬tians. To accept such another purpose would involve a denial of the total lordship of Jesus Christ. A Christian cannot try to evade the accusation that, for him or her, dialogue is part of obedient witness to Jesus Christ.
But this does not mean that the purpose of dialogue is to persuade ihe non-Christian partner to accept the Christianity of the Christian partner. Its purpose is not that Christianity should acquire one more recruit. On the contrary, obedient witness to Christ means that whenever we come with another person (Christian or not) into the presence of the cross, we are prepared to receive judgment and correction, to find that our Christianity hides within its appearance of obedience the reality of disobedience. Each meeting with a non-Christian partner in dialogue therefore puts my own Christianity at risk.
The classic biblical example of this is the meeting of Peter with the Gentile Cornelius at Caesarea. We often speak of this as the con¬version of Cornelius, but it was equally the conversion of Peter. In that encounter the Holy Spirit shattered Peter`s own deeply cherished image of himself as an obedient member of the household of God. ("No. Lord; tni I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean." It is true that Cornelius was converted, but it is also true that "Christianity" was changed. One decisive step was taken on the long road from the incar¬nation of the Word of God as a Jew of first-century Palestine to the summing up of all things in him.
The purpose of dialogue for the Christian is obedient witness to Jesus Christ, who is not the property of the church but the Lord of the church and of all people and who is glorified as the living Holy Spirit
Takes all that the Father has given to humankind - all people of every
creed and culture - and declares it to the church as that which belongs
to Christ as Lord. In this encounter the church is changed, the world is
Changed, and Christ is glorified.
What is to be said, on the basis of the preceding discussion, of the
manner of interfaith dialogue? We have already suggested that it is the
doctrine of the Trinity that provides us with the true grammarr of dialogue,
and we shall proceed accordingly.
1. We participate in dialogue with those of other faiths, believing that we and they share a common nature as those who have been created by the one God who is the Father of all, that we live by his kindness that we all are responsible to him, and that he purposes the same blessing for us all. We meet as children of one Father, regardless of whether or not our partners have accepted their sonship. This has at least three implications.
(a) We are eager to receive from our partners what God has given them, to hear what God has shown them. In Karl Barth`s words, we must have ears to hear the voice of the Good Shepherd in the world at large.
Eagerness to listen, to learn, to receive even what is new and strange will be the mark of one who knows the word of Jesus: "All that the Father has is mine." In our meeting with those of other faiths we are learning to share in our common patrimony as human beings made by the one God in his own image.
(b) We meet in a shared context of things, of nonpersonal entities. The importance of this becomes clear if one recalls the distortion that arises when dialogue is conceived as the encounter of pure naked spirits. For those who regard the mystical experience of undifferentiated unity with pure Being as the core of religion, it will be natural to conceive dialogue as being directed toward a meeting of persons at a level "deeper" than that which can be conceptualized. But, while fully ac¬knowledging that there may be in such a personal meeting more than either of the partners can put into words, I must insist that truly personal
relationships develop in the context of impersonal realities. We do not become more fully persons by trying to abstract ourselves from the world of things. The Christian in dialogue with people of other faiths rejoices to share with those partners the one common world that is the gift to all from the one God.
(c) Moreover, in the dialogue we meet at a particular place in time
in the ongoing history of the world, a history that we believe to be under
the providence and rule of God. We meet not as academics studying
dead traditions of the past, but as men and women of faith struggling
to meet the demands and opportunities of this moment in the life of our
city, our nation, our world. To recognize this will prevent us from simply
shooting at each other from old fortresses. We shall meet in the open
country where all of us, of whatever faith, are being called upon to
bring our faith to the test of decision and action in new and often
unprecedented situations. It is in this open encounter in the field of
contemporary decision that true dialogue takes place. This dialogue
may, and often should, lead into common action on many matters of
public life.
2. We participate in the dialogue as members in the body of Christ - that body which is sent into the world by the Father to continue the mission of Jesus. This has three consequences for the manner of the dialogue:
(a) It means that we are vulnerable. We are exposed to temptation. We have no defenses of our own. We do not possess the truth in an unassailable form. A real meeting with a partner of another faith must mean being so open to him or her that the other`s way of looking at the world becomes a real possibility for us. One has not really heard the message of one of the real religions that have moved millions of people for centuries if one has not been really moved by it, if one has not felt in one`s soul the power of it. Jesus was exposed to all the power of human religious and ideological passion, to the point where he could cry, "My God, my God, why did you forsake me?" and yet remain wholly bound to his Father and commit his spirit into his Father`s hands. When in true dialogue the true disciple will be exposed without defense in his dialogue.
(b) One may put this point in the form of the model sketched on page 181. The Christian has to come down to the bottom of the stairway
to meet his or her partner. Much so-called "Christianity" may h-ive i he left behind in this meeting. Much of the intellectual construction the piety, the practice in which his or her discipleship of Christ has been expressed may have to be called in question. The meeting place is at the cross, at the place where the Christian bears witness to Jesus as the Judge and Savior of both of them. In commenting on this approach to dialogue Hick writes:
This is, I think, a very fruitful approach. But where it will lead must depend to an important extent upon investigations concerning the historical Jesus, to whom it appeals, and of the ways in which the Christian interpretation of him has been formed over the centuries. The all-important question concerns the extent to which the man Jesus is to be understood in terms of the developed theology of the Church.18
He goes on to suggest that if this approach is followed, many of the doctrines that have traditionally been regarded as central to Chris¬tianity — the doctrines of the Trinity and of the incarnation, for example — may have to be abandoned.
The issue that is raised here has been discussed in my previous chapter. I have tried to sketch the three-cornered pattern of relationships within which the church has to formulate, in its passage from generation to generation and from culture to culture, its answer to the question of who Jesus is. It has to be formulated in openness to the whole testimony of the universal church, in dialogue with the cultures of mankind, and in faithfulness to the tradition as primarily embodied in Scripture. The dialogue with people of other religions will certainly lead to recon¬sideration and reformulation of Christian doctrines formulated in other circumstances. The possible limits of such reformulation cannot be laid down theoretically in advance. But my whole discussion presupposes the confessional stance; the participants are those for whom Jesus Christ is determinative. Hick explicitly repudiates this stance and adopts that of the modern scientific worldview, which replaced the "dogmatic slumbers" of Christendom two hundred years ago. From this stance (which is, of course, also a "confessional" stance) the answer to the
question "Who is Jesus?" will certainly be very different from any of| the traditional Christian formulations. Hick`s own writings are ample
evidence of this.
The Christian partner in the dialogue of the religions will certainly put his or her "Christianity" at risk. The Christian must be ready to face the possibility of radical reconsideration of long-accepted formu¬lations. But he or she does so within the ultimate commitment to Jesus Christ as finally determinative of his or her way of understanding and responding to all experience.
(c) It follows from this that the Christian will share in the dialogue of the religions as one who is deeply rooted in the life of the church -its worship, teaching, sacraments, and shared discipleship. It is as a member in the body of Christ that the Christian accepts the vulnerability that is a precondition of real encounter. He or she does not go in his or her own strength. The world of the religions is the world of the demonic. It is only by being deeply rooted in Christ that one can enter with complete self-emptying and with complete exposure into this world in order to bear faithful witness to Christ.
3. We participate in the dialogue believing and expecting that the Holy Spirit can and will use this dialogue to do his own sovereign work, to glorify Jesus by converting to him both the partners in the dialogue.
(a) The Christian partner must recognize that the result of the dialogue may be a profound change in himself or herself. We have referred to the story of the meeting of Peter and Cornelius, which is the story of radical conversion both of the apostle and of the pagan Roman soldier. Klaus Klostermeier writes as follows of his experience of dia¬logue with Hindus: "Never did I feel more inadequate, shattered and helpless before God. ... All of a sudden the need for a metanoia in depth became irrepressibly urgent."19 The Holy Spirit who convicts the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment may use the non-Christian partner in dialogue to convict the church. Dialogue means exposure to the shattering and upbuilding power of God the Spirit.
(b) The Christian will also believe and expect that the Holy Spirit can use the dialogue as the occasion for the conversion of his partner
to faith in Jesus. To exclude this belief and expectation is to reduce dialogue as the occasion for the conversion of his partner to faith in Jesus. To exclude this belief and expectation is to reduce dialogue to something much less than its proper importance. What we have said about the "conversion of Peter" in the encounter at Caesarea must not be used to overshadow the conversion of Cornelius, without which there would have been no conversion of Peter. A distinguished Hindu writer on religious and philosophical questions. Dr. R. Sundarara Rajan of Madras, has recently commented on the current developments in the field of Hindu-Christian dialogue. He points out that the emphasis upon a self-critical attitude, the demand that each party should try to see things from within the mind of the other, and the disavowal of any attempt by either side to question the faith of the others can easily mean that dialogue is simply an exercise in the mutual confirmation of dif¬ferent beliefs with all the really critical questions excluded. "If it is impossible to lose one`s faith as a result of an encounter with another faith, then I feel that the dialogue has been made safe from all possible risks."20 A dialogue that is safe from all possible risks is no true dialogue. The Christian will go into dialogue believing that the sovereign power of the Spirit can use the occasion for the radical conversion of the partner as well as of the Christian.
(c) When we speak of the Holy Spirit we are speaking of the one who glorifies Christ by taking all the gifts of God and showing them to the church as the treasury of Christ (John 16:14-15). The work of the Spirit is the confession of Christ (I John 4:2-3; I Cor. 12:3). The Spirit is not in the possession of the church but is Lord over the church. guiding the church from its limited, partial, and distorted understanding and embodiment of the truth into the fullness of the truth in Jesus, who is the one in whom all things consist (Col. 1:17). Not every spirit is the Holy Spirit. Not every form of vitality is his work. There is need for the gift of discernment. Peter at Caesarea. and later the congregation in Jerusalem, had need of this discernment to recognize that this strange and (at first) shocking reversal of deeply held religious beliefs was the work of the Holy Spirit and not of the Antichrist (Acts 11:1-18).
question "Who is Jesus?" will certainly be very different from any of the traditional Christian formulations. Hick`s own writings are ample
evidence of this.
The Christian partner in the dialogue of the religions will certainly put his or her "Christianity" at risk. The Christian must be ready to face the possibility of radical reconsideration of long-accepted formu¬lations. But he or she does so within the ultimate commitment to Jesus Christ as finally determinative of his or her way of understanding and responding to all experience.
(c) It follows from this that the Christian will share in the dialogue of the religions as one who is deeply rooted in the life of the church -its worship, teaching, sacraments, and shared discipleship. It is as a member in the body of Christ that the Christian accepts the vulnerability that is a precondition of real encounter. He or she does not go in his or her own strength. The world of the religions is the world of the demonic. It is only by being deeply rooted in Christ that one can enter with complete self-emptying and with complete exposure into this world in order to bear faithful witness to Christ.
3. We participate in the dialogue believing and expecting that the Holy Spirit can and will use this dialogue to do his own sovereign work, to glorify Jesus by converting to him both the partners in the dialogue.
(a) The Christian partner must recognize that the result of the dialogue may be a profound change in himself or herself. We have referred to the story of the meeting of Peter and Cornelius, which is the story of radical conversion both of the apostle and of the pagan Roman soldier. Klaus Klostermeier writes as follows of his experience of dia¬logue with Hindus: "Never did I feel more inadequate, shattered and helpless before God. ... All of a sudden the need for a metanoia in depth became irrepressibly urgent."19 The Holy Spirit who convicts the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment may use the non-Christian partner in dialogue to convict the church. Dialogue means exposure to the shattering and upbuilding power of God the Spirit.
(b) The Christian will also believe and expect that the Holy Spirit can use the dialogue as the occasion for the conversion of his partner
are illustrated in the history of the church and in the parables of Jesus. He can forget that he is only the steward and imagine that he is the proprietor. When this happens the church supposes itself to be the saved while the nations ("the heathen" are the lost. Or he can be lazy, drowsy, and slack, and so allow the treasure to be stolen. When this happens the church falls into a worldly slumber and the world is left without the sound of the gospel. Or the steward may forget the purpose for which the treasure was entrusted to him and keep it wrapped up or buried in the ground. It is to such an unprofitable servant that the master in Jesus` parable says, "You wicked and slothful servant. . . . You ought to have invested in money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest" (Matt. 25:14-30). To invest the money with a view to a high rate of interest is to risk the capital. The church has often been afraid to do this, thinking that the faith once delivered to the saints is to be preserved inviolate and without the change of a comma. Verbal orthodoxy then becomes the supreme virtue, and syncretism becomes the most feared enemy. When this is the mood real dialogue becomes impossible. And so does real mission. If such a church is strong there can be a proselytism, but there is not that kind of mission which seriously expects the Holy Spirit to take what belongs to Christ and show it to the church, thus leading the church into new truth. The mystery of the gospel is not entrusted to the church to be buried in the ground. It is entrusted to the church to be risked in the change and interchange of the spiritual commerce of humanity. It belongs not to the church but to the one who is both head of the church and head of the cosmos. It is within his power and grace to bring to its full completion that long-hidden purpose, the secret of which has been entrusted to the church in order that it may become the open mani¬festation of the truth to all the nations.
|
bitukas  |
# Labojis bitukas: 2011.11.02 12:28:25
Es te drusku rakstāmgalda stilā.....
Kad Ēģiptē gāja karsti, arī kristieši no islāmistiem dabuja pa mizu. Bet tad, kad islāmisti saprata - oi, oi bizness sāk apstāties, tad kristieši pēkšņi kļuva brāļi. Autentiskumu varat sev iebāzt d..., miers nav garīga vērtība uz kā vienoties, tā ir izdzīvošanas nepieciešamība, ja spēki atrodas līdzsvarā. Ja ne, tad ir s....
Kristieša atbildība ir liecināt par Kristu, pie tam, gan ar dzīvi, gan ar vārdiem. Grozi kā gribi, tas ir EKSKLUZĪVS pienākums un EKSKLUZĪVA iespēja. Lūk jums viedoklis no gultas teologa. |
:: Pievienot komentāru
|
