Twilight of the Idols

From Gospel Translations

Revision as of 04:05, 21 December 2009 (view source) Nep4gospeltranslations (Talk | contribs) ← Older edit		Revision as of 18:19, 22 December 2009 (view source) JoyaTeemer (Talk | contribs) (Undo revision 19109 by Nep4gospeltranslations (Talk)) Newer edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	{{info}}十九世纪的哲学家弗里德里希•尼采因他的那句“上帝死了”而被人熟知。然而这句耳熟能详的话却没有给人讲出事实的全部。按照尼采的说法，导致神死亡的原因乃是因为同情。他说：“上帝死了；上帝死于他对人类的同情。”但是尼采说在神，就是犹太 – 基督教的神死亡之前，曾经存在过诸多的神，正如那些住在奧林匹斯山之上的众神。就是说，曾经有很多的神明。但当有一天犹太人的神，耶和华（Yahweh，或作雅威），站在众神当中宣告，“除了我以外、你不可有别的神”的时候，其余的神就都灭亡了。尼采用他那讽刺笔说，当听到这样的话语的时候，其余的诸神都死了，笑死了。	+	{{info}}The nineteenth-century philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche is famous for his declaration that “God is dead.” That brief dictum does not give the whole story. According to Nietzsche, the cause of the Deity’s demise was compassion. He said, “God is dead; He died of pity.” But before the God who was the God of Judeo-Christianity perished, Nietzsche said that there were a multitude of deities who existed, such as those who resided on Mount Olympus. That is, at one time there was a plurality of gods. All of the rest of the gods perished when one day the Jewish God, Yahweh, stood up in their assembly and said, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” Hearing this, according to Nietzsche’s satirical summary, all of the rest of the gods and goddesses died. They died of laughter.
-	在我们这个多元论横行文化的时代，对于尼采所嘲笑的那个神还有着更加辛辣的敌视。然而，今天人对一神论的厌恶不再只是嘲笑那样简单了。在多元论的文化中，最重要的美德就是宽容。就是说所有宗教的观点都应该被宽容，一切的政见也应该被接受。唯一不能容忍的一件事情就是排他性的宣告。对于所有的排他性的宣告都有一种固有、与生俱来的不容。对于多元主义者来说，说只有一位神就是排斥。说一位神没有通过各种显现的方式在历史中启示自己也是排斥。一位独一的神只有唯一的一个独生子是神，乃是更加变本加厉。人和神之间不可能只有一个中保，按照今天多元主义者的看法，中保一定有很多。他们的理所当然的认为：如果有一条道路可以到神那里，必定还有许多条。而说只有一条路自然就是不能接受的了。基督教关于神、关于基督、关于救恩的排他性宣告是不可能与多元主义者和平共处的。	+	In our day, where pluralism reigns in the culture, there is as much satirical hostility to the idea of one God as there was in Nietzsche’s satire. But today, that repugnance to monotheism is not a laughing matter. In the culture of pluralism, the chief virtue is toleration, which is the notion that all religious views are to be tolerated, all political views are to be tolerated. The only thing that cannot be tolerated is a claim to exclusivity. There is a built-in, inherent antipathy towards all claims of exclusivity. To say that there is one God is repulsive to the pluralists. To say that one God has not revealed Himself by a plurality of avatars in history is also repugnant. A single God with an only begotten Son is a deity who adds insult to injury by claiming an exclusive Son. There cannot be only one Mediator between man and God. There must be many according to pluralists today. It is equally a truism among pluralists that if there is one way to God, there must be many ways to God, and certainly it cannot be accepted that there is only one way. The exclusive claims of Christianity in terms of God, in terms of Christ, in terms of salvation, cannot live in peaceful coexistence with pluralists.
-	除了上帝和他的儿子存在，以及唯一救赎的问题之外，对于任何说具备或拥有唯一神圣启示的来源的宣称也是遭到排斥的。在改教时期，有一种所谓的改教惟独的主张。提出称义只是因着信心（惟独信心），只通过基督（惟独基督），只藉着恩典（惟独恩典），而这些都是只为着上帝的荣耀（惟独荣耀归于上帝）。但是对于现代的多元主义者来说，他们最排斥的就是惟独圣经的排他性宣称。惟独圣经就是说只有唯一的神启源头，其地位即使是任何的信仰宣告，信经和教会传统也都不能相提并论的。只有圣经具备权利能够完全约束人的良心，因为只有圣经是全能上帝的文字启示。对于多元主义者来说，惟独圣经的意思可以有理解很多。但绝对没有的一个就是：它对所有其他宗教书籍的启示性都是根本否定的。对惟独圣经的呼吁就是相信上帝启示的话语不可以同时在《圣经》和《摩门经》，在《圣经》和《古兰经》，在《圣经》和《奥义书》，在《圣经》和《薄伽梵歌》里面找到；相反，基督信仰单单建立在惟独圣经是上帝唯一话语的排他宣告之上的。	+	Beyond the question of the existence of God and of His Son, and of a singular way of salvation, there is also a rejection of any claim to having or possessing an exclusive source of divine revelation. At the time of the Reformation, the so-called ''solas'' of the Reformation were asserted. It was said that justification is by faith alone (''sola fide''), that it is through Christ alone (''solus Christus''), that it is through grace alone (sola gratia), and that it is for God’s glory alone (''soli Deo gloria''). But perhaps most repugnant to the modern pluralist is the exclusive claim of ''sola Scriptura''. The idea of ''sola Scriptura ''is that there is only one written source of divine revelation, which can never be placed on a parallel status with confessional statements, creeds, or the traditions of the church. Scripture alone has the authority to bind the conscience precisely because only Scripture is the written revelation of almighty God. The implications of ''sola Scriptura'' for pluralism are many. Not the least of them is this: It carries a fundamental denial of the revelatory character of all other religious books. An advocate of ''sola Scriptura ''does not believe that God’s revealed Word is found in the Bible and in the Book of Mormon, the Bible and in the Koran, the Bible and in the Upanishads, the Bible and in the Bhagavad Gita; rather, the Christian faith stands on the singular and exclusive claim that the Bible and the Bible alone is God’s written word.
-	美国的格言是“合众为一”（e pluribus unum）。但是，自从多元主义的思想兴起以后，格言中真正“合”（Unum）的根基已经被毁掉了。多元主义的背后是相对主义前设的哲学思想。所有的真理都是相对的，因此没有什么思想或来源可以被视为具有任何的无上权威。在我们的法律体系中赋予了法律面前对所有宗教同等相容的思想。但是人们把在法律同等相容简单的看成是同等有效。这一在法律面前所有宗教都应该同等对待、具有同等权利的原则，并非在说因此所有的宗教都是有效的。只要随便比较一下世界各地的各个宗教就可知道他们之间截然不同的对立。除非有人想要承认这些矛盾都是真理，不然他就不可能接受这个谬误的假设。	+	The motto of the United States is e pluribus unum. However, since the rise of the ideology of pluralism, the real Unum of that motto has been ripped from its foundation. What drives pluralism is the philosophical antecedent of relativism. All truth is relative; therefore, no one idea or source can be seen as having any kind of supremacy. Built into our law system is the idea of the equal toleration under the law of all religions. It is a short step in people’s thinking from equal toleration under the law to equal validity. The principle that all religions should be treated equally under the law and have equal rights does not carry with it the necessary inference that therefore all religions are valid. Even a cursory, comparative examination of the world’s religions reveals points of radical contradiction among them, and unless one is prepared to affirm the equal truth of contradictories, one must not be able to embrace this fallacious assumption.
		+
		+	Sadly, with a philosophy of relativism and a philosophy of pluralism, the science of logic doesn’t matter. Logic is escorted to the door and is firmly booted out of the house onto the street. There is no room for logic in any system of pluralism and relativism. Indeed, it’s a misnomer to call either a system, because it is the idea of a consistent, coherent view of truth that is unacceptable to the pluralist. The fact that people reject exclusive claims to truth does not invalidate those claims. It is the Christian’s duty to hold firm to the uniqueness of God and of His Christ and not compromise with the advocates of pluralism.
-	很遗憾的是，在相对主义和多元主义的哲学观里面，逻辑学已经变得不重要了。逻辑帮你穿好鞋子，把你从屋子的门口护送到街上。但是在多元主义和相对主义的体系里面已经没有了逻辑存在的空间。其实，要将他们称为一个体系已经不太恰当了，因为对于多元主义者来说那种真理首尾一贯、没有矛盾的思想正是他们不能接受的。事实上，人们对真理排他性的宣告的排斥并不能使这些宣告失效，基督徒有责任坚守上帝和基督的独特性，不妥协于多元主义的鼓吹。
	[[Category:Top priority]]		[[Category:Top priority]]

---

Revision as of 18:19, 22 December 2009

The nineteenth-century philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche is famous for his declaration that “God is dead.” That brief dictum does not give the whole story. According to Nietzsche, the cause of the Deity’s demise was compassion. He said, “God is dead; He died of pity.” But before the God who was the God of Judeo-Christianity perished, Nietzsche said that there were a multitude of deities who existed, such as those who resided on Mount Olympus. That is, at one time there was a plurality of gods. All of the rest of the gods perished when one day the Jewish God, Yahweh, stood up in their assembly and said, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” Hearing this, according to Nietzsche’s satirical summary, all of the rest of the gods and goddesses died. They died of laughter.

In our day, where pluralism reigns in the culture, there is as much satirical hostility to the idea of one God as there was in Nietzsche’s satire. But today, that repugnance to monotheism is not a laughing matter. In the culture of pluralism, the chief virtue is toleration, which is the notion that all religious views are to be tolerated, all political views are to be tolerated. The only thing that cannot be tolerated is a claim to exclusivity. There is a built-in, inherent antipathy towards all claims of exclusivity. To say that there is one God is repulsive to the pluralists. To say that one God has not revealed Himself by a plurality of avatars in history is also repugnant. A single God with an only begotten Son is a deity who adds insult to injury by claiming an exclusive Son. There cannot be only one Mediator between man and God. There must be many according to pluralists today. It is equally a truism among pluralists that if there is one way to God, there must be many ways to God, and certainly it cannot be accepted that there is only one way. The exclusive claims of Christianity in terms of God, in terms of Christ, in terms of salvation, cannot live in peaceful coexistence with pluralists.

Beyond the question of the existence of God and of His Son, and of a singular way of salvation, there is also a rejection of any claim to having or possessing an exclusive source of divine revelation. At the time of the Reformation, the so-called solas of the Reformation were asserted. It was said that justification is by faith alone (sola fide), that it is through Christ alone (solus Christus), that it is through grace alone (sola gratia), and that it is for God’s glory alone (soli Deo gloria). But perhaps most repugnant to the modern pluralist is the exclusive claim of sola Scriptura. The idea of sola Scriptura is that there is only one written source of divine revelation, which can never be placed on a parallel status with confessional statements, creeds, or the traditions of the church. Scripture alone has the authority to bind the conscience precisely because only Scripture is the written revelation of almighty God. The implications of sola Scriptura for pluralism are many. Not the least of them is this: It carries a fundamental denial of the revelatory character of all other religious books. An advocate of sola Scriptura does not believe that God’s revealed Word is found in the Bible and in the Book of Mormon, the Bible and in the Koran, the Bible and in the Upanishads, the Bible and in the Bhagavad Gita; rather, the Christian faith stands on the singular and exclusive claim that the Bible and the Bible alone is God’s written word.

The motto of the United States is e pluribus unum. However, since the rise of the ideology of pluralism, the real Unum of that motto has been ripped from its foundation. What drives pluralism is the philosophical antecedent of relativism. All truth is relative; therefore, no one idea or source can be seen as having any kind of supremacy. Built into our law system is the idea of the equal toleration under the law of all religions. It is a short step in people’s thinking from equal toleration under the law to equal validity. The principle that all religions should be treated equally under the law and have equal rights does not carry with it the necessary inference that therefore all religions are valid. Even a cursory, comparative examination of the world’s religions reveals points of radical contradiction among them, and unless one is prepared to affirm the equal truth of contradictories, one must not be able to embrace this fallacious assumption.

Sadly, with a philosophy of relativism and a philosophy of pluralism, the science of logic doesn’t matter. Logic is escorted to the door and is firmly booted out of the house onto the street. There is no room for logic in any system of pluralism and relativism. Indeed, it’s a misnomer to call either a system, because it is the idea of a consistent, coherent view of truth that is unacceptable to the pluralist. The fact that people reject exclusive claims to truth does not invalidate those claims. It is the Christian’s duty to hold firm to the uniqueness of God and of His Christ and not compromise with the advocates of pluralism.