1989年後，塞爾維亞發生種族屠殺，鄰國的保加利亞卻沒有，斯拉夫族互相屠殺的規模，以及兇殘的手段，令整個世界感到相當驚訝。許多學者開始重新思考，這些恐怖屠殺背後的理由為何？筆者於大學時學習巴爾幹半島的歷史，一直對塞爾維亞和保加利亞的民族主義保持濃厚的興趣，並發現這兩個國家背負著相當複雜的歷史背景，其中宗教的因素扮演很重要的角色，成為支持這兩個國家民族主義的首要基礎1。若讀者不理解當地的民族神學，就很難了解為何歷史學家和政治學者稱呼巴爾幹半島為東歐的火藥庫2。然而，有些現代學者卻不重視巴爾幹島歷史背景中的宗教因素，比較喜歡用民族衝突來解釋問題Naumovich1或用seething cauldron理論(return of the repressed) cynically manipulative elites（Brubaker）2。 以至於不明白這些宗教戰爭為何會如此強烈（戰爭的神聖話，光之子民，魔鬼之子民的概念）。假如我們深入剖析宗教在巴爾幹半島所發揮的力量，將更能使我們了解塞爾維亞與保加利亞民族主義的來源及它的發展過程。 雖然宗教扮演著高度重要性的角色，卻很少學者研究東正教地方教會的民族神學，因為東正教教會的民族神學較為複雜，雖然他們都隸屬於同一個教會底下並擁有相同的教義，但各個不同地區，民族神學的特色卻是不盡相同。所以，假若我們需要研究東正教的民族神學，就必須以個案的進行研究，甚至在現代的東正教教會裡，我們也可以看到類似的情況，例如：在東正教裡有「聖傳」的概念，它的意涵是指教會需要考察各種過去教會會議的文獻、教父的作品與教會會議中教父(聖人)表達自己對民族神學的意見，也因此有些地方教會的民族神學相當發達，擁有許多著作，但有些地方則沒有那麼豐富的文獻。

No description available.

本文檢閱霍布斯與洛克兩人政治理論的政治與宗教背景，以幫助理解他們的政治理論與神學教義之間的相互影響。在當時的智識脈絡中，兩人各自擁有對於自然狀態和自然法的不同看法。對於自然法的看法與盟約神學結合，影響到兩位的盟約論或契約論。本文的核心則是這些神學議題如何影響他們對於主權者或是政府的看法。最後，討論兩人所密切關懷的宗教容忍議題，以及往後學者所延伸出的現代性議題。 身為一位虔誠的安立甘宗教徒，霍布斯使用《聖經》以及神學教義來補充並闡明其政治理論。他使用該隱的《聖經》例子說明自然狀態的意義。霍布斯的自然法理論繼承唯意志論傳統，而非唯理智論傳統。這說明他的自然狀態與自然法都與希臘哲學的自然概念大相逕庭。此外，唯意志論也說明自然權利出自於上帝的命令，即自然法。唯意志論和盟約論神學一起塑造出霍布斯的主權者概念。因為主權者具有政治的身體，所以他是人世間的中保，也是國家意志的代表。霍布斯強調得救唯一所需的是相信耶穌是基督，但是他也強調基督的王國不在此世。主權者必須同時作為國家與教會的元首，以避免因神學爭執所引發對於和平與秩序的威脅。 身為一個清教徒，洛克結合他的信仰發展出一種為人民主權和革命權利辯護的政治理論。這造就了他獨特的神學政治觀。首先，他藉由基督教神學家的自然法理論說明人的天(神)賦政治權利。而且為了避免唯意志論和唯理智論的極端，他採取一種中間路線的托瑪斯主義。第二，洛克的盟約神學和奧體概念強調人民的「同意」。人民同意組成一個「政治的身體」。洛克認為律法和恩典具有同等重要性，相應地，他也主張政治體的法律體現了形塑政治體的契約。最後，洛克的宗教寬容觀念以及政教關係理論也支持著人民的天賦政治權利理論。 霍布斯與洛克都示範了：如何能夠獨立思考《聖經》，並且以一套神學政治論述來同時實現屬世與屬靈的美好生活。每個人都必須同時面對自己的政治身份，也要思考自己在宗教中的生命意義。當兩者和諧地結合時，一個人才能真正獲得和平與幸福。霍布斯和洛克的神學政治觀值得我們參考與借鏡。 / This paper reviews the political and religious background of theory introduced by Thomas Hobbes and Locke, to realize the interplay between their political theory and theological doctrine. They hold distinct viewpoints upon state of nature and natural law in the intellectual context at that time, and the combinations of natural law concepts and covenant theology influenced their covenant theory and contract theory. The focus of this paper is how these theological issues influenced their viewpoints about sovereign or the government. At last, this paper discusses the issue of religious tolerance they both concern closely, and the issue of modernity extended by the successive scholars. As a devout Anglican, Thomas Hobbes supplements and clarifies his political theory by the Bible and theological doctrine. He cites the story about Cain in the Bible to explain the state of nature. Rather than intellectualism, the theoretical basis of Hobbes’ natural law follows that of conventional voluntarism, which implies that the state of nature and natural law are widely distinct from the concept of nature in Greek philosophy. In addition, voluntarism proposes that natural right comes from the command of God, i.e.,natural law. Voluntarism and covenant theology together constitute Hobbes’ conceptualization of sovereign. Since the sovereign possesses “body politic”, he is the “mediator” of the world and the representative of state will. Hobbes emphasizes the unum necessarium (sole necessity) of salvation is to believe in that “Jesus is the Christ”, but also that “the kingdom of Christ is not of this world.” The sovereign serves as the head both of church and state in order to avoid the threat against peace due to theological controversy. As a Puritan, Locke intends to develop a political theory apologized by popular sovereignty and right of revolution, which forms his unique viewpoint of theological politics. He firstly illustrates the inborn political right of human beings through the natural law theory, and to avoid the extremes of voluntarism or intellectualism, he adopts the hybrid Thomism with compromise. In addition, the concept of covenant theology and mystical body introduced by Locke emphasizes the “consent” of the people that sets the basis for body politic. Locke considers that the law and grace of the God are equivalently important, accordingly, he suggests that the law of body politic concretizes the contract shaping the body politic as well. Furthermore, the concept of religious tolerance and theory of relationship between religion and politics support the inborn political right of the people. Hobbes and Locke demonstrate: How to independently reflect on “Bible”, and simultaneously actualize the beautiful life of worldliness and spiritualism by the discourse of theological politics. Everyone has to think of the political identity, and the meaning of life in religions as well. When the two parts combine harmoniously, one can truly gain sense of peace and happiness. The viewpoints of theological politics done by Hobbes and Locke are worth to be referred.

在中國唐朝以前，占星學一直是帝王之學，其占辭及關注的重點都是軍國大事，而無涉於個人及家族的命運。而古代占星學的理論及架構到戰國時代才算完整，到了漢代時，占星學的發展及理論則更加成熟，也是本文論述的主題。 傳統的占星學資料，零散見於古代典籍中，直到漢代司馬遷的《史記‧天官書》開始，傳統的占星學才有系統性的整理，之後的《漢書》、《後漢書》則仿效史記的體例，有了進一步的發展，再加上董仲舒及劉安的應用與提倡，使漢朝成為中國占星學史上第一個集大成的朝代。 占星學與政治發展密不可分，所以無論是君主還是知識分子，則致力於利用占星學，而達到政治神學建構的目的，君主可以依此而建構「君權神授」的政治神話，而知識份子則是意圖操控占星的詮釋權，以獲取政治上的地位與利益。

本論文試圖探討哈林頓共和思想中，如何由神學意涵的「天啟」如何導向共和主義意涵的「自由」，也就是由神學的角度證成共和主義之過程。由《大洋國》來看，哈林頓追求的是由上帝的啟示而來的共和國。因為這個共和國基於上帝的啟示，與自身對於上帝啟示的尊崇和信奉而得以永久存在。從這點可以延伸出哈林頓的政治神學概念------透過福音化的共和主義建立起天啟與自由的共和國。再者，哈林頓經由對當時英國政治、經濟、歷史的觀察，期望透過縝密的制度來維持共和國長久穩定。故哈林頓在《大洋國》中提出得以兼顧「理性」與「利益」，由「均分」與「選擇」組成的「共和國原則」，體現於人民大會、元老院。

魅力(Charisma)型領袖Muhammad Ahmad運用馬赫迪(Mahdi)神學號召群眾推翻土耳其殖民統治；蘇丹獨立初期Abd al-Rahman繼承馬赫迪宗教領袖的權威，結合民族主義，主張蘇丹獨立的政治理念，將宗教組織轉換為溫瑪黨進入公領域，成為議會時期主導民主政治的宗教政治菁英。Abd al-Rahman歸真後，他的孫子Sadiq al-Mahdi歷經三次軍變和三次議會時期，轉換馬赫迪神學，號召民眾起來為蘇丹民主和獨立而奮戰，推動民主進程結合宗教聖戰的概念對抗軍事統治政權。蘇丹在全球化多元政治制度衝擊下，伊斯蘭政治神學成為解決蘇丹內政問題的一種「神學替代方案」以取代今日的民主政體和極權體制。本論文討論蘇丹政治神學如「伊斯蘭民主神學」及「伊斯蘭社會神學」與近代政治制度的融合和交互作用下，探討群眾運動與六次政治體制轉換的關係。 / The charisma leader Muhammad Ahmad used the Mahdi theology to call a large mass of people that overthrew the Turkish colonial rule. In the early independent time, Abd al-Rahman combined nationalism with his inherited Mahdi power. He advocated an ideal of “Independent Sudan” in public and transformed his religious organization into the Umma party. After Abd al-Rahman passed away, his grandson Sadiq al-Mahdi had gone through three times the rotation of the democratic and military rules. Sadiq al-Mahdi has changed the Mahdi theology that calls people “jihad”for Sudan’s democracy and independency. He also proclaims a democratic progress with jihad against the military rule. As a result, Sudan, influenced by the globalized pluralist political system, chooses Islamic political system as a “theocratic alternative” to the present democratic and authoritarian systems to solve her domestic problems. This thesis discusses how Sudan’s political theologies, including “Islamic Democratic Theology” and “Islamic Social Theology”, interacted with the modern political systems and its outcomes to the relation between the mass movements and the six-time transitions between the democratic and military rules.

「九一一」後，以「基地」組織為首的伊斯蘭恐怖網絡，訴諸保衛伊斯蘭文化、厲行伊斯蘭教義作為宣傳，旋即擄獲廣大穆斯林信眾的民心，並大力鼓吹穆斯林教徒發動對西方世界的聖戰，其所代表的新型恐怖主義―以建立一嚴格恪守伊斯蘭律法的純正伊斯蘭教國家為組織訴求―是「九一一」後動輒危害國際社會和平及穩定的最大安全威脅。 　　為了達成宏大的建國目標，「基地」組織將組織觸手伸向東南亞及南亞等區域，或扶植、或結盟當地伊斯蘭極端組織。其中，印尼及巴基斯坦兩國自是無法擺脫伊斯蘭恐怖主義攻擊的陰霾，尤以兩國內部極端伊斯蘭教派組織，同霑「基地」組織的資源援助、技術訓練等，繼而造成印、巴兩國境內恐怖攻擊活動屢見不鮮，每每造成重大傷亡，亦導致內部政局動盪不安、民心惶恐。 　　因此，本文研究核心即是印尼及巴基斯坦兩國，以探究「九一一」後兩國境內恐怖主義之發展、影響面、反恐作為等面向，並相互比較、分析，據此觀察二者間各層面之異同、及其反恐政策之有效性。

No description available.

本論文所要處理的是惡的意願與非意願性的辯證。在《惡的象徵》中，悲劇神學和人學的概念便是作為辯證之中介。這兩概念與一種痛苦意識有關，所意識者就是仲裁正義者，亦是違反其正義原則的惡的來源。對「悲劇神學」而言，這個對象就是神；對「悲劇人學」而言，便是意識到人的良知隱藏著惡的可能。可見悲劇神學和人學是一相互依賴的概念。但是由於在呂格爾的象徵系列當中，尤其是玷污及罪的象徵，皆是在神與人的某種關係而論的，因此我們更為凸顯悲劇神學的概念。 第二章主要從情節和美學效果兩途徑，呈現呂格爾如何由古希臘悲劇抽繹出悲劇神學和人學兩概念。 第三章則著重闡述呂格爾《惡的象徵》中的玷汙/罪/罪咎象徵系列，以及突顯悲劇神學和人學如何受制於象徵系列所賦予的意義及角色。藉由象徵系列，奴隸意志的概念得以釐清。其所表達的是，由自由意志的選擇，所造成的自我囚禁之惡。 第四章將悲劇概念放在神話重力場結構及基督論的脈絡中，呈現悲劇的相對位置。針對悲劇神學和人學概念，呂格爾將兩者視為批判和限制的否定性概念。另一方面，藉由基督論，嘗試呈現超克悲劇神學和人學的可能性。值得注意的是，當呂格爾將悲劇神學和人學當成批判性概念的時候，在一定程度上，便具有解構其他象徵(內含的奴隸意志成分)的力道。但是相對於基督論來講，悲劇神學和人學便是等待超越，而有所不足的概念。因此我們可以排列出相對位階：奴隸意志－初步自由(悲劇)－參與之自由(基督論)。 至於結論部分，在《惡的象徵》中，我們已經看到，呂格爾將信仰和知識劃歸不同真理領域的嘗試，也看到需要以信仰或象徵語言為前理解基礎的意義領域。但是，如何在詮釋作為超越之意義領域的基督論之時，肯定其超越性又保持其意義之開放性和模糊性呢？甚至更進一步地，保持相異宗教或象徵語言之真理的可能性呢？這些都是仍待探索的議題。 / This thesis deals with the dialectic of the voluntary and the involuntary of evil. In The Symbolism of Evil, the mediations of the dialectic are tragic theology and tragic anthropology. They are related to the consciousness of suffering. It means awareness of the source of evil that who judges the justice is one violating its own. ‘Tragic theology’ concerns god; for ‘tragic anthropology’, it means the possibility of evil which hides in the conscience of human. One can see that tragic theology and anthropology are mutually-dependent conceptions. Even if Ricoeur’s symbolical series associate much to the relation of god and man, we stress much more the conception of ‘tragic theology’. Chapter two discusses how Ricoeur analyzes these two conceptions of tragic theology and anthropology in ways of plot and aesthetic influences. Chapter three explains the symbolical series of stain, sin, and guilt. It also deals with how tragic theology and anthropology are subject to the meaning and the role of the symbolical series. Moreover, the concept of the servile will can be clarified by means of the symbolical series, which expresses that the will of freedom results in the evil of self-enclosure. Chapter four puts the concept of tragedy in the structure of mythically gravitational space and in the context of Christology to express the unique place of tragedy. Ricoeur regards tragic theology and anthropology as the negative conceptions which is critical and limiting. Moreover, he tries to exhibit the possibility of surpassing tragic theology and anthropology which, noticeably, have the power of deconstructing other symbols (the elements of servile will within) to some extent that Ricoeur regards them as critical conceptions. But in contrast to Christology, they are conceptions which wait for being surpassed and are limited. Thus, we can manifest the hierarchical levels: the servile will－a initial freedom(tragedy)－a freedom of participation(Christology). As to the conclusion, in The Symbolism of Evil, we have seen that Ricoeur tries to divide belief and knowledge into different fields of truth and that he needs the field of meaning which regards belief or symbolical language as the fundamental of pre-understanding. But, how do we assert its transcendence and keep the openness and the ambiguity at the same time that we interpret the Christology as the sphere of transcendental meaning? Even much more, we keep the possibility of truth of different religions and symbolical languages? These are issues waiting for further investigating.

斯賓諾莎的《神學政治論》向來被認為是現代自由民主、與聖經批判的哲學性起源，學者大多認為斯賓諾莎以一種科學式的方法來研究聖經。本文旨在研究斯賓諾莎的聖經觀與宗教觀。藉著對十七世紀荷蘭神學－政治背景、以及《神學政治論》第七章到第十五章的分析，來說明斯賓諾莎所關心的並不是「如何解釋聖經」，而是「誰有權釋經」。他並不是藉著一種客觀的方法論來研究聖經，而是將解釋聖經的判准建立在解釋者的德性之上。而後不斷質疑各種可能形成解釋權威、壟斷信仰的科學式或理論性宗教知識。他把信仰的本質還原為生活，並且主張唯有解釋者有道德行為，他對聖經的解釋才可能是真的。因此，斯賓諾莎解釋聖經的方式不是一種聖經批判，而是一種德性證成的觀點。藉此，他把解釋聖經的權利還諸一切信仰者，並且將哲學與神學分離，前者的基礎是思辨理論，後者的基礎是道德實踐。 / Spinoza's Tractatus Theologico-Politicus has always been regarded as the philosophical origin of modern liberal democracy and modern biblical criticism. Most scholars consider Spinoza’s biblical study as a kind of scientific method. This thesis aims at Spinoza’s view of the Bible and his view of religion. By a description of the theological-political background of the 17th century Dutch, and an analysis of Tractatus Theologico-Politicus Chapters 7 through 15, I would demonstrate that Spinoza cares not “how to study the Scripture” but “who has the authority to interpret the Scripture.” He does not study the Scripture by means of an objective methodology, rather, he sets up the criteria of biblical interpretation upon the virtue of interpreters. Then he doubts constantly every kind of theoretical knowledge of religion which may become the authority of interpretation and monopolize the faith. He reduces the essence of faith to life, and claims that only when an interpreter is moral, can his interpretation of the Scripture be true. Therefore, Spinoza’s interpretation of the Bible is not a kind of biblical-criticism, but a kind of justification by means of virtue. By doing so (or simply “Thus”), he returns the right of interpreting Scripture back to all believers, and separates philosophy away from theology. The foundation of philosophy is speculative theory, and theology is based on moral practices.