老实说，看见一些基督徒写的证明上帝存在的文章，真的让我摇头。
因我始终认为，上帝存在与否不是可以证明的。而文中坚定激荡的情感更是让我哑然。

我自己的信心，就如经上说，常经火般的熬炼。
早期是理性的质疑，现在是身体的难受，以后不知道是什么。

我如今知道，我能信神，实在是神的手托住我。所以看见别人不信，甚至怒吼，心里很
少生气。——可能这也有些过了吧，呵呵。


就说早期的理性思考吧。

其实我们的理性从来就不是纯粹的理性。
试图信（或者只是接触信仰）的朋友，你有没有发现，境遇顺利的时候，信心似乎大些；
境遇不顺的时候，怒吼则要多些？
这时候，更理性的做法是否是暂时将自己的理性和感受作小小的隔离？
仅仅因为自己痛苦，就向神质疑怒吼，而自己舒服就又是别般感受。这种做法，人所难
免，但是否足够客观理性、公正广博？

我们所遭受的，前人已经遭受，后人仍将遭受。
将视线稍稍从自己身上挪开，超越时空的走廊，看看他们的选择，听听他们的心声，是
否是更有利作出理性的思考？


我当时从圣经，已经看见以色列人中信得少不信得多了，所以我首先就想：他们生活在
神的国度为什么还有那么多人不信？是不是本身圣经就在说谎，根本没有神，都是人的
虚构？（然而对比同时期其他民族“实用”的神，我实难相信）
——关于圣经是否启示，我觉得《铁证待判》里有相当严谨和非常精彩的分析！

不信的人，一定看见了好人没好报吧，一定看见受病求神无用吧，可能还不及拜偶像
吧，也许还有曾经的虔诚现在看来是幼稚吧，多半还看见某些信徒的冷漠虚伪和非信徒
的热心待人吧，多半还有......

他们面对的，我恐怕迟早也将面对。我如何作出回应？


由于一开始接触的是异端，所以我信仰的过程中亦步亦稳，生怕走错。
总把三个问题横在自己面前：
1 我是否真信？会不会是找寄托？
2 会不会今天真信了明天不信？
3 一辈子真信了，却信错了，怎么办？


走到最后我发现，无论是相信有神，还是相信无神，都有无可辩驳的理由。
就是说，如果我只看左边的理由，左边的理由足以说服我相信无神；
如果我只看右边的理由，右边的理由也足以说服我有神。
——以至于信主后我再看基督徒和非基督徒的文章，感觉就像看两个自己在对话......

这个过程很痛苦，以至于我现在看见一些信徒信得开开心心的，就不禁怀疑他是否真
的认真面对信仰了；以至于我曾说，如果你真的那么怕苦，就信佛吧......


虽然当时圣经的话一直让我怒火万丈，但不知道为什么，我还是决定走下去。
好在这样的愤怒和不断的理性思考，让我确信自己没有被洗脑，至少也不是像异端那样
被洗脑。

终于有一天，我还是被逼到了岔路口。
两条路都看不到头。

一条路，我看来理所当然，走下去，我多半还是会觉得理所当然，并且我还是我，只
是，我就要面对宇宙的浩瀚规律，生物的精致多样，和我们心底深处难以磨灭的声音，
并将它们归于偶然、进化和幻觉；

另一条路，相信有神，就要面对这个神的怒气，承认自己的罪孽，接受世界的残酷丑
恶和神的全能全善。并且还要像个贱奴那样，遭受什么都赞美神，承受什么都不抱
怨......


一个让我直觉和理性不满，一个让我感性和自尊愤怒。
两者无法调和。

一个要否定永恒，一个要否定自己。
必须选择一个。

最终我选择信，因为我内心的声音如此说。尽管这个声音常常让我很痛苦。
我至少敢说，做出这个选择决不是逃避现实，寻求安慰。
刘易斯说，不要求安慰，要求真理。寻求真理，或能得到安慰；若是寻求安慰，则既
得不到真理，也得不到安慰。
看看那些不寻求佛学只烧香拜佛的人，还有去教堂例行公事的人，他们其实并不信。
我不相信他们的行为真能掩盖内心深处的空寂和恐惧。
——我们的心，有时还是很聪明的，你很难骗他。


以后我走得越远，我越知我走对了。
我不仅对信的认识越来越深，对不信的认识也越来越深。甚至看待历史上的基督教的
一些错事，我还没看就能从圣经和人性推测出大概。

但对于还在路口徘徊的人，我知道用处还是不大。他们必须自己面对，自己选择。

我想对他们说，要善于反省自己的怀疑。
按照自己的标准，看看自己里面有什么没有。
真信徒常觉自己有罪，非信徒倒常觉自己不错，岂不是很有意思吗？
如果我们里面有问题，那么我们看没有问题的，岂不一定觉得有问题吗？

但我也知道，根据圣经反省自己是极其痛苦的。
那绝不是“吾日三省吾身”的轻松和小资。
如同用刀挖心。
我们里面有个“核”，一定会剧烈反抗！

我不知道那个“核”是不是原罪，但我知道，敞开胸襟看圣经就一定会刺痛那个
“核”。
所以每每看见SWX那样的发帖，都觉得他只是居高临下地看圣经，没有足够真诚地真
正把自己的情感带进去。
当然也有可能是我这个人一向认死理。
SWX，如果论断你，请原谅。

直面那个“核”，需要非凡的勇气和理智。而这样的能力，只能从上帝来。
但只有剖开这个“核”，才能进入上帝的慈爱。
其血淋淋的感觉，就像尼奥第一次离开那个泡缸。

而我走的越远，越清楚一路上都是圣灵引导我走过来。
一方面人可以也应当选这条路，所以人是有自由的，人要为自己的选择负责；
一方面人能走，确实离不开圣灵的引导，所以理当对神感恩，归荣耀给神。
神学上，这是争辩最多的，至今仍在辩。围绕神的拣选和人的自由展开的论辩，产生了
各个宗派。
但在个体信仰上，在个体与神的相遇上，却是明白了却难以言说。——不知这会不会给
SWX说成是神秘体验，不过应该不是，呵呵。

越随着经上的话改变自己，越看到自己过去的污秽，对神的公义也就越认可，对
神的恩典也就越感恩。
遗憾的是，基督徒往往只爱看新约，不爱看旧约。只要恩典慈爱，不要公义律法。
然而树不往下扎根，怎能结果呢？为什么要做买椟还珠的事情呢？

鲁迅说，宁可活在真实的痛苦中， 绝不活在虚假的谎言中。
福音固然意味着好消息，但你仔细看会发现，对很多人，其实它是坏消息。

我猜，不信的那位版友，恐怕会说我这是信迷了，被鱼钩钩深了。或者说，写了
这么多，都是废话吧。


by graceus

把膀臂给予飞雀，就欢快了；把心抛给大海，就辽阔了；把目光留给苍穹，就深
远了；把生命交给上帝，就幸福了。

by E.Elliot

When I was a kid we rushed home every afternoon from school, burst into the house to make sure Mother was there where we wanted her to be (she was), and then collected the kids on the block to play Kick the Can or to build playhouses out of wooden greenhouse boxes. Equipment didn't cost us a cent. Adults didn't have to supervise us or drive us anywhere or coach us. We just played. We were kids, and we knew that after-school time was playtime--until it was time to work (practice the piano, set the table, clear the table, do homework!).

Something has changed. Educators have gotten terribly serious about play and terribly casual about real physical work. Billions of dollars are lavished on developing crafts which nobody really needs and forms of recreation which people have to be taught to like. We've got "toys to grow on," computer games, play groups, playgrounds. Tiny tots who would have been happy with a few Tupperware containers and some spoons are given fancy mechanical toys that do things, and taught that if they make huge messes with finger paints they're being creative, which they didn't know they wanted to be.

I've seen Indian children playing in the river, climbing trees, sliding down mudbanks. But at the same time they were often catching fish or finding wild honey, fruit, or edible snails. They had no toys to play with but they had a marvelous time (at the age of three or four, mind you) building fires, sharpening knives, whacking away at the ever-encroaching weeds. Nobody told them what to do. Child's play naturally turned into useful work. My little three-year-old Valerie was as adept at these activities as the Indians--learned just as they had, by daily observation of adult men and women at work, then by imitation. A girl of ten could weave a perfect hammock; a boy of ten could handle a blowgun and bring home the "bacon," i.e. a bird or monkey for supper. A lot of what they did mattered, and they had much more fun than children who spend a good part of their childhood doing things that don't matter very much to them or anybody else.

Aren't children nowadays often getting far too much of the wrong kind of attention and not nearly enough of the right kind? Does it really make sense for kids of six and seven to be so frantically serious about organized sports and to be geniuses at computer games, but to have no idea how to amuse themselves without a coach, a team, a uniform, an arsenal of weapons, or an expensive and complicated piece of electronic equipment--not to mention daily transportation to and from the athletic field, park, ice rink, anywhere but the back yard? Must they be rounded up, herded, instructed, shouted at, praised, coaxed, and hovered over by adults who are paid money to pay attention to the poor little hooligans in order to keep them out of the adults' hair during "working hours"?

Is anybody paying attention to how a child works? Is it assumed that if asked to rake a lawn he'll do it halfheartedly? Will he sweep the garage in silent fury or will he rejoice in doing a thorough job of it? Will she scrub a sink till it shines and know herself to be a useful member of a household? School teachers desperately try to teach children who have never really labored with their hands to do schoolwork--not a very good place to start, it seems to me. If a child is not given to understand that he has a responsibility to help make the wheels of home run smoothly--if he is not given work which matters, in other words--why should he imagine that it matters very much whether he cooperates with teachers and fellow students? His parents have failed to give attention to a vital matter. Their attention has been elsewhere--on their own interests, jobs, amusements, physical fitness, or only on the child's health and a misguided notion of happiness which leaves out work altogether. If the "quality time" his father spends with him is limited to amusements rather than work, small wonder the child assumes nobody really likes work. His choices in how to spend his time, like his preferences in food, are taught at home--by observation of parental attitudes.

The jungle Indian children I knew learned without formal lessons of any kind. They were with their parents more or less all the time--everybody sleeping around a single fire at night, boys hunting or fishing with their fathers by day, girls planting and gathering food with their mothers. It was hard work to survive. They took responsibility to collect firewood and keep the fire burning. Very rarely did a parent even have to tell a child, let alone nag him, to do his job. It was expected and the kids met the expectations. Nobody over two had much leisure, but they had a lot of fun. I've never seen people laugh so much. It was a peaceful life, a life without anything like the severe stresses and conflicts we have created for ourselves. Wouldn't it be lovely to go back to all that?

But how are we supposed to do it? We don't live in the jungle. Children have jungle gyms instead of real trees to climb; plastic swimming pools instead of a clear flowing river; sliding boards instead of mudbanks. The work necessary to keep everybody alive and fed and clothed is done where they can't see it. So far as children can see, it usually has nothing to do with being fed and clothed but only with money. Their parents (often, alas, both of them) tear off somewhere in the morning and come home at night exhausted, having spent their day at who knows what. The newspaper, dinner and TV take up a chunk of what's left of the day. Football, the child learns by observation, is vastly more important than anything else in the father's life. It takes precedence over everything, rivets his father's attention, something he himself has never managed to do. So he, like his father, seeks escape from home and the responsibilities of home.

Is the situation irremediable? I don't think so. Surely we could eliminate some of the frustration and discontent of "civilized" family life if we took our cues from the "uncivilized" people who work almost all the time (and enjoy it) and play very little of the time (without making a complicated chore out of it). Happiness, after all, is a choice. Let your child see that you put heart and soul into the work God has given you to do. Do it for Him--that changes the whole climate of the home. Draw the child into acceptance of responsibility by starting very early. Expect the best. If you expect them to oppose you, to "goof off," to be terrible at two, rude at ten, intractable as teenagers, they won't disappoint you.

It takes longer, of course, to teach a child to do a job than it takes to do it yourself--especially if you have not given him the chance to watch you do it fifty times. It takes sustained attention--the sort of attention a child desperately needs. He can't get too much of that. He needs to be convinced that he is a necessary and very much appreciated member of the family.

What about the sacrifices? We're going to have to make some if we mean to correct our mistakes. Instead of sacrificing everything for money and sports, which most people seem ready to do without a qualm, we may have to sacrifice money and sports for our children. We will certainly have to sacrifice ourselves.

But, of course, that is what being a father or a mother means.

很有趣的一篇文章。

這篇的正題：讓我再舉一個猶太人怎樣查經的例子。這也是接續「查經新思維」的。上文說到，典型的查經討論問題很容易換來典型的無奈回答，似乎是在集 體練習反駁上帝（「這教訓很難遵守啊」、「現實就是現實啊」、「身不由己啊」），或是練習洩氣。而我發覺猶太人的查經討論似乎不引導人把焦點放在自己的無力上，而是另有焦點。我個人覺得，帶領查經者所發問的問題，實際上是在引導思考和談論的焦點，所以這些問題怎樣問，值得反思。而下文我嘗試以靈修書的反省 問題作類比。不過以下只是我的淺見，我接觸這方面只有一年而已，有錯敬希指正。

就以創世記第一、二章為例，其中2:16-17談到不可吃善 惡知識樹（傳統譯作「分辨善惡樹」）的果子。華人作者謝挺博士的靈修書《始於神》，就著創2:16-17所寫的問題是：「神的命令不可輕慢。你如何看神的 命令呢？有哪些命令會引致你產生減低祂話語的分量的傾向？有哪些命令你不容易順服？有哪些命令你會刻意違背？」1

這些無疑是好問題，我們每 個人以此撫心自問是很必須的。然而一到了小組查經的場合，如果組長問：「你如何看神的命令呢？」可能會引發組員回答：「我很少理會神的命令。」「我只以把 神的命令當作參考，再根據現實變通。」「我也好像亞當和夏娃那樣常常不理神的命令，一次又一次違反神的話語，已經習以為常。」「很多引誘，自己很無知，很 無力。」...（下刪幾百字）至於後面那幾條問題，回答起來很容易變成生活失敗事實的羅列，又再加強（reinforce）不願意順服的氣氛。

當然我得一次又一次自辯：我不是否認現實是那樣，從事實上說，我自己一樣很無力；不過正如我前面反複鋪排過，我不認同「有碗話碗，有碟話碟」，盡情放任自己用最大部分時間來羅列事實，是有建設性的說話或討論方法。

而 猶太人的查經把重點放在哪裏？或者說，他們引導你把最多時間、最多腦力和心力放在哪裏？同是關於善惡知識樹，一本信主猶太人靈修書作者提出的反省問題是： 「第三日，上帝說了兩次『好』，當水聚集在一起之後說了一次，當乾地出現、其上長出草和樹木後說了一次。上帝創造生命樹和善惡知識樹有甚麼『好』？請解 釋。」2

現在讀者或組員要想破腦袋的就是：既然神看祂所造的每棵樹都好，那麼祂造善惡知識樹也是好的，為甚麼好？

請試試這樣想下去。

作者沒有提供標準答案。

想完可再尋味一下這種發問與普通典型那種發問有甚麼不同的功能和效果。

We must continually remind ourselves of the purpose of life. We are not destined to happiness, nor to health, but to holiness. Today we have far too many desires and interests, and our lives are being consumed and wasted by them. Many of them may be right, noble, and good, and may later be fulfilled, but in the meantime God must cause their importance to us to decrease. The only thing that truly matters is whether a person will accept the God who will make him holy. At all costs, a person must have the right relationship with God.

Do I believe I need to be holy? Do I believe that God can come into me and make me holy? If through your preaching you convince me that I am unholy, I then resent your preaching. The preaching of the gospel awakens an intense resentment because it is designed to reveal my unholiness, but it also awakens an intense yearning and desire within me. God has only one intended destiny for mankind— holiness. His only goal is to produce saints. God is not some eternal blessing-machine for people to use, and He did not come to save us out of pity— He came to save us because He created us to be holy. Atonement through the Cross of Christ means that God can put me back into perfect oneness with Himself through the death of Jesus Christ, without a trace of anything coming between us any longer.

Never tolerate, because of sympathy for yourself or for others, any practice that is not in keeping with a holy God. Holiness means absolute purity of your walk before God, the words coming from your mouth, and every thought in your mind— placing every detail of your life under the scrutiny of God Himself. Holiness is not simply what God gives me, but what God has given me that is being exhibited in my life.

Let the light of late afternoon
shine through chinks in the barn, moving
up the bales as the sun moves down.

Let the cricket take up chafing
as a woman takes up her needles
and her yarn. Let evening come.

Let dew collect on the hoe abandoned
in long grass. Let the stars appear
and the moon disclose her silver horn.

Let the fox go back to its sandy den.
Let the wind die down. Let the shed
go black inside. Let evening come.

To the bottle in the ditch, to the scoop
in the oats, to air in the lung
let evening come.

Let it come, as it will, and don't
be afraid. God does not leave us
comfortless, so let evening come.

让黄昏的光线
穿过谷仓的缝隙照射进来，
在太阳西下时，
沿着成捆成捆的谷堆上移。

让蟋蟀开始摩擦肌肤，
在女人拿起针线的时候。
让夜晚来临。

让露水聚结到长草里
废弃的锄头上。让星星出场，
让月亮露出银色的角。

让狐狸走回它的沙穴。
让风渐渐吹息。让小屋
隐没于黑暗。让夜晚来临。

来到渠中的瓶子里，来到燕麦片中的
勺子上，来到肺里的空气之中。
让夜晚来临。

让它来临，它总要来的，不要
恐惧。上帝不会弃我们于
不安中，那就让夜晚来临吧。