教授與學生

Posted: 23rd March 2011 by anti_christendom in 基督教之「反科學」/「反理智」

上半段(由基版FAQhttp://julian_yeung.tripod.com/B03/B03a.htm 翻譯)


「就讓我解釋一下,信耶穌在科學上有甚麼問題。」一個無神論的哲學教授上課時說。他頓了一頓,叫了一個新生站起來,問:「孩子,你是基督徒吧,是不是?」

「是,先生。」

「那麼你是信上帝了?」

「絕對是。」

「上帝是不是善的?」

「當然!上帝是善的。」

「對了。」

「那麼你是善還是惡?」

「聖經說我是惡的。」

教授露齒而笑:「啊,聖經!」他想了一回,說:「給你一個問題。如果這裏有個病了的人,你有能力醫治他,你會醫治他嗎?起碼試一試?」

「我會的,先生。」

「那麼你便是善的了……」

「我可不會這樣說。」

「為甚麼不會呢?當你有能力,你會去幫助生病和殘廢的人……事實上當我們有能力,我們大部份人都會這樣做……但上帝不會。」

沒有回應。

「祂沒有這樣做呀,祂有嗎?我的兄弟是基督徒,他患了癌症,懇求耶穌醫治,可是結果他死了。耶穌怎會是善的?唔? 你能答我嗎?」

沒有回應。

老人表示同情,「不,你不能回答,是嗎?」他拿起書桌上的杯子,喝了一口水,好讓那學生有時間喘一口氣。教哲學時,得對初學者寬容一點。「年輕人,我們再開始過吧。」

「呃……是。」

「撒旦是不是善的?」

「不是。」

「撒旦從那裡來?」

那學生支吾地說:「從……上帝那兒……」

「對了,上帝造了撒旦,是不是?」老人用瘦骨嶙峋的手梳梳稀薄的頭髮,對嘻嘻笑著的學生聽眾說:「各位,我想這個學期將會十分有趣。」他回過頭來,對那個基督徒學生說:「孩子,告訴我,這個世界是否有惡存在?」

「是的,先生。」

「哪裡都充滿了惡,是不是?上帝是不是創造所有東西?」

「誰創造了惡?」

沒有回應。

「世上有疾病,是不是?不道德呢?仇恨呢?醜陋呢?所有使人苦惱的事──存在於這個世界嗎?」

那學生顯得坐立不安,勉強答道:「是的。」

「誰創造它們?」

沒有回答。

教授忽然提高聲調說:「是誰創造它們的?請告訴我!」教授把臉湊到那基督徒學生面前。

一把輕而平穩的聲音說:「孩子,上帝創造了所有的惡,是不是?」

沒有回應。那學生嘗試堅定地直視教授,但失敗了。教授突然走開,在班前踱來踱去,活像一隻老黑豹。全班都被迷住。「告訴我,」他說,「這個上帝不斷地創造一切的惡,衪怎會是善的?」教授揮舞著雙臂以包括著世上所有的邪惡。「這個善的上帝所造的仇恨、殘酷、痛苦、折磨、死亡和醜陋,以及所有苦難充斥著這個世界,是嗎,年輕人?」

沒有回應。

「你看不見這一切都在嗎?唔?」

教授走上前,對那學生輕聲說﹕「上帝是善嗎?」

沒有回應。

「孩子,你信耶穌嗎?」

那學生顫抖的聲音出賣了他:「教授,我信。」

老人惋惜地搖搖頭。「科學說你有五官去確認和觀察你周遭的世界。你有看見過耶穌嗎?」

「先生,我沒有。我從來沒看見過他。」

「那告訴我們,你有聽見過耶穌嗎?」

「我沒有,先生。」

「你有否觸摸過你的耶穌、嚐到你的耶穌、或是嗅到你的耶穌……
實際上,你對上帝有沒有任何感官認知(譯按:請注意,教授沒有說這個認知是直接還是間接、透過儀器等等的)?」

沒有回應。

「請回答我。」

「沒有的,先生。我恐怕沒有。」

「你恐怕……你沒有?」

「沒有,先生。」

「你還信祂?」

「……是……」

「那真需要信心呀!」教授向學生微笑:「根據實證、可測試和可證實的定律,科學說你的上帝不存在。孩子,你以為怎樣?你的上帝在哪裡?」

那學生答不上來。

「請坐下。」

那位基督徒坐下來……被擊敗了。

另一個基督徒舉手說:「教授,我可以發言嗎?」

教授微笑著說:「啊,另一個基督徒先鋒!來,來,年輕人,給大家說些恰當的見識。」

那基督徒環視房中四周,「先生,你正在提出一些有趣的論點。現在我有一個問題想問你。有一樣東西叫熱嗎?」

「有,」教授答,「世上有熱。」

「有一樣東西叫冷嗎?」

「有的,孩子,世上亦有冷。」

「沒有的,先生,世上沒有冷。」

教授的笑容凝結起來。班房突然變得很冷。第二個基督徒繼續說:「你有很多種熱,很熱、超熱、巨熱、白熱、少少熱或是沒有熱,但我們沒有一樣東西叫『冷」』。我們有零下458度(譯按:華氏),這是沒有熱,但就不可以再降低些。沒有一樣東西是叫冷的,不然我們會有冷過零下458度的溫度──先生,你看,冷只是一個用來形容欠缺熱的字。我們不能量度冷。因為熱是能量,熱可用熱量單位來量度。冷不是熱的相反,先生,這只是熱的欠缺。」

……一片死寂。

教授回應:「首先,我沒有說過冷是熱的相反。你暗示我有,硬說成是我說的。冷是熱的相對量度方式,特別是低過零度時。所有零下的溫度都可以用冷的定義來形容。如我所說,冷不是熱的相反,僅是一個對熱、涉及它在絕對零度的相對狀態的描述。再者,我能引申你論點的前提,及將之應用在對體積的描述。沒有一樣東西叫收縮,因為小只是大的欠缺,或者體積增長的欠缺。宇宙中最小的粒子是在原子邊緣的電子。所有收縮的東西都只能收縮到這個體積,不能再小,我們可以說收縮不存在嗎?」

那基督徒困惑、迷亂起來。這個基督徒已準備放棄,不然他就會說出不知所謂的東西,在餘下的學期成為別人的笑柄。

寂靜掠過班房。一陣短暫的停頓後,聽眾開始騷動起來,靠在椅邊跟鄰座交換意見。

一張紙從那個基督徒的手中落下來。紙上是一份他預先準備好的問題清單;那些問題現在提出來就太荒謬了。由於那個基督徒差不多準備返回座位,他被要求留下來挑戰教授。他只好不情願地照做。

「教授,這個世上有沒有一樣東西叫黑暗?我知這現在是一條愚蠢問題。」

「孩子,這現在的確是一條愚蠢問題。如果沒有黑暗的狀態,夜晚是甚麼?你在指責甚麼……?上帝不是在你的聖經說『讓這裡有黑暗』’嗎?你在否認這個所謂上帝的舉動嗎?」

「那麼你是說有一樣東西叫黑暗了?」

「我會答『是』──假如用你的說法、根據你的聖經;我會答『否』──因為黑暗是一個狀態而不是一件東西。」

「你又錯了,先生。黑暗不是某種東西,而是欠缺某種東西。你能夠有低光、正常光、強光、閃光,但如果你連續地沒有光,你是甚麼都沒有,而這叫黑暗,是不是?」

教授稱:「笨蛋,這正是我所說的。我說黑暗不是一種東西,就像飢餓、細小、富有、貧窮、黑暗、光明都不是一種東西。黑暗可以是某東西相對存在的狀態。」

「這是我們用來為字詞定義的意思。在真實情況下,黑暗不是一樣東西。如果它存在,你就可以造些較暗的黑暗及給我一瓶黑暗。教授,你可否……給我一瓶較暗的黑暗?」

「當然,只有像你的笨蛋才會問一條問題誤導別人去表示黑暗是一樣東西。你可否給我一瓶『細小』、『飢餓』。你的上帝自稱全能又可否如此?」

儘管佔了上風,教授還是對他眼前厚顏的年青人微笑。「這將會是一個很好的學期。年輕人,你介意告訴我們多些你的想法嗎?」

「好的,教授。我的意思是,你的哲學前提一開始就錯了,所以你的結論必定有錯……」

教授生氣起來:「錯了……?你好大膽……」

「先生,我可以解釋一下我的意思嗎」

全班都豎起耳朵。

「解釋……噢,解釋吧……」教授幫那基督徒從剛才給教授智慧的表現鎮懾的不穩狀態恢復過來。

一如平常,他是如此和藹可親的。他揮動雙手安靜全班,讓那學生繼續說。

「你正在二元論方法的前提上下工夫,」那基督徒解釋道,「例如有生存有死亡,有好神有壞神。你將上帝的概念看成有限的、我們可量度的東西。先生,科學連思想都解釋不了。它用到電力和磁力,但這些都不曾被看見,對它們離完全了解還差得遠。將死亡視作生存的相反,是忽視死亡不是一種實在的東西的事實。死亡不是生存的相反,僅是生存的欠缺。」

「我有說過生存是死亡的相反嗎?我有說過用二元論方法來看待事物嗎?沒有一個狀態是相反的。就像嬰兒不是老人的相反、或健康的新生女嬰不是患癌的老婆婆的相反。所有東西的狀態只存在於一條連續統一體的線上。人類是四腳動物和植物的延續。這是進化,著眼於生長的科學。你從未見過人家寫聖經,我們可不可說聖經是外太空生物寫成的?」

那年輕人從書桌拿起一份鄰座在看的報紙。 「教授,這是這個國家其中一家最下流的小報。是不是有樣東西叫不道德?」

「當然不是,經驗和事實的好壞只在於我們為它賦與的意義。沒有東西是不道德的,就如沒有東西是道德的。」

「先生,你又錯了。你看,不道德僅是道德的欠缺。有沒有一樣東西叫不公義?沒有。不公義是公義的欠缺。有沒有一樣東西叫惡?」那基督徒頓了一頓。「惡是否善的欠缺?」

「不是,不道德不是道德的欠缺。不道德是持有此看法的人眼中的道德。就是如此。」

那基督徒繼續說:「教授,如果世上有惡,而我們都認同,那麼上帝──如果存在──必定是透過一個有惡的機制在工作。那是甚麼工作呢?聖經告訴我們,這工作是看看我們每個人自由意志的意願,是選擇善還是惡。」

「邪惡與正義是一個零和遊戲,原則上互相抵銷對方。一個人的舉動可以被同時考慮成邪惡和正義。它們同時存在,並非互相排斥。為甚麼你覺得即使上帝存在,祂也是在工作的?這只是你的假設,認為上帝不會袖手旁觀。如果邪惡是那個機制,那它的目的是去減弱那所謂正義,因為這同樣是一個零和遊戲。」

教授面露慍色:「作為一個哲學科學家,我不會將這個情況視為可在任何選擇上做任何事;作為一個實在論者,我絕對不承認上帝這概念或其他神學因素等可作為對世事解釋之一部份,因為上帝是不可被觀察的。」

那基督徒回應:「我覺得在世上,上帝道德準則的欠缺(譯按:學生的意思是指不道德)大概是最能被觀察的現象。」

「甚麼東西令你覺得,只因道德準則不是出自聖經這個世界就沒有道德準則?」

「每週對它的報道為報紙賺來以億計的金錢啊!」

「那麼報紙對基督徒暴力舉動的報道呢?我們經常讀到類似的新聞。那些人給上帝的意願控制了思想。」

「教授,告訴我,你會告訴學生他們是從猴子進化出來嗎?」

「如果你是說自然進化過程,年輕人,我當然會。」

「先生,你有親眼觀察過進化嗎?」

教授冷冷地瞪著他的學生。

「教授,由於連觀察過進化的人都沒有,連證明這個過程是在進行都不能,先生,你這豈不是在教授你的意見而已?抑或說你此刻不是科學家,而是傳教士?」

教授不滿地說:「你能證明你的胃已經吸收了你今天的早餐嗎?五十年前的早餐又怎樣?你能用肉眼證明地球是圓的而不需任何科學儀器?如果你目睹有人槍擊一個受害者,由於子彈進入受害人的身體後就永遠不能被你看見,你能證明那受害人真的被子彈所殺嗎?如果你在法庭作證,指你目睹甲向乙開槍,你不只在提供意見。再者,子彈被槍管射出飛過空中,快得你永遠看不見。如果我們連自己的觀察都不能相信,你和你的上帝的精神連繫還有啥值得相信。在哲學討論中,我就即管不理你的無禮行為。現在你說完沒有?」

「那麼你不接受上帝的道德準則去衡量甚麼是正義?」

「如果任何人相信任何一套道德準則,他只會很易受影響去相信任何其他的道德準則──我選擇科學!」

「啊,科學!」那學生露出鄙夷的笑容。「先生,你正確地指出科學是觀察現象的學問。科學的前提同樣有錯……」

教授急促地說:「科學沒有錯,只是你現在對科學的理解有錯。科學在人類在世上漫步前早已存在。所有的答案已在,它們只是在等待被發現。」

教授的洞察令全班騷動起來。那基督徒一直站著,直至騷動平息下來。

「為了引申你先前向另一位同學提出的論點,我可否給你一個例子來解釋我的意思?」

教授明智地保持沉默。

那基督徒環視房中四周。「班上有沒有人看見過教授的腦袋?」

全班爆發出巨大的笑聲。

那基督徒指向他年老、漸漸垮掉的導師。

「這裡有沒有人聽見過教授的腦袋……觸摸過教授的腦袋、嚐過或嗅過教授的腦袋?」

看來沒有人試過。那基督徒惋惜地搖搖頭。「看來沒有人對教授的腦袋有任何感官認知。那麼, 根據實證、可測試和可證實的定律,科學說教授沒有腦袋。」

教授回應道:「讓我糾正你的錯誤。就說一個盲人永遠看不見你這實體,你能說你從未存在過嗎?這個世界能被看見,但又能被一些糖衣包裝、由一些不誠實、無原則的政客或宗教領袖放出的偏見所蒙蔽。」

班上一片混亂,為教授歡呼狂喜。

那基督徒慚愧地坐下……因為這正是他原本應有的狀態。

下半段 (由網友 kcbbq 翻譯)

學生的古怪言論引起了教授的興趣。教授於是問他有沒有閱讀過任何關於科學的東西。

「沒有啊,」
學生說。「我所知道的都從教會聽回來。」

「孩子,那正好解釋你對科學的無知。」教授說。「對一種東西的經驗知識不一定來自直接觀察。我們可以觀察那東西引起的效果而知道它一定存在。電子從來未被觀察,但它們能產生一道能被觀察的痕跡,所以我們知道它們存在。」

「哦,」基督徒說。

「沒有人觀察過我的心臟,但我們能聽到它跳動。我們也可從別人的經驗知識得知,沒有人可以沒有心臟(真的還是人造的)而生存,最少在沒有連接到一些醫療設備的情況下。所以我們知道我有心臟,就算我們未見過它。」

「哦。這很合理,」基督徒學生說。

「同樣地,我們可以知道我有個腦袋。如果我沒有的話,我就不能說話、走路等等了,不是嗎?」教授說。

「大概不能了。」

「事實上,如果我沒有腦袋的話,我就不能做任何事了。或許,除了成為一位電視傳道家吧。」全場大笑,就連那位基督徒也笑了。

「進化論已被知道是真的,是因為証據。」
教授繼續說。「它是對化石紀錄最好的解釋。就連有名的創造論家也承認,由爬蟲類到哺乳類動物的演變,在化石紀錄中有良好的證據。一個創造論家的辯論小組,包括Michael Behe和Philip Johnson等,在一埸電視轉播的辯論中正承認這點。那是在Buckley的”Firing Line”節目中。你有收看嗎?」

那位基督徒學生清清嗓子,然後低聲說:「我的母親不準許我收看教育電視節目。她認為那會削弱我的信心。」

教授搖頭嘆息。「知識確是削弱信仰的途徑呢,」他說。「但無論如何,進化論是對已被觀察的現象的最好解釋。」

基督徒急忙問:「你-你指我們見過它?」

「當然了。進化就在最近發生過,而且還繼續發生。並非在夏威夷土生土長的鳥和昆蟲在數世紀前被送到該地。他們都已進化成能夠適應當地的植物。所以,進化在有紀錄的歷史,而且是近代的歷史中發生過。你知道嗎?」

「病毒和疾病也進化成有抗藥性。這不僅能被觀察,更是科學家每日需要對抗的主要問題之一。倫敦地下鐵路隧道裏的蚊字因為與其他蚊子群隔絕而進化成另一個種類。但是,進化論談夠了。那和我們的論題-惡-沒有關係,對嗎?」

「嗯……」

「它和我們的論題有什麼關係呢?」

「如果你不信上帝的話,你一定是相信我們從猿猴而來。」

教授笑著說:「進化論者並不相信人是由猿或猴而來。他們相信的是人和猿有共同祖先。」

「哇!」基督徒說。「教會不是這樣告訴的。」

「我能肯定。他們不能反駁進化論,所以才散佈關於進化論的謊言。但你不知道很多基督徒也相信上帝透過進化來創造人嗎?」

「我不知道。」

「事實上,在我剛才提到的辯論會中,四位講員中的兩位都是有神論者。其中一位更是教士呢。」

「真的嗎?」

「真的。很多基督教教派都接受進化論。天主教作為基督教最大的教派,也和進化論相容。所以進化論在這裏不相干,對嗎?」

「沒錯。」

「就算只有無神論才能相信進化論,而這不是真的,甚至就算沒有証據支持進化論,而這也不是真的,這也不能解釋惡,對嗎?那是沒有關係的。」

「我明白了,」基督徒說。「我也不知道為什麼我會提出這論點。我想我以為那是沒有証據而相信的例子。」

「嗯,」
教授說。「如你所見,並不是如此。進化論有很多支持的証據,就算它真的沒有証據,這也和惡的論題無關。當我們繼續哲學課時,你就會明白如何運用你的理解能力去把重要的和無關的問題分開。」

「我想我已在學習呢,」學生凝視著地上說。

「讓我們回到惡的問題,」教授說。「你說惡是善的欠缺。那如何解決惡的問題呢?」

學生沒趣地答:「如果惡是善的欠缺,那麼上帝就沒有創造惡。」很明顯,這是他死記硬背,經常重覆的答案。

教授聳聳肩膀說:「好了,現在就假設這是真的。但這仍然沒有解釋惡。如果一次海嘯把一個城鎮夷為平地,奪去十萬人的性命,那是惡嗎?」

「那是善的欠缺,」學生說。

「那就如何?問題是為什麼上帝不阻止這場災難。如果上帝是全能的,衪可以阻止它。如果上帝是全知的,衪也會知道它何時發生。所以他是否創造了那次海嘯並不重要。我們要知道的是衪為什麼不做任何事去阻止它。」

學生顯得很困惑:「但衪為什麼要阻止它?這不是衪的錯呢。」

「如果一個人有能力去阻止海嘯把城鎮夷為平地,並這個人故意沒有去阻止它,我們不會說這個人是善的。就算那人說,『那不是我的錯,』我們也會因為一個人在上千人要死去時見死不救而吃驚。所以,如果上帝能阻止天災而沒有做的話,我們按此推理就不應說上帝是善的。事實上,我們大概會說上帝是惡的。」

基督徒學生想了一會,說:「我想我需要認同。」

「所以把惡重新定義為善的欠缺,完全沒有解決惡的問題,」教授說。「極其量,那只顯示了上帝沒有創造它,但沒有解釋為什麼上帝沒有阻止它。」

基督徒學生向教授擺動著手指說:「但這是根據我們人的標準。如果上帝有更高的道德觀呢?我們不能用我們的標準判斷他。」

教授笑了。「那麼你的論辯就失敗了。如果你承認上帝不符答我們對善的標準,我們就不應稱他為善。論辯完畢。」

「我不明白啊,」學生皺著眉說。

「如果我在外面看到一輛有四個輪胎,一個金屬車身,一個駕駛盤,一個馬達等的車輛,而它符合汽車的定義的話,它是一輛汽車嗎?」

「當然是了。」基督徒學生說。「汽車就是這樣的。」

「但如果有人說,按照另一些定義,它能算是一輛飛機。那是否意味著它不是一輛汽車?」

「不,」學生說。「它仍然符合汽車的定義。那就是我們說它是汽車的意思。它不符合飛機的定義,所以我們不應那樣稱呼它。」

「正確。」教授說。「如果它符合那定義,它就是那東西。如果神上帝符合善的定義,衪就是善的。如果衪不符合的話,它就不是。如果你承認衪不符合我們對善的定義,衪就不是善的。說衪或許根據另一些定義是善的,毫無用處。如果我們想知道根據我們的定義,衪是否善的話,你已答了那問題。上帝不是善的。」

「我不能相信!」基督徒學生說。「換成數分鐘前,我或許已經在取笑神不是善的說法。現在我卻同意。上帝不符合善的定義,所以衪不是善的。」

「慢著,」學生說。「就算我們不稱衪為善,根據另一些標準,上帝仍可以是善的。任憑我們如何想,上帝仍然可以根據衪自己的道德觀說衪是善的。就算我們不能稱衪為善,那不代表他在另一些標準中也不是善的。無論如何,衪可以有自己的一套定義呢。」

「唉呀,你不會想推進上帝可能在另一些標準中為善的看法的。」教授說。

「有何不可?」

「如果衪對事物的定義和我們的截然不同,衪也可能對其他的事物有著和我們不同的看法。衪可能對永賞、永生等都有自己的一套看法。你在天堂的永生可能只有一年,也可能是一千年的折磨。上帝可以說,衪有自己一套包括痛苦折磨的定義。」

「對啊!」基督說跳起來睜著眼說。「如果上帝可以重新定義任何詞語的話,任何事情也可以發生。上帝可以把所有信徒都送進我們稱為地獄的地方,然後說那裏是天堂。衪可以給我們在天堂十天,然後說那是衪對永恆的定義!」

「現在你總算在思考了!」教授指著學生說。「這正是哲學課要為學生帶來的。」

基督徒學生繼續說:「上帝也可以答應給我們永生然後不給我們,說那是衪對遵守承諾的定義!」

「是的,是的,」教授說。

「我真不敢相信我曾經迷上基督教這東西。它是那麼的不堪一擊,」
學生搖頭說。「只要想一陣子,教會在主日學中教我的所有論據全都崩潰了。」

「看來就是了」教授說。

「我今晚就要去我的教會,把我的想法告訴牧師。他們從沒有把如此重要的事告訴我。而且他們肯定沒有告訴我關於進化論的真相呢!」

那位學生,站起來的時候還是一位基督徒,現在坐下來時已變成一位無宗教信仰者。他還開始運用他的腦袋-因為這正是腦袋的作用。其他學生看到他坐在那裏,都目瞪口呆好一陣子。他們知道,他們都見證了一個人生命的轉變,就是一位年青人的心智從謊言和教條轉向對真相樸實的追求。

學生你看看我,我看看你,然後開始鼓掌。這再變成了歡呼喝彩。教授也大笑著,滿意地向學生鞠躬。當學生都安靜下來後,教授繼續講課。從此,哲學課上每天坐無虛席,直到學期的結束。

 

附錄1) 教授與學生的英文原版本 (轉載自 http://www.myttf.com/dispbbs.asp?boardID=31&replyID=1322832&ID=95844 )

Doug Kreuger has expanded the well-known Christian legend of the atheist
philosophy professor who is unable to prove that he has a brain.

“LET ME EXPLAIN THE problem science has with Jesus Christ.” The atheist
professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new
students to stand. “You’re a Christian, aren’t you, son?”

“Yes, sir.”

“So you believe in God?”

“Absolutely.”

“Is God good?”

“Sure! God’s good.”

“Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?”

“Yes.”

“Are you good or evil?”

“The Bible says I’m evil.”

The professor grins knowingly. “Ahh! THE BIBLE!” He considers for a moment.

“Here’s one for you. Let’s say there’s a sick person over here, and you can
cure him. You can do it. Would you help them? Would you try?”

“Yes sir, I would.”

“So you’re good…!”

“I wouldn’t say that.”

“Why not say that? You would help a sick and maimed person if you could…in
fact most of us would if we could… God doesn’t.”

No answer.

“He doesn’t, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer even
though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you
answer that one?”

No answer.

The elderly man is sympathetic. “No, you can’t, can you?” He takes a sip of
water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax. In
philosophy, you have to go easy with the new ones. “Let’s start again, young
fella. Is God good?”

“Er… Yes.”

“Is Satan good?”

“No.”

“Where does Satan come from?”

The student falters. “From…God…”

“That’s right. God made Satan, didn’t he?” The elderly man runs his bony
fingers through his thinning hair and turns to the smirking, student
audience. “I think we’re going to have a lot of fun this semester, ladies
and gentlemen.” He turns back to the Christian. “Tell me, son. Is there evil
in this world?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Evil’s everywhere, isn’t it? Did God make everything?”

“Yes.”

“Who created evil?”

No answer.

“Is there sickness in this world? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All the
terrible things – do they exist in this world?”

The student squirms on his feet. “Yes.”

“Who created them?”

No answer.

The professor suddenly shouts at his student. “WHO CREATED THEM? TELL ME,
PLEASE!” The professor closes in for the kill and climb into the Christian’s
face. In a still small voice: “God created all evil, didn’t He, son?” No
answer. The student tries to hold the steady, experienced gaze and fails.
Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace the front of the classroom like an
aging panther. The class is mesmerized. “Tell me,” he continues, “How is it
that this God is good if He created all evil throughout all time?” The
professor swishes his arms around to encompass the wickedness of the world.
“All the hatred, the brutality, all the pain, all the torture, all the death
and ugliness and all the suffering created by this good God is all over the
world, isn’t it, young man?”

No answer.

“Don’t you see it all over the place? Huh?” Pause. “Don’t you?” The
professor leans into the student’s face again and whispers, “Is God good?”

No answer.

“Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?”

The student’s voice betrays him and cracks. “Yes, professor. I do.”

The old man shakes his head sadly. “Science says you have five senses you
use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen your
Jesus?”

“No, sir. I’ve never seen Him.”

“Then tell us if you’ve ever heard your Jesus?”

“No, sir. I have not.”

“Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus… In
fact, do you have any sensory perception of your God whatsoever?”

No answer.

“Answer me, please.”

“No, sir, I’m afraid I haven’t.”

“You’re AFRAID… you haven’t?”

“No, sir.”

“Yet you still believe in him?”

“…yes…”

“That takes FAITH!” The professor smiles sagely at the underling. “According
to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says
your God doesn’t exist. What do you say to that, son? Where is your God now?”

The student doesn’t answer.

“Sit down, please.”

The Christian sits…Defeated.

Another Christian raises his hand. “Professor, may I address the class?”

The professor turns and smiles. “Ah, another Christian in the vanguard! Come,

come, young man. Speak some proper wisdom to the gathering.”

The Christian looks around the room. “Some interesting points you are
making, sir. Now I’ve got a question for you. Is there such thing as heat?”

‘Yes,” the professor replies. “There’s heat.”

“Is there such a thing as cold?”

“Yes, son, there’s cold too.”

“No, sir, there isn’t.”

The professor’s grin freezes. The room suddenly goes very cold.

The second Christian continues. “You can have lots of heat, even more heat,
super-heat, mega-heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don’t
have anything called ‘cold’. We can hit 458 degrees below zero, which is no
heat, but we can’t go any further after that. There is no such thing as
cold, otherwise we would be able to go colder than 458 – You see, sir, cold
is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure
cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is
not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.”Silence.

A pin drops somewhere in the classroom. “Is there such a thing as darkness,
professor?”

“That’s a dumb question, son. What is night if it isn’t darkness? What are
you getting at…?”

“So you say there is such a thing as darkness?”

“Yes…”

“You’re wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something, it is the absence of
something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing
light, but if you have no light constantly, you have nothing, and it’s
called darkness, isn’t it? That’s the meaning we use to define the word. In
reality, Darkness isn’t. If it were, you would be able to make darkness
darker and give me a jar of it. Can you…give me a jar of darker darkness,
professor?”

Despite himself, the professor smiles at the young effrontery before him.

This will indeed be a good semester. “Would you mind telling us what your
point is, young man?”

“Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start
with and so your conclusion must be in error….”

The professor goes toxic. “Flawed…? How dare you…!”

“Sir, may I explain what I mean?” The class is all ears.

“Explain… oh, explain…” The professor makes an admirable effort to
regain control. Suddenly he is affability itself. He waves his hand to
silence the class, for the student to continue.

“You are working on the premise of duality,” the Christian explains. “That
for example there is life and then here’s death; a good God and a bad God.
You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can
measure. Sir, science cannot even explain a thought. It uses electricity and
magnetism but has never seen, much less fully understood them. To view death
as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot
exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, merely the
absence of it.” The young man holds up a newspaper he takes from the desk of
a neighbor who has been reading it. “Here is one of the most disgusting
tabloids this country hosts, professor. Is there such a thing as immorality?”

“Of course there is, now look…”

“Wrong again, sir. You see, immorality is merely the absence of morality. Is
there such thing as injustice? No. Injustice is the absence of justice. Is
there such a thing as evil?” The Christian pauses. “Isn’t evil the absence
of good?”

The professor’s face has turned an alarming color. He is so angry he is
temporarily speechless.

The Christian continues. “If there is evil in the world, professor, and we
all agree there is, then God, if he exists, must be accomplishing a work
through the agency of evil. What is that work, God is accomplishing? The
Bible tells us it is to see if each one of us will, of our own free will,
choose good over evil.”

The professor bridles. “As a philosophical scientist, I don’t view this
matter as having anything to do with any choice; as a realist, I absolutely
do not recognize the concept of God or any other theological factor as being
part of the world equation because God is not observable.”

“I would have thought that the absence of God’s moral code in this world is
probably one of the most observable phenomena going,” the Christian replies.
“Newspapers make billions of dollars reporting it every week! Tell me,
professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?”

“If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes,
of course I do.”

“Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?”

The professor makes a sucking sound with his teeth and gives his student a
silent, stony stare. “Professor. Since no-one has ever observed the process
of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going
endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a
scientist, but a priest?”

“I’ll overlook your impudence in the light of our philosophical discussion.
Now, have you quite finished?” the professor hisses.

“So you don’t accept God’s moral code to do what is righteous?”

“I believe in what is – that’s science!”

“Ahh! SCIENCE!” the student’s face spits into a grin. “Sir, you rightly
state that science is the study of observed phenomena. Science too is a
premise which is flawed…”

“SCIENCE IS FLAWED..?” the professor splutters.

The class is in uproar. The Christian remains standing until the commotion
has subsided. “To continue the point you were making earlier to the other
student, may I give you an example of what I mean?”

The professor wisely keeps silent.

The Christian looks around the room. “Is there anyone in the class who has
ever seen the professor’s brain?”

The class breaks out in laughter.

The Christian points towards his elderly, crumbling tutor. “Is there anyone
here who has ever heard the professor’s brain… felt the professor’s brain,
touched or smelt the professor’s brain?”

No one appears to have done so.

The Christian shakes his head sadly. “It appears no-one here has had any
sensory perception of the professor’s brain whatsoever. Well, according to
the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says the
professor has no brain.”

The class is in chaos. The Christian sits… Because that is what a chair is
for.

The professor, amused at the student’s antics, asks the student whether he’s
ever read anything about science.

“No,” says the student. “I only know what I’ve heard in church.”

“That explains your ignorance about what science is, young man,” says the
professor. “Empirical knowledge of something does not always entail direct
observation. We can observe the effects of something and know that it must
exist. Electrons have not been observed, but they can create an observable
trail that can be observed, so we can know they exist.”

“Oh,” said the Christian.

“No one has observed my heart, but we can hear it beating. We also know from
empirical knowledge of people that no one can live without a heart, real or
manufactured, or at least not without being also hooked up to some medical
equipment. So we can know that I have a heart even though we have not seen it.”

“Oh, I see. That makes sense,” said the Christian student.

“Similarly, we can know that I have a brain. I wouldn’t be able to talk,
walk, and so on unless I had one, would I?” said the professor.

“I guess not.”

“In fact, if I had no brain I couldn’t do anything at all. Except maybe
become a televangelist!”

The class broke up with laughter. Even the Christian laughed.

“Evolution is known to be true because of evidence,” continued the
professor. “It is the best explanation for the fossil record. Even prominent
creationists admit that the transition from reptiles to mammals is well
documented in the fossil record. A creationist debate panel, including
Michael Behe and Philip Johnson, conceded this on a televised debate on PBS.
It was on Buckley’s “Firing Line” show. Did you see it?”

The Christian student cleared his throat and said in a low voice, “My mom
won’t let me watch educational TV. She thinks it will weaken my faith.”

The professor shook his head sadly. “Knowledge does have a way of doing
that,” he said. “But in any case, evolution is also the best explanation for
phenomena that have been observed.”

The Christian student sputters, “You–you mean we HAVE seen it?”

“Of course. Evolution has occured within recent times, and it continues to
occur. Birds and insects not native to Hawaii were introduced just a couple
of centuries ago and have evolved to take better advantage of the different
flora. So this evolution has taken place within recorded history. Recent
history. Did you know that?”

“Uh, no.”

“Viruses other diseases evolve to become resistant to medicine. This is not
only observed but it is a major problem that science must confront every
day. Mosquitos in the tunnels of London’s underground have evolved to become
separate species because of their isolation from other groups of mosquitos.
But enough about evolution. That doesn’t have anything to do with our issue,
evil, does it?”

“Well…”

“What does it have to do with our issue?” asked the professor.

“Well, if you don’t believe in god, then you must believe we came from apes.”

The professor laughed. “Evolutionists don’t believe that people came from
apes or even monkeys. They believe that humans and apes had a common ancestor.”

“Wow!” said the Christian. “That’s not what they told me at church.”

“I’m sure. They can’t refute evolution so they have to spread misinformation
about it. But don’t you know that many Christians believe that god made
humans by evolution?”

“I didn’t know that.”

“In fact, of the four people who debated the evolution side on PBS, on
William F. Buckley’s ‘Firing Line,’ which I just mentioned, two of them were
theists. One of them is a reverend, in fact.”

“Really?”

“Really. Many denominations of Christianity embrace evolution. Catholicism,
the largest denomination of Christianity, is compatible with evolution. So
evolution is not relevant here, is it?”

“I guess not.”

“Even if it were true that you have to be an atheist to believe evolution,
which is not the case, and even if it were the case that evolution was
unsupported by evidence, which is also not the case, this would not explain
evil at all, would it. It is irrelevant.”

“I see that now,” said the Christian. “I don’t even know why I brought it
up. I guess I thought it was an example of how you believe something without
evidence.”

“Well,” said the professor. “As you can see, it is not. There is plenty of
evidence for evolution. And even if there were no evidence, this has no
bearing on the issue of evil. As we proceed through the philosophy course,
you will see how to use your reasoning ability to separate important issues
from irrelevant ones.”

“I’m guess learning already,” said the student, looking at the floor.

“But back to the problem of evil,” said the professor. “You stated that evil
is the absence of good. How does that solve the problem of evil?”

The student said lifelessly: “If evil is the absence of good, then god did
not create evil.” It was evident that this was something the student had
learned by rote and had often repeated.

The professor shrugged his shoulders. “Okay, let’s suppose for the moment
that this is true. This still does not explain evil. If a tidal wave wipes
out a whole town, and 100,000 people die, is that evil?”

“There is the absence of good,” said the student.

“But so what? The problem is why god did not prevent the disaster. If god is
all-powerful he can prevent it, and if he is all-knowing he knows that it is
about to happen. So whether he created the tidal wave is not relevant. What
we want to know is why he did not do anything to stop it.”

The student looked confused. “But why should he prevent it? It’s not his fault.”

“If a human being had the power to prevent a tidal wave wiping out a town,
and this person intentionally failed to stop it, we would not say that the
person is good. Even if the person said, ‘It’s not my fault,’ we would be
appalled that someone could stand by and do nothing as thousands die. So if
god does not prevent natural disasters, and he is able to do so, we should
not say that god is good by the same reasoning. In fact, we would probably
say that god is evil.”

The Christian student thought for a moment. “I guess I’d have to agree.”

“So redefining evil as the absence of good does nothing to solve the problem
of evil,” said the professor. “At best it shows that god did not create it,
but this does not explain why god does not prevent it.”

The Christian student shook a finger at the professor. “But that’s according
to our human standards. What if god has a higher morality? We can’t judge
him by our standards.”

The professor laughed. “Then you just lost your case. If you admit that god
does not fit our definition of good, then we should not call him good. Case
closed.”

“I don’t understand,” said the student, wrinkling his brow.

“If I go outside and see a vehicle with four tires, a metal body, a steering
wheel, a motor and so on, and it fits the definition of a car, is it a car?”
“Of course it is,” said the Christian student. “That’s what a car is.”

“But what if someone says that on some other definition it could be
considered an airplane. Does that mean it’s not a car?”

“No,” said the student. “It still fits the definition of a car. That’s what
we mean by saying that it’s a car. It doesn’t fit the definition of an
airplane, so we shouldn’t call it that.”

“Exactly,” said the professor. “If it fits the definition, then that’s what
it is. If god fits the definition of good, then he is good. If he does not,
then he is not. If you admit that he does not fit our definition of good,
then he is not good. It does no good to say that he could be ‘good’ in some
other definition. If we want to know whether he is good by our definition,
you have answered that question. God is not good.”

“I don’t believe it!” said the Christian student. “A few minutes ago I would
have laughed at the suggestion that god is not good, but now I actually
agree. God doesn’t fit the definition of good, so he’s not good.”

“There you go,” said the professor.

“But wait a minute,” said the student. “God could still be good in some
other definition even if we don’t call him good. Despite what we think, god
could still have his own morality that says he’s good. Even if we couldn’t
call him good, that doesn’t mean that he isn’t good on some definition. He
could have his own definition anyway.”

“Oh, you would not want to push the view that god might be good in some
other definition,” said the professor.

“Why not?” “Well, if he has definitions of things that are radically
different from our own, he might have a different definition of lots of
other things. He might have his own definitions of such things as eternal
reward, or eternal life. Your supposed eternal life in heaven might just be
a year, or it could be a thousand years of torture. God could just say he
has a definition of reward that includes excruciating torture as part of the
definition.”

“That’s right!” said the Christian, jumping up. His eyes were wide open. “If
god can redefine any word, then anything goes. God could send all believers
to what we call hell and say that it is heaven. He could give us ten days in
heaven and say that that’s his definition of eternity!”

“Now you’re thinking!” said the professor, pointing a finger at the student.
“This is what a philosophy class is supposed to do for students.”

The Christian student continued. “God could promise us eternal life and then
not give it to us and say that’s his definition of keeping a promise!”

“Yes, yes,” said the professor.

“I can’t believe I used to fall for this Christianity stuff. It’s so
indefensible,” said the student, shaking his head. “Just a few moment’s
thought and all the arguments that my church gave me in Sunday school just
collapse.”

“So it would seem,” said the professor.

“I’m going to go to my church tonight and give the pastor a piece of my
mind. They never tell me about important stuff like this. And they sure
didn’t tell me the truth about evolution!”

The student, who stood up as a Christian, now sat down as an atheist. And he
started using his brain–because that’s what it’s for. The other students in
the class sat there, stunned, for a few moments. They knew they had
witnessed the changing of a person’s life, the redirection of a young mind
from falsehood and religious dogma to the honest pursuit of truth.

The students looked at each other and then began applauding. This soon gave
way to cheering. The professor took a bow, laughing. When the students
calmed down he continued his lecture, and class attendance was high for the
rest of the semester.

附錄2)﹕「教授與學生」(基督教原文版本)中譯 (轉載自 基版FAQhttp://julian_yeung.tripod.com/B03/B03a.htm)
「信耶穌不合科學。」一個哲學教授上課時說。他頓了一頓,叫了一個新生站起來,說:「某某同學,你是基督徒嗎?」

「老師,我是。」

「那麼你一定信上帝了?」

「當然。」

「那上帝是不是善的?」

「當然。上帝是善的。」

「是不是上帝是全能的?祂無所不能,對嗎?」

「對。」

「你呢?你是善是惡?」

「聖經說我有罪。」

教授撇撇嘴笑:「哈,聖經。」頓了一頓,說:「如果班上有同學病了,你有能力醫治他,你會醫治他嗎?起碼試一試?」

「會。」

「那麼你便是善的了...」

「我不敢這麼說。」

「怎麼不敢?你見別人有難,便去幫助...我們大部分人都會這樣,只有上帝不幫忙。」

一片沉默。

「上帝不幫忙。對嗎?我的弟弟是基督徒,他患了癌症,懇求耶穌醫治,可是他死了。上帝是善的嗎?你怎麼解釋?」

沒有回答。

老教授同情他了,說:「你無法解釋。對吧?」 他拿起桌子上的杯,喝一口水,讓學生有機會喘一口氣。這是欲擒先縱之計策。 「我們再重新來討論。上帝是善的嗎?」

「呃...,是。」

「魔鬼是善是惡?」

「是惡。」

「那怎麼有魔鬼呢?」

學生不知道怎麼回答。「是...是...上帝造的。」

「對,魔鬼是上帝造的。對嗎?」老教授用瘦骨嶙峋的手梳梳稀薄的頭髮,對傻笑著的全體同學說: 「各位同學,相信這學期的哲學課很有興趣。」 回過頭來,又對站著的那同學說: 「世界可有惡的存在?」

「有。」

「世界充滿了惡。對吧?是不是世上所有一切,都是上帝造的?」

「是。」

「那麼惡是誰造的?」

沒有回答。

「世界有不道德的事嗎?有仇恨、醜陋等等一切的惡嗎?」

該學生顯得坐立不安,勉強回答:「有。」

「這些惡是怎麼來的?」

沒有答案。

忽然老教授提高聲調說:「你說,是誰造的?你說啊!誰造的?」他把臉湊到該學生面前,用輕而穩定的聲音說:「上帝造了這一切的惡。對吧?」

沒有回答。

該學生嘗試也直視教授,但終於垂下了眼皮。老教授忽然轉過身來,在班前踱來踱去,活像一隻老黑豹。同學們都進入被催眠狀態。

這時老教授又開腔了:「上帝造這一切的惡,而這些惡又不止息的存在,請問:上帝怎可能是善的?」教授不斷揮舞著他張開的雙手,說:「世界上充滿了仇恨、暴力、痛苦、死亡、困難、醜惡,這一切都是這位良善的上帝造的?對吧?」

沒有回答。

「世上豈不是充滿了災難?」停了一下,他又把臉湊到該新生面前,低聲說:「上帝是不是善的?」

沒有答話。

「你信耶穌基督嗎?」他再問。

該學生用顫抖的聲音說:「老師,我信。」

老教授失望地搖了搖頭,說:「根據科學,我們對周圍事物的觀察和了解,是用五官。請問這位同學,你見過耶穌沒有?」

「沒有。老師,我沒見過。」

「那麼,你聽過祂的聲音嗎?」

「我沒有聽過祂的聲音。」

「你摸過耶穌沒有?可有嚐過他?嗅過他?你有沒有用五官來感覺過上帝?」

沒有回答。

「請回答我的問題。」

「老師,我想沒有。」

「你想沒有嗎?還是實在沒有?」

「我沒有用五官來接觸過上帝。」

「可是你仍信上帝?」

「呃...是...」

老教授陰陰地笑了:「那真需要信心啊!科學上強調的,是求證,實驗,和示範等方法,根據這些方法,你的上帝是不存在的。對不對?你以為怎樣?你的上帝在哪裡?」

學生答不上來。

「請坐下。」

該同學坐下,心中有說不出的沮喪。

這時,另一個同學舉起手來,問:「老師,我可以發言嗎?」

老教授笑說:「當然可以。」

學生說:「老師,世界上有沒有熱?」

教授答:「當然有。」

「那麼,也有冷嗎?」

「也有冷。」

「老師,您錯了。冷是不存在的。」

老教授的臉僵住了。課室裡的空氣頓時凝結。

這位大膽的同學說:「熱是一種能,可以量度。我們有很熱、加熱、超熱、大熱、白熱、稍熱、不熱,卻沒有冷──當然,氣溫可以下降至零下四百五十八度,即一點熱也沒有,但這就到了極限,不能再降溫下去。冷不是一種能量。如果是,我們就可以不斷降溫,直降到超出零下四百五十八度以下,可是我們不能。『冷』只是用來形容無熱狀態的字眼。我們無法量『冷』度,我們是用溫度計。冷不是一種與熱對立的存在的能,而是一種無熱狀態。」

課室內靜得連一根針掉在地上也能聽到。

「老師,」該學生竟又問:「世上有沒有黑暗?」

「簡直是胡混。如果沒有黑暗,怎可能有黑夜?你想問甚麼...?」

「老師,您說世上有黑暗嗎?」

「對...」

「老師,那麼你又錯啦!黑暗是不存在的,它只是無光狀態。 光可分微光、亮光、強光、閃光,黑暗本身是不存在的,它只是用來描述無光狀態 的字眼。如果有黑暗,你就可以增加黑暗,或者給我一瓶黑暗。老師,你能否給我一瓶黑暗?」

教授見這小子大言不慚,滔滔不絕,不覺笑了。這學期倒真有趣。「這位同學,你到底想說甚麼呀?」

學生說:「老師,我是說,你哲學的大前提,從一開始就錯了,所以結論也錯了。」

「錯了...?好大的膽子!」老教授生氣了。

「老師,請聽我解釋。」全體同學竊竊私語。

「解釋...噫,...解釋...」教授好不容易才控制住自己,待情緒漸漸平伏後,即使個手勢,叫同學們安靜。讓該同學發言。

學生說:「老師,您剛才所說的,是二元論哩。就是說,有生,就必有死。 有一個好的神,也有一個惡的神。你討論上帝時,所採用的,是一個受限制的觀點。你把上帝看作一件物質般來量度,但是科學連一個『思維』,也解釋不了。科學用電力,又用磁力,可是卻看不見電,看不見磁力,當然,對兩者也不透徹了解。把死看作和生命對立,是對死的無知。死不是可以獨立存在的。死亡不是生命的反面,而是失去了生命。」說著,他從鄰坐同學的桌子內,取出一份小報來,說:「這是我們國內最下流的一份小報,是不是有不道德這回事呢?」

「當然有不道德...」

「老師,你又錯了。不道德其實是缺德。是否有所謂『不公平』呢?沒有,『不公平』只是失去了公平。是否有所謂『惡』呢?」學生頓了一頓,又繼續說:「惡豈不是 失去善的狀態嗎?」 老教授氣得臉色通紅,不能說話。

該學生又說: 「老師,就是因為我們可以為善,也可以為不善,所以才有選擇的自由呢。」

教授不屑一顧: 「作為一個教授,我看重的是事實。上帝是無法觀察的。」

「老師,你信進化論嗎?」

「當然信。」

「那麼你可曾親眼觀察過進化的過程?」

教授瞪瞪該位同學。

「老師,既然沒有人觀察過進化過程,同時也不能證實所有動物都還在進化之中,那麼你們教進化論,不等於在宣傳你們的主觀信念嗎?」

「你說完了沒有?」老教授已不耐煩了。

「老師,你信上帝的道德律嗎?」

「我只信科學。」

「呀,科學!」學生說。「老師,你說的不錯,科學要求觀察,不然就不信。但你知道這大前提本身就錯誤嗎?」

「科學也會錯嗎。」

同學們全體嘩然。

待大家安靜下來後,該同學說:「老師,請恕我舉一個例子。我們班上誰看過老師的腦子?」同學們個個大笑起來。

該同學又說:「我們誰聽過老師的腦子,誰摸過、嚐過,或聞過老師的腦子?」

沒人有這種經驗。

學生說:「那麼我們能否說老師沒...?」

全班哄堂大笑。

  1. […] 以下轉載自教授與學生 […]

  2. […] 今天在FACEBOOK看到了以下分享,然後在REPLY的COMMENT上看到了這個《教授與學生》 […]

  3. Kang Kang says:

    上面這篇文章當中顯露出了許多教授論點的缺陷
    並且在上面許多的論點中
    教授方面只是不斷提出新論點
    並沒有對於有疑問、待探討的地方多做解釋
    更有許多的事情是科學所無法解釋的
    對於為了反對而提出一些無厘頭論點的人
    我們需要作甚麼反應相信自在人心^^
    人類的語言本為有限
    上帝祂給每一個人生活中的體會不一樣
    上帝是真實存在
    即使你再怎麼去散播不當謠言
    即使你再怎麼去中傷
    祂依然是存在
    即早悔改吧 共勉 !

  4. William Chan Wai Lam says:

    災難那裡不太同意
    災難可以是善呢
    你又不是上帝
    你怎麼知道這不是上帝的安排?
    災難可以是給人的一種苦難
    如果人生平平無奇,沒有困難
    那麼他的靈性就得不到成長

    而且人類不可以質疑上帝的定義
    上帝的智慧比人類都高
    人類對聖經的解讀還沒全盤暸解
    你怎知道上帝的定義是錯的?

    • RickyLO says:

      William Chan Wai Lam:
      你不要把從教會聽回來的白癡言論在這裡發表, 行不行:
      災難那裡不太同意
      災難可以是善呢
      你又不是上帝
      你怎麼知道這不是上帝的安排?
      災難可以是給人的一種苦難
      如果人生平平無奇,沒有困難
      如果上帝為了讓你的靈性成長, 安排取去你兒女, 父母, 至親的性命, 我倒想看你這耶膠是否要感謝上帝! 還有, 你死去的兒女還未成長, 如何增長靈性?

      上帝的智慧比人類都高嗎? 我問你, 你在宣揚耶神的全能,全善時(雖然這個耶賊從來沒有表現出這些屬性), 你用的是甚麼標準? 你還不是用人類一些普世價值去量度!

  5. 偶然 says:

    6月1日定为国际儿童节
    为了悼念利迪策惨案和全世界所有在战争中死难的儿童,反对虐杀和毒害儿童,以及保障儿童权利,各国代表愤怒地揭露了帝国主义分子和各国反动派残杀、毒害儿童的罪行。为了保障世界各国儿童的生存权、保健权和受教育权,为了改善儿童的生活,会议决定以每年的6月1日为国际儿童节.

    为什么没有人揭露耶和華的耶经内無恥的記載着血腥殺戮婴兒,孩童的凶殘,血腥,暴力悪行?

    何西阿書
    13:16 撒瑪利亞必擔當自己的罪、因為悖逆他的 神、他必倒在刀下、[嬰孩]必被摔死、孕婦必被剖開.
    以賽亞書
    13:16 他們的[嬰孩]、必在他們眼前摔碎.他們的房屋、必被搶奪.他們的妻子、必被玷污。
    列王記上
    14:12所以你起身回家去罷.你的腳一進城、你[兒子]就必死了。
    詩篇
    137 : 9 拿你的[嬰孩]摔在磐石上的,那人便為有福
    利未記
    26:21你們行事若與我反對、不肯聽從我、我就要按你們的罪加七倍、降災與你們‧
    26:22我也要打發野地的走獸到你們中間,搶喫你們的[兒女],吞滅你們的牲畜,使你們的人數減少,道路荒涼‧
    出埃及記
    12:12因為那夜我要巡行埃及地、把埃及地一切頭生的、無論是[人]是牲畜、都擊殺了.又要敗壞埃及一切的神、我是耶和華。
    12:29到了半夜、耶和華把埃及地所有的[長子]、就是從坐寶座的法老、直到被擄囚在監裡之人的長子、以及一切頭生的牲畜、盡都殺了。
    民數記
    31:17所以你們要把一切的男孩、和所有已嫁的女子、都殺了。
    申命記
    2:33耶和華我們的神將他交給我們,我們就把他和他的兒子,並他的眾民,都擊殺了‧
    2:34我們奪了他的一切城邑,將有人煙的各城,連女人帶孩子,盡都毀滅,沒有留下一個‧
    32:25 外頭有刀劍、內室有驚恐、使人喪亡、使[少男、童女、喫奶]的、白髮的、盡都滅絕。