logo
Redian新闻
>未名空间
>PDA - 掌中宝
>
想给小孩一个gps andorid 手机, 然后在电脑的google map上
avatar
想给小孩一个gps andorid 手机, 然后在电脑的google map上# PDA - 掌中宝
q*n
1 楼
小弟前两天昧着良心申请了一个教会学校（ regional teaching school那种， 没办法
，自己的方向太冷门了，只有个位数的openning), 虽然自己确实不是基督徒，来美国
这些年，一次教会都没去过, church门都不知道往那边开-_-。但是自己确实不讨厌基
督教，因为这些年碰到的信教的同学都给我留下了很好的印象。开始是不准备申教会学
校的，但是openning实在太少了，这个学校又恰好指明perfer我的小方向，所以趁感恩
节放假在家，在反复纠结之后，还是提交了申请材料。faith statement写的很简略，
没有说我信教，就是说我fully apperciate 他们的mission，用自己的话重复了一遍，
然后说会用我的teaching和research去contribute to their mission. 总共5句话吧
，没办法，实在写不出来了，我本身又是工科，实在不擅长写这个。
结果没想到今天居然接到search chair的email，说他们对我有兴趣，但是我必须首先
要重写faith statement， 然后他们非常想知道我的personal faith journey。我晕，
不知为啥有种做了坏事被人揪出来的感觉 :-( 我想请教现在怎么办呢？我不想撒谎，
直接说我现在不是基督徒，但是接触过基督徒，自己不排斥基督教，也不排斥以后入教
，可以吗？这以后面试关又怎么过呢？愁死了。。
PS 我申请的这个系全是白人，一个中国人没有。是不是他们碰到个中国人觉得很稀奇
，想探秘一下中国人的faith jouney。。
avatar
d*u
2 楼
东方卫视 花样姐姐
很难想象这个舞台上的疯婆子在真人秀里是啥样
avatar
h*n
3 楼
跟踪。请问要装什么APP或软件？请懂的人推荐介绍一下，多谢了！！
avatar
d*a
4 楼
有啥难写的？ 就是说实话呗。你不是基督徒，但是特别的对基督教感兴趣，详细描述
几个你遇到的基督徒，如何的让你感动，于是让你觉得基督教是多么的好。虽然你不是
基督徒，但是你希望能进一步的了解。看神能不能打开门接纳你。虽然你还不信主，但
是你对他们的mission很认同。
我本人是基督徒，我觉得这么说是合适的。而且对方绝对不会怪罪你。
avatar
n*w
5 楼
google latitude?
avatar
s*y
6 楼

赞同。

【在 d**********a 的大作中提到】
: 有啥难写的？ 就是说实话呗。你不是基督徒，但是特别的对基督教感兴趣，详细描述
: 几个你遇到的基督徒，如何的让你感动，于是让你觉得基督教是多么的好。虽然你不是
: 基督徒，但是你希望能进一步的了解。看神能不能打开门接纳你。虽然你还不信主，但
: 是你对他们的mission很认同。
: 我本人是基督徒，我觉得这么说是合适的。而且对方绝对不会怪罪你。
avatar
t*d
7 楼
seekdroid.

【在 h*****n 的大作中提到】
: 跟踪。请问要装什么APP或软件？请懂的人推荐介绍一下，多谢了！！
avatar
s*y
8 楼
你居然只写了5句话也太马虎了。
其实这个发挥放散一下，写一篇文章都是有余的。

【在 q***n 的大作中提到】
: 小弟前两天昧着良心申请了一个教会学校（ regional teaching school那种， 没办法
: ，自己的方向太冷门了，只有个位数的openning), 虽然自己确实不是基督徒，来美国
: 这些年，一次教会都没去过, church门都不知道往那边开-_-。但是自己确实不讨厌基
: 督教，因为这些年碰到的信教的同学都给我留下了很好的印象。开始是不准备申教会学
: 校的，但是openning实在太少了，这个学校又恰好指明perfer我的小方向，所以趁感恩
: 节放假在家，在反复纠结之后，还是提交了申请材料。faith statement写的很简略，
: 没有说我信教，就是说我fully apperciate 他们的mission，用自己的话重复了一遍，
: 然后说会用我的teaching和research去contribute to their mission. 总共5句话吧
: ，没办法，实在写不出来了，我本身又是工科，实在不擅长写这个。
: 结果没想到今天居然接到search chair的email，说他们对我有兴趣，但是我必须首先
avatar
M*o
9 楼
就是，起码也得写下面这篇这么长。。。
Why I Am Not A Christian
What Is a Christian?
Nowadays it is not quite that. We have to be a little more vague in our
meaning of Christianity. I think, however, that there are two different
items which are quite essential to anybody calling himself a Christian. The
first is one of a dogmatic nature -- namely, that you must believe in God
and immortality. If you do not believe in those two things, I do not think
that you can properly call yourself a Christian. Then, further than that, as
the name implies, you must have some kind of belief about Christ. The
Mohammedans, for instance, also believe in God and in immortality, and yet
they would not call themselves Christians. I think you must have at the very
lowest the belief that Christ was, if not divine, at least the best and
wisest of men. If you are not going to believe that much about Christ, I do
not think you have any right to call yourself a Christian. Of course, there
is another sense, which you find in Whitaker's Almanack and in geography
books, where the population of the world is said to be divided into
Christians, Mohammedans, Buddhists, fetish worshipers, and so on; and in
that sense we are all Christians. The geography books count us all in, but
that is a purely geographical sense, which I suppose we can ignore.Therefore
I take it that when I tell you why I am not a Christian I have to tell you
two different things: first, why I do not believe in God and in immortality;
and, secondly, why I do not think that Christ was the best and wisest of
men, although I grant him a very high degree of moral goodness.
But for the successful efforts of unbelievers in the past, I could not take
so elastic a definition of Christianity as that. As I said before, in olden
days it had a much more full-blooded sense. For instance, it included he
belief in hell. Belief in eternal hell-fire was an essential item of
Christian belief until pretty recent times. In this country, as you know, it
ceased to be an essential item because of a decision of the Privy Council,
and from that decision the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of
York dissented; but in this country our religion is settled by Act of
Parliament, and therefore the Privy Council was able to override their
Graces and hell was no longer necessary to a Christian. Consequently I shall
not insist that a Christian must believe in hell.
The Existence of God
To come to this question of the existence of God: it is a large and serious
question, and if I were to attempt to deal with it in any adequate manner I
should have to keep you here until Kingdom Come, so that you will have to
excuse me if I deal with it in a somewhat summary fashion. You know, of
course, that the Catholic Church has laid it down as a dogma that the
existence of God can be proved by the unaided reason. That is a somewhat
curious dogma, but it is one of their dogmas. They had to introduce it
because at one time the freethinkers adopted the habit of saying that there
were such and such arguments which mere reason might urge against the
existence of God, but of course they knew as a matter of faith that God did
exist. The arguments and the reasons were set out at great length, and the
Catholic Church felt that they must stop it. Therefore they laid it down
that the existence of God can be proved by the unaided reason and they had
to set up what they considered were arguments to prove it. There are, of
course, a number of them, but I shall take only a few.
The First-cause Argument
Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the First
Cause. (It is maintained that everything we see in this world has a cause,
and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further you must come
to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the name of God.) That
argument, I suppose, does not carry very much weight nowadays, because, in
the first place, cause is not quite what it used to be. The philosophers and
the men of science have got going on cause, and it has not anything like
the vitality it used to have; but, apart from that, you can see that the
argument that there must be a First Cause is one that cannot have any
validity. I may say that when I was a young man and was debating these
questions very seriously in my mind, I for a long time accepted the argument
of the First Cause, until one day, at the age of eighteen, I read John
Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and I there found this sentence: "My father
taught me that the question 'Who made me?' cannot be answered, since it
immediately suggests the further question `Who made god?'" That very simple
sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the
First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If
there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as
God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of
the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant
and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about the
tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The argument
is really no better than that. There is no reason why the world could not
have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any
reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose
that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a
beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination. Therefore,
perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the argument about the First
Cause.
The Natural-law Argument
Then there is a very common argument from natural law. That was a favorite
argument all through the eighteenth century, especially under the influence
of Sir Isaac Newton and his cosmogony. People observed the planets going
around the sun according to the law of gravitation, and they thought that
God had given a behest to these planets to move in that particular fashion,
and that was why they did so. That was, of course, a convenient and simple
explanation that saved them the trouble of looking any further for
explanations of the law of gravitation. Nowadays we explain the law of
gravitation in a somewhat complicated fashion that Einstein has introduced.
I do not propose to give you a lecture on the law of gravitation, as
interpreted by Einstein, because that again would take some time; at any
rate, you no longer have the sort of natural law that you had in the
Newtonian system, where, for some reason that nobody could understand,
nature behaved in a uniform fashion. We now find that a great many things we
thought were natural laws are really human conventions. You know that even
in the remotest depths of stellar space there are still three feet to a yard
. That is, no doubt, a very remarkable fact, but you would hardly call it a
law of nature. And a great many things that have been regarded as laws of
nature are of that kind. On the other hand, where you can get down to any
knowledge of what atoms actually do, you will find they are much less
subject to law than people thought, and that the laws at which you arrive
are statistical averages of just the sort that would emerge from chance.
There is, as we all know, a law that if you throw dice you will get double
sixes only about once in thirty-six times, and we do not regard that as
evidence that the fall of the dice is regulated by design; on the contrary,
if the double sixes came every time we should think that there was design.
The laws of nature are of that sort as regards a great many of them. They
are statistical averages such as would emerge from the laws of chance; and
that makes this whole business of natural law much less impressive than it
formerly was. Quite apart from that, which represents the momentary state of
science that may change tomorrow, the whole idea that natural laws imply a
lawgiver is due to a confusion between natural and human laws. Human laws
are behests commanding you to behave a certain way, in which you may choose
to behave, or you may choose not to behave; but natural laws are a
description of how things do in fact behave, and being a mere description of
what they in fact do, you cannot argue that there must be somebody who told
them to do that, because even supposing that there were, you are then faced
with the question "Why did God issue just those natural laws and no others?
" If you say that he did it simply from his own good pleasure, and without
any reason, you then find that there is something which is not subject to
law, and so your train of natural law is interrupted. If you say, as more
orthodox theologians do, that in all the laws which God issues he had a
reason for giving those laws rather than others -- the reason, of course,
being to create the best universe, although you would never think it to look
at it -- if there were a reason for the laws which God gave, then God
himself was subject to law, and therefore you do not get any advantage by
introducing God as an intermediary. You really have a law outside and
anterior to the divine edicts, and God does not serve your purpose, because
he is not the ultimate lawgiver. In short, this whole argument about natural
law no longer has anything like the strength that it used to have. I am
traveling on in time in my review of the arguments. The arguments that are
used for the existence of God change their character as time goes on. They
were at first hard intellectual arguments embodying certain quite definite
fallacies. As we come to modern times they become less respectable
intellectually and more and more affected by a kind of moralizing vagueness.
The Argument from Design
The next step in the process brings us to the argument from design. You all
know the argument from design: everything in the world is made just so that
we can manage to live in the world, and if the world was ever so little
different, we could not manage to live in it. That is the argument from
design. It sometimes takes a rather curious form; for instance, it is argued
that rabbits have white tails in order to be easy to shoot. I do not know
how rabbits would view that application. It is an easy argument to parody.
You all know Voltaire's remark, that obviously the nose was designed to be
such as to fit spectacles. That sort of parody has turned out to be not
nearly so wide of the mark as it might have seemed in the eighteenth century
, because since the time of Darwin we understand much better why living
creatures are adapted to their environment. It is not that their environment
was made to be suitable to them but that they grew to be suitable to it,
and that is the basis of adaptation. There is no evidence of design about it.
When you come to look into this argument from design, it is a most
astonishing thing that people can believe that this world, with all the
things that are in it, with all its defects, should be the best that
omnipotence and omniscience have been able to produce in millions of years.
I really cannot believe it. Do you think that, if you were granted
omnipotence and omniscience and millions of years in which to perfect your
world, you could produce nothing better than the Ku Klux Klan or the
Fascists? Moreover, if you accept the ordinary laws of science, you have to
suppose that human life and life in general on this planet will die out in
due course: it is a stage in the decay of the solar system; at a certain
stage of decay you get the sort of conditions of temperature and so forth
which are suitable to protoplasm, and there is life for a short time in the
life of the whole solar system. You see in the moon the sort of thing to
which the earth is tending -- something dead, cold, and lifeless.
I am told that that sort of view is depressing, and people will sometimes
tell you that if they believed that, they would not be able to go on living.
Do not believe it; it is all nonsense. Nobody really worries about much
about what is going to happen millions of years hence. Even if they think
they are worrying much about that, they are really deceiving themselves.
They are worried about something much more mundane, or it may merely be a
bad digestion; but nobody is really seriously rendered unhappy by the
thought of something that is going to happen to this world millions and
millions of years hence. Therefore, although it is of course a gloomy view
to suppose that life will die out -- at least I suppose we may say so,
although sometimes when I contemplate the things that people do with their
lives I think it is almost a consolation -- it is not such as to render life
miserable. It merely makes you turn your attention to other things.
The Moral Arguments for Deity
Now we reach one stage further in what I shall call the intellectual descent
that the Theists have made in their argumentations, and we come to what are
called the moral arguments for the existence of God. You all know, of
course, that there used to be in the old days three intellectual arguments
for the existence of God, all of which were disposed of by Immanuel Kant in
the Critique of Pure Reason; but no sooner had he disposed of those
arguments than he invented a new one, a moral argument, and that quite
convinced him. He was like many people: in intellectual matters he was
skeptical, but in moral matters he believed implicitly in the maxims that he
had imbibed at his mother's knee. That illustrates what the psychoanalysts
so much emphasize -- the immensely stronger hold upon us that our very early
associations have than those of later times.
Kant, as I say, invented a new moral argument for the existence of God, and
that in varying forms was extremely popular during the nineteenth century.
It has all sorts of forms. One form is to say there would be no right or
wrong unless God existed. I am not for the moment concerned with whether
there is a difference between right and wrong, or whether there is not: that
is another question. The point I am concerned with is that, if you are
quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, then you are in
this situation: Is that difference due to God's fiat or is it not? If it is
due to God's fiat, then for God himself there is no difference between right
and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is
good. If you are going to say, as theologians do, that God is good, you must
then say that right and wrong have some meaning which is independent of God
's fiat, because God's fiats are good and not bad independently of the mere
fact that he made them. If you are going to say that, you will then have to
say that it is not only through God that right and wrong came into being,
but that they are in their essence logically anterior to God. You could, of
course, if you liked, say that there was a superior deity who gave orders to
the God that made this world, or could take up the line that some of the
gnostics took up -- a line which I often thought was a very plausible one --
that as a matter of fact this world that we know was made by the devil at a
moment when God was not looking. There is a good deal to be said for that,
and I am not concerned to refute it.
The Argument for the Remedying of Injustice
Then there is another very curious form of moral argument, which is this:
they say that the existence of God is required in order to bring justice
into the world. In the part of this universe that we know there is great
injustice, and often the good suffer, and often the wicked prosper, and one
hardly knows which of those is the more annoying; but if you are going to
have justice in the universe as a whole you have to suppose a future life to
redress the balance of life here on earth. So they say that there must be a
God, and there must be Heaven and Hell in order that in the long run there
may be justice. That is a very curious argument. If you looked at the matter
from a scientific point of view, you would say, "After all, I only know
this world. I do not know about the rest of the universe, but so far as one
can argue at all on probabilities one would say that probably this world is
a fair sample, and if there is injustice here the odds are that there is
injustice elsewhere also." Supposing you got a crate of oranges that you
opened, and you found all the top layer of oranges bad, you would not argue,
"The underneath ones must be good, so as to redress the balance." You would
say, "Probably the whole lot is a bad consignment"; and that is really what
a scientific person would argue about the universe. He would say, "Here we
find in this world a great deal of injustice, and so far as that goes that
is a reason for supposing that justice does not rule in the world; and
therefore so far as it goes it affords a moral argument against deity and
not in favor of one." Of course I know that the sort of intellectual
arguments that I have been talking to you about are not what really moves
people. What really moves people to believe in God is not any intellectual
argument at all. Most people believe in God because they have been taught
from early infancy to do it, and that is the main reason.
Then I think that the next most powerful reason is the wish for safety, a
sort of feeling that there is a big brother who will look after you. That
plays a very profound part in influencing people's desire for a belief in
God.
The Character of Christ
I now want to say a few words upon a topic which I often think is not quite
sufficiently dealt with by Rationalists, and that is the question whether
Christ was the best and the wisest of men. It is generally taken for granted
that we should all agree that that was so. I do not myself. I think that
there are a good many points upon which I agree with Christ a great deal
more than the professing Christians do. I do not know that I could go with
Him all the way, but I could go with Him much further than most professing
Christians can. You will remember that He said, "Resist not evil: but
whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
That is not a new precept or a new principle. It was used by Lao-tse and
Buddha some 500 or 600 years before Christ, but it is not a principle which
as a matter of fact Christians accept. I have no doubt that the present
prime minister [Stanley Baldwin], for instance, is a most sincere Christian,
but I should not advise any of you to go and smite him on one cheek. I
think you might find that he thought this text was intended in a figurative
sense.
Then there is another point which I consider excellent. You will remember
that Christ said, "Judge not lest ye be judged." That principle I do not
think you would find was popular in the law courts of Christian countries. I
have known in my time quite a number of judges who were very earnest
Christians, and none of them felt that they were acting contrary to
Christian principles in what they did. Then Christ says, "Give to him that
asketh of thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away."
That is a very good principle. Your Chairman has reminded you that we are
not here to talk politics, but I cannot help observing that the last general
election was fought on the question of how desirable it was to turn away
from him that would borrow of thee, so that one must assume that the
Liberals and Conservatives of this country are composed of people who do not
agree with the teaching of Christ, because they certainly did very
emphatically turn away on that occasion.
Then there is one other maxim of Christ which I think has a great deal in
it, but I do not find that it is very popular among some of our Christian
friends. He says, "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that which thou hast
, and give to the poor." That is a very excellent maxim, but, as I say, it
is not much practised. All these, I think, are good maxims, although they
are a little difficult to live up to. I do not profess to live up to them
myself; but then, after all, it is not quite the same thing as for a
Christian.
Defects in Christ's Teaching
Having granted the excellence of these maxims, I come to certain points in
which I do not believe that one can grant either the superlative wisdom or
the superlative goodness of Christ as depicted in the Gospels; and here I
may say that one is not concerned with the historical question. Historically
it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if He did we
do not know anything about him, so that I am not concerned with the
historical question, which is a very difficult one. I am concerned with
Christ as He appears in the Gospels, taking the Gospel narrative as it
stands, and there one does find some things that do not seem to be very wise
. For one thing, he certainly thought that His second coming would occur in
clouds of glory before the death of all the people who were living at that
time. There are a great many texts that prove that. He says, for instance, "
Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of Man be come
." Then he says, "There are some standing here which shall not taste death
till the Son of Man comes into His kingdom"; and there are a lot of places
where it is quite clear that He believed that His second coming would happen
during the lifetime of many then living. That was the belief of His earlier
followers, and it was the basis of a good deal of His moral teaching. When
He said, "Take no thought for the morrow," and things of that sort, it was
very largely because He thought that the second coming was going to be very
soon, and that all ordinary mundane affairs did not count. I have, as a
matter of fact, known some Christians who did believe that the second coming
was imminent. I knew a parson who frightened his congregation terribly by
telling them that the second coming was very imminent indeed, but they were
much consoled when they found that he was planting trees in his garden. The
early Christians did really believe it, and they did abstain from such
things as planting trees in their gardens, because they did accept from
Christ the belief that the second coming was imminent. In that respect,
clearly He was not so wise as some other people have been, and He was
certainly not superlatively wise.
The Moral Problem
Then you come to moral questions. There is one very serious defect to my
mind in Christ's moral character, and that is that He believed in hell. I do
not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe
in everlasting punishment. Christ certainly as depicted in the Gospels did
believe in everlasting punishment, and one does find repeatedly a vindictive
fury against those people who would not listen to His preaching -- an
attitude which is not uncommon with preachers, but which does somewhat
detract from superlative excellence. You do not, for instance find that
attitude in Socrates. You find him quite bland and urbane toward the people
who would not listen to him; and it is, to my mind, far more worthy of a
sage to take that line than to take the line of indignation. You probably
all remember the sorts of things that Socrates was saying when he was dying,
and the sort of things that he generally did say to people who did not
agree with him.
You will find that in the Gospels Christ said, "Ye serpents, ye generation
of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of Hell." That was said to people
who did not like His preaching. It is not really to my mind quite the best
tone, and there are a great many of these things about Hell. There is, of
course, the familiar text about the sin against the Holy Ghost: "Whosoever
speaketh against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven him neither in this
World nor in the world to come." That text has caused an unspeakable amount
of misery in the world, for all sorts of people have imagined that they
have committed the sin against the Holy Ghost, and thought that it would not
be forgiven them either in this world or in the world to come. I really do
not think that a person with a proper degree of kindliness in his nature
would have put fears and terrors of that sort into the world.
Then Christ says, "The Son of Man shall send forth his His angels, and they
shall gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and them which do
iniquity, and shall cast them into a furnace of fire; there shall be wailing
and gnashing of teeth"; and He goes on about the wailing and gnashing of
teeth. It comes in one verse after another, and it is quite manifest to the
reader that there is a certain pleasure in contemplating wailing and
gnashing of teeth, or else it would not occur so often. Then you all, of
course, remember about the sheep and the goats; how at the second coming He
is going to divide the sheep from the goats, and He is going to say to the
goats, "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire." He continues, "
And these shall go away into everlasting fire." Then He says again, "If thy
hand offend thee, cut it off; it is better for thee to enter into life
maimed, than having two hands to go into Hell, into the fire that never
shall be quenched; where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched."
He repeats that again and again also. I must say that I think all this
doctrine, that hell-fire is a punishment for sin, is a doctrine of cruelty.
It is a doctrine that put cruelty into the world and gave the world
generations of cruel torture; and the Christ of the Gospels, if you could
take Him asHis chroniclers represent Him, would certainly have to be
considered partly responsible for that.
There are other things of less importance. There is the instance of the
Gadarene swine, where it certainly was not very kind to the pigs to put the
devils into them and make them rush down the hill into the sea. You must
remember that He was omnipotent, and He could have made the devils simply go
away; but He chose to send them into the pigs. Then there is the curious
story of the fig tree, which always rather puzzled me. You remember what
happened about the fig tree. "He was hungry; and seeing a fig tree afar off
having leaves, He came if haply He might find anything thereon; and when He
came to it He found nothing but leaves, for the time of figs was not yet.
And Jesus answered and said unto it: 'No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for
ever' . . . and Peter . . . saith unto Him: 'Master, behold the fig tree
which thou cursedst is withered away.'" This is a very curious story,
because it was not the right time of year for figs, and you really could not
blame the tree. I cannot myself feel that either in the matter of wisdom or
in the matter of virtue Christ stands quite as high as some other people
known to history. I think I should put Buddha and Socrates above Him in
those respects.
The Emotional Factor
As I said before, I do not think that the real reason why people accept
religion has anything to do with argumentation. They accept religion on
emotional grounds. One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack
religion, because religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not
noticed it. You know, of course, the parody of that argument in Samuel
Butler's book, Erewhon Revisited. You will remember that in Erewhon there is
a certain Higgs who arrives in a remote country, and after spending some
time there he escapes from that country in a balloon. Twenty years later he
comes back to that country and finds a new religion in which he is worshiped
under the name of the "Sun Child," and it is said that he ascended into
heaven. He finds that the Feast of the Ascension is about to be celebrated,
and he hears Professors Hanky and Panky say to each other that they never
set eyes on the man Higgs, and they hope they never will; but they are the
high priests of the religion of the Sun Child. He is very indignant, and he
comes up to them, and he says, "I am going to expose all this humbug and
tell the people of Erewhon that it was only I, the man Higgs, and I went up
in a balloon." He was told, "You must not do that, because all the morals of
this country are bound round this myth, and if they once know that you did
not ascend into Heaven they will all become wicked"; and so he is persuaded
of that and he goes quietly away.
That is the idea -- that we should all be wicked if we did not hold to the
Christian religion. It seems to me that the people who have held to it have
been for the most part extremely wicked. You find this curious fact, that
the more intense has been the religion of any period and the more profound
has been the dogmatic belief, the greater has been the cruelty and the worse
has been the state of affairs. In the so-called ages of faith, when men
really did believe the Christian religion in all its completeness, there was
the Inquisition, with all its tortures; there were millions of unfortunate
women burned as witches; and there was every kind of cruelty practiced upon
all sorts of people in the name of religion.
You find as you look around the world that every single bit of progress in
humane feeling, every improvement in the criminal law, every step toward the
diminution of war, every step toward better treatment of the colored races,
or every mitigation of slavery, every moral progress that there has been in
the world, has been consistently opposed by the organized churches of the
world. I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in
its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress
in the world.
How the Churches Have Retarded Progress
You may think that I am going too far when I say that that is still so. I do
not think that I am. Take one fact. You will bear with me if I mention it.
It is not a pleasant fact, but the churches compel one to mention facts that
are not pleasant. Supposing that in this world that we live in today an
inexperienced girl is married to a syphilitic man; in that case the Catholic
Church says, "This is an indissoluble sacrament. You must endure celibacy
or stay together. And if you stay together, you must not use birth control
to prevent the birth of syphilitic children." Nobody whose natural
sympathies have not been warped by dogma, or whose moral nature was not
absolutely dead to all sense of suffering, could maintain that it is right
and proper that that state of things should continue.
That is only an example. There are a great many ways in which, at the
present moment, the church, by its insistence upon what it chooses to call
morality, inflicts upon all sorts of people undeserved and unnecessary
suffering. And of course, as we know, it is in its major part an opponent
still of progress and improvement in all the ways that diminish suffering in
the world, because it has chosen to label as morality a certain narrow set
of rules of conduct which have nothing to do with human happiness; and when
you say that this or that ought to be done because it would make for human
happiness, they think that has nothing to do with the matter at all. "What
has human happiness to do with morals? The object of morals is not to make
people happy."
Fear, the Foundation of Religion
Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the
terror of the unknown and partly, as I have said, the wish to feel that you
have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and
disputes. Fear is the basis of the whole thing -- fear of the mysterious,
fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore
it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is
because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now
begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of
science, which has forced its way step by step against the Christian
religion, against the churches, and against the opposition of all the old
precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind
has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own
hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no
longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts
here below to make this world a better place to live in, instead of the sort
of place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.
What We Must Do
We want to stand upon our own feet and look fair and square at the world --
its good facts, its bad facts, its beauties, and its ugliness; see the world
as it is and be not afraid of it. Conquer the world by intelligence and not
merely by being slavishly subdued by the terror that comes from it. The
whole conception of God is a conception derived from the ancient Oriental
despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men. When you hear
people in church debasing themselves and saying that they are miserable
sinners, and all the rest of it, it seems contemptible and not worthy of
self-respecting human beings. We ought to stand up and look the world
frankly in the face. We ought to make the best we can of the world, and if
it is not so good as we wish, after all it will still be better than what
these others have made of it in all these ages. A good world needs knowledge
, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the
past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago
by ignorant men. It needs a fearless outlook and a free intelligence. It
needs hope for the future, not looking back all the time toward a past that
is dead, which we trust will be far surpassed by the future that our
intelligence can create.

【在 s******y 的大作中提到】
: 你居然只写了5句话也太马虎了。
: 其实这个发挥放散一下，写一篇文章都是有余的。
avatar
d*g
10 楼
楼上真是刷屏金箍棒啊！
avatar
D*a
11 楼
异教徒能行吗，我是飞面神教教徒
RAmen
avatar
g*a
12 楼
如果是基督教的学校的话，他们一般要求老师也是信教的。
要是天主教的学校，会比较宽松一点。
avatar
q*n
13 楼
谢谢。我开始也是这么想的，但总觉得不大对劲。你想啊，我申请个教会学校，上来就
说我不信教。。。不管后面再怎么说，总让人觉得是来踢馆找茬的。。
其实到这一步，我拿不拿到这个职位都无所谓了，关键是不想让人误解给人留下坏印象
啊。

【在 d**********a 的大作中提到】
: 有啥难写的？ 就是说实话呗。你不是基督徒，但是特别的对基督教感兴趣，详细描述
: 几个你遇到的基督徒，如何的让你感动，于是让你觉得基督教是多么的好。虽然你不是
: 基督徒，但是你希望能进一步的了解。看神能不能打开门接纳你。虽然你还不信主，但
: 是你对他们的mission很认同。
: 我本人是基督徒，我觉得这么说是合适的。而且对方绝对不会怪罪你。
avatar
q*n
14 楼
唉，所以我就觉得我不适合当faculty，写作太差了，就算肚子里有东西都未必能全写
出来，何况这种云山雾罩的essay，真是一个单词都写不出啊。
这次就算给自己最后一个机会吧，再试最后一次，如果还是不行就算了，没必要和自己
死掐。。

【在 s******y 的大作中提到】
: 你居然只写了5句话也太马虎了。
: 其实这个发挥放散一下，写一篇文章都是有余的。
avatar
q*n
15 楼
谢谢指点。心一下凉了半截。为啥基督教就要求呢。我的命，好苦。。
其实我现在的问题，还不在于信不信上。到了这步田地，我是不介意拿信仰换饭票的，
实在是走投无路了。
现在问题在于，我对不管是基督还是天主教，都一点不了解啊。所以即便我吧faith
essay 写成血书，我拍search chair还是不相信啊。
所谓问题不是 我信不信教，而是search chair信不信我信教。。。

【在 g*******a 的大作中提到】
: 如果是基督教的学校的话，他们一般要求老师也是信教的。
: 要是天主教的学校，会比较宽松一点。
avatar
C*t
16 楼
看你还不明白，我都替你着急。人家要是真的在乎你信不信，看到你几句话的essay就
扔一边了。明明是看你的条件很想要你，但你要知道，很多东西是学校要求必须走过场
的。如果他们学校上面对这点要求很严，但他们招了一个faculty书面不够格，他们将
来没法跟上面交差。要你重写，是再给你一次机会，你还不赶快尽力表决心，在这里纠
结啥呀？
就好像你相亲的姑娘对你很有意思，但她有个贪财的爸。姑娘不断跟你使眼色，要你出
手再大方一些。“你的，明白？”

【在 q***n 的大作中提到】
: 谢谢指点。心一下凉了半截。为啥基督教就要求呢。我的命，好苦。。
: 其实我现在的问题，还不在于信不信上。到了这步田地，我是不介意拿信仰换饭票的，
: 实在是走投无路了。
: 现在问题在于，我对不管是基督还是天主教，都一点不了解啊。所以即便我吧faith
: essay 写成血书，我拍search chair还是不相信啊。
: 所谓问题不是 我信不信教，而是search chair信不信我信教。。。
avatar
q*n
17 楼
谢谢，我明白你的意思，那我到底是说“信“ 还是”不信“？

【在 C***t 的大作中提到】
: 看你还不明白，我都替你着急。人家要是真的在乎你信不信，看到你几句话的essay就
: 扔一边了。明明是看你的条件很想要你，但你要知道，很多东西是学校要求必须走过场
: 的。如果他们学校上面对这点要求很严，但他们招了一个faculty书面不够格，他们将
: 来没法跟上面交差。要你重写，是再给你一次机会，你还不赶快尽力表决心，在这里纠
: 结啥呀？
: 就好像你相亲的姑娘对你很有意思，但她有个贪财的爸。姑娘不断跟你使眼色，要你出
: 手再大方一些。“你的，明白？”
avatar
C*t
18 楼
嘻嘻，见你问得有诚意，我就再多说两句，不一定对哈！（我是在天主教的学校。）不
用纠结说信或者不信，把重点放在与基督的“缘分”，和你对教义的理解上。
我从小就对基督教很好奇（好奇没错吧）。我见过的基督徒，都是很善良，很喜欢为大
众服务的。（下面就要你做点儿对这个教的research了）。基督说，我们都是神的羔羊
。即使曾经迷失方向，最终也一定会回来的。我随着年龄的增长，越来越感到有种神奇
的力量，在不断地把我往他的怀里指引（这也没错，这次的申请和录取就是最大的指引
）。（如果你是自然科学，还可以说）随着我研究的加深，渐渐接触到了生命的本质，
越来越觉得神迹无所不在（这是我的真心话）。难道这一切仅仅是偶然？不是的，我觉
得，the time has come。
（谈完research，再谈teaching）基督让我钦佩的，除了爱，还有他的心胸。无论人类
犯了什么错，基督都不放弃，循循善诱，甚至不惜牺牲自己的生命为大家赎罪。我觉得
一个老师就该有这样的心胸啊！学生有不同层次，我们作为先知，看到他们的局限性，
但要不放弃，努力去诱导他们走正道。
（谈完teaching，再谈community service。这其实最好往教义上扯了，我就不多说了
。）

【在 q***n 的大作中提到】
: 谢谢，我明白你的意思，那我到底是说“信“ 还是”不信“？
avatar
q*n
19 楼
哇，太厉害了，拜谢！
你是电，你是光，你是唯一的神话～～

【在 C***t 的大作中提到】
: 嘻嘻，见你问得有诚意，我就再多说两句，不一定对哈！（我是在天主教的学校。）不
: 用纠结说信或者不信，把重点放在与基督的“缘分”，和你对教义的理解上。
: 我从小就对基督教很好奇（好奇没错吧）。我见过的基督徒，都是很善良，很喜欢为大
: 众服务的。（下面就要你做点儿对这个教的research了）。基督说，我们都是神的羔羊
: 。即使曾经迷失方向，最终也一定会回来的。我随着年龄的增长，越来越感到有种神奇
: 的力量，在不断地把我往他的怀里指引（这也没错，这次的申请和录取就是最大的指引
: ）。（如果你是自然科学，还可以说）随着我研究的加深，渐渐接触到了生命的本质，
: 越来越觉得神迹无所不在（这是我的真心话）。难道这一切仅仅是偶然？不是的，我觉
: 得，the time has come。
: （谈完research，再谈teaching）基督让我钦佩的，除了爱，还有他的心胸。无论人类
avatar
s*e
20 楼
niu

【在 C***t 的大作中提到】
: 嘻嘻，见你问得有诚意，我就再多说两句，不一定对哈！（我是在天主教的学校。）不
: 用纠结说信或者不信，把重点放在与基督的“缘分”，和你对教义的理解上。
: 我从小就对基督教很好奇（好奇没错吧）。我见过的基督徒，都是很善良，很喜欢为大
: 众服务的。（下面就要你做点儿对这个教的research了）。基督说，我们都是神的羔羊
: 。即使曾经迷失方向，最终也一定会回来的。我随着年龄的增长，越来越感到有种神奇
: 的力量，在不断地把我往他的怀里指引（这也没错，这次的申请和录取就是最大的指引
: ）。（如果你是自然科学，还可以说）随着我研究的加深，渐渐接触到了生命的本质，
: 越来越觉得神迹无所不在（这是我的真心话）。难道这一切仅仅是偶然？不是的，我觉
: 得，the time has come。
: （谈完research，再谈teaching）基督让我钦佩的，除了爱，还有他的心胸。无论人类
avatar
s*e
21 楼
你就说，你在中国就入了地下教会，然后他们说不信教死全家，剩下的一概不知道。

【在 q***n 的大作中提到】
: 谢谢指点。心一下凉了半截。为啥基督教就要求呢。我的命，好苦。。
: 其实我现在的问题，还不在于信不信上。到了这步田地，我是不介意拿信仰换饭票的，
: 实在是走投无路了。
: 现在问题在于，我对不管是基督还是天主教，都一点不了解啊。所以即便我吧faith
: essay 写成血书，我拍search chair还是不相信啊。
: 所谓问题不是 我信不信教，而是search chair信不信我信教。。。
avatar
q*n
22 楼
拖拉了一个星期，终于写完交掉了。按照偶像姐姐的指点，凑了一页纸，590个单词。
总有种不祥的预感，search chair会读我的statement读到笑出声来。。。丢人丢大发
了这回。。
唉，听天由命吧！
avatar
C*t
23 楼
衷心祝愿你好运！其实既然他们对你如此有兴趣，不妨再私下发封信过去，说如果还有
“要求”，愿意再改。因为自己是没有经验写这个的啦（即使美国人也很少碰到被要求
写这个的情况，他们会理解）。
另，你如果之前发给我我还可以帮你润色添加一下。我每晚睡前反正也要敲一两页的英
文。。。

【在 q***n 的大作中提到】
: 拖拉了一个星期，终于写完交掉了。按照偶像姐姐的指点，凑了一页纸，590个单词。
: 总有种不祥的预感，search chair会读我的statement读到笑出声来。。。丢人丢大发
: 了这回。。
: 唉，听天由命吧！
avatar
q*n
24 楼
再次感谢姐姐！
您一定就是上帝派下来帮助我渡过难关的！

【在 C***t 的大作中提到】
: 衷心祝愿你好运！其实既然他们对你如此有兴趣，不妨再私下发封信过去，说如果还有
: “要求”，愿意再改。因为自己是没有经验写这个的啦（即使美国人也很少碰到被要求
: 写这个的情况，他们会理解）。
: 另，你如果之前发给我我还可以帮你润色添加一下。我每晚睡前反正也要敲一两页的英
: 文。。。
avatar
s*y
25 楼
你就当这是神的呼唤。就决志或受洗成为基督徒吧。条条大路通罗马。成为基督徒只要
最后是真心向神，无论是什么trigger都可以。
我也要写这么一个statement。还在想怎么写。
但我是基督徒，所以写起来没有那么难。但是是暂时唯一一所要写我跟耶稣的关系的
statement.我觉得蛮有意思的。也不容易写。
但如果我是你可能会加上一些cultural background，就说因为是中国文化和教育的影
响，这条路走得怎么崎岖。也希望通过自己的经历带领更多的学生信主，包括中国和和
其他留学生。
祝你成功。

【在 q***n 的大作中提到】
: 拖拉了一个星期，终于写完交掉了。按照偶像姐姐的指点，凑了一页纸，590个单词。
: 总有种不祥的预感，search chair会读我的statement读到笑出声来。。。丢人丢大发
: 了这回。。
: 唉，听天由命吧！
avatar
s*e
26 楼
WTF...本版还带传播邪教的？

【在 s****y 的大作中提到】
: 你就当这是神的呼唤。就决志或受洗成为基督徒吧。条条大路通罗马。成为基督徒只要
: 最后是真心向神，无论是什么trigger都可以。
: 我也要写这么一个statement。还在想怎么写。
: 但我是基督徒，所以写起来没有那么难。但是是暂时唯一一所要写我跟耶稣的关系的
: statement.我觉得蛮有意思的。也不容易写。
: 但如果我是你可能会加上一些cultural background，就说因为是中国文化和教育的影
: 响，这条路走得怎么崎岖。也希望通过自己的经历带领更多的学生信主，包括中国和和
: 其他留学生。
: 祝你成功。
avatar
s*y
27 楼
当然，可能就不提学生了，就说带领更多人认识主。

【在 s****y 的大作中提到】
: 你就当这是神的呼唤。就决志或受洗成为基督徒吧。条条大路通罗马。成为基督徒只要
: 最后是真心向神，无论是什么trigger都可以。
: 我也要写这么一个statement。还在想怎么写。
: 但我是基督徒，所以写起来没有那么难。但是是暂时唯一一所要写我跟耶稣的关系的
: statement.我觉得蛮有意思的。也不容易写。
: 但如果我是你可能会加上一些cultural background，就说因为是中国文化和教育的影
: 响，这条路走得怎么崎岖。也希望通过自己的经历带领更多的学生信主，包括中国和和
: 其他留学生。
: 祝你成功。
avatar
s*y
28 楼
神请原谅他，他不知道自己在做什么。

【在 s***e 的大作中提到】
: WTF...本版还带传播邪教的？
avatar
C*t
29 楼
晕，基督教都成邪教了。。。多元文化共处，无需认同，但要respect.

【在 s***e 的大作中提到】
: WTF...本版还带传播邪教的？
avatar
s*e
30 楼
基督教里满世界传教的那些教派，比如耶和华见证人之流，基本上和邪教
没什么两样。

【在 C***t 的大作中提到】
: 晕，基督教都成邪教了。。。多元文化共处，无需认同，但要respect.
avatar
q*n
31 楼
你说到我心里了。我真的觉得，这次要真成了的话，那真是上帝的安排，没别的解释了
。是上帝来拯救我于水深火热之中了。

【在 s****y 的大作中提到】
: 你就当这是神的呼唤。就决志或受洗成为基督徒吧。条条大路通罗马。成为基督徒只要
: 最后是真心向神，无论是什么trigger都可以。
: 我也要写这么一个statement。还在想怎么写。
: 但我是基督徒，所以写起来没有那么难。但是是暂时唯一一所要写我跟耶稣的关系的
: statement.我觉得蛮有意思的。也不容易写。
: 但如果我是你可能会加上一些cultural background，就说因为是中国文化和教育的影
: 响，这条路走得怎么崎岖。也希望通过自己的经历带领更多的学生信主，包括中国和和
: 其他留学生。
: 祝你成功。
avatar
m*s
32 楼
。。。 以后也帮我们改文章吧

【在 C***t 的大作中提到】
: 衷心祝愿你好运！其实既然他们对你如此有兴趣，不妨再私下发封信过去，说如果还有
: “要求”，愿意再改。因为自己是没有经验写这个的啦（即使美国人也很少碰到被要求
: 写这个的情况，他们会理解）。
: 另，你如果之前发给我我还可以帮你润色添加一下。我每晚睡前反正也要敲一两页的英
: 文。。。
avatar
w*x
33 楼
好奇，纯粹是好奇，高老师信教吗？
（也可能是我被高老师的神奇文采忽悠过去了……）

【在 C***t 的大作中提到】
: 晕，基督教都成邪教了。。。多元文化共处，无需认同，但要respect.
avatar
C*t
34 楼
原来我会说，我不信基督教。但最近学了些量子物理的皮毛，发现自己不知道该怎么回
答。我（还有一些物理学家）开始越来越相信这个世界的不真实性，也越来越感到科学
最终无可避免要和基督教与佛教接轨。概括说来有两点：
1，世界的虚幻性，在这点上量子力学和佛教是一致的。
https://youtu.be/dEaecUuEqfc
2，世界和人/智能的creation，在这点上量子力学和基督教是一致的。注意，关于上帝
是否是一个生命，有无人格的问题，我是这么看的。假如我们现在去到一个原始星球，
那里的人还在钻木取火。我们跟他们讲virtual reality，讲simulation, 大爆炸，他
们是无法明白的。那怎么办？只能说有一个“人”创造了他们。所以我认为，量子力学
和基督教对于“造物”的认识其实是不矛盾的。

【在 w*x 的大作中提到】
: 好奇，纯粹是好奇，高老师信教吗？
: （也可能是我被高老师的神奇文采忽悠过去了……）
avatar
s*e
35 楼
你这种把上帝神性剥离，降低到先知的水平，放前几年就是堆柴火烧死的命。

【在 C***t 的大作中提到】
: 原来我会说，我不信基督教。但最近学了些量子物理的皮毛，发现自己不知道该怎么回
: 答。我（还有一些物理学家）开始越来越相信这个世界的不真实性，也越来越感到科学
: 最终无可避免要和基督教与佛教接轨。概括说来有两点：
: 1，世界的虚幻性，在这点上量子力学和佛教是一致的。
: https://youtu.be/dEaecUuEqfc
: 2，世界和人/智能的creation，在这点上量子力学和基督教是一致的。注意，关于上帝
: 是否是一个生命，有无人格的问题，我是这么看的。假如我们现在去到一个原始星球，
: 那里的人还在钻木取火。我们跟他们讲virtual reality，讲simulation, 大爆炸，他
: 们是无法明白的。那怎么办？只能说有一个“人”创造了他们。所以我认为，量子力学
: 和基督教对于“造物”的认识其实是不矛盾的。
相关阅读
gtalk现在怎么必须用WIFI才能视频了？我入了蓝色推荐两款car mount，tablet和手机的看的纠结了。。有谁在AT&T网站上预订了Note 2吗？820 的屏幕怎么这么差？android phone的txt阅读器今天果轮怎么这么High？难道东西有别？Galaxy S3 wifi的问题920已经在bestbuy preorder的咋办?WP的一个问题看到群众这么狂热，为何出不了敲不死二2什么时候能摸到920实物？Nexus 7 32gb开卖了么很多公司不让用skype吧，microsoft这不有病奥巴马赢了佛罗里达！wp8有没有如下app想要用同样颜色plate 怎么办
logo
联系我们隐私协议©2024 redian.news
Redian新闻
Redian.news刊载任何文章，不代表同意其说法或描述，仅为提供更多信息，也不构成任何建议。文章信息的合法性及真实性由其作者负责，与Redian.news及其运营公司无关。欢迎投稿，如发现稿件侵权，或作者不愿在本网发表文章，请版权拥有者通知本网处理。