關於愛，我是個小學生。

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. 

道德問題
接著講道德問題。我認為在耶穌的道德品性中存在著一個非常嚴重的缺點，那就是他相信地獄。真正慈悲的人絕不會相信永遠的懲罰。《福音》書中描繪的基督，無疑是相信永遠的懲罰的，我們也一再發現把不聽從他的那些人視為寇仇的報復心理，這種態度在傳教士中相當常見，但它確實有損於他至善至美的形象。舉例來說，蘇格拉底就沒有這種態度，他對不聽從訓導的人總是和顏悅色，彬彬有禮；也許大家還記得蘇格拉底臨終的遺言，以及他平時對持不同觀點的人所說的話；我認為，對於聖賢而言，採取這樣的態度要比忿怒更值得稱道。

你們會發現基督在《福音》中曾說：「你們這些蛇類、毒蛇之種啊，怎能逃脫地獄的刑罰呢？」這是對那些不聽他教誨的人講的。我認為這並不是很高明的口氣，而諸如此類關於地獄的描寫也比比皆是。當然，還有一段經文，是關於褻瀆聖靈的罪，也是大家很熟悉的：「唯獨說話干犯聖靈的。今世來世總不得赦免。」這句經文給世界帶來了無窮苦難，使各種各樣的人都以為自己已犯下了褻瀆聖靈的大罪，今生來世都不能得到饒恕。我相信還有一點仁慈的人，就不會把世界置於這種畏懼和恐怖的籠罩之下。

基督還說：「人子要差遣使者，把一切叫人跌倒的，和作惡的，從他的國裏挑出來，丟在火爐裏。在那裏必要哀哭切齒了。」他還不斷談到哀哭切齒，這種說法在一節又一節的經文中一再出現，使讀者明顯地覺得，他對於別人哀哭切齒感到某種樂趣，否則不會如此津津樂道。大家當然記得分別綿羊和山羊的故事，講到他第二次降臨時將如何把人類分成綿羊和山羊兩大類。他要對山羊說：「你們這被咀咒的人，離開我。進入那永火裏去。」他繼續說：「這些人要往永刑裏去。」他又說：「倘若你一只手叫你跌倒，就把他砍下來。你缺了肢體進入永生。強如有兩只手落到地獄，入那不滅的火裏去。在那裏，蟲是不死的，火是不滅的。」他也一再重覆這一說法。我必須承認，把地獄的永火當作是對罪惡的懲罰的理論，慘無人道。它帶給世界殘忍，世代受到殘酷折磨。《福音》中的基督，如果你相信他的編寫者所描繪的那樣，那麼你必須對此折磨負部分責任。

另外還有些較次要的例子：如格拉森豬群的事件，驅使惡魔進入豬群，使它們撞下山崖，投海而死，這樣做法顯然是不很仁慈的。你要記得他是無所不能的，能叫魔鬼走開了事，但他卻讓它們進入豬群。還有無花果樹的那個奇怪的故事，我也一直百思不得其解。大家都知道無花果樹的遭遇：「耶穌餓了，遠遠的看見一棵無花果樹，樹上有葉子，就往那裏去，或者在樹上可以找著甚麼。到了樹下，竟找不著甚麼，不過有葉子，因為不是收無花果的時候。耶穌就對樹說：「從今以後，永沒有人吃你的果子。」……彼得……就對他說：「拉比，請看，你所咒詛的無花果樹，已經枯乾了。」」這個故事荒謬絕倫，因為當時並不是結果子的季節，你很難歸咎無花果樹。無論從智慧上看或者從品德上看，我自己都覺得他不像歷史上傳頌的某些人那樣高超。在這些方面，釋迦牟尼和蘇格拉底的地位倒要比他高些。

【論證與主張】+【問題與意見】

= ="  論證越來越少了，個人認為，「主張」部份若沒有強而有力的論證支持，是沒有甚麼討論價值的，姑且應之吧。

【主張】「我認為在耶穌的道德品性中存在著一個非常嚴重的缺點，那就是他相信地獄。真正慈悲的人絕不會相信永遠的懲罰。」=「我認為海倫凱勒品性中存在著一個非常嚴重的缺點，那就是她不相信光。真正有眼睛的人絕不會相信永遠的黑暗。」=「  上帝並沒有很愛人，因為世上充滿生離死別，而這使我們傷悲，若愛我們，又何必使我們痛苦？」這類的主張，隨處可見。

【主張】「《福音》書中描繪的基督，無疑是相信永遠的懲罰的，我們也一再發現把不聽從他的那些人視為寇仇的報復心理，這種態度在傳教士中相當常見，但它確實有損於他至善至美的形象。」這種態度？那  耶穌是怎麼對待猶大的？  耶穌在十字架上說：「 父阿， 赦免他們， 因為他們所作的， 他們不曉得。」【路加福音 23：34】  耶穌無時無刻不為我們向 天父祈求【路加福音 22：32、約翰福音 17：20】 

【主張】「《福音》中曾說：「你們這些蛇類、毒蛇之種啊，怎能逃脫地獄的刑罰呢？」」沒錯，人沒有資格論斷人，誰也不知道最後會如何審判。這種言論，只有 神有資格說。  耶穌是神，當然有資格這麼說。不信 耶穌是神的人，自然覺得突兀了。

【主張】「「唯獨說話干犯聖靈的。今世來世總不得赦免。」這句經文給世界帶來了無窮苦難，使各種各樣的人都以為自己已犯下了褻瀆聖靈的大罪，今生來世都不能得到饒恕。」根據【啟導本】的解釋，干犯聖靈乃指將  耶穌所賜聖靈視為魔鬼的作工，尤指當時的法利賽人和文士而言。如果會怕干犯聖靈，為甚麼不請教有司，而自以為是呢？

【主張】「他還不斷談到哀哭切齒，這種說法在一節又一節的經文中一再出現，使讀者明顯地覺得，他對於別人哀哭切齒感到某種樂趣，否則不會如此津津樂道。」=「爸爸不斷提到我這次考不好周末就要禁足在家，這種說法每天一再出現，使我明顯地覺得，爸爸對於我禁足一事感到某種樂趣，否則不會如此津津樂道。」

【主張】「你要記得他是無所不能的，能叫魔鬼走開了事，但他卻讓它們進入豬群。」=「你要記得他是無所不能的，能叫不信他的人直接瞬死，但他卻為了我們甘願死在十字架上。」=「你要記得他是無所不能的，能直接制伏魔鬼了事，但他卻讓它們為害人間數千年。」人啊，為甚麼總是自以為是地度測  神的計畫呢？你甚麼都能看得透，還用做人嗎？小看自己固然不對，但若真的有 神，我們亦不應以自我意識解釋或「控制」神的旨意。我們常聽到人們抱怨：「上帝不愛我，否則就會保佑我考上研究所了。」或「上帝是殘暴的，因祂允許希特勒胡作非為。」我們須自謙，這世上實在有太多的事善惡交雜、是非混淆，而難以論斷：  上帝為何要讓  耶穌降生在伯利恆，而非中國呢？為何要讓喇合為  耶穌的祖先呢？若從人的智慧而言，這些事又如何能解？

【主張】「還有無花果樹的那個奇怪的故事，我也一直百思不得其解。大家都知道無花果樹的遭遇：「耶穌餓了，遠遠的看見一棵無花果樹，樹上有葉子，就往那裏去，或者在樹上可以找著甚麼。到了樹下，竟找不著甚麼，不過有葉子，因為不是收無花果的時候。耶穌就對樹說：「從今以後，永沒有人吃你的果子。」……彼得……就對他說：「拉比，請看，你所咒詛的無花果樹，已經枯乾了。」」這個故事荒謬絕倫，因為當時並不是結果子的季節，你很難歸咎無花果樹。」根據【啟導本】的解釋，  耶穌利用一棵樹啟示以色列人 (無花果樹) 應警醒做為選民的義務 (當結果子)，也要比一般人多些擔當 (非產季)，反而要害死  耶穌，如此應受責罰。各位當然可以認為這是强解，不過從下面三點看來，我非常認同這個詮釋：1.  耶穌能以五餅二魚餵飽數千人、變水為酒、行神蹟無數，為何不能餵飽自己？顯然有所寓意。2.   耶穌的確也有人性的表現，如飢餓、口渴、喜怒等，  祂也常自稱「人子」。但果真那麼不能忍餓、情緒化，這點人格，曠野四十晝夜的試探，不吃不喝，得能安然通過？被釘在十字架之前，極盡羞辱，能如此從容不迫、斷氣前還不時為人們祈禱？3. 還是老話一句，其實  上帝大可以不必這麼麻煩，還「故意」留下這麼多的「矛盾」和「殘暴」記錄於後世，讓世人唾罵。是我的話：「悄悄的我走了，正如我悄悄的來」；揮一揮衣袖，地球爆炸，人類滅亡，不帶走一片回憶，無須再聽任何廢話，一切當沒發生過，全劇終 。

【待續】