林語堂先生關於父神之愛的說辭可能引起了對前基督徒有深重負擔的Yuehanmiao的共鳴，於是在“彩虹之約”上貼傳播林先生那譁眾取寵的說辭，曰：如果上帝有一半像我的母親這樣愛我，他將不會送我去地獄——不是五分鐘，不是五天，而是永遠的淪落在地獄裡—— 這是一種甚至世俗法庭也永不會覺得心安的判決。

林先生可能是出生名門，從來認為：這世界是最美好的，地獄比這個世界差多了！他可能在別的、為自己臉上貼金的本本中，也表達過對在這個世界中生活如同在地獄中生活的人的同情。我說林語堂是愚頑人，因為他根本就沒有想過：這個現存的世界就是地獄的前身，這個現存的世界將會被火燒。（彼後3：7）他作為理性人至少想過太陽的能量會用完，即便無全能的真神。

《聖經》中明明白白告訴讀者：人是父神以自己的形象造的，起初就是有自由意志、完美的，起初創造的世界也沒有死亡，即整個被造世界與父神有美好和諧的關係。由於人祖錯誤地使用自由意志，製造了“死亡”，從此“死亡”因着父神話的不可改變性而成為受造之人的轄制。人走上了與父神為敵、必死之路。雖然人的死亡方式多種多樣，有些死亡方式可能很“恐怖”，但是，各樣死亡的本質沒有差別：都是歸於撒旦--在這個墮落的世界中先是進行着廣義的生態循環：--信息-能量-物質-信息--，最後構成撒旦的不可分割的部分--那恐怕就是佛家之空吧。有的人看到大自然的破壞造成了人的死亡而將責任推給父神--大自然因為曾被詛咒而和起初有了本質的差別，是脆弱的；其實這之中還有一個謊言：人從來戀慕死亡或受那惡者轄制，那惡者一面對父神說：“因着您的最初的命令，你已經將人給了我--死亡”；一方面，人又有自由意志，那惡者也不能強求人，如是，只能以謊言欺騙，對人說：你看，如果父神是全能的，又是愛，他可以救你們，他不管你，他死了，或根本就不存在了--尼采、馬克思說。

我明確地警告BACH，HEBAI等人：1、現在的宇宙就是地獄的前身，2、不認識真神的人類愛的極限是母愛， 3、人類認識的極限是黑暗。現在的宇宙將成為過去，林語堂生活在富貴人家，又生活在現在的宇宙之中，看不到天國，突破不了黑暗，當然就會說父神之愛不及母愛之類的愚頑之辭。

父神為了拯救人類，從塞特到挪亞，從閃到亞伯拉罕、以撒、雅各、摩西、大衛、主基督耶穌（永生神的羔羊）都是暗中進行的，那惡者絲毫也沒有把柄--這就體現了父神的智慧是最高的智慧。主耶穌基督又是完全的人，也是完全的神。就是現在，在父神面前認罪悔改與否，信靠主耶穌基督與否，仍然是在人的自由意志的之內的事，好象一切都隱藏的那麼完美：信的人喜樂滿懷，不信的人也自鳴得意。我說HEBAI是故意不信、故意歪曲，這判斷是正與錯他心中明白。我確實感謝父神，他讓我能懂他的聖言，也激勵我在此來傳講他為我們的罪被釘十字架受死、埋葬、復活、升天將來還要來審判死人和活人的福音。

最後說白點：基督是犯罪後的人類的最大殺手，人（老我）被他直接所殺，幸也：他允諾被殺者的靈魂脫離黑暗的轄制，在廢墟中創造新生命來承受未來的新天新地；人被他間接所殺，是尊重人的最初選擇。神確實是真愛。

我們在天上的父，願人都尊你的名為聖，願你的國降臨，願你的旨意行在地上如同行在天上，我們日用的飲食，今日賜給了我們，免我們的債，如同我們免了人的債，不叫我們遇見試探，救我們脫離兇惡，因為國度、權柄、榮耀全是你的，直到永遠，阿們！

註：或許林語堂所謂的上帝是中國民間的玉皇大帝。

林語堂 語錄

送交者: Yuehanmiao 2006年4月11日12:07:33 於 [彩虹之約] http://www.bbsland.com

如果上帝有一半像我的母親這樣愛我，他將不會送我去地獄——不是五分鐘，不是五天，而是永遠的淪落在地獄裡——這是一種甚至世俗法庭也永不會覺得心安的判決

Is there Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?
A debate between William Lane Craig and Bart D. Ehrman
At the College of the Holy Cross
March 28, 2006

Craig
As conservative Christians & anti-Christian historians look at the documents of the first century that are available to them, almost all agree on 4 historical facts:
1. After being crucified, Jesus was buried in a tomb provided by Joseph of Arimathea.
2. On the Sunday following the crucifixion, that tomb was found empty by a group of women followers.
3. Jesus made numerous appearances to His followers after His tomb was discovered to be empty.
4. Despite their predisposition to the contrary, His followers saw enough evidence to convince them to believe in His resurrection.

Working with these 4 facts, various naturalistic theories have been created that attempt to explain the four facts: the swoon theory, the hallucination theory, the wrong tomb theory etc. These are to be contrasted with the supernaturalistic theory that says God raised Jesus from the dead in an immortal body never to die no more. Craig believes that, looking at the facts that are available to us, the most probable explanation is the supernaturalistic one.
Ehrman
Historians cannot know the past with certainty. Unlike scientists, historians do not have the luxury of repeating experiments. Historians try as best they can to collect the best evidence of the past they can and propose the most plausible explanations they can. But when that is all said and done, we can’t really know anything about the past with any degree of certainty.
There is insufficient evidence to declare the resurrection of Jesus to be a historical fact. There are two kinds of stories that come out of the past--stories that really happened and stories that were made up. How would one distinguish between the two and know whether or not something is a historical fact?
1. We would need numerous resources; not just the few that Craig relies upon.
2. We would resources that were independent of each other; not four documents like the Gospels that are all interdependent.
3. We would need to find that the stories are highly consistent with one another; there are numerous inconsistencies in the Gospel accounts of the Bible.
4. We would need disinterested and unbiased authors of the documents; not people who were trying to promote a particular idea.
5. The documents would have to have been written close to the time of the event; not 25 to 60 years later as the Gospels were. After all, stories get changed in the process of transmission.
Miracles may occur but are so rare that they only become plausible after every other explanation has proven implausible. God may exist. He may even be able & willing to do a miracle. But the only way to believe in the resurrection of Jesus is in blind faith, not faith in facts. One might believe for theological reasons; not historical reasons.

Craig
 Ehrman’s standards for proving a historical fact are so high absolutely nothing from the past can attain that standard. Craig claims there is more evidence for the 4 facts about the resurrection that he raised than for the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. All that we thought we knew about the past would have to be questioned & rewritten by Ehrman’s standards.
The differences in the four Gospels are not as irreconcilable as Ehrman would have you believe. He then proceeded to make a long list of things the Gospels shared in common about the resurrection.
Lane went off on an explanation of probability calculus that went over everybody’s head that I talked to. I think the basic idea is that Ehrman is unjustified in saying miracles are improbable.
Ehrman
Ehrman could not believe that probablity calculus was being brought into a serious and scholarly discussion about the historicity of the resurrection.
Lane keeps quoting “NT scholars”as if quoting the majority of NT scholars proves his points. In the first place, the majority of NT scholars are conservative believers. Second, what a majority believes proves nothing about the truthfulness of a claim.
The disciples spoke Aramaic. The writers of the Gospel wrote in Greek. So the Gospels were probably not written by the men that Craig assigns them to. They were written by men 25+years removed from the events, not eyewitnesses. Nothing in the text says who wrote them. The tiles we use today were assigned later.
It was common for people in the first century to see visions that could appear as people. But the appearances were visions; not flesh & bone bodies.
Jesus was not the only alleged miracle worker in ancient literature: Apollonius, Octavian, the “circle drawer,” etc.
Craig
He does not just quote conservative scholars. Conservative and non-conservative agree on the four facts he presented. Ehrman is in a very small minority.
If a historian believes in God, in God’s involvement in the world, in the possibility of miracles, one can consider supernatural explanations as being plausible. But Ehrman sees no possibility of a miracle taking place. There is always a naturalistic explanation that can adequately explain anything.
Misc Notes
I do not understand why Craig did not use “the oral tradition” argument to defend the Gospels being written 25+ years after the event. Maybe that argument that I was taught does not hold up under scrutiny at such a scholarly level
Ehrman used and argument ad homien approach a few times which I thought was hitting below the belt. I also thought he was mean a couple of times e.g. “Bill is an evangelist at heart under the guise of being a historian.” I thought he also tried to bait Craig a few times on issues that were irrelevant to the argument. On the other hand, Craig remained ever the gentleman. He did attack Ehrman’s ideas with ferocity but never attacked Ehrman himself.
In response to my question to Ehrman, there is not one single verifiable miracle in the history of all mankind even though there are alleged eyewitnesses of miracles. It seems to me that Ehrman willfully refuses to believe in the possibility of a miracle.