CAN'T YOU LEAD A GOOD LIFE WITHOUT BELIEVING IN Christianity?**
中文版在下边
This is the question on which I have been asked to write, and straight away, before I begin trying to answer it, I have a comment to make. The question sounds as if it were asked by a person who said to himself, 'I don't care whether Christianity is in fact true or not. I'm not interested in finding out whether the real universe is more like what the Christians say than what the Materialists say. All I'm interested in is leading a good life. I'm going to choose beliefs not because I think them true but because I find them helpful.'
Now frankly, I find it hard to sympathise with this state of mind. One of the things that distinguishes man from the other animals is that he wants to know things, wants to find out what reality is like, simply for the sake of knowing. When that desire is completely quenched in anyone, I think he has become something less than human. As a matter of fact, I don't believe any of you have really lost that desire. More probably, foolish preachers, by always telling you how much Christianity will help you and how good it is for society, have actually led you to forget that Christianity is not a patent medicine. Christianity claims to give an account of facts - to tell you what the real universe is like. Its account of the universe may be true, or it may not, and once the question is really before you, then your natural inquisitiveness must make you want to know the answer. If Christianity is untrue, then no honest man will want to believe it, however helpful it might be: if it is true, every honest man will want to believe it, even if it gives him no help at all.
As soon as we have realised this, we realise something else. If Christianity should happen to be true, then it is quite impossible that those who know this truth and those who don't should be equally well equipped for leading a good life. Knowledge of the facts must make a difference to one's actions. Suppose you found a man on the point of starvation and wanted to do the right thing. If you had no knowledge of medical science, you would probably give him a large solid meal; and as a result your man would die. That is what comes of working in the dark. In the same way a Christian and a non-Christian may both wish to do good to their fellow men. The one believes that men are going to live for ever, that they were created by God and so built that they can find their true and lasting happiness only by being united to God, that they have gone badly off the rails, and that obedient faith in Christ is the only way back. The other believes that men are an accidental result of the blind workings of matter, that they started as mere animals and have more or less steadily improved, that they are going to live for about seventy years, that their happiness is fully attainable by good social services and political organisations, and that everything else (e.g., vivisection, birth-control, the judicial system, education) is to be judged to be 'good' or 'bad' simply in so far as it helps or hinders that kind of 'happiness'.
Now there are quite a lot of things which these two men could agree in doing for their fellow citizens. Both would approve of efficient sewers and hospitals and a healthy diet. But sooner or later the difference of their beliefs would produce differences in their practical proposals. Both, for example, might be very keen about education: but the kinds of education they wanted people to have would obviously be very different. Again, where the Materialist would simply ask about a proposed action 'Will it increase the happiness of the majority?', the Christian might have to say, 'Even if it does increase the happiness of the majority, we can't do it. It is unjust.' And all the time, one great difference would run through their whole policy. To the Materialist things like nations, classes, civilizations must be more important than individuals, because the individuals live only seventy odd years each and the group may last for centuries. But to the Christian, individuals are more important, for they live eternally; and races, civilizations and the like, are in comparison the creatures of a day.
The Christian and the Materialist hold different beliefs about the universe. They can't both be right. The one who is wrong will act in a way which simply doesn't fit the real universe. Consequently, with the best will in the world, he will be helping his fellow creatures to their destruction. With the best will in the world ... then it won't be his fault.
Surely God (if there is a God) will not punish a man for honest mistakes? But was that all you were thinking about? Are we ready to run the risk of working in the dark all our lives and doing infinite harm, provided only someone will assure us that our own skins will be safe, that no one will punish us or blame us? I will not believe that the reader is quite on that level. But even if he were, there is something to be said to him. The question before each of us is not 'Can someone lead a good life without Christianity?' The question is, 'Can I?' We all know there have been good men who were not Christians; men like Socrates and Confucius who had never heard of it, or men like J. S. Mill who quite honestly couldn't believe it. Supposing Christianity to be true, these men were in a state of honest ignorance or honest error. If their intentions were as good as I suppose them to have been (for of course I can't read their secret hearts) I hope and believe that the skill and mercy of God will remedy the evils which their ignorance, left to itself, would naturally produce both for them and for those whom they influenced. But the man who asks me, 'Can't I lead a good life without believing in Christianity?' is clearly not in the same position. If he hadn't heard of Christianity he would not be asking this question. If, having heard of it, and having seriously considered it, he had decided that it was untrue, then once more he would not be asking the question. The man who asks this question has heard of Christianity and is by no means certain that it may not be true. He is really asking, 'Need I bother about it? Mayn't I just evade the issue, just let sleeping dogs lie, and get on with being "good"? Aren't good intentions enough to keep me safe and blameless without knocking at that dreadful door and making sure whether there is, or isn't someone inside?'
To such a man it might be enough to reply that he is really asking to be allowed to get on with being 'good' before he has done his best to discover what good means. But that is not the whole story. We need not inquire whether God will punish him for his cowardice and laziness; they will punish themselves. The man is shirking. He is deliberately trying not to know whether Christianity is true or false, because he foresees endless trouble if it should turn out to be true. He is like the man who deliberately 'forgets' to look at the notice board because, if he did, he might find his name down for some unpleasant duty. He is like the man who won't look at his bank account because he's afraid of what he might find there. He is like the man who won't go to the doctor when he first feels a mysterious pain, because he is afraid of what the doctor may tell him.
The man who remains an unbeliever for such reasons is not in a state of honest error. He is in a state of dishonest error, and that dishonesty will spread through all his thoughts and actions: a certain shiftiness, a vague worry in the background, a blunting of his whole mental edge, will result. He has lost his intellectual virginity. Honest rejection of Christ, however mistaken, will be forgiven and healed - 'Whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him.'! But to evade the Son of Man, to look the other way, to pretend you haven't noticed, to become suddenly absorbed in something on the other side of the street, to leave the receiver off the telephone because it might be He who was ringing up, to leave unopened certain letters in a strange handwriting because they might be from Him - this is a different matter. You may not be certain yet whether you ought to be a Christian; but you do know you ought to be a Man, not an ostrich, hiding its head in the sand.
But still - for intellectual honour has sunk very low in our age - I hear someone whimpering on with his question, 'Will it help me? Will it make me happy? Do you really think I'd be better if I became a Christian?' Well, if you must have it, my answer is 'Yes.' But I don't like giving an answer at all at this stage. Here is a door, behind which, according to some people, the secret of the universe is waiting for you. Either that's true, or it isn't. And if it isn't, then what the door really conceals is simply the greatest fraud, the most colossal 'sell' on record. Isn't it obviously the job of every man (that is a man and not a rabbit) to try to find out which, and then to devote his full energies either to serving this tremendous secret or to exposing and destroying this gigantic humbug? Faced with such an issue, can you really remain wholly absorbed in your own blessed 'moral development'?
All right, Christianity will do you good - a great deal more good than you ever wanted or expected. And the first bit of good it will do you is to hammer into your head (you won't enjoy that!) the fact that what you have hitherto called 'good' - all that about 'leading a decent life' and 'being kind'- isn't quite the magnificent and all-important affair you supposed. It will teach you that in fact you can't be 'good' (not for twenty-four hours) on your own moral efforts. And then it will teach you that even if you were, you still wouldn't have achieved the purpose for which you were created. Mere morality is not the end of life. You were made for something quite different from that.
J. S. Mill and Confucius (Socrates was much nearer the reality) simply didn't know what life is about. The people who keep on asking if they can't lead a decent life without Christ, don't know what life is about; if they did they would know that 'a decent life' is mere machinery compared with the thing we men are really made for. Morality is indispensable: but the Divine Life, which gives itself to us and which calls us to be gods, intends for us something in which morality will be swallowed up. We are to be re-made. All the rabbit in us is to disappear - the worried, conscientious, ethical rabbit as well as the cowardly and sensual rabbit. We shall bleed and squeal as the handfuls of fur come out; and then, surprisingly, we shall find underneath it all a thing we have never yet imagined: a real Man, an ageless god, a son of God, strong, radiant, wise, beautiful, and drenched in joy.
'When that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away." The idea of reaching 'a good life' without Christ is based on a double error. Firstly, we cannot do it; and secondly, in setting up 'a good life' as our final goal, we have missed the very point of our existence. Morality is a mountain which we cannot climb by our own efforts; and if we could we should only perish in the ice and unbreathable air of the summit, lacking those wings with which the rest of the journey has to be accomplished. For it is from there that the real ascent begins. The ropes and axes are 'done away' and the rest is a matter of flying.
译：Irene
“不信基督教，人就不能好好地度过一生了吗？”这是我常常被问及的一个问题。让我们暂且先放下这个问题，在我开始回答之前，我有必要先做个解释。
乍一听，问这个问题的人似乎是在说：“我不关心基督教所讲的那些是真的还是假的，我也不关心万物起源到底是如基督徒所说的那样，还是唯物主义者所说的那样。我只关心怎样才能好好度过一生。我打算选择一种信仰，不是因为在我看来它是真的，而是因为它对我有所帮助。”坦诚地讲，我很难认可这种想法，人和动物的一大区别是：人有了解事物的欲望，人想要找到事情的真相，因为人有求知欲。当这种求知的渴望在一个人心里完全熄灭了，我认为这个人在“人”的层面是有所欠缺的。事实上，我并不相信会有人完全丧失了那种渴望，而更可能是一些愚蠢的牧师们，总是告诉你，信基督教会对你有多大的帮助，基督教对改善社会有多大好处……久而久之，连你自己都快忘记了，其实基督教压根就不是一颗获得专利的药丸。
基督教宣称能够解释事情真相，告诉你真正的万物起源是什么样的。它的解释可能是正确的，也可能不是。但是，一旦这个问题真实地摆在你面前，你天然的求知欲必定使你迫切想要知道答案。如果基督教所宣讲的是假的，那么没有一个诚实的人会去相信它，无论它对人有多么大的帮助；如果它是真的，那么每一个诚实的人都应该相信它，哪怕它对人没有一点帮助。
一旦我们意识到这一点，我们也进而能得出一些别的结论。如果基督教所宣讲的刚好就是真的，那么，那些知道这条真理的人和那些不知道这条真理的人就不可能都好好度过一生。对事物的不同认识会产生不同行为。假设你看见一个人，看起来很饥饿的样子，此时你想做一件正确的事情，如果你不懂医学，你可能会请他吃顿大餐，结果这个人却因此死了。这就是“在黑暗中工作”所导致的结果。同样的道理，基督徒和非基督徒都想要给他们的同伴做点好事，基督徒相信人是上帝创造的，有永恒的生命，在此根基上建造这个生命，他们会发现，他们真实而持久的幸福单单来源于与上帝联结，然而他的同伴已经严重偏离正轨，唯一的回头路就是信靠顺服基督；非基督徒相信人是物质的无序运动偶然产生的结果，人只不过是从动物进化而来，他们的生命不过是在世的七十年左右，他们的幸福完全可以通过良好的社会福利和政治制度达到，他们评价一条社会政策（如：活体解剖、计划生育、司法系统、教育等）“好”或“坏”的标准仅仅在于它是助长还是减损那种“幸福”。
在民生方面，这两类人在很多事情上已经达成共识。两者都认为应当建设高效的排水管道和医院，也都赞同健康的饮食。但是迟早，他们信仰的不同一定会导致他们在具体实践上的不同。例如，两者可能都非常热衷于教育，但是，他们想让人接受的教育的类型会明显不同。此外，当一个议案摆在面前，唯物主义者会问：“实施这个议案会增进大多数人的幸福吗？”而基督徒可能不得不说：“即使它能够增进大多数人的幸福，我们也不能这么做，因为这缺乏公义。”自始自终，一条巨大的鸿沟会贯穿他们整个的政治观。对唯物主义者而言，国家、阶级、文明一定比个人更重要，因为每一个个体的生命不过是短短七十多年，而一个群体组织可能持续数百年；但对于基督徒而言，个体生命更为重要，因为他们的生命是永恒的，而诸如民族、文明这些的，相较而言不过短如白昼。
基督徒和唯物主义者对万物起源持不同的观点，两者不可能都是正确的。错误一方的行为方式一定不适用于真正的“万物起源说”，因此，不论他的动机究竟有多好，他仍旧是在帮助自己的同伴走向毁灭。
不论他的动机究竟有多好……那这就不是他的错咯？当然，上帝（如果存在的话）不会因一个人犯了“诚实的错误”而惩罚他，但是你所考虑的仅此而已吗？难道我们打算用我们毕生的精力冒险在“黑暗中工作”、制造无穷的危害，只因某些人允诺，我们会毫发无损，没有人会惩罚或指责我们？我不相信读者们是这样的人，但就算对于这样的人，我仍有一些话要对他们说。
摆在我们每一个人面前的问题，不是“如果不信基督教，人们能不能好好地度过一生”，而是“‘我’能不能”。我们都知道有一些好人，他们不是基督徒，比如苏格拉底和孔子，他们也从未听说过基督教。或者像J.S.穆勒（英国哲学家，无神论者）这样的人，老实说根本不可能信基督。假如基督教所讲的是真的，那么这些人属于“诚实的无知”或“诚实的错误”。如果他们的动机确实如我所假设他们应有的那么好（我当然不可能读懂他们隐秘的内心），我希望，也相信，上帝的能力和慈爱会补救他们对自己以及被他们影响的人所生发的恶，因为这种恶是他们因无知未被加以干涉而自然产生的。但是，这个问我“我若不信基督教能否好好度过一生”的人，显然不在上述行列。如果他没有听过基督教，他不会问这个问题；如果他听过基督教、慎重思考过这个问题、并且已经得出判断：基督教是假的，那他也不会再问这个问题。问这个问题的人，一定听过基督教，但又不敢贸然论定它是假的，他真正想问的其实是：“我有必要为这个问题劳神费心吗？我能不能干脆避开这个问题，省得自找麻烦，继续‘好好做人’？我若没有敲开那扇糟糕的门以此来确定门内到底有没有人，仅仅有好的动机不已经足够让我明哲保身、免于责难了吗？”
对于这种人，也许这样回答足够了：在他尽自己最大的努力来发现“好”究竟意味着什么之前，他其实是在请求允许他继续像现在这样“好好生活”下去。但故事并没有到此为止，我们无需知道，他们是否会因为自己的懦弱和懒惰而受到上帝惩罚，他们自己会惩罚自己。这个人在偷懒，他故意不去思考基督教所讲的是不是真的，因为他预想到会有无尽的麻烦，如果基督教被证实是真的，这就好比一个人故意“忘了”看告示板，因为如果他这么做了，他会发现自己的名字也被列入了这些让人不快的责任之中；又好比一个人（故意）不去查看他的银行账户，因为他害怕看到某些（他不愿看到的）数据；又好比有个人突然感到身上有种莫名的疼痛，但他（故意）不去看医生，因为他害怕医生可能会告诉他什么（他不愿相信的事实）。
如果一个人，因上述原因，仍旧是个不信者，那他所犯的就不属于“诚实的错误”，而是“不诚实的错误”。并且那种“不诚实”会布散在他整个的思想和行为中，导致他内心奸诈、忧心忡忡以及人格钝化，他失去了智识的贞洁。诚实地拒绝基督，即使错了，也会被原谅和医治，“凡说话干犯人子的，还可得赦免”（路加福音12:10）。但是，逃避人子的、看着其他方向的、假装你没有注意到的、突然被街对面的某些东西吸引过去的、当电话铃响起时故意不接电话只因有可能是“祂”打来的、故意不拆开某些笔迹奇怪的信只因有可能是“祂”寄来的……这就不一样了。你可以不确定自己是否要做一个基督徒，但是你知道，你应当做个“人”，而不是鸵鸟，把头埋在沙土里。
只不过，在当今世代，对智识的尊重已经降到一个相当低的位置。因此，我仍然听到某些人在哀怜地问这样的问题：“这对我有帮助吗？它能使我快乐吗？你真的认为，我若成为一个基督徒，会过得更好吗？”好吧，如果你执意要这么问，我会回答：是的。但是在当前阶段，我一点都不想直接给出答案。这是一扇门，在门背后——根据某些人说的——万物起源的奥秘在等着你。它可能是真的，也可能是假的，如果它是假的，那门背后真实隐藏的东西简直就是全世界最大的骗局，是有史以来最大的推销术。这还不够显而易见吗？每一个人的工作（前提是你是“人”而不是兔子）就是尝试着去找到真相，然后奉献他的毕生精力，要么尽心侍奉这个惊天大秘密，要么揭露捣毁这个超级大骗子。面对这样一个严峻的问题，你真的还能依然如故地沉浸在自己那套无忧无虑的“道德发展论”之中吗？
好吧，基督教会对你有好处的。这个好处超乎你的所求所想，他会对你做的第一件好事就是把真相锤入你的脑袋中（你不会喜欢那种感觉的），这个真相是：你迄今为止认为是“好”的东西，所有那些关于“生活得体”、“做个好人”之类的教导，并非如你料想的那样有多了不起，也并非首要。它还会教导你，事实上，你不可能倚靠自己的道德努力来做一辈子的好人（不是做一天）；接着它还会教导你，就算你做到了，你离你被造时所要求达到的目标还相去甚远。生命的终极意义并不仅仅是道德准则，你被造的目的和它大相径庭。J.S.穆勒和孔子（苏格拉底相对而言更接近真相）只不过是不知道生命为何，那些整天追问他们能不能过上一种没有基督的体面生活的人，同样也不知道生命为何。如果他们知道，他们就会发现，相较于我们人类被造的真正目的，“体面的生活”只不过是个外在的躯壳。道德当然是不可或缺的，然而，神打算把祂自己那神圣的生命给予我们，他称呼我们为“神”（gods），他打算给我们一些道德耗尽了之后的东西，我们要成为“新造的人”，我们里面那只兔子会消失——就是那只担惊受怕的、小心谨慎的、伦理道德的兔子，同样也是一只懦弱的、属乎肉体的兔子，我们会疼痛流血、尖叫抗议，因为会有一点皮毛被带出来，然后，我们会惊讶地发现，下面有一件超乎想象的事情发生了：你变成了一个真正的人、一个永活的神（原文意为像神一样有着永恒生命的人）、一个神的儿子，你变得强大有力、容光焕发、美丽智慧、喜乐充盈。
“等到那完全的来到，这有限的必归于无有了”（哥林多前书13:10），“没有基督而达到美好生活”的想法基于一个双重错误，首先，我们不可能真正达到；其次，若将“建立美好生活”作为我们的终极目标，我们会因此错失活在世上的重点。道德是一座倚靠我们自身努力无法攀越的高山，即使我们登上了顶峰，也会因为山顶上刺骨的严寒和稀薄的空气而丧生。我们缺少的是一双用于完成余下行程的翅膀，因为正是从那里，真正的美景才开始出现。绳子和斧子到此为止，剩下的事，关乎飞翔。
[url=http://www.yimaneili.net/gongyu/space.php?uid=2014437&do=thread&id=25933]http://www.yimaneili.net/gongyu/space.php?uid=2014437&do=thread&id=25933[/url]
中文版在下边
This is the question on which I have been asked to write, and straight away, before I begin trying to answer it, I have a comment to make. The question sounds as if it were asked by a person who said to himself, 'I don't care whether Christianity is in fact true or not. I'm not interested in finding out whether the real universe is more like what the Christians say than what the Materialists say. All I'm interested in is leading a good life. I'm going to choose beliefs not because I think them true but because I find them helpful.'
Now frankly, I find it hard to sympathise with this state of mind. One of the things that distinguishes man from the other animals is that he wants to know things, wants to find out what reality is like, simply for the sake of knowing. When that desire is completely quenched in anyone, I think he has become something less than human. As a matter of fact, I don't believe any of you have really lost that desire. More probably, foolish preachers, by always telling you how much Christianity will help you and how good it is for society, have actually led you to forget that Christianity is not a patent medicine. Christianity claims to give an account of facts - to tell you what the real universe is like. Its account of the universe may be true, or it may not, and once the question is really before you, then your natural inquisitiveness must make you want to know the answer. If Christianity is untrue, then no honest man will want to believe it, however helpful it might be: if it is true, every honest man will want to believe it, even if it gives him no help at all.
As soon as we have realised this, we realise something else. If Christianity should happen to be true, then it is quite impossible that those who know this truth and those who don't should be equally well equipped for leading a good life. Knowledge of the facts must make a difference to one's actions. Suppose you found a man on the point of starvation and wanted to do the right thing. If you had no knowledge of medical science, you would probably give him a large solid meal; and as a result your man would die. That is what comes of working in the dark. In the same way a Christian and a non-Christian may both wish to do good to their fellow men. The one believes that men are going to live for ever, that they were created by God and so built that they can find their true and lasting happiness only by being united to God, that they have gone badly off the rails, and that obedient faith in Christ is the only way back. The other believes that men are an accidental result of the blind workings of matter, that they started as mere animals and have more or less steadily improved, that they are going to live for about seventy years, that their happiness is fully attainable by good social services and political organisations, and that everything else (e.g., vivisection, birth-control, the judicial system, education) is to be judged to be 'good' or 'bad' simply in so far as it helps or hinders that kind of 'happiness'.
Now there are quite a lot of things which these two men could agree in doing for their fellow citizens. Both would approve of efficient sewers and hospitals and a healthy diet. But sooner or later the difference of their beliefs would produce differences in their practical proposals. Both, for example, might be very keen about education: but the kinds of education they wanted people to have would obviously be very different. Again, where the Materialist would simply ask about a proposed action 'Will it increase the happiness of the majority?', the Christian might have to say, 'Even if it does increase the happiness of the majority, we can't do it. It is unjust.' And all the time, one great difference would run through their whole policy. To the Materialist things like nations, classes, civilizations must be more important than individuals, because the individuals live only seventy odd years each and the group may last for centuries. But to the Christian, individuals are more important, for they live eternally; and races, civilizations and the like, are in comparison the creatures of a day.
The Christian and the Materialist hold different beliefs about the universe. They can't both be right. The one who is wrong will act in a way which simply doesn't fit the real universe. Consequently, with the best will in the world, he will be helping his fellow creatures to their destruction. With the best will in the world ... then it won't be his fault.
Surely God (if there is a God) will not punish a man for honest mistakes? But was that all you were thinking about? Are we ready to run the risk of working in the dark all our lives and doing infinite harm, provided only someone will assure us that our own skins will be safe, that no one will punish us or blame us? I will not believe that the reader is quite on that level. But even if he were, there is something to be said to him. The question before each of us is not 'Can someone lead a good life without Christianity?' The question is, 'Can I?' We all know there have been good men who were not Christians; men like Socrates and Confucius who had never heard of it, or men like J. S. Mill who quite honestly couldn't believe it. Supposing Christianity to be true, these men were in a state of honest ignorance or honest error. If their intentions were as good as I suppose them to have been (for of course I can't read their secret hearts) I hope and believe that the skill and mercy of God will remedy the evils which their ignorance, left to itself, would naturally produce both for them and for those whom they influenced. But the man who asks me, 'Can't I lead a good life without believing in Christianity?' is clearly not in the same position. If he hadn't heard of Christianity he would not be asking this question. If, having heard of it, and having seriously considered it, he had decided that it was untrue, then once more he would not be asking the question. The man who asks this question has heard of Christianity and is by no means certain that it may not be true. He is really asking, 'Need I bother about it? Mayn't I just evade the issue, just let sleeping dogs lie, and get on with being "good"? Aren't good intentions enough to keep me safe and blameless without knocking at that dreadful door and making sure whether there is, or isn't someone inside?'
To such a man it might be enough to reply that he is really asking to be allowed to get on with being 'good' before he has done his best to discover what good means. But that is not the whole story. We need not inquire whether God will punish him for his cowardice and laziness; they will punish themselves. The man is shirking. He is deliberately trying not to know whether Christianity is true or false, because he foresees endless trouble if it should turn out to be true. He is like the man who deliberately 'forgets' to look at the notice board because, if he did, he might find his name down for some unpleasant duty. He is like the man who won't look at his bank account because he's afraid of what he might find there. He is like the man who won't go to the doctor when he first feels a mysterious pain, because he is afraid of what the doctor may tell him.
The man who remains an unbeliever for such reasons is not in a state of honest error. He is in a state of dishonest error, and that dishonesty will spread through all his thoughts and actions: a certain shiftiness, a vague worry in the background, a blunting of his whole mental edge, will result. He has lost his intellectual virginity. Honest rejection of Christ, however mistaken, will be forgiven and healed - 'Whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him.'! But to evade the Son of Man, to look the other way, to pretend you haven't noticed, to become suddenly absorbed in something on the other side of the street, to leave the receiver off the telephone because it might be He who was ringing up, to leave unopened certain letters in a strange handwriting because they might be from Him - this is a different matter. You may not be certain yet whether you ought to be a Christian; but you do know you ought to be a Man, not an ostrich, hiding its head in the sand.
But still - for intellectual honour has sunk very low in our age - I hear someone whimpering on with his question, 'Will it help me? Will it make me happy? Do you really think I'd be better if I became a Christian?' Well, if you must have it, my answer is 'Yes.' But I don't like giving an answer at all at this stage. Here is a door, behind which, according to some people, the secret of the universe is waiting for you. Either that's true, or it isn't. And if it isn't, then what the door really conceals is simply the greatest fraud, the most colossal 'sell' on record. Isn't it obviously the job of every man (that is a man and not a rabbit) to try to find out which, and then to devote his full energies either to serving this tremendous secret or to exposing and destroying this gigantic humbug? Faced with such an issue, can you really remain wholly absorbed in your own blessed 'moral development'?
All right, Christianity will do you good - a great deal more good than you ever wanted or expected. And the first bit of good it will do you is to hammer into your head (you won't enjoy that!) the fact that what you have hitherto called 'good' - all that about 'leading a decent life' and 'being kind'- isn't quite the magnificent and all-important affair you supposed. It will teach you that in fact you can't be 'good' (not for twenty-four hours) on your own moral efforts. And then it will teach you that even if you were, you still wouldn't have achieved the purpose for which you were created. Mere morality is not the end of life. You were made for something quite different from that.
J. S. Mill and Confucius (Socrates was much nearer the reality) simply didn't know what life is about. The people who keep on asking if they can't lead a decent life without Christ, don't know what life is about; if they did they would know that 'a decent life' is mere machinery compared with the thing we men are really made for. Morality is indispensable: but the Divine Life, which gives itself to us and which calls us to be gods, intends for us something in which morality will be swallowed up. We are to be re-made. All the rabbit in us is to disappear - the worried, conscientious, ethical rabbit as well as the cowardly and sensual rabbit. We shall bleed and squeal as the handfuls of fur come out; and then, surprisingly, we shall find underneath it all a thing we have never yet imagined: a real Man, an ageless god, a son of God, strong, radiant, wise, beautiful, and drenched in joy.
'When that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away." The idea of reaching 'a good life' without Christ is based on a double error. Firstly, we cannot do it; and secondly, in setting up 'a good life' as our final goal, we have missed the very point of our existence. Morality is a mountain which we cannot climb by our own efforts; and if we could we should only perish in the ice and unbreathable air of the summit, lacking those wings with which the rest of the journey has to be accomplished. For it is from there that the real ascent begins. The ropes and axes are 'done away' and the rest is a matter of flying.
译：Irene
“不信基督教，人就不能好好地度过一生了吗？”这是我常常被问及的一个问题。让我们暂且先放下这个问题，在我开始回答之前，我有必要先做个解释。
乍一听，问这个问题的人似乎是在说：“我不关心基督教所讲的那些是真的还是假的，我也不关心万物起源到底是如基督徒所说的那样，还是唯物主义者所说的那样。我只关心怎样才能好好度过一生。我打算选择一种信仰，不是因为在我看来它是真的，而是因为它对我有所帮助。”坦诚地讲，我很难认可这种想法，人和动物的一大区别是：人有了解事物的欲望，人想要找到事情的真相，因为人有求知欲。当这种求知的渴望在一个人心里完全熄灭了，我认为这个人在“人”的层面是有所欠缺的。事实上，我并不相信会有人完全丧失了那种渴望，而更可能是一些愚蠢的牧师们，总是告诉你，信基督教会对你有多大的帮助，基督教对改善社会有多大好处……久而久之，连你自己都快忘记了，其实基督教压根就不是一颗获得专利的药丸。
基督教宣称能够解释事情真相，告诉你真正的万物起源是什么样的。它的解释可能是正确的，也可能不是。但是，一旦这个问题真实地摆在你面前，你天然的求知欲必定使你迫切想要知道答案。如果基督教所宣讲的是假的，那么没有一个诚实的人会去相信它，无论它对人有多么大的帮助；如果它是真的，那么每一个诚实的人都应该相信它，哪怕它对人没有一点帮助。
一旦我们意识到这一点，我们也进而能得出一些别的结论。如果基督教所宣讲的刚好就是真的，那么，那些知道这条真理的人和那些不知道这条真理的人就不可能都好好度过一生。对事物的不同认识会产生不同行为。假设你看见一个人，看起来很饥饿的样子，此时你想做一件正确的事情，如果你不懂医学，你可能会请他吃顿大餐，结果这个人却因此死了。这就是“在黑暗中工作”所导致的结果。同样的道理，基督徒和非基督徒都想要给他们的同伴做点好事，基督徒相信人是上帝创造的，有永恒的生命，在此根基上建造这个生命，他们会发现，他们真实而持久的幸福单单来源于与上帝联结，然而他的同伴已经严重偏离正轨，唯一的回头路就是信靠顺服基督；非基督徒相信人是物质的无序运动偶然产生的结果，人只不过是从动物进化而来，他们的生命不过是在世的七十年左右，他们的幸福完全可以通过良好的社会福利和政治制度达到，他们评价一条社会政策（如：活体解剖、计划生育、司法系统、教育等）“好”或“坏”的标准仅仅在于它是助长还是减损那种“幸福”。
在民生方面，这两类人在很多事情上已经达成共识。两者都认为应当建设高效的排水管道和医院，也都赞同健康的饮食。但是迟早，他们信仰的不同一定会导致他们在具体实践上的不同。例如，两者可能都非常热衷于教育，但是，他们想让人接受的教育的类型会明显不同。此外，当一个议案摆在面前，唯物主义者会问：“实施这个议案会增进大多数人的幸福吗？”而基督徒可能不得不说：“即使它能够增进大多数人的幸福，我们也不能这么做，因为这缺乏公义。”自始自终，一条巨大的鸿沟会贯穿他们整个的政治观。对唯物主义者而言，国家、阶级、文明一定比个人更重要，因为每一个个体的生命不过是短短七十多年，而一个群体组织可能持续数百年；但对于基督徒而言，个体生命更为重要，因为他们的生命是永恒的，而诸如民族、文明这些的，相较而言不过短如白昼。
基督徒和唯物主义者对万物起源持不同的观点，两者不可能都是正确的。错误一方的行为方式一定不适用于真正的“万物起源说”，因此，不论他的动机究竟有多好，他仍旧是在帮助自己的同伴走向毁灭。
不论他的动机究竟有多好……那这就不是他的错咯？当然，上帝（如果存在的话）不会因一个人犯了“诚实的错误”而惩罚他，但是你所考虑的仅此而已吗？难道我们打算用我们毕生的精力冒险在“黑暗中工作”、制造无穷的危害，只因某些人允诺，我们会毫发无损，没有人会惩罚或指责我们？我不相信读者们是这样的人，但就算对于这样的人，我仍有一些话要对他们说。
摆在我们每一个人面前的问题，不是“如果不信基督教，人们能不能好好地度过一生”，而是“‘我’能不能”。我们都知道有一些好人，他们不是基督徒，比如苏格拉底和孔子，他们也从未听说过基督教。或者像J.S.穆勒（英国哲学家，无神论者）这样的人，老实说根本不可能信基督。假如基督教所讲的是真的，那么这些人属于“诚实的无知”或“诚实的错误”。如果他们的动机确实如我所假设他们应有的那么好（我当然不可能读懂他们隐秘的内心），我希望，也相信，上帝的能力和慈爱会补救他们对自己以及被他们影响的人所生发的恶，因为这种恶是他们因无知未被加以干涉而自然产生的。但是，这个问我“我若不信基督教能否好好度过一生”的人，显然不在上述行列。如果他没有听过基督教，他不会问这个问题；如果他听过基督教、慎重思考过这个问题、并且已经得出判断：基督教是假的，那他也不会再问这个问题。问这个问题的人，一定听过基督教，但又不敢贸然论定它是假的，他真正想问的其实是：“我有必要为这个问题劳神费心吗？我能不能干脆避开这个问题，省得自找麻烦，继续‘好好做人’？我若没有敲开那扇糟糕的门以此来确定门内到底有没有人，仅仅有好的动机不已经足够让我明哲保身、免于责难了吗？”
对于这种人，也许这样回答足够了：在他尽自己最大的努力来发现“好”究竟意味着什么之前，他其实是在请求允许他继续像现在这样“好好生活”下去。但故事并没有到此为止，我们无需知道，他们是否会因为自己的懦弱和懒惰而受到上帝惩罚，他们自己会惩罚自己。这个人在偷懒，他故意不去思考基督教所讲的是不是真的，因为他预想到会有无尽的麻烦，如果基督教被证实是真的，这就好比一个人故意“忘了”看告示板，因为如果他这么做了，他会发现自己的名字也被列入了这些让人不快的责任之中；又好比一个人（故意）不去查看他的银行账户，因为他害怕看到某些（他不愿看到的）数据；又好比有个人突然感到身上有种莫名的疼痛，但他（故意）不去看医生，因为他害怕医生可能会告诉他什么（他不愿相信的事实）。
如果一个人，因上述原因，仍旧是个不信者，那他所犯的就不属于“诚实的错误”，而是“不诚实的错误”。并且那种“不诚实”会布散在他整个的思想和行为中，导致他内心奸诈、忧心忡忡以及人格钝化，他失去了智识的贞洁。诚实地拒绝基督，即使错了，也会被原谅和医治，“凡说话干犯人子的，还可得赦免”（路加福音12:10）。但是，逃避人子的、看着其他方向的、假装你没有注意到的、突然被街对面的某些东西吸引过去的、当电话铃响起时故意不接电话只因有可能是“祂”打来的、故意不拆开某些笔迹奇怪的信只因有可能是“祂”寄来的……这就不一样了。你可以不确定自己是否要做一个基督徒，但是你知道，你应当做个“人”，而不是鸵鸟，把头埋在沙土里。
只不过，在当今世代，对智识的尊重已经降到一个相当低的位置。因此，我仍然听到某些人在哀怜地问这样的问题：“这对我有帮助吗？它能使我快乐吗？你真的认为，我若成为一个基督徒，会过得更好吗？”好吧，如果你执意要这么问，我会回答：是的。但是在当前阶段，我一点都不想直接给出答案。这是一扇门，在门背后——根据某些人说的——万物起源的奥秘在等着你。它可能是真的，也可能是假的，如果它是假的，那门背后真实隐藏的东西简直就是全世界最大的骗局，是有史以来最大的推销术。这还不够显而易见吗？每一个人的工作（前提是你是“人”而不是兔子）就是尝试着去找到真相，然后奉献他的毕生精力，要么尽心侍奉这个惊天大秘密，要么揭露捣毁这个超级大骗子。面对这样一个严峻的问题，你真的还能依然如故地沉浸在自己那套无忧无虑的“道德发展论”之中吗？
好吧，基督教会对你有好处的。这个好处超乎你的所求所想，他会对你做的第一件好事就是把真相锤入你的脑袋中（你不会喜欢那种感觉的），这个真相是：你迄今为止认为是“好”的东西，所有那些关于“生活得体”、“做个好人”之类的教导，并非如你料想的那样有多了不起，也并非首要。它还会教导你，事实上，你不可能倚靠自己的道德努力来做一辈子的好人（不是做一天）；接着它还会教导你，就算你做到了，你离你被造时所要求达到的目标还相去甚远。生命的终极意义并不仅仅是道德准则，你被造的目的和它大相径庭。J.S.穆勒和孔子（苏格拉底相对而言更接近真相）只不过是不知道生命为何，那些整天追问他们能不能过上一种没有基督的体面生活的人，同样也不知道生命为何。如果他们知道，他们就会发现，相较于我们人类被造的真正目的，“体面的生活”只不过是个外在的躯壳。道德当然是不可或缺的，然而，神打算把祂自己那神圣的生命给予我们，他称呼我们为“神”（gods），他打算给我们一些道德耗尽了之后的东西，我们要成为“新造的人”，我们里面那只兔子会消失——就是那只担惊受怕的、小心谨慎的、伦理道德的兔子，同样也是一只懦弱的、属乎肉体的兔子，我们会疼痛流血、尖叫抗议，因为会有一点皮毛被带出来，然后，我们会惊讶地发现，下面有一件超乎想象的事情发生了：你变成了一个真正的人、一个永活的神（原文意为像神一样有着永恒生命的人）、一个神的儿子，你变得强大有力、容光焕发、美丽智慧、喜乐充盈。
“等到那完全的来到，这有限的必归于无有了”（哥林多前书13:10），“没有基督而达到美好生活”的想法基于一个双重错误，首先，我们不可能真正达到；其次，若将“建立美好生活”作为我们的终极目标，我们会因此错失活在世上的重点。道德是一座倚靠我们自身努力无法攀越的高山，即使我们登上了顶峰，也会因为山顶上刺骨的严寒和稀薄的空气而丧生。我们缺少的是一双用于完成余下行程的翅膀，因为正是从那里，真正的美景才开始出现。绳子和斧子到此为止，剩下的事，关乎飞翔。
[url=http://www.yimaneili.net/gongyu/space.php?uid=2014437&do=thread&id=25933]http://www.yimaneili.net/gongyu/space.php?uid=2014437&do=thread&id=25933[/url]