「兩種愛建造了兩座城——愛自己以致藐視神，建造了地上的城；愛神以致藐視自己，建造了天上的城。」（奧古斯丁《上帝之城》，卷14）
...
two cities have been formed by two loves: the earthly by the love of self, even
to the contempt of God; the heavenly by the love of God, even to the contempt
of self.
The
Religious Life of the Theological Student by華腓德（B.B.Warfield）
傳道人必須既有學問又敬虔。這不是二者擇其一的問題。他必須研究，但他的研究必須在神的同在中，而不是在世俗的精神中。他必須承認自己擁有特權在一個環境中追求他的研究，他在其中呼吸的空氣是神和得救脫離罪惡。他也必須利用每一個機會來參與集體敬拜，特別是在神學院接受訓練期間。⋯⋯傳道工作若沒有禱告，是個悲劇的錯誤。神的僕人如果要傳講純淨、清晰、且有力的信息，就必須結合二者。⋯⋯
A
minister must be both learned and religious. It is not a matter of choosing
between the two. He must study, but he must study as in the presence of God and
not in a secular spirit. He must recognize the privilege of pursuing his
studies in the environment where God and salvation from sin are the air he
breathes. He must also take advantage of every opportunity for corporate
worship, particularly while he trains in the Theological Seminary. . . .
Ministerial work without taking time to pray is a tragic mistake. The two must
combine if the servant of God is to give a pure, clear, and strong message.
The
ministry is a “learned profession”; and the man without learning, no matter
with what other gifts he may be endowed, is unfit for its duties. But learning,
though indispensable, is not the most indispensable thing for a minister. “Apt
to teach”—yes, the ministry must be “apt to teach”; and observe that what I
say—or rather what Paul says—is “apt to teach.” Not apt merely to exhort, to
beseech, to appeal, to entreat; nor even merely, to testify, to bear witness;
but to teach. And teaching implies knowledge: he who teaches must know. Paul,
in other words, requires of you, as we are perhaps learning not very
felicitously to phrase it, “instructional,” not merely “inspirational,”
service. But aptness to teach alone does not make a minister; nor is it his primary
qualification. It is only one of a long list of requirements which Paul lays
down as necessary to meet in him who aspires to this high office. And all the
rest concern, not his intellectual, but his spiritual fitness. A minister must
be learned, on pain of being utterly incompetent for his work. But before and
above being learned, a minister must be godly.
Nothing
could be more fatal, however, than to set these two things over against one
another. Recruiting officers do not dispute whether it is better for soldiers
to have a right leg or a left leg: soldiers should have both legs. Sometimes we
hear it said that ten minutes on your knees will give you a truer, deeper, more
operative knowledge of God than ten hours over your books. “What!” is the
appropriate response, “than ten hours over your books, on your knees?” Why
should you turn from God when you turn to your books, or feel that you must
turn from your books in order to turn to God? If learning and devotion are as
antagonistic as that, then the intellectual life is in itself accursed, and
there can be no question of a religious life for a student, even of theology. .
. . Just because you are students of theology, it is understood that you are
religious men—especially religious men, to whom the cultivation of your
religious life is a matter of the profoundest concern—of such concern that you
will wish above all things to be warned of the dangers that may assail your
religious life, and be pointed to the means by which you may strengthen and
enlarge it. In your case there can be no “either-or” here—either a student or a
man of God. You must be both.
保羅雖非常在意信徒如何行事為人，卻鮮少提出關於行事為人的『法條』。保羅喜歡近乎囉嗦地，在每一個個案中再一次討論基督與十架的福音，然後引申。這也許是他信仰上的堅持，也可能是他為了說服信心群體不得不做的事。我想這也是神學院和神學人的榜樣。
這不是我自己的洞見，而是許多學者共同的觀察。
//我個人在這一點，則主要是受到Victor Furnish與Richard Hays針對Paul's Ethics相關著作的啟發。--張楷弦
https://www.facebook.com/alex.s.tseng/posts/10156161718106365
加尔文经常说自己不尚玄思，我相信没有人会认真看待他这句话。不管什么原因，加尔文一直不欣赏很玄妙的基督神人二性【属性相通】的说法。最多人引用的是他在《耶利米书》的引言献词。难怪加尔文专家会说：《基督教要义》最吸引人的是救恩论，教人头痛的是三一论与基督论。
// 基督自己和他的使徒们都清楚地表明上帝的无限不属于肉体，除了优提克斯(Eutyches)，迄今没有人教导过一种个人的联合，说当基督成为人时，这两种本性变得如此融合，神的属性就相通给他的人性。我不願意用一个被定罪的人来谴责他们，他们应被提醒要更专注地思考，并且要看见争议如何使甚至是优秀而学识渊博和精明的人误入歧途，使他们只想护卫自己的立场。毫无疑问，在以弗所会议上对抗涅斯多留 (Nestorius) 的最好和最快的方式应该是说：整个位格的结合分别相通于其个别的本性，没有人想到要这样做，因为它是绝对荒谬的。因此我非常惊讶于那些反对我们的人，他们从来没有想过自己陷入了什么样的迷宫。//
https://www.facebook.com/stephenchan9057/posts/10155809378922821
香腸事件，Affair of the Sausages：Zwingli-Wurst:
香腸事件（1522年）是引發蘇黎世宗教改革的事件。瑞士蘇黎世大教堂的牧師慈運理公開宣講，支持在大齋期間食用香腸，從而引領了這個事件。慈運理在名爲《論食物的選擇與自由》（Von Erkiesen und Freiheit der Speisen）的講道中爲這一行動作出辯護，基於馬丁·路德的「唯獨聖經」教義，他主張「基督徒有是否禁食的自由，因爲聖經並未禁止在齋期吃肉。」
Das Zürcher Wurstessen, auch Froschauer Wurstessen, fand 1522 am ersten Sonntag der Fastenzeit (9. März 1522, Invokavit) in Zürich statt. Dabei wurde im Hause des Druckers Christoph Froschauer von Angehörigen der Zürcher Ehrbarkeit und im Beisein mehrerer Geistlicher demonstrativ gegen das geltende Abstinenzgebot verstoßen. Der Reformator Huldrych Zwingli war anwesend, nahm aber am Wurstessen selbst nicht teil.[1] Das Wurstessen hat für die Reformation in der Schweiz wie die reformierte Kirche allgemein eine ähnlich bedeutende Rolle wie der Wittenberger Thesenanschlag für die Reformation in Deutschland und die lutherischen Kirchen.
加尔文之彌迦書6:8
古墓神学博士譯
先知又說, 神在他的律法中顯示什麼是善的; 然後他補充說, 做正義, 愛憐憫, 或仁慈, 並在上帝面前謙卑。顯然, 在首先的兩個具体的用詞中, 他提到了法律的第二塊石版, 那就是伸張正義, 愛憐憫。我们不需驚奇先知是從愛的責任開始; 因為, 對神的敬拜是在這些職責之前, 並且理應被如此看待。然而, 要對人行使的正義, 才是真正的宗教的真正證據。因此, 先知提到公義和憐憫, 而不是神拋棄那是主要的, 就是敬拜神的名。但他以證據或效果來展示什麼是真正的宗教。偽君子在外在儀式中全部聖潔; 但神需要什麼是非常不同的; 因為他的敬拜是屬靈的。但作為偽君子, 在神的外在敬拜中, 可以表現出極大的熱忱和極大的關懷。先知們以另一種方式來審判人的行為, 詢問他們是否公正而友善地對待對方, 他們是否不受任何欺詐和暴力, 無論他們是否遵守正義並表示憐憫。這就是我們的先知現在所遵循的方式, 當他說：神的律法規定什麼是好的, 那就是伸張正義，去觀察什麼是公平的對待人, 也履行仁慈的職責。
JOHN CALVIN ON MICAH 6:8
He then says that God had shown by his Law what is good; and then he adds what it is,to do justice, to love mercy, or kindness, and to be humbled before God. It is evident that, in the two first particulars, he refers to the second table of the Law; that is to do justice, and to love mercy. Nor is it a matter of wonder that the Prophet begins with the duties of love; for though in order the worship of God precedes these duties, and ought rightly to be so regarded, yet justice, which is to be exercised towards men, is the real evidence of true religion. The Prophet, therefore, mentions justice and mercy, not that God casts aside that which is principal — the worship of his name; but he shows, by evidences or effects, what true religion is.
Hypocrites place all holiness in external rites; but God requires what is very different; for his worship is spiritual. But as hypocrites can make a show of great zeal and of great solicitude in the outward worship of God, the Prophets try the conduct of men in another way, by inquiring whether they act justly and kindly towards one another, whether they are free from all fraud and violence, whether they observe justice and show mercy. This is the way our Prophet now follows, when he says, that God’s Law prescribes what is good, and that is, to do justice — to observe what is equitable towards men, and also to perform the duties of mercy.
一句簡單的話
2016年6月21日
Since
when do we have to agree with people to defend them from injustice?
-
Lillian Hellman, playwright (20 Jun 1905-1984)
我們什麼時候變得只願意捍衛同道中人免遭冤屈？
──海爾曼，美國劇作家（1905-1984）
早上看到這句話，覺得是對當代人很好的提醒。
這是一句相當簡單的英文，但為了把它譯出來，我想了好一會。這一來是因為我才思不敏捷，二來是希望推敲出比較好的譯法。如果必須馬上譯出來（譬如說是在做口譯），我可能會說：「從什麼時候開始，我們必須認同一個人，才會去捍衛他免遭不義侵害？」這樣譯應該也不算很差，但不是我心目中的理想譯法。
譯為「我們什麼時候變得只願意捍衛同道中人免遭冤屈？」，當然也不是無可挑剔，嚴格來說意思與原文略有不同。翻譯之難，在於求好求全：即使煞費苦心，也未必能譯得理想；有時是因為譯者能力有限，有時是因為原文實在不易用譯入語表達得乾淨俐落。
這世上的邪惡，幾乎總是出于無知，良善意志可以做邪惡一般多的傷害，如果它不是啟蒙，[si
elle n'est pas éclairée. 或照耀，或啟導]。
"the
evil that is in the world is almost always of ignorance, and good will can do
as much damage as evil, if it is not enlightened".
----
Albert Camus, over (1947)
因为我用我所有的灵魂注视着我心爱的人的脸庞，所以他形体的所有美都在我身上被看见。
Since
with all my soul I behold the face of my beloved, therefore all the beauty of
his form is seen in me.
個人的瘋狂相當罕見，群體、政黨、國家以至時代的瘋狂卻非常普遍。
Insanity
in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs,
it is the rule.
-
Friedrich Nietzsche, philosopher (1844-1900)
https://www.facebook.com/victranslates/photos/a.1535185426742020.1073741829.1496736577253572/1886862181574341/?type=3&theater
华人教会主日讲道大多是教人如何读经祷告，如何传福恩，依靠神。但较少说为何：为何读经祷告(如果神是无所不知)，为何依靠神 (如果神是无条件)。因为最赶客的讲道是谈神学，而不是碰政治。每主日都讲神学的教会，人数很难增长。这不是单单传道人的错，是会友与传道人的恶性供求关系。
----古墓神学博士
Where
can you hide? How long can you avoid the question of WHY? 但另一极端是只片面地 preach to your base。归正教会每主日都说只有归正好，路德宗言必路德，浸会强调政教之分，巴特派传他们绝世之学。就像 Tim Keller 以其絕世武功，尽纳曼哈顿之改革宗粉与优皮士。这已不是新鲜事。大道不兴，群雄並起，死守偏方，是为天下矣。
https://www.facebook.com/stephenchan9057/posts/10154680130477821?pnref=story
作家必須這麼想：無論自己遇到什麼事，都是有用的；事實上，我認為大致上所有人都應該這麼想。上天給我們的一切，都有其用處，而藝術創作者必須較強烈地感受到這一點。發生在我們身上的一切，包括我們經歷的羞辱、不幸和尷尬，都是上天給我們的原料，就像黏土一樣，好讓我們塑造出自己的藝術品。
A
writer -- and, I believe, generally all persons -- must think that whatever
happens to him or her is a resource. All things have been given to us for a
purpose, and an artist must feel this more intensely. All that happens to us,
including our humiliations, our misfortunes, our embarrassments, all is given
to us as raw material, as clay, so that we may shape our art.
- Jorge
Luis Borges, writer (24 Aug 1899-1986)
人類習慣在迷路時跑快點，這實在諷刺。
It
is an ironic habit of human beings to run faster when we have lost our way.
-
Rollo May, psychologist (1909-1994)
你找來幾條眼鏡蛇，牠們很快就會消滅家裡的大小老鼠。然後這些眼鏡蛇當然還在你家裡。
A
few cobras in your home will soon clear it of rats and mice. Of course, you
will still have the cobras.
-
Will Cuppy, journalist (23 Aug 1884-1949)
As
societies grow decadent, the language grows decadent, too. Words are used to
disguise, not to illuminate, action: you liberate a city by destroying it.
Words are to confuse, so that at election time people will solemnly vote
against their own interests.
社會墮落，語言也跟著墮落。言辭被用來掩飾而非闡明行為：摧毀一個城市，叫做解放它。言辭被用來迷惑人，好令人們在選舉時鄭重地投票自損。
-
Gore Vidal, writer (1925- )
死亡不能將基督留在墳墓𥚃，但愛卻讓祂留在十字架上。
Death
could not hold Christ in the grave, but love held him on the cross.
—薛伯斯（Richard Sibbes）
The
more laws, the less justice.—Tomas Hobbes
“法律多则公正少。” 西塞罗《论责任》
It
is not wisdombut authority that makes a law.
"法律不是由智慧，而是由权威所制定。"
Hell
is truth seen too late.
地狱是太晚发现的真相 [霍布斯，1588-1679]
霍布斯：“是权威，而不是智慧，才造就了法律。"
"法律不是由智慧，而是由权威所制定。"
原文出自霍布斯《普通法對話錄》：法律的推理或理解也是難解的，地球上的生物没有其他理性, 只有人类的理性。但我想他的意思是, 在沒有国王時，個別法官或所有法官一起的理性，就是整体的理性，就是法律。我否认此点, 因为没有人可以制定法律, 除非他拥有立法权。律法是被偉大博学的人所定, 意即为律法教授, 显然是不真实的；英国的所有法律都是由英国国王, 与议会中的贵族和下议院协商所設立, 其中没有一个是博学的律师。
'IT
IS NOT WISDOM BUT AUTHORITY THAT MAKES A LAW. Obscure also are the words legal
reason. There is no reason in earthly creatures, but human reason. But I
suppose that he means, that the reason of a judge, or of all the judges
together without the King, is that summa ratio, and the very law: which I deny,
because none can make a law but he that hath the legislative power. That the
law hath been fined by grave and learned men, meaning the professors of the
law, is manifestly untrue; for all the laws of England have been made by the
kings of England, consulting with the nobility and commons in parliament, of
which not one of twenty was a learned lawyer."
//法律哲學的革命.
Reformation of law.//
不公正还常常起因于诡计，即一种过于巧妙的、甚至是带有欺骗性的立法。所以现在社会上流传着这样一句谚语：“法律多则公正少。” 西塞罗《论责任》
Injustice
often arises also through chicanery, that is, through an over-subtle and even
fraudulent construction of the law. This it is that gave rise to the now
familiar saw, "More law, less justice." DE OFFICIIS 1:33
//法律哲學的革命.
Reformation of law.//
Guillaume
Groen van Prinsterer, 19世紀荷蘭的基督徒政治家及歷史學家，將宗教改革和法國革命做了如此的比較 ：
宗教改革將歐洲從迷信之中救拔出來，法國革命將文明世界擲入不信的深淵。如宗教改革那般，法國革命影響了每一個領域。//但//宗教改革時期的原則是歸順上帝；今天//法國革命//則是敵對上帝。。。法國革命的出發點是人的主權，宗教改革的出發點是上帝的主權。前者以理性審判啟示，後者將人的理性歸順於啟示的真理。前者釋放了個人的意見，後者帶領人進入信仰的合一。前者鬆弛了維繫社會的紐帶（包括親情），後者堅固這些關係並使其聖化。前者靠屠殺來維持，後者乃透過殉道者而得勝。前者從無底之深淵而出，後者自天而降。
--
華客子譯
原來如此啊
http://www.appledaily.com.tw/…/article/new/20170728/1163431/
「Whisky」是蘇格蘭威士忌的習慣拼法，「Whiskey」是美國威士忌的慣用拼法；兩者從拼字、原料、發酵方法、蒸餾方式、所使用的橡木桶，都完完全全不一樣。
Fate guides the willing, but drags the
unwilling. 願意的人，命运领着他走，不願意的人，命运拖着他走。原句出于罗马的塞内加(辛尼加)，文艺复兴的拉伯雷，引用于斯宾格勒《西方的没落》中。基督教拒绝命运式的世界观，但不否定人生有看不见的力量。这是《约伯记》神圣旋風中的质问，也是教父们与加尔文所说的上帝隐藏的旨意。因此上帝是數點腳步，但我们仍然努力事奉，在世为光为盐。
As
societies grow decadent, the language grows decadent, too. Words are used to
disguise, not to illuminate, action: you liberate a city by destroying it.
Words are to confuse, so that at election time people will solemnly vote
against their own interests.
社會墮落，語言也跟著墮落。言辭被用來掩飾而非闡明行為：摧毀一個城市，叫做解放它。言辭被用來迷惑人，好令人們在選舉時鄭重地投票自損。
-
Gore Vidal, writer (1925- )
But
kings and people must sometimes take up arms to execute such public vengeance.
On this basis we may judge wars lawful which are so undertaken.
既然君主和国家有时必须执干戈，为公众除害，照样我们可以推知，那为此一目的而有的战争，也是合法的。
《基督教要義》卷四.20.11
//來總結一下吧：
bee不一定是指蜜蜂，頂多是蜜蜂總科的成員，而honey
bee必然指蜜蜂。
bumblebee是熊蜂，牠雖然是蜜蜂科的成員但不可以譯為蜜蜂，當然也不是黃蜂。
wasp是一個指涉廣泛的名詞，一定要看前後文或圖片/影片才能決定應該怎麼翻譯。它可能是胡蜂，也可能是寄生性蜂或癭蜂。草率地譯為「黃蜂」有非常高的機率是錯的。
至於sawfly的中名是廣腰類蜂，不可以譯為「鋸蠅」。
然後變形金剛中的bumblebee明明就是熊蜂，卻給我譯成大黃蜂是怎樣啊~
然後俄國作曲家Nikolai
Rimsky-Kosakov的名曲大黃蜂的飛行的俄文原文Полет шмеля指的也是熊蜂的飛行。//
https://www.facebook.com/victranslates/posts/1877467432513816
领：耶稣说:“凡称呼我‘主啊，主啊’的人，不能都进天国；惟独遵行我天父旨意的人，才能进去。” （太7:21）
众：主啊！我称祢为“我的主”，但我却不太愿意听从祢的吩咐。
我说祢是“道路”，但我却常爱偏行己路；
我说祢是“真理”，但我却觉得这世上的智慧更有道理；
我说祢是“生命”，但我对祢，既不渴慕、也不愿舍命；
我说祢是“真光”，但我没來就祢，我心中有许多的秘密、许多黑暗的地方。
我说祢是“慈爱的主”，但我并没有拿出我的爱情来回应祢；
我说祢是“公义的主”，而我也没有把祢当得的敬畏归给祢。
我说祢是“丰富供应的主”，但我的祈求祷告好像在说，祢待我吝啬，
...............我想要的好处，我得拼命地求；
我说你是“尊贵荣耀的主”，而我服侍、供奉的对象，则不单单是祢，
...............而对祢的奉献也有诸多的保留。
主啊！如果祢验察我的內心、追究我的罪孽，我实在无言以对！
...............求祢开恩可怜我这个罪人！
（改写自德国鲁白克（Lübeck）大教堂里的一篇碑文：“If I condemn
you, blame me not”）
原文英译如下：
IF I CONDEMN
YOU, BLAME ME NOT.
Ye
call Me Master and obey me not,
Ye
call Me Light and see Me not,
Ye
call Me Way and walk not,
Ye
call Me Life and desire Me not,
Ye
call Me wise and follow Me not,
Ye
call Me fair and love Me not,
Ye
call Me rich and ask Me not,
Ye
call Me eternal and seek Me not,
Ye
call Me gracious and trust Me not,
Ye
call Me noble and serve Me not,
Ye
call Me mighty and honor Me not,
Ye
call Me just and fear Me not,
If
I condemn you, blame me not.
~~~~Inscription
inside the Lübeck Cathedral, Germany.-
一间德国大教堂里的碑文/Virginia Yi編譯
https://www.facebook.com/groups/462030323850206/
沒有不帶過去之錯的聖徒，也不存在沒有明天之望的罪人。
每个圣人都有不可告知的过去，每个罪人都有纯白无暇的未来。
Simul justus
et peccator.
There
is no saint without a past, no sinner without a future. ---San Augustin
我们的时代,是一个理性化、理知化、尤其是将世界之迷魅加以祛除的时代。
The
fate of our time is characterized by rationalization and intellectualization
and , above all, by the disenchantment of the world. –Max Weber
一個人的真正品格，要看他在知道永遠不會被人發現時，會做些什麼。
The measure of a man's real character is what he would do if he knew he would never be found out.
- Thomas Babington Macaulay, author and statesman (1800-1859)
[論文寫作]
又到了繳交學位論文的時刻。由於學生經常受到翻譯文獻的影響，文字不免西化，少了本土的味道。底下是研究方法課程給學生的練習：英翻中。
1. She was admitted to visit the United States.
2. He has been elected a councilor.
3. She is regarded as one of the greatest wrestlers in the world.
4. This place is called “Heaven.”
5. If you can’t translate these sentences correctly, you are not allowed to take this course.
參考思果的「翻譯研究」與「翻譯新究」。
年輕時，我仰慕聰明人。現在老了，我仰慕厚道的人。
When I was young, I admired clever people. Now that I am old, I admire kind people.
- Abraham Joshua Heschel, theology professor (1907-1972)
只有好人才懷疑自己是否善良，這也是他們之所以是好人的原因。壞人確信自己是好的，而好人則什麼都不肯定。他們終身在原諒別人，卻無法原諒自己。
Only the good doubt their own goodness, which is what makes them good in the first place. The bad know they are good, but the good know nothing. They spend their lives forgiving others, but they can't forgive themselves.
- Paul Auster, novelist and poet (b. 1947)
https://www.facebook.com/victranslates/photos/a.1535185426742020.1073741829.1496736577253572/1875377109389515/?type=3&theater
Only the good doubt their own goodness, which is what makes them good in the first place. The bad know they are good, but the good know nothing. They spend their lives forgiving others, but they can't forgive themselves.
只有好人才懷疑自己是否善良，這也是他們之所以是好人的原因。壞人確信自己是好的，而好人則什麼都不肯定。他們終身在原諒別人，卻無法原諒自己。
- Paul Auster, novelist and poet (b. 1947)
譯者之言facebook https://www.facebook.com/victranslates/?fref=ts
你砸碎了利未亞坦的頭，把牠給住在曠野的人作食物。[新譯本,詩74:14]
誰先給了我，以致我要償還呢？天下萬物，都是我的。[41:11]
所有高大的動物，牠都藐視，牠在一切狂傲的野獸之上作王。[41:34]
[利未亞坦為原文音譯詞，或譯：海怪或鱷魚(伯3:8, 41:1)]
和合本：你曾砸碎鱷魚的頭，把他給曠野的禽獸為食物。[詩 74:14]
Thou
brakest the heads of LEVIATHAN in pieces, and gavest him to be meat to the
people inhabiting the wilderness. [Ps 74:14] #利維坦
加尔文把神性和人的知识区分开来, 但笛卡尔却做了分割。他们使用相似的语言,
但有非常不同的意思。
John
Calvin makes a distinction between divine and human knowledge, but Descartes
makes a division. They use similar language but with very different meanings.
Charles
Partee, The Theology of John Calvin. p.35.
【笛卡尔论神学】我尊敬我们的神学，并且同别人一样要求升天。可是人家十分肯定地说：最无知的人也同最博学的人一样可以进天堂，指引人们升天的天启真理不是我们的智力所能理解的。我听了这些话，就不敢用我的软弱推理去窥测那些真理了。我想一定要有天赐的特殊帮助，而且是个超人，才能从事研究那些真理，得到成就。
I
revered our theology, and thought I had as much right to reach heaven as
anyone. But having learned as a certain fact that the way to heaven is as open
to the most ignorant as to the most learned, and that the revealed truths that
guide us there are above our intellect, I wouldn’t have ventured to submit them
to my weak reasonings. To examine them and succeed in this, I thought, I would
need to get special help from heaven and to be more than a mere man.
【笛卡尔「一扫而空」的思想方法】
我那时在日耳曼，是那场尚未结束的战争把我招引到了那里。我参观皇帝加冕后回到部队的时候，冬天已经到了，只好留在驻地。第一个是我注意到：拼凑而成、出于众手的作品，往往没有一手制成的那么完美。我们可以看到，由一位建筑师一手建成的房屋，总是要比七手八脚利用原来作为别用的旧墙设法修补而成的房屋来得整齐漂亮。那些原来只是村落、经过长期发展逐渐变成都会的古城，通常总是很不匀称，不如一位工程师按照自己的设想在一片平地上设计出来的整齐城镇；虽然从单个建筑物看，古城里常常可以找出一些同新城里的一样精美，或者更加精美，可是从整个布局看，古城里的房屋横七竖八、大大小小，把街道挤得弯弯曲曲、宽窄不齐，与其说这个局面是由运用理性的人的意志造成的，还不如说是听天由命。...... 我们虽然没有见过谁把全城的房屋统统拆光，只是打算换过样式重建，把街道弄漂亮；可是常常看到许多人把自己的房子拆掉，打算重盖，也有时候是因为房子要塌，或者房基不固，不得不拆。以此为例，我相信：个人打算用彻底改变、推翻重建的办法改造国家，确实是妄想；改造各门学问的主体，或者改造学校里讲授各门学问的成规，也是同样办不到的；可是说到我自己一向相信的那些意见，我却没有别的好办法，只有把它们一扫而空，然后才能换上好的，或者把原有的用理性校正后再收回来。
#方法論 #谈谈方法（Discours de la méthode）
信仰和理智, 特别是罗马天主教的思想, 今天的矛盾比以往任何时候都少。但这一假設的对立是否真的有討論的價值？一个人可能会失去信心, 但肯定不是因为人在理性上有加增。事实上, 有些人是在理智无法理解我们生活的经历时, 就失去了信心。然而, 我们实际上是因失去了信心而失去了理智。
"Faith
and reason, especially in Roman Catholic thought, are less contradictory today
than ever. But does the supposed opposition even make sense to begin with? One
can lose faith, but surely not because one gains in reason. Some, in fact, lose
faith when reason is not able to make sense of the experience of our lives.
Yet, we actually lose reason by losing faith."
馬里翁
我们不是描述所看见的世界，而是看见我们所描述的世界。
we do
not describe the world we see, we see the world we can desribe.
----笛卡尔（Rene Descartes）/陳佐人译
古老的二元思想，物质与心思的观念,
作为两种截然不同的性质, 在笛卡儿主义中是如此突出的观念, 今天却很难找到捍卫者。拒绝了二元论,
我们被驱使走向一种希腊式的灵物论,
或叫做一元论。
RI
歸正學院
【三本路德傳】林德尔•罗珀 (Lyndal Roper)的《馬丁路德：背叛者和先知》(Martin Luther: Renegade and Prophet)。这位牛津大學的澳洲女学者全书的精華在 Renegade 一字。可译作背叛者，背教者，变節者。While a rebel offers
resistance to authority, a renegade deserts and aligns himself with the
opposing view. 所以 renegade 比 rebel 多了一分的计谋与策划。上二，三十年的路德传主要是视路德为 rebel，甚至是有勇无谋的莽夫。这就是五十年前的罗倫培登《這是我的立場》的生动意像：萨克森之胡司，德意志的大力士(Hercules)，葡萄园中的野猪 (美式英語說 Wild
bull in a china shop.)。但问题是此种想象并不符合路德本人的生平与著作。视改教运动为揭竿起义式的革命是无法充分解释为何造反的路德会经常主张顺服掌权者，而加尔文将《基督教教义》献给法王，这些都不像造反者的思维。试想华盛顿写书献给乔治三世，或孙中山献辞给宣统皇帝，真是难以想象。 另一位路德传作家安德鲁·佩蒂格里 (Andrew Pettegree)在其《品牌路德》(Brand Luther) 中，细说「默默无闻的修道士如何将他的小城镇变成出版中心，使自己成为欧洲最有名的人，开始新教改革」。佩蒂格里曾经著《报纸的发明》，故他特别强调印刷术的重要性，这也是罗珀的重点。他们二位都不是专研究基督教史，而是普通史的学者。罗珀的成名作是《猎杀女巫: 德国巴洛克时期的惊惧与幻想》(经济科学出版社, 2013年)。中世纪对女巫的审判与迫害是现代西方史学的有趣重点，著名英国史家罗珀; 休·特雷弗-罗珀 (Hugh Trevor-Roper)也曾论及。相比之下，加尔文传的研究有点望尘莫及。耶鲁大学的哥顿教授(Bruce Gordon) 在2009年写了一本加尔文传，纪念加尔文五百周年。他在书中以精细的档案学，来呈现一种关系性的改教运动 (Relational Reformation) ，同样的档案学功力也见诸佩蒂格里与罗珀，但他们的路德传却是更富历史性的想象力，也更能呈现一种立体的历史图像。
貝扎是一位好战政治气质的人。他的小贵族经验，加上他热情拥护法国的改教运动，使貝扎超越加尔文的保守政治倾向。人们甚至可能会猜测，貝扎的优越背景所具备的政治胆量和勇气，是加尔文所没有的。
Theodore
Beza was a man who maintained a bellicose political temperament. His
experiences as a member of the lower nobility coupled with his passionate
advocacy for the Reformed cause in France formed Beza into a person willing to
step beyond Calvin’s conservative political tendencies. One might even hazard
to guess that Beza’s privileged upbringing gave him a level of political
audacity and nerve that Calvin could not match. [The Reformed David(s) and the
Question of Resistance to Tyranny, p.60.]
奧古斯丁的名言，時間是被造的，上帝不在時間之內，上帝在永恆中。由此引發奧古斯丁研究中的著名悖論：經常討論時間的奧古斯丁是沒有嚴格意義的時間觀，常常談永恆的希坡主教是抗拒無限的。因為永恆不是永恆的，他甚至會說永恆是在上帝之內，而不是反之亦然。無限對上帝來說是「有限」的。所以 Stephen Hawkins 說奧氏是無時間觀的。
//无限的概念在奥古斯丁有负面的意义，因为正如所引述的，无限对上帝是有限的，因为无限可以被上帝理解。但因为上帝也能理解他自己，在这个意义上，上帝不是无限的。...第一, 无限是一个先天的概念，本身产生任何知识的基础。// 奥古斯丁会说上帝既非有限，也非无限，而是超越无限。难怪法国神学家艾蒂安·吉尔森 (Étienne Gilson)说奥古斯丁在谈上帝属性时，忘记了无限。
The
concept of infinity has a negative ring in Augustine because, as quoted, all
infinity is finite for God, since it csn be comprehended by him. But because
God can also comprehend himself, he is not, in this sence, infinite......First,
infinty is an inborn concept which enables any knowledge,
Beyond
infinity: Augustine and Cantor
