History remembers them as ruthless conquerors. Their campaigns left cities in ruins, and populations extinguished. The Mongol Empire, initiated by Genghis Khan, carved out the largest contiguous land empire in history, and they didn't do so by turning the other cheek.

在歷史的記憶中，他們是冷酷無情的征服者。他們的征戰使城市成為廢墟，人口滅絕。成吉思汗開創的蒙古帝國建立了歷史上最大的陸地帝國，但他們並沒有是以而翻臉。

They approached cities and offered a merciful ultimatum. Become our subjects, or be destroyed.

他們走近城市，發出仁慈的最後通牒。要麼成為我們的臣民，要麼被毀滅。

If the city accepted, they fell into slavery. If they refused, they fell to the sword.

如果城市接受，他們就淪為奴隸。如果拒絕，他們就會倒在刀下。

This barbarism has always been recognised for what it is – evil. But what if I told you that commands bearing a striking resemblance to these conquests can be found in one of the world's most revered religious texts? Does the bible present us with a supposed all-loving god who issues commands comparable to the monstrosities of the Mongol hordes?

這種野蠻行徑一直被認為是邪惡的。但如果我告訴你，在世界上最受尊崇的宗教典籍之一中，可以找到與這些征服驚人相似的命令呢？聖經》是否向我們展示了一個所謂的博愛之神，他發出的命令與蒙古大軍的暴行不相上下？

In the early 13th century, a man named Temujin united the nomadic tribes of the Mongolian steppes under his rule. History would come to know him as Genghis Khan, the founder of the

13 世紀初，一個名叫鐵木真的人將蒙古草原上的遊牧部落統一在自己的統治之下。他就是成吉思汗，成吉思汗帝國的創始人。

Mongol Empire. Under Genghis Khan's leadership, the Mongols launched a series of military campaigns that would reshape the regions of Asia, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe. The Mongol war machine operated on a simple principle. When approaching a city or settlement, they would offer terms of surrender. Accept, and you might live as subjects of the empire. Refuse, and face annihilation. This wasn't mere intimidation – the Mongols were fully prepared to make good on their threats. Cities that resisted were often razed to the ground, their populations massacred without mercy. One such example is the Siege of Urgench in 1221. When the city finally fell after a six-month siege, the Mongols killed everyone except for the artisans, who were deported to

蒙古帝國。在成吉思汗的上司下，蒙古人發動了一系列軍事戰役，重塑了亞洲、中東和東歐地區的格局。蒙古戰爭機器的運作原理很簡單。當接近一個城市或定居點時，他們會提出投降的條件。接受，就可以作為帝國的臣民生活。拒絕，則面臨滅頂之災。這不僅僅是恐嚇--蒙古人已經做好了兌現威脅的充分準備。反抗的城市往往被夷為平地，其居民被毫不留情地屠殺。1221 年的烏爾根奇之圍就是一個例子。經過六個月的圍困，城市終於陷落，蒙古人殺光了所有的人，只有工匠除外，他們被遣送到了漠北。

Mongolia. Historical estimates suggest an extremely high death toll for this single conquest, ranging from 100,000 to well over a million people. Or consider the Sack of Baghdad in 1258, where the Mongols under Hulagu Khan destroyed the city, effectively ending the Islamic Golden Age.

蒙古。據歷史估計，這次征服造成的死亡人數極高，從 10 萬到遠遠超過 100 萬不等。再看 1258 年巴格達被攻陷，胡拉古汗上司的蒙古人摧毀了這座城市，有效地結束了伊斯蘭黃金時代。

Reports claim that the waters of Tigris rang black with the ink of Baghdad's libraries, and red with the blood of its scholars. The Mongol conquests were not just about territorial expansion – they were a systematic dismantling of resistant cultures, a reshaping of the world through fear and violence. Cities that surrendered were often spared wholesale slaughter, but still faced enslavement, heavy taxation, and cultural suppression. Over a 200-year span, it's estimated that the Mongol conquests resulted in the death of 40 million people – that's 11% of the world's population at the time. Truly, the horrors of the Horde are staggering. But as we shift our focus to the God of Ancient Israel, we must consider, are we facing a divinely-sanctioned counterpart?

有報道稱，底格里斯河的河水被巴格達圖書館的墨水染黑，被學者的鮮血染紅。蒙古人的征服不僅僅是為了擴張領土，而是有計劃地瓦解反抗文化，通過恐懼和暴力重塑世界。投降的城市往往免於大屠殺，但仍然面臨奴役、重稅和文化壓制。據估計，在長達 200 年的時間裡，蒙古人的征服導致 4000 萬人死亡，佔當時世界人口的 11%。誠然，部落的恐怖令人震驚。但是，當我們把注意力轉移到古代以色列的上帝身上時，我們必須思考，我們是否也面臨著上帝認可的對應物？

The fifth book of the Torah, Deuteronomy, contains a series of speeches by Moses to the Israelites as they prepare to enter the Promised Land. Setting aside concerns of historicity, among these speeches are instructions for warfare that Moses is supposedly receiving from God, which bear a deeply unsettling resemblance to the Mongol strategies we've just explored.

聖經》第五卷《申命記》包含了摩西在以色列人準備進入應許之地時對他們發表的一系列講話。撇開歷史性不談，在這些講話中，摩西據說從上帝那裡得到了戰爭的訓示，而這些訓示與我們剛剛探討過的蒙古戰略有著令人不安的相似之處。

Here's Deuteronomy 20, 10-15.

這裡是申命記第 20 章第 10-15 節。

When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labour, and shall work for you.

當你們進軍攻打一座城市時，向那裡的人民提出和平建議。如果他們接受並打開城門，城內的所有人都將被強迫勞動，為你們工作。

If they refuse to make peace, and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock, and everything in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves, and you may use your plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies.

如果他們拒絕講和，與你們交戰，就圍攻那座城。當耶和華你的神把它交到你手中時，就把城中所有的人都殺了。至於婦女、兒童、牲畜和城中的一切，你們可以將其作為掠奪物據為己有，你們可以使用耶和華你們的神從敵人那裡賜予你們的掠奪物。

The parallels between this peace-offering from an apparently loving God, and the peace-offering from the Mongols are obvious. Like the Horde, the ancient Israelites are instructed to approach cities with terms of surrender. Those who accept face subjugation – forced labour in this case, which, according to God's laws in Leviticus, meant a harsh and oppressive fate. Those who refuse face total destruction. But the comparison doesn't end here. Let's examine the following three verses. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you, and do not belong to the nations nearby. However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them – the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites – as the

表面上慈愛的上帝的求和與蒙古人的求和之間的相似之處顯而易見。與蒙古部落一樣，古代以色列人也奉命向城市提出投降條件。接受條件的人將被征服--在這裡是強迫勞動，根據《利未記》中上帝的律法，這意味著嚴酷和壓迫的命運。拒絕者將面臨徹底的毀滅。但比較並沒有到此為止。讓我們看看下面三節經文。你們要這樣對待所有與你們相距遙遠，不屬於附近列國的城邑。然而，在耶和華你的神賜給你作為遺產的列國城邑中，不要留下任何活著的東西。要徹底消滅他們--赫人、亞摩利人、迦南人、比利洗人、希未人和耶布斯人--就如

Lord your God has commanded you. Here, God's commands descend into a moral abyss. For certain specified groups, there is not even an offer of peace. The instruction is for complete annihilation, an act chillingly reminiscent of the Mongols' most brutal conquests.

耶和華你的上帝吩咐你。在這裡，上帝的命令陷入了道德的深淵。對於某些特定的群體，甚至沒有和平的提議。命令是徹底消滅，這種行為讓人不寒而慄，讓人想起蒙古人最殘暴的征服。

Now, these verses present the believer with a profound moral quandary. How does one reconcile these commands, allegedly given by an all-loving God, with ethics, human rights, and all things good? How can one say that when the Mongols throw babies from rooftops, they are to be universally condemned, but when the ancient Israelites should do the same, they are to be revered? How can an act be simultaneously abhorrent when committed by one group, yet righteous when performed by another? Short form, what is it? Well, how many books are on your

現在，這些經文給信徒提出了一個深刻的道德難題。這些命令據稱是由全愛的上帝下達的，如何將其與道德、人權和一切美好的事物相協調？人們怎麼能說，當蒙古人從屋頂上扔下嬰兒時，他們應該受到普遍譴責，而當古代以色列人也應該這樣做時，他們卻應該受到尊敬？一個群體所做的行為怎麼可能同時令人憎惡，而另一個群體所做的行為又是正義的呢？簡而言之，是什麼？那麼，你的

Kindle list? I have tons, and one I keep returning to but ironically can't get through is taking charge of adult ADHD by Russell Barkley. Short form has a forty minute rendition of this book.

Kindle書單？我有數不清的書，其中一本我一直在翻閱，但諷刺的是，我一直讀不下去，那就是羅素-巴克利（Russell Barkley）寫的《掌控成人多動症》（Taking charge of adult ADHD）。Short form 有一個四十分鐘的版本。

Now, it's not a replacement, as short form themselves emphasise, but it's a phenomenal way to check out the key ideas and decide whether to invest in reading the full book.

現在，正如短篇小說本身所強調的那樣，這本書並不能取而代之，但它卻是瞭解主要觀點並決定是否投資閱讀全書的絕佳途徑。

The icing on top is that they have excellent – and I do mean excellent – text-to-speech, so you can listen to the book while walking, here in the gym, or doing chores.

最棒的是，它們具有出色的文本轉語音功能，是以您可以在散步、健身或做家務時聽書。

For too long, conventional wisdom suggested that attention deficit slash hyperactivity disorder – ADHD – was a diagnosis that only applied in childhood.

長期以來，傳統觀念一直認為注意力缺陷多動障礙（ADHD）是一種只適用於兒童時期的診斷。

And they have tons of books in multiple categories, with communication, history, and philosophy being my favourites. I adore this app for its quality content, and I know that you will too. If you click on my link, you will get a five-day free trial and 20% off. This is a great way to broaden your mind, and, of course, support the channel. Thanks.

他們有大量多類別的書籍，其中交流、歷史和哲學是我的最愛。我很喜歡這款內容優質的應用程序，我知道你也會喜歡。如果您點擊我的鏈接，您將獲得五天免費試用和八折優惠。這是拓寬思路的好方法，當然，也是對頻道的支持。謝謝。

For most believers, the depravity of Deuteronomy is simply not an issue, since these troubling verses are rarely, if ever, read verbatim in religious services.

對大多數信徒來說，申命記的墮落根本不是問題，因為這些令人不安的經文很少（如果有的話）在宗教儀式上被逐字宣讀。

In fact, many religious leaders actively avoid addressing these passages altogether, preferring to focus on more palatable sections of scripture, such as Love Thy Neighbour.

事實上，許多宗教領袖都主動迴避這些經文，而更願意把注意力放在《愛你的鄰居》等更容易接受的經文上。

But some believers certainly are aware of these verses, and for centuries, theologians and apologists have attempted to square them with a maximally loving father.

但有些信徒肯定知道這些經文，幾個世紀以來，神學家和辯士們一直試圖將這些經文與最大限度慈愛的父親相提並論。

The most common responses include divine command theory, allegorical interpretation, progressive revelation, and limited historical application – defences we'll now briefly examine. For those wanting a more detailed examination of each response, worry not, we'll produce dedicated episodes in the future, and if you'd like to help us do so quicker, then please consider becoming a patron. So let's begin with divine command theory.

最常見的迴應包括神諭論、寓言式解釋、漸進式啟示和有限的歷史應用--我們現在將簡要地探討這些抗辯。如果你想更詳細地瞭解每種迴應，不用擔心，我們今後會製作專門的節目，如果你想幫助我們更快地完成這項工作，請考慮成為我們的贊助人。讓我們從神聖命令理論開始。

This philosophical stance argues that whatever God commands is, by definition, morally right.

這種哲學立場認為，根據定義，上帝的任何命令在道德上都是正確的。

Proponents insist that God is the source of all morality, so if he commands something, it must be good. Interestingly, while this defence has significant sway among theologians, it has nearly none at all among philosophers. The reason for this is that it essentially boils down to might makes right – the idea that power alone determines morality, which carries extremely troubling implications. The most prominent of these is that it renders morality arbitrary. If God could command anything, and, by virtue of him commanding it, that act is definitionally good, then morality has no objective basis beyond God's whim. If, for instance, he commands a rape victim to marry her violator, as he does in Deuteronomy 22, 28, and 29, then this order is morally good. In fact, the distraught victim has an objective moral duty to marry the monster who so egregiously abused her. This might makes right position not only contradicts the laws God provides in other passages, it grossly violates our moral intuition that apparently God has given us – an intuition that, in other contexts, proponents steadfastly rely upon with the mantra, right and wrong is written on our heart. So let's take a closer look at the verses in question. The command, do not leave alive anything that breathes, evokes utter disgust, and yet, somehow, we're to believe that this carnage is maximally loving.

支持者堅持認為，上帝是一切道德的源泉，是以如果他命令做什麼，那就一定是好的。有趣的是，雖然這種辯護在神學家中具有很大的影響力，但在哲學家中卻幾乎沒有任何影響力。究其原因，這主要是因為它歸結為 "強權即公理"--認為只有權力才能決定道德，這就帶來了極其令人不安的影響。其中最突出的一點是，它使道德變得武斷。如果上帝可以下達任何命令，而且由於他下達了命令，該行為在定義上就是好的，那麼道德就沒有了上帝心血來潮之外的客觀基礎。舉例來說，如果上帝命令強姦受害者與施暴者結婚，就像申命記第 22、28 和 29 章所做的

The sheer scale of this commanded violence – the systemic extermination of entire populations, including women, children, and even animals, is so fundamentally at odds with basic human empathy that it strains, and in many cases, shatters belief. How can anyone consider this not just moral, but ordained by the pinnacle of morality? Worse, let's not gloss over the arbitrary nature of these commands. The fate of entire populations hinges on nothing more than geographic proximity.

這種命令式暴力的規模之大--對包括婦女、兒童甚至動物在內的整個人口的系統性滅絕--從根本上違背了人類的基本同情心，以至於令人難以相信，在許多情況下甚至令人難以置信。怎麼會有人認為這不僅是道德的，而且是道德巔峰所賦予的？更糟糕的是，我們不要掩蓋這些命令的任意性。整個人口的命運只取決於地理位置的遠近。

Distant cities are to be forced into labour, or have their men executed, and their women and children plundered. But as for the nearby cities, even this egregious offer isn't extended. No, they are to undergo total annihilation, no exceptions. Just think about the implications here, because really, that's the problem. Theists do not actually sit there and think about this.

遠方的城市將被強迫勞動，或處死他們的男人，掠奪他們的婦女和兒童。但對於附近的城市，即使是這樣惡劣的條件也不適用。不，它們將被徹底毀滅，沒有例外。想想這其中的含義吧，因為這就是問題所在。有神論者不會坐在那裡思考這個問題。

Twin siblings, separated at birth and raised in different cities, could face drastically different fates based on purely which side of some invisible line they happen to grow up on.

孿生兄妹一出生就被分開，在不同的城市長大，他們可能面臨截然不同的命運，而這純粹取決於他們碰巧在某條看不見的線的哪一邊長大。

One becomes a slave, the other is slaughtered without mercy. And we're supposed to nod along and say, yep, that's divine justice for you. Really? The cognitive dissonance required to accept these commands as the epitome of morality from a maximally loving god is staggering. It demands we suspend our most basic moral instincts. To believe this is to believe anything. It's to accept that morality itself is arbitrary. That the rightness or wrongness of an action isn't determined by its nature or consequences, but by the whim of a deity who apparently values geography over compassion. Put simply, divine command theory doesn't solve the depravity of Deuteronomy, it magnifies it. Now, of course, there's more to be said here, including a big tangent on the Euphrophro Dilemma, but for now, we'll move on to the allegorical defence.

一個成為奴隸，另一個被毫不留情地屠殺。我們應該點頭說，是的，這就是神聖的正義。真的嗎？把這些命令當作來自至愛之神的道德縮影，這種認知失調令人震驚。它要求我們暫停最基本的道德本能。相信這一點就等於相信一切。那就是接受道德本身是任意的。一個行為的對錯不是由其本質或後果決定的，而是由一個顯然看重地理而非同情心的神的一時興起決定的。簡而言之，神諭理論並不能解決《申命記》中的墮落問題，反而會放大它。當然，這裡還有更多要說的，包括關於 "腓羅窘境 "的一個大切口，但現在，我們將繼續進行寓言辯護。

Some believers, faced with the moral quandary presented in Deuteronomy's violent commands, resort to allegorical interpretation. They argue that these passages shouldn't be taken literally, but rather as metaphors for spiritual truths. In this view, god's command to enslave and annihilate cities represents the need to purge sin from our lives. While this might seem like an elegant solution on the surface, and for this reason it's quite popular, it crumbles under the slightest scepticism. The first issue is glaring. Allegorical interpretation is applied with comical inconsistency. Those who employ this defence to sanitise difficult passages still cling to literal interpretations of not-so-difficult parts of the bible, even within the same book. To give a few examples from Deuteronomy alone, let's turn a few pages. Theists are not running around saying that the command to protect foreign escaped slaves is just a metaphor, are they? Likewise, they're not insisting that the requirement for multiple witnesses in capital offences is not to be taken literally. This cafeteria Christianity, this cherry-picking approach, raises serious questions about the credibility of their interpretive method, exposing that the litmus test for literal interpretation is not the text itself, but rather how palatable the passages are to modern sensibilities. A further perplexing factor is how the allegorical approach struggles to make sense of the specific details in these passages. If we're to interpret Deuteronomy's commands metaphorically, how do we explain the distinction between distant cities and nearby ones? What spiritual truth is conveyed by the instruction to enslave one group, but to utterly annihilate another? The use of words like plunder and explicit mentions of forced labour don't align neatly with spiritual allegories about overcoming sin. These specific, practical instructions seem jarringly out of place if we're to view the text as purely metaphorical.

一些信徒面對申命記的暴力命令所提出的道德窘境，採用了寓言式的解釋。他們認為，這些經文不應按字面意思理解，而應作為精神真理的隱喻。在這種觀點中，上帝奴役和毀滅城市的命令代表了從我們的生活中清除罪惡的需要。雖然從表面上看，這似乎是一個優雅的解決方案，也正因如此，它頗受歡迎，但稍有懷疑，它就會崩潰。第一個問題很明顯。寓言式解釋的應用具有滑稽的不一致性。那些用這種辯護方式來消除困難段落的人，仍然堅持對《聖經》中不太困難的部分進行字面解釋，甚至在同一本書中也是如此。僅舉《申命記》中的幾個例子，讓我們翻上幾頁。有神論

The acrobatic apologetics required is absurd. It's ridiculous. It's pathetic, even. The cracks in this defence become even more apparent when we examine how allegorical interpretation has been selectively applied throughout history. To scratch the surface, consider the bible's stance on slavery, the subordination of women, and the death penalty for homosexual practice.

所需的雜技式辯護是荒謬的。太荒謬了。甚至是可悲的。當我們審視歷史上如何有選擇地運用寓言式解釋時，這種辯護的漏洞就會變得更加明顯。僅從表面上看，我們可以考慮一下《聖經》對奴隸制、婦女從屬地位以及同志行為死刑的立場。

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have historically viewed slavery as not just acceptable, but necessary. They've regarded women as second-class citizens, and they've ensured that all things LGBT were DEAD. Yet today, as secular and humanist values progress, we suddenly see theists, especially Christians, reinterpreting these transparent commands as mere allegories and metaphors. How convenient. This pattern of reinterpretation, always lagging behind societal progress, exposes a fundamental weakness in the allegorical defence. It's clear that theists are creating God in their own image, sculpting scripture to appease their apprehensions.

猶太教、基督教和伊斯蘭教歷來認為奴隸制不僅是可以接受的，而且是必要的。它們視婦女為二等公民，並確保所有男女同志、雙性戀和變性者都是死的。然而今天，隨著世俗和人文主義價值觀的進步，我們突然看到有神論者，尤其是基督徒，將這些透明的命令重新解釋為單純的寓言和隱喻。這多方便啊。這種重新解釋的模式總是落後於社會的進步，暴露了寓言辯護的一個根本弱點。很明顯，有神論者是在按照自己的形象創造上帝，雕刻經文以安撫他們的憂慮。

Now, before moving on, let's land with a quick two additional objections to the allegorical defence. First, even if we accept these passages as metaphorical, this wouldn't sufficiently address the core moral issue. It raises the question, why would an all-loving God choose genocide as a metaphor? An all-knowing deity would surely anticipate that such passages would be interpreted literally, leading to doubt about God's loving nature, which in turn, potentially results in eternal anguish. Couldn't an all-wise being have selected a less morally repugnant allegory to convey spiritual truths? Second, let's face the elephant in the room.

現在，在繼續討論之前，讓我們先簡單地對寓言辯護提出兩個額外的反對意見。首先，即使我們接受這些經文是隱喻，這也不足以解決核心的道德問題。這就提出了一個問題：為什麼全愛的上帝會選擇種族滅絕作為隱喻？全知全能的神肯定會預料到這些經文會被按字面解釋，從而導致人們對神的愛的本性產生懷疑，這反過來又可能導致永恆的痛苦。難道全知全能的神不能選擇一個道德上不那麼令人反感的寓言來傳達精神真理嗎？其次，讓我們面對房間裡的大象。

These passages in Deuteronomy are clearly presented as historical accounts, not as obvious parables or allegories. Treating them as pure metaphors requires us to disregard their apparent intent, and the way that they've been understood for millennia. Now, sure, most scholars today doubt these events ever occurred, with Moses himself likely being mythical, but for the vast majority of Abrahamic history, these accounts were taken as factual as the Exodus narrative.

申命記》中的這些經文顯然是以歷史記載的方式呈現的，而不是明顯的比喻或寓言。如果把它們當作純粹的隱喻，我們就必須無視它們的明顯意圖，以及千百年來人們對它們的理解方式。當然，如今大多數學者都懷疑這些事件是否發生過，摩西本人也很可能是神話傳說，但在亞伯拉罕歷史的絕大部分時間裡，這些記載都與出埃及記一樣被視為事實。

The notion they are allegories is a recent development, motivated almost entirely by moral-cognitive dissonance.

它們是寓言的說法是最近才出現的，其動機幾乎完全是道德認知上的失調。

Another common defence employed by believers to reconcile the moral monstrosities in Deuteronomy is the concept of progressive revelation. This theological idea proposes that God unveils his nature, will, and moral standards gradually over time, adapting his message to humanity's evolving capacity for understanding and the societal constraints of the time. An analogy that's often given is that just as we teach children basic arithmetic before calculus, God reveals more complex theological and moral concepts as humanity grows up – spiritually, ethically, and socially. In this view, God's revelation is seen as a continuum, with each new insight building upon, and sometimes even superseding, earlier ones. So, applied to the passages in question, proponents argue that the violent commands were appropriate for the time, reflecting the harsh realities of the ancient Near East. The reason we today find these commands so wretched is because, as human civilisation progressed, so too did God's revelations. Are you convinced?

信徒們為調和《申命記》中的道德怪現象而採用的另一種常見辯護方法是漸進啟示的概念。這一神學思想認為，上帝會隨著時間的推移逐漸揭示他的本性、旨意和道德標準，使他的資訊適應人類不斷髮展的理解能力和當時的社會限制。人們常打比方說，就像我們在教孩子微積分之前先教他們基本算術一樣，上帝也會隨著人類的成長--在精神、倫理和社會方面--揭示更復雜的神學和道德概念。在這種觀點中，上帝的啟示被視為一個連續體，每一個新的啟示都是建立在先前的啟示之上，有時甚至會取代先前的啟示。是以，對於相關經文，支持者認為暴力命令適合當時的情況

Yeah, me neither. First, progressive revelation contradicts the notion of an unchanging, omnibenevolent God. If God is the source of all morality, and is perfectly good, how can his moral standards shift? The idea that the supreme being of the universe would condone genocide at one point in history, only to condemn it later, isn't just logically bankrupt, it's a moral catastrophe of cosmic proportions. Consider two individuals born thousands of years apart – one commanded by God to be enslaved, the other to live free and to prosper. How can we reconcile this stark difference in divine decree? There's no evidence that human cognition has undergone such drastic evolutionary changes in just a few millennia to justify this moral disparity. And that's just the empirical front. As for the moral front, are we to believe that the enslaved individual was somehow less deserving of freedom and dignity simply due to the era of their birth? And what of the nearby cities, huh? The cities that God commanded to be utterly annihilated? What sin did those children commit? What gifts? Are we not all created in God's image?

是啊，我也不知道。首先，漸進式啟示與永恆不變、無所不能的上帝的概念相矛盾。如果上帝是一切道德的源泉，是完全善良的，那麼他的道德標準怎麼會改變呢？宇宙至高無上的存在會在歷史的某一時刻寬恕種族滅絕行為，但隨後又譴責這種行為，這種想法不僅在邏輯上破產，而且是一場宇宙規模的道德災難。想想兩個相差數千年出生的人--一個被上帝命令為奴隸，另一個則自由地生活並繁榮昌盛。我們怎樣才能調和神諭中的這一明顯差異呢？沒有證據表明人類的認知在短短几千年間經歷瞭如此劇烈的進化變化，從而證明這種道德差異是合理的。這還只是經驗方面。至

A second, equally damning objection to progressive revelation is that it reduces God's morality to mere cultural relativism. That is, it insists that God's laws are constrained by cultural limitations. But an all-powerful, all-knowing deity would be capable of revealing a consistent moral code that transcends temporal cultural norms, right? I mean, he had no issue saying don't eat pig. To put it bluntly, the suggestion that God had to meet people where they are doesn't paint a picture of divine love. It portrays a deity hamstrung by human comprehension, a far cry from the omnibenevolent being most believers claim to worship. Compounding this, progressive revelation fails to explain why God wouldn't simply start with the highest moral standards from the beginning. If the teachings of, say, Jesus represent the pinnacle of divine morality, why not begin there? The idea that countless generations had to suffer under inferior moral guidance simply because they weren't ready for the full truth doesn't depict

對漸進啟示論的第二種同樣嚴重的反對意見是，它將上帝的道德淪為單純的文化相對主義。也就是說，它堅持認為上帝的律法受到文化限制的制約。但是，一個無所不能、無所不知的神靈應該有能力揭示出超越時代文化規範的一致的道德準則，不是嗎？我的意思是，他說不要吃豬就沒有問題。直截了當地說，上帝必須滿足人們現狀的說法並沒有描繪出一幅神愛的畫面。它描繪的是一個受人類理解力束縛的神，與大多數信徒聲稱崇拜的無所不能的神相去甚遠。更重要的是，漸進式啟示無法解釋上帝為什麼不從一開始就制定最高的道德標準。如果耶穌的教誨代表了神聖道德的頂

God as a loving father. It casts him as a cosmic tyrant, callously experimenting with human lives and souls. Another hurdle that this defence struggles to overcome is accounting for moral regressions in scripture. If divine revelation is truly progressive, how do we explain instances where later bible passages appear less ethically advanced than earlier ones? For instance, the book of Genesis, which precedes Deuteronomy, has Abraham boldly negotiating with God to spare the righteous in Sodom and Gomorrah. Fast forward to Deuteronomy, we find God commanding the utter destruction of entire civilisations. This isn't progress. But perhaps most damningly, this defence implicitly admits that our modern moral sensibilities are superior to those presented in parts of the bible. By suggesting that we've progressed beyond the brutality of Deuteronomy, believers inadvertently confess a truth they dare not speak out loud. The good book isn't, in fact, good. Progressive revelation is, at base, the attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable, to force ancient atrocious texts into alignment with contemporary ethical standards. It's a tacit admission that significant portions of scripture are ethically indefensible. This theological contortion not only fails to resolve the core issues, but introduces new logical inconsistencies and theological conundrums, further eroding the credibility of the very texts it aims to defend.

上帝是一位慈愛的父親。它把上帝塑造成一個宇宙暴君，冷酷無情地拿人的生命和靈魂做實驗。這種辯護難以克服的另一個障礙是解釋經文中的道德倒退。如果神的啟示真的是漸進的，那麼我們如何解釋《聖經》中後來的經文在道德上似乎不如先前的經文先進？例如，在《申命記》之前的《創世記》中，亞伯拉罕大膽地與上帝談判，要求饒恕所多瑪和蛾摩拉的義人。到了《申命記》，我們發現上帝命令徹底摧毀整個文明。這不是進步。但也許最令人震驚的是，這種辯護暗中承認我們的現代道德感優於《聖經》中的部分內容。通過暗示我們已經超越了《申命記》中的殘暴，信

Apologists sometimes turn to the argument of limited historical application. This approach posits that the command for conquest, slavery, and genocide in Deuteronomy were specific directives given to the ancient Israelites for a particular time and place. To support this view, proponents cite factors such as 1. The perceived wickedness of the Canaanite cultures, who God warns will teach the Israelites to sin against him if they are not utterly destroyed. 2. The need to establish a pure monotheistic society, and 3. The fulfilment of divine promises regarding the land. To especially laypeople, this defence can seem more palatable than the previous ones – after all, it doesn't require us to accept that genocide is morally good, nor does it suggest that God's objective moral standards have changed. Instead, it attempts to quarantine these troubling commands to a specific historical context. However, the most glaring objection to the limited historical application defence is that it simply fails to address the core ethical issue at hand.

辯解者有時會轉向有限歷史應用的論點。這種觀點認為，《申命記》中關於征服、奴役和種族滅絕的命令是在特定的時間和地點給古代以色列人的特定指令。為了支持這一觀點，支持者列舉了以下因素：1.迦南文化被認為是邪惡的，上帝警告說，如果不徹底消滅他們，他們就會教唆以色列人背叛上帝。2.建立一個純粹的一神論社會的需要，以及 3.實現神對土地的應許。對於普通人來說，這種辯護似乎比前幾種更容易接受--畢竟，它並不要求我們接受種族滅絕在道德上是好的，也不表明上帝的客觀道德標準已經改變。相反，它試圖將這些令人不安的命令隔離在特定

Even if we accept that these commands were only meant for a specific time and place, it doesn't change the fact that God allegedly ordered the slaughter of innocent children, and the enslavement of entire populations. Indeed, the specificity doesn't resolve the contradiction between God's supposed loving nature, and his commands for atrocity.

即使我們承認這些命令只適用於特定的時間和地點，也不能改變據稱上帝下令屠殺無辜兒童和奴役整個民族的事實。事實上，這種特殊性並不能解決上帝所謂的慈愛本性與他的暴行命令之間的矛盾。

We're left where we started, clutching the same question. How can a perfectly loving God order the murder of innocent children, based merely on the proximity to his chosen people?

我們又回到了起點，緊緊抓住同一個問題不放。一個完全慈愛的上帝，怎麼能僅僅因為與他的選民距離太近，就下令殺害無辜的孩子呢？

Secondly, if these commands were truly limited in application, why doesn't the text clearly state this? Why doesn't God say that the Israelites are not to enslave people beyond a certain mile radius, or after a certain date? The absence of such clarification is striking, especially for a book purportedly meant to guide believers for all time. When it suits him,

其次，如果這些命令的適用範圍真的有限，為什麼經文中沒有明確說明呢？為什麼上帝不說以色列人不得奴役方圓一英里以外的人，或者在某個日期之後？沒有這樣的說明令人震驚，尤其是對於一本聲稱要永遠指導信徒的書來說。在適合他的時候

God specifies his targets, such as in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, where specific cities are named, or in the command to utterly destroy the Amalekites, where a particular group is singled out. Even within Deuteronomy itself, we see specificity, like the command to destroy the cities of Sion. So, why are the conquest commands in Deuteronomy not similarly specified? Why is the criterion for destruction merely proximity to Israel, rather than specific peoples or places? This omission has led to millennia of misuse and abuse of these passages to justify colonialism, slavery, and genocide – entailments that an all-loving God would have anticipated. Lastly, proponents of this defence don't apply it consistently. When's the last time you heard a theist argue for a limited application of passages that they favour, such as love your neighbour as yourself? This selective application exposes the argument as a convenient escape hatch for difficult verses, rather than a consistent interpretive principle.

上帝指明瞭他的目標，比如在毀滅所多瑪和蛾摩拉時，上帝點出了具體的城市，或者在徹底毀滅亞瑪力人的命令中，上帝挑出了一個特定的群體。甚至在申命記本身，我們也能看到特殊性，比如毀滅錫安城的命令。那麼，為什麼申命記中的征服命令沒有類似的具體規定呢？為什麼摧毀的標準僅僅是靠近以色列，而不是具體的民族或地方？這一疏忽導致這些經文被誤用和濫用了數千年，為殖民主義、奴隸制和種族滅絕辯護，而這正是全愛的上帝所預料到的。最後，這種辯護的支持者並沒有始終如一地運用它。你上一次聽到有神論者主張有限度地應用他們所贊成的經文，比如

Mark Twain once quipped, "'It ain't the parts of the Bible I can't understand that bother me, it's the parts that I do understand." This sardonic observation perfectly encapsulates our dilemma with Deuteronomy. It's not that these passages are difficult to comprehend, it's that their plain meaning is so morally repugnant that it defies reconciliation with a revered all-loving God. The apologetic acrobatics we've encountered, the insistence that whatever God commands is definitionally good, the attempt to recast genocide as a spiritual metaphor, the suggestion that divine morality evolves with human culture, and the claim that these atrocities were somehow justified in their historical context, all crumble under scrutiny.