虚拟货币的是与非

所谓货币，其实就是一个机构（更多的时候是政府）的信誉，货币之所以能够被市场认可，是因为有政府的背书在里面。而纸币的出现，就是这种政府信誉背书的演化，政府承诺纸币是能够兑换成等价金银的，只有这样人们才会认可纸币，但如果政府不进行信誉背书，读者可以想一想，你用一张钞票用纸和几克特种墨水，拿到市场上能当100元花吗？
 
这也就是为什么政府能够发行货币，美联储能够发行货币，但你我不能发行货币。这也是为什么美元在全世界能够通行，但津巴布韦的钱却被人当作废纸，因为前者有强大的信誉而后者没有。
 
2009年，一个名为“中本聪”的人在互联网上提出了比特币的概念，根据他的思路，比特币可以成为未来的货币，开发方式是不依靠特定货币机构发行，它依据特定算法，通过大量的计算产生，并使用密码学的设计来确保货币流通各个环节的安全性。
 
比特币一经出现，立即在网络世界引起了轰动，很多热衷于网络致富的人迅速投身其中，因为比特币人人都可以制造，没有身份、信誉和技术门槛，因此一时间非常流行，但发展至今，也引发了一系列的问题和讨论。
 
互联网时代带来了新的技术，让我们生活丰富多彩的同时，也开启了另一个世界——网络虚拟世界。虚拟世界的出现，让虚拟货币也随之产生。
  

虚拟世界中的虚拟货币

 
接触网络的人大多听说过虚拟货币，如我们经常接触到的百度公司的百度币，新浪公司的微币，腾讯公司的Q币、Q点等，这些都是看不见摸不着，却能够用来在特定场景交易的一种虚拟的货币。在这些种类繁多的虚拟货币中，我们最为熟悉的应该是Q币了。当年，腾讯正是因为推出了QQ才得以在互联网行业风生水起，时至今日，QQ已经成为很多人网络生活中不可或缺的一部分。
 
对于数千万的年轻网友来说，在他们的眼中，Q币只不过就是一个能够让他们“眼前一亮”的东西。因为新鲜，所以他们才会对其感兴趣。打开电脑，登录QQ进入虚拟的网络世界，只要你有Q币，你就能够到这个虚拟的世界去消费。但问题在于，这个Q币能够成为真实的货币吗？说Q币是货币，它却不能在现实生活中存活；说它不是货币，它却具有货币的属性。说它是商品，可是它又不能吃不能穿，不具有实用性。正是因为如此，Q币成为了一个受人关注的“四不像”。
 
更重要的是，Q币的价值只有一家公司在为它背书，我们使用Q币，都是因为相信腾讯公司。但问题在于，腾讯毕竟只是一家公司而已。就像一位教授说的那样：“我今天使用1元人民币的现金购买了腾讯公司的1个Q币，明天腾讯公司又产生了数万亿的Q币来套现，那么我肯定不会做这样的储值。”
 
Q币还仅仅是虚拟世界中的虚拟货币，但比特币则更加疯狂。比特币在诞生之初只是为了对抗现有货币体系的网络工具，但是随着近几年的飞速发展已经逐渐成为一种投资甚至是投机的工具。
 

 比特币的价值何在？

 
很多人笃定比特币必将取代传统货币，因此毅然决然地投入到比特币潮流中，为此不惜花光现实货币，而成为比特币世界的富翁，但问题还是一样，比特币有信誉背书吗？时至今日，世界上有信誉的国家或经济体，还没有一家出来为比特币背书，而据笔者看来，在未来也不会有人这样做。那么，比特币的价值何在呢？
 
对于比特币的疯狂发展，如果它的购买者是真正喜欢这个产品，觉得这个产品有使用功能，那么这就是一个正常的产品。如果投资者或者是购买者的目的并不是使用，而是要把这个产品在短期内以更高的价格卖给下一个受骗者，这就是典型的庞氏骗局。
 
其实虚拟的货币始终都是虚拟的，就连现实中的货币都难以抵抗金融危机的打击，更何况是本来就不存在的虚拟货币呢？所以，对于玩家来说，这些虚拟货币就只能用来玩乐，想要依靠虚拟货币来赚取现实生活中的财富，那么一旦这个风险泡沫破裂，它也就如废纸一张了。

 

——汪继红，《恶补金融学的第一本书》，2018年。 

 

可怕的“稀缺头脑模式”

在长期资源（钱、时间、有效信息）匮乏的状态下，人们对这些稀缺资源的追逐，已经垄断了这些人的注意力，以至于忽视了更重要更有价值的因素，造成心理的焦虑和资源管理困难。也就是说，当你特别穷或特别没时间的时候，你的智力和判断力都会全面下降，导致进一步失败。
  
长期的资源稀缺培养出了“稀缺头脑模式”，导致失去决策所需的心力——穆来纳森称之为“带宽”（bandwidth）。一个穷人，为了满足生活所需，不得不精打细算，没有任何“带宽”来考虑投资和发展事宜；一个过度忙碌的人，为了赶截止日期，不得不被看上去最紧急的任务拖累，而没有“带宽”去安排更长远的发展。
  
穷人不是不努力，而是因为长期贫穷，失去了摆脱贫穷的智力和判断力，这种状况不变，再努力也是白费；而如果仅是简单地分钱给穷人，穷人的“稀缺头脑模式”也会导致无法利用好这些福利来脱贫。所以一个合理的社会流动方式应当是，建立最基本的社会安全体系，同时保有社会竞争上升通道，资源入口向全社会开放，使得个人能保持正常思维，有尊严地奋斗。

——钱伯鑫，《赚钱的逻辑》，2018.

病痛中的祷告

…...我不能单从这个病来论断我的生命，或不能单单通过这个病来察看我生命。对，我患了末期病，不过我仍然是个丈夫、父亲、祖父和牧者。而且，在处理这个病的过程中，我不经意放弃了这些角色。这是我重拾它们的时候。现在我祈祷，“神啊，提醒我，有其他东西比这个病更重要。
 
有些人以为平安就是没有冲突和争斗。其他人认为平安是没有没有烦恼和困难。不过，这并非圣经中平安的概念。平安是与神、与其他人及与你自己的整全状态(wholeness)。它是在这一刻成为神希望你处于的状态。你可以在冲突中有平安，你可以在烦恼中有平安。面对末期病的时候，你可以有平安。如可可以？单单祈求神赐给你。当中有着我不能解释的奥秘，就是神确实会在苦难中赐予平安。神的脸转向我们，平安便会临到。而我知道就算我在苦难中，神的脸也向着我，我为此感恩。
 
患病、疾病和健康是生命周期的所有部分，这些是我们每一个会面对的事情。生命不总是常常美好，生命也不总是常常糟糕。生命是好与坏、疾病与健康、笑与哭的混合。那么，我学了什么？在生命美好时，感谢神。在生命糟糕时，求神帮助你。在患病时，祈求医治。在健康时，为此感谢神。
 
我每天学习在身处的景况中感恩。我有很多事情要谢恩。因为我平常是颇悲观的，所以对我来说，学习谢恩更是无比重要。我常常集中看事情有多坏，而忽略事情有多好。我正尝试更加集中看事情好的一面，并为此谢恩。
 
选择生命是每天作选择去改善生活，而不是垂死。 

 - Edward G. Dobson, Prayers & Promises: When Facing a Life-Threatening Illness

三个孩子

 很久以前，有三对夫妇，他们在同一天结婚，也都在同一天向上帝祈祷：“伟大的上帝啊，请您赐给我们一个孩子，赐给他聪明、勇敢、爱心和健康。”第二年，三对夫妇如愿以偿，都生下了一个小宝宝。他们从此开始了快乐而忙碌的生活。

二十年过去了，这三对夫妇又来到了教堂向上帝祈祷。第一对说：“上帝啊，您为什么要这样惩罚我们？我们的孩子变成了一个残忍暴虐的人。”第二对也走上前说：“上帝啊，求您救救我们的孩子吧，他变成了一个自私、懒惰的人，我们不知道他将来能够靠什么养活自己。”轮到最后一对夫妇祈祷，他们却欣慰地说：“万能的上帝啊，感谢您给我们送来了这样一个好孩子，他热情开朗又充满爱心，他是我们生活快乐的源泉。”

这时候，教堂的穹顶上亮起一道光，洪亮的声音从光中传出：“我的子民啊，二十年前，我应你们的要求把三个孩子交给你们。正如你们当时所见，他们一样的聪明可爱，各有各的特长，每个人的潜能都足以使他们成为社会的栋梁。但是后来呢，你们之中的人，有的悉心去培养孩子，像照料一粒麦种；有的却忘记了孩子的教育，像丢弃一棵幼苗，任其疯狂生长，甚至走上歧途。那些悉心照料和培育孩子的父母，并不全是富有或有权势的，有的甚至屡遭厄运，但他们的信心和耐心使他们得到了应有的回报。而有的父母尽管富有，却早早地在教育上抛弃了自己的孩子，直至今天自吞苦果。我的子民啊，难道你们还不明白吗？”

What Does the Word "Christian" Mean?

Nowhere in the four canonical gospels are the disciples of Jesus called “Christians.” As “disciples” they were learning the Jesus-way of life and thought. As “apostles” they were sent out to practice the Jesus-way of life and thought in relation to others. But they were not called “Christians” by Jesus, or by anyone else, and certainly not by themselves.

Acts 11:26 - By that time the groups of believers in Jesus, scattered throughout the Mediterranean world, were talking about him as “the Anointed” (Gk. Christos), the one ordained of God to save the world. Outsiders coined the adjective, christianoi, probably with derogatory undertones, to match the outspoken confession of the followers of Jesus. The writer of Acts affirms (1) that the term was used first at Antioch, and implies (2) that the term was applied to the disciples by persons other than themselves. 

Acts 26:28 - “Christian” clearly comes from the mouth of an outsider, an accuser with political power in Judea. His question is more a sarcastic taunt than a sincere inquiry. Notice that Paul’s reply does not repeat the name “Christian” from Agrippa’s mouth. Paul, the ridiculed and accused believer in Jesus, is in chains. At the time of writing Acts, “Christian” was not a title attached to people in polite society, people like Agrippa. It was more a term of shame than honor. In Paul’s case in the narrative of Acts, the shame of chains.

1 Pet 4:16 - when people were labeled “Christian” for believing in Jesus as the Anointed of God in the socio-political context of First Peter, the label was not a badge of honor, but of disgrace. There was no conventional Christos to save believers from their suffering. Yet they continued to confess Jesus as the Messiah. Their accusers thus employed the derisive “Christian” label to degrade and persecute them. But the suffering believers in the context of First Peter are encouraged to bear the name, ironically, to glorify God.

            - excerpt from V. George Shillington, Jesus and Paul Before Christianity: Their World and Work in Retrospect, 2011

When God Was Obvious

Why doesn’t God intervene more? Why doesn’t he directly feed the hungry, heal all the sick and stop all wars? If God really exists, at the very least why doesn’t he make himself more obvious? People who ask such questions often assume that if God ever did spectacularly reveal himself, all doubts would vanish. Everyone would line up to believe in him.
 
Astonishing Reactions
 
Exodus tells of a time when God made himself perfectly obvious. The plagues on Egypt revealed his mighty power. An enormous miracle at the Red Sea provided sensational deliverance. A recurring miracle supplied food for the Israelites every morning. And, if questions about God’s existence arose, doubters needed only to look to the ever-present glory cloud or pillar of fire. It must have been hard to be an atheist in those days.
Yet every instance of God’s faithfulness seemed to summon up astonishing human unfaithfulness. The same Israelites who had watched God crush a pharaoh quaked at the first sign of Egyptian chariots. Three days after a miraculous escape across the Red Sea they were grumbling to Moses and God about water supplies.
 
A month or so later, when hunger pangs began to gnaw at them, they bitterly complained, “If only we had died by the LORD’s hand in Egypt! There we sat around pots of meat and ate all the food we wanted, but you have brought us out into this desert to starve this entire assembly to death” (Exodus 16:3). God responded with a provision of manna (that would continue for 40 years) and quail, but the Israelites were soon grousing about the water supplies again.
 
The Great Rebellion
 
Exodus 32 shows the Israelites at their worst. People who had eaten manna for breakfast, who had just solemnly agreed to keep every word of the covenant, who were at that moment standing beside a mountain stormy with the Lord’s presence—those very people proceeded to melt down their gold jewelry and flagrantly flout the first commandment. “Stiff-necked,” God called the Israelites as he burned in anger against them. Only Moses’ eloquent appeal saved their lives.
 
The history of the Israelites should nail a coffin lid on the notion that impressive displays of God’s power will guarantee faith (Jesus would later say, “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead,” [Luke 16:31].) People who had everyday proof of God demonstrated only one thing: the monotonous consistency of human nature.
 
The offenders would pay for their acts by wandering 40 years in a desolate wilderness while a new, untainted generation grew up to replace them. But a pattern was beginning to emerge: If the Israelites failed God in the shadow of Mount Sinai, how would they possibly withstand the seduction of new cultures in the promised land? The next generation, too, would fail God, as would all their descendants. The old covenant, as Paul would so convincingly argue in the book of Galatians, succeeded mainly by proving undeniably the need for a new one.
Life Questions
 

- from NIV Student Bible

The Basics of Forgiveness

The Bible is called on to provide at least two clear reasons (but not definitions) for forgiving: fear and gratitude.
 
The first incentive to forgive is that God commands it. Refusing or stalling thus constitutes sinful behavior. This view of forgiveness primarily as a religious imperative also tends to preclude a reflective analysis of what forgiveness is or even how to do it. If God has commanded us to do something, we need to obey without question or else risk angering God, which can lead to consequences more severe than any ulcer.
 
The second motivation is due to gratitude. The fact that we are all undeserving recipients of God’s forgiveness forbids us from withholding forgiveness from those who have wounded us (so the argument goes). We assume that since it was a good thing for God to forgive us, it would likewise be a good thing for us to forgive others (again, definitional ambiguity aside). Thus, whether it is out of obligation or thanksgiving, the idea remains that forgiveness is something
 

- Bryan Maier, Forgiveness and Justice: A Christian Approach, 2017.