三个火枪手英语读后感

　　三个火枪手英语读后感（一）

　　After reading it,the first feeling happened to my heart is that it just likes a fairy.Though it may constructed basing on current century,it appears a certain happiness which seldom seemed in that world like<The count of Monte Cristo>. Alexandre Dumas Pere's works show us his wonderful narratives and his hopes （maybe） to his world.So heros with great power always be seen in his works.So maybe I can't believe he is a very very good writer whoes works didn't give much importance of reality though I like him and his works very much.

　　This novel's four actors must leave a deep impression on us I think.Athos'reason,Melady's viciousion…all these consists of a beautiful world（with justice and evil） can love ,can hate ,can angery,can happy…with loyalty and nature.So clearly a world!

　　三个火枪手英语读后感（二）

　　The Three Musketeers is a marvelous journey and should be appreciated foremost for its engaging story. The techniques Dumas employed to such success in 1840-- particularly his mastery of the form of the Romance--still work today.

　　As we saw in the closing portions of the book, Dumas gives us a fully developed Romance within his historical framework. He starts with levity and confidence, and ends with moroseness and doubt. The ending, indeed, seems to question many of the books dearly held values. D'Artagnan达达尼昂becomes a lieutenant in the Musketeers, but his promotion comes from the Cardinal--the Cardinal whom he and his four friends had fought so valiantly against for the first half of the novel. In the epilogue, d'Artagnan befriends the Comte de Rochefort, a Cardinalist agent. Was all that earlier fighting really worth it, then? Or was there something futile in all the Musketeers' efforts? Both the possibility of futility and this return to the normal at the end of a great Quest, characterize the form of the Romance as much as do its lighter aspects. Dumas sees the form through.

　　With Dumas's historical context in mind, the melancholy of the Romance becomes even more pronounced. It is almost as though Dumas presents this wonderful Romantic adventure, providing people with a chance to escape day to day toil and immerse themselves in better thoughts about their country, and then spurns it. He cannot bring himself to see the lie of Romanticism through to the end. Even bearing in mind that this turn to ambiguity is typical for the end of the Romance, it is hard not to interpret the ending of the novel as Dumas's rejection of Romantic values.

　　There are two sequels to The Three Musketeers, which Dumas wrote to capitalize on the success of the novel. They are entitled Vingt ans apres, published in 10 volumes in 1845, and Dix ans plus tard, ou le vicomte de Bragelonne, published in 26 parts from 1848-1850. The latter opens in 1660, and tells of a matured, powerful d'Artagnan, captain of the Musketeers. It also contains the account ofPorthos's heroic death. But despite these sequels, Dumas never fully recaptured his success of 1844. His estate and his health declined until, after a period of furious attempted productivity to recoup his debts, he died in 1870. The Romance left his life as well.

　　But The Three Musketeers is not merely a Romance; it is also a great historical novel, and Dumas's interesting approach to history also contributes to the success of his book. While he keeps his characters away from being major players in national events, he is not afraid of brazenly attributing human motives to history. In Dumas's version, France and England very nearly fight a war simply because the Duke of Buckingham loves Anne of Austria: John Fenton assassinates Buckingham because of personal reasons provided by Milady, and so on. Part of the entertainment of The Three Musketeers is that, in seeming to avoid the great events and focus on petty affairs, Dumas explains the great events more satisfyingly and entertainingly than any direct explanation of affairs of state could hope to do. History does not have a face-- d'Artagnan has a face, and a handsome one at that.

　　Dumas's formula serves his story well. His incorporation of Romanticism into the historical novel lifted an entire genre of literature into public adulation, and gave the French people a story that reassured them about their country even as it brought them away from their country's troubles. Popular literature must be considered on two fronts: aesthetically and socially, as literature and as a popular artifact. The best popular literature, like the work of Alexandre Dumas, supercedes the latter category to come into our minds as a work of literature in its own right. It is not necessary to know about Dumas's life, or about French history, or about the genre of Romance, to enjoy The Three Musketeers. The superlative entertainment of the novel speaks for itself--which is why it remains so important and so interesting to study it.

　　三个火枪手英文读后感

　　The Three Musketeers is a marvelous journey and should be appreciated foremost for its engaging story. The techniques Dumas employed to such success in 1840-- particularly his mastery of the form of the Romance--still work today.

　　As we saw in the closing portions of the book, Dumas gives us a fully developed Romance within his historical framework. He starts with levity and confidence, and ends with moroseness and doubt. The ending, indeed, seems to question many of the books dearly held values. D'Artagnan becomes a lieutenant in the Musketeers, but his promotion comes from the Cardinal--the Cardinal whom he and his four friends had fought so valiantly against for the first half of the novel. In the epilogue, d'Artagnan befriends the Comte de Rochefort, a Cardinalist agent. Was all that earlier fighting really worth it, then? Or was there something futile in all the Musketeers' efforts? Both the possibility of futility and this return to the normal at the end of a great Quest, characterize the form of the Romance as much as do its lighter aspects. Dumas sees the form through.

　　With Dumas's historical context in mind, the melancholy of the Romance becomes even more pronounced. It is almost as though Dumas presents this wonderful Romantic adventure, providing people with a chance to escape day to day toil and immerse themselves in better thoughts about their country, and then spurns it. He cannot bring himself to see the lie of Romanticism through to the end. Even bearing in mind that this turn to ambiguity is typical for the end of the Romance, it is hard not to interpret the ending of the novel as Dumas's rejection of Romantic values.

　　There are two sequels to The Three Musketeers, which Dumas wrote to capitalize on the success of the novel. They are entitled Vingt ans apres, published in 10 volumes in 1845, and Dix ans plus tard, ou le vicomte de Bragelonne, published in 26 parts from 1848-1850. The latter opens in 1660, and tells of a matured, powerful d'Artagnan, captain of the Musketeers. It also contains the account of Porthos's heroic death. But despite these sequels, Dumas never fully recaptured his success of 1844. His estate and his health declined until, after a period of furious attempted productivity to recoup his debts, he died in 1870. The Romance left his life as well.

　　But The Three Musketeers is not merely a Romance; it is also a great historical novel, and Dumas's interesting approach to history also contributes to the success of his book. While he keeps his characters away from being major players in national events, he is not afraid of brazenly attributing human motives to history. In Dumas's version, France and England very nearly fight a war simply because the Duke of Buckingham loves Anne of Austria: John Fenton assassinates Buckingham because of personal reasons provided by Milady, and so on. Part of the entertainment of The Three Musketeers is that, in seeming to avoid the great events and focus on petty affairs, Dumas explains the great events more satisfyingly and entertainingly than any direct explanation of affairs of state could hope to do. History does not have a face-- d'Artagnan has a face, and a handsome one at that.

　　Dumas's formula serves his story well. His incorporation of Romanticism into the historical novel lifted an entire genre of literature into public adulation, and gave the French people a story that reassured them about their country even as it brought them away from their country's troubles. Popular literature must be considered on two fronts: aesthetically and socially, as literature and as a popular artifact. The best popular literature, like the work of Alexandre Dumas, supercedes the latter category to come into our minds as a work of literature in its own right. It is not necessary to know about Dumas's life, or about French history, or about the genre of Romance, to enjoy The Three Musketeers. The superlative entertainment of the novel speaks for itself--which is why it remains so important and so interesting to study it.

　　《圣经》读后感（一）

　　文/张文逸

　　摆在我面前的这本《圣经》，黑色封皮，繁体竖排，特别有厚重感。可翻开一看，满篇都是是血与泪的拼杀，战火纷飞，硝烟弥漫，一切的一切，都说明那是一个如何野蛮的时代。

　　初读《圣经》，让我惊叹不已。对于一个习惯于东方温和恭俭让的仁和文化的中国人，似乎更喜欢读那些以“如是我闻”开头的“佛曰”和“微言大义”的“子曰”，对于基督教经典中如此赤裸裸的野蛮和残酷，我不知道该是淡定还是愤怒，最后只有以文化差异还安慰自己了。

　　但是我始终无法理解，这段由上帝参与演出的残酷历史如何就成了“圣经”，这个怎么看都只是对于人的生命视如草芥，不屑一顾的神，居然就是上帝。作为一个指挥并参与了多场可怕的战争，伤亡人数数以万计的、创造着一切的耶和华上帝，似乎没有意识到自已应该扮演一个公正、仁慈、和平的角色——最后我只好还是以文化差异来安慰自己，我们讨论的是上帝而不是孔子。

　　前几日看《童年》，高尔基对于自己外祖父和外祖母的信仰难以理解，外祖母的上帝是温和仁慈的，外祖父的上帝是残酷无情的。看了圣经，我心目中所有关于上帝的形象全数倒塌无余……

　　相比之下，我真的很敬仰耶稣，如果耶稣真的是上帝之子，我想说，儿子比老子好很多，因为耶稣宣扬的是仁爱互助，更难能可贵的是耶稣身体力行，带领门徒遍洒福音，最后耶稣愿意为了自己的所作所为，为了他的理想而献身。

　　希望西方人是真的信仰耶稣的而不是上帝那“伟大”的神力。事实上联想起中国那个窝囊的玉皇大帝，再看看圣经描述的冷漠残忍的耶和华上帝（我说了他这么多的坏话，我有点后怕，我可没有忘记在《出埃及记》里他是怎么对待异教徒的）。我愿意把耶稣奉为我的上帝。

　　可我又突然改变主意了，因为我想做一个虔诚的——无神论者。

　　《圣经》读后感（二）

　　《圣经》，是有关外国的宗教的书，再细说是犹太人的宗教经书。《圣经》这本书，故事的篇章真的多到令人不可思异，从中我们可以了解到西方的文化。借着圣经的故事，也对圣经对基督教有更进一步的认识，先从圣经的故事目录中，了解到架构是从一开始的创世、犹太人遇到一些问题以致必须不断迁移，最后述说耶稣的诞生、早年生活以及最后如何的死亡，也因为有这一连串的事件发生。后来经由后人的整理之后，才会出现『圣经的故事』这本书。

　　由七天创造世界作为一开始的开端，这为之神话般的创世就此因而展开，接着开始出现了我们熟之的亚当与夏娃，偷尝禁果之后，进而开始衍伸了后代，也因为人们的生成，开始出现了，我们是如何来的，为什么是这样来的，后来慢慢的，衍生成了，上帝创造了世界，这种说法，有点带着神秘的色彩，而一开始就对于『神』之存在的，正是犹太人。而故事也因此开始慢慢的开始架构出来的。圣经的故事中，有着多倒数不完的小篇故事，有着像在读历史故事一般，但是里面有很多的斗争，兄弟之间为了权利而互相残杀，就像关于约瑟的故事中约瑟的兄弟们的行为一样。但是还有其他的一些斗争是因为信奉，有些就现在看来不明智的举动，也是信奉的缘故，为什么会这么说，就像亚伯拉罕差点因为耶和华的考验，进而杀害了自己的孩子，虽以信奉耶和华的角度看来，他是个对耶和华所说的话虔诚不已的人，依照着他的指示行事，认为耶和华讲的话是对的，我认为站在他信奉这个基准点上是没错的，因为一个信奉者本来就该对自己的神虔诚，若对自己的认定的神不虔诚，那可能是一种的背叛，但是从亲情、人道的角度看来这样未免太愚蠢了，怎会因为这样一个你认为的神，杀死自己的小孩，小孩并没犯什么错，这样的做法只是让小孩成为无辜的牺牲者，我觉得不管从那个角度看来都有他的好与坏，所以我觉得不要过度的盲从去做一件事，应该要去选择一个比较折衷的看法，也要去听一些自己内心最深层的心，不要过度的去信奉而造成不好的盲从。

　　然而也因为信奉这样的问题，引发了许许多多的争端，当然斗争是难免了。而大家耳熟能闻的摩西的故事，也是在斗争中，所遗留下的故事，当然摩西的一声令下，就使得红海自己分开，带领着大家顺利的度过红海，在现今的我们听起来，简直是天方夜谭，但是这不也为此篇故事，增添了几分神秘的色彩。摩西的最后的死亡，在圣经中也带着神秘之感。汇集由摩西的例子，最主要就是要说明，在圣经故事中，很多的篇幅，不难看出充斥着神秘的色彩，所以，在这之中，也可以了解到人们的信仰虔诚度，以及上帝在他们生活中，所扮演着举足轻重的角色，影响着他们的决策，更影响着他们的生活，可说是息息相关的，为什么会这么说呢！因为上帝可以决定他们的生活模式，假设今天上帝的理念跟他们有所冲突的话，当然是以上帝的要求为优先，并不会以自己的思考模式来判断，就算命令下达是错的，但是也会无条件的去服从，所以这样的话，可以说是在过『上帝的生活』，这样的话根本是由别人在支配你的生活，好像傀儡一般，说起来也真的蛮可悲的，这都要怪太过于忠于上帝。还有你知道，世界上第一个家庭悲剧，是发生于何处吗？就是亚当跟夏娃所生的子女，该隐和埃布尔间的兄弟相残，而起因则是，人们之间的忌妒所引起的，而主要的忌妒之心，却是跟耶和华有关，因为耶和华的观点上，较为赞许埃布尔的关系，所以引起的杀机，但是这边所要述说的不是兄弟之间的相残，而是耶和华在他们生活中所扮演的角色，可说影响的他们的日常生活，连这种小事都可以进而使得他们引起了杀机，那么如果假设今天有着更为重大的事件的话，是不是连迫害全人类的事情都可以做的出来，这样毫无自己的见解跟观点，只是活在别人的赞许认同之下的人，可说是十分的愚蠢跟可悲的。

　　这些的例子，让我觉得《圣经》中人们对上帝耶和华的信奉和服从有点过火了，只要是『主』所有的东西，几乎都是完美的，没有任何的批判，可说是完完全全的服从，只要主的认同都是对的，违抗的就尽力的去排除或铲除，不会让他阻碍到主的命令，这样一来，不就和我们大中华过去一般，帝王命令都要确确实实的去服从，不能有所违抗，只是圣经对于这些主，多了一些神秘的色彩。

　　当然，不是说『主』的存在不好，而是有些人却是假借主之名义，去散播一些不实的言语，或者去满足自己的私欲，这样反而使得纷争越来越多，在圣经的故事中，有些的斗争，根本就是本身的利益之争，根本违背了原本的意思。但是像在圣经的故事中，都是在阐述着，种种的纷争，却没有教人为善，只是告诉人们如果没有照着耶和华的指示去做，就会有了麻烦，等到耶稣的出现才有提及以『爱』为出发点的去对待人，虽说，这样可以让人去了解到人的黑暗之一面，但是如果是个小孩，从小就开始接触，没人去启发他或者引导的话，观念因此而偏差，那不就变的更不好了。不过西方也幸好有耶稣的出现，斗争才开始有了转变，要不现今的西方世界，应该更加的混乱吧！而耶稣在他那个时代，被认定为邪教，因此才会被钉在十字架上，为何会提到这点，主要是要由这点来说明，那时的时代，很多的观念和行为都已经有所偏差了，就好像刚刚提到的，人们都会自己去解读主的意思，感觉上，自己本身就是主一般，所以很多的君主，要谋害一个人，最常见的是，把自己认定有主那样的权力，可以杀害不服从的人。也因为这样，在圣经的故事中，很多的君王，都会利用此种的理由，去迫害一个人，导致每个时期中，都有类似的事件发生，所以不觉得，有时信仰会影响到人们的判断观点，更何况在有心之人的利用之下，这样的宗教信仰，会变成一种强烈的社会型态，让人们在型态之下，失去了判断或者不敢去反抗。

　　同样，《圣经》中还有一些值得人深思的故事。圣经中最富智慧的人莫过于所罗门。他在向神祈求的时候，就显出智慧来；不求金银、不求长寿、单求智慧。神应允了他的祈求，赐给他无比的智慧，是超前绝后的智慧。以至他的声名远播。普天下的王都求见所罗门，要听神赐给他的智慧话。示巴女王怀着仰慕和疑惑的心来到了耶路撒冷。见到所罗门，她用许多的难题试探所罗门，所罗门用他超绝的智慧给她一一解答。以至示巴女王诧异的神不守舍。他是一位超绝智慧的拥有者，一个国家的最高统治者，一位聆听神话语的人，一个神的代言人。当我们看到雅歌书中那纯美的爱情，看到箴言那充满哲理的词句和传道书中那透彻人生的感悟。我们不得不佩服所罗门那超绝的智慧，对人生所作的剖析。

　　然而，就是这所罗门，在他功勋显赫的时候、在他享尽一切的荣华富贵后，他堕落了，他从埃及买来马匹，娶埃及的公主为皇后，从外邦人那里选来妃嫔，他的皇宫后院竟然供养着千余名的"娘娘"。哀哉！一代伟人竟如此的败落。当我读到这里时，总会迷惑不解，为什么熟知神话语的所罗门，会做出与神相背的事来呢？他，拥有如此的智慧，却行出如此的愚昧来呢？是知之易而行之难乎？我只知愚昧出于无知，竟不知也可出于智慧。如果说愚昧人的悲哀在于无知而信，那么聪明人的悲哀在于知而不信。所罗门，这位一代哲人已经远去，留给我们的是深深的思索……

　　读了这本书，还知道做了好事神会奖励于你。可是，你要是做了坏事，神会降罪于你的。我感悟出“善有善报，恶有恶报，不是不报，时候未到”。

　　《圣经》读后感（三）

　　假期里的每一夜，睡前我都会翻看几页《圣经》，转眼间厚厚的一整本犹太教经典就这样被读完了。在我双手放下书的一刹那，我瞬时间陷入羞愧、迷茫、忏悔之中，以至于直到现在这种复杂的心情才得以平缓。很久以前，有位朋友就告诉我说，像《圣经》这样具有宗教信仰的书，绝不能以过于严肃的态度去阅读，如今才领悟到此番告诫的含意。

　　《圣经》分为两部分：新约、旧约，它的文字古奥、线索繁杂、卷帙浩繁，除了着意渲染上帝耶和华的言行、威严、力量和犹太教的教义、教规、信条以外，还有些篇章是古代巴勒斯坦、埃及和两河流域各民族的神话故事、历史传说、人物传、略训诫律法、诗歌谚语和小说传奇等。全书除了时代尚可追溯外，没有明晰的写作顺序，唯一一点便是以上帝的“创世纪”来揭开帷幕，从而以宗教来解释了人的由来。

　　首先从人与自然的关系与区别上来讲。什么是科学？科学就是对事物的客观反映，而不应该是自然的主宰。当下的情况恰恰与之相反，科学正在走一条恒定的道路，本来是作为促进人类文明进步的科学竟在做着背道而驰的事情，科学禁止了一切科学以外的认知，使人们逐渐形成一种观念，将那些科学以外的东西称为伪科学，强迫自然符合科学，见到不合理的就闭上眼睛，使得科学成了一种迷信。这还并不完，《圣经》中上帝曾一度严令禁止人类的先祖们去吃那“知善恶果”，上帝又因亚当与夏娃的失信而将他们赶出伊甸园，这真的是上帝的自私表现吗？非也，上帝了解人类那对自然改造以获得物质满足的无止欲望，他老人家甚至预想到了今天这个社会，动物被驾驭了，沼泽被疏干了，江河被防治了，森林被伐倒了，时间被计算出来了，天体运行被识破了，世界各地都被打上了人类的印记。但是近几年来，人类对于环保的重视也缓慢了自然报复人类的脚步；与此之外，西方有些学者打算复古的“还原论”也悄然萌生，这如同带人兜了一个大圈子，将大家最后领回了起点。由此看来，上帝的确比我们要英明得多，他了解物质文明给人类带来的灾害。

　　其次是某种意义上的罪恶感，人从出生起身上便背负着罪恶。“羊羔们”勤勤勉勉兢兢业业为那罪消弭，却不知罪从何来，仅仅是因为那本不该食的“善恶果”吗？传说中的“善恶果”能使人获得无上智慧，《约伯记》中曾说过“智慧的价值无人能识，在活人之地也无处找寻”在智慧书中，他说：“智慧为首，所要得到智慧，用你一切的所得去换取智慧”……于此，竟不知，究竟于上帝眼中，智慧被置于何种境地，纵然智慧被上帝所抛弃，纵然智慧会使人堕落，我也不会轻易将其抛弃。以我之见，罪并非由智慧而生，却是由智慧而被发掘的，而人拥有了智慧便拥有了罪，或是因为，人有了智慧从此便和罪恶有了纠葛不清的关系。而最初的“原罪”，其实只是因为人违背了神的意愿。人由神从尘土中所造，本身就没有违背上帝的权力。而之后的罪，完全是由心中的种滋生出的。于上帝看，罪是丑陋的；于人看，它总会饰以靓丽的外衣，否则人怎么会受到一道又一道禁不住的诱惑呢？

　　最后《圣经》上所揭示的就是爱，最紧要最切实的爱，因为爱能够消弭罪，准确地说是减轻罪过，这也是我个人推崇本书及天主基督教的重要原因。宗教总是会有消极的一面，在我看来《马太福音》的那段《捕风》可能就要列入其中之首。排除这些，信仰，给予我们的博爱思想便成为其自身的有力支柱，使得更多信徒的存在成为一种可能。而并非儒家的方式—使人们遵从一种社会潜规则。人们需要幸福、快乐、自由、活力以及寄托，人们希望摆脱痛苦、折磨、郁闷以及失落，所以《圣经》理所当然地成为了一种传载信仰的工具，教会了人们以一种谦卑的姿态生存于世。

　　这就是《圣经》，一个真实的《圣经》。

　　小痣感到从未有过的震撼，为这世界上还有自己根本没有到达过，无法想象的地方而感到疑惑惊悸，而且，居然还大得无边无际？他觉得这是一个不可思议的谎言，与金鱼们生来善于夸耀色彩的本性如出一辙。谁不知道鱼缸才是我们的家园，也许不是惟一的家园，至少我们确实听说过还有别的一些鱼缸，我们的姊妹兄弟有的就生活在其他的鱼缸里。但怎么还会有和鱼缸截然不同的地方？而且是我们鱼类的家园？我们的诞生地？我们的回归地？不可能绝不可能，他们一定是疯了！小丑鱼一定仅仅是一条疯掉的金鱼，大海一定是他的臆想。(www.lzdaxue.com)这样想着，小痣才觉得安心而坦然了。

　　但从此，七彩的小痣开始感到总有什么事情开始不对劲。当阳光照进鱼缸，照到他的小窝里，他似乎从亮光里嗅到一点神秘而欢欣的气息，是什么呢？小痣想，是大海吧？无论怎样，大海的概念还是种在了他的心里，他奇怪，自己怎么从来就没梦想过会有无边无际的地方呢？难道我不是一直很讨厌鱼缸吗？不是每次游到鱼缸的玻璃边界时都很绝望吗？我不是一直都渴望畅游无阻吗？难道我天性里的这些渴望都来自大海？想到这些，他有点快乐起来了，开始吐着泡泡，并梦想也许跳出窗外，就能落进大海里……鱼缸里其他的金鱼开始嘲笑小痣，他怎么能把一个传说当真呢？谁能证明那是真的？就算那是真的，与我们又有什么关系？他们骄傲地背过身去，决定冷落这个头脑发热的家伙，让他自己犯傻，他们相信，过不了两天他就会清醒过来……

　　有一天，我路过一条小街，在某个窗口外面的路上，发现了两条小金鱼，一条是七彩的，一条是蓝色的，他们躺在地上，鲜艳的鱼鳞异常干净美丽。他们也许没有如小丑鱼一样，跳出窗外，进入大海，但至少，他们跳出了鱼缸，知道了在这个世界上，有一种叫陆地的东西，是与鱼缸截然不同的，可以让他们枯竭而死。至少，他们曾在鱼缸里梦想并相信过大海，于是，他们也就在大海里了。