就陳到近期教會六個一的文章，bilibala 跟別人 - 幾個平信徒口水多多，在面書維園阿伯般各舒己見，因覺得其中一位對話者eggplant(假名)言論充份反映今日教會的立場，甚具代表性，而bilibala的回應主要分析這套立場可能被忽略/不合理之處以及探討聖經原意. 特在此分享.
原文:
面書原對話記錄(改動不多，文筆潤飾度欠奉莫怪):
Candy: 呢個牌都係放在人哋自己教會門口啫, 亦都係這信仰其中的教義. 相信佢都係自己教自己信徒. 有咩問題? 亦即係一個家庭門口, 放他們自己家訓 (對聯), 用來訓勉自己家人, 咁都唔得? 仲都畀人鬧"賤格" ? 呢個咩世界嚟架?
Bilibala: 遊行coming up about this, so not just a sign in front of the door. but i do agree, yes, everyone can express their points freely in todays world. i guess what upset ppl is the church seems only care about 反同， and never voice out for the rest of the topics.
Banana: 不排除作者以賤格同呢個banner吸引人讀。作者深感不解的問題是在其它議題，是與其教義相枰. 但其聲音與教義相枰理據，這是很多人也不解。這是很多人也不解。我亦明白。人看到今天較出名的香港教會就是這樣，是事實。當然教會大可"引經據典", 話今天教徒要面對迫害。對不信教同部分信的，最大問題根本是，教會可否走出那個框架。若是要說要吸引人信，就很難不跳出那框架。事實也給人看到，點解今日咁多人反耶。你可以話世界罪惡了。但一樣邏輯，人們都可以咁睇你。將心彼己而已。billy 說對，國內教會被毀，吳宗文去咗邊
Strawberry : $6.1, easy to remember. I click in to that blog, it's from a youth pastor; I did listen to his show. What's most interesting is the comments left on his blog.
Eggplant: I care what I care. I 遊行 for what I think it is important. It is the same as the people 遊行 just for the basis salary rate or 遊行 just for the way of election of the head of HK Government or 遊行 just for 反蝗蟲. Why all these are not 賤格? Why Church only 遊行 for 反同 then Church is 賤格? I question, how many people will go to vote on any election even they claim they care about about 民生 and they 遊行 for such and such? The people may say the vote is meaningless or the way of current voting system is unfair. So, they do not go to vote. However, at least all these people should go to leave their vote in blank. (Ontario will has the Municipal Election on Oct. Don't forget to go). Regarding 國內教會被毀，吳宗文去咗邊, I don't know. However if he 遊行 for 國內教會被毀, will all people agree with all his another point of view suddenly and he will earn your respectation suddenly? Furthermore, should we 反耶 because of the behaviour of only 1 of over billion of Christian? We believe is the Love of Christ and learn from Jesus not the behaviour of 1 or a group of "Christian". Honestly, the behaviour of people will make us feel disappointed all time. That's why we are sinners.
Bilibala:
Bilibala: 同意指教會賤格就算為左爭取多d click 都有d過份.
若論遊行自由，也同意人人有其選擇和訴求，我鐘意淨撐一男一女，唔撐其他，又或 whatever way，呢個唔可以話賤格，或者反而顯得有性格:)
我只想提出幾個值得思考之處:
1. 教會(香港某三個大宗派)唔係個人，佢代表一班信徒，一個信仰群體，更代表基督在地上發聲為鹽為光，它可否享有as an individual 的同樣自由，還是該有更多社會責任呢？
2. 如果教會有其社會責任，為何只為反同發聲？or 在反同上會遊行其他不遊行？
3. 若說我們是罪人，一定會有問題 ga la. 那為什么教會包容政府作惡/不為善，卻不能包容同性戀者有更多個人權利福利？
4. 若說聖經明顯反同(性行為)，但反政府行不義，社會上好憐憫的經文，我夠膽講: 比反同多一百倍以上，教會反同遊行若是神心意，那教會在一切民生政事上不發聲，唔算賤格，但你覺唔覺教會若如此更是自証係得罪神，係失職？
4. 主耶穌有愛，什么愛？一份指出稅吏妓女淫婦(就算身不由己)有罪但接納的愛 vs 當時宗教領袖對那班人的社會權利打壓.今日教會令人感覺似前者還是後者？
5. 主耶穌會指責宗教領袖係粉飾的墳墓，指希律係狐狸，話自己按理不用交稅，暗寸當時羅馬和”摩西”律法…我不是說要反動才是對，但什么是愛？假如我信主愛，信他愛之深才責之切，今日教會愛同性戀人仕才出聲指責，那為何不出聲指責別的？是怕？是不愛嗎？
6. 說教內有不同意見，yes, 包括反同，現在教內兩邊對壘好嚴重，為何”反同”教會可以力排眾議，叫信徒站起來上街，其他就由得個人喜好？黃之峰，戴耀延佔中， thats personal, 吳宗文不撐佔中又話personal, 但他卻被認為代表教會發言？所以信徒意見不一，難道就阻得住教會發聲？
7. 溫州事件，教會上街與否幾乎改不了什么，就不發聲么？中港矛盾呢？為何不能上街逼政府正視(叫政治做d野，唔好齋食花生)？既可逼政府反同，也可逼政府做 多點，主持公道or至少叫政府量力而為？還是蘇局長那凡屎包容論就代表教會立場？教會唔係個人，局長唔係個人，有時侯為左乜發聲，發聲既內容，令人失望同 反感.所以我會怪教會同政府多過鬧爆鬧得過火果一位，這未必出 自bible teaching, just me, 你呢？
Eggplant: 1. 教會表基督在地上發聲為鹽為光. What is the actual meaning of 社會責任? comment on government's policy? So far, I have not seen Jesus comment on the Roman's empire policy. In the Bible. HE only wants the followers to help and love the neighbors. (Matthew 5:16 - In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see YOUR GOOD DEEDS and praise your Father in heaven)
2. 只為反同發聲 because it is clearly against the Bible.
3. 若說我們不是罪人，一定有問題! If we are not sinner, we don't need Jesus. If someone said 教會包容政府作惡/不為善, I don't think so. Church just believe GOD will see and punish all the unjustice. If someone read the Bible, he would read even Saul did all the unjustice, David did not kill him when he had a chance because he believed Saul was anointed by GOD. GOD is justice and look after it/him. Finally, Saul killed himself in the battle with Philistines. So, GOD only request us to do ourselves the best (Love your GOD and your neighbors).
4. Agree - Bible mention WE must help and love our neighbors and DO NOT judge the others. However, Bible do not mention we must judge the government's policy. 一切民生政事 - in my opinion, there is no absolutely right or wrong. How can we judge then?
5 (4b) - Jesus loves everyone. If someone think Church is 後者, I am sorry about that. I don't think Church is 對那班人的社會權利打壓. Church just said it is against Bible and the nature. It is the Church's point of view and stand point. If the Government still 立法 to protect the 同志, Church still can only accept. I respect their choice but please do not force me to accept it. Furthermore, Church never 打壓 anyone or anything (except it is evil). 5. 主耶穌會指責宗教領袖係粉飾的墳墓 - Bible mentioned it means 外 面 好 看 、 裡 面 卻 裝 滿 了 死 人 的 骨 頭 、 和 一 切 的 污 穢 。在 人 前 、 外 面 顯 出 公 義 來 、 裡 面 卻 裝 滿 了 假 善 和 不 法 的 事 。話自己按理不用交稅 - i think it is from Matthew 17: 24-27. According to the Bible, Jesus paid the tax anyway. In my opinion, Jesus just wanted to 暗示 HE is the King of the World instead of 暗寸當時羅馬. Don't even is 暗寸"摩西"律法 because Jesus already said He come to fulfill the Law (the Law means 摩西律法) . Jesus loves everyone. I would like to point our that 教會 is not 愛同性戀人仕才出聲指責. Church just only wants to tell the people what is the principle of Church and what is the stand point and what is the nature - father is man, mother is woman. Church never 指責 any thing or any one. So, the people can see the banner do not show anything against the 同性戀人仕, right?
6. 說教內有不同意見，yes, 包括反同，現在教內兩邊對壘好嚴重，為何反同教會可以力排眾議，叫信徒站起來上街 - it is because it is clearly against the Bible (same as point No. 2). So, it is the ground of our believers!! I don't know what are the others 不同意見 but I think all the others are arguable (policy) and all these are no absolutely right or wrong. Not the same as father is man, mother is woman. Church does not or should not get involve of polite because Church does not want to be used by the politician to convince the Church Members. However, Church will not stop the members to public their opinion of the Government's policy and 有更多社會責任.
7. Church never say 蘇局長那凡屎包容論就代表教會立場. Don't put the hat on the Church. 中港矛盾, 政府做多點，主持公道 - what is 公道, 點主持公道 ? You want 政府做多點 what? Stop all the Chinese to visit HK? Take all people no matter they are Chinese, HK Citizen or Foreigners who 拉屎 on the street on jail, send them a ticket? Again - Church does not or should not get involve of polite because Church does not want to be used by the politician to convince the Church Members. However, Church will not stop the members to public their opinion of the Government's policy and 有更多社會責任. So, we (but not the Church) can do something and care more about our community. I'll go to vote for Municipal Election on Oct. Will you?? All the above are just my own opinion not from the Church or Bible.
Bilibala: 教會該不該議政？參與政治？參與到乜程度？或者先從耶穌的doing and saying 講起
我認同你話主吩咐我們”愛神同愛鄰舍”(或譯非自己友)，那比反同在聖經更清楚不過吧？那我要調轉來問，
a. 當教會見到信徒不這樣時它該怎處理？自然是勸導.
b. 當教會見到非信徒不這樣時它該怎處理？透過遊行去對全世界說要愛人如己？遊行能改變未信嗎？似乎不能，但卻可以表達聖經立場喎！那為什么”反同”教會主將遊行，但同樣清楚的，卻不遊行？
c. 當教會見到政府不這樣時，它該怎處理？就是假如政令不仁不義，令矛盾升溫，明顯跟愛神愛人背向，該出聲罷？
但正如你所講，說得太對了，教會多數有三大理由對政府惡行沉默 c1 驚講錯，遲d先講，c2 不論斷， c3 不語政治.
c1, 冇發聲同遲遲未發聲不同，但有分別嗎？依家唔係要你做政府，provide solution, 指出問題，監察政府，為弱勢發聲都咁十五十六，這叫懦弱不是謹慎(阿婆都爆粗，都識去咨詢會指出問題. 教會卻連阿婆都不如？)
c2 “不論斷”按太7是針對教內假冒為善之人，可否無限上綱到一切事上？
c2a 那為何教外同性戀又可論斷？難道教會沒有他惡？其他經文也很清楚，為何只有反同是可論斷or不算論斷反而係行公義？
c2b 若信神會報應，如大衛不殺掃羅作例子，故不論斷，不出聲是對的. 講個極端例子，若見到人強姦打劫，我該出聲，我阻止嗎？我心裡也有淫念，我該相信他有報應吧？咁按此教導我該去買花生兼用手機拍下post 上網一邊等神就最合神心意！報警同喝止, sorry, 反而被主責怪. 以西結書話神立你 作守望者，你唔適時出聲就係失職，ok, 舊約唔buy, 淨buy 耶穌，耶穌將權柄同key給教會去審判世界，教會唔係個人，若用”不論斷”論去將沉默合理化，說得通嗎？(我不是說凡事發聲，但不發聲因不該論斷一定解錯 經， 如果這是主的原意，他就不可能是主，他也沒有承傳舊約先知的道統，也跟他一切言行不一致) c2c 用回大衛例子，為什么24, 26章不殺掃羅，但編者像三文治般夾住25章說他要殺盡拿八一家？拿八不給他保護費，罪至抄家嗎？編者眼中的大衛是怎么？在洞中谷中殺了掃羅，出面有三千 人馬，會散水定衝入來你唔知，你認為殺佢明智嗎？拿八有錢冇兵，殺左有損失？蝦得落，(咪住，係有損架，但要亞比該發聲，係及時發聲大衛才醒水). 這三章故事正告訴我們發聲止惡止錯的重要(大衛止住佢班馬，亞比該止住大衛)，而考量理由是既屬靈亦可以實際，甚至包含政治因素.
c3 不政治！我認同政治有機會令教會領袖變質腐化，但究竟教會vs 政治要幾疏離？
c3a. 耶穌時代的羅馬政權，多是地方自治, 加利利如是，猶大省則有巡撫. 但除稅收，軍事和終審，死刑等，大多容許地方/宗教執行本土法律，在猶大加利利行的是摩西律法，以及助人解釋它和活出它的他勒目.
耶穌對律法的釋 義，我們今天當然說對，當時就是敢於論政(人子釋法，你憑乜？)，也是膽敢違法達義的行動. 安息日醫治合理但不合法，為何不多等一日，果個人病左幾十年，又唔急屎點能隨時疴？再說更直接的反羅馬，主宣稱天國近了，暗示自己是王是救世主，今日我們 當然話係屬靈意義，但當日這等如同與政權單挑， 除了凱撒，那有王那有救世主？他因這政治理由被釘死係最好的証據(我感覺你唔會認同，我只想指出這至少是當時人對主行為其中的主流看法)
c3b. 每次教會反同遊行，係政府對性傾向歧視etc etc 出咨詢之時侯，上年113就成功令政府放案咨詢，故遊行是因政治，反政治而且當中透過政界信徒政治地以合法途徑去成功改變政治. 那為什么反同，政治就ok, 其他一切就不該政治？若反同政治ok,因合乎聖經，那為什么一旦政策通過，教會就似無可奈何而不一反到底？這轉變合乎聖經？是順從神重要還是順從人？那些 極權國不准教會傳福音，為何教會唔聽，唔順服而反同當法案通過教會又乖乖就範？
c3c 說到發聲會被政治中人利用，我認同！那為何反同發聲就不會被利用？”選我！我反同架！”
另 外沉默是否更容易被利用？你唔出聲我做乜都得亦代表我冇錯你支持. 香港華人教會討厭政治，認了罷，唔好合理化自己的絕對沉默. 真正能不被利用，該是什幺時侯都思考什么是真理，怎在地上締造和睦，行仁愛，公平，公義，為此發聲或沉默，政府對，支持，有不是，提醒！這從列王紀到先知 書都一致，我們信仰根基不就建在使徒先知之上？
c3d 中港矛盾有好多方法疏導，簽証，罰款，入境稅…..教會唔係政府，唔一定要有具體方案才發聲，但唔知點算就不發聲，令事件更壞，還可以理直氣壯地話”我不 講政治”係岩！唔識就學，唔肯學就唔好搬聖經出來話自己有理，指責教會的正是這書
這 一切都不止是我個人意見，有其聖經支持(當然另一些立場也可有支持)，有理性分析，也反映好多人對教會失望痛心因由(當然教會在民生上有許多參與服事，不 該抹殺，該持平地看)，作為信徒，我可以話其他人點睇我改不了總之我原意係好，作為教會，堅持過程未必一定要死撐，反思同更全面的為主為鹽為光不是更好 嗎？
觀察中，有不少堂會已經正視，多左就不同民生政治事件表達立場意見，值得鼓舞，唔容易，但肯學肯試比故步自封，自圓其說好太多！
Eggplant: Some I agree and some I disagree. But I think our sharing is good enough
Candy: 這真是個沒完沒了的discussion and sharing. 我想, 這是沒有對與錯. 大家企位唔同, 唔會有定論, 再下去, 反而容易讓一些"有心人"在當中大做文章, 又或者傷害主內感情及關係, 這更是無謂. 唯有留待上帝判斷尚為重要.
Bilibala: 覺得有d似維園阿伯，lol, 對同錯有時好清楚，有時透過論述會找到，亦有些事或者要幾代人努力才找到，用下面李思敬博士篇道(講教會，講保羅一生)來做個agree to disagree 的註腳(可能同我們討論冇乜關係 :p) still great to read.
早堂李思敬(八)：等候聖靈之囚禁與見證
Banana: 有建設性的辯論是好和有需要的，自己可以思考自己stand for 甚麼。在有信仰的立場看，要明白世界不斷更新，聖經有很多領域是open for discussion, 同時教徒有選擇，每一方都可以用聖經來支持其理據。但問題是我們是否真正明白其意義，定係理解經文時已經加了自己已定的偏見。若然信真理能越辨越明，哪怕有心人。
原文:
我也支持一夫一妻一男一女一生一世的，但係我無你地咁賤格囉
面書原對話記錄(改動不多，文筆潤飾度欠奉莫怪):
Candy: 呢個牌都係放在人哋自己教會門口啫, 亦都係這信仰其中的教義. 相信佢都係自己教自己信徒. 有咩問題? 亦即係一個家庭門口, 放他們自己家訓 (對聯), 用來訓勉自己家人, 咁都唔得? 仲都畀人鬧"賤格" ? 呢個咩世界嚟架?
Bilibala: 遊行coming up about this, so not just a sign in front of the door. but i do agree, yes, everyone can express their points freely in todays world. i guess what upset ppl is the church seems only care about 反同， and never voice out for the rest of the topics.
Banana: 不排除作者以賤格同呢個banner吸引人讀。作者深感不解的問題是在其它議題，是與其教義相枰. 但其聲音與教義相枰理據，這是很多人也不解。這是很多人也不解。我亦明白。人看到今天較出名的香港教會就是這樣，是事實。當然教會大可"引經據典", 話今天教徒要面對迫害。對不信教同部分信的，最大問題根本是，教會可否走出那個框架。若是要說要吸引人信，就很難不跳出那框架。事實也給人看到，點解今日咁多人反耶。你可以話世界罪惡了。但一樣邏輯，人們都可以咁睇你。將心彼己而已。billy 說對，國內教會被毀，吳宗文去咗邊
Strawberry : $6.1, easy to remember. I click in to that blog, it's from a youth pastor; I did listen to his show. What's most interesting is the comments left on his blog.
Eggplant: I care what I care. I 遊行 for what I think it is important. It is the same as the people 遊行 just for the basis salary rate or 遊行 just for the way of election of the head of HK Government or 遊行 just for 反蝗蟲. Why all these are not 賤格? Why Church only 遊行 for 反同 then Church is 賤格? I question, how many people will go to vote on any election even they claim they care about about 民生 and they 遊行 for such and such? The people may say the vote is meaningless or the way of current voting system is unfair. So, they do not go to vote. However, at least all these people should go to leave their vote in blank. (Ontario will has the Municipal Election on Oct. Don't forget to go). Regarding 國內教會被毀，吳宗文去咗邊, I don't know. However if he 遊行 for 國內教會被毀, will all people agree with all his another point of view suddenly and he will earn your respectation suddenly? Furthermore, should we 反耶 because of the behaviour of only 1 of over billion of Christian? We believe is the Love of Christ and learn from Jesus not the behaviour of 1 or a group of "Christian". Honestly, the behaviour of people will make us feel disappointed all time. That's why we are sinners.
Bilibala:
Bilibala: 同意指教會賤格就算為左爭取多d click 都有d過份.
若論遊行自由，也同意人人有其選擇和訴求，我鐘意淨撐一男一女，唔撐其他，又或 whatever way，呢個唔可以話賤格，或者反而顯得有性格:)
我只想提出幾個值得思考之處:
1. 教會(香港某三個大宗派)唔係個人，佢代表一班信徒，一個信仰群體，更代表基督在地上發聲為鹽為光，它可否享有as an individual 的同樣自由，還是該有更多社會責任呢？
2. 如果教會有其社會責任，為何只為反同發聲？or 在反同上會遊行其他不遊行？
3. 若說我們是罪人，一定會有問題 ga la. 那為什么教會包容政府作惡/不為善，卻不能包容同性戀者有更多個人權利福利？
4. 若說聖經明顯反同(性行為)，但反政府行不義，社會上好憐憫的經文，我夠膽講: 比反同多一百倍以上，教會反同遊行若是神心意，那教會在一切民生政事上不發聲，唔算賤格，但你覺唔覺教會若如此更是自証係得罪神，係失職？
4. 主耶穌有愛，什么愛？一份指出稅吏妓女淫婦(就算身不由己)有罪但接納的愛 vs 當時宗教領袖對那班人的社會權利打壓.今日教會令人感覺似前者還是後者？
5. 主耶穌會指責宗教領袖係粉飾的墳墓，指希律係狐狸，話自己按理不用交稅，暗寸當時羅馬和”摩西”律法…我不是說要反動才是對，但什么是愛？假如我信主愛，信他愛之深才責之切，今日教會愛同性戀人仕才出聲指責，那為何不出聲指責別的？是怕？是不愛嗎？
6. 說教內有不同意見，yes, 包括反同，現在教內兩邊對壘好嚴重，為何”反同”教會可以力排眾議，叫信徒站起來上街，其他就由得個人喜好？黃之峰，戴耀延佔中， thats personal, 吳宗文不撐佔中又話personal, 但他卻被認為代表教會發言？所以信徒意見不一，難道就阻得住教會發聲？
7. 溫州事件，教會上街與否幾乎改不了什么，就不發聲么？中港矛盾呢？為何不能上街逼政府正視(叫政治做d野，唔好齋食花生)？既可逼政府反同，也可逼政府做 多點，主持公道or至少叫政府量力而為？還是蘇局長那凡屎包容論就代表教會立場？教會唔係個人，局長唔係個人，有時侯為左乜發聲，發聲既內容，令人失望同 反感.所以我會怪教會同政府多過鬧爆鬧得過火果一位，這未必出 自bible teaching, just me, 你呢？
Eggplant: 1. 教會表基督在地上發聲為鹽為光. What is the actual meaning of 社會責任? comment on government's policy? So far, I have not seen Jesus comment on the Roman's empire policy. In the Bible. HE only wants the followers to help and love the neighbors. (Matthew 5:16 - In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see YOUR GOOD DEEDS and praise your Father in heaven)
2. 只為反同發聲 because it is clearly against the Bible.
3. 若說我們不是罪人，一定有問題! If we are not sinner, we don't need Jesus. If someone said 教會包容政府作惡/不為善, I don't think so. Church just believe GOD will see and punish all the unjustice. If someone read the Bible, he would read even Saul did all the unjustice, David did not kill him when he had a chance because he believed Saul was anointed by GOD. GOD is justice and look after it/him. Finally, Saul killed himself in the battle with Philistines. So, GOD only request us to do ourselves the best (Love your GOD and your neighbors).
4. Agree - Bible mention WE must help and love our neighbors and DO NOT judge the others. However, Bible do not mention we must judge the government's policy. 一切民生政事 - in my opinion, there is no absolutely right or wrong. How can we judge then?
5 (4b) - Jesus loves everyone. If someone think Church is 後者, I am sorry about that. I don't think Church is 對那班人的社會權利打壓. Church just said it is against Bible and the nature. It is the Church's point of view and stand point. If the Government still 立法 to protect the 同志, Church still can only accept. I respect their choice but please do not force me to accept it. Furthermore, Church never 打壓 anyone or anything (except it is evil). 5. 主耶穌會指責宗教領袖係粉飾的墳墓 - Bible mentioned it means 外 面 好 看 、 裡 面 卻 裝 滿 了 死 人 的 骨 頭 、 和 一 切 的 污 穢 。在 人 前 、 外 面 顯 出 公 義 來 、 裡 面 卻 裝 滿 了 假 善 和 不 法 的 事 。話自己按理不用交稅 - i think it is from Matthew 17: 24-27. According to the Bible, Jesus paid the tax anyway. In my opinion, Jesus just wanted to 暗示 HE is the King of the World instead of 暗寸當時羅馬. Don't even is 暗寸"摩西"律法 because Jesus already said He come to fulfill the Law (the Law means 摩西律法) . Jesus loves everyone. I would like to point our that 教會 is not 愛同性戀人仕才出聲指責. Church just only wants to tell the people what is the principle of Church and what is the stand point and what is the nature - father is man, mother is woman. Church never 指責 any thing or any one. So, the people can see the banner do not show anything against the 同性戀人仕, right?
6. 說教內有不同意見，yes, 包括反同，現在教內兩邊對壘好嚴重，為何反同教會可以力排眾議，叫信徒站起來上街 - it is because it is clearly against the Bible (same as point No. 2). So, it is the ground of our believers!! I don't know what are the others 不同意見 but I think all the others are arguable (policy) and all these are no absolutely right or wrong. Not the same as father is man, mother is woman. Church does not or should not get involve of polite because Church does not want to be used by the politician to convince the Church Members. However, Church will not stop the members to public their opinion of the Government's policy and 有更多社會責任.
7. Church never say 蘇局長那凡屎包容論就代表教會立場. Don't put the hat on the Church. 中港矛盾, 政府做多點，主持公道 - what is 公道, 點主持公道 ? You want 政府做多點 what? Stop all the Chinese to visit HK? Take all people no matter they are Chinese, HK Citizen or Foreigners who 拉屎 on the street on jail, send them a ticket? Again - Church does not or should not get involve of polite because Church does not want to be used by the politician to convince the Church Members. However, Church will not stop the members to public their opinion of the Government's policy and 有更多社會責任. So, we (but not the Church) can do something and care more about our community. I'll go to vote for Municipal Election on Oct. Will you?? All the above are just my own opinion not from the Church or Bible.
Bilibala: 教會該不該議政？參與政治？參與到乜程度？或者先從耶穌的doing and saying 講起
我認同你話主吩咐我們”愛神同愛鄰舍”(或譯非自己友)，那比反同在聖經更清楚不過吧？那我要調轉來問，
a. 當教會見到信徒不這樣時它該怎處理？自然是勸導.
b. 當教會見到非信徒不這樣時它該怎處理？透過遊行去對全世界說要愛人如己？遊行能改變未信嗎？似乎不能，但卻可以表達聖經立場喎！那為什么”反同”教會主將遊行，但同樣清楚的，卻不遊行？
c. 當教會見到政府不這樣時，它該怎處理？就是假如政令不仁不義，令矛盾升溫，明顯跟愛神愛人背向，該出聲罷？
但正如你所講，說得太對了，教會多數有三大理由對政府惡行沉默 c1 驚講錯，遲d先講，c2 不論斷， c3 不語政治.
c1, 冇發聲同遲遲未發聲不同，但有分別嗎？依家唔係要你做政府，provide solution, 指出問題，監察政府，為弱勢發聲都咁十五十六，這叫懦弱不是謹慎(阿婆都爆粗，都識去咨詢會指出問題. 教會卻連阿婆都不如？)
c2 “不論斷”按太7是針對教內假冒為善之人，可否無限上綱到一切事上？
c2a 那為何教外同性戀又可論斷？難道教會沒有他惡？其他經文也很清楚，為何只有反同是可論斷or不算論斷反而係行公義？
c2b 若信神會報應，如大衛不殺掃羅作例子，故不論斷，不出聲是對的. 講個極端例子，若見到人強姦打劫，我該出聲，我阻止嗎？我心裡也有淫念，我該相信他有報應吧？咁按此教導我該去買花生兼用手機拍下post 上網一邊等神就最合神心意！報警同喝止, sorry, 反而被主責怪. 以西結書話神立你 作守望者，你唔適時出聲就係失職，ok, 舊約唔buy, 淨buy 耶穌，耶穌將權柄同key給教會去審判世界，教會唔係個人，若用”不論斷”論去將沉默合理化，說得通嗎？(我不是說凡事發聲，但不發聲因不該論斷一定解錯 經， 如果這是主的原意，他就不可能是主，他也沒有承傳舊約先知的道統，也跟他一切言行不一致) c2c 用回大衛例子，為什么24, 26章不殺掃羅，但編者像三文治般夾住25章說他要殺盡拿八一家？拿八不給他保護費，罪至抄家嗎？編者眼中的大衛是怎么？在洞中谷中殺了掃羅，出面有三千 人馬，會散水定衝入來你唔知，你認為殺佢明智嗎？拿八有錢冇兵，殺左有損失？蝦得落，(咪住，係有損架，但要亞比該發聲，係及時發聲大衛才醒水). 這三章故事正告訴我們發聲止惡止錯的重要(大衛止住佢班馬，亞比該止住大衛)，而考量理由是既屬靈亦可以實際，甚至包含政治因素.
c3 不政治！我認同政治有機會令教會領袖變質腐化，但究竟教會vs 政治要幾疏離？
c3a. 耶穌時代的羅馬政權，多是地方自治, 加利利如是，猶大省則有巡撫. 但除稅收，軍事和終審，死刑等，大多容許地方/宗教執行本土法律，在猶大加利利行的是摩西律法，以及助人解釋它和活出它的他勒目.
耶穌對律法的釋 義，我們今天當然說對，當時就是敢於論政(人子釋法，你憑乜？)，也是膽敢違法達義的行動. 安息日醫治合理但不合法，為何不多等一日，果個人病左幾十年，又唔急屎點能隨時疴？再說更直接的反羅馬，主宣稱天國近了，暗示自己是王是救世主，今日我們 當然話係屬靈意義，但當日這等如同與政權單挑， 除了凱撒，那有王那有救世主？他因這政治理由被釘死係最好的証據(我感覺你唔會認同，我只想指出這至少是當時人對主行為其中的主流看法)
c3b. 每次教會反同遊行，係政府對性傾向歧視etc etc 出咨詢之時侯，上年113就成功令政府放案咨詢，故遊行是因政治，反政治而且當中透過政界信徒政治地以合法途徑去成功改變政治. 那為什么反同，政治就ok, 其他一切就不該政治？若反同政治ok,因合乎聖經，那為什么一旦政策通過，教會就似無可奈何而不一反到底？這轉變合乎聖經？是順從神重要還是順從人？那些 極權國不准教會傳福音，為何教會唔聽，唔順服而反同當法案通過教會又乖乖就範？
c3c 說到發聲會被政治中人利用，我認同！那為何反同發聲就不會被利用？”選我！我反同架！”
另 外沉默是否更容易被利用？你唔出聲我做乜都得亦代表我冇錯你支持. 香港華人教會討厭政治，認了罷，唔好合理化自己的絕對沉默. 真正能不被利用，該是什幺時侯都思考什么是真理，怎在地上締造和睦，行仁愛，公平，公義，為此發聲或沉默，政府對，支持，有不是，提醒！這從列王紀到先知 書都一致，我們信仰根基不就建在使徒先知之上？
c3d 中港矛盾有好多方法疏導，簽証，罰款，入境稅…..教會唔係政府，唔一定要有具體方案才發聲，但唔知點算就不發聲，令事件更壞，還可以理直氣壯地話”我不 講政治”係岩！唔識就學，唔肯學就唔好搬聖經出來話自己有理，指責教會的正是這書
這 一切都不止是我個人意見，有其聖經支持(當然另一些立場也可有支持)，有理性分析，也反映好多人對教會失望痛心因由(當然教會在民生上有許多參與服事，不 該抹殺，該持平地看)，作為信徒，我可以話其他人點睇我改不了總之我原意係好，作為教會，堅持過程未必一定要死撐，反思同更全面的為主為鹽為光不是更好 嗎？
觀察中，有不少堂會已經正視，多左就不同民生政治事件表達立場意見，值得鼓舞，唔容易，但肯學肯試比故步自封，自圓其說好太多！
Eggplant: Some I agree and some I disagree. But I think our sharing is good enough
Candy: 這真是個沒完沒了的discussion and sharing. 我想, 這是沒有對與錯. 大家企位唔同, 唔會有定論, 再下去, 反而容易讓一些"有心人"在當中大做文章, 又或者傷害主內感情及關係, 這更是無謂. 唯有留待上帝判斷尚為重要.
Bilibala: 覺得有d似維園阿伯，lol, 對同錯有時好清楚，有時透過論述會找到，亦有些事或者要幾代人努力才找到，用下面李思敬博士篇道(講教會，講保羅一生)來做個agree to disagree 的註腳(可能同我們討論冇乜關係 :p) still great to read.
早堂李思敬(八)：等候聖靈之囚禁與見證
Banana: 有建設性的辯論是好和有需要的，自己可以思考自己stand for 甚麼。在有信仰的立場看，要明白世界不斷更新，聖經有很多領域是open for discussion, 同時教徒有選擇，每一方都可以用聖經來支持其理據。但問題是我們是否真正明白其意義，定係理解經文時已經加了自己已定的偏見。若然信真理能越辨越明，哪怕有心人。
No comments:
Post a Comment