(To ease reading, my personal answers to follow-up questions and new questions will be provided in this single post. Therefore, this post will be updated from time to time. 為方便閱讀，我將會在此單一貼中對跟進問題和新問題提供我個人的回答，所以此貼會不斷更新。)
Why liberals call good non-Christians such as Gandhi and Confucius "Christians"? Why can't Gandhi choose not to be a Christian? 為什麼好的非基督徒要被自由派稱為基督徒？甘地和孔子是否基督徒？為什麼甘地没有自由選擇不做基督徒？
In the cornerstone of Protestant Christianity, Martin Luther's doctrine of Justification by Faith, only those who possess Christian faith can be justified and go to Heaven. This creates the problem of sending good non-Christians to Hell. Liberals tried to solve this problem by widening the definition of the term "Christian." But calling Gandhi and Confucius "Christians" might be stretching the definition too far. This issue can be solved by asking 2 separate questions: Who is a Christian? Who goes to Heaven? And the short answers are:
Gandhi and Confucius, and other good non-Christians, are not Christians.
Gandhi and Confucius, and other good non-Christians, as well as Christians, go to Heaven.
Who is a Christian? Liberals believe that a self-professed Christian shall not be robbed of his/her Christian identity on the basis of his/her reinterpretation or even rejection of some traditional Christian doctrines. On the other hand, it is disrespectful to force the label "Christian" upon those who don't know Jesus or who consciously refuse Christianity. Combining these 2 points:
A liberal definition of a "Christian" is one who self-professes to be a Christian. Therefore, a good person who knows not Jesus is not a Christian. Gandhi and Confucius are not Christians.
Now we come to the second question: Who goes to Heaven? The traditional teaching that only Christians go to Heaven carries the ethical problem of sending good non-Christians to Hell. In traditional doctrines, all humans are sinful and their "fair wage" is Eternal Death (Hell), only those who have faith in the salvation of Jesus are saved to Eternal Life (Heaven). Heaven is in effect a reward and Hell is in effect a punishment. Proper ethics requires rewarding goodness and punishing badness. Rewarding badness or punishing goodness is thus unethical.
It is unethical for any book, including the Bible, or doctrine or anyone, including God, to send people to Heaven or Hell (ie, to reward or punish) by faith (in a particular religion) instead of goodness or badness, because rewarding a (faithful) bad person or punishing a (faithless) good person is unethical. This has nothing to do with authority (some say, "God is higher than ethics"); this is a logical consequence. Just as when God is drawing a circle, the shape being drawn is not a square, no matter who draws; so when God sends a good person to eternal punishment, the act is unethical, no matter who acts. (Even if "God's logic" were that circle is square and "God's ethic" punishes goodness and rewards badness, those are meaningless to human.) Proper ethics requires a good person be rewarded (in Heaven) and a bad person be punished (in Hell). The next question is: what is the definition of a good person and what is the definition of a bad person? To solve the ethical problem of the traditional Protestant doctrine of Justification by Faith (which justifies a faithful bad person), the Chinese theologian Bishop Ting Kuang-hsun has proposed Justification by Love: a good person has a loving heart. A loving heart views others as ends, not tools (Immanuel Kant). Replacing faith with love as the criterion of justification is necessary for justifying good non-Christians (who have love but no faith in Christianity) as good, which in turn is necessary for ethics to stand (good as good, bad as bad). Justification by Love sends Gandhi and Confucius to Heaven. Justification by Faith sends them to Hell. Which one makes sense?
基督新教之根本，馬丁路德的「因信稱義」中，只有信基督教的人才可被稱為義，得上天堂。這產生一個嚴重的道德問題：好的非基督徒落地獄！自由派嘗試擴闊「基督徒」的定義以解決這個難題。但叫例如甘地和孔子做「基督徒」又似乎風馬牛不相及。這個情況可以分別問兩個問題解決：誰是基督徒？誰得上天堂？簡單直接的答案是：
甘地和孔子，及其他好的非基督徒，不是基督徒。
甘地和孔子，及其他好的非基督徒，像基督徒一樣，上天堂。
誰是基督徒？自由派認為自我宣認的基督徒不應因為重新解釋甚或拒絕某些傳統基督教教義而被扯奪基督徒身份。另一方面，強行叫不認識耶穌的人或拒絕接受基督教的人做「基督徒」，實在對他們不敬。結合這兩點：
自由派或可定義「基督徒」為自我宣認為基督徒的人。如此，一個不認識耶穌的好人不是基督徒。甘地和孔子不是基督徒。
現在我們考慮第二個問題：誰得上天堂？傳統教義說只有基督徒上天堂，這把好的非基督徒打落地獄，於是產生道德難題。傳統教義說，世人都犯了罪，罪的工價乃是死，落地獄；只有信基督救贖的人被拯救進入永生，上天堂。天堂是快樂的，實效上是一種獎賞；地獄是痛苦的，實效上是一種懲罰。正確的倫理賞善罰惡，賞惡罰善違反道德。
任何書（包括《聖經》）或教義或主體（包括神）以人的信仰而非善惡決定賞罰（天堂、地獄）便是不道德，因為賞惡（之信徒）罰善（之非信徒）是不道德的。這與權威無關（有人說：「神高於道德」），是邏輯使然。正如當神畫一個圓，被畫的形狀必定不是方，無關誰畫；當神賞惡罰善，該行動必定不道德，無關誰行動。（即使「神的邏輯」以圓為方、「神的倫理」賞惡罰善，對人是無意義的。）正確的倫理賞善人（上天堂）罰惡人（落地獄）。下一個問題是：甚麼是善人、甚麼是惡人？傳統新教教義「因信稱義」稱信的惡人為義，顛倒是非善惡。中國神學家丁光訓主教提出「因愛稱義」：善人就是有愛心的人。借康德言，真正的愛心視他人為目的，而非達到其他目的之手斷。以「愛」取代「信」作為稱義的條件，才能正確地稱善的非基督徒（他們有愛無信）為義。只有這樣，倫理才得以正常：稱善為義，稱惡為不義。「因愛稱義」認為甘地和孔子上天堂，「因信稱義」認為甘地和孔子落地獄，你說那個合理？
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bible says: "there is not one who does good, not so much as one" (Rom 3:12) "That is, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ, to all those who have faith; and one man is not different from another. For all have done wrong and are far from the glory of God." (Rom 3:22-23) How to appraise? 聖經說：「沒有行善的，連一個也沒有。」（羅3:12）「就是神的義，因信耶穌基督，加給一切相信的人，並沒有分別；因為世人都犯了罪，虧缺了神的榮耀。」（羅3:22-23）如何評價？
When someone makes a claim, we shall access whether that claim is reasonable or not. The same principle shall be applied to the claims of biblical authors. Some might object, saying that the Bible is inspired by God. The Bible as God-inspired is believed by some but not believed by others, and other holy scriptures like the Koran claim the same too, so
we cannot determine if the Bible is really inspired by God. It is improper to assert that a book as God-inspired and then interpret the whole world around that book. In the Epistle to the Romans, Paul claims that "there is not one who does good, not so much as one" (Rom 3:12), therefore everyone needs justification by faith (Rom 3:22-23). We access this claim against facts we observe. The Hong Kong volunteer Wong Fuk-wing, who has no religion, sacrificed himself to save many lives in the 2010 Qinghai earthquake.
Rom 3:12 says that he has done no good. Readers face two choices: (1), affirm that Wong has done good and kill this verse; (2) keep this verse and say that Wong has done no good. Which one you are willing to choose? The concept of the Bible here is that all human good deeds are not up to God's standard. This concept destroys and cancels human morality. No more difference between goodness and badness, for all human goodness is God's badness; hence no morality. For morality to stand, biblical verses like these must be rejected.
基本上，當有人作一些聲稱，我們便應評價該聲稱是否合理。聖經作者的聲稱亦然。有些人會反對，因為聖經是神所默示的。有些人相信聖經是神所默示的，但也有很多人不信。而且其他宗教典籍，例如古蘭經，也有類似的聲稱。所以
我們目前未能斷定聖經是否神的默示。斷言某本書是神的默示，然後以該書解釋整個世界，是不洽當的認知方法。保羅在羅馬書聲稱：「沒有行善的，連一個也沒有。」（羅3:12），所以需要「因信稱義」（羅3:22-23），悔改信耶穌。我們應以現實對比，看此聲稱是否可信。無宗教信仰的香港義工黃褔榮於一零年青海大地震中捨身救人。
聖經這句（羅3:12）認為黃褔榮沒有行善。讀者只有兩個選擇：一、肯定黃褔榮有行善，否定這句經文；二、保存這句經文，宣告黃褔榮沒有行善。你願意選那一項？聖經這裡的觀念是人類一切的善都達不到神的標準。這個觀念最嚴重的問題是剷平、取消人類的道德。人一切的善，在神眼中，都只是惡，善惡被剷平，再沒有差別，於是道德被取消了。要維護道德，唯有否定聖經這類經文。
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As Liberals read the Bible selectively according to their favour, using modern knowledge and humanistic principles to criticize the Bible, they actually believe in modern knowledge and humanistic principles instead of the Bible. Are they false Christians? 自由派既按自己的喜好選擇性地讀《聖經》，以現代知識與人道原則批判《聖經》，他們便實在是信現代知識與人道原則而非《聖經》，他們不是假基督徒嗎？
Liberals take seriously modern knowledge and humanistic principles, and believe in the core spirit of the Bible. It has been said that the core spirit of the Bible is love. If the purpose of the Bible is to teach compassion, to affirm the intrinsic value of the poor, powerless, and oppressed, to relativize this world’s wealth and personal power, and to direct our attention to the transcendental, doing these is “believing in the Bible”. As such, believing in the Bible does not include accepting all its detailed narratives and rules, and bearing in mind modern knowledge and humanistic principles while reading the Bible is not “disbelieve”. 自由派重視現代知識與人道原則，亦相信《聖經》的核心精神，兩者並沒有衝突。《聖經》的總綱就是愛。如果《聖經》的主要目的是教人愛、是肯定窮人和被壓迫者的內在價值、是相對化今世的財富與權力、是呼籲我們關心超越之事，那麼實踐這些便是「信《聖經》」了。信《聖經》不必包括接受聖經所有細節敘事及律例，所以在讀經時也考慮現代知識與人道原則便不算是「不信」《聖經》了。
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liberals say that the main purpose of the Bible is to teach "love". Isn't the main purpose of the Bible witness to Jesus, so people can believe Him and be saved (Jn 5:39)? 自由派說《聖經》的主要目的是教人愛，聖經的目的不是給耶穌作見證，叫人因信他而得救嗎（約5:39）？
In the Bible, some concepts are narrower, limited to the culture of its time, and not readily understood by and acceptable to people of other cultures and times. On the other hand, some biblical concepts are wider, less limited by culture, and are more readily understood by and acceptable to people of all cultures and all times. So-called "believe in Jesus and be saved" belongs to the former. "Love" belongs to the latter. If the main purpose of the Bible is the former, the Bible becomes meaningless to many modern people. If the main theme of the Bible is "love," it speaks to all generations of the whole world. 在《聖經》當中，有些觀念比較狹隘，受當代文化限制，對別的時空文化下的人無甚意義。有些觀念則比較寬廣，較不受文化限制，所有時空文化下的人都明白及認同。所謂「信耶穌得救」屬於前者，「愛」則屬於後者。如果前者是《聖經》的目的，《聖經》便對很多現代人無意義。如果《聖經》的主要訊息是「愛」，它便對古今四海所有人有意義地說話。
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The source of liberal faith is total human experience including the Bible, history, science, philosophy, and world religions. If there are conflicts among them, what is the priority? 自由派的信仰素材是全人經驗，包括聖經、歷史、科學、哲學、世界宗教等。請問當這些之間有矛盾時，優先次序如何決定？
Experiences which are more general, and which can be repeated and verified are more reliable. Experiences which are more special and are limited by human language and cultural customs, and those which are ancient, are less reliable. Suggested descending order of trustworthiness (for reference only): science, history, philosophy, world religions, and, lastly, ancient documents of particular religions. 更普遍、可以被反覆觀察驗證的經驗更可信，更優先。比較特殊，受人的語言、文化風俗限制，更遠古的記載，更不可信。建議從更可信到更不可信排序（只供參考）：科學、歷史、哲學、世界宗教、個別宗教的遠古文獻。
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do liberals support homosexuality? 自由派是否支持同性戀？
Yes. Conservative Christians do not oppose homosexual orientation but condemn homosexual acts. They view homosexual acts as a sin and advocate sexual abstinence for people with homosexual orientation. They view homosexual acts as a sin because the Bible says so (Rom 1:27, 1 Cor 6:9, 1 Tim 1:10) and the Bible must be right (inerrant) because it is inspired by God (2 Tim 3:16). Whether the Bible is inspired by God is perhaps the fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals. Liberals are rather reserved on the notion that a particular ancient book (or book collection) is inspired by God. They tend to understand the Bible as a human product. Human is limited by culture and incomplete knowledge, and hence bound to err, and so is the Bible. Liberals recognize that human knowledge is accumulative and trust new rather than old knowledge. Liberals are willing to admit that the negative position of the Bible towards homosexual acts is outdated and wrong. Modern science has shown that homosexual orientation is naturally-occurring among animals, is established early in life, is not harmful with save sexual practice, and that children raised by homosexual couples are perfectly well. Liberals thus conclude that people with homosexual orientation shall be treated equally as heterosexuals in terms of rights to enjoy sex, to marry, and to adopt children. 自由派支持同性戀。保守派基督徒多肯承認同性性傾向無罪，但他們仍反對同性性行為，視之為罪，鼓吹同性戀傾向者禁慾。他們視同性性行為是罪，因為《聖經》如此說（羅1:27，林前6:9，提前1:10），而《聖經》作為神的默示（提後3:16），是不可能錯的（亦即無誤）。《聖經》是否神的默示可能就是保守派與自由派的基本分歧。自由派對某本古書（或書集）乃是神所默示這說法有保留。他們傾向認為《聖經》是人的產物。人受制於文化與知識，常會出錯，人寫的《聖經》亦然。自由派察覺到人的知識是累積的，新的知識順理成章比舊的可靠。自由派不難承認《聖經》對同性性行為的劣評為過時及錯誤。科學告訴我們，同性戀傾向在動物界普遍存在、於兒童階段形成、在安全性行為之下無害，而且同性伴侶撫養的兒童完全正常。所以自由派結論同性戀傾向者應該與異性戀傾向者享有同等的性生活、婚姻、及領養之權利。
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But 40% of HIV carriers in Hong Kong are men who have sex with men (MSM), and it has been estimated that the life expectancy of homosexual men can be shortened by 8 to 20 years due to AIDS, why not liberals oppose MSM? 但香港四成的愛滋病帶菌者是男男性交者，而有估計指男同性戀者因愛滋病壽命縮短八至二十年，為何自由派不反對男男性交？
Vast majority of HIV infections among men who have sex with men (MSM) is due to unsafe sex, i.e., failure to use a condom. Consistent use of condoms is a highly effective method for preventing HIV transmission*. So, what should be opposed is unsafe sex (failure to use a condom) among MSM, but not all MSM. 男男性交者之所以感染愛滋病，是因為不安全性行為，即沒有使用安全套。恆常使用安全套能有效防止愛滋病傳播*。所以應該反對的，是不安全（不用安全套）的男男性交，不是所有的男男性交。
*
http://data.unaids.org/publications/irc-pub06/jc941-cuttingedge_en.pdf p15
Locked
