评论
打印
And indeed, in the handful of places that the Bible talks about homosexuality, it's almost always in the context of a discussion of idolatry because homosexuality was very much associated with certain pagan practices.
而且事实上，在圣经寥寥几段关于同性恋的段落里，上下文的背景几乎都是在探讨偶像崇拜，而这里的同性恋在很大程度上是与异教徒的行为联系在一起的。
If that's the kind of thing that Biblical authors had in mind, if that's what they meant, then what they're talking about and I'm talking about are very different things, and to use those passages that way would be to pull them out of context.
如果这是圣经的撰写者心中所想的话，如果这是他们的本意，那么他们所说的和我在这里所说的，是完全迥异的两件事，而把某段话单独拿出来离开上下文去解读的话，那就是断章取义。
Now, a few caveats and clarifications.
简单附加说明和澄清几句。
First of all, I want to make it clear what I'm not saying here.
首先，请不要把我的意思进行曲解。
I'm not saying, "Hey, the Bible is old, so forget about it. Ignore it. Just pick the parts you like."
我并没有说圣经已经老旧过时。忘了它吧，或者忽略掉它，或者仅取需要的段落来用作论据。
A lot of people do that on different sides of the debate.
事实上在辩论时，论辩双方常常都在怎么做。
I don't think that's a very good way to proceed.
我不认为这是种好的做法。
Rather, I'm saying that if you're going to understand what the Bible means for us today, we have to understand that the Biblical authors' concerns and our concerns may be different, and that's relevant to our interpretation of the text.
而我的意思是，如果你想理解圣经对于身处今天的我们的意义，你需要先理解这一点：圣经的撰写者们关注的东西与我们关注的东西可能大相径庭。而这点，对于我们今天该如何理解演绎圣经文本，有着非常大的意义。
And the alternative to that is to commit ourselves to very strange views on women's roles, on slavery, and a host of other things.
如果不是这样，我们就只能拥抱一些在今天看来很不正常的观点了，比如妇女地位低下，奴隶制等一大堆东西。
Second, having said that, I'm not so convinced that any amount of context is going to help the slavery passages.
第二点，即使我前面讨论了那么多，也不代表我认为是否"断章取义"能改变那些关于奴隶制的段落的意义。
I think that when we look to those passages, we have to admit that the prejudices and limitations of the Biblical authors crept into the text, and if they did that with respect to slavery, it could have happened with respect to homosexuality.
我们必须承认圣经的撰写者，把偏见和时代的局限带入到了圣经的文本之中。而如果他们谈到奴隶制的时候，是带着偏见和时代局限的话，那么当他们谈到同性恋的话，是不是也可能带着偏见和时代局限呢？
Finally, it seems to me in many cases, not all, but in many cases the Bible is not really the root of the objection here.
最后我想说，对我来说，在很多情况下--并不总是--但很多，圣经并不是那些反对声音的根源。
What often happens is people have an objection to homosexuality, maybe for reasons they don't quite understand, and then they use the Bible and bring it in to back that up.
更多的情况是，当人们反对同性恋的时候，原因很可能是他们没有足够了解同性恋，所以他们拿出了圣经，然后用里面的话支撑这种先入为主的观点。
Why do I think this? Well, let me tell you a story.
为什么我这么说呢？有这么一件事。
Many years ago, I was briefly a graduate student at Notre Dame, which, as you know, is a major Catholic university.
很多年前，我曾短暂地在圣母院大学读研究生。没错，圣母院大学时一所著名的天主教教会学校。
At Notre Dame, we were told by the administration that we could not have a gay and lesbian group on campus because that would conflict with Catholic teaching.
在这里，校方告诉我们不能在这里的校园内成立男女同性恋组织，原因是这与此处的天主教教育有冲突。
And over and over, the administration would say, "You cannot have a gay and lesbian group. That conflicts with Catholic teaching."
校方一次又一次地告诉我们："你们不能在这里成立男女同性恋组织，因为和这里的天主教教育理念有冲突。"
We did have a Muslim student group on campus and a Jewish student group on campus.
可我们这里成立了穆斯林学生组织，成立了犹太学生组织。
Muslims and Jews both deny the Divinity of Christ, which, when I went to Catholic school, was a very important part of Catholic teaching.
穆斯林和犹太人连耶稣基督的神性都不承认，而耶稣基督，在天主教学校的教育里是非常重要的角色！
This wasn't really about Catholic teaching, I don't think...at least not nicely, I think you know, they had this objection, and they pulled in Catholic teaching when it was convenient.
所以整件事和天主教教育无关。他们先入为主地反对某样东西，然后随手把天主教教育理念拉过来作为挡箭牌，简单轻松。
