評論
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.
而且事實上，在圣經寥寥幾段關于同性戀的段落里，上下文的背景幾乎都是在探討偶像崇拜，而這里的同性戀在很大程度上是與異教徒的行為聯系在一起的。
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.
如果這是圣經的撰寫者心中所想的話，如果這是他們的本意，那么他們所說的和我在這里所說的，是完全迥異的兩件事，而把某段話單獨拿出來離開上下文去解讀的話，那就是斷章取義。
Now, a few caveats and clarifications.
簡單附加說明和澄清幾句。
First of all, I want to make it clear what I'm not saying here.
首先，請不要把我的意思進行曲解。
I'm not saying, "Hey, the Bible is old, so forget about it. Ignore it. Just pick the parts you like."
我并沒有說圣經已經老舊過時。忘了它吧，或者忽略掉它，或者僅取需要的段落來用作論據。
A lot of people do that on different sides of the debate.
事實上在辯論時，論辯雙方常常都在怎么做。
I don't think that's a very good way to proceed.
我不認為這是種好的做法。
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，如果你想理解圣經對于身處今天的我們的意義，你需要先理解這一點：圣經的撰寫者們關注的東西與我們關注的東西可能大相徑庭。而這點，對于我們今天該如何理解演繹圣經文本，有著非常大的意義。
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.
如果不是這樣，我們就只能擁抱一些在今天看來很不正常的觀點了，比如婦女地位低下，奴隸制等一大堆東西。
Second, having said that, I'm not so convinced that any amount of context is going to help the slavery passages.
第二點，即使我前面討論了那么多，也不代表我認為是否"斷章取義"能改變那些關于奴隸制的段落的意義。
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.
我們必須承認圣經的撰寫者，把偏見和時代的局限帶入到了圣經的文本之中。而如果他們談到奴隸制的時候，是帶著偏見和時代局限的話，那么當他們談到同性戀的話，是不是也可能帶著偏見和時代局限呢？
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.
最后我想說，對我來說，在很多情況下--并不總是--但很多，圣經并不是那些反對聲音的根源。
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.
更多的情況是，當人們反對同性戀的時候，原因很可能是他們沒有足夠了解同性戀，所以他們拿出了圣經，然后用里面的話支撐這種先入為主的觀點。
Why do I think this? Well, let me tell you a story.
為什么我這么說呢？有這么一件事。
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，我曾短暫地在圣母院大學讀研究生。沒錯，圣母院大學時一所著名的天主教教會學校。
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.
在這里，校方告訴我們不能在這里的校園內成立男女同性戀組織，原因是這與此處的天主教教育有沖突。
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訴我們："你們不能在這里成立男女同性戀組織，因為和這里的天主教教育理念有沖突。"
We did have a Muslim student group on campus and a Jewish student group on campus.
可我們這里成立了穆斯林學生組織，成立了猶太學生組織。
Muslims and Jews both deny the Divinity of Christ, which, when I went to Catholic school, was a very important part of Catholic teaching.
穆斯林和猶太人連耶穌基督的神性都不承認，而耶穌基督，在天主教學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無關。他們先入為主地反對某樣東西，然后隨手把天主教教育理念拉過來作為擋箭牌，簡單輕松。
