| Revision as of 23:40, 17 December 2005 editHaiduc (talk | contribs)15,071 edits →Arbitrary and biased reverts: a mionor point....← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 01:45, 1 October 2024 edit undoDimadick (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers807,945 editsNo edit summary |
| (800 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
| ⚫ |
] |
|
|
|
{{oldpeerreview|archive=1}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|listas=Bible And Homosexuality|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Judaism|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Bible|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Ancient Near East|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=low|ethics=yes|social=yes }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Discrimination|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject LGBT studies}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{controversial}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|
|counter = 6 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 1 |
|
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
⚫ |
|archive = Talk:The Bible and homosexuality/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Center for American Progress interview with Gene Robinson == |
|
==Cleanup and references== |
|
|
I've archived the previous talk page having finished cleaning up the page, as I think that most of the previous discussions aren't releveant any more. Apologies if I moved something by mistake that still needs to be addressed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I thought about adding it to the Sodom article but decided against it: |
|
I've added references to each of the sections and given arguments for different interpretations of each of the passages and so have removed the totallydisputed tag. When people add more information please provide a reference for it! This is a contentious subject and I think one of the main reasons the page got the totallydisputed tag placed on it was that references weren't given and people were adding their own ]. |
|
|
|
1) The similar view of the Anglican Communion is already covered. |
|
|
2) It is unclear whether Robinson argues for the homosexual rape thesis |
|
|
"This is not a story about two men who fall in love and pledge themselves to a monogamous, faithful, lifelong intentioned relationship. This is about homosexual rape. No one is arguing for homosexual rape—or any kind of rape—because it is an act of violence." |
|
|
or for the inhospitality thesis |
|
|
"Within the scriptures themselves, homosexual rape is not the right interpretation of Sodom and Gomorrah—yet those who argue against homosexuality keep using it." ] (]) 16:11, 30 July 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Janet Edmonds == |
|
I've also removed a short section on 1 Peter which you can see , as it wasn't referenced and I couldn't find anyone using it in any of the arguments about homosexuality. --] 09:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:Great work, this article had been in an awful state for a long time. - ] 15:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I found her work on this blog: T. |
|
== Edits to 1 Corinthians == |
|
|
|
She is: |
|
|
|
|
|
"The author, Janet Edmonds, is a longtime member of Bethesda United Methodist Church in Bethesda, Maryland. Currently, the official policy of the United Methodist Church does not allow self-avowed practicing homosexuals to be ordained ministers, nor does it allow United Methodist clergy to officiate at same-sex marriage ceremonies or to hold these ceremonies in United Methodist churches. In addition, The United Methodist Book of Discipline currently states that, “The practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching.” Janet wrote this booklet in September 2016 to help people understand that the Bible doesn’t say that homosexuality is a sin and with the hope of someday changing these United Methodist rules. As Christians, we are asked to seek justice. It is the author’s hope that this booklet will help to bring justice for LGBTQ individuals who have been condemned far too long." |
|
I moved some information from ] to 1 Corinthians, as I thought it was more appropriate here. I integrated it and checked it with what was already here and the only paragraph that I felt needed to be added was on the Church Fathers. However, an anon editor feels that I have deleted information, so I hope that we can discuss it here, rather than get into a revert war. Compare my original insertation and the anon's addition/over-writing of the section . |
|
|
|
It is cited once by . ] (]) 17:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
There were originally three paragraphs in the Controversy over Biblical terminology section. The first paragraph dealt with the translation of "arsenokoitēs". The two versions are similar, but the one from H&C was not referenced. The second paragraph dealt with the Church Fathers and contains the same information, but I have rewritten it slightly for style and added some links. The third paragraph dealt with the translation of "lo tishkav" from Leviticus, which is already covered in the Leviticus section. Anon, could you please explain exactly what you prefer about the version from H&C and then perhaps we can work out a solution to this please. Thanks! --] 11:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Arbitrary and biased reverts == |
|
|
|
|
|
I am sorry to see that this page seems to have fallen under the control of a group of anons who strong-arm a distorted presentation of the topic. ] 00:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Although I had nothing to do with reverting your changes, I would note that quite a few of them involved the deletion of referenced material or quotes (which was noted in the edit summaries of the reversions). You might not agree with the quotes (and I certainly don't agree with all of them), but the fact is that they've been said and published either in journals, books or by major groups. The Genesis material was hardly "irrelevant" as Hilborn (amongst others) used it to argue that Genesis forms the basis for all human sexual relationships, while the quote you removed sums up many people's attitude to the arguments Vasey, Williams, etc make. |
|
|
:On Luke 7, the "lengthy...semantic foray" is hardly "irrelevant" as it establishes the point that pais is used in a variety of different ways in the Gospels and by Luke himself. I have however readded your reference to the NET Bible and added a counter-argument to Marston's statement (although we really need to find a reference for it). I also added inhospitality to the list of sins of Sodom. Your paragraph about abominations in Leviticus was interesting, but I haven't readded it as you didn't cite any sources. |
|
|
:As I've said already on this page, if we can add things that we can reference we won't end up back with a totallydisputed tag and hopefully we'll avoid edit wars. --] 22:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
::Thank you. I have nothing further to add at this time, except to point out that we do not need references in order to contextualize the use of "abomination" in Leviticus, in the same way in which we contextualize the use of "pais" or "entimos". ] 22:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
::Well, I have taken a look at your edits and I ''do'' have something to add. The Marston attack, which is a slur, of claiming "pedophilic" sex for the centurion and his slave needs to be placed in the perspective of the legal age for marriage in Ancient Rome for a woman, which was age 12. ''See and and .'' It is absurd to wave the flag of pedophilia in light of these figures, and if the quote is allowed to remain it needs to be qualified accordingly, lest we become an uncritical mouthpiece for a biased rant. ] 23:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
I thought about adding it to the Sodom article but decided against it:
1) The similar view of the Anglican Communion is already covered.
2) It is unclear whether Robinson argues for the homosexual rape thesis
"This is not a story about two men who fall in love and pledge themselves to a monogamous, faithful, lifelong intentioned relationship. This is about homosexual rape. No one is arguing for homosexual rape—or any kind of rape—because it is an act of violence."
or for the inhospitality thesis
"Within the scriptures themselves, homosexual rape is not the right interpretation of Sodom and Gomorrah—yet those who argue against homosexuality keep using it." 2A02:1810:BC04:4B00:A57A:AF0B:2B41:B90F (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
.svg){kind=small}
