| Revision as of 19:58, 10 October 2019 editStAnselm (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers160,774 edits →Rfc on inclusion of the word "traditional" or not← 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 |
| (93 intermediate revisions by 31 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{oldpeerreview|archive=1}} |
|
{{oldpeerreview|archive=1}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|listas=Bible And Homosexuality|1= |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject LGBT studies| class=B}} |
|
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Christianity|class=B|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Judaism|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Judaism|class=C|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Bible|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Bible|class=B|importance=High}} |
|
{{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}} |
|
{{controversial}} |
| Line 17: |
Line 22: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Center for American Progress interview with Gene Robinson == |
|
== Revert == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I thought about adding it to the Sodom article but decided against it: |
|
I reverted the recent change to the lede because it ] re: many debated passages, which the article discusses. –] (] ⋅ ]) 16:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
1) The similar view of the Anglican Communion is already covered. |
|
: There are already 3 sections in this talk page called "revert". Please name the issue at the head of the section. Not always "revert". I don't know what you are talking about so I don't know what this section should be named.--] (]) 18:01, 7 June 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
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) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Boy == |
|
== Janet Edmonds == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
I found her work on this blog: T. |
|
{{ping|76.216.121.9}} I've reverted "boy" back to "male" in the Leviticus because if I recall correctly, a previous ] established a consensus translation to use in this article. Also, I don't see "boy" in any of the other translations cited in the link. Are you perhaps misremembering? There's some thought that the prohibition stems from a cultural context of pederasty or of male sacred prostitution, but I'm not aware that it's specifically considered a translation issue with "boy". –] (] ⋅ ]) 22:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
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." |
|
== Middat Sedom == |
|
|
|
It is cited once by . ] (]) 17:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
I don't have time to add this now, but 's a useful reference on ''middat Sedom'' or Sodom-like conduct in the Talmud. In general, the ] article has some clarifications about the Jewish position historically that may be useful here. –] (] ⋅ ]) 03:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== But actually == |
|
|
|
|
|
I've removed the Creech section. We discuss the "arsenokoites" situation extensively in the article and it is not at all as unambiguous as the addition claimed. –] (] ⋅ ]) 19:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== "Traditionalist" == |
|
|
|
|
|
I've removed "traditionalist" from ''These two verses have historically been interpreted by Traditionalist ] and ] as clear overall prohibitions against homosexual acts in general''. The semantic value added by "traditionalist" is already added by "historically" - we're not suggesting that the interpretation was objectively correct and eternally valid, only that this is how it has generally been read. If there are significant historical examples of non-traditionalist movements interpreting the verse in other ways, we can discuss that. –] (] ⋅ ]) 16:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:I disagree with the removal (granted, I'm the one who inserted "Traditionalist" to begin with). The current wording gives the impression that ''All'' Christians and Jews view homosexuality and the bible in that same way, and that's simply not true, that's why I inserted the word "Traditional" (as opposed to "inclusionists"). However, I was bold, you reverted, now it get's discussed. I '''Support''' adding "traditional into the sentence as it , what do the rest of you say? ]]</span> 18:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::I don't think the current wording ''does'' give that impression. It says that this has been the historical interpretation of the verse, which I think it would be hard to contradict. Beyond what we already include in the article about how recent interpretation has emphasized the historical context of the verse as distinguishing Israelites from their idolatrous neighbors, what is it that you feel is missing? –] (] ⋅ ]) 19:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Rfc on inclusion of the word "traditional" or not == |
|
|
{{rfc|reli|rfcid=3C5FA19}} |
|
|
This rfc is being opened to attract more discussion on the following subject and to gain consensus one way or the other: |
|
|
|
|
|
The second sentence in the article currently reads: |
|
|
|
|
|
<i>"These two verses have historically been interpreted by Jews and Christians as clear overall prohibitions against homosexual acts in general."</i> |
|
|
|
|
|
I propose to insert word "Traditionalist" so that the sentence reads: |
|
|
|
|
|
<i>"These two verses have historically been interpreted by <b>Traditionalist</b> Jews and Christians as clear overall prohibitions against homosexual acts in general."</i> |
|
|
|
|
|
I propose to make this change because: |
|
|
|
|
|
'''1.)''' Since not all Christians support this interpretation, it would make the wording more accurate, as the current wording, IMHO makes it look like ''all'' Christians support that interpretation. |
|
|
|
|
|
'''2.)''' There is no source being used to support the current sentence as it stands. |
|
|
|
|
|
I have attempted to add the word "Traditionalist" once, Roscelese doesn't support this and has removed it, as is her right. We started a discussion, and so far it's been only her and I. So I now welcome more eyes and hands to this discussion. What do you think ? ]]</span> 14:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Oppose'''. I don't believe that the current wording, with "historically", gives the impression that all Christians support this interpretation, and adding "traditionalist" is implying that throughout history, "non-traditionalist" movements have interpreted the verse in other ways, which I think would be difficult to support. See the rest of my argument further up the talk page. It would take 2 seconds to support the claim that historically, this verse has been interpreted as a prohibition on homosexuality, if indeed a suitable source isn't already in the article. –] (] ⋅ ]) 15:36, 10 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
*I would oppose the addition of "traditionalist" per Roscelese above. However, I do agree that the current wording is problematic without a source, and may even be inaccurate. A few minutes of reading other relevant articles on Misplaced Pages led me to find that {{tq|Initially, canons against sodomy were aimed at ensuring clerical or monastic discipline, and were only widened in the medieval period to include laymen.}} in ] and that {{tq|lesbianism is not explicitly prohibited in the Bible}} in ]. While a more thorough review of relevant literature would probably find that interpretations of these verses as being prohibitions on homosexual activity were the norm historically, it seems a stretch to say that these verses were interpreted as "clear overall" prohibitions, since exceptions to their clarity and overall-ness are attested by reliable sources. I would thus propose that we change the at-issue text to read ''These two verses have historically been interpreted by Jews and Christians as prohibitions against homosexual acts in general''. |
|
|
:That having been said, while I'm proposing this as a short term improvement and compromise, even this solution may be inaccurate, particularly w/r/t Jewish attitudes for the following reasons: |
|
|
:#It's not clear that Jewish prohibitions against lesbian acts stem from this verse; they are most directly taken from the ], and it's unclear if the rabbis of the Talmud were using these verses as the basis of their rulings |
|
|
:#Describing Jewish prohibitions as being {{tq|against homosexual acts in general}} may be inaccurate. The text in ] currently suggests that while ''intercourse'' was prohibited, attraction was not, which means that homosexual acts short of intercourse may have been considered permissible. |
|
|
:Thus, until proper sources are provided, it may be best to rewrite the sentence to read ''These two verses have historically been interpreted by Christians as overall prohibitions against homosexual acts in general''. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 18:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' per Roscelese. ]] (]) 19:58, 10 October 2019 (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}
