Misplaced Pages

Talk:The Bible and homosexuality: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:38, 24 October 2019 editTgeorgescu (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users55,184 edits →Ruth and Naomi: not fringe← 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 
(77 intermediate revisions by 27 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|class=|importance=|ethics=yes |social=yes }} {{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=low|ethics=yes|social=yes }}
{{WikiProject Sociology|class=|importance=}} {{WikiProject Sociology|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Sexuality|class=|importance=}} {{WikiProject Discrimination|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Psychology|class=|importance=}} {{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject LGBT studies}}
}} }}
{{controversial}} {{controversial}}
Line 21: Line 22:
}} }}


== Center for American Progress interview with Gene Robinson ==
== Middat Sedom ==


I thought about adding it to the Sodom article but decided against it:
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)
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)


== But actually == == Janet Edmonds ==


I found her work on this blog: T.
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)
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."
== "Traditionalist" ==
It is cited once by . ] (]) 17:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

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? –] (] &sdot; ]) 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. –] (] &sdot; ]) 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)
**{{reply|Rosguill}} I would be fine with removing "clear overall", and also with substituting "traditionally" for "historically" if that would address any of WKWWK's concerns. Now that you bring it up, it may in fact be worth noting ''male'' homosexuality in our sentence, or addressing some of these other concerns - I was mostly, as I said, concerned by implying things that were incorrect through the use of "traditionalist". Like I said, the current wording does not state or imply, imo, that no Christians interpret the verse differently or accept gay people. –] (] &sdot; ]) 20:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Roscelese. ]] (]) 19:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Roscelese. ] (]) 01:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
* '''Comment:''' {{re|Wekeepwhatwekill}}, this Rfc was premature, in my opinion. I realize you are a new user (welcome to Misplaced Pages!), but do have a look at ] next time, before jumping straight to the Rfc process after ]. Thanks, ] (]) 01:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Thanks to those who have contributed their considerable scholarship to various aspects of this issue! One clear problem would be capitalizing "Traditionalist" since there's no formal group so designated in these faiths. But basically, the article shows the complexity of the issue and any such simplification in the lede would be unhelpful. ] (]) 11:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. While I sympathise with {{u|Wekeepwhatwekill}} regarding the perhaps overly broad nature of the statement, the use of a capitalised "Traditionalist" label is poorly defined, not particularly neutral and generally unhelpful. I would support the use of more neutral words like "many" or "most" instead of "Traditionalist" to qualify the statement (ideally with a ] to support it). While it is not the question of this RFC, I also support the removal of the phrase "clear overall" from the statement as per {{u|Rosguill}}'s suggestion. Finally, {{replyto|Wekeepwhatwekill}} I agree with {{u|Mathglot}} that there was ] prior to raising this RFC. ] (]) 23:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Traditionalist is not defined. I agree with the above suggestion to add something like "some" or "many". That would necessitate some well sourced discussion elsewhere in the article. It's never too soon for an RfC. The more the merrier. ] | ] 07:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
::*'''Comment''' - ] and ] It seems that it's well enough understood ] ] two Misplaced Pages articles written about it, and both cover the religious component of Traditionalism.
:::] and ] - the rfc was more or less an IAR move. The discussion on this page involved myself and another user and we didn't agree. Time elapsed an no one else joined this discussion. Dispute resolution, is then, the correct course. A third opinion on this issue seemed incorrect as it's contentious, therefore an RFC seemed to be the correct course for this as multiple opinions could be gained this way, and yes, it wouldn't be the normal way to go about this , I'm aware. It was, again, an IAR approach. ]]</span> 14:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

== Ruth and Naomi ==

IMHO, Coogan renders the ] view, but we shouldn't reject the opposite view as totally inadequate. I don't consider feminist theology as ]. ] (]) 20:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 01:45, 1 October 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Bible and homosexuality article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
The Bible and homosexuality received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconChristianity Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconJudaism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconBible Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAncient Near East Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ancient Near East–related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPhilosophy: Ethics / Social and political Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Ethics
Taskforce icon
Social and political philosophy
WikiProject iconSociology Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconDiscrimination Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconSexology and sexuality Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconLGBTQ+ studies
WikiProject iconThis article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Center for American Progress interview with Gene Robinson

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)

Janet Edmonds

I found her work on this blog: The Clobber Verses | Serendipitydodah (wordpress.com). 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." It is cited once by Same-Sex-Marriage-in-Ghana-Scripture-Health-Law-and-Bioethics.pdf (researchgate.net). 2A02:1810:BC04:4B00:A57A:AF0B:2B41:B90F (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Categories:
Talk:The Bible and homosexuality: Difference between revisions Add topic