| Revision as of 04:26, 23 January 2020 editSineBot (talk | contribs)Bots2,556,412 editsm Signing comment by Metanoia2019 - "→Re: Havelock Ellis: "← 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 |
| (41 intermediate revisions by 21 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 Christianity|class=B|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Judaism|class=C|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Judaism|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Bible|class=B|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Bible|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Philosophy|class=b|importance=|ethics=yes |social=yes }} |
|
{{WikiProject Ancient Near East|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Sociology|class=b|importance=}} |
|
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=low|ethics=yes|social=yes }} |
|
{{WikiProject Sexuality|class=b|importance=}} |
|
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Psychology|class=b|importance=}} |
|
{{WikiProject Discrimination|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject LGBT studies| class=B|listas=Bible And Homosexuality}} |
|
{{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject LGBT studies}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{controversial}} |
|
{{controversial}} |
| Line 21: |
Line 22: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Center for American Progress interview with Gene Robinson == |
|
== Rfc on inclusion of the word "traditional" or not == |
|
|
<div class="boilerplate archived" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">{{Quote box |
|
|
| title = |
|
|
| title_bg = #C3C3C3 |
|
|
| title_fnt = #000 |
|
|
| quote = There is a clear consensus against inserting the word "Traditionalist" in the sentence.<p>] (]) 05:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
| width = 30%|halign=left}} |
|
|
:''The following discussion is closed. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''<!-- from Template:Archive top--> |
|
|
---- |
|
|
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 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." ] (]) 16:11, 30 July 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Janet Edmonds == |
|
<i>"These two verses have historically been interpreted by Jews and Christians as clear overall prohibitions against homosexual acts in general."</i> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I found her work on this blog: T. |
|
I propose to insert word "Traditionalist" so that the sentence reads: |
|
|
|
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>"These two verses have historically been interpreted by <b>Traditionalist</b> Jews and Christians as clear overall prohibitions against homosexual acts in general."</i> |
|
|
|
It is cited once by . ] (]) 17:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
|
**{{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. –] (] ⋅ ]) 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) |
|
|
* '''Comment:''' I am tempted to agree with you ] however, there was no evidence provided for inserting this term, and without that and thus left as-is, I would oppose on that grounds. Some of the discussions above discuss what Traditionalists mean (as that term has different meanings in different contexts) and thus overall it seems this entire issue needs clearer definitions via credible resources. --- ] (]) 19:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
---- |
|
|
: ''The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''<!-- from ] --></div><div style="clear:both;"></div> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Addition of homoerotic passages == |
|
|
|
|
|
Reading this article I note that it lacks references to several sections of scripture with homoerotic overtones. The section on David and Jonathan seems underdeveloped for the amount of debate occurring today, for example, and lacks reference to troubles that translators have with the Hebrew "ag higdil" - today very politely and possibly bowlderized as "David wept the more" - in 1 Samuel 20:41 (Michael Coogan's views notwithstanding, even Coogan's own NRSV commentary notes that the Hebrew is incomprehensible - Oxford UP 2018). There's also Jacob and the Angel and Joseph as Sissy Boy, each supported by scholarly analyses that point out homoerotic overtones. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Changed bible translation from KJV to NRSV == |
|
|
|
|
|
I've changed some of the translations of bible passages used from KJV to NRSV to reflect a more mainstream academic English language bible translation (See: ] and ]) ] (]) 01:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
- Just adding my thanks for this. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Proposed edit of 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 section == |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm going to re-write 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 section as follows: |
|
|
|
|
|
Original: |
|
|
{{Quote|text= |
|
|
The Greek word ''arsenokoitai'' ({{lang|grc|ἀρσενοκοῖται}}) in verse 9 has been debated for some time, and has been variously rendered as "sodomites" (NRSV), "abusers of themselves with mankind" (KJV), "men who have sex with men" (NIV) or "practicing homosexuals" (NET). Martin Luther translated the term as ''Knabenschaender'', or pederasts. Greek {{lang|grc|ἄῤῥην / ἄρσην}} means "male", and {{lang|grc|κοίτην}} "bed", with a sexual connotation.<ref name="pregeant">{{cite book|last=Pregeant|first=Russell|editor=Stefan Koenemann & Ronald A. Jenner|title =Knowing truth, doing good: engaging New Testament ethics|publisher =Fortress Press|year =2008|page=252|isbn =978-0-8006-3846-7|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=5kvAQEFk5K8C&lpg=PA252}}</ref> Paul's use of the word in 1 Corinthians is the earliest example of the term; its only other usage is in a similar list of wrongdoers given (possibly by the same author) in 1 Timothy 1:8–11: In the letter to the Corinthians, within the list of people who will not inherit the kingdom of God, Paul uses two Greek words: ''malakoi'' and ''arsenokoitai''. '']'' is a common Greek word meaning, of things subject to touch, "soft" (used in Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25 to describe a garment); of things not subject to touch, "gentle"; and, of persons or modes of life, a number of meanings that include "]".<ref name="Scott">{{cite web|url=http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=MALAKO%2FS |title=Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, ''A Greek-English Lexicon'', entry μαλακός |publisher=Perseus.tufts.edu |date= |accessdate=2014-03-11}}</ref> Nowhere else in ] is malakoi used to describe a person. |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
New: |
|
|
{{Quote|text= |
|
|
In the letter to the Corinthians, within the list of people who will not inherit the kingdom of God, Paul uses two Greek words: ] ({{lang|grc|μαλακοὶ}}) and arsenokoitai ({{lang|grc|ἀρσενοκοῖται}}). |
|
|
|
|
|
Arsenokoitai (translated 'sodomites' in above translation) is a word first used by Paul in 1 Corinthians (and later in 1 Timothy 1). It is a compound word from the Greek words 'arrhēn / arsēn' ({{lang|grc|ἄῤῥην / ἄρσην}}) meaning "male", and koitēn ({{lang|grc|κοίτην}}) meaning "bed", with a sexual connotation.<ref name="pregeant">{{cite book|last=Pregeant|first=Russell|editor=Stefan Koenemann & Ronald A. Jenner|title =Knowing truth, doing good: engaging New Testament ethics|publisher =Fortress Press|year =2008|page=252|isbn =978-0-8006-3846-7|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=5kvAQEFk5K8C&lpg=PA252}}</ref> Arsenokoitai has been variously rendered as "sodomites" (NRSV), "abusers of themselves with mankind" (KJV), "men who have sex with men" (NIV) or "practicing homosexuals" (NET). |
|
|
|
|
|
Malakoi (translated 'male prostitutes' in above translation) is a common Greek word meaning, of things subject to touch, "soft" (used in Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25 to describe a garment); of things not subject to touch, "gentle"; and, of persons or modes of life, a number of meanings that include "pathic".<ref name="Scott">{{cite web|url=http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=MALAKO%2FS |title=Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, ''A Greek-English Lexicon'', entry μαλακός |publisher=Perseus.tufts.edu |date= |accessdate=2014-03-11}}</ref> |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
Removed: |
|
|
* Nowhere else in scripture is malakoi used to describe a person. - Point should be made in the interpretation section |
|
|
* Martin Luther translated the term as ''Knabenschaender'', or pederasts. - Irrelevant to discussion |
|
|
|
|
|
If no objections, I'll edit accordingly. ] (]) 03:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:OBJECT: Please leave reference to pederasty in place. Martin Luther's translation of the word is hardly irrelevant inasmuch as it (1) bears witness to the point that several scholars make that Paul was specifically writing about (underage by today's standards) temple catamites, (2) is representative of a number of translations, and (3) was in widespread use in the US up to the late 19th century and informed a number of cultural stereotypes about gay men during a period in which homosexuality was pathologized. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:: While Martin Luther's translation is interesting. I think it is more relevant to the interpretation section (or even ]). It's a historical interpretation that I couldn't find any modern translation using. ] (]) 23:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Disagree. This section presents various ways in which an obscure Greek neologism has been rendered in modern translations. If the KJV is modern, so too is the Luther Bible. You'll find the same in Swedish and Norwegian etc. translations from this era as well; these, like the Luther Bible, have Paul indicating that <i>pederasts</i> will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. These are foundational translations and the discussion would be incomplete without them. - ] |
|
|
::::I left the KJV in there as a large number of modern bible readers (not scholars) will use that translation. Happy to remove if it makes you more comfortable? For simplicity, I'll move the sentence about Luther's translation to the interpretation section so it is still in the article as it has relevance just not to the introduction of that section ] (]) 08:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Disagree. Please leave reference to KJV in place. Please leave references to pederasty in place; these belong to the body of well-known translations of the word, rather than interpretations of it. |
|
|
:::::: How about, this sentence at the end of that paragraph: "Historical translations have translated into English as "abusers of themselves with mankind" (KJV) and Martin Luther translated the term as Knabenschaender, or pederasts." |
|
|
:::::: That way we're prioritising more up to date scholarship while also mentioning important historical translations? ] (]) 12:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Possibly, though I think most serious scholars these days would say that we can't really know exactly what Paul meant - hence the wide array of translations we see here and the reams and reams of books currently in print on the topic all with competing viewpoints. And I disagree that we can call the NIV or NEV scholarship as such. But in the interest of moving forward, what about "...or "practicing homosexuals" (NET), while Martin Luther and others translated the term as 'pederasts.'" |
|
|
|
|
|
OBJECT: I also don't think you can quite say that this was a word "first used by Paul"; he appears to be borrowing it from the Septuagint translations of Lev. 18:22 and 20:23. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
: Pretty confident Paul was the first person to use the word. Although, as you've noted, it is likely he is borrowing from the Septuagint. Which is noted in detail on ]. Would you be more happy with the line being changed to: |
|
|
:"...first used by Paul in 1 Corinthians (and later in 1 Timothy 1) although many scholars consider it to be adapted from the wording of the Septuagint translations of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:23."<ref name="Greenberg">David F. Greenberg, ''The Construction of Homosexuality'', 1990. Page 213: |
|
|
:"The details of Boswell's argument have been challenged by several scholars — to this nonspecialist, persuasively.<sup>166</sup> These challengers suggest that arsenokoites was coined in an attempt to render the awkward<sup>[Page 214]</sup> phrasing of the Hebrew in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 into Greek,<sup>167</sup> or that it derives from an almost identical construction in the Septuagint translation of the Leviticus prohibitions.<sup>168</sup> A neologism was needed precisely because the Greeks did not have a word for homosexuality, only for specific homosexual relations (pederasty) and roles ..."</ref> ] (]) 23:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Disagree. None of us can say with metaphysical certainty that Paul - or anyone for that matter - was the first to use this word. It would be more accurate to note that this is the first recorded usage of what appears to be a neologism. And disagree that we can say that Paul wrote 1 Timothy as a majority of scholars find conclusive evidence that 1 Timothy is pseudoepigraphic. Is the Greenberg excerpt new? It feels tangential and editorializes a bit. - ] |
|
|
:::: How about: "...first recorded use by Paul in 1 Corinthians (and possibly later in 1 Timothy 1) although many scholars consider it to be adapted from the wording of the Septuagint translations of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:23"<ref name="Greenberg" /> |
|
|
:::: The Greenburg ref was used on the New Testament and Homosexuality article but if you can find another reference I'm happy to add/replace the Greenburg one ] (]) 08:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I think this would work better without the reference to 1 Timothy 1. Or for clarity, "and later in 1 Timothy 1, attributed to Paul." I can live with the Greenberg, though I wish he hadn't editorialized. Somewhere here though we will want to note the number of scholars who believe that the section of Leviticus 18 in which verse 22 appears was added to the text by a later writer. That would be unwieldy here of course. Maybe best to link up to the section on Leviticus and go from there? - ] |
|
|
::::::Nicly worded. So how about: "...first recorded use by Paul in 1 Corinthians (and later in 1 Timothy 1, attributed to Paul) although many scholars consider it to be adapted from the wording of the Septuagint translations of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:23"<ref name="Greenberg" />] (]) 12:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
That works for me. Thanks for suggesting it. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small> |
|
|
|
|
|
I don't believe it's appropriate to suggest that the translation as "sodomites" etc. isn't also "interpretation." There isn't really a good reason to separate out the discussion into a subsection. I do however approve of the use of a topic sentence in the section. –] (] ⋅ ]) 16:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Reflist-talk}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Re: Havelock Ellis == |
|
|
|
|
|
Whether we keep the Ellis reference or not, "some sexual scholars" is a terrible phrasing. Beyond that, however, {{reply|Mathglot}} I think you're making a couple of unencyclopedic leaps of logic. Ellis wasn't a biblical scholar or, for that matter, a historian, yes? So his opinion may be admissible in suggesting that "even" Victorians who didn't consider homosexuality a disease or a sin didn't think that Jonathan and David's relationship was romantic, but writing that he "concluded" that there was no evidence is a little strong for what we actually have. Ideally a secondary source would note this sort of thing. –] (] ⋅ ]) 21:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
: I don't disagree that it's poor phrasing, I just couldn't come up with something better on short notice; feel free to improve. Maybe something like, "even Ellis...". The one point perhaps of disagreement, is that the fact that Ellis isn't a biblical scholar is neither here nor there; the article is about the intersection of two topics, and we should no more discard experts in sexuality who are ignorant of history and the Bible, than vice versa. If anything, the culture being steeped in Christianity as it is, it's likely (but remains to be proven) that Ellis, other sexual experts, or indeed anyone of his time would have some acquaintance and training in the Bible (which does not make him an expert in that topic, granted) but the converse is certainly not true. I'm fine with changing "concluded" (unless that is what the source says). Just because he concluded something (if he did) doesn't make it any more, or less, likely to be true. As long as we provide ], it really doesn't matter what he thought or concluded, as long as we report it accurately. I guess I was mostly objecting to the offhand disregard of his opinions, being from 1908 (exclamation point). One might well add opinions by Freud, and Hirschfeld, from around the same time period, and by von Kraft Ebbing before that, if they can be quoted on the topic. ] (]) 08:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:: ], please join the discussion, instead of ]. You made your view clear, in summary form, in ], complaining that the citation from Ellis is from 1908, exclamation point. Indeed it is; and ] are from 1905, ] a decade earlier, and the ], a decade before that. So what? I see citations to both Old and New testaments which go back millennia in the article, so complaining about a 1908 scientific article by a giant in the field of sexuality seems ironic. When your edit was undone, you immediately reverted ] to enforce your preferred version. Please don't do that; instead, observe ] and discuss. You're still a new editor, so other editors will ], but as you've been actively editing here and on related topics, you need to get on board with Misplaced Pages's core principles of ] and collaboration, and part of that means ], and not edit-warring. See also ] for additional guidance. Thanks, ] (]) 23:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: ] I see more recent, scholarly sources now and that's fine. Is it possible that you would like to make the point that this reading has stood the test of time over the course of a century? That's fine if so, but you will need to write a sentence to make that point in order to keep on topic ]. No, a citation from 1908 from a scholar with a complicated legacy cannot serve as "some sexual scholars" or however this read at the time. No, reverting is not "ironic," though I don't know which word you meant to use. Please remember to assume ]. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 04:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
Addendum: additional source on the topic in case anyone's interested is Dale B. Martin's 2006 book Sex and the Single Savior. It's all about historical shifts in interpretations of biblical texts on the topic, what the Bible has been allowed to mean over time. The adds to the point I'm trying to make: that this reading of the David and Jonathan story has historical staying power is fascinating and very much worthy of mention on this page, but it didn't serve the point to which it was attached. Is this really inconsistent with Misplaced Pages guidelines? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 04:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
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}
