| Revision as of 23:50, 8 October 2006 editDarth Sidious (talk | contribs)673 edits →Leviticus 18 & 20 Counter-Arguments← 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 |
| (759 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{oldpeerreview}} |
|
{{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 == |
|
] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I thought about adding it to the Sodom article but decided against it: |
|
==Cleanup and references== |
|
|
|
1) The similar view of the Anglican Communion is already covered. |
|
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. |
|
|
|
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 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 ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I found her work on this blog: T. |
|
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) |
|
|
|
She is: |
|
:Great work, this article had been in an awful state for a long time. - ] 15:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
"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 . ] (]) 17:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC) |
|
== Edits to 1 Corinthians == |
|
|
|
|
|
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 . |
|
|
|
|
|
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've added the information, but I have to say I don't think the arguments on both sides are very good. It seems to me that we don't know what was going on, so can't really draw any conclusions from it. I think both Horner's and Marston's arguments are weak, and I don't think adding the age of marriage is terribly helpful either, especially as it was 14 for males. If anyone can find any sources with better arguments, please add the information! However, the purpose of this page is to accurately reflect the arguments that have been made on this subject, whatever we personally think about them. |
|
|
:::I don't agree with you about contextualising "abomination" without sources. As it says below the editing screen: "content... must be based on verifiable sources". We've provided references for pais and entimos and need to do the same for any other point. --] 08:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I will look for references. ] 11:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Gender Reference to God == |
|
|
|
|
|
The last line of the first paragraph includes, "showing what actions God considers to be good and which he considers to be sinful." What about changing the sentence so that there is no gender specific pronoun in reference to God? --] 19:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Um... well if you can think of a sensible way to reword the sentence so that it's not clusmy (any more than it is already) then I'm not going to complain. --] 22:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::OK, I changed "he" to "God" and changed "what actions" to "which actions," to make it match the rest of the sentence. --] 01:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Why do you want to change "he" to a non-gender-specific pronoun? The original Hebrew ''is'' gender specific - if it's good enough for God, why change it? ] 08:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Reference to Judges 19:16 == |
|
|
|
|
|
Forgive me, for I'm new at this, perhaps I'm not reading it correctly, but in the "Passages from the Hebrew Bible Section", under the subheading "Genesis 19: Sodom and Gomorrah", there is a reference to Judges 19:16 as being a near-parallel to the issue of homosexuality. I can't see anything in Judges 19:16 that has ANYTHING to do with the topic at hand. |
|
|
|
|
|
:The really important verse is verse 22:"While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, "Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him."" I've altered the article to make this clearer. Thanks! --] 12:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Problem: This sentence does not appear in old bible translations. Sex is never mentioned in that line at all. |
|
|
:::Sex is not exactly mentioned in the bible. '''There is no word for sex in the bible'''. It might say "know" (or rather "yada") as in "so we can know him", but it does not say "so we can have sex with him". What you have there, G Rutter, is a very biased, and consequently unreliable, translation. It probably has Paul saying "homosexuality is evil", or something like that, as a number of politically motivated translations do, but the actual text does not say that, and is more ambiguous. ] 20:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Better Literal Translation of Koitē == |
|
|
|
|
|
The word literally means bed (especially the marriage-bed) not sexual intercourse, although it is clearly being used euphemistically for sexual-intercourse. Etymologically, the word is derived from the Greek word keimai "lay" which can clearly has some euphemistic meanings but is not limited to only such meanings. {{unsigned|140.180.150.91}} |
|
|
|
|
|
:There is often a difference between the etymological and contextual senses; along the same lines, the Hebrew ידע (yd') simply means "to know," yet when Adam "yada" Eve, she had a son! ;) (Gen. 4:1). If context is just as much (or more) a part of ''meaning'' (understood as authorial intent) as syntax/form and etymology, then it seems valid to give the lexical entry that best expresses the full sense ("sexual intercourse") rather than giving the bare etymological sense ("lay"). ] ] ] 16:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Notable sources?== |
|
|
Oh my goodness. There is some extremely silly stuff in this article - particularly the foregrounding of a single chapter from an obscure book by T. Koch, the "Cruising as Methodology" material. It's barely scholarship, and it's nothing like as prominent in the field as it is prominent in the article. It makes the whole thing sound silly and smutty. |
|
|
|
|
|
The article should be primarily based on well-known, influential sources. Where is the material on ]'s treatment of the Sodom and Gomorrah story? Where is ]? We focus on these obscure little people, and ignore the big names. Whole article needs a rewrite. |
|
|
|
|
|
] 01:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Congratulations! == |
|
|
|
|
|
I just want to congratulate all users who have edited the article, and discussed on this talk page, for keeping this place a haven of sanity and maturity, and not letting it devolve into a breeding-ground of hostility and bad faith. :) —]<font color="green">]</font>] ] 09:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Leviticus 18 & 20 Counter-Arguments== |
|
|
|
|
|
I understand that the way I worded my argument might not have been the most P/C. I rewrote the text in a more encyclopedic format and will paste it below for discussion. If there is no objection I will put the text in the article: |
|
|
Other counter-arguments point towards other rules put forth in the book of Leviticus which are not <br />followed by the contemporary church. Such verses in the book of Leviticus include Leviticus 19:27, which <br />condemns cutting the hair on the sides of the head and trimming ones beard, and Leviticus 11:7, 24-25, <br />which condemns contact with the flesh of a dead pig. Those who use this argument point out that Leviticus 18:22 <br />and Leviticus 20:13 are taken out of context when used as an argument against homosexual <br />relationships. |
|
|
|
|
|
:] 19:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::You really ought to source it, however it's phrased. It's not the place of a wikipedia editor to put forth arguments (even balanced arguments) without attributing the ideas to an outside authority. ] 19:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Leviticus 19:27 from a speech by Tony Campolo at Concordia College, Moorhead, MN on 9/20/2006.<br />I heard the other argument a while back, but can't remember who the speaker was. I did find the argument on this site though. It is also mentioned here . An anonymous former US president wrote a letter to Dr. Laura Schlessinger in satire about the subject of the pig skin also, referencing the fact that footballs are made out of pigskin. It can be found here . I would also like to point out that not many in-text citations are used in any other sections, which may need citation. I’m putting the text in, along with citations. -] 23:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
I am trying to make the section of the article entitled "Leviticus 18 & 20" less POV. Also, I addressed the only comment that was posted about the text. I will try to find the counter-arguments for my counter-arguments, but then that opens doors to more counter-arguments, and essentially this would turn into an edit war, which I do not want it resort to. Can anyone else coment on this so I know If I am not wrong in my statements? -] 01:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:I put the text back in with arguemts from "the other side" per request by Volin. -] 16:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
<hr> |
|
|
Voln, exactly in which other articles have you seen the argument you are deleting? And which are the countervailing arguments that you find lacking? How can we keep this information in a way that is balanced? ] 09:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
There are many reasons why this addition violates normal policy. The sources cited include blogs or personal pages rather than reputable, peer-reviewed academic sources. The page at the in-forum site does not mention the subject at all. It therefore is not adequately sourced. The argument which is being added is just another variation of the old "shellfish prohibition" argument which has periodically been added to many other articles here, and has often been deleted for various reasons - partly because citing admittedly discontinued Levitical laws would not be relevant as a means of rejecting a prohibition which is upheld in the New Testament, just as such an argument could not be used to reject the Ten Commandments unless the argument is stating that literally all of the moral codes given in the Bible should be rejected because a few of the Levitical codes are no longer in force. If this is the argument then it should be clearly stated; if not, then it's not a relevant argument for the specific topic which this article addresses. Many other points could be made if I had the time. ] 19:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::: I figure I'd stir up the pot here a little... the "shellfish" argument is significant enough that it could have its own article. Not sure of the apt title or the reputable sources that would feed it, but I have definitely seen this argument around awhile... It goes something like this... Argument: "you eat shellfish, doen't you... and you play football... so you are selectively enforcing OT laws... you hypocrite!" |
|
|
:::: Response 1: "yes but the NT reinforces sexual immorality prohibitions while loosening ritual and dietary laws to allow the Gentiles to be reached." |
|
|
:::: Response 2: "by the logic of discounting OT prohibitions, incest is ok now, and killing, and covetousness." |
|
|
:::: Response 3: Jesus told the adulteress, "go and sin no more" which tells us that the laws are still there but that Jesus says we fellow sinners don't punish or administer God's Justice (let he who is without sin cast the first stone). |
|
|
] 19:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, the shellfish business and its close cousins, the pigskin/two-crops/two-materials arguments, have been repeated ad nauseam. It looks like the Misplaced Pages Administrator "Jayjg" has often deleted all variants of these from Misplaced Pages because they distort the matter so much. Among the other counter-arguments (aside from those you mentioned) would be the point that none of these discontinued Levitical codes ever had any relation to any of the primary Commandments contained in the Decalogue, whereas sodomy is linked to the general commandment against adultery/fornication. It isn't explicitly stated there, but neither are incest, bestiality, rape, or pedophilia. ] 20:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
: I didn't know any of those counter-arguments to the "shellfish" argument, that's why I asked for them. I feel that they are relevant enough to be included, and I haven't found them anywhere at wikipedia, so in my opinion they should be added (both the argument and the criticism). I'll try to write up and post it here at talk page for discussion.] 10:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: "whereas sodomy is linked to the general commandment against adultery/fornication" If we're talking about the 10 Commandments, there is not one about fornication and "sodomy" has nothing to do with adultery. --] 02:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The Commandment against "adultery" has always been understood to include fornication of any kind (except by those who wish to redefine the Commandments to suit whatever their own preference happens to be). If it doesn't refer to fornication, then there is no prohibition against pedophilia, incest, bestiality, necrophilia, etc. ] 05:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Please provide sources to corroborate your contention that the commandment against adultery was always understood to mean more than the words used. If the commandment needs to be "redefined" to mean only what it says, then it really wasn't well-defined to begin with. As for needing the adultery commandment to address "sodomy" in order to not green-light pedophilia, incest, bestiality, necrophilia (and whatever etc might refer to), I cannot see the logic behind this. --] 17:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I don't even know where to begin. The word that you're rendering as "adultery" was taken to cover more than marital infidelity. Christ said (in Matthew 5:28) that mere lustful thoughts would count as this particular sin. The Bible condemns fornication in general in many passages (e.g., Lev. 21:9; 19:29; Deut. 22:20-11, 23-29; 23:18; Ex. 22:16, Matt. 5:32; 19:9; John 8:41; Acts 15:20... and countless others). The ancient Jews did not merely condemn extra-marital sex, but also pre-marital sex, incest, sodomy, etc. This commandment has never been interpreted to imply that only marital infidelity is forbidden. |
|
|
:::::The point about pedophilia, incest, bestiality, et al, was that the same arguments being used here in favor of sodomy could just as easily be used to justify all these others - i.e., since pedophilia is not marital infidelity, therefore the commandment in question would not condemn pedophilia. This would be a general-purpose argument for legitimizing literally every form of sex. |
|
|
:::::But, Misplaced Pages is not the place to argue such points. If the proposed text is going to be included at all, it needs to be balanced so that multiple positions are represented, in keeping with Misplaced Pages policy. ] 09:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::I agree that Misplaced Pages is not the place to argue this. My point was that if you are going to introduce counters to the counterarguments, more is needed than "It was always understood that..." --] 15:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
I feel that citing blogs to say that the argument exists is acceptable, because the argument is there. But I guess you know better. I think that it should be cited that theses arguments exist, but I am not going to be the one to put them back in. I did put in the couter-counter arguments (the ones that I could find) per Voln's request, but I guess that was not enough. -] 00:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::I recognize the statement I am about to make will make it sound like we are going in circles, but I they are more like circles that are spiraling inward towards the answer... I just want to reiterate that all these examples and counterexamples really ought to be encapsulated in one well-sourced article called something like: "]." This article (whatever we name it) covers the ] arguments (It's really ok to eat pork; OT laws are irrelevant once you understand what they were "really" about) , the ] arguments (If Early Christians said/discerned it was ok or forbidden then we should follow their instructions), the ]-type argument (all is permissible but not all is beneficial... you are free to consult the spirit and choose your behavior as long as you don't cause your brother to stumble)... all this could be referenced in one article once and for all. I argue that from a balance perspective, each argument in the 18 and 20 paragraph is about a sentence long. The "old testament laws don't count (as much, maybe)" argument could be referenced in one sentence and so the reader would have one-stop shopping if they really wanted to hear all the nuances and sides of that debate. ] 03:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
: i think JWGreen´s version is better than of Voln] 01:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
To illustrate the debate over male homosexuality in a clearer light, I have rendered the proper Hebrew translation of Leviticus 18:22: |
|
|
|
|
|
''V-et zachar lo tishkav mishkevey eeshah toeyvah hee'' |
|
|
|
|
|
Do not lie with a man as YOU would with a woman. ] 23:50, 8 October 2006 (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}
