Revision as of 21:26, 1 May 2022 editRoscelese (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers35,788 edits →"saints": new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:11, 30 July 2022 edit undo2a02:1810:bc04:4b00:a57a:af0b:2b41:b90f (talk) →Center for American Progress interview with Gene Robinson: new sectionTag: New topicNext edit → | ||
Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
I've reverted the change of heading to refer to David, Jonathan, Ruth, and Naomi as "saints", which is inappropriate on several levels and also obscures the content of the section. –] (] ⋅ ]) 21:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC) | I've reverted the change of heading to refer to David, Jonathan, Ruth, and Naomi as "saints", which is inappropriate on several levels and also obscures the content of the section. –] (] ⋅ ]) 21:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC) | ||
== 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." ] (]) 16:11, 30 July 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:11, 30 July 2022
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. |
|
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 has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
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. |
"Distinguished"
@2600:6c56:6100:1c:640d:e495:5d26:b1e8: "Distinguished" is part of the guy's title, not an editorial opinion. I see what you're saying about it coming off as biased, but it's also unclear to me whether saying he is a "Professor of Religious Studies" is a misrepresentation or not. It also occurred to me that we could simply call him "of the University of North Carolina" but that of course would omit the department that he comes from, which may not be desirable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
"saints"
I've reverted the change of heading to refer to David, Jonathan, Ruth, and Naomi as "saints", which is inappropriate on several levels and also obscures the content of the section. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
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)
Categories:- Old requests for peer review
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Christianity articles
- Mid-importance Christianity articles
- WikiProject Christianity articles
- C-Class Judaism articles
- Mid-importance Judaism articles
- B-Class Bible articles
- Mid-importance Bible articles
- WikiProject Bible articles
- B-Class Philosophy articles
- Low-importance Philosophy articles
- B-Class ethics articles
- Low-importance ethics articles
- Ethics task force articles
- B-Class social and political philosophy articles
- Low-importance social and political philosophy articles
- Social and political philosophy task force articles
- B-Class sociology articles
- Low-importance sociology articles
- B-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
- Low-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
- WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
- B-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
- WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics