Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:21, 18 December 2005

Archive 1

Cleanup and references

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.

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 original research.

I've also removed a short section on 1 Peter which you can see here, as it wasn't referenced and I couldn't find anyone using it in any of the arguments about homosexuality. --G Rutter 09:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Great work, this article had been in an awful state for a long time. - SimonP 15:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Edits to 1 Corinthians

I moved some information from Homosexuality and Christianity 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 here and the anon's addition/over-writing of the section here.

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! --G Rutter 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. Haiduc 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. --G Rutter 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". Haiduc 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. Haiduc 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. --G Rutter 08:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)