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 editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:55, 28 October 2019 editFULBERT (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Rollbackers18,530 edits →Rfc on inclusion of the word "traditional" or notTag: 2017 wikitext editor← Previous edit Revision as of 19:14, 29 October 2019 edit undoGastrointestinal Cancer Simulation (talk | contribs)30 edits →"Traditionalist"Next edit →
Line 34: Line 34:
: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 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) ::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)
:I find it hard to believe that anybody who supports Sodomites can be called a Christian ] (]) 19:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)


== Rfc on inclusion of the word "traditional" or not == == Rfc on inclusion of the word "traditional" or not ==

Revision as of 19:14, 29 October 2019

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 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 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
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconChristianity High‑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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconJudaism Mid‑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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBible High‑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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPhilosophy: Ethics / Social and political
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
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Ethics
Taskforce icon
Social and political philosophy
WikiProject iconSociology
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
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSexology and sexuality
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
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPsychology
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
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.

Middat Sedom

I don't have time to add this now, but here's a useful reference on middat Sedom or Sodom-like conduct in the Talmud. In general, the Sodom and Gomorrah article has some clarifications about the Jewish position historically that may be useful here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

But actually

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. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

"Traditionalist"

I've removed "traditionalist" from These two verses have historically been interpreted by Traditionalist Jews and Christians 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. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 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 appears in my revert, what do the rest of you say? Necromonger...We keep what we kill 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? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I find it hard to believe that anybody who supports Sodomites can be called a Christian Gastrointestinal Cancer Simulation (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Rfc on inclusion of the word "traditional" or not

Please consider joining the feedback request service.
An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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:

"These two verses have historically been interpreted by Jews and Christians as clear overall prohibitions against homosexual acts in general."

I propose to insert word "Traditionalist" so that the sentence reads:

"These two verses have historically been interpreted by Traditionalist Jews and Christians as clear overall prohibitions against homosexual acts in general."

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 ? Necromonger...We keep what we kill 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. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 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 Initially, canons against sodomy were aimed at ensuring clerical or monastic discipline, and were only widened in the medieval period to include laymen. in History_of_the_Catholic_Church_and_homosexuality#Early_Church_Councils and that lesbianism is not explicitly prohibited in the Bible in Homosexuality in Judaism. 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:
  1. It's not clear that Jewish prohibitions against lesbian acts stem from this verse; they are most directly taken from the Talmud, and it's unclear if the rabbis of the Talmud were using these verses as the basis of their rulings
  2. Describing Jewish prohibitions as being against homosexual acts in general may be inaccurate. The text in Homosexuality in Judaism 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. signed, Rosguill 18:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
    • @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. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Roscelese. StAnselm (talk) 19:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Roscelese. Mathglot (talk) 01:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: @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 WP:RFCBEFORE next time, before jumping straight to the Rfc process after only a brief discussion. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 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. Jzsj (talk) 11:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While I sympathise with 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 reliable source 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 Rosguill's suggestion. Finally, @Wekeepwhatwekill: I agree with Mathglot that there was insufficient discussion prior to raising this RFC. 203.10.55.11 (talk) 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. Morgan Leigh | Talk 07:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
User:203.10.55.11 and User:Mathglot - 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. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 14:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am tempted to agree with you Wekeepwhatwekill 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. --- FULBERT (talk) 19:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Ruth and Naomi

IMHO, Coogan renders the WP:MAINSTREAM view, but we shouldn't reject the opposite view as totally inadequate. I don't consider feminist theology as WP:FRINGE. Minority should not be conflated with fringe. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree, and would also note that verses from Ruth are apparently recited at weddings. Misplaced Pages does not purport to interpret the Bible, just to document its interpretation by others. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:The Bible and homosexuality: Difference between revisions Add topic