Talk:The Bible and homosexuality/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

It might be best to take all the "liberal" views as a section and then have a seperate "conservative" views section. That would look better then mixing the two together in what looks like a tit for tat game. Also Lev. 18 only deals with male homosexuality and not female homosexuality.

Concerning the issues below: the article is supposed to present the arguments actually utilized by the two opposing sides, regardless of whether Vizcarra (or anyone else) personally believes these arguments to be valid or not. I have modified the wording somewhat based on some of his objections, but in the end these arguments need to be included for balance regardless of his objections - removing any argument one personally disagrees with is normally considered vandalism, and will be dealt with as such. 66.216.226.34 01:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Vandalism before making such claims, especially the section Bold Edits. Any sources that list each objection? Otherwise any of these claims may be as well deleted. You deleted Hallsal's argument, which is (according to your own definition) vandalism. --Vizcarra 02:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

First of all: the citation from Halsall which you added was redundant, since a similar definition of "raca" was already provided - there was no need to have two cited.

Secondly: since most of the arguments on both sides currently lack citations, you cannot give that as an excuse for selectively deleting only those you personally disagree with, while leaving the others in place.

Neither can you judge my actions. I delete objections with no source if they don't make sense to me. I added my reasoning here in the talk page with the hopes that someone can provide the source. By the way, I added Halsall's discussion about the word raca, since it is sourced. --Vizcarra 23:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'll accept the addition of Halsall's definition, although I still think it's redundant to have two definitions given (yes, the other was unsourced, but it's still unsourced after adding a different person's interpretation of the word). Some of the language you added left out a few words and needs to be cleaned up, however. 66.216.226.34 23:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

You are welcome to remove the unsourced raca definition, or use it as part of the introduction of the paragraph. You are welcome to clean up the paragraph as well. --Vizcarra 23:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Finally: since the text in this article (which was originally part of an older article) had already been worked out through the consensus of a number of editors, a consensus had already been reached on this version - you have been trying to undo all of that by deleting anything you personally disagree with. It is that which is properly defined as vandalism. 66.216.226.34 05:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

First of all. I'd like you to focus on the facts and not on "conspiracies". I am not entertainment silly accusations anymore. You are showing many characteristics of an Internet troll since you seem to seek controversy. I am not.

I provided Halsall's citation, because there was no other, in fact there was a "source required" tag, which I removed after providing Halsall's citation.

Any consensus was on the original article "Christianity and homosexuality" and not this one. I'm not trying to "undo all" don't be dramatic. The article has a lot of "sources required" and NPOV, which I'm trying to eliminate. I'm trying to contribute to make this a better article and you haven't done much more than resort to accusations, which I won't entertain any longer, if you have arguments about the article or about any edits, then you are welcome to post them here. I delete what I don't agree with, yes, because I want to improve the article, that is why I post here my arguments for deleting the section for discussion, not between you and me since I am beginning to consider that fruitless but for a consensus (which is more than two people).--Vizcarra 17:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

You ask me to refrain from accusations but then accuse me of being a "troll" - the latter label being ironically applied because I tried to prevent the unwarranted deletion of material which a number of editors had worked out by consensus when it was originally drawn up.

I never accused you of being a troll but rather your actions, ("You are showing many characteristics of an Internet troll since you seem to seek controversy." The "since you seem to seek controversy" is what makes me believe your actions corresponds to those of a troll. Not because I "tr(ied) to prevent unwarranted deltion". --Vizcarra 20:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I already presented the reasons why these portions of the text were included, and I tried to show good faith by modifying the wording based on some of your objections. It is yourself who has "sought controversy" and refused to compromise. 66.216.226.34 18:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC).

Like I said, I'm not entertaining accusations for long, so if you seek consensus you would have to raise the discussion to an appropirate level. If you want to add the objections, add the sources where they originate from. This article is not about your, mine, or any other wikipedian's opinions. Let's keep it that way. --Vizcarra 20:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

No comparison?

"Concerning Christ's lack of any specific denunciation of homosexuality, it was also the case that Christ's recorded sermons never specifically condemned sins such as murder, theft, rape, kidnapping, or any number of others, but that doesn't mean that Christ approved of these things." 66.216.226.34.

Let me parse it for easier analysis. "Concerning... homosexuality, Christi didn't specifically condemned murder, theft, rape, kidnapping". So homosexuality is in the same category? It is unnecessary to put crimes at the same category as homosexuality. Notice I never mentioned the word "sins" until now, but the word "crimes". You cannot make an analogy here because homosexuality is not a crime (at least generally, at least in most countries). He didn't have to mention those crimes because he never advocated criminal activities. In fact, he advocated obeying the government " "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's" (so I'm sure that if not paying taxes was not OK, not killing, stealing, raping and kidnapping would not be OK as well). Wikipedia is not a soapbox: "Wikipedia articles are for facts, not debate". I indicated you several times how putting homosexuality at the same level of crimes because Jesus didn't "specifically condemn" either is not appropriate and you keep trying to get through. --Vizcarra 16:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be a lack of communication here. The point of that section was to present the opposing view given to the claim by gay activists that since Christ never specifically condemned homosexual sex in His sermons, therefore it must be allowed - to which the opposing side responds by pointing out that the above argument is a non-sequitur since there were a great many other sins that Christ never specifically condemned (blasphemy, murder, theft, rape, etc, etc). The passage was simply pointing this out: your objections have nothing whatsoever to do with the context. 66.216.226.34 23:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The point was understood the first time I read it. What I objected is using the examples of crimes not especifically condemned by Jesus and pack them in a category of crimes+homosexuality that Jesus did not condemn. Homosexuality is not a crime, so if you have a list of "sins" not condemned by Jesus that are not also crimes you are welcome to list them since it would be a more appropriate list. --Vizcarra 23:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I included blasphemy, which is not a secular crime. But it would make no difference whether the sins in question are also crimes or not: the issue is that Christ did not specifically condemn a great many sins, and yet we still consider them sins because they are defined as such in the rest of the revealed doctrine. The issue of secular crime has no possible relevance to this topic at all, and yet you're using it as a justification for deleting any opposing viewpoint which you personally dislike. 66.216.226.34 00:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Jewish society

"Since Jewish society in that era already condemned homosexual intercourse and these other actions, there was presumably no need to specifically condemn them all one by one."

Jesus did condemn certain habits of Jewish society, such as the "stoning of the adulterers". --Vizcarra 17:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Again, you're entirely missing the point, which was as follows: the passage was noting that Christ never specifically condemned actions such as sodomy (and rape, blasphemy, etc), because there was no need to do so - Jewish theology already condemned these things. Christ did condemn certain aspects of Jewish theology which deviated from the true Divine Law, but there was no need to re-confirm everything that was in keeping with the Divine Law. 66.216.226.34 23:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I think it is you who is missing the point. My point is about what "Jewish society" condemned and what Jesus did not condemn. Not because Jewish society condemned homosexuality we must imply that Jesus also condemned homosexuality. The Jewish society condemned association of Jews with "tax collectors" who were considered traitors, and Jesus did not only not condemn association with tax collectors, but Apostle Matthew was one. The Divine Law condemned the eating of impure animals and Jesus did not, Jesus said that what makes you impure is what comes out of your mouth and not what comes in through the mouth. --Vizcarra 23:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

But unlike these other cases, Jesus never overturned the rule against sodomy - that's the distinction. You're taking cases in which Christ *did* modify Jewish theology and trying to claim that such would also apply to cases in which Christ didn't modify it - which is a non-sequitur unless you're also going to make the same argument for all the other elements of Jewish theology that Christ did not specifically mention (e.g., Christ never specifically re-iterated most of the Ten Commandements, but we nevertheless assume that He upheld them nonetheless).

In any event, I do not need to convince you personally of this principle: the article is designed to present arguments given by people on both sides of the issue, regardless of whether you personally agree with these arguments or not. You have no right to remove material just because you don't agree with it. 66.216.226.34 00:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Marriage

"... in conformance with the Biblical ordinance that marriage should be between one man and one woman (Genesis 1:27 and 2:24, cited by Jesus himself in Matthew 19:3–6 and Mark 10:5–9."

The passages of Genesis do not mention the wordd marriage. The passages of the new testament only condemn divorce. --Vizcarra 21:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Genesis 2:24 most certainly does refer to marriage: "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife". It doesn't need to specifically use the word "marriage" in order to refer to the sacrament. :None of the above should need to be painstakingly pointed out, nor do you have any justification for removing so much material based on the specious arguments you've been using. 66.216.226.34 23:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

You are right "wife" does imply marriage. However it does not say that "marriage should be between one man and one woman". I am actually providing my "justification for removing so much material" and I should remind you about the Wikipedia etiquette now that you have started using words such as "specious" but given that you don't even have a user page I may be wasting my time dealing with a troll. --Vizcarra 23:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I think one definition of a "troll" is someone who removes the opposing viewpoint in an article which is supposed to present both sides of an issue. The marriage argument is based on the fact that the Biblical descriptions of marriage only refer to arrangements between a man and a woman; but in any event the issue does not come down to whether you personally agree with the argument or not: the article presents the arguments which are actually made by both sides. Please stop deleting one side of the debate. 66.216.226.34 00:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Pro vs. Anti-Homosexual

I have to admit, the layout of this article is ridiculous, Dividing each point into its own anti- and pro-homosexual seems redundant: simply summarising the opinions of both parties, and all those inbetween, in each section should be suffucient. What is more, we should be avoiding the use of such terms as "pro-homosexual".Axon (talk|contribs) 12:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. How about a table with the arguments that justify each position? Or we can have sections like "Matthew 5:22, supporters of homosexuality (is don't know how else to call it) interpret this passage as... (citation). (citation) argues that the passage instead...". --Vizcarra 16:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think a table is suitable either: why not just use natural language to explain one side, then the other, and so forth? Also "supporters of homosexuality" is possibly weasel words: it would be better to reference and list who exactly is using this argument instead. Axon (talk|contribs) 16:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

An additional issue is that it isn't even a 2-sided thing. There are many different shades of interpretation not just an "extremely pro Homosexuality" and an "extremely anti Homosexuality" one. ~~~~ 19:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Nobody is talking about "extreme" positions here, just pro-leaning and anti-leaning, is there any other?. The point of the article is the illustrate the reality that both positions use the same publication, the Bible, to support their views and what sections of it are used to support their views.--Vizcarra 21:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

to cast it as a dichotomy is what is misleading. Homosexuality isnt something that people are only pro-everything or anti-everything. It has different facets, and each is supported by different shades of opinion. Pro- and anti- is an extremely artificial division. ~~~~ 23:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Then we can have anti-gay, pro-gay and swing-gay. (or red, blue and purple) --Vizcarra 03:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

That is still a false dichotomy - you are implying that "gay" is something that you have to have the same opinion of every single facet. I.e. that you are either against EVERYTHING to do with "gay" or for EVERYTHING, or intermediate about EVERYTHING. But that simply is not the case. ~~~~ 07:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Dichotomy is about two oppinions. And what I'm implying is that (as it is explained in Homosexuality and Christianity) the Bible is used by both pro- and anti-gay groups to justify their views. If you know of any other group you are welcome to include it, but that is where this article originated from (and spun off because of the size of the original article). Then, again, the article can be expanded to be a list of passages that address the topic of same-sex relationships. The problem is that it is quite controversial because anti- and pro-gay groups have very different opinions about what single passage implies, but the best thing it can be done from a NPOV is to include arguments from anti- to neutral to pro-gay. --Vizcarra 18:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

You are presenting "100% of facets to do with homosexuality" as something you are either 100% pro or 100% anti. This is an extremely false dichotomy - not a single one of those percentages reflects reality. ~~~~ 19:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Both sides need to be presented for an article to be objective. Do you have any alternative way of presenting the article? --Vizcarra 22:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

It is the idea that there are 2 sides which is extremely misleading. In reality, it is not polarised into an US vs. THEM war, however much some people would like to characterise it thus. ~~~~ 07:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it is misleading to say that there are (at least) two sides, because there are those who claim homosexuality is anti-christian and those who claim it isn't. There is an entire article about the topic Homosexuality and Christianity. And both sides of the opinion use scriptures from the Bible to justify their views. In a world where everybody had the same opinions there would be only one side to the story: the truth. But this isn't one and people have different opinions of what the truth is and all opinions must be taken into account. Of course pro and con opinions are the most notable, a lot of people don't care either and that is a position probably not worth writing much about it. --Vizcarra 17:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

(a) Since when were we discussing whether homosexuality was or was not anti-christian. We were discussing what people think the bible says.

(b) Even amongst those who think homosexuality is "anti-christian", this is a false dichotomy, some think homosexual acts are "anti-christian", but not homosexuals, others think that homosexuals are intrinsically "anti-christian", etc. There is a wide variety of viewpoints, over a wide variety of facets. You are presenting things as if it is everyone who disagrees slightly with a single aspect of homosexuality disagrees with 100% of everything, which is simply a lie. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 08:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Even that is misleading. I think some of the "pro-homosexual" readings are unsubstantiated and incorrect, but I am certainly not "anti-homosexual." - SimonP 21:54, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

I see your point. In that case the article could have a broader scope of discussing passages that mention homosexuality or homosexuality-related verses, with no anti- or pro- judgments. --Vizcarra 22:24, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Lots of tags!

Holy crap, folks. I understand that this is a contentious article, but do we really need so many tag templates included? How about leaving out at least the wikify and copyedit tags, so that some content actually makes it onto the first screen of text? -GregoryWeir 18:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes we do. Thanks. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 18:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Either the cleanup or the wikify and copyedit tags should be removed, in my opinion. The template messages page says of the cleanup tag, "Please do not use this in combination with the more specific cleanup tags." Additionally, the attention and cleanup tags are rather redundant. Both do not need to be there. The presence of so many tags is silly. We only really need the deletion tag, the neutrality tag, and one cleanup-type tag. -GregoryWeir 13:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup is different to wikify and copyedit

• Cleanup - has structural and content issues
• Wikify - has formatting issues
• Copyedit - has issues over english usage

The article has all three problems. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 20:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Another user has removed some of the tags, and I agree with their choice. The cleanup tag is general, and indicates that there are lots of problems with a page, or that problems are very general. The others are more specific. It is not useful to have several different tags at the top of the page. The tags exist to let readers know that the page is not up to Wikipedia standards and should be taken with a grain of salt as well as not taken as representative of the site as a whole. With so many tags there, it looks as if people are fighting over the article and someone's trying to make it look bad (which may be true, but we don't want to look petty). -GregoryWeir 21:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

VFD results

This article has survived a VFD nomination with the result of No consensus. --Allen3 ^talk 10:06, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

There was a consensus on cleaning and removing unsourced passages. Also the pro- and anti- seems flawed. The article should not contain original research. Let's try to move in this direction. --pippo2001 03:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Deleting nonsense

I deleted: Pro-homosexual view

This passage condemns acting against one's nature. Claiming that homosexual intercourse is unnatural is a false premise, and is widely attested in nature, for example there is a large group of homosexual penguins currently in a german zoo. It is not in a homosexual person's nature to have heterosexual intercourse because they have no attraction to the opposite sex. Heterosexuals acting out of their nature and being promiscuous by having homosexual intercourse for pleasure even though they have no homosexual attractions are what this passage condemns not homosexuals.

As an answer to:

For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

The passage clearly defines what natural is. I do not agree with this definition. However arguments must be reasonable. In any case: whose opinion is this? If this is original research, it cannot stay on wikipedia. --pippo2001 01:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

"Natural intercourse" = "talking", so someone is going to have to do some interpretation somewhere to turn it into "heterosexual sexual activity". ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 20:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

If you are serious: ok. So if "Natural intercourse" = "talking", than this passage is saying that men did not talk with women anymore, and committed shameless act with other men. Maybe you think that it is implied that men should not talk to other men? You can imagine if they can do anything else.... We cannot strech things that are rather clear. (My personal position is: who cares?, but that's another thing.) --pippo2001 00:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Intercourse means something very similar to interaction. Intercourse only became a synonym for sexual intercourse very recently, thus the name of places like Intercourse, Pennsylvania. The passage is saying that whatever it was that the men did that was natural and involved women was given up, and were consumed by passion for other men. The thing that was done between men is not specified as being the same or related to the thing that was done between women. Indeed, passion only took on sexual terms recently - one can argue passionately without the argument being sexual. All it says is that men stopped doing something with women that was in their nature, and did something with much feeling with each other, for which they felt no shame and were punished.

This could, for example, refer to gambling, and lactation, it could, technically, be read to mean that "men gave up using women for the natural act of obtaining breast milk (the natural thing with women), and started fiercely fighting inappropriately for no good reason with other men (the passionate thing between men), without feeling shame, which resulted in wounds and being ostracised by the community (the punishment)". Obviously this is a very unusual and somewhat contrived reading. But the point is that we cannot interpret the meaning based on how we use words now when that wasn't how words were used when it was written. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 16:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Good. You say: All it says is that men stopped doing something with women that was in their nature, and did something with much feeling with each other, for which they felt no shame and were punished. I don't see how animals behaviour may shed any light on what is natural and not. There is one straightforward interpretation of the text. And then there are yours. We cannot do your job of finding old meanings of the words, since the text was in greek or other languages and the traslation in English is recent. It is not an 17th century English translation. You understand that we cannot go back to the original text and that all this is original research, like much of the rest of the article, and should all be deleted. --pippo2001 18:09, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Just because the translation is modern does not make it accurate. E.g. Leviticus 18:22 contains the somewhat obscure phrase "lay layings of", most translators translate it as "have sex with" because the alternative and equally valid "sleep in a bed used by" is not acceptable to them due to their POV when they can use the former.

I would very much like the whole article deleted as POV and original research as well, so I agree with you here, but it was recently VFD'd and didn't reach consensus - it can be re-VFD'd but not for a few days. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 19:10, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm merely going to point out that the allegedly "obscure phrase" you're referring to - "lo tishkav" - is used with an unambiguously sexual meaning in Genesis 19:34, 26:10, 30:15-16, 34:2, 35:22, 39:7, Exd 22:16, 22:19, etc. The meaning is not legitimately in doubt, and the literal translation is not relevant - like many phrases, the actual meaning differs from the literal translation. 66.216.226.34 20:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't mean that a modern translation is by definition accurate. I meant that we cannot do the interpretation of this text as if it was written in ancient English. So one has to go back to the original... I'd agree to delete this page. --pippo2001 20:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The full verse is "V'et zachar lo tishkav mishk'vey eeshah toeyvah hee".

The text is quite clear on the male part - using the word 'zachar', but the female part in the text is not a precise counterpart to it. If it were so, the text should have used the term 'nekevah' which is to zachar as female is to male. However, the term 'eeshah' is used, which is more properly a counterpart to 'eesh' and the two are similar to the English pairing of man/woman. The text therefore has a rather striking and awkward male/woman pairing. Further, the word 'eeshah' is also commonly used specifically for 'wife' and therefore can speak more specifically to that relationship where offspring are intended to occur.

Actually, this passage could be viewed as a prohibition against heterosexual sex as well, as the entire verse can be read as a prohibition against having sex with a man using the sex of a woman, no matter what the sex of the partner of the man is (e.g. a woman).

Or alternately, taking into account the full context in which it appears, it can be understood to mean "Ritual anal sex between two men in a Pagan temple is forbidden", but that would be obvious, and no prohibition on normal homosexuality whatsoever. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 12:24, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Now here's an interesting explanation of the matter: you said the phrase is "a prohibition against having sex with a man using the sex of a woman, no matter what the sex of the partner of the man is" - which is truly indecipherable. Just as Pippo had to ask (farther above) whether you're serious with all this, I have to ask the same.

Let me re-word that for you - "a prohibition against having sex with a man who is taking the position and style of a woman in sex, no matter what the sex of the partner of the man is" ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 01:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

The rewording is still illogical: you first concede that the passage prohibits the audience (i.e., the men of the tribe) from "having sex with a man", but you then conclude by saying "no matter what the sex of the partner of the man is". Since both of the people involved would be men, how on earth do you possibly justify the latter phrase? 66.216.226.34 03:13, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

In any event, that's not how the phrase was used, nor was it interpreted that way by the people who knew the language - you can't take the word-by-word meaning of an idiomatic expression and use that as an excuse to play semantic games with the text. 66.216.226.34 14:10, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

How do you know that wasn't how the phrase was used? How do you know it was used the way you think it was used? There is no evidence outside the text, so its all guesswork. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 01:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

The Hebrew language was used for a very long time in sources outside of the Bible, and the Bible itself was interpreted by many people who knew the language fluently: we don't need to interpret this passage based solely upon itself, and it isn't merely a matter of guesswork. Moreover, there are many revealed sources which confirm the long-accepted meaning of the passage, such as the revelations to St. Hildegard (in which God bluntly and unambiguously denounces any sex between two men or between two women). You're picking out one phrase in isolation, redefining it however you see fit rather than going by its well-established meaning in Hebrew, and then using that redefinition to reject all the other sources which further confirm the well-established meaning. 66.216.226.34 03:13, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Interpreting the passage in any way not done by experts in the field or in the historical interpretation is original research. --Noitall 13:15, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Pro Homosexual doesnt relate to the bible

Is it me or does the pro homosexual does not relate to the bible? unsigned

Could you explain what you are referring to? ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 20:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Ril, I have reverted your changes. I don't object to them all, but holding to a particular interpreation of a passage does not require an ant- or pro homosexual view. Many liberals will concede the traditional exegesis of a passage, whilst not holding its ethics to be normative. --Doc (?) 01:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

They aren't "my changes". They are the original titles of the passage. I.e. my reverts restore the article rather than change it from how it was. The change was the one that put the POV interpretation in. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 16:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd say even more. It is the whole structure of the article to be misleading. People may agree sometimes with the 'pro-homo' and other times with the 'anti-homo'. There are not two clearly opposing schools confronting eachother. There is the institutional interpretation of of the Bible. And there are the many other possibilities, challenging some interpretations, challenging the translation. Or simply not caring about the ethical implications. This article is very badly conceived. In any case, I support Doc's edits. --pippo2001 03:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that "pro-" and "anti-" homosexual is a very false dichotomy, and if you scroll up you will see that I argue that case above extensively. I really don't believe the article should be structured like that, although I still haven't worked out how to do it properly, I really would like it deleted all-together as a POV trap, but there was no consensus at the last VFD as to what to do with the article, so we are stuck with it for a few days. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 16:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

The problem with the "dispute" is that most of the interpretations are not generally accepted by experts in the field nor were they they historical interpretations. If they are not and are not sourced, they need to be deleted. --Noitall 13:21, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia should contain factual information; I wonder if every Christian would subscribe to the label "revealed" with regard to the writings of Hildegard. After all we are talking about the Bible. Anyway the reporting about the various discussions seems to be a bit 'coloured'and not neutral - as required in an encyclopaedia.

NPOV

This article strikes me as having a decidedly right-leaning slant. Full disclosure: I do not consider myself to be aligned with any particular political agenda, but I do think wikipedia should include more than one side of a debate. MPS 20:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)