Talk:The Bible and homosexuality/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Weasel word - "traditional"

The word traditional is being abused in this article to to overly emphasize heterosexist animus. Given that there is considerable debate on this subject and has been for a very long time, and we are not living in the past, what is considered "traditional" isn't all-important. There are multiple examples of unduly short sections, including the opening summary, being dominated by this bias. Given that we are living in the present, not the past, current debate/interpretations are actually more relevant than what is supposedly traditional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.101.211 (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup and references

This article leaves out a few scriptures that pertain to this. Genesis 19:5-8 for example. Even though this is presented as a "Bible and Homosexuality" topic, it includes most comments and resources that aren't from the Bible but rather mostly secular philosophers and liberal interpretations. Although 1Timothy is mentioned, it is quoted in the article. Romans 1:31 which says not only those who do these things are guilty, but merely if you approve of others doing this you are just as guilty would be relevant here as well. The Bible version included in the article are not versions generally accepted by most Churches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.186.90 (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC) All in all, this a very biased article. I would dispute the neutrality of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmccaff (talk • contribs) 18:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

GROSS MISTRANSLATIONS AND MISINTERPRETATIONS IN THIS ARTICLE

The biblical quotes in this article are full of mistranslations.

In the passage from Genesis regarding Sodom, the text does not read "Bring them out so that we may have sex with them" (original language of article) or "Bring them out so that we may have relations with them" (edited article). It says "Bring them out so that we may know them." It's true that the Bibvle does sometimes use the word "know" as a euphemism for sex, but only in a handful of passages, and always in a set phrase that makes the sexual meaning clear. In the vast majority of cases, "know" means "know", as in "the Lord knows the way of the righteous" in psalm 1. The rather obvious meaning of the passage is that the men of Sodom want to interrogate the strangers as to their intentions; they are challenging the right of the strangers to be in Sodom. Their crime is hostility to the stranger and lack of hospitality - not surprising in a day and age where hating strangers and turning them away meant exposing them to danger. The contrast is between this churlish attitude and the attitude of Abraham, who rose up to greet the strangers and took them in. People who insist on seeing a homophobic message here might be interested in consulting a biblical concordance. If they do, they'll see that every subsequent reference to Sodom in the Old Testament says that their sin was oppressing the poor and the stranger. Only centuries later did rabbis come up with the homophobic interpretation.

Lot is shocked by the breach of hospitality and says "If you'll just cut it out, I'll give you my daughters, who have never known a man." (Here "know" does have a sexual meaning, and this is a set phrase.) It's impossible to tell whether he's speaking in hyperbole, being sarcastic. But if this story is taken as an argument that the men of Sodom were bad because they wanted to have sex with men, then the logic of the argument would dictate that offering one's daughters to satisfy the lust of these thugs was a good thing to do. How many Christians and Jews would argue thus? Not many, I hope.

Leviticus ("You shall not lie with a man as with a woman") refers to what is nowadays commonly called "sacred prostitution". Canaanites worshipped their fertility goddesses, among other ways, by mimicking sexual intercourse with a Kedush, a priestly functionary done up as the goddess. Odd as such a religious rite may seem to us, it's got nothing to do with homosexuality. And the Torah doesn't forbid it to Canaanites, just to Israelites ("you"), just as it says in other places Don't cut your beards like they do, and Don't crossbreed your cattle like they do, and Don't wear linen-cotton blends like they do. The Israelites were entering Canaan at that time, and it was important to them not to be assimilated to this other culture, and above all not to practice the other culture's religion. (Think of modern rabbis enjoining their congregations not to put up Christmas trees.)

Indeed, have you ever noticed that Leviticus says nothing about females lying with females? That's because there was no equivalent ritual involving women, so it didn't need to be condemned. If this passage were condemning homosexuals, don't you think Leviticus would have some few words condemning lesbians?

In 1 Corinthians, it's a little weird to translate arsenokoitai as "those who have intercourse with males". That's properly an interpretation, not a translation. Arsenos means "male" and "koitai" means "fornicators." It *could* mean "fornicators with males", but it more probably means "male fornicators", i.e. male prostitutes. Suchlike were common in the ancient world, and they had clients of both sexes. Paul here is condemning prostitution, which he does in many places. *Any* prostitution, not male-to-male especially.

My favorite example of an absolutely wild-eyed biblical interpretation is the practice of twisting two verses in the first chapter of Romans into a condemnation of homosexuals, when the passage actually has nothing at all to do with the subject. Paul is talking about the sick hellinistic religions (idolatrous religions, which makes 'em especially suspicious to Paul) which required their religious practitioners to avoid women and practice celibacy and promoted a generally mysogenic attitude. Paul in 1 Corinthian warns sharply against requiring celibacy of folks who have no charism for it, and against the accompanying habits of woman-bashing. And he concludes this reference (in the first chapter of Romans) by showing what happens when such nonsense is indulged in: these deprived characters start having same-sex orgies, equivalent to abusing altar boys and the other stuff we find going on in modern religions that make the same stupid mistake.

Tom Amity 129.93.65.103 05:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Re. Your comments on Romans 1: the original text is clear in condemning both cause (idolatry) and effect (homosexuality). Re. Your comments on Arsenokoitai: Boswell's argument that this term refers to prostitutes in general rather than homosexuals has more or less been taken apart by the likes of David F. Wright (“Homosexuals or Prostitutes? The Meaning of ARSENOKOITAI (1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10),” Vigiliae Christianae 38 [1984] 125-53). The arguments put forward are close to conclusive, and this is where the consensus pretty much stands. Re. Your comments on Leviticus: extremely short of the mark linguistically and historically. But I suspect you know this already.

12.13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed a sentence that made an unsourced and incorrect generalization about relationships in "antiquity." The term "antiquity" usually includes the Roman empire, for example, which had same-sex marriage. For the Biblical and Christian contexts (including the relationship between Jonathan and David), I suggest consulting the late John Boswell's book on Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe.TVC 15 (talk) 09:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually when using the word "know" as a primary verb, it usually means something along the lines of intercourse. It also does not make since that that the same word used twice, one right after the other, would mean two entirely different things. It does not stand to reason that something like "Bring out thy men so we may know them, and thy daughters so we may know them", would mean "Bring out thy men so we may interigate them, and thy daughters so we may have intercourse with them." Personally, I think that the LDS JST sheds some well deserved light on the matter when it says:

9 And they said unto him, Stand back. And they were angry with him.

10 And they said among themselves, This one man came in to sojourn among us, and he will needs now make himself to be a judge; now we will deal worse with him than with them.

11 Wherefore they said unto the man, We will have the men, and thy daughters also; and we will do with them as seemeth us good.

12 Now this was after the wickedness of Sodom.

13 And Lot said, Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, plead with my brethren that

I may not bring them out unto you; and ye shall not do unto them as seemeth good in your eyes;

14 For God will not justify his servant in this thing; wherefore, let me plead with my brethren, this once only, that unto

these men ye do nothing, that they may have peace in my house; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

15 And they were angry with Lot and came near to break the door, but the angels of God, which were holy men, put forth their

hand and pulled Lot into the house unto them, and shut the door. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fizzos98 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This page is far from being objective, it's foundational problem being that it presupposes that the basic teachings of Bible cannot be evident by principles of sound exegesis and which at least narrow the parameters of subjects wherein there can be disagreement. Rather than being slanted toward traditional views this page contains many labored arguments in favor of homosexual relations, which see sex in any close relationship, and even resort to the extreme of seriously rendering historical stories as allegorical so that a staff become a phallic symbol and a boy sneezing becomes sex! Meanwhile traditional views sometimes often portrayed as being in the minority ("There are Biblical scholars" who do not believe Ruth was a lesbian). Giving credence to such views which force sex into places it simply does not belong hardly makes this page a credible source of information. If to some this page seems to be favoring the traditional position it is because such is usually what the plain reading of the text in context supports.

While this page does provides some texts which requires some deep examination, many of the pro homosexual arguments here and elsewhere (there are many more) effectively require negating the Bible as a source of moral authority, which is actually the position of Prof. Walter Wink in the area of sex. As the only explicit references to homosexuality condemn it, and no sanction is provided it by by marriage - which in contrast is clearly and abundantly given for heterosexual relations - one can understand why such efforts at eisegesis are expended.

More on this here: http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/homosexual_refuted.html Daniel1212 (talk) 01:45, 6 December 2008 (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 [1] and [2] and [3]. 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)

I will look for references. Haiduc 11:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The book of Ruth relates in absolutely no way to homosexuality. Ruth stays with Naomi because of loyalty, not because of any homosexual desire. Can people not see the morals of the story? This section should definitely be removed from the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.3.250.245 (talk) 03:57, 8 May 2007 (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? --Dorje Shedrub 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. --G Rutter 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. --Dorje 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? PiCo 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! --G Rutter 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. Clinkophonist 20:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur that "dynamic translations" are not to be preferred over more word for word types, but even Scroggs concurs that the "they knew her, and abused her all the night" (Jdg. 19:25) refers to sex. Why some can object to that, and not to making a staff into a phallus is revealing.ChristianSouldier (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2009 (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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.150.91 (talk • contribs)

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"). » MonkeeSage « 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 Marcel Proust's treatment of the Sodom and Gomorrah story? Where is Peter J. Gomes? We focus on these obscure little people, and ignore the big names. Whole article needs a rewrite.

DanB†DanD 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. :) —Daniel (‽) 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 
followed by the contemporary church.  Such verses in the book of Leviticus include Leviticus 19:27, which 
condemns cutting the hair on the sides of the head and trimming ones beard, and Leviticus 11:7, 24-25, 
which condemns contact with the flesh of a dead pig.  Those who use this argument point out that Leviticus 18:22 
and Leviticus 20:13 are taken out of context when used as an argument against homosexual 
relationships.

JWGreen 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. DanB†DanD 19:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Leviticus 19:27 from a speech by Tony Campolo[4] at Concordia College, Moorhead, MN on 9/20/2006.
I heard the other argument a while back, but can't remember who the speaker was. I did find the argument on this [5] site though. It is also mentioned here [6]. 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 [7]. 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. -JWGreen 23:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Although this was posted a while ago, the letter JWGreen spoke of appears to have been from an anonymous U.S. resident, not president. And it appears the brunt of it is simply regurgitating a speech by President Bartlett in the West Wing - seen here (especially considering the fact that the clip was posted on Youtube 3 days prior to the posting of that reply).
--K10wnsta (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2009 (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? -JWGreen 01:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I put the text back in with arguemts from "the other side" per request by Volin. -JWGreen 16:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi JWGreen, when I saw the article today, it omitted the text you discussed above, so I put in the parts that could be cited directly to the text itself. While arguments and interpretations generally require external citation, and while there may be as many interpretations as there are denominations or even adherents, the text can always be cited directly (at least since King James had it translated into English, over strenuous objections...).TVC 15 (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

---

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? Diego 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. Voln 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).

MPS 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 Wikipedia Administrator "Jayjg" has often deleted all variants of these from Wikipedia 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. Voln 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.Diego 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. --Chesaguy 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. Voln 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. --Chesaguy 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, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia policy. Voln 09:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia 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..." --Chesaguy 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. -JWGreen 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: "Christian debates concerning which specific OT laws are still in effect." This article (whatever we name it) covers the trichinosis arguments (It's really ok to eat pork; OT laws are irrelevant once you understand what they were "really" about) , the Acts 15 arguments (If Early Christians said/discerned it was ok or forbidden then we should follow their instructions), the stumbling block-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. MPS 03:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

i think JWGreen´s version is better than of VolnGLGerman 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. Darth Sidious 23:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the leviticus section is seriously deceptive. At this time it lets the reader know only of 2 prohibitions (incest and bestiality) besides the claim of homosexuality. Incest and Bestiality are among the most culturally taboo practices, widely accepted as wrong. This gives the impression that it is a list of things we all already agree are wrong - and includes homosexuality.

The scope of what is included in the leviticus needs to be clearly stated (you can't expect the readers to have so much knowledge of the bible). If it is giving examples on the extreme end of already agreed upon by society (anti-bestiality/incest), than it must also give the other extreme which would be JWGreen's examples (anti-trimming your beard etc.). This isn't an argument/counter argument issue; it is a factual one. The section as it stands is a false portrayal. Elaborating on the description of leviticus, including examples like the verses JWGreen mentioned, will help to make it more accurate. You already have your outside source: the bible. Arosearose 10:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Arosearose for that observation. I've added some of the other examples JWGreen mentioned, citing the text as the source.TVC 15 (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Contemporary?

What is meant by contemporary here? Contemporary to Leviticus, or contemporary to wikipedia?

... Leviticus is not suitable as a foundation for such a significant moral judgment for contemporary Christians, as it is impossible for those Christians to live by all of its rules strictly...

PRB (talk) 15:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Full Disclosure - Romans 1

Sorry, I've got some problems with this article, it seems a lot like rhetoric to me. The first issue I want to bring up is that of "full disclosure" when it comes to possible conflicting interests of your sources. Here is the passage of concern:

This usually appears to be based on the argument that the ancient world did not have a concept of homosexual orientation. However, having reviewed the evidence the report Issues in Human Sexuality (para 2.16) concluded: "It can be said, therefore, the phenomena which today would be interpreted in terms of orientation were present and recognised." These considerations therefore lead many Biblical interpreters to conclude that "the most authentic reading of Rom 1:26-7 is that which sees it prohibiting homosexual activity in the most general of terms, rather than in respect of more culturally and historically specific forms of such activity" (Hilborn 2002, p.9).

    Issues in Human Sexuality  is a statement by The House of Bishops published by the church of England. 

• The statement in the article "However, having reviewed the evidence the report Issues in Human Sexuality concluded..." gives the impression that this was a scientific study or academic journal. It needs to be changed from "report" to "statement of the Church of England".

• The second statement, while not as problematic, is from a book published by another christian organization "the evangelical alliance"
• The descriptions of the sources are abnormally vague. It needs to Clearly state the sources - it is very relevant.

The sources of this article need to be reviewed - there's a lot of church groups, and it may be lacking accepted academic scholarship. Don't mean to sound elitist - but this is an encyclopedia.

• There is no evidence given for the conclusion that there was a concept of homosexuality/heterosexuality in biblical times. We are instead given two qoutes from christian organizations that merely repeat the assertion without giving reason.
• Coincidentally there is nothing said about the argument it is countering -that there was not same concept of sexual orientation. It is written as merely an argument that exists, no sources, no supporters.

The argument that the concept of homosexual/heterosexual is recent in origin is accepted as academically valid and taught in human sexuality courses (distinct from whatever part it may play in religious debate). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arosearose (talk • contribs) 12:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC).

It seems to me that Romans does not call this practice a sin in any case. It calls some act a "shameful" punishment for sin, but not a sin in itself. The difference matters because elsewhere within Romans, Paul says that Christians have no moral duty on Earth except to love their neighbors and refrain from harming them (Romans 13:8-10). Nothing else, it seems, can possibly count as a sin for Christians. A quick google search finds another source for this view, though you have to scroll to the end to find the important bit: "A close reading of Paul's discussion of homosexual acts in Romans 1 does not support the common modern interpretation of the passage. Paul did not deny the existence of a distinction between clean and unclean and even assumed that Jewish Christians would continue to observe the purity code. He refrained. However, from identifying physical impurity with sin or demanding that Gentiles adhere to that code." William Countryman, Professor of New Testament, Church Divinity School of Pacific, Berkeley. Dan 02:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Mistaken interpretations of Romans 1:34-36 as opposed to correct interpretation

Obviously, Paul is not talking about "gay people" at all, and for sure he's not talking about committed relationships. He's talking about hellenistic religions which disrespected women and compelled their religious leaders to practice celibacy (ironically similar to some forms of Christianity nowadays). The result was that they ended up practicing orgiastically nasty sex among themselves, the ancient equivalent of molesting altar boys. He's warning against the results of sexual repression, as he does elsewhere in the same letter. Read the passage in Romans 1 again after reading this note. You'll agree with me that this all is obvious. Tom129.93.17.139 (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This comment typifies the specious hermeneutics and lack of objectivity that is evidenced in much of homosexual apologetics. Lacking the sanction clearly provided for heterosexual relations, and presupposing God cannot or would not provide such for homosexual with like clarity, a sexual intimation must be read into most any any close relationship, while verses which explicitly condemn homosexual activity must be relegated to only a specific context that has no real application today. Above the poster has imagined "obviously" Paul can only be responding to one form of idolatrous degradation, which he holds forbade heterosexual relations, and therefore they went after their own kind. And therefore the condemnation has nothing to do with "loving monogamous" homosexual relationships, which Paul somehow forgot to bless here or in certain other descriptions which homosexuals must disallow. And of course, to be consistent, it must also negate the other manifestations of this idolatry which the text continues to list (Rm. 1:28-32). Thus he is well on his way to disallowing the entire Bible as a moral authority, which is effectively the result of much of such "apologetics".

The fact is that even the 10 commandments have (Egyptian) idolatry as a backdrop, and Paul's admonitions to sexual purity in Ephesians and other texts were in the context of not being like pagans, and his censure of salvation on the basis of merit in Galatians was in the context of the Judaizers, yet these are all applicable to all for all times. While we must take into account the context in which something is written, yet simply because it was given in response to a particular manifestation of evil by a certain religion, or ordained as part of it, this usually does not restrict it's prohibitions or application to that context. And when it does, such as dietary laws, the fulness of revealtion usually makes that evident, and in which the most basic moral laws are upheld as a class and individually.

Romans 1 itself has God as Creator as it's foundation, and Paul's use of "nature" as in "against nature" (v. 26) in other places (Rom_11:24 (2), 1Co_11:14, Gal_2:15, Gal_4:8, Eph_2:3) refers to design or universal nature, which the practice of homosexuals is set in contrast to in Rm. 1. The idea that this refers to heterosexuals acting homosexuals is not in view, rather the condemnation is that homosexuality, including the consensual manner here, is contrary to God's design and ordained normality, the declension from which is a fruit of idolatry (as is all sin), not an excuse to act it out any more than the other manifestations are. Thus among the first Christians were former homosexuals (if we take 1 Cor. 6:11 to mean such). God be thanked.Daniel1212 (talk) 21:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Community ban of the Joan of Arc vandal

This article has been targeted in recent weeks by CC80, a sockpuppet of the Joan of Arc vandal. This and similar articles may be targeted again by other sockpuppets of the same person.

A vandal who has damaged Wikipedia's Catholicism, Christianity, cross-dressing, and homosexuality articles for over two years has been identified and community banned. This person will probably attempt to continue disruption on sockpuppet accounts. Please be alert for suspicious activity. Due to the complexity of this unusual case, the best place to report additional suspicious activity is probably to my user talk page because I was the primary investigating administrator. Durova^Charge! 17:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Voln, who has been very active on this article, has also been confirmed as a sockpuppet of the Joan of Arc vandal--the CheckUser case is at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/AWilliamson. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Diversity of perspective needed

This article should not be about proving that homosexuality is condemned by the Bible, or otherwise. It should provide as diverse a perspective as possible. I have added a great deal of content, including a valuable link to a site that provides a lot of detail from "both sides", and the content continues to be deleted with reverts.

There are a lot of perspectives regarding this issue other than "I'm a Christian who believes homosexuality is wrong" and "I'm a gay person, Christian or otherwise, who is fighting bigotry". Please try to be more objective and not delete content that doesn't perfectly gell with your particular worldview.

This is a subjective topic in many ways, so it's better to err on the side of tolerating more rather than less content. The Religious Tolerance link shows that there is a lot more to discuss than what's been presented in this article, and yet people continue to roll in back when content is added to expand it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.133.103.221 (talk • contribs).

Once again, people with the agenda of condemning homosexuality and making their personal brand of religion that standard are reverting the article, wiping out all of the changes I made to provide more balance, such as by taking out loaded statements such as "everyone thinks this" and replacing them with "some think this". Homosexuality is not same-sex rape. That is just one example of the erroneous bias that's present in the version that keeps being reverted to. Statements like "the most straightfoward interpretation" are POV. Period.

Removing the link to Religious Tolerance's excellent analysis is another example of the agenda in action. These people say anything that doesn't condemn homosexuality is biased, and do a revert. That site provides both sides' arguments equally. The Wiki reverters don't want both sides. They only want their biased, and often erroneous, point of view.

"Diverse" or not, what you've been adding is simply poor content. A.J.A. 20:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

How is it poor? For instance, explain why the Religious Tolerance link is "poor".

I agree that the Religious Tolerance link is appropriate. Furthermore, there is a major issue which needs to be addressed here. All the biblical quotes are from a modernized version of the Bible which, in its formulations, begs the question of same sex relations. For example, 1 Cor 6:9–10 in the 21st century King James gives us "Be not deceived: Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind..." while the TNIV in the article asserts "Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals..."

"Practicing homosexuals"??? You've got to be kidding me. In a text that is 2000 years old??? This translation jumps to unwarranted conclusions. Thus I strongly recommend that we use a more precise version, the above mentioned 21st C. K. J. Haiduc 16:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I just discovered an interesting addition in the TNIV myself. It inserted "sisters" into Matthew 5:22. Sisters is not present in the King James version. By adding sisters, it undermines the interpretation of "raca" as "effeminate".

If we can find extra-Wiki sources commenting on it -- and there must be some -- all this discussion could itself be included in the article. Obviously it's the language of the KJV that has shaped attitudes over the centuries, but the use of right-wing jargon in a new translation is newsworthy indeed! Has no one outside wiki commented on it?

Even if we can't find an outside source, I think we're on the safe side of OR if we simply list the different translations of this verse side by side with no comment other than "passages in the Bible related to homosexuality have been variously translated."

There was an article I read that quoted an industry insider who said approximately: "If a new Bible comes out that does not condemn homosexuality, it will be a failure in the market." This could help to explain why many newer texts have taken liberties such as "practicing homosexual". It also noted a difference between "translations" and "interpretations". Although translation involves interpretation, texts marketed as interpretations are likely to be more overtly anti-gay.

"Practicing homosexuals." Sheesh! Call me naive, but I'm shocked to see Christians treat the text so cavalierly. DanB†DanD 21:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I may have wiped out your "more ref format" edit because I was writing my edit for the Timothy section, but I compared the pages with the compare function and didn't see any changed you made. Maybe it doesn't show formatting changes? Anyway, if I did wipe something out, it was an accident. As for the "POV argument", there wasn't one. I simply corrected the definition because it said "boys", not teenagers, and suggested that it always involves anal sex. The Greeks practiced intercrural intercourse and looked down on anal sex. I changed the passage to KJV, too.

To reflect the diversity of opinion on this issue among theologians and modern Bible Scholars, I have added the word "some" in front of "Modern Bible scholars" in the introduction section - 09:30am 30 July 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.20.128.3 (talk) 12:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. - MishMich - Talk - 18:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Differences in versions

Rather than finding a single version of the Bible and using it consistently as if it were the most standard, correct version, I think it would be a lot clearer and more accurate to discuss the various translations and make it very clear that choosing one over another is an editorially important choice. DanB†DanD 22:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea if they are translations, not interpretations. Some newer Bibles don't try to be accurate, and add words and make other changes that aren't in the source texts, let alone make translation decisions that are suspicious. One analyst said, in order for a recent translation to be economically viable, it has to, for instance, condemn homosexuality.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.103.221 (talk • contribs)

Hi, please sign even if you're not logged in - it makes it much easier to follow the page.

All translations are interpretations. Although "practicing homosexual" is pretty darned bold, it would be deceptive to pretend that a neutral, transparent version of scripture in English exists. DanB†DanD 22:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's not go quite that far. There are translations that attempt to recreate the sense in the historical context and translations that try to modernize at the cost of scholarly accuracy. I would be very interested in the source of the comment on commercial viability and condemnation of homosexuality. What if we do not quote biblical passages at all here and just refer readers to the text via "bibleverse" links as such: 1 Cor 15:8–9 Haiduc 23:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

194.46.240.65 23:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Verstehen

"A useful exercise for heterosexual readers of the story is for them to replace the names of one of the male characters with a female name, and to see what impression they get. This will give a sense of how the story comes across to a homosexual reader." Because heterosexuals would be incapable of even a most rudimentary interpretation of homosexuality in texts presumably? One might just as well ask homosexuals to engage in an exercise requiring that one doesn't view all same sex interaction as having a sexual infrastructure. Though the latter, especially after a reading of a number of the citations in the article, might well be an unrealistic expectation.

By way of clarification, if I was to ponder the image of Daniel Craig on the cover of the Casino Royale DVD, is it because I am wondering that if I wore a dinner suit and drove an Aston Martin Vanquish I would be able to form a heterosexual relationship with Eva Green? Or is it because I have a homoerotic interest in Daniel Craig? I know that it's the former but I sincerely believe that many gay ideologues could not bring themselves to admit it is anything but the latter. However, I would be unlikely to make an academic career out of propounding that belief, nor would I be of the expectation that the gay ideological apparatus wouldn't view that as condescension.

194.46.240.65 23:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I should add, "Differences in versions" was not posted by me. I merely added the four tildes at the end of it to make a break prior to the addition of "Verstehen" (pun intended).

Lex Scantinia

The anonymous IP 213.165.225.92 has deleted what I'd written about both Lex Scantinia and Lex Julia, claiming that we don't know anything about Lex Scantinia. I know at least four German sources that directly quote from Lex Scantinia and dwell on it at length:

• Joh. Frid. Christ. (1726), Historia legis Scantiniae ("History of Lex Scantinia")
• Theodor Mommsen (1899), Römisches Strafrecht ("Roman Criminal Law")
• Münzer's (1921) entry for Scantinius in: Pauly-Wissowa (ed.), Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft ("Specialist Encyclopedia of Classical Ancient Philology")
• Gisela Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg (1978), Tabu Homosexualität ("The Taboo of Homosexuality")

Mommsen 1899 also quotes either Seneca the Elder or Seneca the Younger commenting on Lex Scantinia. --Tlatosmd 01:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Summary

There are 4 sort of direct references to homosexuality:

• 1 Leviticus holiness codes
• 1 Sodom and Gamorrah - God condems a bunch of guys wanting to rape a bunch of angels
• 2 Paul condemns homosexuality

Is that right? Oh and are Paul's words considered divinely inspired or no? The article doesn't say. --Kinst 04:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Pauls views are his own and can't possibly be divinely inspired. Paul supported slavery and opposed womens rights so if divinely inspired shouldn't we. Wayne (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a position that is manifest in many of most homosexual arguments. If Paul's words are not inspired, then what about Moses? And the Bible only has selective authority when it conforms to one's worldview, then why argue against it when it does not?

And as for the reason why Paul is disallowed, the fact is he required slave masters to treat slaves fairly and give pay (James rails against owners who did not pay there workers or abused them), and to receive a Christian slave no longer as a slaves but as a brother (Eph. 6:9; Col. 4:1; Ja. 5:1-4; Philmon v. 16), while his recommendation for slaves was to obtain (lawful) freedom (1 Cor. 7:1). One should be aware that slavery was not a monolithic institution, http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html and consider the times.

While the church as an early organic community had no slaves (Acts 2-6), approx. 1 out 3 persons were slaves in the Romans Empire and much of the church would have been made up of them. Slave revolts had not worked very well under the Romans, and Christians existed within a society in which they had little to no political power to change laws, and were in fact themselves often persecuted, and opposition to slavery at that time would have made it worse for the slaves. As slavery was such an intractable economic institution (even slaves sometimes had slaves), requiring a radical change in the way slaves were treated (under Roman law they were mere chattel), and for whom the ideal would be freedom, was the best way to achieve it, while focusing mainly on enabling spiritual deliverance from the greatest enslavement - of bondage to sin (not that believers are sinless, but they can serve a new and benevolent Master). Though historians partly credit the church for effecting better treatment, had the church not gotten much away from the Bible and become more like Rome it could have seen more success.

This is worth stating as one homosexual argument (not here) is that since the Bible advocates slavery which evangelical (in particular) Christians reject (and who were much the force behind it's abolition)then they cannot oppose homosexuality. However, the reality is that it allows and regulates (often in counter cultural ways) slavery as an intractable institution of the area and times when it was written, rather than commanding it as an immutable basic moral law which sexual sins are, and this distinction is evident. Nor is there evidence that it was racial, or widespread, in contrast to slave states as Greece or Rome. And the whole application of the moral commands of the Bible in their fullness requires the highest degree of morality, as well as brotherly love, which must include the ideal of freedom for slaves (1Cor. 7:21). And some of the first Christians were former homosexuals, if we take 1 Cor. 6:11 to means as such. Praise be to God.

As for woman's rights, yes the Bible does teach that man is the head (1 Cor. 11:1-4) and which have corresponding functional distinctions (1 tim. 2:9), but submission is not thing to be despised in the Bible, and those under leadership are not chattel, but husbands are commanded to love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it (Eph 5:25) - no small degree - and could lead very industrious (and capitalistic) lives in the Bible (Prv. 31; Acts 16:14), including working in ministry (Acts 18:26; Phil. 4:3) without being contrary to their functional restrictions. And they are spiritually equal in essence(Gal. 3:28). The error of homosexuals in this regard is that of equaling rights to act immorally with rights based upon amoral aspects.Daniel1212 (talk) 04:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Genesis 19: Sodom and Gomorrah

The first half of this section is filled with unsourced interpretations that fall under original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talk) 21:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

names

Is it really necessary to wikilink the names of every writer cited by this article? 24.32.208.58 (talk) 07:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

use of "rejected"

The choice of "rejected", i.e "as Jesus rejected the whole purity code" in the section on Leviticus is poor. There's plenty of material in the New Testament to show He didn't; in fact at one point He flatly declares it shall not be done away with. I though about alternative words -- surpassed, or superseded -- trying to get to the point of fulfilling so it no longer needed attention. I decided to leave a note rather than change anything at the moment; maybe someone else will have a clearer word choice.Dismalscholar (talk) 07:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

non-neutral wording in section 2

in the section about genesis 2, right at the end it says "In the end, it is not surprising that a story purportedly about the ancestors of the human race would involve a heterosexual couple capable of producing offspring. This has no obvious implications one way or the other regarding the possibility, much less the appropriateness of, sexual activities that may not or cannot result in the production of offspring. For those who hold that these stories are not to be interpreted in a literal-factual manner, they are a depiction of humankind in symbolic terms, and in this case as well there are no obvious automatic implications regarding other possible relationships at other points in history."

I found myself wholeheartedly agreeing with this opinion, but because I can be in agreement (or disagreement) its not neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.159.18.237 (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I tagged the material. If no one comes along with sources to support their inclusion in the next few weeks/month, it is easy enough to delete them/ move them here for proper sourcing. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I know this is old, but the understanding of Gn. 2 that only has procreation as causative of opposite genders, is a superficial one, which reads Gn. 2:24 much in isolation and rests upon the idea that the God in the Bible is only establishing a union due to a certain situational need (for population), and has another option in mind for who is to be joined in marriage, though He inexplicably never evidences this marriage - and insults Himself as creator by way of manifest deficiency in physical compatibility - and which idea instead requires laborious polemical efforts to extrapolate even a perceived intimation of sexual relations, while the explicit mentions of such are all negative.

All of which stands in stark contrast to the evidence that Gn. 2 is just the beginning of God manifesting that He, in response to man being alone (2:18) made man and women uniquely compatible and complimentary, in more ways than physical, which He proceeds to systematically and abundantly and uniquely confirm through the Bible, not only in further defining marriage (and divorce) as only between man and women (which Jesus confirmed Himself in Mt. 19:5) and working to edify the marriage of only man and women (and a wife is always a female in scripture) and articulating their roles (Prov. 31, 1 Pt, 3, etc.), but also providing extensive and clear expression of the blessed romantic attraction and sexual eros between a man and his wife, most supremely in the Song of Solomon (and they were married), the sensual nature of which God purposely makes evident. To His glory and their joy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel1212 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Some issues that we might want to think about

Hey all. I've been doing some research on the Bible and homosexuality in college, so I've managed to get a hold of a lot of sources. Unfortunately, I've found a lot of bias, loaded statements and misleading material in the entry on the Bible and homosexuality. This doesn't surprise me that much, considering the prominence that this issue has nowadays. Anyway, I'd like to make some suggestions and comments to the wikipedia editors who will ultimately determine what material goes into this important article. I have looked at some sections of the article more than others, so if any of my comments are inaccurate or unwarranted, please let me know.

First off, some author by the name of David Hilborn is cited fairly regularly. He works for an evangelical organization, and I think we could do a little more to seek opinions from other denominations.

Second, is it just me, or does this article still seem to have a slant toward the anti-gay interpretations of the Bible?

Third, several sentences start off as "the majority of interpreters..." or "most mainstream scholars think that..." or something to that effect. I don't think it's a good idea to state that the majority of biblical or Christian scholars conclude something without thorough documentation, and by that I mean citing a scientific poll of biblical and Christian scholars regarding their opinions, not taking a particular author's word that a majority of Christian scholars believes something.

Fourth, I suggest that if an author is cited, the editors should also keep in mind the potential problems of that particular author's work. The article mentions that scholars have found problems with John Boswell's works, but it fails to mention the problems associated with other authors (such as Hilborn, Gagnon, etc.) Here's a good example: Robert A. J. Gagnon's The Bible and Homosexual Practice is cited. It is a large and comprehensive defense of the position that the Bible condemns all homosexual practice. Unfortunately, several peer reviews (as well as myself) have come to the conclusion that he grossly manipulates or exaggerates statistical information about homosexuality in the last part of his book. I can provide several critiques of Gagnon's work if necessary to also show some of the theological and exegetical problems associated with Gagnon's work. It's fine to criticize John Boswell's pro-gay scholarly work, but then it's only fair to subject all other scholars, both pro-gay and anti-gay, to the same scrutiny.

Fifth, I found something quite interesting that I thought I should let everyone know about. One of the sources cited included Issues in Human Sexuality by the General Synod of the Church of England. Someone stated from this source in the article (specifically the section on Romans) that what we call sexual orientation was recognized in the ancient world of the Bible. I decided to check up on this assertion and borrow Issues in Human Sexuality from my library. I read it, and found out something quite interesting. Although this piece of work does indeed say that the phenomenon that our society might call sexual orientation was recognized (because the Greco-Romans knew some men were attracted strongly to others), that isn't the whole story. The paragraph of Issues in Human Sexuality containing this assertion actually concludes with just the opposite: that sexual orientation as it is understood today has been constructed against a background of psychological, biological, environmental and genetic evidence, and so the present-day scientific defintion of sexual orientation was not understood in the ancient world. This source is in fact not a study at all. It's an internal dialogue between Anglican bishops! Good thing my library had a copy of this book.

There was a homosexual subculture in ancient Greece, according to one history book I perused. Further, the existence of the Warren Cup and the Tomb of the Diver show that homosexuality, even if not framed exactly as we frame it today, was recognized. It's like saying people didn't recognize that food provides energy before calories were described. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.96.67 (talk) 03:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I've done extensive editing of my own with this article, although not under my account, so you wouldn't know it was me unless you also knew my IP number. I hope my insights have proven useful. Take care!

Gman620 (talk) 02:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The word 'homosexuality'

I've heard that the word homosexuality was not added to an English translation of the bible until 1946. Is there any verification? Would this be worth mentioning here? AllTheBrightness (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It could be mentioned, perhaps in response to the oft heard argument that the Bible says nothing about homosexuality, since that word did not exist until recently. In which case homicide cannot be said to be dealt with in the Bible. Etc. Daniel1212 (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Cafeteria Christianity

This paragraph, which I attempted to remove, but someone saw fit to replace, is patent nonsense:

Another argument is that Leviticus is not suitable as a foundation for such a significant moral judgment for contemporary Christians, as it is impossible for those Christians to live by all of its rules strictly, and that it is wrong to pick and choose, making convenience the criteria. The regulations in question include Leviticus 19:27, which condemns cutting the hair on the sides of the head and trimming ones beard, and Leviticus 11:7, 24-25, which condemns contact with the flesh of a dead pig (pigskin), as well as Leviticus 11:10-12, which labels eating shellfish "abomination."[1] Moreover White-Neill (2002) claims that if the passage is taken as an absolute condemnation of homosexuality, the issues in Leviticus 18, cursing one's parents(v. 9), adultery(v. 10), sexual intercourse with mother-in-law(v. 11), daughter-in-law(v. 12), sexual intercourse during a woman's menstrual cycle (v.19), bestiality(vss. 15-16), and incest(v. 17) would also have to be viewed as mortal sins.

I don't understand why it is considered immoral "cafeteria christianity" to "pick and choose" from a list of rules, but it's fine to just ignore the whole thing. What is this list doing in The Bible, if its sole purpose is to be ignored? PRB (talk) 13:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

My bad - it appeared sourced. On closer review the source is just Bible text and not analysis. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The cafeteria christianity argument is a common pro homosexual one, along with the "Jesus did not mention it" one, but which is based upon ignorance or a disallowance of the entire Bible as inspired and authoritative (which is often effectively the argument of pro homosexual apologetics), but in it the moral laws are clearly affirmed, and in which class sexual laws apply, while those dealing with amoral aspects, defined under the New covenant as applying to diet and temple rituals and liturgical seasons (Gal. 4:10; Colossians 2:16; Hebrews 9:10)), were typological in nature. While Christians some hold that these laws are for today, this is a minority view and a problematic one, as unlike moral precepts they find no reiteration under the New covenant, and were usually dependent upon the existence of the Temple for their literal observance. Daniel1212 (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Are those arguments really stronger? It's much more difficult to use the Bible as a tool against homosexuals than it is to undermine that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.96.67 (talk) 03:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Isaiah 3:9

I'm removing this from the Book of Kings section,

They "declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not." (Isaiah 3:9)

because (1) Isaiah was talking about a much later period, not the period of Rehoboam to which the quotation was being applied; (2) the mention of Sodom has nothing to do with homosexuality here - instead, Isaiah is referencing Sodom's sin of proverbial brazenness, which he is comparing with the brazenness of wrongdoing in Jerusalem. Jheald (talk) 14:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Classic sources on Genesis 19 and homosexuality

This contains the unequivical statement that, "the opinion that Genesis 19 might refer to any other sexual act other than with Lot's daughters is alien to Jewish tradition.

However, both Philo and Josephus writing about or in the 1st century attribute such. Thus I took "No" out of the section title and added "ancient" before "Jewish tradition," rather than delete it, as perhaps the author meant BC. Perhaps not, in such a case it should be modified to say rare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel1212 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

"God" is not used in a neutral way in some cases

Consider this sentence from the article which I revised. Here is the original:

The interpretation of these passages and their place within the religion's wider understanding of God's purpose for humankind therefore has important implications for homosexuality and Judaism, homosexuality and Christianity, and homosexuality and Islam.

Here is the revision:

The interpretation of these passages and their place within the religion's wider understanding of its God's purpose for humankind therefore has important implications for homosexuality and Judaism, homosexuality and Christianity, and homosexuality and Islam.

The article should strive to maintain neutrality in every way possible, including by not falsely presenting this specific God as being "God" for everyone.

"its God's purpose" is not only awkward, but more importantly unwarranted, as the title of the article is "The Bible and Homosexuality." The statement at issue does not name Hinduism, etc, and states "the religion" - not religion's - but religions that hold the Bible as authoritative (though for Islam in particular) that has some greater qualifications) and thus overall like positions on the subject of this page. Therefore the original is fitting and contextually neutral, that God's will as these 3 religions variously understand Him, is (largely, at least) based upon the Bible. In contrast, your version now requires that the 3 religions named must have exactly the same (its) God. Daniel1212 (talk) 06:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Now it reads,

The interpretation of these passages has important implications in the wider understanding of God's purpose for humankind as relates to homosexuality and Judaism, homosexuality and Christianity, and homosexuality and Islam. It is Biblical passages at subject, and religions that do not look to the Bible are not at issue here.Daniel1212 (talk) 07:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Having a question in the article?

In the section "the meaning of yada", this sentence comes up.

"If the men were homosexual, why would Lot have offered his daughters and how could the city's population be sustained?"

This seems like more of an argument point than a factual statement. It seems very biased to me.

I'd propose it be removed. There are many places that statement can go, including bisexuality and the way the question was initially supposed to be interpreted. Even if it doesn't get removed, I really think it doesn't work encyclopedia-wise.

WoogieNoogie (talk) 04:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I did delete it, as it is a plain polemic, though it could be presented as part of a referenced argument. Of course, the sodomitic argument on Gn. 19 is not asserting that all of the inhabitants were homosexuals (thus no procreation), but that while fornication was a regional issue (Jude 7) which preceded the angelic mission, (Gn. 18) the manner of relations evidenced by the men seeking to know Lot's guest - which sexual aspect is seen as manifested in Judges 19 (whom they knew and abused all the night) - was particularly perverse, and that, not simply the violent nature of it, was the capstone of Sodom's physical sins, going before to judgment.

I also restored half of v. 26, which someone had deleted. Most likely bcz they did not like the translation (?). I restored it using a more literal version. Also deleted was the first half of the yâda polemic, which had left just the response. Also provided more input and referencesDaniel1212 (talk) 06:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"A useful exercise"

I think the part about "a useful exercise for heterosexual readers" being to imagine the story of David and Jonathan with a man and a woman is really stupid and insulting. Just because I'm gay, do I have to interpret the story as sexual? Are people's interpretations generally determined entirely by their own sexual preferences, and not by any knowledge or regard for changing cultural norms, sensitivity to context and the story, and so on? This should, in my estimation, be changed or, preferably, just eliminated. Whether this is "useful" in any way is, or should be, a hugely contentious question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.97.214 (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You are not the first to object to that here (Verstehen), but it does convey that imagination plays a large part in pro homosexual interpretation. The case of Jonathan's divestiture of his outer garments has a sound and logical precedent, but also plainly unwarranted are other ideas, such as making Elisha's staff to represent a male sexual organ, and turning sneezing into sex, and making the alliance btwn King Jehu and Jehonadab a homosexual "pick-up." Etc.Daniel1212 (talk) 02:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Please note that this article has been added to the Judaism project without discussion

At the moment this article is part of the LGBT and Christianity series template - including it under Judaism will inevitably reorient the article into one about Abrahamic faiths, which includes Islam, diminishing the relevance of the New Testament within the article, and entailing losing this article from LGBT and Christianity - which may be a problem. Could I suggest this be reverted, a new article formed to cover the position of Judaic scriptures in the Abrahamic faiths in relation to LGBT topics, so that specific Christian debate covered in this article does not get lost from its links with Christianity. Mish (talk) 00:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

An article on the Bible and its relation to homosexuality are in the interest of Wiki Project Judaism, which includes in its focus information on the scriptures. There does not need to be a discussion before including it. The "Judaic scripture" is indentical to the Christian one. The quotes in the Old Testament pertaining to homosexuality are indentical be it they Jewish or Chrisitan. The aritcle is about "The Bible," not any bible. Islam has a completly different holy book (again not The Bible), the Holy Qur'an, so it would not be included. - Epson291 (talk) 02:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Is that relevant? This is about the Bible and homosexuality - not 'The Torah' and homosexuality. The term 'The Bible' has a very specific meaning within Christianity as a book made up Hebrew and Christian texts, if you want an article on those books from a Jewish perspective, that is fine, but because this is about both 'Old' and 'New' Testaments, it does not really work to make this article about Jewish scripture as well as well as the Christian Bible. The way that would need to work would be to have one article to cover the Torah and other Jewish texts, which included Christian interpretations of the 'Old Testament' and homosexuality, and retain this one. Whatever the historical origins of how this came to become the Christian Bible, the discussions and points of controversy over this issue are big enough within one religion - to add in another would make things even more complex. Islam is an Abrahamic faith, and it too includes the books of the law, and restates them - which is why within Islam people who use these scriptures are known as the People of the Book. As far as I am aware, the Hebrew scriptures existed as sacred scrolls and other texts (wherein lies the origin of the idea that 'The Bible' is the unalterable word of God - which persists within Christianity, despite it being translated from several sources, and extends to Islam for the Qu'ran. They were never a book called 'The Bible', before Christian scripture was refered to as Ta Biblia in Greek in the 3rd century, prior to this the term 'biblia' just meant any book. Judaism, as well as having the Torah, the Psalms, the Prophets, etc. as separate texts, also has the Talmud, which includes the Mishnah, and while this would not be related to 'the Bible' would need inclusion within any discussion of Jewish scripture. That all deserves an article in its own right, not as being incorporated into this one. Mish (talk) 09:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The Bible refers to the religious text that both Jews and Christians see as the word of God. It includes the Old and New Testaments, though naturally only the Old Testament for Jews. The Old Testament is the same text, whether your Roman Catholic, Protestant or Jewish. The term "torah," also known as the Pentateuch, which is from Greek as well, is simply the name for the first five books of the Bible, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Talmud, and Mishnah are not part of the Bible. I have no idea what you are saying about Islam, they have a different bible (lower case b). The article would need to be moved to The Bible and homosexuality in Christianity if you wanted to weed out all the Jewish thought on the text, but as it stands now, it is offensive and violates WP:NPOV not to include Jewish opinion on a article on the Bible. - Epson291 (talk) 19:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

'The Old Testament' is a Christian, not Jewish, concept. These books only make up the 'Old Testament' in 'The Bible' in Christianity - that is NPOV. In Judaism parts of what Christians call 'The Old Testament' are still their sacred scriptures, written by hand on scrolls considered very sacred. Do you have a WP:RS source that describes the 'Old Testament' as 'The Bible' in Judaism? What Judaism has to say about homosexuality only accords with Christianity on about three verses from the Pentateuch - the rest of the Christian references are from St. Paul. I agree that there could be an article that covers the sacred scriptures common to the Abrahamic faiths, but the best way of going about that would be to create a new article on that subject, not hi-jack this one. There have to be references to the place of some of the Bible in Judaism in such an article, because of the historical provenance. Take a look at Bible - that is not part of the Judaism project, although it is part of a series on the Biblical canon and books. And Development of the Old Testament defines it thus: "The Old Testament is the first section of the two-part Christian Biblical canon, which includes the books of the Hebrew Bible as well as several Deuterocanonical books". I just think that making such a substantial change like this, it ought to be discussed first - as it will necessarily involve unlinking the article from the series 'LGBT topics and Christianity', and inserting it into the series on 'The Bible', as this effectively orphans it from Christianity. Mish (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are debating on semantics now. I'm only using the term "Old Testament" on this talk page since it is generally what I use. However, as you point out, it is not a neutral term. As this article is written, it uses the term Hebrew Bible instead; Hebrew Bible, Old Testament, and the Hebrew acyromn Tanakh all refer to the same thing. You asked me to "take a look at Bible - that is not part of the Judaism project" However, you are incorrect, it is absoltely is part of WikiProject Judaism. As long as the scope of this article is on The Bible and homosexuality, that is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism and Jewish thought on the matter should be included. I'm not in the habit of quoting Wikipedia articles as it is poor practice, but since you have already, consider this. The Bible defines it as being "the central religious text of Judaism and Christianity. Modern Judaism generally recognizes a single set of canonical books known as the Tanakh, or Hebrew or Jewish Bible. In Christianity, the Tanakh is known as the Old Testament. The Christian Bible includes both the Old Testament and a collection of newer canonical books known as the New Testament." - Epson291 (talk) 02:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You are also wrong about your etymology as well. While you claim that calling it ta biblia in Greek started in the 3rd century A.D. by Christians, as if it somehow authenticates your claims, it actually was an expression by Hellenistic Jews used to describe the scriptures several centuries before the time of Jesus.[8] Etymology aside, the point it that the "The Bible" refers to the holy book of Jews and Christians. You seam to be arguing that even though both Jews and Christians call it the Bible, it is only correct when Christians say it, which is incorrect. - Epson291 (talk) 07:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Points taken, I have removed the LGBT topics and Christianity, as the article is not about Christian views on the Bible and homosexuality any more, it is about Christian and Jewish views on the Bible and homosexuality. You might want to add it in to the LGBT topics and religion template instead. Mish (talk) 20:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Reverting deletion of article contents

IronAngelAlice deleted most of the article's contents, with the reasons "unsourced text that reads like a personal essay" and "This artile is pure editorialization - delete". There is a lot of content that qutoes from the Bible to illustrate the controversial passages in question, and describe, with references, the scholarly debate. Some sections do need some tweaking or more citations, and at least some of these are tagged, but that's no reason to delete everything wholesale. -- Beland (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

This user has been doing this on a number of articles relating to Christianity and LGBT/homosexuality the past few days. Mish (talk) 20:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hebrew Bible and New Testament

Given that this article is fairly long, it might be a good idea to try to sub-divide this article into two separate parts : homosexuality in the Hebrew Bible and homosexuality in the New Testament. I know that certain people like to interpret the Bible as if it were one single book, but it is probably more practical to acknowledge the differences of style and content that exist between the Old Testament and the New Testament. ADM (talk) 15:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 14:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Romans 1:26-27

In my research in this area, I have read that a lot of the Bible scholars simply explain this passage by saying that Paul was a bit homophobic, and this was his own personal beliefs, and that he was not speaking for God. ~ Adam Henderson 10:48, 5 December 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psyadam (talk • contribs)

See http://homosexvsthebible.wikia.com/wiki/Romans_1Daniel1212 (talk) 12:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

sexualities are gifts

I would like to find some authority who could amplify 1 Corinitians 7 where it is said that one man has a gift this way and another one that. The words this and that indicate a variety.

The United Church of Canada adopts this point of view based on the fact that we are all born in the image of God but I can't find the requisit authority for this verse. Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 09:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

well, it is one thing to discuss what the original texts of the Bible are saying, and quite another what individual churches are making of these texts. Obviously the Bible frowns on homosexuality. Just as obviously, modern religions do not follow biblical law to the letter, or we'd still be burning witches and stoning adulteresses. This article is supposed to discuss the content of the actual texts. Nobody in their right mind would follow millennia-old laws to the letter, or they would find themselves practicing Iron Age historical reenactment, not religion. Yes, this applies to Judaism too, Judaism follows interpretations of biblical law produced during Late Antiquity, and not the actual laws of the Iron Age kingdoms. It is perfectly fair to say that the Bible outlaws homosexuality, but it is just as fair to say that some denominations choose to apply these laws to themselves, while others do not. --dab (𒁳) 08:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

What happened to this article?

Most of it is missing!

This used to be a long detailed article and now it's a one-sided joke.

The current state of this article reflects very poorly on the evolution process of articles on Wikipedia. I implore someone with some level of leadership at Wikipedia to restore the tremendous amount of lost content and accuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.101.211 (talk) 06:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Alas, we are entering an age where truth, when insulting or uncomfortable to some, becomes subject to mood and climate. Rather than right, wrong, and nothing in between, people feel the need to ride the center of an issue when one side is clearly wrong. Whether it's Scientology or UFO Kennedy assassination theories, every crackpot gets their say. Much of the debate has now moved into hermeneutics and linguistics. This link shows a debate that provides an excellent example of contemporary thought on this issue. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCTTq8DMQ8E

Dr. Brown, arguing using the Bible, establishes context and uses academic research to demonstrate his case. Harry Knox's reaction is to play the part of an insulted and victimized man crying "can't we all just get along?" This article, and many on Wikipedia for that matter, could do with an understanding that what is true is not always pretty or popular.98.114.89.231 (talk) 05:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

This article is a bit ridiculous

'In 35 A.D., the secular philosopher Philo wrote that arsenokoitēs referred to "temple prostitution".' The reference is given to Boswell. Boswell is already very problematic - he makes some claim about Philo and arsenokoites - but does not, I believe, go so far as to simply state that 'Philo wrote that it refers to temple prostitution' - he probably said something more subtle like, "One might infer from Philo's use of the word, that he took it to include temple prostitution.' There is an enormous chasm of difference here. Furthermore, upon inspection of the text that Boswell refers to in Philo - The Special Laws - one discovers that this text actually doesn't even contain the word arsenokoites or anything containing these particular roots. Most likely, Boswell made a mistake - since the text does contain the word malokoi - another one of the disputed words (though not as important as arsenokoites) - and when he wrote his book, forgot that the relevant word here was not arsenokoites, but rather malokoi. See e.g. http://www.peter-ould.net/2009/07/12/sexuality-and-slavery-part-three/ which presents the text with the original words.

Please note: 1) This is a very big blooper on the part of Boswell. It may have been 'in good faith,' but it's a very big mistake to make. We are continuing to cite Boswell here - I would suggest that when we do, we not take him to be an authority - Boswell is passionate about arguing that Scripture does not condemn same-gender sex acts, but this blinds him somewhat, as this rather large mistake confirms.

2) We are not only taking Boswell's word on things, but we go further in exaggerating Boswell's words - this is sort of like a fundamentalist taking another fundamentalist's text, and then claiming to cite the author but making him even more extreme. This is how extremism is engendered. We have really fallen rather deep into extremist rhetoric here which has little regard for the truth, though it does its best to appear legitimate with footnotes, references, etc.. But it's not even very good extremist rhetoric. It really seems as if Wikipedia has become a bit of an outpost for gay fundamentalists. I would hope that we would also have some more even-headed gay editors who are willing to present information that's not all driven toward a particular viewpoint, and thereby lessen the public's tendency to think that truth is being manipulated when it comes to matters pertaining to homosexuality.

Boswell was important historically for encouraging us to re-think and re-evaluate the meanings of these words - this however doesn't make him "right" on issues - though he was an inspiration for many, we need to be careful in referring to him for matters of fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.77.237 (talk) 11:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5