Talk:The Bible and homosexuality/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

In AD 35, the philosopher Philo wrote that arsenokoitēs referred to "temple prostitution."[citation needed]

I'd like to know who added this withou a citation? If it's true it refutes the common asusmption Paul coined it himself, and it is consistent which what I've perosnally come to suspect it means. And Paul giving many thigns about him, woudl very liekly have been familiar with Philo's writeings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.144.42.153 (talk) 07:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Philo simply did not use the term. I have scoured both his writings and writings about him. I have found people who claim he did use the term, but not a single one of them can point me to the specific place. Since the sentence has been around for a while, I am not removing it myself. However, I do highly support removing the statement if no one can provide an exact quote. Wickedjacob (talk) 04:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it. Someone had added a source, pgs 64-69 of God Is Not a Homophobe: An Unbiased Look at Homosexuality in the Bible, by Philo Thelos, but those pages don't support this statement.PiCo (talk) 00:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 Quote

Whats the source for this quote. Its laid out in the article as if arsenokoitēs is actually used in typical English language Christian Bibles (KJV, NIV, ELS, etc.). I'm not questioning the fact the word was used and its meaning disuputed as much as if you're going to half and half quote the Bible at least give references for where you got your English part and where you got your Greek part. I'm putting a citation needed tag on the quote. --Sabre ball^TC 19:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

split rationale

this article simply is a combination of two others Homosexuality in the Hebrew Bible and Homosexuality in the New Testament. It adds nothing. If there was any discussion on secondary literature addressing "the Bible" as a whole, and what to make of the combined Old and New Testament references, it might have a point. As it stands, it does not.

Of course there are people who think "the Bible" as a whole must be obeyed. These are a religious lunatic fringe. Mainstream Jews focus on the Old Testament and ignore the New Testament. Mainstream Christians focus on the New Testament, and while they hold the Old Testament to be venerable and relevant, they don't use it as a manual for anything. Only a few bible-thumping fanatics think "The Bible" is the literal "word of God" and must be absorbed uncritically. For such an approach, we could conceivable have "Homosexuality and Christian fundamentalism" or some similar topic. The point is that this article does not address any angle that is not already covered in the main articles.

Now, both the Old and the New Testament obviously reject homosexuality. There is nothing much to quibble here. The Old Testament reflects a society of Judea ca. 500 BC, while the New Testament reflects society in the 1st century. In both cases, homosexuality was, of course, frowned upon. You don't need the Bible to figure this out. It is quite another question whether this should have any impact on anyone today. The statements "Mosaic law condemned homosexuality", and "Paul of Tarsus condemned homosexuality" are doubtlessly true. The question is whether anyone should think this relevant today. Some people decide read the bible and do anything they find in there. That's of course a completely irrational approach, but once you decided to do that, you will of course need to condemn homosexuality. Criticism of such an approach should consist of asking why anyone should follow blindly what they read somewhere. It should not consist of trying to conjure away the fact that the Bible indeed condemns homosexuality, because such an attempt would be futile and dishonest to say the least. --dab (𒁳) 07:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

So what are you saying - you're proposing a 3-way merge? PiCo (talk) 00:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I support part of this, we don't need three pages for the same information, but it would be good to keep the Tanakh version for Jews who are not interested in the Old Testament. But we do not need a different New Testament version. Stidmatt (talk) 06:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Genesis 18

disclaimer: I am not a qualified Biblical scholar, just an interested atheist amateur, so do not feel competent to prepare this as an edit to the main article. If someone feels comfortable in doing that, please feel free. For my part, this is just for discussion...

The claim that the ruffians actions were the basis for the destruction of the towns seems incredible since the planned destruction is already discussed by Abraham and God in the previous chapter (Genesis 18). Plainly then, whatever sins the city had committed took place PRIOR to the later arrival of the angels. (B.Y.W. Genesis 18 is one of the examples where someone (Abraham) sees GOD without the aid of burning bushes or dust clouds and does NOT surely die.)

It is also worth noting that neither in Genesis 19 nor, that I have found, anywhere else in the Bible does it suggest that the sin committed by the ruffians was homosexuality. It could just as easily have been that the intent was to rape, that it would have been rape/sex of another species or that they tried to force Lot to break the protection/hospitality of his household for his guests?

As I said, if anyone feels confident to go ahead with an edit on this, please feel free. 212.93.100.33 (talk) 06:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

For anything on the Bible it's pretty much guaranteed there are scholarly sources out there that come to these conclusions in their analysis. Go forth and find some! Be bold! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Jesus and Homosexuality

Recently I attempted to make the following edit to the second paragraph.

Other scholars, such as Daniel Akin, have argued that the teachings of Jesus actually condemn homosexuality.

http://www.bpnews.net/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=38461

The author of the article is Daniel Akin who is the president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and prominent leader in the Southern Baptist Convention. What made this article interesting was its emphasis on applying the teachings of Jesus to same-sex marriage. Many have argued that Jesus had nothing to say about the matter. I thought that wiki readers might be interested in hearing Daniel Akins traditional Christian interpretation on this matter.

While I appreciate Mr. X giving me a good faith edit, I would like to appeal his removal of my edit. Please weigh in on this issue and help us decide if wiki readers would be better informed by Akin's thoughts and my edit. Please note that Akin's perspective is widely held by traditional Christians. I would also add that my sentence follows a similar sentence quoting a liberal scholar. Toverton28 (talk) 20:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Versions of the bible

Shouldn't we make sure all quotes include the version from which they came? As the translations of the KJV for instance were as I understand it written to be as close to the original languages as possible, whereas the New International were created to make it easier to read, surely this will induce a ridiculous amount of confliction if something that has been taken from the NIV is understood as the KJV or any of the others

Scratchedguitar (talk) 13:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, all quotes should identify the specific translation. This seems to me like a requirement, in the spirit of WP:V. But more importantly, the article should stick with the same translation throughout. It is blatant cherry-picking to jump between KJV and NIV (and others) in search of the quote that best suits a particular editor's views. ► Belchfire-TALK 04:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

This is one of the reasons why primary sources are discouraged. The article should mostly be constructed from secondary and tertiary sources. When supporting quotes are necessary, we can either use the version that the sources reference, or show quotes from both major versions.
(I wonder if the OP will return to comment on this zombie thread. They haven't been active in more than six months.) - MrX 05:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Let me make sure I understand what you're saying... you think we need secondary sources for blockquotes of the Bible??? ► Belchfire-TALK 05:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Umm...not exactly. I'm saying we should mostly avoid inserting block quotes unless proper context has been established in reliable, secondary sources for this subject (The Bible and homosexuality). We should also avoid original research and systemic bias (see WP:CHRISTIANPOV). - MrX 05:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty evident to me that the blockquotes are there for illustrative purposes, in support of the adjacent commentary (which comes from secondary sources). I noticed you didn't have any objection to them when you were reverting them. There is no original research (nor can there be) in a direct quote. This is a perfectly appropriate use of primary sources (which are not prohibited). ► Belchfire-TALK 06:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I think consistency is good, but would question the use of the NIV; versions that were translated with modern positions on LGBT rights in mind are not exactly going to give readers a good idea of what the text actually says. (It's not as though the KJV doesn't have its own issues but it's also language that people are familiar with.) And of course, sneaking in substantive edits under the guise of consistency - I refer here to the removal of "arsenokoitai" and its replacement with "men who have sex with men" etc., where the translation of the words is actually really significant - is unacceptable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The KJV is, at best, a second-generation translation, as it was created using the Latin Textus Receptus and Vulgate versions, not the Greek originals. The NIV, OTOH, is a direct translation from the oldest and best available Greek texts. Thus, it is arguably more true to the original writings. As to the language of the 17th Century Elizabethan KJV being "more familiar" to modern readers than the 1970s-vintage NIV... verily, thou hath convinced me not.

To my mind, what is "unacceptable" is inserting an obscure Greek word (arsenokoitai) into the middle of an English passage. We address that the word is troublesome to translators with adequately sourced commentary, but we have a highly reputable scholarly translation at our disposal, and we should use it. We shouldn't say "this is a hard word" and then pretend that nobody has any idea what it means, when that is clearly not the case. ► Belchfire-TALK 06:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

What is clearly the case is that you and the NIV translators have your own opinion on its meaning, but that many scholars disagree. Even were we to accept the general use of NIV in the article, being consistent cannot be a higher priority than being factual and informative; in passages that use words of debated meaning, it is fundamental that we point out where the debated word occurs. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

There's no reason why this article should only consider one version. All major/notable versions of the Bible are fair game, regardless of our views of the quality or integrity of the translations. The subject is the Bible and Homosexuality, not the New International Version of the Bible and Homosexuality. However, I agree that we should not cherry pick quotes simply to support a particular POV. - MrX 18:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Philo and Josephus

I've removed the reference to the "most outrageous" - in the article, it gives the impression of being a quote from either or both of those authors, but in reality it's a quote from Rob Gagnon, who, if you look in his book, is actually arguing the opposite of what the quote seems to argue: not that homosexuality was the worst of all the things, but that Sodom had a lot of other sins and homosexuality was one of them. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Please enlighten me about how Gagnon "is actually arguing the opposite of what the quote seems to argue". He does write, doesn't he: "the evidence indicates that the singular תועבה in Ezek 16:50 refers to the (attempted) commission of atrocious sexual immorality at Sodom, probably the homosexual intercourse proscribed in Lev 18:22; 20:13"? Isn't that a clear enough statement of how Gagnon interprets the word תועבה (in the singular) in Ezekiel 16:50? Yet in your version you cite Gagnon for the idea that תועבה ("abomination") in Ezekiel 16:50 refers instead to "various forms of idolatry and other undesirable actions" (which seems rather to correspond to Gagnon's idea of the use of the plural תועבות in other passages). And in addition you make DeYoung support that vague idea of תועבה, when he says: "If someone should protest that Ezekiel 16 does not specifically use the term homosexuality, the reply is that the concept is clearly present ... Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 support this assertion because they use abomination (Heb. תועבה; Gk. βδέλυγμα) to denote male homosexual acts"!

There are also other curious statements in your version. Perhaps one will do for now, one associated with the heading you have put on this Talk section: why do you, after speaking of the stories in the Talmud (the Babylonian Talmud to be exact), dating from the 3rd to 5th centuries, speak of Philo (d. AD 50) and Josephus (37 – c. 100) as "later Jewish writers"? And, in the same context, why did you delete the word "unambiguously" from the quotation "the first writers to assert unambiguously that the sin of Sodom involved homosexuality were Philo ... and Josephus", thus giving the impression that the idea was definitely excluded by everyone before that? Philo and Josephus were part of the Jewish community of the 1st century, by the end of which, Bailey says, "the sin of Sodom had become widely identified amongst the Jews with homosexual practices".

I do not thank you for assuming probable bad faith on my part ("probably deliberate misquoting of sources"). Esoglou (talk) 20:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Your version made it seem as though Philo and Josephus emphasized homosexuality as the worst of Sodom's sins. Not only did Philo and Josephus not say this, the secondary source (Gagnon) is actually writing that Philo and Josephus named a bunch of other sins, rather than singling out homosexuality.

Your comments about תועבה are irrelevant as you've misread my edit.

The chronological order I used was the order in which the various interpretations developed (so after the overview paragraph, we have lack of charity, heterosexual immorality, and then homosexuality). We could consider changing it, but that would be more annoying to read as it would seem to flip back and forth.

You've engaged in original research and misrepresentation of sources to the point of being topic-banned on multiple occasions. You no longer get presumption of good faith. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I refuse to be drawn into discussing an editor rather than the edit we are talking about.

You haven't/couldn't deny that Gagnon and DeYoung say that the "abomination"/תועבה that Ezekiel 16:50 presents as a reason why God removed Sodom refers specifically to (attempted) homosexual activity. So why have you deleted the mention of that interpretation of Ezekiel 16:50, leaving only the interpretation that you yourself prefer?

It would have been more pleasing if you yourself had undone your distorted claim that Philo and Josephus were the first ever to see homosexuality as among the sins of Sodom, a claim in keeping with your own idea that Ezekiel did not see it as such. I am grateful to the editor who did (re)insert the word "unambiguously" that is in Greenberg's statement. But other points in that part of your edit have not yet been remedied. Take your deletion of the fact that, among the wrongdoings of the men of Sodom, Philo emphasized their homosexuality, as Crompton states on page 137, and as Hollinger also reports: "Philo [...] and Josephus [...] noted that the various sins of Sodom included arrogance, drunkenness, adultery, gluttony, and apathy toward the poor. But for both Philo and Josephus 'homosexual conduct was ... the most outrageous example of a much wider range of sinful excess'" (emphasis added by me). You have not yet remedied your characterization of Philo and Josephus as "later" Jewish writers. Later than what? The Letter of Jude is mentioned immediately before. Philo was dead before that was written. Before Josephus died, "the sin of Sodom had become widely identified amongst the Jews with homosexual practices" - "widely identified", not by Philo and Josephus alone. And, as is obvious, the Talmud evidence is much later. Esoglou (talk) 11:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Brief responses point by point:

• No one is asking you to do so, only to stop making edits that violate policy.
• Again, you've misread the edit.
• Crompton on p. 137 says nothing of the kind, and Hollinger, already a poor source, is made more questionable by his taking Gagnon's comment out of context to make the exact opposite point from the author.
• Try reading my comment about chronology again. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• It is your edit that has violated policy by suppressing sourced relevant information (and by twice distorting what is in Greenberg).
• Your edit has excluded the sourced view that the "abomination"/תועבה that Ezekiel 16:50 presents as a reason why God removed Sodom refers specifically to (attempted) homosexual activity. May I put it back in?
• On page 137 Crompton quotes Philo as saying of the men of Sodom: "Not only in their mad lust for women did they violate the marriages of their neighbors, but also men mounted men without regard for the sex nature which the active partner shares with the passive", and then adds: "It was this last emphasis which was taken up by Christian exegetes" (italicization added). So Crompton does say that Philo emphasized the homosexuality of the men of Sodom. Don't play down what Philo said.
• Gagnon does not "make the exact opposite point from (Hollinger)": immediately after the phrase that Hollinger quoted, Gagnon wrote: "This validates the observation that some of the other applications of the Sodom story (arrogance, inhospitality, social injustice) were not necessarily made to the exclusion of a critique of homosexual intercourse." (Yet you have deleted from the article the mention of the view that Ezekiel did give homosexual practice as a factor in God's decision to wipe out Sodom.) And shortly before, Gagnon wrote: "Even if contrary to what we have argued, the texts in Ezekiel and Jude were construed as making no reference to homosexual intercourse, one still would have little basis for inferring that these authors were somehow neutral about homosexual practice." Here Gagnon states what is the view for which he has argued and makes it clear that your claim that the context of the Gagnon quotation disagrees with what Hollinger says is mistaken. In this place too, as elsewhere in his book, Gagnon says that Ezekiel did have in mind and condemned the attempted homosexual action of the men of Sodom. There really is more than one view, not yours alone. Esoglou (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Not unless we assume that readers who have just read the section on Leviticus have already forgot about it, it doesn't exclude that. Your edit presents the unsourced idea that there are some interpretations of the Bible in which תעב refers only to homosexuality (which is an argument that even Gagnon doesn't make), whereas mine points out both that it's used in Leviticus and that it's used elsewhere.
• I think I've asked this before, when you were inserting original research into other topic areas, but are you simply not a native English speaker? That might explain why you have trouble reading these sources correctly. Crompton is saying that it was by and large Christian exegetes who made such a point of homosexuality - which is quite the opposite of what you're saying.
• So Hollinger says that Philo and Josephus emphasized homosexuality, and Gagnon says that in P and J's view, homosexuality was simply one of a multitude of sins but wasn't totally excluded from consideration. Yup, that's exactly the same thing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Roscelese. We agree, then, that in Gagnon's view homosexuality was a reason for the destruction of Sodom - I have not been claiming that he said it was "the" reason - and this can be put in the article. As for Crompton and Philo, we both agree that Crompton says it was by and large Christian exegetes who made such a point of homosexuality, and we surely agree that Crompton also says that Philo put emphasis on the homosexuality of Sodom. Esoglou (talk) 07:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

No, we've been through this, Crompton doesn't say that. We can, and already do, say that P and J include homosexuality, and we could add a cite to Crompton too if we felt like it (it's cited to Greenberg currently), but we couldn't say that they single it out because according to Crompton Philo specifically does not. Incidentally, Crompton also has a much fuller history of the interpretation than we currently have and it should likely be added to this article and elsewhere, but by a native English speaker/reader. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Strange that you cannot accept that, when Crompton said "It was this last emphasis which was taken up by Christian exegetes", he was referring to an emphasis laid by Philo. However, I leave you with your odd idea that it was someone else's emphasis that Christian exegetes took up. I am under no obligation to rid you of it. Esoglou (talk) 14:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, are you simply not a native English speaker? Seriously, it's okay if you're not - it would make it a lot clearer to other users that your misreading of sources is not deliberate. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Claim that ἀρσενοκοιτία "clearly does not refer to homosexuality"

I've also removed, again, your spurious citation request. Wouldn't you agree that knowing what "homosexuality" is, is part of the most basic level of competence needed to edit this article? A man and a woman do not commit homosexuality together, that's not how words work. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

As used by Patriarch John, the word ἀρσενοκοιτία does not apply to every form of homosexual intercourse, but it does refer to one form that homosexual intercourse takes. It is misleading to suggest that it refers to no form of homosexual intercourse. It is even more misleading to say that ἀρσενοκοιτία clearly does not refer to homosexuality. The cited source explicitly states that ἀρσενοκοιτία here means anal intercourse, and the remark by Patriarch John that men sodomize even their wives shows that he thought of it as primarily a homosexual practice.

Why not agree to state simply what, according to the cited source, ἀρσενοκοιτία means in Patriarch John's text – anal intercourse – instead of indulging in unsourced original research about the meaning? It was because of the original-research character of what you put in Wikipedia that I asked for a reliable source that says what you want Wikipedia to say. Esoglou (talk) 07:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Since the cited source explicitly states that translating the word as "homosexuality" or "homosexual intercourse" is impossible, we are not going to cite it for any kind of claim that the word means homosexuality. (The bit about the Patrologia Graeca is interesting but not a reflection on the text per se.) Feel free to suggest wording that indicates that it might be referring to anal intercourse (the source points out that that's probably what it means in this passage, but also that it doesn't work etymologically), but any edit that suggests John uses it to refer to homosexuality, without some sort of new acceptable source and possibly even with, will be reverted as ludicrous. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

(I could ask who is cherry-picking now.) The source says more than one thing. So may we include what it says about the meaning Patriarch John attaches to ἀρσενοκοιτία as anal intercourse, as well what it says about his not using it to mean exclusively homosexual intercourse? Can we agree on that? Esoglou (talk) 07:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Like I said: "Feel free to suggest wording that indicates that it might be referring to anal intercourse (the source points out that that's probably what it means in this passage, but also that it doesn't work etymologically), but any edit that suggests John uses it to refer to homosexuality, without some sort of new acceptable source and possibly even with, will be reverted as ludicrous." You are aware of what the word "homosexuality" means, right? Normally I wouldn't ask this question, but when you persist in a wording that (directly counter to the sources) says that men may have homosexual intercourse with their wives, I begin to doubt. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your permission. I hope the edit you allow me to make ends the discussion. Esoglou (talk) 08:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Lead totally unsourced

This is the lead:

"The Bible refers to sexual practices that may be called "homosexual" in today's world, but the original language texts of the Bible do not refer explicitly to homosexuality as a sexual orientation. The Bible is interpreted by officials in some denominations as condemning the practice. In the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, however, the extent to which the Bible mentions the subject and whether or not it is condemned, has become the subject of debate.

"Passages in the Old Testament book Leviticus that prohibit "lying with mankind as with womankind" and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah have historically been interpreted as condemning homosexuality, as have several Pauline passages. Other interpreters, however, maintain that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality, saying that historical context suggests other interpretations or that rare or unusual words in the passages may not be referring to homosexuality.

Not a single bit is sourced. Very sloppy. PiCo (talk) 12:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Content in the lead does not need to be specifically footnoted if the content is appropriately sourced in the body of the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom is correct. Binksternet (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. What are the sources? (For the material in the lead, I mean). PiCo (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

While it's true that the lead doesn't need footnotes, that is because it should reflect material that is referenced in the body of the article. Material in the lead that is not supported by references can still be removed. StAnselm (talk) 00:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

For example, the first sentence: "The Bible refers to sexual practices that may be called "homosexual" in today's world, but the original language texts of the Bible do not refer explicitly to homosexuality as a sexual orientation." That's a very sweeping statement - where's the source? PiCo (talk) 04:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

TRPoD is correct about the purpose and content of the lead. The sourced addition made yesterday is in fact a good example of sourced material that should not be in a lead section. The lead is, however, poor, in that it doesn't do what it should. The answer is to refashion it to introduce and summarise the material in the article, not to add sources in the lead. It should probably allude to the existence of debates about how the meanings of the various biblical sources, referred to in the sections below, are best expressed in modern terms. William Avery (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The bibliography is full of what look like good surces, but they're not being used. Do a redraft forus and let's see. PiCo (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Chellew-Hodge in lede

I was trying to tackle this just now, because it's certainly too much for the lede, this one piece. I wasn't, however, sure how to split it up without redundancy; we could tack on to the last bit of the lede that those who interpret the Bible as not condemning homosexuality name among their reasons that loving and committed relationships aren't condemned and/or that Jesus didn't say anything about it, but the "abusive sex" specific could be referring to any number of the passages we discuss in detail. (Honestly, we could be less lazy and actually find the breakdown where the verses in particular give rise to that interpretation, but while we've got this...) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

New source: Loader

It's great to bring in new scholarly sources. However, all positive aspects of their being brought in are negated if users willfully misrepresent their content. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for lack of clarity in what I first wrote on this point. I have not been at all well these last days and have finally decided that I do need to see a doctor. I have now restored the well-sourced information (here), explicitly naming the ancient and modern scholars in question, which should have been clear to you by the page numbers that I gave and that you deleted. In view of your accusation that I "willfully" misrepresented the source, I have raised on the noticeboard the question of its reliability for the statement that I have restored in a more explicit form. Esoglou (talk) 13:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear about your illness, but if it prevents you from following policy, you shouldn't be editing, rather than misbehaving and making excuses for yourself. I've reverted you again as you are either completely unable to understand the source or are misrepresenting it intentionally. Loader explicitly states that Jehudah and other proponents of the "four types" identified the sin of Sodom as socioeconomic, and your claim that Strack made any such division is utterly nonsensical. If you cannot edit, don't. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it is you who have misinterpreted Loader. He does say that the socio-economic aspect is "prominent", that an overbearing attitude is obvious from the actions of the Sodomites; but he says that the evidence suggests that Rabbi Jehudah's "four 'sins of Sodom'" (not just a single sin) existed as a group a century earlier. I don't know where you got your unsourced idea that Strack made no such division: Loader explicitly says that Strack "analysed the wickedness of the Sodomites into four types", and until a contradictory reliable source is found, Loader's view must be accepted in preference to yours. I suppose it is possible that Loader merely cites Strack in support of his statement about Rabbi Jehuda's fourfold division of the sins of Sodom. Loader mentions other sources also that speak of the sexual immorality of the Sodomites as an element of their wickedness: the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan ("they offended in their bodies"), the Targum Onqelos, and the Targum Neofiti ("revealing their nakedness").

You have made no attempt whatever to justify your reverting of the evidence that shows that there is another view as well as that which holds that Jesus identified the sin of Sodom exclusively as lack of charity. Esoglou (talk) 11:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Er, no, Loader writes that Jehudah "analysed the wickedness of the Sodomites into four types." Strack is a parenthetical citation. Have you never in your life encountered such a citation? You are not qualified to edit this article if you are either that incapable of reading a source or that ready to deliberately misrepresent it. I won't bother with the rest until a minimally competent editor takes it up; I've wasted too much of my life on this. Editing and discussion should be about improvement of the article, not about personal crusades; maybe someone will turn up who is interested in your arguments but does not follow your agenda. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Alleged spurious citation requests and unsourced edits

The editor who made this edit claimed that she was reverting "spurious citation requests and edits unsupported by sources". Let us patiently discuss her changes, one by one.

The first concerns her deletion of the phrase "except perhaps in the case of Ezekiel, whom some see as including sexual misconduct among the transgressions", which was attached to her claim that "the sin of Sodom was not interpreted by Jewish prophets as sexual". In her edit summary she herself admits that, "at worst, Ezekiel includes homosexuality while focusing on other issues, even according to Gagnon". There is no substantial difference between her admission that, "at worst, Ezekiel includes homosexuality" and the phrase that she deleted: "except perhaps in the case of Ezekiel, whom some see as including sexual misconduct among the transgressions". Reluctant though she may be to admit that some scholars see homosexual conduct as among the reasons that Ezekiel gives for the destruction of Sodom, the phrase that she deleted not only stated the fact but had the support of citations of two reliable sources, one of them being the one she mentions. It was no unsourced edit. Esoglou (talk) 07:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I take the five-day silence on this point as acceptance. I am therefore undoing the reverting on this point and also where, later in the same section, the same claim is made, in Wikipedia's voice, that Ezekiel undoubtedly identified the sin of Sodom exclusively with "lack of charity".

Next point. Why was the indication of the date of the Talmudic tradition reverted? Removing it suggests to the reader that the Talmud was earlier than the New Testament, which is mentioned afterwards. Esoglou (talk) 07:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

One assumes that readers know when the Talmud was written, but I don't feel strongly about including or omitting the date. I have, however, reverted your other edits, which request citations for already-cited material, which falsify sources (eg. claiming that Ezekiel identified the sin of Sodom as homosexuality, that Crompton discusses the supposed Genesis reference in Ezekiel), and which otherwise damage the article (eg. an apparent lack of familiarity with the definition of the word "homosexuality"). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Roscelese, for not objecting to an indication of the date of the Babylonian Talmud. I am sorry to see that we must return to the first point of discussion, on which you have hitherto been silent. Please be good enough to explain what you see as objectively wrong in the statement that some see Ezekiel as including sexual misconduct as an element in the sinfulness for which Sodom was destroyed, a statement that you have again deleted from the article, in spite of admitting, in your edit summary, that, "at worst, Ezekiel includes homosexuality". The statement in the article did have the support not only of the source that you yourself cited in your edit summary but of another source as well, both of which citations you have again deleted. Esoglou (talk) 15:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not what the sources - any of them - say. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

You are mistaken in thinking that none of the sources say Ezekiel 16 included sexual misconduct among the reasons Sodom was destroyed. The cited sources Gagnon and DeYoung both explicitly state that Ezekiel 16 does refer to sexual misconduct as one of the reasons why God destroyed ("removed") Sodom.

1. Robert A. Gagnon states here that "the evidence indicates that the singular תועבה in Ezek 16:50 refers to the (attempted) commission of atrocious sexual immorality at Sodom, probably the homosexual intercourse proscribed in Lev 18:22; 20:13." So you are mistaken in thinking that none of the sources say Ezekiel 16 included sexual misconduct among the reasons Sodom was destroyed.
2. Gagnon's view is echoed here by Richard M. Davidson. So that's another source that states that Ezekiel 16 refers to sexual misconduct as one of the reasons why God destroyed Sodom.
3. That Gagnon saw Ezekiel 16 as referring not only to what you call "lack of charity" is shown by the emphases he himself put in his statement here that "Ezekiel thought that the inhabitants of the city … both neglected the poor and committed a particularly abominable act of sexual immorality." He adds that "the two evils" (emphasis mine this time) "are linked by a flagrant disregard of God's own priorities." So you are mistaken in thinking that none of the sources say Ezekiel 16 included sexual misconduct among the reasons Sodom was destroyed.
4. Gagnon states elsewhere that "some of the other applications of the Sodom story (arrogance, inhospitality, social injustice) were not necessarily made to an exclusion of homosexual intercourse." (Unlike you, who are insisting on excluding homosexual intercourse from Ezekiel's thought about Sodom.) So you are mistaken in thinking that none of the sources say Ezekiel 16 included sexual misconduct among the reasons Sodom was destroyed.
5. DeYoung states here: "If someone should protest that Ezekiel 16 does not specifically use the term homosexuality, the reply is that the concept is clearly present." So you are mistaken in thinking that none of the sources say Ezekiel 16 included sexual misconduct among the reasons Sodom was destroyed. Esoglou (talk) 07:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

And this is why one reads the sources instead of cherry-picking. Because after Gagnon writes that one "would" be able to say that Sodom was destroyed because of X "if" such and such, he writes that this analysis doesn't adequately reflect Ezekiel's view, in which pride went before Sodom's fall. (DeYoung is an obviously poor source, so we won't bother with it.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

(Noting that DeYoung is a poor source should not be taken to mean that Gagnon is an acceptable source. Both appear to be anti-gay advocates first and scholars second.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Would you please give a link to, or a transcription of, whatever passage of Gagnon you are referring to, when you say that, "after Gagnon writes that one 'would' be able to say that Sodom was destroyed because of X 'if' such and such, he writes that this analysis doesn't adequately reflect Ezekiel's view, in which pride went before Sodom's fall"? The statements by Gagnon given above are not conditional, but plainly affirmative. You surely can't be referring to the paragraph beginning "Even this analysis …" that I have already linked to? There is no "if" in that paragraph, and it unequivocably states that both neglect of the poor or inhospitality, "and committ(ing) a particular abominable act of sexual immorality" or "homosexual behavior" were overarched by human arrogance in relation to God. He actually emphasizes "both … and" – both what you call "lack of charity" and homosexual activity.

So where do you think Gagnon withdraws his clear unconditional statements, both in this passage and in the other passages cited above, that Ezekiel 16 did see homosexual misconduct as one element in what brought about the destruction of Sodom? Esoglou (talk) 07:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

"Would" is pretty much how we identify the conditional in English, but no matter. "In Ezekiel's view, the overarching rubric for the sin of Sodom is not inhospitality or homosexual behavior but human arrogance in relation to God" - which, looking again at our current wording, means that we could be more precise in our wording ("pride and lack of charity"), but obviously not say that the prophets regarded the sin of Sodom as homosexuality since even Gagnon explicitly disclaims that idea. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

So Gagnon does not withdraw his clear statements that both "lack of charity" and homosexual behaviour are elements in why Sodom was destroyed. The overarching rubric of "human arrogance in relation to God" overarches them both. This human arrogance is manifested in both. Both should be mentioned, not one alone.

(Thanks for saying "no matter" with regard to your remark on "would", a word that does not appear in the Gagnon paragraph.) Esoglou (talk) 08:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Uhhhh, try reading harder. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

do. Esoglou (talk) 09:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Since we're reduced to telling each other to read harder, it will be necessary to bring others in. Before we do, I must repeat that "the prophets regarded the sin of Sodom as homosexuality" (to quote you at 04:40, 28 February) is not what you are insistently reverting. The point that you have been deleting here and here is that Ezekiel included homosexuality in the sin of Sodom. And yet you admitted earlier that "at worst, Ezekiel *includes* homosexuality while focusing on other issues, even according to Gagnon". If you again admit that Gagnon (not to speak of others too) says that Ezekiel did include homosexuality in the sin of Sodom, this problem is solved and the article can state both points of view. If you now deny it, we must ask others to intervene. Esoglou (talk) 14:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

You have been active on Wikipedia in these last days, but have not explained here your deletion of what you yourself have admitted: that, according to Gagnon, Ezekiel includes homosexuality in the sin of Sodom (not that he limits the sin of Sodom to homosexuality alone, which is the straw man you speak of). I am endeavouring therefore once again to make that explicit in the article. Esoglou (talk) 14:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

According to our best source, the sin is lack of charity; according to an inferior source, it is pride. We are not going to give even more undue weight to Gagnon's theory by allowing it to take over the paragraph; we've already mentioned it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

For the record, Gagnon did not include homosexuality in the sin of Sodom. He included pride. Then, he asserted that pride is connected to homosexuality. I agree with Roscelese. Gagnon is an inferior choice. If he is going to be added at all, then his real views should be expressed. I've just reviewed a large part of this article and I know that there are many, many anti-homosexual comments in here with sources attached which, once one reads those sources, one finds that they often don't support the anti-homosexual comments being made.-75.187.76.26 (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

There are citations in this respect from a top Bible scholar mentioned at God and Sex. He does not think either that Sodom's sin was homosexuality. He also stated that many Bible translations use the word "sodomy" for stuff unrelated to anal sex between men. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Contradictions

We've got multiple reliable sources (Crompton, Loader) stating that Talmudic interpretation holds the sin of Sodom as socioeconomic, but another apparently reliable source saying that by the first century CE, Jews saw it as homosexual. Both also use the same text (Testaments) to make this case... –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately the direction this article attempts to move is to establish a basis of acceptance of homosexual behavior in spite of religious teachings by most churches and scripture. I will not attempt to cite any references here, frankly I've been unable to find any, but would only ask that anyone provide a biblical reference to the acceptance of homosexuality or behavior. All biblical references in the article have been held as moral grounds to condemn homosexual relationships between gay men and lesbians as an abomination or immoral. Many so called scholars throughout history have posed their opinions, many of which are used in this article, as contrary reasoning for what the passages don't specifically say but instead impose their personal beliefs or opinions on the subject. I have attempted to reference any biblical passage that refers to a man laying with a man or a woman laying with a woman as acceptable. I have come up empty handed. So, without trying to be argumentative either for or against the basis or direction of this article, I would ask anyone to support the argument that homosexual behavior is acceptable with a reference from scripture. -Wilson8031 (talk) 01:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Verses or text from the Bible cannot be used to establish what the Bible says. The reason is that there are too many interpretations. Instead, the Bible must be said to be interpreted by this or that source. As frustrating as it must be, the way forward is to continue looking for published opinions about what the Bible says on homosexuality. Binksternet (talk) 06:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

"Homosexuality" and "homosexual acts"

The body of the article seems almost entirely limited to actions rather than orientation as such. I think the lede should reflect that, or else the content of the body of the article should change. Thoughts? Peace, --Wikibojopayne (talk) 23:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that what we could do is clarify briefly (we'd have to cite it, but it's easily citable, I imagine) that since the idea of sexual orientation was not known at the time the Bible was written, all or most references are to acts (I say most because of some interpretations of Matthew 19:12) - however, now that homosexuality is known to be a thing, anti-gay Christians and Jews (and I see that in my edit I mistook which article this was; Eris Lover has also been editing one that is specific to Christianity) describe it as sinful, etc. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that would be helpful, especially since "homosexuality" is ambiguous, referring to both orientation and action. Likewise, I'd like to see clear disambiguation between varieties of anti-gay, particularly between anti-orientation and anti-action (of course, many fit into both camps, and almost all anti-orientation are also anti-action, though not all anti-action are anti-orientation, from my personal experience). Using "anti-gay" can be just as ambiguous as "homosexuality", and I'd like to see as much clarity and distinction as reasonably possible. Peace, --Wikibojopayne (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Different translation of Leviticus 18:22

I have no idea if this can be backed by a reliable source, but this is quite a different interpretation of the text: http://hoperemains.webs.com/leviticus1822.htm Onrandom (talk) 04:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

You're right that it isn't a good source, but I'm sure that there is extensive discussion of the translation of the verse in better sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Also a few things should be noted in here, first the Greeks had a word for homosexual that they did not use "paiderasste", this was a common word and in a lot of literature so its meaning is well understood with no confusion. It would serve to say that paiderasste would have been used if homosexuality was meant, but since it was not then they intended something different. Also many forget that the Greek have male and female terms, the male term of this made up word would have been "arsenokoit" or "arsenokoitos" but it is in its female form with the "ai" at the end, indicating it is a "female man bedder" or as some would say it actually means "shrine prostitute" in respect of the pagan worshipers of the cannannites. Also the word "arsenokoitarseno" would have actually been "arsenokoitos" and indicates a later addition because it is improperly used and shows lack of understanding of the Greek language.

However "arsenokoitai" is a made up word and occurs 3 times in history.

1. in the bible, 
2. by ST. John the faster of constantinople "ARSENOKOITAI is something that some men do to their wives" clearly not homosexuality there.
3. Sybelline Oracles "The ARSENOKOITAI from the north will abduct our children"

I am in school at this point or I would give good sources but they are hard to find and I have little time. However more than enough information is given to find what you would need. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.81.117.187 (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it would be really helpful if you provided sources when you could find time. I ran a search on "arsenokoites feminine" and couldn't find anything that confirmed what you said. The observation about men committing arsenokoitia with their wives is already in the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Falsified quotations

Three quotations attributed to the New International Version have been falsified. One editor's deletion of the "Failed verification" tags that were attached to them seems to indicate her approval of the falsifications, which involve some form of original research or synthesis.

1. 1 Corinthians 6:9–11 - the words "men who have sex with men" in verse 9 of the quotation have been altered to " malakoi, arsenokoitai".
2. 1 Corinthians 6:9 - the words "men who practice homosexuality" are falsely attributed to the New International Version of this verse. (They are found, however, in the English Standard Version of the same verse.)
3. 1 Timothy 1:8–11 - the words "those practicing homosexuality" in verse 10 of the quotation have been altered to "arsenokoitai". Esoglou (talk) 15:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

As I've stated above, I welcome suggestions for how to indicate that we are using the NIV as a base while making it clear to readers that its translation of certain words is not as unambiguous as it claims, but we simply will not present as unambiguously condemnatory a passage that is extremely ambiguous. You may remove the NIV citations, but not select a particular translation with the aim of pushing a POV. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

You reverted my suggestion: Cite the passage as translated in some reliable source (not necessarily NIV) and then speak about the Greek word that underlies a term used in that translation. Why don't you welcome that suggestion? Esoglou (talk) 07:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Lol no, presenting the passage as unambiguous is not a good suggestion for how to present the passage as ambiguous while citing a version that the rest is based on. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The cited passage in NIV is unambiguous. It should be presented as it is. Saying that a widely accepted sourced published version translates ἀρσενοκοιτία in the way it does and following that up with some sourced commentaries that disagree with that translation is the Wikipedia NPOV way. You insist on falsely attributing your own composition to a respected Bible Version. That is falsehood, and it calls for correction or, in view of your reverting, at least for a "not in cited source" tag. Indeed, it also calls for a POV tag. Esoglou (talk) 07:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

"The cited passage in NIV is unambiguous" - That borders on tautology. Yes, obviously it's unambiguous in a translation, that's the whole problem! The translation does not adequately reflect the content of the passage. This isn't "The New International Version and homosexuality" or "American evangelicals and homosexuality." As I've said, your problem would be solved by removing the citations to NIV or by adding a note explaining that we're using the translation as a basis while retaining ambiguous words so that the reader knows they're ambiguous, but evidently that doesn't make it clear enough that The Bible hates queers. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

"The translation does not adequately reflect the content of the passage" is your personal opinion. To judge by the way the passage is usually translated by scholars, including those who produced the Orthodox Jewish Bible and the Complete Jewish Bible, yours is not the only opinion about the content of the passage. Excluding these concordant expert views from Wikipedia is an assault on the fundamental pillar of Wikipedia that we refer to as NPOV. If there is a well-sourced view that these passages of the Bible condemn homosexual behaviour (or, as you somewhat inaccurately put it, in these passages "the Bible hates queers"), Wikipedia must register that view and not falsify expressions of it. Esoglou (talk) 08:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

This is why using primary sources is so problematic. If we can't quote directly from the scholarly sources, perhaps we should provide both the KJV and NIV versions of the quotes unaltered, or leave them out altogether. We should never alter any direct quotes, as that would be synthesis and completely misleading. We can't insert some of the original Greek words back into an English translation, unless that is exactly how our (secondary) sources write it. - MrX 13:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the points made by MrX, neither Christian communities, nor those of other faiths have formed a uniform consensus on an accurate translation of the various texts and sources attributed to what is now called the bible. Leaving bible quotes out altogether would be ideal for the time being. Views should be sourced by secondary or further removed sources and should not be posed as authoritative. This page needs editing by non-affiliated parties with no POV pushing. NaruFGT (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

That might be a good idea. It's pretty inevitable that secondary sources will talk about the disputed passages anyway, in a way that we can paraphrase. I also wouldn't object to the inclusion of the original-language quotation, though I'm not sure how useful it would be to readers. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Folks, please forgive me if I've entered this contribution incorrectly, I'm new at this. This issue still appears to be unresolved. A Greek word has been inserted into the [otherwise] English text, and that Greek word does not appear in the referenced text. I'm no scholar but doesn't somebody think this should be flagged or changed to read exactly as the referenced source? Leaving this as it currently is lends the article to some biased, reader manipulation, IMO.Jmerichards (talk) 18:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, as I said, I'm open to a multitude of options; pretty much the only thing I categorically oppose is pretending that the text is unambiguous when it is in fact ambiguous. What do you think the best solution would be? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Editors MrX, NaruFGT and Jmerichards have stated above that the cited English translations of 1 Cor 6:9-11 and 1 Tim 1:8-11 should be quoted correctly, unaltered, and that what has been falsely presented should be "changed to read exactly as the referenced source". Roscelese has not rejected their idea, saying only that pretty much the only thing she categorically opposes is pretending that the (original) text is unambiguous. Standard English translations can be quite unambiguous, but what is in question is not the meaning of the English translations, but the (disputed) meaning of the original text in Greek, and whether those standard English translations reflect the meaning of the original text. Is it not high time therefore to make the article quote the English translations correctly, unaltered, exactly as in the referenced source, and then, separately, to go beyond or behind the English translations to examine the original Greek text? The usefulness of the English translations lies in the fact that they enable the English reader to understand the context of the Greek words being discussed. Esoglou (talk) 16:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Your reading of consensus is evidently as flawed as your reading of sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you sincerely, Roscelese, for accepting the view expressed by MrX, NaruFGT, Jmerichards and myself. As usual, I ignore your habitual insults and instead congratulate you on implementing my suggestion of 26 February: "Cite the passage as translated in some reliable source (not necessarily NIV) and then speak about the Greek word that underlies a term used in that translation." Esoglou (talk) 06:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Have you considered leaving out disputed bible quotes? NaruFGT said: I agree with the points made by MrX, neither Christian communities, nor those of other faiths have formed a uniform consensus on an accurate translation of the various texts and sources attributed to what is now called the bible. Leaving bible quotes out altogether would be ideal for the time being (emphasis mine) MrX said: This is why using primary sources is so problematic. If we can't quote directly from the scholarly sources, perhaps we should provide both the KJV and NIV versions of the quotes unaltered, or leave them out altogether. (emphasis mine). I would say that the consensus is to remove disputed quotes. Your reading of consensus is indeed flawed.--В и к и T 11:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course, I by no means rule out that other way of undoing the falsification. It would have the notable drawback of depriving the reader of the context of the word that is being discussed, and would be in sharp contrast with the rest of the article, where a standard translation is given of the Bible verses discussed. Mention would still have to be made of what standard English translations say about the meaning of ἀρσενοκοῖται. Citing some of those might be considered better than picking one of them (such as Roscelese's choice of the KJV) for quotation in full: the really interested reader could click on the links to find the context, and might not advert to the contrast with the rest of the article. Esoglou (talk) 14:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

POV-pushing

ΙΧΘΥΣ (talk · contribs), you need to immediately stop your repeated attempts [1] [2] [3] to insert your own Christianist point of view into this article. By your edit summaries and grossly biased and disparaging comments on talk pages [4][5], it is clear you believe your own opinion to be objectively truthful. Fact is, this is not the place for you to promulgate your beliefs and opinions, no matter how righteous you think they are. If you persist in your efforts to skew this article from the NPOV goal, you will be reported for community discussion of your behaviour which may result in disciplinary action. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C21:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The sources I gave clearly show what the truth is. I don't even need sources to show that the truth is that most Christian denominations view Romans 1 as a prohibition of homosexuality. It is clear that you are the POV-pusher by changing "most" to "some". It isn't just "some" Christian denominations, it's MOST - including the Roman Catholic Church and the large majority of Protestant and Evangelical churches. That comprises the VAST majority of Christian denominations. I will find sources to back this up. You can't accuse me of POV-pushing when you are the one who is pushing a point of view. -ΙΧΘΥΣ (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Your assertion that you "don't need sources" amply demonstrates that the problem is on your end. Remember, here on Wikipedia it's not what we know (or think we know, or believe we know, or consider to be the Truth™), it's what we can prove by reference to reliable sources. Continued damage to the project of the type you are committing will probably not be looked kindly upon by the community; I encourage you to think very carefully and modify your behaviour. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C22:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Scheinwerfermann is right that you need WP:Reliable sources to back up this information. Further, there should be WP:Balance when balance is possible. And it seems balance is possible on this topic. If POV-pushing is considered to continue, there are a few options: Report this to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard or to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, if in violation of policies and guidelines. Or list this at WP:RfC or some other form of WP:Dispute resolution, if more so a dispute. Flyer22 (talk) 23:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

When I said that I didn't need sources, I just meant that this is obvious. The majority of Christian denominations see this passage as a complete prohibition. When you say "some" denominations, it makes it appear like that view is a minority view, when in fact, it is the majority view. I'm not saying that all denominations see that view as correct, but the majority does. Here are some reliable sources I have found on this issue that would support the term "most" or the "majority" of denominations over just "some". [6][7] Also, this source [8] shows that a majority of denominations see homosexuality as sinful, including Adventism, Anglicanism (divided), Baptists, Christian Reformed Church, Eastern Orthodox Christianity, Lutheranism and Methodism and Presbyterianism (divided), and the Roman Catholic Church. -ΙΧΘΥΣ (talk) 02:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Please study WP:RS, one of Wikipedia's core policies. religioustolerance.org is a self-published source by "Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance" per [9], and religionfacts.com is an anonymously-self-published source per [10]. Neither is a reliable source. (The article is generally larded with non-WP:RS sources and is greatly in need of cleanup.) AV3000 (talk) 03:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Have you looked at the 'sources' for views on whether "man shall not lay with another man as he lays with a woman" constitutes a negative view on whether man shall lay with another man as he lays with a woman? They aren't exactly flash either. Nevard (talk) 06:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It is clear enough that the tone of the article is favourable towards those who say that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. The extent of that POV is seen in the suggestion that Paul should be disregarded completely, because of his views on slavery and women. I am afraid that the Bible must be taken as it is, and cannot be censored to suit modern preferences. If the Bible condemns homosexuality, accept it and do not try to edit the Bible!203.184.41.226 (talk) 05:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I think God and Sex by Michael Coogan is a reliable source, and he does state that the Bible opposes homosexuality (although Coogan does not oppose homosexuality, but that is his own view, not the view of the Bible), see Coogan (2010:140). Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Gagnon

An editor has deleted information about Robert A. Gagnon's view of the sense in which eight 2nd-5th-century writers used words of the arsenokoit- group, and has replaced the sourced indication of the view of that notable scholar with a sourceless statement of her own personal view. Gagnon's view was presented (as it should) as his view, not Wikipedia's, allowing other sourced views to be presented also; but the editor has presented her unsupported personal view as that of Wikipedia. An explanation is surely called for. Esoglou (talk) 06:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no reason to present unreliable sources even as opinion. If there is scholarly disagreement (for instance, if we can find disagreement between Greenberg, Loader, Boswell, or other authors who have succeeded in getting a reliable source to publish their research) then we might want to attribute different views, but including unreliable sources gives them undue weight even if we attribute. I have opinions too, but you don't see me putting them in articles with the excuse "as long as the reader knows where they come from..." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Even if you disagree with his view, Gagnon is a reliable source for a view of his shared by, for instance, David F. Wright in "Homosexuals or Prostitutes?: The Meaning of Arsenokoitai" in the prestigious Vigiliae Christianae 38 (1984), pp. 125-153. There is of course no comparison for reliability between Robert A. Gagnon and a Wikipedian called Roscelese. Though not a reliable source, she puts her opinion in the article (putting it as a fact, not an opinion) that "it (the word arsenokoites) historically was not used to refer to homosexuality". When asked to produce a reliable source, she simply deletes the request. Her mention of Boswell above suggests that she imagines that her statement is found also in Boswell's footnote comment cited at the end of the paragraph. There Boswell speaks about how ἀρσενοκοιτία was used in one particular writing of John the Faster ("here"), a passage where John the Faster unsurprisingly says that men practise anal intercourse "even with their wives". Does she, by WP:SYNTH, take this as an incontrovertible statement that nobody ever used ἀρσενοκοιτία to refer to homosexual activity? I trust she can produce some other statement by Boswell or another scholar to show that her statement is, after all, not hers alone but is also the view of Boswell or of that other scholar.

It would be interesting to see what source she can adduce to indicate that "the word is used ... by Aristides of Athens (c. 138) clearly not for homosexuality and possibly for prostitution, Eusebius (d. c. 340) who evidently used it in reference to women ...". Aristides used the word to refer to the sexual relation between Zeus and the young shepherd Ganymede: how was that "clearly not homosexuality and possibly prostitution"? I wonder where Eusebius "evidently used it in reference to women": it cannot be where he quotes Bardesanes as saying that everywhere east of the Euphrates men think it a far worse insult to be called an arsenokoites than a thief or a murderer, to which Eusebius adds a comment that on the contrary Greeks do not condemn men who keep male (boy?) lovers. That seems to be by no means "evidently a use in reference to women". But perhaps Roscelese can cite a reliable source that says it is is evidently such. Esoglou (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Wright was successful in getting his views published in a reliable source, so it's fine to cite him. But we must cite him, instead of going off what Gagnon himself admits to be an interpretation rather than a citation of Wright's article. I suggest candidly that your inability either to read or to accurately reference sources makes you a bad candidate for this task. As for the rest of your whining, I advise that you check out the cited source rather than throwing up your hands and declaring that you just can't figure out where this information comes from. After all, on Wikipedia, sources are where information comes from. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Does not the burden of proof rest on the editor inserting a claim into Wikipedia, not on the editor questioning the claim? So would you be so kind as to indicate the page or pages on which are found your claims that arsenokoites "historically was not used to refer to homosexuality", that Aristides used it "clearly not for homosexuality and possibly for prostitution" (not male prostitution, which would presumably not fit the description "clearly not for homosexuality"), that Eusebius "evidently used it in reference to women". Indeed, you should provide for these (of course) non-WP:SYNTH statements the supporting quotations from Boswell's book, which is not available for free.

(Of course, if by "homosexuality" you mean homosexual orientation, not homosexual acts, there is no dispute. Is that what you mean? Clarifying disambiguation would be appreciated. Then we can return to the question of Greek writers' use of arsenokoites to refer to men committing homosexual acts.) Esoglou (talk) 08:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

It's in Boswell 350-1. Your idea that we are required to provide quotations is erroneous; what we are required to provide is citations to reliable sources, which we have. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Disappointing, but in view of past experience not surprising. Wikipedia indicates the "request quotation" template as "particularly helpful for sources that are not available online". I would like assurance that the source you cite really indicates as an undisputed fact, not as an opinion, that ἀρσενοκοίτης was historically never used to refer to homosexuality, although the standard Greek-English lexicon of Liddell and Scott says that the word means "sodomite" and the majority of exegetes and translators interpret Paul of Tarsus as having used it historically to refer to male homosexual intercourse. In view also of previous insistence that a 1977 book was a reliable source for the situation since 1977, I would like assurance too that the cited source really indicates as a fact, not as an opinion, that Aristides of Athens used ἀρσενοκοιτία clearly not for homosexuality, and that Eusebius, in spite of his comment on the statement by Bardesanes about men, used it not with regard to homosexual activity by men but "evidently in reference to women". Esoglou (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

From the book, online:

• "the word did not connote homosexuality to Paul or his early readers"
• "Aristides describes in great detail in his Apology (second century A.D.) the corruption of the pagan gods and argues from this that either the laws of classical nations were wrong to prohibit adultery, rape, etc., or else the gods were themselves criminals, since they customarily violated these laws. Among the crimes the gods had committed was arsenokoitia (9.13) In no city within the Roman Empire in the second century were there laws in effect against homosexual relationships per se, least of all in Aristides' native Athens...Prostitution, on the other hand, while legal for slaves and freedmen, was prohibited to the upper classes in most of the Hellenistic world, and it is clear that this is the charge Aristides is laying against the gods," etc. (also in a footnote, after noting that Aristides' other charges are rape and adultery which were both illegal, "Prostitution, rape, and adultery, moreover, are the standard charges of Christians against pagan morals")
• "That the arsenokoitai did not necessarily engage in any homosexual activities in discharging the duties of their sinful trade is made clear by Eusebius, who distinguishes between arsenokoitai and those who commit 'sins against nature': 'Moses prohibited adultery, arsenokoitia, and indulgence in pleasures against nature.' There can indeed be no question of homosexuality here, since the sentence immediately following makes it obvious that the entire discussion concerns the proper attitude of Christian men toward women: 'I, however, would have my disciples not even look at a woman with unchaste desire.' Apparently Eusebius understood 'arsenokoitein' to apply to prostitution of men directed toward women rather than other men."

I do hope you'll give it a rest now that I've done all this work for your benefit. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Very well. Since nobody else is intervening here, I am letting others play with you on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Thank you for giving the quotations. Esoglou (talk) 07:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Hippolytus

You asked about Hippolytus. "In passage 5.21.22-23 Hippolytus tells us that Naas first committed adultery with Eve. Naas then went to Adam and 'possessed him like a boy'. This is how adultery and arsenokoitia came into the world. Hippolytus writes that Zeus was Naas and Ganymede was Adam (5.21.35)." (From a book that argues that an arsenokoites was a man who had sex with boys, not with girls, one form of homosexual activity.) Esoglou (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

What are you citing? Surely not Rethinking Eros, which is self-published. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Of course I am (not citing but) quoting it. Why not? I would not dream of citing it in a Wikipedia article, but I thought you might find its citation of relevant passages of Hippolytus helpful as pointing you to the information you said you were seeking on him, as I presumed the good faith of your seeking. Esoglou (talk) 08:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

We rely upon the analysis of reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Of course. Esoglou (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

"Point out"

The Wikipedia Manual of Style gives the use of "point out" rather than "say" as an example of weaseling: "to write that a person revealed, pointed out, exposed, explained, or found something can imply that it is true, where a neutral account might preclude such an endorsement." I must therefore restore the NPOV text that was interfered with by an editor who said that the text she preferred was "better". Better, no doubt, for getting a particular POV across.

(Perhaps it could be added that this was the effect attained also by downgrading the derivation of the English word "pederasty" from Greek erasthai (to love) and saying that Greek pais (which, it is claimed, "most often means a young male lover", against the evidence of sources such as Liddell and Scott that the usual meaning is "child" and more rarely "slave" in a generic sense) is "the root" (emphasis added) of the English word, along with erasthai, and ignoring the fact that from Greek pais are derived not only English "pederasty", but also words such as "pedagogue", "pediatrics", "encyclopedia" and even "Wikipedia"!)

The change is "better" only for insinuating a POV, and must for the sake of maintaining Wikipedia principles be undone. Esoglou (talk) 09:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not fussed about say vs. point out; your text is just really badly written, and I never really noticed it until ZX95 improved it. (This is one of the reasons I keep asking if you're simply not a native English speaker!) Now that I understand that you're trying to insinuate on your own initiative that the source is wrong, I understand a little better why you inserted such a nonsensical and convoluted sentence, but that, of course, was inappropriate in itself. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Now that I think of it, actually - I went back to the text and was going to restore ZX95's better version with the exception of "say" for "point out," but it actually reads quite oddly because it is factually true that that is the etymology of the word. You may personally disagree with the point a scholar makes based on the etymology, but I don't think attributing common facts as though they were opinions is the way to go here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

It is your original-research judgement that it is factually true that παῖς is "the" root of the English word "pederasty". It is even more evident, isn't it, that no matter what English words are derived from the Greek word παῖς, they are not evidence about the relative frequency of the meanings of the Greek word - "evidence that Greek παῖς most often means a young male lover"? (Indeed the derived English words reflect the reality that by far the most common meaning of the Greek word is "child".) Esoglou (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure you know what original research means; it doesn't mean "including reliably sourced facts that lead the author to support a conclusion with which I personally disagree." There literally is no question about the fact that pais + erasthai is the etymology of pederasty. Your disagreement with the author's analysis does not change this, regardless of other random facts that you can pull out in support of your own personal conclusions. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not original research to include reliably sourced facts pleasant or unpleasant. It is original research to include unsourced judgements on the correctness or incorrectness of a writer's claims. Esoglou (talk) 08:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Uh, it actually is original research to include reliably sourced facts with no reliably sourced connection to the article. That's exactly what synth is. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

And so ...? Esoglou (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

What Voorwinde said

Voorwinde wrote: "Recent scholarship of a more radical stripe has thrown a third option into the mix. According to this view the pais is the centurion's 'boy love' within a pederastic relationship. The centurion's reluctance to have Jesus come into his house was due to his fear that Jesus might usurp his place in the boy's affections. The argument on which this understanding is based has already been soundly refuted in the scholarly literature." In what way is this supposed to be "misrepresented" by saying: "Stephen Voorwinde says that the argument for interpreting the sick person as the centurion's lover 'has already been soundly refuted in the scholarly literature'"? Esoglou (talk) 09:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Voorwinde is responding to a specific article which makes specific arguments. Since the sources we cite for this view make different arguments, it's inappropriate to posit Voorwinde as responding to them, saying that he said things that he did not actually say. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

No, Roscelese, Voorwinde is commenting on the view that the παῖς is the centurion's "boy love". By citing a scientific journal, he by no means makes that out to be the only source that puts forward that view or says that the grounds Jennings and Liew mention are the only ones put forward for it. In the same way, by citing Ralph P. Martin, he by no means makes Martin out to be the only source putting forward the view that the person healed is the centurion's son or says that the grounds Martin mentions are the only ones put forward for it. When he says that scholarly literature has soundly refuted the argument for the "boy love" understanding, he is not referring to just one of the grounds that the writers Jennings and Liew put forward in support of their view. You need more than your fiat to justify your reverting. Esoglou (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps what we should do is add the arguments by Jennings and Liew, so that we place Voorwinde's comment in response only to the things that he is actually responding to (shock and horror), and also elaborate on the different arguments from the authors we cite already. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Voorwinde makes an explicit statement about the understanding that "the pais is the centurion's 'boy love'". Only by synthesis are you claiming that he is speaking not about that understanding but only about the article cited in a footnote. What a source explicitly states is what should appear in Wikipedia (and must be restored from your deletion). synthesis is excluded. Esoglou (talk) 08:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

You're ignoring my suggestion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

If you want to add other arguments, go ahead. What Voorwinde was speaking of was the understanding that "the pais is the centurion's 'boy love'". That's what the cited source says. Esoglou (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The lead paragraph

I really don't think there is much "controversy" about whether the Bible condemns homosexuality. I've included some scripture verses that make that apparent. However, people who dislike those passages may well treat them like poetry and try to avoid their obvious meaning. I think those people should take issue with the Bible itself rather than trying to rewrite it to suit their needs. Lordvolton (talk) 21:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Your edit is invalid as soon as you start throwing around "amongst liberals". If you can't keep your edits neutral, don't make them. Black Kite (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not tied to the words "among liberals". I'll reword it address your concerns. Lordvolton (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Here's a clue: When you find yourself writing any variation upon "textual scholars say one thing, but my own interpretation differs," stop. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
      • What textual scholars? There are no citations to authority in the lead paragraphs. I'm quoting scripture from the Bible. This article is about "homosexuality and the Bible". Let's not allow this to devolve into an editor war. Here is what Wikipedia says about edit wars, "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion. Edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making it harder to reach a consensus. Users who engage in edit wars risk being blocked or even banned. Note that an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, whether or not the edits were justifiable: it is no defense to say "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring". My edits have been reverted twice with very little discussion. The article needs to be content neutral and not a propaganda piece promoting an agenda (liberal, conservative, or otherwise). Let's focus on improving the article collaboratively. Lordvolton (talk) 05:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
        • The article contains dozens of citations. Your inability or failure to read past the lede is not an excuse for edit-warring. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
          • I'm reverting to Black Kite's most recent edit in an attempt to gain some consensus. He pointed out something that he disagreed with and I attempted to address his concerns. You, on the the hand, unilaterally revert without any discussion whatsoever. You've reverted me twice now. Irrespective of how strongly you feel about a particular topic you cannot prevent others from editing articles on Wikipedia. Again, let's attempt to work together to improve the article rather than reverting my edits simply because you have a preferred version. Collaboration is a much more constructive way to channel our energies. Lordvolton (talk) 05:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
            • Quote from Romans is already in the article, so there is no need for it to be in the lead section too. The lead is supposed to be a brief summary of the article, not repository for your favorite citations.--В и к и T 06:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
              • I didn't write the lead. In fact, the scripture verse that is quoted in the current version is incomplete. Leviticus 18:22 reads, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." It's interesting that the verse has been redacted to leave out wording that would make it obvious that the Bible condemns homosexuality. I'm simply supplying the full verse and an example of the "Pauline epistles" that are referenced in the lead. So it's not my favorite scripture verses -- it's the writings that were referenced long before I read the article. Here is one possible solution: include the full verse of Leviticus 18:22 which would only require adding three words "it is abomination" and then a citation to the Pauline scripture rather than a full quote. I agree that the lead shouldn't get too bogged down with scripture quotes.

Here is what I propose: