Talk:Religion and sexuality

Gay couples in church

I was attending my very conservative Catholic church (in the US) the other day when the pastor asked those celebrating a wedding anniversary that month to stand and be recognized. A dozen couples stood up including two women holding hands. They received the "blessing" of the congregation along with everyone else. While "welcome" is hardly the proper term for Catholic and most conservative churches, they are normally not going to be asked to leave. Student7 (talk) 12:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Citations in Unitarian Universalism section

I'm crap at citations, so I haven't included any in the UU section I just did. Sorry 'bout that. Some that might be interesting:

http://www.cuc.ca/queer/ - Has notes on the intervenor status of the CUC Homosexuality_and_Unitarian_Universalism has other notes that might be relevant to link to.

I didn't want to focus on anything in particular since UUism doesn't have specific guidelines except being welcoming and not discriminating against consensual sexual practices. Any help in representing that clearly is welcome. jbailey (talk) 01:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Catechism references

Well, I messed them the attempt at footnoting. But as I was looking around, stumbled across this one which is way more pointed than the ones that were supposed to be referenced:

" 2390 - In a so-called free union, a man and a woman refuse to give juridical and public form to a liaison involving sexual intimacy.

The expression "free union" is fallacious: what can "union" mean when the partners make no commitment to one another, each exhibiting a lack of trust in the other, in himself, or in the future?

The expression covers a number of different situations: concubinage, rejection of marriage as such, or inability to make long-term commitments.183 All these situations offend against the dignity of marriage; they destroy the very idea of the family; they weaken the sense of fidelity. They are contrary to the moral law. The sexual act must take place exclusively within marriage. Outside of marriage it always constitutes a grave sin and excludes one from sacramental communion."

This may not be the specific issue that was addressed but seems to indicate that the situation is not quite so minor, as interpreted by the church, as the editor was suggesting.Student7 (talk) 22:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you were refering to this editor. However, I was not suggesting that the described situation was "minor". I have the personal opinion that the Catholic Church takes pre-marital sex very seriously, and counsels against it. It is, as cited, mentioned in the detail in the Catechism. The point I AM making is that we editors in Wikipedia need to remain faithful to the citations.

There are a variety of opinions on the issue, from people who believe that any form of sexual contact before marriage and outside of marriage is a form of lust, and therefore a capital sin. Some of these people also believe that sex is not for pleasure or enjoyment, but only for procreation. The other end of the spectrum are people who believe that the Church can only act to give guidance, and that although frowned upon by the church, that the act of pre-marital sex a special gift from God. Why argue, or choose? As the Catholic Church has clear guidance of the Catechism, it should be quoted, and interpretations should be left out of the article. If the Catechism says "disordered" or "Gravely Contrary", then the article should say that, and not "sinful", or some other adjective. In this case, the Catechism describes fornication as "gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality". Atom (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree about the paraphrasing from proper sources. The quote above says "..always constitutes a grave sin.." (not necessarily my opinion, but it is the quote) Student7 (talk) 12:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, my opinion on the matter isn't important either. I just want the article to be true to the topic. I quoted one part of the catechism correctly. If someone wants to quote a different part of the Cathecism, I am fine with that. Atom (talk) 15:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I woud agree that where there is an authoratative source, the article language should stick close to the source. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Rationalizing Paul

An editor has rationalized that Paul might have only been opposed to sexual slavery, that everyone has misunderstood all these years and (therefore, by implication, of course} that there is nothing wrong with pre-marital sex. Just a two-millennial misunderstanding. The piece sounds WP:OR BTW.

Ignores the fact that Paul said "Marry or burn." Why bother if there is absolutely "nothing" wrong with pre-marital sex? Little problem with the production and raising of children in those days - no condoms or birth control pills. No wonderful "safety net" with food stamps, Medicare, etc. for single mothers.

And a thousand years behind Paul, who was Jewish, of interpretation of Jewish law which was not friendly to fooling around before marriage either. Paul was first a Jew. The "Christian" part came much later - maybe after he died.

He mostly tried to preach to Jewish emigres BTW who would have understood and accepted all this. Student7 (talk) 00:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Sex in Zen Buddhism

Maybe it should be a separate sub chapter of Buddhism (or maybe a separate chapter) in the article; several prominent Zen Buddhists practiced sex in honor of the Buddha and as part of being true to The Way. Notably Ikkyū aka Crazy Cloud, who was a most significant zen monk and a Japanese folk hero. The sexual drive (as well as the penis) is referred to as the red strike. I can quote from Three Zen Masters if you like. - Sigg3.net (talk) 11:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Religion and ART

Should religious responses to assisted reproduction be a subsection here or should it have its own article? Joe407 (talk) 11:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

My thought would be to start out here, then fork the article if (when?) it gets too large. But it seems a part of sexuality and religion, so "see also" as a totally separate article doesn't seem quite appropriate IMO. Also cloning and using more than two parents for fertilization. Lots of uncovered issues Student7 (talk) 19:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Religion and sexuality#Hinduism

This whole section has not one citation. As far as a reader could see it's completely WP:OR. Some of the statements are controversial and it's a religious topic so it would be nice to have it heavily sourced and allow for differing POV's... because there are differing views. See the history of revision on the Lingam page. Alatari (talk) 03:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Also I find it ridiculous to claim that "In general, however, Hindu society has been influenced by Islamic and colonial British viewpoints to reflect their quite conservative attitudes in matters pertaining to sex." I'm pretty certain they have their own views on sexuality.

Christianity around 1930

(moved from discussion in comments on main page)

The disputed section is this:

Otherwise, Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant views on sexual union was unanimous until 1930. This view is simply that the primary end of sexuality is marriage and that the primary end of marriage is begetting children.

This is certainly untrue, at the least for protestants (the only books I have on the Orthodox are about the Trinity unfortunately so it would take someone else to comment on whether they had the same Thomastic emphases). The discussions below tend to work against this sentence, hence I tagged it as a contradiction to flag up the need for review.—Kan8eDie

• [Taken from page] how is this a contradiction? The text following describes the divergence of the Protestants away from procreation. The editor may not like it, but that is how all Christian religions taught before 1930. That is different than a "contradiction."—Student7
  • On the contrary, that 'divergence' goes back more than half a millennium before the fairly arbitrary 1930 date around which the article seems to resolve. Views did not change overnight at the least.— Kan8eDie (talk) 01:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, have quick article from Martin Luther. See. Summary sufficient to see where it is going. Luther is lucid and smart and theologically correct as understood by Catholics and Orthodox today. Who were you thinking of that disagreed? Hopefully not Henry VIII?  :) Student7 (talk) 02:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not convinced. It is clear that Luther radically departed from the Catholics on marriage somewhere along the line, given his decision to marry a nun. The article you linked argues that Luther viewed procreation as necessary to marriage, which is all well and good, and certainly not controversial, but we are discussing here whether it is sufficient, that is, are there other purposes in marriage of equal importance? For Luther, the best quotation to bandy around states that

Marriage is the God-appointed and legitimate union of man and woman in the hope of having children or at least for the purpose of avoiding fornication and sin and living to the glory of God.... The ultimate purpose is to obey God, to find aid and counsel against sin; to call upon God; to seek, love, and educate children for the glory of God; to live with one’s wife in the fear of God and to bear the cross; but if there are no children, nevertheless to live with one’s wife in contentment; and to avoid all lewdness with others.

That is a far from the 'conventional' (Catholic) views (Augustine: Of the Good of Marriage). To argue about Luther alone misses the point though. Since the start of the reformation, views were diverging, and there was not complete agreement until 1930, or any other arbitrary modern date.— Kan8eDie (talk) 20:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It may be correct to forget about Luther. He decided to forego his vow of chastity to marry. But this had nothing to do with his perception of marriage per se, just his perception of his vow to God.

How do Catholics differ with the blockquote? Perfectly good definition IMO from a RC POV. Student7 (talk) 11:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Censorship!

Cripes! I am using an editor at a gym frequented by children. It was MY editor that MAY have been deleting words. I will stop editing this now in the hopes that someone can correct it. Sorry! Student7 (talk) 18:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The edits you meant to do were good, but there were too many edits done by your gym's content filter for me to sort it out, so I have just reverted to the last version before you started editing. Try editing the article again when you're on a computer without the filter. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Fringe theories in the Middle Ages

An editor has delved into a textbook with deals with (essentially) fringe theories on sexuality in the Middle Ages. A textbook anyway is the tertiary source, not really permitted for real solid information. The textbook is simply exploring the fringes of opinion. What is being quoted is not necessarily what the church taught, which can only be quoted from what the pope said, or Martin Luther or various solid references, not some jottings of an erratic monk someplace with no standing. Student7 (talk) 13:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing fringe about it - it's a mainstream textbook, on the syllabi of all major universities. PiCo (talk) 09:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You may be right. Student7 (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Buddhism section

The Buddhism section gives a slightly misleading idea of the nature of Buddhist teaching - for example, it gives the impression, to me at least, that the Four Truths, the Eightfold Path, and the Five Precepts are three different things - in fact Buddhism is more like a set of boxes, and the the Eightfold Path is in the fact the fourth of the Four Truths, while the Five Precepts make up the third step on the Eightfold Path. Would anyone mind if I re-wrote it? PiCo (talk) 07:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Go for it! Please keep in mind that the article is about Religion and Sexuality, and so we want to keep detail about Buddhism at a minimum. There are links to more lengthy articles at the top of the section. Atom (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The section is inaccurate in saying that nothing is said in any of the scriptures. That is simply not true. Gautama Buddha is attributed as saying:

"One conducts oneself wrongly in matters of sex; one has intercourse with those under the protection of father, mother, brother, sister, relatives or clan, or of their religious community; or with those promised to someone else, protected by law, and even with those betrothed with a garland" (Book of Tens, Anguttara Nikaya, X, 206).

"Abandoning sexual misconduct, one abstains from sexual misconduct; he does not have intercourse with women who are protected by their mother, father, mother and father, brother, sister, or relatives, who have a husband, who are protected by law, or with those already engaged" (See Bhikkhu Bodhi translation, In the Buddha's Words, p. 159, based on MN41; Saleyyaka Sutra; I 286-90).

Should these be quoted exactly or paraphrased? It seems off that this has been left out and I think it is just deleted material cause I found a wapedia historical entry based off wikipedia that had the phrases. I'll look through the article's history. Alatari (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I found that Atom deleted the extensive text in the main article as being from only one sect of Buddhism. These are statements attributed to Gautama so why the deletion? I'll source the statements to the appropriate Suttas. Alatari (talk) 04:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll move this work to the main article. Alatari (talk) 04:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I add my support to this being done. The statement Details of accepted or unaccepted human sexual conduct is not specifically mentioned in any of the religious scriptures is a falsehood, as the user above has shown with his quotation from the Canon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.72.68 (talk) 00:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Article structure

I don't know that just dividing it up by religion is a very good structure. I'm not that familiar with the guidelines on this but think a mixture of this and division by some other scheme(s) might be a good idea. I'm generally against this sort of structure as it doesn't allow easy reading if you are more interested in some other aspect (e.g. homosexuality) rather than the one used (e.g. a specific religion(s)).

There might also be too much weight given to specific religions. Again I'm not sure how space is generally divided or the guidelines or rationality on this, but for example Judaism is a very small religion in terms of number of followers and it is given lots of space here. Richard001 (talk) 12:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It may be worthwhile to consider, but think how it would read under a "topic" structure: "(Explanation of topic X (which is really explained in another article, not here)). Catholics, latter day episcopalians and Zen buddhists don't agree with doing X. On the other hand Northern Lutherans, Dutch Reformed, and Sunni Moslems require it. Southern Presbyterians usually don't care except during Lent. This is because...(for EACH religion! ???). This would be a muddle. It can only be broken down in terms of religion IMO. What would be another breakdown? Student7 (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The topic is "Religion and sexuality". The division primarily by religion is therefore understandable and most appropriate. "Sexuality and Religion" might be arranged in other ways. Kevin Bennett ekv (talk) 10:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Richard001 said, "Judaism is a very small religion in terms of number of followers and it is given lots of space here." but Judaism provides the core cannon of Christianity and Islam, as well as modern Judaism. In this way, Judaism is highly relevant to all three of those major religions. Kevin Bennett ekv (talk) 10:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Orthodox Judaism - sources and references

The section lists lots of prohibitions, without sourcing them. They should be sourced to the Torah as far as possible, or the Talmud, if they're not in the Torah. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 01:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Abrahamic religions

New text here says "According to Prof. Michael Coogan, a scholar who wrote a book upon the Bible and sex, in the Hebrew Bible there is no prohibition of premarital or extramarital sex for men, except for adultery, i.e. sleeping with the wife of another man.[2] Coogan affirms that premarital sex for women was "discouraged",[2] but the Bible has a word for the sons of unmarried women,[2] i.e. they were allowed to give birth to such sons, although they were relegated to an inferior social status.[2] According to Coogan, Paul the Apostle condemned extramarital sex out of apocalyptic fears (he thought that the world was going to end soon).[2] Jesus does not say anything about this,[2] except regulating divorce between a man and one of his wives, stance which bears no implication on premarital and extramarital sex."

Okay. But it seems to me that Christians don't get to say what Abrahamic religions believe unless (maybe) strictly cited as a WP:FRINGE theory or something.

I agree that Genesis kind of reads this way. They put a virgin in bed with Moses "to warm him up" as he entered his final illness. The narrator seems to see nothing wrong with this. On the other hand, that style of non-commenting is rather typical of the Old Testament. Lots of dysfunction is reported without commentary. Not sure that post-Genesis Jewish men are free to have sex with just anyone.

I think this section should receive some additional attention. Student7 (talk) 20:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

At a certain time, the Catholic Church defined sodomy as everything else than the missionary position between a man and a woman (man on top, woman below him). Even if not defined as sodomy, sex was considered sinful, except for the purpose of procreation. So, this is or was a mainstream view about sex, and it deserves being quoted as the standpoint of the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages, as inspired by St. Augustine. The problem is that Catholics believe that they have free will, i.e. that they are entitled to reject any dogma which they personally disagree with. Therefore, while it was the standpoint of the Church, we cannot jump to the conclusion that it would apply to all Catholics. Similarly, the Anglican Church may have an official standpoint on sexuality, which is not applicable to all Anglicans. There are lots of Protestant and Neoprotestant churches, I was myself an Adventist and I know what their official doctrine said and how individual believers coped with applying the official dogma in their daily life. The problem with such churches is that there are thousands of churches, thousands of different theologies, therefore a lot of diverse viewpoints on sexuality, and not all of these viewpoints are representative or notable.

So, to draw the conclusion: standpoint of the big churches is allowed to be rendered inside the article, as long as reliable sources make it very clear that it is the official dogma of such churches. As Coogan himself says, the Bible had lots of authors, so it is misleading to affirm "This is the standpoint of the Bible." Instead, we could define various standpoints represented by this or that author of the Bible, while affirmations like "there is no prohibition of premarital sex for men in the Old Testament" are verifiable affirmation, i.e. we can verify that in the whole Hebrew Bible there is no such prohibition. Such verifiable affirmations are to be presented only if they are rendered inside reliable sources, otherwise they are original research, which is not allowed inside Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a blog for your musings, even if you are a priest or pastor. E.g., Wikipedia is not a web forum wherein Catholics discuss their agreement or lack of agreement with their official dogmas, it is not a forum wherein Protestants give their opinions of the dogmas of other churches.

We thus render notable (representative) standpoints, only in so far they are supported by reliable sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

So we have 3000 years of thinking otherwise and one reference from one off-the-wall professor is stupendous? While the opinions of everyone else is worthless?

And what is this doctrine of individual Catholic nullification of canon law? I never heard that one before either. Student7 (talk) 23:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Calling reliable sources "off-the-wall" is not constructive for the debate. What you call "off-the-wall" is in reality mainstream scholarly opinion. For your information: he is teaching at a Catholic institution. He is respected in the academic world as an authority in his field. WP:SOURCES is an official policy of Wikipedia, as well as WP:VER and WP:OR. In lack of reliable sources, vouching your own opinion is contrary to such mandatory policies. About "the opinions of everyone else" see WP:NOT#FORUM.

What you call "nullification of canon law" simply means that believers do not always behave according to cannon law, either by choice or by lacking abilities for fulfilling canon law. If all believers would behave according to canon law, they would be without sin, and therefore not in need of salvation. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems WP:FRINGE to me. One quote on the web: " According to a review by Booklist, the work “will embolden social activists glad to weaken restraints rooted in traditional understandings of scripture.” The review says that God and Sex was written to help “progressive thinkers” on the topics of “gender equality and sexual liberation” to get past their vexations. Booklist writes; "Even more audaciously, Coogan turns the tables on Hebrew prophets’ denouncing the worship of female pagan deities, suggesting that such worship provided a much-needed corrective to patriarchy. In scriptural passages affirming a sexual discipline offensive to modern sensibilities, Coogan sees only a deplorable cultural bias, sustained by worshiping God as a jealous and abusive husband."

His school is not Ex Corde Ecclesiae US Catholic colleges. This means, generally, that the theology department tells students what the church believes and tells students it is a menu and they can "pick what they like." In other words, they have selected a separate magisterium from the church proper.

The quote says nothing about him being Catholic or teaching at an allegedly "Catholic" school. That is great. npov there IMO. So how he relates, or fails to relate, to Catholicism is not something that really concerns me nor this article.

Fringe might be okay, but mainstream stuff should be used as well. Right now "Abrahamic religions" are represented by this one fringe Christian opinion. That does not seem balanced to me.

BTW, the quotes I saw were mainly at "liberating women." The sexual license for OT men, seems to have escaped the reviewers I came across. Student7 (talk) 02:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I did not say that he states a theological mainstream view, mind you. I said that he states a scholarly mainstream view about the text of the Hebrew Bible. Do not conflate its text with theology, there can be quite a difference between them, unless you are a hard-core Bible literalist with profound knowledge of ancient Hebrew and ancient Greek (Bible translations can sometimes be so misleading). So, Coogan does not talk in the name of the Catholic Church, but he talks as a responsible scholar and academic, which has to be true to the facts rather than to your pet theologian.

Coogan presents scientific (i.e. falsifiable) views upon the Hebrew Bible. The text of the Hebrew Bible is an empirical study object for the use of scientists. So, the refutation of his views is up to his peers, i.e. scholars of the Bible, and Bible scholarship is again something else than theology. It has more to do with scholarship in ancient languages, textology, higher criticism, critical-historical method, history itself rather than with expressing what a believer should believe and do in his/her daily life. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

To put it a little naively, Coogan tells us what the Bible really says, not what your church really says. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Ehrman, Bart (2010). "A Historical Assault on Faith". Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them). HarperCollins e-books. pp. 3-4. ISBN 9780061173943. http://recovery.recoveringfundamentalists.com/files/pdf/JesusInterrupted.pdf. Retrieved 18-10-2010. "My hunch is that the majority of students coming into their first year of seminary training do not know what to expect from courses on the Bible. ... Most students expect these courses to be taught from a more or less pious perspective, showing them how, as future pastors, to take the Bible and make it applicable to people’s lives in their weekly sermons.
Such students are in for a rude awakening. Mainline Protestant seminaries in this country are notorious for challenging students’ cherished beliefs about the Bible—even if these cherished beliefs are simply a warm and fuzzy sense that the Bible is a wonderful guide to faith and practice, to be treated with reverence and piety. These seminaries teach serious, hard-core Bible scholarship. They don’t pander to piety. They are taught by scholars who are familiar with what German- and English-speaking scholarship has been saying about the Bible over the past three hundred years. ...
The approach taken to the Bible in almost all Protestant (and now Catholic) mainline seminaries is what is called the “historical-critical” method. It is completely different from the “devotional” approach to the Bible one learns in church." 

In the article God and Sex you have an overview of the facts presented in Coogan's book. Not exactly revolutionary. Of course, he says those viewpoints were kind of nasty, especially for women and homosexuals, but everyone is entitled to his/her private opinions. He does express the view that the Bible should not be applied literally and he is against cherry picking biblical evidence for the conclusions one wants to draw. As any serious scholar, he draws a line between facts and opinions; he does not conflate them. It is mostly Bible exegesis, informed by some historical-critical approach, as in the authorship of the Pauline epistles, the population of Jerusalem in David's time, while archaeological evidence becomes prominent in his book only in respect to Jewish polytheism and God's wives. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

By "not exactly revolutionary" I mean: if you did read your Bible attentively, this book won't be a real surprise. Coogan cannot invent Bible verses which aren't therein. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Reopening the discussion through editing the article

I thought that the mainstream character of God and Sex (read the article for the abstract of the book) was already settled. Coogan is mainstream as a reputed scholar who does accurate and reliable scholarly work. I never implied that he would be a guru, priest or a religious authority to whom Catholics have to listen. I have read my Bible very attentively and I know that Coogan does real historical-critical analysis of the Bible, i.e. he renders the viewpoints of the Bible authors as the viewpoints of the Bible authors (I used the plural since he *proves* that the Bible is not always coherent when it discusses human sexuality, e.g. upon the brother-sister intercourse, which is seen sometimes as legitimate and at other times as illegitimate by different Bible authors -- this can be easily verified if you have a copy of the Bible and know at which verses to look). Naturally, he has his own viewpoint about the teachings of the Bible and does not make it a secret -- can he be blamed for that? He does not conflate his own opinions with the different views exposed by different authors of the Bible. In fact, he does not even conflate the views of different Bible authors, as if the Bible would have a monolithic unity. In doing that he does not depart one jot from the critical-historical method.

So, Coogan is not an authority upon what Catholics have to do, he is a very different kind of authority, namely a scientist of high international reputation, who contributed to numerous and important scholarly works about the Bible. In fact, I don't even agree with all what he says, e.g. with his attack on Finkelstein and Silberman's Bible Unearthed published in the Biblical Archeology Review. But scientists have a right to disagree with other scientists, since the nature of science lies in academical discussions from scholarly journals, i.e. in a dialogue among peers. One cannot do science without criticism. But in matters of what the Bible really says, I trust Coogan, in matters of how the Bible was copied I trust Bart Ehrman, in matters of the actual history of the Levant I trust Finkelstein and Silberman, since each of them has a different specialism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Demonstrably false statement

"In current times, members of the Abrahamic religions sanction monogamous and committed heterosexual relationships within marriage." is demonstrably false: Silvio Berlusconi is a Christian and he does not buy the monogamous relationship stuff. Busted! Besides, there are homosexual Christians and Jews. The Bishop of Stockholm is a lesbian, so her church sanctions lesbian relationships. This is why I will remove it from the article. Besides, it is not verifiable, per WP:VER. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

How did Berlusconi get himself promoted to spokesperson for all Christians?

I said he is "a Christian" not "the Christian". You see, in order to prove that the sentence "all Christians believe in monogamous and committed heterosexual relationships" is false, it is enough to show that one Christian does not believe in that. It's falsification 101, perhaps you want to read the article about falsifiability. E.g. Christopher Columbus, a Catholic, was not sanctified because he was not married to his lover. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

While the heterosexual clearly falls, all require monogamous except Muslim.

And fundamentalist Mormon cults, the Family International and so on, including all Jews and Christians who indulge in extramarital affairs and/or polyamory although that's not their official dogma. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

This is cute organization. "Abrahamic." It is the first article I have seen which tried to lump half of humanity under one section. Judeo-Christian makes a bit more sense and can generalize to monogamous from that. Student7 (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

No, you cannot generalize from official dogma of mainstream Christianity to the behavior of all Christians. Humans don't work like that. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Besides the Bible not only that it approves of polygynous marriages, but it also regulates the rights of the first wife and of the first born male inside polygynous marriages. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but we are discussing today, not 3,000 years ago. Most mainstream Jewish and Christian religions favor monogamy. Yes, there are tiny exceptions (LDS renegades, for example). But tiny exceptions do not eliminate the fact that most Christians and Jews favor monogamy.

To allow trivial exceptions to dictate everything would prevent clear statements about anything on Wikipedia. Student7 (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, granted, no fringe movements are representative for mainstream religion. But its is a fact that in Romania 99.04% of the people are Christian according to the 2002 census, yet men usually want to get a lot of women in their bed (the more, the better), and unmarried cohabitation is frequent (3.8% of the population according to that census, while the real number of such relationships has been estimated to about 4.6% source). 81% of the Romanians have trust in the institution of marriage (source). These would mean that about 17-18% of the Romanian Christians do not have trust in marriage, although their official dogma is that marriage is sacred. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure where we are going with this, if anywhere. Orthodox Christians have spokespersons for their religion. The definition of "religion" does not state: "something that all practitioners believe and practice." Rather more like, "something that most adherents have trouble with and would like to practice and subscribe to, but is for some, always out of their reach, and for many, sometimes out of their reach."

Religion is not a matter of voting. Adherents can, and often do, vote with their feet. Teens and twenty-years olds usually walk out when they are using drugs, alcohol and sex. Romanians have teens and problems like anyone else.

There is no indication that any Romanian that practices cohabitation is also practicing a religion. Any religion. I am surprised that the cohabitation figures are so low. But what does that have to do with Christian Orthodox teaching? Student7 (talk) 20:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

About how many people involved in cohabitation are Christians, do the maths, it's not so complicated. You will get a minimum percentage of people involved in cohabitation, since less than 1% of the Romanians aren't Christian. 4.6-1=3.6. So, at least 3.6% of the Romanians are Christian and involved in cohabitation.

The demonstrably false sentence was not about the Abrahamic religions as such, but about the members (i.e. believers) of Abrahamic religions, i.e. about their real behavior and preferences as flesh and blood people. Of course, I agree, most of the theology produced by the Abrahamic religions in the past two thousand years sanctions marriage, but you cannot generalize this to the preferences of their members. There are pro-choice Catholics, although their official dogma is pro-life. You cannot generalize the viewpoint of the Pope to the preferences of all Catholics. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

If you are saying that the sentence "All Christians believe..." cannot be used, I agree. This is too general. But if you are saying that each and every Christian must be shown to not exhibit anti-Christian behavior, that is untrue. Both Orthodox and Catholics have an extremely lucid statement of belief, Catechism and canon law, that describes what a believer must believe in or do or both. These two groups constitute 3/4 of all Christians. A editor may say that the "Catholic church believes..." or the "Catholic Church teaches..." or even (I don't know why) "Adherents must believe..." That they don't, is quite beside the point. Like saying that jaywalking is okay in NYC because some people do it! Or, "not all people follow the law." That is true, but beside the point of a statement of fact. Jaywalking is still illegal, no matter how many people do it. Student7 (talk) 22:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You fail to notice the diversity of beliefs inside churches: the pro-choice Catholics are pro-choice theologically, not merely practicing it. They are advocating it as the norm for the Catholic Church. Of course, they are a dissident minority in that Church, but they still think they have to change things from inside, not by voting with their feet. There are believers who disagree with the norms proclaimed by the priests of their faith, as a matter of theology, not as a matter of being unable to fulfill religious duties. As an Adventist I used prostitutes, because I read conflicting views upon this issue in the Bible, and the Bible is the ultimate authority in matter of faith for all Adventists. So, if God could not make his mind up about the use of prostitutes, I felt that I was free to use prostitutes as a matter of theology (true belief), not as a matter of indulging in sins. The Old Testament makes it perfectly clear that it is ok to use prostitutes and Jesus never wanted to change a jot of the Old Testament. Therefore Saint Paul merely planted a contradiction in the Bible in respect to the use of prostitutes. He was clearly in minority among the Bible authors, that is why I disobeyed St. Paul and sided with the authors of the Old Testament. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I have just looked 1 Cor. 6:16 in the Nestle Alland: it seems that it is apocryphal, therefore there is no such thing as a biblical prohibition of the use of prostitutes, speaking of the original manuscripts of the Bible, i.e. of what Paul actually wrote. Such prohibition is only present in P11 and P46. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

If we look to the philosophies advocated by Catholics, like monks, scholastics and mainstream theologians, we find a very broad diversity of viewpoints: Platonism, Aristotelianism, realism, conceptualism, nominalism, neo-Platonism, hermetism, Christian cabala, empiricism, falsificationism and so on. E.g., the Big Bang theory was championed by a Catholic priest. So, it is highly misleading to assume philosophical unanimity inside a church. The same applies to theological unanimity: tradition is, as Gadamer says, the collection of successful innovations of the past. What is today mainstream theology appeared from a clash of theologies in the past. The same applies to theology seen in a synchronic perspective: today's theologians compete for shaping the mainstream theology of the future. With the exception of dogmas, everything else is open to discussion. Umberto Eco's Name of the Rose give the image that Catholic monks were allowed to discuss and advocate any idea, as long as it was not damaging for the Pope or the Catholic Church. With these exceptions, Catholics have freedom of speech and freedom of thinking what they please. The same applies to other confessions: as long as believers do not pose a threat to their church, they may advocate any theology they wish. Just because one believes that his/her place is inside his/her church, it does not mean that he/she would have to remain blind to the theological debates of today and of the past centuries. One is allowed to shop theological insights from theologians belonging to other churches. Membership of a church does not imply unanimity of mind. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

There may well be a "Jaywalking Society" in NYC. They are certainly free to debate whether people may walk against the light or in the middle of the street. They will still be ticketed today if they try to practice this and are caught. There is freedom to think. Freedom to act is restrained, not by vague "opinion" among Catholics and Orthodox, but by canon law. Various Protestants groups have some immutable laws themselves. Nevertheless, I can say "In NYC Jaywalking is illegal." It can be discussed. It just can't be practiced. This is often true in the traditional religions as well. Pro-choice can be discussed but it is a non-starter unless the proponent is prepared to prove that the pre-natal infant has no soul and no rights in the church. This is impossible to "prove" in light of other dogma. Therefore we can say that the Catholic (and Orthodox) Churches are pro-life. There may be "debates." But so what? Student7 (talk) 23:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The understanding that "today's theologians compete for shaping the mainstream theology of the future" is philosophically true for the Protestant theologians. Catholic theologians, however, compete for shaping the mainstream theology of the Catholic Church in the future. The definition and distinctive quality of the Catholic Church is that it has a centralised and uniform orthodoxy. It is therefore possible to say what the Catholic Church does and does not sanction, with absolute impunity, irrespective of dissenting views within the church. What the Pope has declared ex cathedra, is the official doctrine of the church.

The same notion of centralised theology is true for some individual Protestant denominations, if they have declared it to be so in their own dogma, and in those cases it is similarly possible to state authoritatively that the policy of that church is a particular one, despite dissenting views from within.

This should not be revolutionary. It is quite possible to say, even of a democratic government elected by fewer than 33% of the nation, that the national policy is determined by that Government. The internal dissenting views in that nation (and even in that government!) are completely irrelevant to this statement of empirical fact.

Kevin Bennett ekv (talk) 01:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, an organization has a viewpoint, provided that it has a central (and a local) hierarchy and designated spokespersons. However, it is misleading to assume that all believers share such official viewpoint. About Catholic theology who had it right: Thomas Acquinas, Doctor of the Church, Aristotelian, or Pope John Paul II, who was an existentialist? Unless this is settled by official dogma, they may both be right inside the same church. If they're both right, they're in competition with each other. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Everyone is agreed that not all persons believe in anything anywhere about anything, even though they may belong to an organization who espouses a credo. That is agreed.

What doesn't seem to be agreed is that we can say definitively that "the Catholic church teaches/preaches/believes that..." when there is, indeed, canon law to that effect. (and also Orthodox and certain other Protestant groups). Not every person who is a Catholic does believe x. But if x has the standing of a canon or catechism, we can definitely say that the "Catholic Church believes x" even though Joe Doakes does not. His opinion is irrelevant to the Catholic Church (and others, as mentioned). More importantly, even if 99% of Catholics do not believe in x, and x has the standing of Church teaching, we can still say "The Catholic Church believes x." I wouldn't be surprised if someone (like yourself) were to qualify an article that said that with poll results. But it would still be the teaching (belief) of the Church, nonetheless. That is the way a top-down church works. Like a business with a boss! Student7 (talk) 22:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I did not oppose such idea. Again, the discussion was about the phrase "In current times, members of the Abrahamic religions sanction monogamous and committed heterosexual relationships within marriage." You may very well say that most Abrahamic religious leaders sanction these, but it is false that the members of the Abrahamic religions sanction these. You are entitled to say that the Catholic church sanctions marriage, but the idea that all Catholics sanction marriage is simply false, since Berlusconi is a Catholic and does not do it. My two cents are that the majority of Christians sanctions serial monogamy, but not pure monogamy. That majority would probably consist of adulterers by Jesus' definition. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Can we try to clear up one thing? Religions does not equal leaders does not equal members. None of them equal each other.

The bulk of Christian and Jewish religions (not "leaders" not "members") believes in monogamous relationships. This article does not concern itself with what "members" believe in unless they vote on credo periodically. Most don't. "Members" are free to choose whatever religion they wish. Most accept the credo. Most do not follow it. Religions hold people to a higher standard than they can follow. That is the nature of religion. If it were easy to follow, why bother with formalities? Go to church to be patted on the head?

It is the leaders job to announce/remind people of the credo. If they "vote" on credo, I suppose there is a new one to announce. But the religion is not the sum total of the members nor the leaders. It is not mathematics. It is religion.

We report official dogma here, not the aberrations. Student7 (talk) 23:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed about reporting official dogma. However, the discussed sentence remains false anyway you look at it, since it applied to members, not to official dogma. You have misunderstood my point. You are free to include in the article the official stance of the Catholic Church, but that phrase remains deleted since it did not discuss official dogma, but members' preferences. "The members of the Abrahamic religions" can be interpreted as "all members of the Abrahamic religions" and I have deleted such phrase because it was patently false. How difficult it is to understand that I have properly removed demonstrably false affirmations from the article? I did not add to the article anything about the official dogma of the Catholics or of any other Abrahamic religion. I simply noticed that a statement about the preferences of all members of the Abrahamic religions is false, and we may all agree that it is false, so it will remain deleted from the article, since it did not discuss official dogma. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

It is incorrect to state that a religion teaches something it does not teach.

It would be okay to state the truth: that the Chritian and Jewish religions teach monogamy. It would be okay to state that x% of their members are divorced, or whatever. But saying that one person is not monogamous and therefore since 100% aren't, therefore "the religion" isn't, is untrue. If you can come up with reliable figures on percentage (or whatever) that are divorced (if that is your point), I think we can construct a correct sentence or two. Student7 (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I did not say that. I said that at least one Christian is not monogamous, therefore it is false that all Christians are monogamous. I have removed the false sentence which said that all Christians behave monogamously. That was my point. I was not discussing what religion teaches, I was discussing the obvious falsity of a sentence, as the reason for deleting it from the article. I agree that most of the Christian teachings side with monogamy (though not all the Christian teachings, since there are churches who learned to be tolerant in respect to unmarried cohabitation, even if this concerns their bishops, who may happen to be lesbians). Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Neopaganism

The following sentence "Homophobia is considerably most-common amongst Asatru, ..." requires some form of documentation. 46.9.12.58 (talk) 02:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Challenged edit

Read for yourself: Michael Coogan at [1] does say what I said he says. I have rephrased his words, but I have kept his meaning. Stating otherwise means calling me a liar, which is a personal attack. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Please be WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Editor was criticizing material, not you, IMO. Student7 (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Assuming good faith should work both ways. That user has claimed that my edit was false and usually a man who publishes falsities is called a liar. In order to maintain the etiquette, I cancel the remark. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Quotes: "premarital sex by a woman was discouraged"; "Also, any child born to an unmarried woman would be fatherless--the Biblical term is "orphan"-- and so without either a male protector or any possibility of an inheritance, which was passed from father to son." Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Besides, if there was no requirement for men to avoid premarital and extramarital sex and since adultery, zoophilia and homosexuality were banned, how could they have premarital and extramarital sex, except by having it with women who were not married? It's logics 101. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

To make things clearer: it's Coogan who says that the Hebrew Bible has a word for such children, this is verifiable information from a reliable source; those children were defenseless and without property, this is what I meant by an inferior social position (property is part of one's social position); I did not say that they had a stigma, although if I remember well the Bible seems to support even such interpretation (referring to participation in cult rituals of the children born out of wedlock). It is true that Coogan does not make the later point, but neither did I. So, basically the source does say what it is purported to say. This is why I have restored the referenced information. Deleting referenced information often constitutes vandalism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)