Talk:Christianity and homosexuality

Archive 1

Textual Storeroom

MORE MESS

Sorry to do this but sexual immorality article is getting cluttered and so I decided to dump excised content here to incorporate into the present article MPS 23:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

begin data dump

Among the major organized religions, at one end of the spectrum some liberal denominations (Unitarian Universalism, for example) embrace individuals who love others of the same sex, and facilitate same-sex marriages. Many prominent modern American Christian preachers, including Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell are noted for their vocal opposition to homosexuality. According to some creeds and denominations, sexual relations between people who are not of the opposite sex are forbidden and regarded as sinful. For example, some interpretations of parts of the Bible (Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:24-25, Timothy 1:9-10, etc.) explicitly forbid homosexuality. Other denominations and creeds, especially in recent decades, regard them as unobjectionable. Others even regard them as a positive grace from God. Within Christinity as with many religions there is intense internal debate over translations and interpretations within sacred texts regarding homosexuality.

Sometimes — and most commonly among Christian polities — male homosexuality is more strongly disapproved of than lesbianism.

Some people allege that some or all religious condemnation of homosexuality is a rationalization for a pre-existing negative social attitude, or conversely, that religious condemnation of homosexuality induces popular antipathy.

John Boswell, in Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality (1980) first extensively studied the history of these attitudes toward homosexuality in the Christian West. The documents he adduced challenged the widely current official view of the Catholic Church's past relationship to its gay members, among whom were priests, bishops and even canonized saints. Boswell's research ranges from the Greeks to Thomas Aquinas in legal, literary, theological, artistic, and scientific sources. According to Chauncey et al (1989), the result "offered a revolutionary interpretation of the Western tradition, arguing that the Roman Catholic Church had not condemned gay people throughout its history, but rather, at least until the twelfth century, had alternately evinced no special concern about homosexuality or actually celebrated love between men." Setting the study within the broader context of tolerance made this an essential study of European social history.

John Atherton (1598-1640), Bishop of Waterford and Lismore, was hanged in Ireland for sodomy under a law that he had helped to institute. His lover was John Childe, his steward and tithe proctor, also hanged. Anonymous pamphlet, 1641.

File:Generobinsonconsecration.jpg

Consecration of the Anglican Communion’s first openly gay Bishop, Gene Robinson on November 2, 2003, in Durham, New Hampshire, United States.

Some sects believe that non-heterosexual behavior as well as orientation are sinful; others emphasize that it is only the bodily act or the act of deliberately cultivating fantasy that are sinful: in other words, only an engagement of the will. Religious opponents of equal rights for non-heterosexuals believe that supporting "pro-gay" legislation would constitute approval of homosexuality and bisexuality, by promoting wilful acts of homosexuality. They say that such approval is incompatible with their faith.

Opposition to equal rights protections, same-sex marriage, and hate crimes legislation is often associated with conservative religious views. This opposition is shown by individuals active in the human rights movement as being part of a pattern of religiously-based (and Biblically rationalized) resistance to expansion of the sphere of human rights.

For example, the Unitarian Rev. Dr. Barry M. Andrews, in a recent essay [1], commends efforts to legalize gay marriage, and compares resistance to it to the resistance to abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, and the end of anti-miscegenation laws. As he says, ... we know that these civil rights were opposed at one time by a majority of Americans, including churches and the government. end data dump

• Hmm...some good info, but on the whole that text seems fairly biased. Wandering oojah 07:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

--

The removed Overview section

Many Christian denominations hold that homosexuality is a sin. Most Christians would emphasise that they only condemn homosexual intercourse. Such sex (as opposed to the persons themselves) was condemned in Christian writings such as the "Summa Theologica", and in the revelations of saints such as (for example) St. Hildegard von Bingen (Bingen, 278-279), whose book "Scivias" includes quotes which she said were from God, in which any sexual acts between two men or between two women are condemned. Hence the traditional views on the subject, which are still adhered to by most denominations.

Other Christians dissent from the traditional condemnation of homosexuality. Among Protestants, fundamentalist views are generally strongest in the United States and Africa, while American Catholics are typically more liberal than Catholics elsewhere.

Christian theologians who do not believe homosexuality to be a sin argue that fundamentalists have misinterpreted the pertinent Bible passages or quoted them selectively. For example, they consider the original Hebrew in Leviticus to be ambiguous as to whether "male" means adult man or little boy. They also point out that Leviticus also condemns many other things that modern Christians do, including getting haircuts, eating shellfish, wearing fabrics made from two different fibers (e.g., wool/cotton blends), and planting two crops in a single field.

Some apologists make a distinction between "moral" codes and "purity" (or "ritual") codes in Leviticus and say that the purity codes no longer apply but that the moral codes (including the prohibition against homosexuality) remain binding. Jews hold the Bible actually makes no distinction between morality and purity, and that the rules were generated in such a way that following the purity laws would lead to ethical behavior. However, Christians do not believe that the purity code prohibitions apply to them because these codes have been superseded by the sacrifice of Jesus. On the other hand, Christians do believe that the moral codes still apply. Thus much of the debate centers on whether homosexuality falls within the category of a purity code or a moral code. Liberal Christians argue that since the prohibition against homosexuality appears in a list of purity codes, this prohibition is equally irrelevant to Christians. Traditional Christians, on the other hand, consider the Levitical condemnation of homosexuality to remain in force, because they believe it is reinforced elsewhere in the Bible, including the New Testament, as well as in the later revelations to the mystic-saints. Conservative Christians often argue that while the Law of Moses as a whole is not binding today, many of the commands, such as against murder, adultery, theft are also in the Law of Christ, which is binding today, as is the command against homosexuality.Answers in Genesis article

There is criticism of this stance within the ranks of Christians themselves. These critics point out the case of the Southern Baptist Convention for example, one of the most conservative denominations in the United States. The church came into existence in 1845 and was against abolition of slavery in the 19th century, citing biblical support for slave ownership. The church was against universal suffrage in the 20th century, citing biblical support for male ascendancy over women. In the 21st century, the church stands against gay rights. All of these positions are criticized as being based on a narrow interpretation of the Bible, obeying the letter while going against the spirit of the Christian teachings. However, conservatives argue that the above line of reasoning could be used to dismiss literally every prohibition and commandment found in the Bible, see Antinomianism, and therefore has no place in the present debate. Conservatives also argue that it's a selective interpretation of history, and point out that one of the strongest proponents of women's suffrage in the USA was the fundamentalist and Democrat William Jennings Bryan, while evangelicals such as William Wilberforce were the leaders of slavery abolition in the UK. Proponents of the view that homosexuality is not a sin would likewise argue that those views started as minority movements that grew into a majority and draw analogy between their support of gay-rights to previous leaders against slavery among others.

A.J.A. 18:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

--

The old Sergius and Bacchus caption

Circa 700 AD. Officers of the Roman Army in Syria who were tortured to death for their refusal to worship Roman gods. Yale historian John Boswell argues, on the basis of his translation of a single 9th century (hence much later) manuscript which has Sergius seeing a vision of Bacchus, which Boswell translates as:
*"Why do you morn and grieve, beloved? I have been taken from you bodily, but in the bond of our love, I am with you still."
This is one translation, and an alternative has terms like "friend" in place of "beloved". Boswell also asserts this icon depicts adelphopoiesis with Jesus as "best man" . Other scholars regard it as a typical dual portrait of two saints who were martyred together, asserting that there is no indication that it depicts a wedding, and that the image of Christ which appears above the two is something found in religious artwork throughout Christian history, such as in the icon of the Forty Martyrs of Sebaste, or the icon showing the Virgin Mary, angels, and members of the Church and numerous other paintings: These scholars argue that Christ's presence above the scene does not mean that Christ was serving as "best man" at a wedding unless one is arguing that the large crowds of people depicted in the above icons were also being married as a group.

A.J.A. 20:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

--

An image caption (with no valid image link) I found in the text of the article, but commented out

Jesus and a young Saint John “whom Jesus loved”. “Agapao” the Greek word for love is used in the four relevant passages. Within the Bible the verb is used for different types of love, however usually it signified a non-sexual feeling that all Christians share for each other - it famously appears in John 3:16: "For God so loved the world...", as well as to describe Christ's love for Mary, Martha, and Lazarus. A number of authors in different time periods – Jeremy Bentham, John Boswell, Denis Diderot, King James I, Christopher Marlowe among them – have claimed that Jesus and John were lovers. However critics cite Jewish views of the time denouncing homosexuality as well as the term’s common meaning in the Bible. Some believe that while Jesus opposed the practice He offered compassion for those who did have such tendencies, citing Jesus' views on sexual matters where he preached leniency, the examples being: he saved an adulteress from stoning as required under Mosaic Law while nevertheless telling her not to commit that sin again; He warned His listeners in the Sermon on the Mount not to call people by the inflammatory word "raca" (which, according to an Egyptian papyrus ca. 257 BC, may have referred to homosexual effeminate passive males); and Christ also preached love for all sinners, associating with prostitutes and hated tax-collectors in an attempt to turn them away from sin by reaching out to them. Since Christ, believed to be the Creator Incarnate in Christian doctrine, stands in relation to all people (including "the beloved apostle") as a father to a child, this frames the context for all such actions taken by Christ, and may also explain the above sculpture's portrayal of a child-like John and a paternal Jesus, although the opposing view holds that it represents a common Roman-era same-sex love pederastic relationship between an adult and a younger man. (Wood carving and gilt, Germany, ca. 1320)

A.J.A. 01:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The old "Controversy" section

Homosexuality and choice in Christianity

Many Christians view homosexual intercourse as a sin. Many feel that, because engaging in homosexual intercourse is generally a choice, that engaging in it is a sin regardless of other factors (such as the nature of homosexuality). To many other Christians, their beliefs on the nature of homosexuality have an affect on their views of homosexual intercourse (and, some argue, vice versa).

While many Christians feel it is homosexual intercourse rather than attraction that is sinful, many also believe that homosexual orientation is also a choice, or unnatural, and changeable. Some Christians believe that if homosexual orientation is not a choice, then it should be accepted according to Gal 3:28 (because the verse can be interpreted as referring to attributes that are not freely chosen). This idea has found its expression in the Christian ex-gay movement, which publicizes cases of people who have purportedly walked away from homosexuality, often through faith. However, no long-term, scientific peer-reviewed study has been conducted as to the effectiveness of such programs that make such claims.

While, again, most Christians make a distinction between intercourse and attraction, some argue that, because of free will, people have a choice about who they are attracted to. Many argue that homosexual people can change or be "healed" of their homosexuality. Other Christians argue that everyone is of a heterosexual orientation by nature and that homosexuals as such do not exist.

It is important to note that homosexual orientation being a free choice is rejected by most psychologists (although there are notable exceptions. See Robert Skinner, for example). Most scientists and homosexual people also feel homosexuality is not a choice. Some Christians agree with the view that orientation is not a choice, but argue that acting on that orientation is nevertheless sinful. In these cases most Christians who condemn homosexual intercourse would not condemn homosexual orientation, but would advocate a life of celibacy for those who have that orientation. One counterargument to this point would be to point out that in Matt 5:28, Jesus condemns not only the act of adultery but also adulterous sexual desire that is not acted upon. By extension it could be argued that (for example) a man who looks lustfully at another man (i.e., has homosexual orientation) has already committed homosexual sin in his heart. The same restriction would also apply, of course, to a heterosexual man looking at a woman with lust in his heart.

Christian arguments in favor of the acceptance of homosexuality

Other Fundamentalists, on the other hand, have revised their view in recognition of the fact that gay teenagers are three times as likely to commit suicide as other teenagers, and that many gay teenagers come from Christian homes (see Teach Ministries). Many further recognize that so-called "ex-gay" persons are frequently of bisexual orientation, and that because of their erotic attraction to both genders, they are sometimes able to live in a heterosexual relationship.

Of course, one can argue that if the orientation is not a choice, then it is part of God's design for humans, and therefore the act of two men or women loving one another must also be part of that plan. It would be highly illogical to imagine God making homosexuals but then forbidding them from acting on their orientation. It would make no more sense for homosexual persons to choose to be heterosexual than it would be for heterosexual persons to choose to be homosexual. Both choices would be against their true nature, whether the orientation is "chosen" or a result of a combination of factors (discussed in more detail below). They argue that since the Bible condemns acting against one's own nature, it would be sinful for a homosexual person to have heterosexual intercourse and that the Bible is silent on homosexual orientation as well as homosexuals having homosexual intercourse. Opponents argue that since in the Christian viewpoint the way people are born is not necessarily a perfect state, people can be born, or grow up with, strong urges to steal or lie compulsively, and these traits are not to be encouraged.

They further argue that to deny people the right to express sexual love with another human being in the manner with which God endowed them is not an act of compassionate love and unnatural. Many theologically liberal Christians agree and believe that God wishes for each person who has a desire for a consensual romantic and sexual relationship to fulfill it. There are even conservative Christians who have come to a new understanding that homosexual relationships that are loving and empowering are within God's design (From Wounded Hearts).

Issues of interpretation Liberal Christians argue that Jesus explicitly condemned divorce—equating it with adultery in the Sermon on the Mount—but never forbade homosexuality; so they call it hypocritical for fundamentalist to criticize homosexuality more based on vague passages when it is clear that divorce is a sin. Also, rather than interpreting the term "adultery" in the Ten Commandments to mean any sex outside of marriage, they interpret it to mean sexual betrayal of a spouse, which would make the prohibition irrelevant to sex between unmarried persons, including unmarried homosexuals.

It is worth noting that the Leviticus passages only specifically mention male homosexual intercourse. Paul's letter to the Romans is the only place in the Bible where female homosexual intercourse is specifically mentioned. It should also be observed that in respect of sexual conduct, Leviticus passages tend to speak euphemistically rather than offering explicit reference to physical postures and actions. For example, Lev 18:6–17 repeats with each verse the phrase uncover the nakedness of rather than explain exactly what is meant.

Resistance to human rights and science

A protester (at right) attends a pride parade in Ottawa, Ontario, with a sign with a quotation from 1 Cor 6. Several neo-pagan parade attendees express their amusement.

Individuals active in the human rights movement sometimes allege a pattern of religiously based (and Biblically rationalized) resistance to expansion of the sphere of human rights. The Unitarian Universalist Rev. Dr. Barry M. Andrews, in a recent essay supporting same-sex marriage, compares resistance to it to the resistance to abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, and the end of antimiscegenation laws. As he says, "We know that these civil rights were opposed at one time by a majority of Americans, including churches and the government." Nevertheless, much support for the antislavery movement, the anti-apartheid movement and the American civil rights movement did come from Christian churches, but they always started as minorities as well. Persons active in science also allege a pattern of religiously based resistance, comparing previous actions, such as the persecution of Galileo Galilei and dogmatic opposition to evolution, to current research and majority view on sexual orientation not being a choice.

A.J.A. 01:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

What Should be Done

Open disclosure: I am a conservative Christian who fully assents to Christianity's Biblical and traditional opposition to homosexual conduct. Now you all know my POV. Unfortunately, I already know the POV of everyone who had a significant hand in the article as it now stands.

The article as it now stands in embarassingly POV. I mean not just the fact that whole passages consist of arguments why Christians ought to accept homosexuality, but the fact that modern arguments to that effect are given such massively unbalanced coverage. On my count, Romans 1 in mentioned once, compared to how much for an almost parodically farfetched argument about two saints? And why is Leviticus treated as if it were the main text we appeal to? The overwhelming testimony of all orthodox churches throughout history is hardly even mentioned, except as a foil for "enlightened" moderns. I believe the whole article need to be thoroughly reworked.

My proposed replacement:

• Background: This is where Leviticus would be discussed. It would be contextualized, but *not* by silly references to mixing fabrics and the like, which obviously backs the POV that the commandment was trivial. A moment's thought should show that it was not, even if there were other seeming trivial commandments also given: sexuality, the generative power, is an inherently serious matter, but clothes have at most symbolic importance. No, the proper context is the Torah's overall teaching about sexuality and gender relations, starting with the first parts of Genesis. Ideally it would cover the attitudes of Intertestamental and Second Temple Judaism. There would be a link to Homosexuality and Judaism.

• Early Christianity: Romans 1, the Church Fathers, the Council of Ancyra. I suppose it will be necessary to include arguments about why Paul didn't say what he said and other variations of what is is, but it should be kept to a minimum. It certainly shouldn't be devoted entirely to arguing that Paul was only talking about who lacked any desire for gay sex who had it anyway. Because obviously a whole passage was needed to denounce the victims of anal rape. Chrysostom preached through Romans. Quote him.

• Middle Ages and Reformation: Quote Aquinas. Quote Reformers.

• The Modern Period: Note the fact of the controversy and give some history, e.g., Robinson.

• The Controversy: This is where the arguments pro and con belong. Such of the current article as is left after the revisions belongs here, explicitly labeled as one side's argument. A.J.A. 01:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I see you're new, so welcome! We certainly need some new people to help sort this mess out! I think that quite a lot of what you propose is sensible. However, your Background section and discussion on Romans 1 needs to be (and is already to a certain extent) in the article The Bible and homosexuality. We only need a couple of lines in this article referring to that article (which is currently a bit lacking from the Jewish perspective, so if you have information on please add it there). Also note that there is the article History of Christianity and homosexuality, which was originally "History of Early Christianity and homosexuality" before it was moved and also List of Christian denominational positions on homosexuality. These two are also a mess and need sorting out as part of this (and it wouldn't surprise me if there's a few more articles floating around as well). --G Rutter 10:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I did see the Bible and homosexuality article, and I think it's the best one related to this topic. That's why I didn't suggest a section specifically devoted to that, but I think some coverage is still appropriate in the sections devoted to the relevant eras, together with link. The history article sounds like it *should* be doing something along the lines of what I'm suggesting, but it consists entirely of arguments from both over whether ancient Christianity really did oppose homosexuality. The topic needs a straightforward presentation of the teachings which have survived (which are unanimusly opposed, BTW), whether here or there. Maybe there should be a separate article covering the arguments with modern Christianity, which would cover most of what this article has.

What should an overview article have? A.J.A. 00:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, In my opinion this is what should happen:

• The current introduction and the Overview section are merged to form one short (3/4 paras) introduction (any other useful material can be moved to the relevant section).
• The Bible and Homosexuality. Link to the article and short summary- inc references to Leviticus 18 and Romans 1 as being the two most important passages.
• Early Christinaity. Church Fathers, etc but also acknowledging a few scholars (Boswell, etc) are claiming there was some acceptance of homosexuality - Adelphopoiesis, etc.
• Middle Ages (and possibly Reformation- split into two if there's enough info).
• 16th to 20th centuries - must be something on this!
• Current controversy- last 20 years or so.
• Denominational positions. Link to main article and summarise very briefly.

I think that we salvage anything useful from History of Christianity and homosexuality and then turn it into a redirect. We can create sub-articles if there's a need. The most important thing to bear in mind is that we need to cite sources for everything we add- not doing so is one of the reasons we're in the current mess! What do people think about this as a structure? --G Rutter 10:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I like it. One we've both forgotten: the Eastern Orthodox. Maybe they need a section of their own. If there's a section between the Middle Ages and the 20th century the Reformation probably belongs in that category. A.J.A. 17:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Good! I think that the Eastern Orthodox, Coptics, etc should be included within the discussions on the relevant time period- otherwise we're going to end up with a very Western-centric article. --G Rutter 10:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia A.J.A. and thank you for your honesty. If I may be permitted to reply to your question, "why is Leviticus treated as if it were the main text we appeal to?", I think it's because of this:

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. ~ Leviticus 20:13 (NIV)

If this is not the main text you appeal to, then it certainly ought to be, because this is where God expresses his views on the matter most clearly and forcibly. Whether one feels the punishment is appropriate today, is another matter—many still do, by the way.

It's no surprise that modern Christians prefer to gloss over texts like this; more a case of, "the hate that dare not speak its name", don't you think? —Laurence Boyce 18:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

    Actually, the best argument that can be made against homosexuality  
    is that the bible depicts only ONE designed, intended and approved 
    outlet for human sexuality-- heterosexual marriage.  EVERYTHING  
    outside of hetero marriage is condemned as wrong: bestiality,
    adultery, homosexuality, prostitution, fornication.  -Tallil2long  

That's only the best argument if you can show where the Bible actually states such. Where does it say that the only approved outlet for sex is heterosexual marriage and everything else is wrong? Simply stating that heterosexual marriage is good does not prove that everything else is wrong. --Chesaguy 04:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the above is helpful. I can explain why the Law doesn't continue as such in the New Covenant, but that's not why we're here. We're here to write a quality article. A.J.A. 19:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite

OK, I've archived most of the talk page, except one section which probably needs incorporating into the article. Laurence, as AJA says we're here to write articles, not to argue about our own interpretations of what other people ought to believe. Everyone, do you think that the structure I suggested above is OK? If so, let's start and we discuss things here as we go along. --G Rutter 10:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Second Day of Christmas!

Here's my revision of the intro:

As a part of the human experience, same-sex intercourse has long attracted the attention of religious movements, including Christianity. In recent times the topic has become a matter of intense theological debate among some Christians, with many denominations experiencing deep divisions over the topic, most notably the Anglican Communion upon the ordination of Gene Robinson as the first openly gay bishop in the world's third largest Christian denomination.

LIke many who accept homosexuality, the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams regards same-sex relationships as moral since the Bible does not mention a homosexual orientation, arguing that the denunciations are based on the view that homosexuality is unnatural, but that it is natural for a minority of humans. Those who believe homosexuality is sinful interpret the Bible as condemning of all same-sex intercourse as unnatural, as argued by the Roman Catholic Church's leader Pope Benedict XVI.

I only saw one thing in the Overview that seemed worth preserving in the begining, the part about geographical distribution, but I'm not sure it's accurate. I've heard that Korean Presbyterians, for example, are very conservative. The author was probably thinking of Baptists in America and Anglicans in Africa, which is to say what caught his attention in the media. I'd be willing to bet liberal attitudes to homosexuality are pretty closely associated with Europe and America for all kinds of Christians, but less so for most American denominations. I don't have any sources for that, though, so I'm throwing it out for discussion here.

About the Eastern Orthodox, it seems to me that the less Western-centric the article is, the more problematic it is to use the same historical eras we do in the West. For example, nothing important happened in the East at the same time the Reformation happened in the West. The closest thing was the fall of Constantinople, which was some time earlier. If there's not much coverage (which is probably what will happen) it won't really matter, but suppose there's something relevant to our topic between the Turkish conquest and the Reformation? (I have no idea if there is, it's just an example.) A.J.A. 19:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Right, I've had a go at sorting out the introduction (not least as it's meant to mention the title in the first line)- feel free to edit it obviously. Apart from a separate section for the Reformation (if it's needed- was this a particular issue at the time?) I'd just go with sensible division of centuries; then we can include non-Western views more easily. I agree there doesn't seem much worth saving in the "Overview" section- possibly the bit on the Southern Baptist Convention, if we make it less attacking. I think that the "Historical Dissent" section can be turned into the start of the "16th to early 20th centuries" section. I think that the rest needs to be edited and put in the "Current controversy" section and we need to find out what happened to info for the "Early Christianity" section. I hope that this is OK, what do people think? --G Rutter 11:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I did some minor edits., including a brief SBC mention (my own denomination, BTW). I think we've got our intro. I moved the whole Overview section to the More Mess section up above.

1500 is probably the best arbitrary cut-off for the Middle Ages. There's no reason for a whole section for the reformation because it really wasn't one of the controversial issues. Although the positions of the Reformers should be covered, in the post-Medieval section. Maybe the New England Puritans had a scarlet letter for sodomy. A.J.A. 19:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I have now added a section on early Christianity including Chrysostom's sermon and material on Boswell. I moved the picture of Sergius and Bacchus to this section and cut most of the badly overgrown caption. The text is now in More Mess above.

Does anyone know what happened to the picture of Gene Robinson's consecration? I'd wanted to use that when we got to the modern section. A.J.A. 20:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

For the anonymous editor: Your edit wasn't entirely NPOV (it tended to my own POV, actually), so I made a version that went back somewhat to the old one, but I kept some of what you added. I took out the link to the Catholic.com article because I'd already put it in above and we don't want redundancy.

The article is still a bad mess, but as you see from the discussion above we're cleaning it up. It would be good to have more hands involved, so please stick around and especially take a whack at the stuff lower down that hasn't be worked on yet. A.J.A. 22:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The Next Steps

I believe the article above the "Modern Controversy" section is largely satisfactory. Not perfect, of course. For one thing, "Early Modernity" doesn't have anything between the Renaissance and now, which iot should have. Also accusations of sodomy were apparently used polemically during the Reformation, but the only online references I could find to specific accusations was a slander against Calvin (which the SSPX is still repeating, for some reason). I may have to go find an actual book that covers the topic. Also the article could use more Patristics, and just more in general. But it's okay as it stands.

What I'd like to know is, does anyone object to anything above the "Modern Controversy" section? If not, I'm going to remove the warnings from the top of the article, and put this there instead, and put this at the top of "Modern Controversy".

After that there's the potentially contentious matter of what exactly "Modern Controversy" should look like. A.J.A. 23:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

No one has objected. Then again, no one did anything except vandalize and revert.

Hopefully no one will complain. I've gone ahead and replaced the tags. I have also almost totally remade the part about choice, added some stuff about authority, and moved the rest to the newly-renamed Textual Storeroom above. Now that it's pruned, we'll see what grows back. A.J.A. 01:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Deus caritas est

I think this paragraph should be worked into the article: "That love between man and woman which is neither planned nor willed, but somehow imposes itself upon human beings, was called eros by the ancient Greeks." (Encyclical, 3) with the note that it misrepresents what the Greeks said, who would NOT have restricted it to women. Haiduc 19:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

This is irrelevant to the article, as it adds nothing new, and in itself a misrepresentation of the encyclica, which in the quoted text does not attempt to render the defintion of the Greeks but rather explain the word eros as neither planned nor willed. Str1977 10:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It may be different in the Latin, but in English "the love between a man and a woman is eros" doesn't mean the same thing as "eros is the love between a man and a woman". A.J.A. 18:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

This is nonetheless entirely irrelevant to the article. The view of Christianity on Homosexuality is well known enough.

And I don't think in the context of the encyclica it was a true misreprentation.

Str1977 18:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Richard's sexuality has already been discussed

Talk:Richard_I_of_England#Homosexuality. The attempt by Bill Percy to promote his own views by inserting link spam has not gone unnoticed. Talk:James_I_of_England#.22Queen_James.22 and Talk:James_I_of_England#Jeremy_Bentham address the issue with James. It would be more prudent to talk about King Henry VIII of England's Buggery Act 1533 and his position as Supreme Head of the Church of England on Earth, than the life of James. 68.110.9.62 09:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know Mr Percy, but I agree that I can't see the relevance of anecdotal material, even if authentic, about James, or Richard Lionheart. However, I reverted your edit, 68 ..., because it seemed like a discussion fitting for a talk page but not an encyclopedic article (especially the references to Wikipedia and NPOV):

This is the alternative view, since it is proven that Richard produced at least one bastard child and the Wikipedia article on Richard addresses this. Richard married Berengaria for the dowry of Navarre inasmuch as his father Henry married Eleanor for the dowry of Aquitaine. You can view this majority position by watching the film The Lion in Winter. This film reflected Hollywood's agreement concurrent with the sexual revolution of that era, as it also presents the alternative view given here in this article as fact. This is not the historical view of Richard, whose Crusader grandeur has dominated the epitome of Anglo-Saxon concepts regarding masculinity(antonym of effeminacy). From boyhood to old age for many centuries and still, nobody but The Left considers Richard to have been gay. In fact, the only links to Wikipedia addressing his putative homosexuality, are left-wing websites and are thus not NPOV.

Also, "alternative view", which seems like a euphemism here (facts contradicting it don't make it "alternative" but "dubious" or "wrong"). But I retained these counterarguments.

Str1977 10:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

OK. It seems like a truce now, but it should be about article relevancy...etc 68.110.9.62 10:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Vatican vs. Roman Catholic

The policies of the Roman Catholic Curia, especially in West, carry increasingly little moral authority with the faithful. There is a growing feeling on a grassroots level that "We are the Church", as opposed to the Church being simply the Curia. Considered this way, much of the Roman Catholic Church does not consider homophile practice sinful. The Lambeth Conference carries even less authority in that even the church hierarchy don't have to subscribe to what it says. For example despite Lambeth '98, my own province (the Anglican Church of Canada) believes in "the integrity and sanctity of committed adult same sex relationships". Carolynparrishfan 14:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, CPF. I guess you're referring to my recent edit. I can certainly agree with you that many nominal Catholics do not accept the teaching of their Church. But it's still a Church teaching. The wording

This position is still affirmed by the largest Christian denominations, including the Vatican and the Eastern Orthodox Church; among American Protestants, it will be found especially among Evangelicals such as the Southern Baptist Convention.

suggested that the Vatican was one of several denominations. That's my main reason for changing it.

With regard to the points you made, I don't think any Catholic, orthodox or dissenting, would suggest that the Church was simply the Curia. But that doesn't mean that if lots of modern Catholics dissent from some teaching that has been affirmed by the popes, the saints, and the Church Fathers and Doctors, we can come along in 2006 and change the category of that teaching from "teaching of the Catholic Church" to "teaching of the Vatican".

You say: "Much of the Roman Catholic Church does not consider homophile practice sinful." That's either true or untrue, depending on the meaning of "Catholic". It can have many possible meanings. I'll give two suggestions:

1. One who has been baptized in the Catholic Faith, and who holds and believes, as revealed by God, all that the Catholic Church teaches.
2. One who was baptized and brought up as a Catholic, and has never formally renounced membership in the Church, and who may or may not attend Mass regularly, and who may or may not go to Confession, and who may or may not believe that Jesus is the only-begotten Son of God, born of a Virgin, was made man for our sakes, died on the Cross, rose again from the dead, ascended into Heaven, founded the Catholic Church, and preserves her from all error in matters of faith and morals.

So your point about many Catholics rejecting what the Vatican says raises questions as to whether "Catholic" says something about one's original background or about one's beliefs and submission to the Church. If you were brought up as a feminist, and you now believe that women shouldn't be allowed to vote, can you still call yourself a feminist? Is someone still a muslim when he stops believing that Mahommed was a prophet? I can't give an answer to what "Catholic" means, because meanings (except for some things like pronouns, prepositions, articles, etc.) are never fixed; they change according to how people use them.

One final point. I won't give figures (because I can't!), but I think the percentage of Catholics who don't consider homosexual behaviour to be sinful may in fact be lower than you think, even if we agree that the Cafeteria Catholics are to be counted. I understand that in the developing countries there's a far higher level of orthodoxy among Catholics.

We've disagreed on other articles, though civilly, I hope! So I hope you can understand my main point, which is that the Vatican should not be presented as one denomination in a list of denominations. You probably won't agree with the rest of my post, but that's okay! Cheers. AnnH ^(talk) 17:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

POV, one-sided

I found this article to be very POV and one sided as it discusses the topic. Namely, everything is written from the POV of Christians. The topic of the article is a controvesry where other voices have something to say, and should be included in charactrizing the disputes involved in this topic--not only what Christians amongst themselves think of this in their theological understanding to either rationlaize or disagree--all within the religious framework. It needs a lot more work, but I have made a small effort to brodean it to include these other POV's. This should include Christian thinkers and non-Christian thinkers, not just the former. Otherwise, its something you would expect to find an a Christian/Religious encylopedia on the subject, which this is not. 64.121.40.153 14:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

64, my suggestion would be for you to create a new section near the end of the main text to address non-Christian opinions of the Christian opinion of homosexuality, if you think that's relevant. TheronJ 15:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that a new section creating a fork of two POV's is best. Instead the language should be balanced in each section, but esp. the introduction, and when a view is given such as "the christians regard the bible..." the secular POV should be stated regarding its view of the bible, which also helps to explain why have such an issue with Christians and homosexualiy.BelindaGong 16:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

This is an interesting POV problem - in an article on "Christian views of homosexuality," do we need to include non-Christian views about Christian views of homosexuality? Particularly when the alternate POV seems to be "Christians suck," which I'm sure is made in good faith, but isn't very relevant to the question of what Christian dogma says about homosexuality. (I also note that clicking on the discussions of other religions' views of homosexuality (I chose Islam, Judaism and Voodoo) doesn't turn up the views of the people outside the religion about whether or not the religions themselves are good.)

My recommendation would be that if non-Christians had views about whether Christian dogma was compatible or incompatible with homosexuality, that would be relevant, but a view that Christians' opinions are bad is not relevant to this article. Any POV experts want to chime in? TheronJ 17:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

If this article were named "Christian Views of Homosexuality," or "Biblical views of Homosexuality, then we would not have a problem. But this article is entitled "Homosexuality and Christianity" which leads anyone to think its about this issue itself, which, while it should focus on what Christians themselves have to say about it, is by no means exclusive to only their own thinking on the the problem. Much has been written from a secular humanist point of view on the topic of homosexuality and Christianity. 64.121.40.153 17:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I reverted 64.121.40.153's (Giovanni33's) version again. Giovanni the wording at the beginning ("one that has stired much controversy regarding the role of Christianity in fostering and promoting the oppression of homosexuals") is a little inflammatory, and seems designed to give the reader the impression from the start that Christianity has fostered and promoted the oppresion of homosexuals. It also has a typo — "stired" — and the fact that Belinda twice did a blind revert without noticing and correcting it suggests that this is just part of the familiar pattern of you inserting things to discredit Christianity throughout Wikipedia articles, and Belinda reverting those who revert you..

The other problematic part is "others see the Bible as literary fiction based on mythologies, which were written in a primitive age and as such represents the primitive attitudes of that age." That's completely off topic. This article is about homosexuality and Christianity, not about whether or not the Christian Bible is true. AnnH ^(talk) 17:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a glaring double standard here. Your version includes the statement: "The Bible is regarded by most Christians as inspired by God..." But saying that is on topic. Notice it presents the Christians view of Bible as the word of God, etc. Thats fine since the subject of the subsection is the Bible, afterall. But by the same token the secular point of view is suppressed as completely off topic? Why is only one side of the same topic, "off topic?" One POV can not be said to be offtopic when the other POV on the very same topic is allowed.

No one is talking about the question if the Bible is true or not. The other POV states that the Bible was written by humans and not inspried by God, and therefore any flaws and outdated moral views of its human authors is reflected. This secular POV is extremely relevant given it explains the backward notions against homosexuals, which yes, have resulted in their oppression. Quite essential to the topic, I'd say. I disagree that my language is inflammatory. Its fairly and accurately describes the problem which is one of Christianity being homophobic as a result of its rather bigoted adherence to the Bible as the world of God.

Also, I disagree about your accusations that there is some conspiracy on my behalf to discredit Christianity. I find that absurd. I think you should be less concered with defending your faith here, and more with looking for balance and accuracy. If you think that is discrediting it, then that is your own bias. About patterns of Belinda, one could make the same argument with you and Star1977. I don't think your accusations are helpful at all, btw. Infact I think its counter to the WP policies civility and good faith. I notice that both Belinda and I have stated our cases on the talk pages before reverting, while you and Str1977 simply did blind reverts without addressing the issues. That is also not productive. 64.121.40.153 17:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

From your editing one could very well get that impression, as it is what your edits constantly have been about.

As for NPOV - the NPOV does not mean that all POVs must be included in any article if they are not relevant. And your view on the Bible, even more so when cloaked in totally unacceptable language, has no bearing on the matter. This article is about Homosexuality and Christianity and hence it features different Christian views - some of which based on the Bible and hence the explanation what that books means to most Christians - but it doesn't feature atheist viewpoints on homosexuality and it doesn't feature atheist views on the Bible. And note your abuse of the word "secular" again. Str1977 18:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Well maybe from your point of view balancing a heavy pro-Christian slant in many articles, is seen as an attempt to discredit Christianity. Such speculation, even if were true, is not warrented, besides the fact that its not true. My interests are to balance and remove bias that is often heavily slanted towards the Christian POV, as one would expect given a dominance of editors with that POV. It it were the other way around, I'd strive for balance as well.

I know NPOV doesn't mean all POVs must be included. Just relevant ones. I made the case why inclusion of the secular POV on the bible (when the Christian POV is stated) is relevant. Just because the article is about Homosexuality and Christianity does not mean that only the Christian point of view is relevant. To address the topic with NPOV one must step and report from outside any one ideolgoical POV. I'm not suggesting that we include an atheist viewpoint on homosexuality, but a secular viewpont on the topic of Homosexuality and Christianity, is perfectly fine. Why should only Christians comment about it? Such would produce a very biased article. If that was was was intented then the title should be changed to "Christian views on Homosexuality."

To compare the versions:

The version you and Ann revert to: The Bible is regarded by most Christians as inspired by God or at least recording God's relationship with humanity and includes within it certain ethical teaching.

My version:

While the Bible is regarded by most Christians as inspired by God or at least recording God's relationship with humanity and includes within it certain ethical teaching, others see the Bible as literary fiction based on mythologies, which were written in a primitive age and as such represents the primitive attitudes of that age.

Not only is my version more NPOV, just as relevant, its far better at providing the relevant insight that is central to the topic of the article. 64.121.40.153 18:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, Giovanni, to hear that you don't understand the NPOV policy. As for your record, if you were just inserting information I might believe you, but as you cannot control your linguistical horses, as the issue here again shows, I can merely reiterate what I said above. Str1977 18:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think Giovanni does understand the NPOV policy. And, I think he even agrees with you about what the policy is. He simply disagrees with your argument that what he wants to include is not relevant to the topic. I think he made a good case why it very relevant, and you have not made the case otherwise yet, in light of his argument. BelindaGong 18:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Belinda, I can see no case Giovanni has made, at least no valid one. What he said boils down to: Non-Christians don't think the Bible the Word of God and this must be included - and he did so in extremely inflammatory language. His point contributes nothing to the discussion. Str1977 18:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You can call it not valid but you have to do more than that. You have to refute the argument I've made. And, your characterization of my stance is a strawman.

I pointed out what I see as a glaring double standard here. Your version includes the statement: "The Bible is regarded by most Christians as inspired by God..." But saying that is on topic. Notice it presents the Christians view of Bible as the word of God, etc. Thats fine since the subject of the subsection is the Bible, afterall. But by the same token the secular point of view is suppressed as completely off topic? Why is only one side of the same topic, "off topic?" One POV can not be said to be off topic when the other POV on the very same topic is allowed.

I know NPOV doesn't mean all POVs must be included. Just relevant ones, as you say. Exactly. I made the case why inclusion of the secular POV on the bible (when the Christian POV is stated) is very relevant. Again, just because the article is about Homosexuality and Christianity does not mean that only the Christian point of view is relevant. To address the topic with NPOV one must step and report from outside any one ideolgoical POV. I'm not suggesting that we include an atheist viewpoint on homosexuality, but a secular viewpont on the topic of Homosexuality and Christianity, is perfectly fine. Why should only Christians comment about it? Such would produce a very biased article. If that was was was intented then the title should be changed to "Christian views on Homosexuality." 64.121.40.153 20:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that there are plenty of secular viewpoints. That is, if you define secular viewpoints as non-religious viewpoints as opposed to Anti-Christian ones. If not, then fell free to continue on with your day. As it is, this whole dilemma could be fixed with the appropriate information under a "Secular View of Homosexuality" Article, seeing as that is what you seem to be trying to get across. PsychoInfiltrator

How many reverts?

Would User:38.114.145.145, who just made a revert,[2] please confirm if he or she is also User:BelindaGong, who has edited recently from a similar IP address. Both BelindaGong and User:Giovanni33 have in the past split their reverts and their talk page comments between their user name and their IP addresses (though I hasten to add that there's no reason to think it's done deliberately). Belinda, could you confirm if that revert was from you? Thanks. AnnH ^(talk) 17:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I know your looking for violations of reverts to get me blocked again, but I've been careful. So, no, that IP address is not mine. I've made my changes while logged in. BelindaGong 17:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Belinda, I fully accept your assertion that you are not User:38.114.145.145. I must take exception to your claim that I'm "looking for violations of reverts to get [you] blocked again." Do you or do you not agree that you were warned several times before you were reported? In all my time as a Wikipedian, I have reported for 3RR once. And in the time I've spent as an administrator, I've blocked for 3RR once. I didn't report you, as you know; Wesley did. It would have been very easy for me to have got you and Giovanni out of the way so that I and those who agreed with me could have had the page to ourselves for 24 hours. Instead, I warned, and repeatedly warned. I finally reported Giovanni, when he had done 11, plus 6, plus 5, plus four reverts. Before reporting him, I begged him to stop, and told him that 3RR blocks really sour the atmosphere. I know, and I think you know as well, that neither of you would ever have stopped if you hadn't been blocked.

If I'm looking for violations so that I can get the people who disagree with me blocked, have you any explanation as to why I didn't report Giovanni much earlier, and why I didn't report you at all? (Also, why I recently warned another editor instead of reporting him?) Bearing in mind that blocks tend to escalate with repeat offenders, with maybe 36 hours for the second offence, and perhaps even at some stage a block for doing just three reverts, wouldn't it have been quite convenient for me to be able to edit without the people who insist on inserting their POV? Might the explanation simply be that I wanted to give newcomers a chance, and that I simply don't like reporting people? Please assume good faith here. Thanks.

And by the way, to the best of my knowledge, Str1977 has never reported a 3RR violation either. And the only time that I've ever known KHM03 to do so was after he had warned an editor repeatedly, and the editor just kept on reverting. Even in that case, he requested that the editor would receive an official warning rather than a block. It would be most unfair if established editors had to stop after three, but newcomers could keep on and on and on and on reverting, ignoring warnings, or even laughing at them, simply because it wouldn't be nice to report them. AnnH ^(talk) 18:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The Late Edit War

The entire thing seems to be about two clauses.

1. "the role of Christianity in fostering and promoting the oppression of homosexuals"
2. "others see the Bible as literary fiction based on mythologies, which were written in a primitive age and as such represents the primitive attitudes of that age."

Neither of these serves any purpose other than showing the flag, so to speak, of the anti-Christian POV. The objection isn't so much to the content as the fact that Christianity is discussed without liberally interspersing denunciations of everything religious into the useful content. So again we'll meet our old friends, "Some" and "Others". Perhaps we'll even see "One Could Argue" drunkenly crash our cultured symposium.

Now, I could get behind a separate section -- which would still need to be NPOV. Speaking of which, I've been meaning to rework the old content I removed to populate the Liberal section. Unless the article gets locked first, I think I'll do that at some point today or tomorrow, then we'll come up with something for the Conservative section. But first I'm taking those clauses out. They add no value whatsoever. A.J.A. 20:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I've reworked the second sentence you refer to - there *are* Christian denominations and groups which consider the Bible to be more of an allegorical document than a literal book of teachings, and believe that it should be interpreted through a modern lens. FCYTravis 03:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

There's still no reason for it. The section is called "The Bible and Homosexuality". "The Bible is regarded by most Christians as inspired by God or at least recording God's relationship with humanity" tells the reader why the Bible is relevant to Homosexuality and Christianity. The sentence you added has no functional purpose in that section (unlike an equivalent sentence I added a long time ago in another part of the article), and is boilerplate rhetoric which doesn't even make sense. I've never read a Unitarian (or other liberal) using an actual allegorical interpretation. Do we use the context of the times it was written it, or a modern frame of reference? They're ideological gestures, not coherent statements. A.J.A. 18:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Besides it being out place at that point, the Unitarians are a bad example as only about 10% of them describe themselves as "Christian." Wesley 05:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like there's been nearly a week of edit warring with no discussion at all, by anyone, on this page. I reverted Giovanni33 just now chiefly because his version had at least one typo in the lead paragraph, and seemed generally careless of any side effects, much like a similar recent reversion of his on Christianity. Please, let's try editing small parts of the article at a time so it's even possible to have a coherent discussion of what's being edited, starting with getting a stable introduction that we can all agree on. Wesley 04:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Gnostic ViewPoint removal

I have deleted the Gnostic ViewPoint for a number of reasons. For a start, it was not written in a style suitable for an encyclopedia- it was mostly a series of questions and answers and did not cite any sources. More fundamentaly, it was not NPOV (as it only presented a pro- point of view), while it is not clear why it should be in a page on Christianity anyway. It is generally agreed that Gnositicism is not Christianity- a view reinforced by the section quoting from Bhuddist texts. I hope that this helps explain why this section had to be deleted. --G Rutter 17:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Sodom_and_Gomorrah - Reformist_Torah_approach_with_Hebrew_translations

Would a link to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah#Reformist_Torah_approach_with_Hebrew_translations

be inappropriate as it is not specific to Christianity?

yes, it would. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 13:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect References

Referances [13] and [14] do not seem to work. Referance [13] directs me to a page telling me that the file is not viewable by the public. Referance [14] directs me to a page with some sponsered links and no information. I have not checked the others.

removal

I removed the following passage from the article:

The monasteries in particular came under suspicion, and the practices therein led to a saying, that: With wine and boys around, the monks have no need of the Devil to tempt them. (Abbott, E. (2000) A History of Celibacy. New York; p. 101)

First, it seemed out of place where it was, and should at least be moved. Second, I am not sure if this refrence is sufficent. I include the deleted passage here, however, so that if it is appropriate it might be readded in a proper location.

Homosexuality and liberal christianity

"Liberal Christians consider the Bible a document of the human authors' beliefs and feelings about God at the time of its writing, which may reflect a heightened spiritual consciousness, or which may simply be primitive and wrong; liberal Christians often dismiss Biblical teachings, especially accounts of miracles such as the Virgin Birth. [27]" -- I find this statement to be written from the POV of a "fundamentailst" christian who is generalizing a liberal christian position. If one carefully reads the wikipedia article on the Christian left, it (more accurately) states that some liberal Christians feel that scriptures on homosexuality are outdated while others do not but place less emphasis on the sinfulness of homosexuality (when viewed in context with the importance of social justice)... so this statement is both inaccurate (as a biased generalization) and contradictory to the wikipedia article it references, and thus needs to be amended or needs to go completely, IMHO.Woodandwater 06:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I fixed it. MerricMaker 23:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Freedom

There is no reference [to my knowledge] about freedom from homosexuality, which is a very important part of the homosexuality debate.

Not to be too brief... huh? Do you mean regarding it as an affliction? Or in terms of some sort of worldwide gay conspiracy a la the "Red Scare" of the 1950's? MerricMaker 05:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

What? I'm referring to hundreds of men and women set free from same-sex attractions thru the grace of Jesus Christ.

If you can cite proof of the hundreds who are no longer attracted to people of the same-sex (beyond anecdotal stories where the person receives financial gain through their testimony), please provide it. --Chesaguy 01:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Most conversions to which you refer come about through Exodus International and its sister groups, in which sleep deprivation and malnutrition are paired with a particular interpretation of Christianity to show people that the love they recieve from their religious communities is contingent on their ability to act the way that they are told the Bible says they should act. The failure rate of such conversions is quite high, look in the American Journal of Psychiatry. MerricMaker 02:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"Welcoming Congregation" restructuring

Please see my comment on reorganization of the "Welcoming Congregation" topic (replying there). Thanks! --Haruo 06:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

External links

The external links section on this page is grossly bloated and needs to be stripped down per WP:EL. I think we should take out a lot of the personal-type sites and focus on organized groups and outside perspectives. FCYTravis 18:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Community ban of the Joan of Arc vandal

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

A vandal who has damaged Wikipedia's Catholicism, Christianity, cross-dressing, and homosexuality articles for over two years has been identified and community banned. This person will probably attempt to continue disruption on sockpuppet accounts. Please be alert for suspicious activity. Due to the complexity of this unusual case, the best place to report additional suspicious activity is probably to my user talk page because I was the primary investigating administrator. Durova^Charge! 17:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Voln, who has made some disruptive edits on this article, has also been confirmed as a sockpuppet of the Joan of Arc vandal--the CheckUser case is at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/AWilliamson. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Gay Christians in Full Metal Jacket

It's probably OR, since I've never heard anyone mention it, but it seems like Sargeant Hartman in Full Metal Jacket is a gay christian, he keeps on talking about jesus and asses, and later R. Lee Ermey, who played Hartman, had a gay kiss in Saving Silverman. Just H 23:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Christianity has no New Testament biblical view on Homosexuality

Homosexuality is mentioned many time in the Old Testament as rules to live by. Not as sins. For example in the "book of laws" better known as the Torah (first five books of the Old Testament to Christians) it makes mention to not having sex with animals also. Man at that time was screwing everything. The mention of not performing sex with the same sex, was more of a way to say "keep it in your pants". It was not relationship guide. If a man loved a man or woman loved women or man loved his horse... this was ok. Just dont make love with every man or woman or horse. --Janusvulcan 19:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, that's wrong. Paul makes some homophobic comments in the NT. Besides, the very fact that you tried to explain what the Torah is shows that you have no experience in this debate -- present Christian homophobes are very well aware of the fact that the Christian Bible includes a copy of the Hebrew Bible. Meanwhile, your eisegesis isn't particularly compelling for anyone. --Drostie 20:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The prohibitions of the Old Testament are a part of the HOLINESS CODE; Jesus Christ said he came to fulfill the law, which he did by his sacrifice on the cross. Therefore, Christians are no longer bound by the Law of Sin, but set free through Christ. Paul's condemnations aren't directed at those whose nature is same-sex relations, but rather he seems to condemn those who engage in sex acts that are against their nature. In other words if you are a heterosexual man don't have sex with another man if it isn't in your nature to do so. For more information see the Whosoever website. --Clay 19:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Paul's words are fundamentally homophobic -- he is not criticizing straight men for having gay sex; he is suggesting that homosexuality is unnatural and therefore loathsome. That's the only honest reading of the passage at hand -- "In the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error." Paul views male-female intercourse as "natural", and calls homosexual sex an "error." It is not my fault if you follow the words of homophobic people, but please don't misrepresent them as non-homophobic. The words of St. Paul are fundamentally homophobic; hence the statement "Christianity has no New Testament Biblical view on homosexuality" is factually incorrect. -- Drostie 19:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Loving and mutual homosexual relationships of the sort we see today either did not exist, or were so rare as to not bear mention during the time of the Bible. New Testament references to homosexuality (of which there are a whopping three) were prohibitions against pederasty, something we would identify today as child molestation. Such relationships were about power, not love, not even sex. The prohibitions we see in the New Testament, taken in their proper context, were concerned with making sure people were not involved in relationships in which they were victimized. The overarching theme of the New Testament is equity and love, therefore statements regarding homosexuality must be viewed through this lens. Heck, there's not even a word in Greek for homosexual, the word used by Paul refers to pederasty, not anything we would identify as homosexuality. Also, lesbians don't need to worry at all, since they are not mentioned. The text isn't concerned with women, just as 1st century Jewish culture was not concerned with women. MerricMaker 19:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You might wish to have a second look: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:18%20-%202:16;&version=31; CyberAnth 06:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

A phobia is a fear of something Drostie. Most or maybe all Christian fundamentalist do not fear anything. They use there religion as a crutch, in there stance against Homos. But trust me they dont fear homos. Many of them are closet homos. Its an ANTI-HOMO sentiment not a homophobi. The idea of a phobia is laughable. Theres a Homo!!! RUN FOREST RUN!!! (HOW DUMB! HOMOPHOBIA!) LMAO --Janusvulcan 19:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Quoting from the Wikipedia page, "Homophobia is the fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals." It is a rather popular term, both among the general English-speaking community and among several homosexual subcultures, for discussing people who are averse or discriminatory with regard to homosexuality. Your statement that fundamentalists "use their religion as a crutch" is also factually inaccurate. As per Michael Shermer's wonderful book Why Darwin Matters, chapter 3, the strongest predictors of religiosity are generally familial, whereas most people, like you, believe that others are looking for a "crutch", as you say. As Shermer says, "Sulloway and I believe that these results are evidence of an intellectual attribution bias, in which people consider their own beliefs as being rationally motivated, whereas they see the beliefs of others as being emotionally driven." -- Drostie 19:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose an opposite of a Homophobe would be a Heterophobe, which is even more laughable. There's a straight person!!!! Run for lives!!!! AHHHHH they touched me!!!!--Clay 00:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Drostie Hebrew Bible is called Tanakh, which most christians do not know. As I would suspect you had know idea either. Most christians, until september 11, did not even realize muslims existed. Which is unusual considering christians and muslims are essentially the same ignorant animal. --Janusvulcan 19:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

To be criticized on my supposed ignorance by someone who cannot spell the words "no" and "September", much less capitalize the words "Christian" and "Muslim", is the highly bemusing, for me. I probably have several solid years of Biblical scholarship on you, mostly atheistic and critical; though the early years were as a believer. I almost definitely have a more multicultural perspective than you, since you appear to be locked in a US-centric perspective. And, as per my comment above, you seem to be privy to the intellectual attribution bias -- assuming that your beliefs are rational, whereas others' aren't. In actuality, the emotional appeal of "essentially the same ignorant animal" strikes me as the exact opposite. But in response to your question, yes, I am aware that when you compile the Torah, the Nevi'im, and the Ketuvim, you get the Tanakh. I even know, by rote, the books in each; though I've never managed to figure out why Kings is among the Nevi'im and yet Chronicles is among the Ketuvim. -- Drostie 19:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow! No offense, but perhaps you should stick to areas that you have actually studied extensively. CyberAnth 06:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Janusvulcan, for you to say that Christians and Muslims are the same is an indication that you have no idea what you're talking about. Muslims will be the first to tell you that they aren't even remotely Christian. They don't even acknowledge Jesus Christ (the cornerstone of Christianity) as being anything more than a prophet. I have studied Islam, not because I want to convert, far from it, but because I want to know as much about the religion that the terrorists who believe in Islam so fanatically they consider terrorism to be a tool of Jihad. I can tell you that, Islam bares no resemblance to the faith that I was raised on and believe to be leaps and abounds above Islam. --Clay 11:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I am a christian, but i havenoticed many similarities between Christianity and Islam. Mainly it is that both religions accept the Old Testament in one way or another, but they each also have an additional person that radically changes what they believe (Christianity=Jesus, Islam=Mohammed). They are not the same but they have similarities --anonymous —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.164.130.84 (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

People, to say that the Old Testament doesn't account to Christians today is ridiculous. Sure, some things aren't necessary now that Jesus has come and been sacrificed, but not everything. The standing principles are still there. Also, yes there are refernces in the New Testament that condemn homosexuality. Homosexuality is a perversion of what God meant a relationship between a man and a woman should be. You can see it everywhere. Whatever God makes for good, the devil tries to pervert it into bad. Desert Spada 02:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The What?

We don't need a bogeyman to make us eat our spiritual vegetables. The Christian theology of a God of love does not support belief in the Devil. Besides which, assuming there is a Devil, anything "he" does wouldn't matter because God remains God, and is well beyond any threat posed by any detractor. By extension, as one of God's beloved, the Devil would be of no serious threat to you. Beyond this, if you spend too much time worrying about the Devil, you wander into a Dualistic belief in which you have two gods. God (YHWH), and the Devil. You worship one by going to Church, moving to Other-centeredness, helping an old lady's puppy across the street; you worship the other by talking about how he's out to get us all with clever bureaucracy. To give credence to one is to denigrate the other. That is unless you're using devil as a blanket term to refer to anything which might confound our spiritual lives... In which case, nevermind. MerricMaker 05:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Which is why a responsible Christian theology gets its notion of Satan from the Book of Job. Satan, though perhaps not an angel, gets his authority from God, and consequently he is not an usurper to that title. Hence, no two gods -- just one God, no need to talk about weird "clever bureaucracy" crap. Nonetheless, Satan is so vital to traditional Christian theology that it doesn't matter what "we need" -- Christianity would prefer to see itself as a description of what "there is," not what "we need." (If you've ever heard someone comfort you with the words "God has a plan," that proves the preceding sentence.) -- Drostie 18:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Granted you are both educated well enough to talk about these matters intelligently, I cannot understand you are both proposing your own new innovations over ground that has been so thoroughly gone over, in Christianity alone, by great minds for nearly two millennia. First, the idea of Satan comes to us from scripture, and if you read the scriptures, you will see that he is not introduced as a contrivance to motivate people to “eat their spiritual vegetables.” Second, the claim that the existence of Satan would make Christianity dualistic (though you say “Docetic”) is also without scriptural warrant and was thoroughly refuted by several very early Church Fathers [3]. Third, Christianity, responsible or otherwise, does not get its idea of Satan from the Book of Job, in which the depiction of “the satan” is poetic [4] and arguably not synonymous with “Satan” [5]. Christianity gets its ideas from other OT and NT sources, Church Fathers, and Ecclesiastical Councils.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church Part One, Section Two, Chapter One, Article 1, Paragraph 7 [6]:

II. THE FALL OF THE ANGELS

391 Behind the disobedient choice of our first parents lurks a seductive voice, opposed to God, which makes them fall into death out of envy (Cf. Gen 3:1-5; Wis 2:24). Scripture and the Church's Tradition see in this being a fallen angel, called "Satan" or the "devil" (Cf Jn 8:44; Rev 12:9). The Church teaches that Satan was at first a good angel, made by God: "The devil and the other demons were indeed created naturally good by God, but they became evil by their own doing.” (Lateran Council IV (1215): DS 800).

392 Scripture speaks of a sin of these angels (Cf. 2 Pet 2:4). This "fall" consists in the free choice of these created spirits, who radically and irrevocably rejected God and his reign. We find a reflection of that rebellion in the tempter's words to our first parents: "You will be like God” (Gen 3:5.). The devil "has sinned from the beginning"; he is "a liar and the father of lies"(1 Jn 3:8; Jn 8:44).

393 It is the irrevocable character of their choice, and not a defect in the infinite divine mercy, that makes the angels' sin unforgivable. "There is no repentance for the angels after their fall, just as there is no repentance for men after death”( St. John Damascene, De Fide orth. 2,4: PG 94,877).

394 Scripture witnesses to the disastrous influence of the one Jesus calls "a murderer from the beginning", who would even try to divert Jesus from the mission received from his Father (Jn 8:44; cf. Mt 4:1-11). "The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil" (1 Jn 3:8). In its consequences the gravest of these works was the mendacious seduction that led man to disobey God.

395 The power of Satan is, nonetheless, not infinite. He is only a creature, powerful from the fact that he is pure spirit, but still a creature. He cannot prevent the building up of God's reign. Although Satan may act in the world out of hatred for God and his kingdom in Christ Jesus, and although his action may cause grave injuries - of a spiritual nature and, indirectly, even of a physical nature- to each man and to society, the action is permitted by divine providence which with strength and gentleness guides human and cosmic history. It is a great mystery that providence should permit diabolical activity, but "we know that in everything God works for good with those who love him" (Rom 8:28).

And in case you are inclined to argue against the Catechism, please don’t waste your time. The Catechism is primarily a statement of faith, providing enough warrant to support its assertions but not so much as to exhaustively defend its contents. Further treatment of the subject of the Devil can be found at the following: [7].

LCP

Actually, I can contest rather a great deal of that. All archaic or old sources need to be reevaluated through the lens of current human experience (e.g. Biblical exegesis and Midrash). If we never did this, there would eventually be a vast gulf separating the textually-informed (orthodox) position of religion and actual human life. One could see a point at which reality and religion were so divergent from one another in terms of morality or spirituality that what religion had to say about human life would be thoroughly irrelevant. Just imagine if the church had continued to sanction slavery, misogyny, marital rape, or genocide--would not the church be considered almost hopelessly deluded? I would point out that all the stuff about angels is actually reflective of Greek paganism and the endemic pagan traditions of the region of Judea--so too, Satan. If you were to read Elaine Pagels' The Origin of Satan you would see a very clear linguistic and cultural progression from "Devil[s]" which functioned as God's operatives and did God's will, much like angels; to beings less bound by God's intent, to the being, Satan, whom many people elevate to a sort of Dualistic anti-God. Finally, every time we quote something like scripture or Augustine or whatever, we must ask, "to whom was it written? When was it written for them, and what was their situation at the time?" If you don't have that intent clearly in view, then you're just throwing old words around and assuming they mean to us what they meant to previous generations. In previous generations, getting a handle on theodicy was important. If God is good, why disease, bad weather, pain, and death? The easy answer was that it wasn't God but God's colossal and powerful adversary. The devil is a convenient theological conceit of a previous time, a bogeyman. It is of no help to us any longer. MerricMaker 04:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You're pretty clearly making it up as you go along. A.J.A. 04:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The Church has been there and done that too. Please see [8] (III. Objective Character of Dogmatic Truth; Intellectual Belief in Dogma) and [9]. Here is a tidbit from the latter that speaks pretty closely to what you are asserting:

"Assuredly Catholic truth is not a lifeless thing. Rather is it a living tree that breaks forth into green leaves, flowers, and fruits. There is a development, or gradual unfolding, and a clearer statement of its dogmas. Besides the primary truths, such as the Divinity of Christ and His mission as Messias, there are others which, one by one, become better understood and defined, eg. the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and that of the Infallibility of the Pope. Such unfolding takes place not only in the study of the tradition of the dogma but also in showing its origin in Jesus Christ and the Apostles, in the understanding of the terms expressing it and in the historical or rational proofs adduced in support of it. Thus the historical proof of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception has certainly been strengthened since the definition in 1854. The rational conception of the dogma of Divine Providence is a continual object of study; the dogma of the Sacrifice of the Mass allows the reason to inquire into the idea of sacrifice. It has always been believed that there is no salvation outside the Church, but as this belief has gradually come to be better understood, many are now considered within the soul of the Church who would have been placed without, in a day when the distinction between the soul and the body of the Church had not generally obtained. In another sense, too dogma is instinct with life. For its truth is not sterile, but always serves to nourish devotion. But while holding with life, progress and development, the Church rejects transitory dogmas that in the modernist theory would be forgotten unless replaced by contrary formulae. She cannot admit that "thought, hierarchy, cult, in a word, everything has changed in the history of Christianity", nor can she be content with "the identity of religious spirit" which is the only permanency that modernism admits (Il programma dei Modernisti)."

Just as the Catechism represents only the summit of Catholic belief, the above is just the tip of the iceburg of the Catholic rebuttal to “modernism” (what you are arguing). I appreciate the thoughtful response. If you want to continue, what do you say we take the discussion to my (or your) Talk page?

LCP 15:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The Devil poses no threat to God. God gave man free will because he wanted a creature that would love him on it's own. The Devil deceived man, although it was still man's fault, into eating the fruit from the tree that opened their eyes to good and evil. Now, all the Devil does is cause trouble in everyone's lives. God allows this to happen to test our faith in Him. There is not ONE that rivals God, so it really isn't God vs. the Devil. It's the Devil trying to get you to curse God. All you need to do is keep your faith in God and he will always see you through and reward you. Desert Spada 21:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The lead gives too much weight to the current debate

The lead currently starts with, "The issue of Homosexuality within Christianity has become a matter of intense theological debate among some Christians." This might be an ok lead for a newspaper article, in which the most current event is front-loaded, but it is not suitable for an encyclopedia article. Relative the vast majority of Christian thought, contemporary and historical, the current debate is not important enough to warrant the first line of the article. Does anyone else think that leading with the current debate is unwarranted and unbalanced?LCP 17:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This is my last call for objections to changing the lead.LCP 21:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

How about something along these lines: Christian theologens have written religious tracts discussing Christian views on sexual activity between members of the same sex since [name of author and date of earliest surviving manuscript). Throughout the majority of Christian history, most theologens and Christian sects have viewed homosexual activity as immoral or sinful. However, the official doctrines and teachings about homosexuality and homosexual acts have varied throughout time and by religious group. Over the past century(?), some theologens and Christian religious groups have declared a wide variety of beliefs and practices towards homosexuals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.8 (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the preceeding for accuracy (relative to the article) and brevity. I think I've kept the gist of things.LCP 01:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Prolegomenal issues section fails

The Prolegomenal issues section fails to connect the issues it raises to the issue of homosexuality. Consequently, with perhaps the exception of its last pargraph, it should be cut. Please chime in if you have an objection or other suggestion.LCP 21:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Partly the result of edits since my last major ones here, partly because the section properly describing the debate has never been written. A.J.A. 05:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Article (introduction) is US-centric and does not present a worldwide view

I just put in the {{globalize/USA}} tag, because especially the introduction strikes me as very US-centric. It currently says there:

“ Historically, Christian churches have regarded homosexual sex as sinful, (...). This position is today affirmed by most Christian groups, including the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, the LDS Church and most Protestant denominations, especially among Evangelicals such as the Southern Baptist Convention. ”

I have lived and worked in Germany, the UK and Ireland, and I very strongly am under the impression that in all of these countries the majority of Christians do no longer regard homosexuality as a sin.

I should note here that there are not that many denominations in Europe as there are in the US. Essentially in Germany there is the Catholic church and the Lutheran (Protestant) church; all other denominations are small and are often considered sects or cults. In the UK, there is the large Anglican (protestant) church and the Catholic church, and all the other churches are smaller. In Ireland there is the Catholic church and the smaller Anglican protestant church and all other churches are again much smaller. Considering this, it may be misleading to say "This position is today affirmed by most Christian groups", because even if most small Christian factions affirm one view, that view may still be a minority or even fringe view, because the major denominations whose members don't affirm that view may be much much bigger.

Overall, in the European countries I know, and especially in Germany, most Christians don't regard homosexuality as a sin. That goes especially for Protestants, with Catholics the situation is a bit more complex as the church officially considers homosexuality a sin (and birth control as well) but the majority of the church's German members do not share this view (and are eager to use birth control). Certainly during the last few decades, homophobia, though still a major issue in Europe, has become much less socially acceptable in Germany, Ireland and the UK, and religious condemnation of homosexuality has likewise receded.

I personally had a Catholic teacher of religion and German back in secondary school (over ten years ago in Germany) and we all knew that he was gay. There was only one Christian student who critizised him over that (she had spent time in the US) and he gave her the opportunity to present her views to our class and have a discussion. Nobody sided with this student and nobody felt that our teacher's sexuality was an issue, much less a religious one. The vast majority of my fellow students were Christians and this was a Christian school. I am mentioning all this just to illustrate that views in other parts of the world differ greatly from views that may be prevalent in the US. I feel this article should reflect not just the situation in the US, but be edited to represent a worldwide view of the matter. I also feel that it's maybe not appropriate to specifically mention fairly US-centric denominations in the introduction (they don't have as great a presence worldwide as they do in the US; the concept/movement of "Evangelicals" in the US is quite different from European Lutheran Protestantism; few Europeans have heard of the Southern Baptist Convention or the LDS Church). 86.56.48.12 13:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

1.) Most of the people contributing to this entry are Americans. 2.) American Christianity has an unfortunate tendency to reflect American culture, just as European culture is reflected in European Christianity. 3.) American culture is rife with biblical literalists who see their own fear of gay people reflected back at them in scripture. 4.) This is reflected in the article. 5.) Either we change the article to be international in scope (which would be rather involved) or we change the title to something like: "Homosexuality in American Christianity." Fair? MerricMaker 16:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that changing the article would be rather involved, however IMHO improving the article would nevertheless be vastly preferable to renaming it. 86.56.48.12 10:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

86.56.48.12 fails to differentiate between the official teachings of the Catholic Church and other Christian assemblies and the opinions of the laity. Even if every layman in the Catholic Church thought that homosexuality was not sinful, that would have no relevance in regard to the teaching of the Church. Christianity is not democratic. Regardless, the article does have an international focus (Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Biblical, Historical) and only a few lines are U.S. centric (e.g. “Southern Baptist Convention”), so I have removed the tag. I appreciate 86.56.48.12's personal survey, and perhaps there should be a section that addresses the difference of opinion between leaders and the laity. Otherwise, his personal observations do not provide sufficient warrant for a tag in an encyclopedia article. LCP 01:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The amazing thing about this discussion is how deeply and obliviously culture-bound the perspectives here actually are. Only the West counts. Or rather, only the West exists and only Europe counts. A.J.A. 13:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Lesbianism

The article does not address lesbianism--a subject not clearly discussed in either the Bible or the writings of the fathers.LCP 01:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That's because women were viewed as property, their value was less than the house, but more than the livestock. MerricMaker 06:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Slander is no prettier when the victims are long dead. A.J.A. 13:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

In order to meet the definition, slander must imply false information. Misogyny is a fact of history. Especially so when it comes to scripture and Christianity. MerricMaker 14:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That women were viewed as property is not a fact of history. A.J.A. 14:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

In early Hebrew culture, yes, they were. In listings of household goods of the time it went: House (i.e. land), wives, slaves, livestock, miscellaneous. Even their understanding of the biology of birth reflected a view of women as nothing more than a vessel to be used (and I choose that word deliberately) by a man. The fact that we even use the phrase "women's rights" today demonstrates that there was a point at which women had no rights and policies and terminology had to be altered in order to become properly aligned. The fact that we still have to make a point that women are people too shows that gender bias is alive and well. If you add gay woman to the title, the gap in equality broadens. In most denominations, women still have trouble getting ordained, even if policy grants them equal rights. However, if that woman seeking ordination is lesbian, forget it. I know of only two denominations that ordain lesbians. Heck, just because there's a gay rights movement doesn't mean that women aren't still marginalized by it. MerricMaker 15:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This is an example of a pattern I've seen in Leftists or liberals in general: you not only demand the right to use hyperbole (which would be fair enough), you demand that your hyperbole should be believed at face value. So you defend something like the plain fact underlying the hyperbole (that women had a different status), although you're still not quite playing it straight. But you expect that to be accepted as "women were viewed as property" -- which has never been true of any culture. A.J.A. 15:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

What was the dowry about, if not assigning monetary value to women? MerricMaker 16:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually it was a dower, not a dowery, and it was to provide for her in the event of widowhood. That was the basis of Rachel and Leah's complaint about Laban in Genesis 31:15 -- and note that being "sold" was something to complain about, not standard practice. A.J.A. 18:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Dowry and dower come from the same stem, I wasn't talking about dower, but dowry. Bride price was about economic exchange, not providing for her if her husband died, as was dower, a different practice. Achtemeier, Brueggemann, von Rad, Trible, and every other OT exegete I know of notes that the cultural status of women was as property both in social and economic terms. First the woman was in the household of her father, then of her husband, and then of her son or brother-in-law if she was widowed or produced no sons. In each relationship her position was always subordinate and decisions about her life were never her own to make. That status I define as sub-human and as property. Bringing it back to the article, the sexual identity of women was also not their own. The expectation was that they produce children, beyond this their sexuality was not relevant to authors of the Old Testament. MerricMaker 19:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)