Talk:The Bible and homosexuality

Versions of the bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

POV-pushing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

split rationale

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

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

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

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

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

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 Quote

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

Different translation of Leviticus 18:22

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

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

Genesis 18

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

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

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

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

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

Jesus and Homosexuality

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

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

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

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

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

Section "Does the Bible condemn homosexuality?"

appears to violate WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Unless sources are provided that shows that scholars/theologicans have summarized the Bible´s view of homosexuality in this way, it should be removed (or substansially re-edited). It is also WP:UNDUE to solely include the liberal position and not in an equal way present the conservative/mainstream position, held for instance by the Catholic church. With regards, Iselilja (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree, it isn't a very good section. The reason it's currently there is, ironically, precisely because of users who wanted to make sure that the article insisted that the Bible condemned homosexuality - it used to be balanced with the conservative interpretation elsewhere in the article, but was moved to a position of less prominence. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I support its removal. It was I who moved it there from the lead, but only through a lack of boldness. StAnselm (talk) 04:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)