Talk:The Bible and homosexuality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Peer review The Bible and homosexuality has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class.

Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Cleanup and references

I've archived the previous talk page having finished cleaning up the page, as I think that most of the previous discussions aren't releveant any more. Apologies if I moved something by mistake that still needs to be addressed.

I've added references to each of the sections and given arguments for different interpretations of each of the passages and so have removed the totallydisputed tag. When people add more information please provide a reference for it! This is a contentious subject and I think one of the main reasons the page got the totallydisputed tag placed on it was that references weren't given and people were adding their own original research.

I've also removed a short section on 1 Peter which you can see here, as it wasn't referenced and I couldn't find anyone using it in any of the arguments about homosexuality. --G Rutter 09:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Great work, this article had been in an awful state for a long time. - SimonP 15:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

GROSS MISTRANSLATIONS AND MISINTERPRETATIONS IN THIS ARTICLE

The biblical quotes in this article are full of mistranslations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Edits to 1 Corinthians

I moved some information from Homosexuality and Christianity to 1 Corinthians, as I thought it was more appropriate here. I integrated it and checked it with what was already here and the only paragraph that I felt needed to be added was on the Church Fathers. However, an anon editor feels that I have deleted information, so I hope that we can discuss it here, rather than get into a revert war. Compare my original insertation here and the anon's addition/over-writing of the section here.

There were originally three paragraphs in the Controversy over Biblical terminology section. The first paragraph dealt with the translation of "arsenokoitēs". The two versions are similar, but the one from H&C was not referenced. The second paragraph dealt with the Church Fathers and contains the same information, but I have rewritten it slightly for style and added some links. The third paragraph dealt with the translation of "lo tishkav" from Leviticus, which is already covered in the Leviticus section. Anon, could you please explain exactly what you prefer about the version from H&C and then perhaps we can work out a solution to this please. Thanks! --G Rutter 11:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary and biased reverts

I am sorry to see that this page seems to have fallen under the control of a group of anons who strong-arm a distorted presentation of the topic. Haiduc 00:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Although I had nothing to do with reverting your changes, I would note that quite a few of them involved the deletion of referenced material or quotes (which was noted in the edit summaries of the reversions). You might not agree with the quotes (and I certainly don't agree with all of them), but the fact is that they've been said and published either in journals, books or by major groups. The Genesis material was hardly "irrelevant" as Hilborn (amongst others) used it to argue that Genesis forms the basis for all human sexual relationships, while the quote you removed sums up many people's attitude to the arguments Vasey, Williams, etc make.
On Luke 7, the "lengthy...semantic foray" is hardly "irrelevant" as it establishes the point that pais is used in a variety of different ways in the Gospels and by Luke himself. I have however readded your reference to the NET Bible and added a counter-argument to Marston's statement (although we really need to find a reference for it). I also added inhospitality to the list of sins of Sodom. Your paragraph about abominations in Leviticus was interesting, but I haven't readded it as you didn't cite any sources.
As I've said already on this page, if we can add things that we can reference we won't end up back with a totallydisputed tag and hopefully we'll avoid edit wars. --G Rutter 22:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. I have nothing further to add at this time, except to point out that we do not need references in order to contextualize the use of "abomination" in Leviticus, in the same way in which we contextualize the use of "pais" or "entimos". Haiduc 22:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, I have taken a look at your edits and I do have something to add. The Marston attack, which is a slur, of claiming "pedophilic" sex for the centurion and his slave needs to be placed in the perspective of the legal age for marriage in Ancient Rome for a woman, which was age 12. See [1] and [2] and [3]. It is absurd to wave the flag of pedophilia in light of these figures, and if the quote is allowed to remain it needs to be qualified accordingly, lest we become an uncritical mouthpiece for a biased rant. Haiduc 23:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
I've added the information, but I have to say I don't think the arguments on both sides are very good. It seems to me that we don't know what was going on, so can't really draw any conclusions from it. I think both Horner's and Marston's arguments are weak, and I don't think adding the age of marriage is terribly helpful either, especially as it was 14 for males. If anyone can find any sources with better arguments, please add the information! However, the purpose of this page is to accurately reflect the arguments that have been made on this subject, whatever we personally think about them.
I don't agree with you about contextualising "abomination" without sources. As it says below the editing screen: "content... must be based on verifiable sources". We've provided references for pais and entimos and need to do the same for any other point. --G Rutter 08:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I will look for references. Haiduc 11:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gender Reference to God

The last line of the first paragraph includes, "showing what actions God considers to be good and which he considers to be sinful." What about changing the sentence so that there is no gender specific pronoun in reference to God? --Dorje Shedrub 19:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Um... well if you can think of a sensible way to reword the sentence so that it's not clusmy (any more than it is already) then I'm not going to complain. --G Rutter 22:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, I changed "he" to "God" and changed "what actions" to "which actions," to make it match the rest of the sentence. --Dorje 01:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Why do you want to change "he" to a non-gender-specific pronoun? The original Hebrew is gender specific - if it's good enough for God, why change it? PiCo 08:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference to Judges 19:16

Forgive me, for I'm new at this, perhaps I'm not reading it correctly, but in the "Passages from the Hebrew Bible Section", under the subheading "Genesis 19: Sodom and Gomorrah", there is a reference to Judges 19:16 as being a near-parallel to the issue of homosexuality. I can't see anything in Judges 19:16 that has ANYTHING to do with the topic at hand.

The really important verse is verse 22:"While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, "Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him."" I've altered the article to make this clearer. Thanks! --G Rutter 12:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Problem: This sentence does not appear in old bible translations. Sex is never mentioned in that line at all.
Sex is not exactly mentioned in the bible. There is no word for sex in the bible. It might say "know" (or rather "yada") as in "so we can know him", but it does not say "so we can have sex with him". What you have there, G Rutter, is a very biased, and consequently unreliable, translation. It probably has Paul saying "homosexuality is evil", or something like that, as a number of politically motivated translations do, but the actual text does not say that, and is more ambiguous. Clinkophonist 20:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Better Literal Translation of Koitē

The word literally means bed (especially the marriage-bed) not sexual intercourse, although it is clearly being used euphemistically for sexual-intercourse. Etymologically, the word is derived from the Greek word keimai "lay" which can clearly has some euphemistic meanings but is not limited to only such meanings. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.180.150.91 (talk • contribs).

There is often a difference between the etymological and contextual senses; along the same lines, the Hebrew ידע (yd') simply means "to know," yet when Adam "yada" Eve, she had a son! ;) (Gen. 4:1). If context is just as much (or more) a part of meaning (understood as authorial intent) as syntax/form and etymology, then it seems valid to give the lexical entry that best expresses the full sense ("sexual intercourse") rather than giving the bare etymological sense ("lay"). » MonkeeSage « 16:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notable sources?

Oh my goodness. There is some extremely silly stuff in this article - particularly the foregrounding of a single chapter from an obscure book by T. Koch, the "Cruising as Methodology" material. It's barely scholarship, and it's nothing like as prominent in the field as it is prominent in the article. It makes the whole thing sound silly and smutty.

The article should be primarily based on well-known, influential sources. Where is the material on Marcel Proust's treatment of the Sodom and Gomorrah story? Where is Peter J. Gomes? We focus on these obscure little people, and ignore the big names. Whole article needs a rewrite.

DanB†DanD 01:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations!

I just want to congratulate all users who have edited the article, and discussed on this talk page, for keeping this place a haven of sanity and maturity, and not letting it devolve into a breeding-ground of hostility and bad faith. :) —Daniel (‽) 09:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leviticus 18 & 20 Counter-Arguments

I understand that the way I worded my argument might not have been the most P/C. I rewrote the text in a more encyclopedic format and will paste it below for discussion. If there is no objection I will put the text in the article:

Other counter-arguments point towards other rules put forth in the book of Leviticus which are not 

followed by the contemporary church.  Such verses in the book of Leviticus include Leviticus 19:27, which 

condemns cutting the hair on the sides of the head and trimming ones beard, and Leviticus 11:7, 24-25, 

which condemns contact with the flesh of a dead pig.  Those who use this argument point out that Leviticus 18:22 

and Leviticus 20:13 are taken out of context when used as an argument against homosexual 

relationships.
JWGreen 19:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
You really ought to source it, however it's phrased. It's not the place of a wikipedia editor to put forth arguments (even balanced arguments) without attributing the ideas to an outside authority. DanB†DanD 19:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Leviticus 19:27 from a speech by Tony Campolo[4] at Concordia College, Moorhead, MN on 9/20/2006.
I heard the other argument a while back, but can't remember who the speaker was. I did find the argument on this [5] site though. It is also mentioned here [6]. An anonymous former US president wrote a letter to Dr. Laura Schlessinger in satire about the subject of the pig skin also, referencing the fact that footballs are made out of pigskin. It can be found here [7]. I would also like to point out that not many in-text citations are used in any other sections, which may need citation. I’m putting the text in, along with citations. -JWGreen 23:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to make the section of the article entitled "Leviticus 18 & 20" less POV. Also, I addressed the only comment that was posted about the text. I will try to find the counter-arguments for my counter-arguments, but then that opens doors to more counter-arguments, and essentially this would turn into an edit war, which I do not want it resort to. Can anyone else coment on this so I know If I am not wrong in my statements? -JWGreen 01:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Voln, exactly in which other articles have you seen the argument you are deleting? And which are the countervailing arguments that you find lacking? How can we keep this information in a way that is balanced? Diego 09:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

There are many reasons why this addition violates normal policy. The sources cited include blogs or personal pages rather than reputable, peer-reviewed academic sources. The page at the in-forum site does not mention the subject at all. It therefore is not adequately sourced. The argument which is being added is just another variation of the old "shellfish prohibition" argument which has periodically been added to many other articles here, and has often been deleted for various reasons - partly because citing admittedly discontinued Levitical laws would not be relevant as a means of rejecting a prohibition which is upheld in the New Testament, just as such an argument could not be used to reject the Ten Commandments unless the argument is stating that literally all of the moral codes given in the Bible should be rejected because a few of the Levitical codes are no longer in force. If this is the argument then it should be clearly stated; if not, then it's not a relevant argument for the specific topic which this article addresses. Many other points could be made if I had the time. Voln 19:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I figure I'd stir up the pot here a little... the "shellfish" argument is significant enough that it could have its own article. Not sure of the apt title or the reputable sources that would feed it, but I have definitely seen this argument around awhile... It goes something like this... Argument: "you eat shellfish, doen't you... and you play football... so you are selectively enforcing OT laws... you hypocrite!"
Response 1: "yes but the NT reinforces sexual immorality prohibitions while loosening ritual and dietary laws to allow the Gentiles to be reached."
Response 2: "by the logic of discounting OT prohibitions, incest is ok now, and killing, and covetousness."
Response 3: Jesus told the adulteress, "go and sin no more" which tells us that the laws are still there but that Jesus says we fellow sinners don't punish or administer God's Justice (let he who is without sin cast the first stone).

MPS 19:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the shellfish business and its close cousins, the pigskin/two-crops/two-materials arguments, have been repeated ad nauseam. It looks like the Wikipedia Administrator "Jayjg" has often deleted all variants of these from Wikipedia because they distort the matter so much. Among the other counter-arguments (aside from those you mentioned) would be the point that none of these discontinued Levitical codes ever had any relation to any of the primary Commandments contained in the Decalogue, whereas sodomy is linked to the general commandment against adultery/fornication. It isn't explicitly stated there, but neither are incest, bestiality, rape, or pedophilia. Voln 20:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know any of those counter-arguments to the "shellfish" argument, that's why I asked for them. I feel that they are relevant enough to be included, and I haven't found them anywhere at wikipedia, so in my opinion they should be added (both the argument and the criticism). I'll try to write up and post it here at talk page for discussion.Diego 10:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
"whereas sodomy is linked to the general commandment against adultery/fornication" If we're talking about the 10 Commandments, there is not one about fornication and "sodomy" has nothing to do with adultery. --Chesaguy 02:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
The Commandment against "adultery" has always been understood to include fornication of any kind (except by those who wish to redefine the Commandments to suit whatever their own preference happens to be). If it doesn't refer to fornication, then there is no prohibition against pedophilia, incest, bestiality, necrophilia, etc. Voln 05:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Please provide sources to corroborate your contention that the commandment against adultery was always understood to mean more than the words used. If the commandment needs to be "redefined" to mean only what it says, then it really wasn't well-defined to begin with. As for needing the adultery commandment to address "sodomy" in order to not green-light pedophilia, incest, bestiality, necrophilia (and whatever etc might refer to), I cannot see the logic behind this. --Chesaguy 17:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't even know where to begin. The word that you're rendering as "adultery" was taken to cover more than marital infidelity. Christ said (in Matthew 5:28) that mere lustful thoughts would count as this particular sin. The Bible condemns fornication in general in many passages (e.g., Lev. 21:9; 19:29; Deut. 22:20-11, 23-29; 23:18; Ex. 22:16, Matt. 5:32; 19:9; John 8:41; Acts 15:20... and countless others). The ancient Jews did not merely condemn extra-marital sex, but also pre-marital sex, incest, sodomy, etc. This commandment has never been interpreted to imply that only marital infidelity is forbidden.
The point about pedophilia, incest, bestiality, et al, was that the same arguments being used here in favor of sodomy could just as easily be used to justify all these others - i.e., since pedophilia is not marital infidelity, therefore the commandment in question would not condemn pedophilia. This would be a general-purpose argument for legitimizing literally every form of sex.
But, Wikipedia is not the place to argue such points. If the proposed text is going to be included at all, it needs to be balanced so that multiple positions are represented, in keeping with Wikipedia policy. Voln 09:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree that Wikipedia is not the place to argue this. My point was that if you are going to introduce counters to the counterarguments, more is needed than "It was always understood that..." --Chesaguy 15:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I feel that citing blogs to say that the argument exists is acceptable, because the argument is there. But I guess you know better. I think that it should be cited that theses arguments exist, but I am not going to be the one to put them back in. I did put in the couter-counter arguments (the ones that I could find) per Voln's request, but I guess that was not enough. -JWGreen 00:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I recognize the statement I am about to make will make it sound like we are going in circles, but I they are more like circles that are spiraling inward towards the answer... I just want to reiterate that all these examples and counterexamples really ought to be encapsulated in one well-sourced article called something like: "Christian debates concerning which specific OT laws are still in effect." This article (whatever we name it) covers the trichinosis arguments (It's really ok to eat pork; OT laws are irrelevant once you understand what they were "really" about) , the Acts 15 arguments (If Early Christians said/discerned it was ok or forbidden then we should follow their instructions), the stumbling block-type argument (all is permissible but not all is beneficial... you are free to consult the spirit and choose your behavior as long as you don't cause your brother to stumble)... all this could be referenced in one article once and for all. I argue that from a balance perspective, each argument in the 18 and 20 paragraph is about a sentence long. The "old testament laws don't count (as much, maybe)" argument could be referenced in one sentence and so the reader would have one-stop shopping if they really wanted to hear all the nuances and sides of that debate. MPS 03:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
i think JWGreen´s version is better than of VolnGLGerman 01:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

To illustrate the debate over male homosexuality in a clearer light, I have rendered the proper Hebrew translation of Leviticus 18:22:

V-et zachar lo tishkav mishkevey eeshah toeyvah hee

Do not lie with a man as YOU would with a woman. Darth Sidious 23:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


I think the leviticus section is seriously deceptive. At this time it lets the reader know only of 2 prohibitions (incest and bestiality) besides the claim of homosexuality. Incest and Bestiality are among the most culturally taboo practices, widely accepted as wrong. This gives the impression that it is a list of things we all already agree are wrong - and includes homosexuality.
The scope of what is included in the leviticus needs to be clearly stated (you can't expect the readers to have so much knowledge of the bible). If it is giving examples on the extreme end of already agreed upon by society (anti-bestiality/incest), than it must also give the other extreme which would be JWGreen's examples (anti-trimming your beard etc.). This isn't an argument/counter argument issue; it is a factual one. The section as it stands is a false portrayal. Elaborating on the description of leviticus, including examples like the verses JWGreen mentioned, will help to make it more accurate. You already have your outside source: the bible. Arosearose 10:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Full Disclosure - Romans 1

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

This usually appears to be based on the argument that the ancient world did not have a concept of homosexual orientation. However, having reviewed the evidence the report Issues in Human Sexuality (para 2.16) concluded: "It can be said, therefore, the phenomena which today would be interpreted in terms of orientation were present and recognised." These considerations therefore lead many Biblical interpreters to conclude that "the most authentic reading of Rom 1:26-7 is that which sees it prohibiting homosexual activity in the most general of terms, rather than in respect of more culturally and historically specific forms of such activity" (Hilborn 2002, p.9).
    Issues in Human Sexuality  is a statement by The House of Bishops published by the church of England.
  • The statement in the article "However, having reviewed the evidence the report Issues in Human Sexuality concluded..." gives the impression that this was a scientific study or academic journal. It needs to be changed from "report" to "statement of the Church of England".
  • The second statement, while not as problematic, is from a book published by another christian organization "the evangelical alliance"
  • The descriptions of the sources are abnormally vague. It needs to Clearly state the sources - it is very relevant.

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

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

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

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

[edit] 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. DurovaCharge! 17:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Diversity of perspective needed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree that the Religious Tolerance link is appropriate. Furthermore, there is a major issue which needs to be addressed here. All the biblical quotes are from a modernized version of the Bible which, in its formulations, begs the question of same sex relations. For example, 1 Cor 6:9-10 in the 21st century King James gives us "Be not deceived: Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind..." while the TNIV in the article asserts "Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals..."
"Practicing homosexuals"??? You've got to be kidding me. In a text that is 2000 years old??? This translation jumps to unwarranted conclusions. Thus I strongly recommend that we use a more precise version, the above mentioned 21st C. K. J. Haiduc 16:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

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

If we can find extra-Wiki sources commenting on it -- and there must be some -- all this discussion could itself be included in the article. Obviously it's the language of the KJV that has shaped attitudes over the centuries, but the use of right-wing jargon in a new translation is newsworthy indeed! Has no one outside wiki commented on it?
Even if we can't find an outside source, I think we're on the safe side of OR if we simply list the different translations of this verse side by side with no comment other than "passages in the Bible related to homosexuality have been variously translated."
"Practicing homosexuals." Sheesh! Call me naive, but I'm shocked to see Christians treat the text so cavalierly. DanB†DanD 21:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Differences in versions

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

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

Hi, please sign even if you're not logged in - it makes it much easier to follow the page.
All translations are interpretations. Although "practicing homosexual" is pretty darned bold, it would be deceptive to pretend that a neutral, transparent version of scripture in English exists. DanB†DanD 22:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Let's not go quite that far. There are translations that attempt to recreate the sense in the historical context and translations that try to modernize at the cost of scholarly accuracy. I would be very interested in the source of the comment on commercial viability and condemnation of homosexuality. What if we do not quote biblical passages at all here and just refer readers to the text via "bibleverse" links as such: 1 Cor 15:8-9 Haiduc 23:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/Talk%7EThe_Bible_and_homosexuality_e393.html"