Talk:History of Christianity and homosexuality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
Censorship warning

This topic may attract censorship. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not censored.

Articles may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Images or details contained within this article, in particular, may be graphic or otherwise objectionable in order to ensure complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to our content disclaimer regarding objectionable content.

Contents

[edit] Cite Your Sources

When making additions to this article always cite your source, any additions from this point on made without any citation will be deleted. Apollomelos 10:31, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If any statements are made without appropriate source-citation, please do not summarily delete them. Rather, bring them here and list them under a rubric like "The following statements need to have their sources cited before they can be included in the article". That way people can work on finding the sources for the statements. --Angr 11:33, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To Apollomelos: There is no rule stating that whole blocks of text should be deleted unless every statement has source citations. Given that your own previous edits (up until just today) had left many points unbacked by citations, and since *most* Wikipedia articles do not cite references for every statement, it seems that you've adopted a new rule in order to provide an excuse for your deletion of large sections of text presenting the opposing view. I've therefore re-added most of the text you deleted, and will add web sources for them as time permits (although the web is not the main source for such things - "research by Google" may be popular with some people, but it's not the chief source for locating scholarly theories, except perhaps for the radical ones you've been citing). 152.163.100.71 05:04, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi user anon 152.163.100.71, I apologize for the deletions. I did not wish to cause an edit war. The reason I deleted it was because user:angr objected to it:
  • "'m having real difficulty accepting these labels. Especially since the latest revision, which includes "Conservative assumptions" and "Liberal assumptions" (both of which are rather POV, IMO) paralleling "Conservative Christian views" and "Liberal Christian views". A reader is likely to conclude that the conservative assumptions lead to the conservative views, and the liberal assumptions lead to the liberal views, and I don't think that's the case." -Angr

Boswell is hardly "research by google" or AP European History Textbooks. I do not plan on deleting anything from the conservative or liberal views. I am only stating we should ensure to include refs. from this point on since I noticed the many gaps yesterday. And one more thing I have noticed. We should be careful in both sides to describe their view the "correct" one. In our language we should make sure to include "claims" and others. Apollomelos 09:54, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What I objected to was not the presence of the paragraphs on "Conservative assumptions" and "Liberal assumptions", but rather the implication that the "Conservative assumptions" lead to the "Conservative Christian views" and that the "Liberal assumptions" lead to the "Liberal Christian views". But I do think the paras on conservative and liberal assumptions need to be NPOV'ed if they get restored because they sound rather liberal-biased. And I say that as a liberal. --Angr 10:35, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
(P.S. To anonymous user 152.163.100.71 -- you really might consider signing up for a name, since your IP number varies a bit from time to time and it makes others feel like they're dealing with a "real person" instead of just a number. Of course it's your choice, I'm not saying you have to -- just think about it, 'kay? ;-) --Angr 10:35, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC))

[edit] POVness

Removed several POV statements like:

  • "both sides would presumably agree that there is no doubt..."
  • "as such quotes use commonplace words which are not in dispute"
  • "many would contend, however, that such disputes over a few words, and other such speculative theories on all such subjects, cannot overrule the clear statements in many revealed sources which state the matter in unambiguous, simple words whose meanings are not in dispute"
The author is clearly proscribing infallibility to her/his own interpretation/translation. The reality is the statements to which the above refer have been disputed by a number of authors, most notably John Boswell in his lengthy Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century.
  • "if it had, then such a provision would have been recorded"
Another example of an opinion stated as fact. Opinions should be restricted by some indication of the person or persons who believe them.

I suggest the author of these statements contribute their interpretations with the same qualification that she/he provides to the opposing viewpoint. This page could definately use the elaboration. -- Queerudite 02:57, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Leviticus 18,22

Is this POV vandalism or facts as defined by God the omnipotent?

Moses Holy 15 March 2005 AD

[edit] The opposing view

Thanks for cleaning up the anonymous user's addition, Apollomelos, but it's going too far to call it vandalism. This is obviously a very sensitive subject that is difficult to write about in an NPOV manner. I agree the anon additions were rather POV, but then I think the article as it stands is somewhat POV too. --Angr 10:41, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well I did think it was vandalism until I was informed on Homosexuality's talk page that the ip address was shared. There had been vandalism before such as "God invented AIDS to kill gay people". The anon ip stated it wasn't his work though and must have been somebody else. If you feel the article is POV I welcome you to make additions of opposing views just as I do from the anon user, it enriches the article. Apollomelos 21:37, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

One thing I'd like is to know the sources of some of the information given. Who has interpreted 1 Samuel 18:21 as meaning David was previously married to Jonathan? That is one of the most variably translated verses in the Bible; there seem to be almost as many translations of that verse as there are translations of the Bible into English. There is no agreement on what "by two" in the Hebrew text means, nor even whether it is part of the quote from Saul (as opposed to part of the narration). Other ideas of what "by two" means include:

  • "through one of the two"
Therefore Saul said to David, "Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law through one of the two." (21st Century KJV)
  • "a second opportunity/chance"
So Saul said to David, "Now you have a second opportunity to become my son-in-law." (New International Version; NIV-UK; 'chance' in New International Reader's Version)
He told David, "I'm going to give you a second chance to marry one of my daughters." (Contemporary English Version)
  • "for a second time"
Therefore Saul said to David, "For a second time you may be my son-in-law today." (New American Standard Bible)
Wherefore Saul said to David, "Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law a second time." (American Standard Version; Darby Translation)
  • "after all"
But to David he said, "I have a way for you to become my son-in-law after all!" (New Living Translation)
  • "a second time" (not in Saul's quote)
Therefore Saul said to David a second time, "You shall now be my son-in-law." (RSV; New RSV; English Standard Version; Amplified Bible)
Therefore Saul said to David a second time, "You shall be my son-in-law today." (New KJV)
So again he said to David, "You're going to be my son-in-law." (The Message)
So Saul said to David a second time, "Now you may be my son." (New Life Version)

I see someone else has already removed the bit about the Anglican Communion replacing "wise men" with "magi". I agree with the removal: the statement isn't relevant to the discussion at hand. But in case someone is tempted to put that bit back, I want to say this about it: (1) the original Greek says "magoi", so "magi" is a more literal translation than "wise men" anyway (rather than being a modern gender-neutral revision); (2) to the best of my knowledge, the Anglican Communion doesn't do its own translations, it uses translations done ecumenically, mostly the RSV and NRSV. --Angr 03:47, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Religion

  • The religious response to gay people varies. At the present time the teachings of the Abrahamic religions are being interpreted by the more conservative sects or denominations to view same-sex relationships a sin, while Buddhism, Shinto and some other religions hold that sexuality in general can interfere with the spiritual life and social order, but place no importance on the gender of the object of desire. In those cultures influenced by fundamentalist interpretations of religions, same-sex relationships are considered a perversion and has been outlawed see sodomy law, consensual crime; in some jurisdictions sexual activity between those of the same gender remain a capital crime. See religion and same-sex orientation for a comprehensive discussion.

In many of the religions of the ancient world homosexuality was seen on the same level with heterosexuality, and indeed many of the followers were bisexual. In the ancient Greco-Roman religion intergenerational man – boy relationships were highly revered and regarded to be sacred. This is reflected in many of their religious beliefs – what we now call myths – with many of their divinities involved in such relationships. See Ganymede & Zeus These views were not limited to the Greco-Roman civilizations either, historical evidence shows same-sex relationships throughout the ancient world from Egypt to China. See Sacred Band of Thebes

Attitudes of early Christians towards same-sex relationships were also influenced by these ancient religions. Some prominent early Christian figures are known to have had same-sex relationships. King Richard I of England who held a high position within the early Christian Church and heavily involved in the Third Crusade was openly gay - many historians contend he had a relationship with King Philip II of France. Others include Ralph Archbishop of Tours who had his lover John installed as bishop of Orleans with agreement of both the King of France and Pope Urban II. However with the advent of the Dark Ages, persecution of minorities such as Jews, Muslims, and gays shifted these attitudes. [edit]

Added new information from my college European History Textbook and Encyclopedia Britannica. I can cite websites also. And the wiki links to the other articles already confirm most of the information presented. A user tried to delete the section; he has contributed meaningful before I believe. So I don't believe it is a vandal. Perhaps someone with a comment. If you have any please add here. I'm open to discussion. Thanks. 207.224.215.134

This anon user even after I have tried to contact via the talk page is still deleting the text without explanation. And now is altering other segments of the article for example claiming bisexual relationships weren't honored in ancient Greece which is factually inaccurate. Please keep an eye out for the anon user doing this. 207.224.215.134

The early Church Fathers and theologians from that era condemned homosexual relations, and I listed two of these. The fact that a few individuals are believed to have practiced homosexuality privately and/or succeeded in getting their lover appointed to a position does not mean that the Church condoned homosexuality. 152.163.100.11 22:51, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

early Church Fathers and theologians from that era condemned homosexual relations - that is open to debate which is exactly why we will include both views. The fact that a few individuals are believed to have practiced homosexuality privately and/or succeeded in getting their lover appointed to a position does not mean that the Church condoned homosexuality. - The same can be said about the other. Just because a few may have spoken against homosexuality doesn't mean the Church didn't accept it. Apollomelos 03:40, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


I'm glad you now choose to discuss. Thank you. Yes, you are right some Christians thought of homosexuality as sinful. However other early church Fathers did not share that belief. Which is why on our article we will include both, not just one side. 207.224.215.134 23:13, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
None of the people you listed were "early Church Fathers": e.g., Richard was a secular king who lived in the 11th century, not a theologian of the early Church (1st - 5th cent). Whatever his private life may have been like, it does not reflect the Church's position on the subject. None of the Church Fathers or Popes approved of homosexual sex. Nor does the term "dark ages" refer to a period at some point after Richard's era, but rather refers to the period from the 5th - 8th centuries, right after the fall of the Roman Empire. This new addition to the article garbles history almost recognition. 64.12.116.11 02:53, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
it does not reflect the Church's position on the subject. None of the Church Fathers or Popes approved of homosexual sex. - Once again open to debate. Apollomelos 03:40, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is good to include both sides, but much of the research on early church acceptance of homosexuality comes from modern day revisionists who wish to prove homosexuality to have a basis in the early members of the religion that has influenced western civilization the most (Christianity). Much as we can't say that although there are many priests who have proven to be pederasts, the Catholic church allows homosxual relations between priests and boys, we cannot say that the example of a few individuals in the age of the early church, practicing homosexuality, means that it was an accepted practice. The early church fathers, canon law, and the writings of the apostle Paul, John of Patmos, and quotations from Jesus of Nazareth, all make clear that sexual purity was a very important aspect of the religion at that time. Paul even advoated complete abstinence for Christians. It clouds the issue very much to give the example of a few individuals who deviated from the moral standards as exemplars of larger cultural mores. Just as now there are individuals who act in ways officially condemned by large portions of their associates (Vicky Gene Robinson for example), the same was true of the early chrch; what this does not change,is the officially promulgated morality of that time period.--Originaled 23:53, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Good points. 64.12.116.11 02:53, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You have to admit there are Christians who disagree with you. The peoples' passages who you quoted are open to interpretation, some say they have been mistranslated down the ages. What you call revisionist others call truth and vice-versa. We should include both viewpoints. I am against those who are trying to censor the others' view. And Kings during the time period were believed to have powers from God. And if the Pope allowed Ralph to do what he did there obviosuly coud've been some Church acceptance of homosexuality. Esp. since homosexuality was so widespread in the ancient world, it doesn't make sense for it to go away just because a new religion appeared, that would take time. Both sides have points that have logical sense, therefor we should include both. Apollomelos 03:34, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
quotations from Jesus of Nazareth, all make clear that sexual purity was a very important aspect of the religion at that time. that is another one of my points. Some Christian scholars point out that Jesus never spoke of homosexuality. And what you say about sexual purity is open to debate. For all we know Jesus could've considered homosexuality to be sexually pure just like heterosexuality. That is an awesome reason why we should include both sides. Apollomelos 03:56, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
We should bear in mind that we cannot say what he may or not have said, especially in light of the fact that the Christian scriptures were severely censored through a political process, with many gospels being destroyed. Interestingly, the Qur'an underwent a similar process. Haiduc 13:11, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I tried to make the new additions fit into the context of the article, but as I am not an expert in early Christianity I cannot add to this debate, except perhaps to ask, where should all the gay popes be discussed? Haiduc 04:06, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Lest my previous message be read as a joke (I belatedly realized most people may not be aware of sexual fluidity in the Vatican), here are some: Paul II, Paul III, Paul IV, Julius II, Julius III, John XII, (or at least, some of the less discreet). Haiduc 13:06, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The examples of theologians that were given - major figures such as St. Augustine who condemned sodomy - represent the early Church's official, accepted position. People on the opposite side of the issue have been vaguely claiming that "some" of the other prominent Church Fathers allegedly took a different view, but not a single one has been cited here. Likewise for the similarly vague claims on other topics. To see the Church's officially-accepted position throughout the period that has been mentioned, see (for example) St. Thomas Aquinas' denunciation of sodomy as second only to bestiality (sex with animals) as the worst of all sexual sins. Concerning what individual Christians did privately: the fact that some modern historians speculate that King Richard may have been gay does not mean that he did it "openly", much less that it was approved - we now know that some archbishops privately rejected Christianity entirely, but that doesn't mean that the Church approved of apostasy. 152.163.100.11 17:16, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think you better research your facts a bit more. King Richard was open, he mentioned it many times. Modern historians didn't just come out of nowhere and say otherwise. He was known to be gay for centuries because of his public comments. And some scholar of Christianity believe the early church fully embraced homosexuality and that through translation social conservatives in the Church have tried to rewrite history. Which you are claiming just the opposite. See why we have to include both sides? :-) Apollomelos 21:38, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
To claim (in your latest article edits) that St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, etc, were not accepted figures - when in fact they were the chief theologians endorsed by the early and medieval Church during the time periods in question - is just truly baffling. The writings of both men were used by the Church during those eras as models for its theology, after all. "Including both sides" does not mean claiming that the chief figures in the early and medieval Church were allegedly marginal figures - that simply is not true. Nor is "inaccurate translation" an issue here, since we have the original documents themselves.
As for King Richard - even the article's entry you keep adding admits that "many historians" have merely postulated that he might have had a gay lover. You now claim that Richard himself announced this relationship publicly, but you haven't cited any such quotes. Nor would a few examples of such people - even if the claims are true - override all the official documents from the Church of that era outlining what its theology actually was. 152.163.100.11 22:10, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This is from a neutral encyclopedia.
  • Richard was irresponsible and hot-tempered, possessed tremendous energy, and was capable of great cruelty. He was more accomplished than most of his royal family, a soldier of consummate ability, a skillful politician, and capable of inspiring loyal service. In striking contrast with his father and King John his brother, he was, no doubt, a homosexual. He had no children by Queen Berengaria, with whom his relations seem to have been merely formal.

-- Encyclopedia Britannica

It states he was fairly open about it. Thats what we call a neutral source unlike your opinion. And for those early Church fathers, they weren't the only ones so to characterize early church fathers like that is wrong. Esp when some historians even say St. Augustine had relationships with men and has been mistranslated. Your opinion is open to debate which is why we include both sides. To state your opinion as fact is blatant POV when very many neutral sources disagree with you. Apollomelos 22:55, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Britannica article you cited said merely: "he was, no doubt, a homosexual. He had no children by Queen Berengaria, with whom his relations seem to have been merely formal." This doesn't quote Richard nor claim that he was "openly" gay - it speculates that he was "no doubt" gay without citing any evidence aside from a lack of children.

On the other subject: it is well-known and not in dispute that St. Augustine and St, Thomas Aquinas were accepted as the most prominent theologians in their eras - their writings were used by the Church in its theology (Aquinas' "Summa Theologica" was the chief summary of doctrine). No reputable scholar has claimed that Augustine's views are in doubt (cite a source?), and the language he uses is very well-known and not legitimately in dispute. Concerning alleged "other" theologians who are supposed to have taken the opposite view by supporting sodomy: the only example that has been given, even as a "possible" example, are the Carpocratians - a Gnostic group which taught that people should reject the God of the Bible (of all things!) and were therefore condemned as heretics by the early Church rather than being representative of the Church's official views. Whether they can even be considered "Christian" at all is debatable.

It is not "vandalism" to post recognized facts. 152.163.100.11 02:57, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More religion

I am beginning to get lost among all those paragraphs. Re today's edit, can someone furnish more information on this: question interpretation of passages written by these early Christians, due to a disputed word that was used for either homosexuality or pedophilia, so that this passage makes sonse. The word and some of the debate need to be included, otherwise the whole thing reads as hearsay and should be set aside. Haiduc 23:26, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I added a clarification as you requested, although since the text you were referring to had been deleted during yet another "revert", I had to paste this section back in before making the requested changes.

Thank you. Now I can look into it further. Haiduc 05:42, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well it's very complex Haiduc. Some claim many words have been mistranslated, we can cite a few as examples but if we were to add all of them this entire article would read like a Bible in length. And anon ip I only revert your edits when you mischaracterize the views of others. The way you have defined it as a "few" and only "authors" is quite inconsistent with reality. And I noticed anon 152. whatever had actually vandalized this article before adding explicit statements reading "God invented AIDS to kill gay people". If you can put aside your personal disapproval of homosexuality I believe we both can make good contributions to gay-related articles here on Wikipedia. Cheers. Apollomelos 06:35, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I agree that this is tricky. And I am very mistrustful of translations, from personal experience. But this is something best left to bible scholars. Though I think we would do well to bring in some mention of the episode where Jesus heals the soldier's beloved. I have seen some very enlightening explanations of the story, casting it in very different terms from the St. James bible. Haiduc 06:46, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I have actually not heard of the passage you are referring to Haiduc, perhaps you can enlighten me. And I added some examples from Bible passages concerning translations to the article that I found from this source which I then checked with other sites to verify. I've noticed the part of the article dealing with this is getting quite long. In fact I believe I'll create another article to research these claims in-depth, that way if this gets longer we can summarize and copy it into a main article on the subject. Apollomelos 07:27, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Bear with me, because I am anything BUT a bible expert. There is a story about a Roman soldier bringing his "servant" to be healed. However, the phrasing in the Greek version is such as to make it very likely that this servant was actually a young slave, and the wording is consistent with them being in a standard pederastic relationship. Haiduc 23:28, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Haiduc is off base here. The story referred to is in Matthew 8:5-13, Luke 7:2-10, with a parallel story in John 4:46-54. This last is not, I assume, the story to which Haiduc refers, as the sick person is called uios, which means son and the petitioner is called an official, not a soldier.
In Matthew, the Greek word used for servant is pais, which can mean either child (both in the sense of a descendent or the sense of a young person, in both cases irrespective of gender; that is, the child could be either a boy or a girl) or slave or servant (irrespective of gender, age, or condition; that is, the servant could be male, female, young, old, slave, free, or any combination thereof) [1]. Pais is an extremely common word and to assume that it automatically refers to a member of "a standard pederastic relationship" is as unwarranted as assuming that every "boy" is a "boy toy".
In Luke, the Greek word for servant is doulos, which specifically means slave, usually one born into slavery, again with no romantic or sexual conotation [2]. (Note that the same word occurs in verse 8: ...lego...to doulo mou, poieson touto, kai poiei; "...I say...to my slave, `Do this,' and he does it.") In Luke, there is a qualification: "a centurion had a slave who was dear to him" (Lk 7:2, RSV). Before anyone gets too excited about the use of "dear", let us consider the Greek. The word here is entimos, which means honored or valuable [3]. Nothing romantic here; that would be philos, which means dear in the affectionate sense [4]. Entimos implies either high status within the household (such as a butler or head maid) or monetary value (good slaves can be expensive).
Haiduc's "the wording is consistent with them being in a standard pederastic relationship" is misleading. The wording for "a standard pederastic relationship" would be erastes for the lover [5] and eromenos for the beloved [6]. Neither is found here; calling the sick person "the soldier's beloved" is unsupported by the text. There is a consistency, but only in the sense that you cannot have pederasty (literally, child-loving) without a child any more than you can have a food fight without food. The presence of a child no more implies pederasty than the presence of food implies a pie in the face.
Thus, the total picture we get from the text itself (leaving aside the passage in John; I don't think anyone is claiming that this is an incestuous relationship!) is that the sick person is a servant, with no special relationship other than his (or her) particular monetary or practical value to the centurion. His position as a servant reinforces the point of the story: that the centurion is a person in authority who recognizes Jesus as a person in authority. Jesus's response, "not even in Israel have I found such faith", acknowledges the centurion's perceptiveness in recognizing his power, as well as his humility in not feeling himself worthy to have Jesus come to his house.
Is it possible that the servant was the centurion's eromenos, his beloved? Yes. Is there any evidence in the text that he was? No. If you want to build a case that he was, you're going to need much better evidence than this. JHCC 16:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re: Apollomelos' comments: I was *not* the one who added the line claiming that "God created AIDS to kill gays" - you need to remember that "shared IPs" are used by thousands of people on large services like MSN or AOL, rather than being exclusive to one person. Concerning your recent edits: you have introduced the subject of Old Testament passages into a section dealing with the writings of Early Christians - two different time periods separated by over a thousand years. This is becoming a mess. I would also note that your sources do little more than cite views by members of the radical minority such as Paul Halsall - a guy who also claims that Jews allegedly worship a pagan deity, which should give you some idea of his degree of credibility (or lack thereof). As someone else already pointed out several days ago, the revisionist views you are citing are in fact held by a small minority of scholars, regardless of how prevalent these views may be on the internet (so are Flying Saucer theories).

These are not the views by a “radical minority”. Whether you agree or not there are others who legitimately believe Christianity is fully compatible with homosexuality. This is why you see groups such as the Anglicans in North America and Western Europe ordaining gay clergy. Gay ordinations are not a product of the politically correct; they are a result of respected scholars on the subject. Churches making these movements are not doing so in an effort to modernize as some would prefer characterizing them; they are revising what they devoutly believe to be ill fated mistranslations of God’s word. To consider these scholars on the same level of conspiracy theorists espousing flying saucers is inaccurate.
I appreciate your recent additions of opposing views; however I will continue to edit your mischaracterizations of others views and insertions of loaded terms. For example the opposing side “cites” while others with different views only “speculate”. Apollomelos 06:42, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The recent action by the American branch of the Anglican Church has been opposed by virtually the entire worldwide Anglican community, especially the churches in Africa and Asia as well as by many churches in the U.S. itself - making it, ironically, a good example of how this issue has in fact been promoted by a fringe group rather than by the mainstream.
Re: the article: I added the word "speculation" only to refer to cases in which theories are in fact based on speculation rather than hard evidence, such as the idea that Augustine was having sex with men (based on what proof?). Virtually all of these revisionist theories, in fact, are based on speculative ideas (the notion that certain words *might* have referred to pederasty, etc) rather than solid evidence, and that needs to be stated honestly. Instead, you have not only changed the text to make it sound as if such theories were based on incontrovertible proof, but you have also deleted entire sections of text which presented the opposing view. Now *that* is vandalism, my friend.
That having been said, my new edits take your criticisms into account by rewording the way the opposing view is presented, and by phrasing the issue of speculation differently. I think we can work out an acceptable compromise. 64.12.116.11 00:55, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well just as you say the other sides speculates they didn't sleep with other men, so does the opposing side in "speculating" that they didn't sleep with men. We need to keep terms on an equal level. And we need to stop adding things like "etc" that have no meaning. And do not pretend you can discredit it as a "radical minority". I assume you are not aware of many Anglican practices. The Anglicans elect their bishops, the bishops are chosen by others bishops who were elected for their devotion and knowledge of Christianity. The Episcopal Church by a vast MAJORITY elected Gene Robinson, and Jeffrey Cannon in England was also elected by a MAJORITY. Jeffrey Cannon though decided to step down because of some African critics. The Anglican Communion is divided over the issue, many Western provinces accept homosexuality while many non-Western do not. Even more some of these figures are related to Judaism which Reform Judaism the largest branch outside of Israel allows same-sex marriages because of there translations of sacred texts. I could even mention the Methodist lesbian preacher who was allowed ti enter the clergy by a Methodist trial. Do not pretend your views are the only "mainstream". Many others hold different views. Apollomelos 06:20, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Re: your statement: "Well just as you say the other sides speculates they didn't sleep with other men, so does the opposing side in "speculating" that they didn't sleep with men." -- Your edits to the article had stated flatly that Augustine was having sex with other men as if this were proven, but without presenting any proof whatsoever nor stating (until your quote above) that it is in fact based on nothing but speculation. The opposing side believes that one needs to prove an assertion rather than just making things up - i.e., any claim is mere speculation unless evidence supports it, and it should therefore be labeled as such. This is nothing more than the normal rule governing any theory.
Re: your claims that the excerpts from Eusebius, St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Hildegard are "disputed" by some translators due to one or more obscure terms: given that these excerpts use phrases with nothing but very commonplace terms - the phrase "women with women and men with men", for example - it's truly hard to see how any of these words are considered to be obscure enough to be in dispute (the Latin word for "woman"? The word for "man"? The word for "and"....? Which of these are in dispute?). There seems to be a tendency, intentional or not, to indiscriminately lump these passages in with the few passages, in entirely different sources, which do contain genuinely obscure or disputed terms. I have revised the article accordingly - these are not the passages that are disputed, unless you can prove otherwise. 205.188.116.72 03:01, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Every addition I have made to the article has been backed with references added. However I have yet to see you add references for all your claims. For example at the start of conservative views you mentions many writers without any references whatsoever. Apollomelos 10:00, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Conservative vs. Liberal

I'm having real difficulty accepting these labels. Especially since the latest revision, which includes "Conservative assumptions" and "Liberal assumptions" (both of which are rather POV, IMO) paralleling "Conservative Christian views" and "Liberal Christian views". A reader is likely to conclude that the conservative assumptions lead to the conservative views, and the liberal assumptions lead to the liberal views, and I don't think that's the case. Here beginneth my rant: Speaking for myself as a liberal gay Christian, I hold the liberal assumptions more or less as listed, but I nevertheless agree with the "Conservative Christian views" on the issue of what early Christians had to say about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's simply a fact that both the Bible and early Christian thinkers condemned homosexuality, because they didn't understand it. I think they were mistaken to condemn it, but I don't deny they did condemn it. I don't think the relevant passages of the Bible, or Augustine, or Hildegard, or the others, have been mistranslated or misinterpreted. I do think the authors of those passages didn't understand that committed, loving relationships between members of the same sex were possible. The very idea would have been mind-boggling to them. As far as they were concerned, homosex meant sex for fun with a member of the same sex, for experimentation or because no member of the opposite sex was around. I don't believe Ruth married Naomi, or that Jonathan married David, or that Serge married Bacchus. I do believe Boswell is a revisionist. Does that make me a conservative? Not at all. I just think gay and gay-friendly Christians should spend their time working towards acceptance of queer Christians in today's churches rather than trying to rewrite history to make it sound like homophobia wasn't invented until the 12th century. Here endeth my rant. Sorry about that, just had to get it off my chest. About the page, I think it would be good to replace the labels "Conservative Christian views" and "Liberal Christian views" with something like "Traditional interpretation" and "A modern reinterpretation". --Angr 00:55, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I understand your conclusions. I too am not sure of how to title the various sides. The problem I forsee with Traditional vs. Modern is the claim by some that traditional Christianity prior to the 12th century accepted homosexuality. Therefore one could argue that the traditional Christian scholars are the "liberals". Whatever we decide to eventually term both sides we should ensure to avoid placing them on un-equal levels, there are highly respected Christian scholars on both sides of the issue. As for those who do not fit into either side possibly we could add a paragraph stating that scholars exist who do not fit into either generalization. Just some ideas. Any added input welcome. Apollomelos 02:10, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The labels "Traditional interpretation" and "A modern reinterpretation" don't refer to the interpretation of homosexuality, they refer to the interpretation of early Christians' views of homosexuality. And I think you would be hard-pressed to find a Bible scholar or history-of-Christianity scholar before the late 20th century who held that Christians accepted homosexuality until the 12th century. --Angr 08:26, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Exactly traditional labeling would cause problems because some scholars claim that traditional Christians (earlier) accepted homosexuality. Well just because there may have not been a scholar before the 20th century doesn't mean it never happened. You must remember after the 12th century very strict laws were imposed. People who stated the Earth was round or disagreed with the Church were murdered so obviously there wouldn't be any criticisms. You are going into opinion on the statement. Another could add an opinion that it would be impossible for Christianity to wipe out the homosexuality of ancient Greece and Rome overnight and thus probably accepted it and only gradually restricted it. Apollomelos 08:42, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Of course there might have been theologians before the late 20th c. who held that the pre-12th c. church tolerated homosexuality, but there is no evidence of such theologians. As you say, that may be because their views were suppressed or because they kept their mouths shut for fear of retribution, but it may also be because there were no such theologians. We have evidence of people who disagreed with the church on other issues, like Galileo, so why not this one? Is there evidence that anyone besides Boswell and those who have been persuaded by Boswell has ever believed the pre-12th century church was gay-friendly? I suggested the titles "Traditional interpretation" and "A modern reinterpretation" because they seemed to me to be more NPOV than the titles I actually think are most accurate: "Mainstream interpretation" and "Boswellian interpretation". --Angr 11:27, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To Apollomelos: Re: your claim: "People who stated the Earth was round or disagreed with the Church were murdered so obviously there wouldn't be any criticisms." You know better than to claim that the medieval Church taught that the Earth was "flat": many of the medieval doctrinal sources themselves - the writings of St. Bede, St. Thomas Aquinas, etc - state that the earth is round, not "flat"; and the religious art of the era (in churches, etc) routinely showed the earth as a sphere (usually being held in God's hand). The idea that the medieval Church allegedly believed the Earth is flat was invented by Washington Irving in a novel he wrote about Columbus, and then repeated by one author after another until it took on a life of its own. It is fiction. 152.163.100.71 05:04, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

After seeing the new image that's up at Christian views of homosexuality, I take back what I said. I do think Serge married Bacchus. That picture couldn't be more gay if Pierre et Gilles themselves had done it. --Angr 00:03, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's because it's a modern painting. 205.188.116.71 05:12, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Very true. The website I saved it from provided some false information on the image. So I have removed it from most articles and changed it's tagging. I then went and did more research looking for the real image which I have found and now replaced on most wiki pages. I have verified this one with multiple websites. I don't want that to happen again. Apollomelos 10:41, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with using the image so long as it's clearly identified as a modern painting in icon style. That's why I added it to this article the other day after seeing that you (I think) had removed it from Christian views of homosexuality. Actually one thing wrong with it does occur to me: if it's modern, it may well be copyrighted. --Angr 11:32, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Name Move

I moved this article to a better name so it could be used to cover all ages of Christianity and Homosexuality, ie the conquest of the New World, the Inquisitions, etc. Apollomelos 23:16, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Link removal

I removed this link (St. Mark's Writings on Homosexuality) for a couple of reasons. First, it is misnamed. It looks like a link to the Gospel of Mark; it is actually a link to a citation by Clement of Alexandria of an otherwise lost non-canonical Gospel, the "Secret Gospel of Mark". Second, the translation is vague, and there is no indication whether the love discussed therein is spiritual, sexual, whatever (there are several non-interchangeable words for "love" in Greek), so this is scarcely "Writings on Homosexuality" as such. JHCC 21:01, 26 Apr 2005 (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! 17:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed part about earlier translations.

"And they believe since the earlier translations of the Bible are the basis of the Christian faith they should overrule any opposing opinions formed on later translations of the Bible."

There is a lot of bias in this article in general that needs to be cleaned up, (the portion on "conservative" Christian understanding of homosexuality is almost entirely made up with liberal rebuttals), but this was too obvious to let alone. The author neglected to prove that Christianity is based on the "earlier translations of the Bible". This is not the case, and thus the author is making a false presumption. The Christian Faith isn't based on the earlier translations of the bible, but the correct translation of the bible. That is exactly why the Catholic Church does such extensive research in biblical linguistics.

I'm honestly overwhelmed at the innumerable biases in this article. I don't know where to start, or where I'll find the time to do this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bjford (talk • contribs) 04:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] This is pretty horrible

This needs to be completely dissected and rearranged. When every other paragraph starts with "In response to claims...", you know you've got a pretty awful article structure.

There are many different people with many different opinions on the subject, and dividing them into two arbitrary opposing camps (conservative and liberal) is wrong and inherently non-neutral.

The article sections should be divided up by topic or concept, not by imaginary "sides". Instead of a "liberal" and "conservative" section, you should have sections like "tolerance of the medieval church", "relationships among early christians and biblical characters", "vulgate translation issues", or whatever.

See:

Also, there is some stuff about translation from original scriptures. You should really include the original text in its own language and link to appropriate articles like Greek words for love or whatever. — Omegatron 00:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Great point! Perhaps you could take a look-see for someone who is LGBT and Christian who might be able to help balance out NPOV (and the problematic, back-and-forth "however" and "in response" structure). Joie de Vivre 00:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why two articles?

Why in the world are there two articles: "History of Christianity and Homosexuality" and "Christianity and Homosexuality"? The articles appear to cover essentially the same information.207.69.137.20 02:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Process has begun to move 'History of C&H' items to this article and have 'Christianity and Homosexuality' article focus on current status.207.69.137.23 18:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Excellent. Thanks!LCP 16:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Swap has been essentially completed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How POV Can You Get?

This writer totally distorts Boswell and gives only the most sweeping notion of what Boswell says. And whenever he (supposedly) explains Boswell's ideas he always uses words like "dubiously", "doubtful", "tendentious", etc.

Y'know, one of Boswell's points is that in medieval times, most religious authorities taught that procreation was the ONLY legitimate purpose of sexual activity, a position which almost no authority (religious or otherwise) would now maintain. If you stop and think about it, that makes a lot of the medieval railing against homosexuality totally obsolete. Boswell points out that Dante Alighieri puts homosexuals in the same part of purgatory with heterosexual married couples who indulge too often. Boswell also gives us several very impressive examples of adelphopoiesis that almost anyone would recognize as romantic-sexual unions, and you'd never guess it if all you read was this heavily slanted article. Writers like this have got to go. Where he's confronted with evidence that he's wrong, this writer just ignores the evidence. I'm tired of hacks talking about a careful scholar like Boswell as if he were some ignoramus. Tom129.93.17.68 22:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

And yet, as it stands, Boswell’s single voice is given almost half of the Early Christianity section. It looks to me as if he is taken very seriously—especially in light of all of the documentation we have from Church fathers against homosexuality. Remember, the issue here is not whether the early and medieval Christian understanding of sexuality is obsolete. The issue is whether Early Christianity represents the understanding of the early Christian period accurately. The only thing in Early Christianity that is questionable is how much room is devoted the theories of a single, 20th century, homosexual scholar.LCP 22:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)