Talk:The Bible and homosexuality/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

New lead proposal

The Bible refers to sexual practices that may be called "homosexual" in today's world, but the original language texts of the Bible do not refer explicitly to homosexuality as a sexual orientation. The Bible is interpreted by officials in some denominations as condemning the practice. In the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, however, the extent to which the Bible mentions the subject and whether or not it is condemned, has become the subject of debate.

Passages in the Old Testament book Leviticus that state "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah have historically been interpreted as condemning homosexual acts, as have several Pauline passages. (Rom. 1:26-27)

In spite of scripture verses in the Old and New Testament that seemingly condemn homosexuality, some interpreters maintain that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality, saying that historical context suggests other interpretations or that rare or unusual words in the passages may not be referring to homosexuality.

• I feel like I'm being very reasonable, since attempts to interpret these scriptures as meaning something other than the condemnation of homosexuality is ridiculous in my personal opinion. However, that doesn't mean that there are not people out there who really want the Bible to agree with their ideology and will ignore the plain reading of the Bible to accomplish that goal. There are plenty of other scriptures that conservatives refuse to confront, so it's not just liberal pastors who fall into this trap. The scripture where the Israelites are told by the God of the Old Testament to kill innocent women and children being one good example off the top of my head, "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." (1 Samuel 15:3) That's pretty harsh! So I'm not trying to defend the Bible as the end all be all, but do I want people to know the truth about what the Bible says and not the personal ideology of a special interest group promoting an agenda. This article needs to be truthful and not propaganda. So let's all work together and accomplish that goal. Lordvolton (talk) 06:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Interpreting the Bible by yourself constitutes original research, which is prohibited in Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Here is what section onoriginal research says, "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. " If the source itself says "homosexuality is an abomination" then original research is not relevant to this discussion. This article needs to reflect what the Bible says about homosexuality, and not how we personally feel about homosexuals and their right to choose their sexual partners.Lordvolton (talk) 09:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

We could equally well write "In spite of scripture verses in the OT and NT that scholars say do not condemn homosexuality, some interpreters maintain that the Bible does condemn homosexuality." But instead of doing that, let's retain neutral wording. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

What scholars? And what verses? Have you read the citations in this article? For example, the citation attempting to confuse readers regarding Leviticus 18:22 doesn't clearly state what the citation actually says. It doesn't say there is confusion among scholars whether homosexuality was condemned in the Bible, rather, it's questioning whether the "holiness code" still applies in the modern day. The fact that the Bible condemned homosexuality is not debated. And since this article is about "The Bible and homosexuality" and not "Modern Jewish customs and homosexuality" the current paragraph is misleading. Even if Jeffrey Siker's speculation were true and the "holiness code" with respect to homosexuality doesn't apply in "modern times" it would have no effect on what the Bible says about homosexuality in the book of Leviticus: it condemns it.

The vast majority of mainstream theologians are in agreement on this issue and if you believe otherwise we can invest the time to analyze the evidence. Even if a tiny percentage of theologians disagree that is not the standard by which to base an article. I know that you want the Bible to embrace homosexuality -- but it simply doesn't. It would be as silly as a handful of "scholars" saying the Bible doesn't condemn fornication. People who think "free love" is a better lifestyle would be taken far more seriously if they simply took issue with the Bible rather than trying to misrepresent what it says in Wikipedia articles. The same is true for those attempting to defend homosexuality on Wikipedia by arguing the Bible embraces their lifestyle choice. I recognize that an important part of human identity is being affirmed by others and the Bible being on a group's side could help in that effort, but attempting to misrepresent what the Bible says is a disservice to the readers. For example, people who take issue with discrimination against homosexuals would be led to believe that the Bible doesn't reflect that sort of discrimination based on how it's being portrayed in this article. When the truth is that the Bible does discriminate against homosexuals in very serious ways. And that might effect how they approach the Bible, or at least the authors of passages that clearly have negative attitudes toward homosexuals. Why hide that truth from them? Lordvolton (talk) 09:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The amount of that comment that related in any way to Wikipedia was very small. I think we'd appreciate if you'd confine rants about gay Christians to, say, a personal blog. Anyway, we probably could add more information about debates over the Holiness Code, but you seem to be ignoring (accidentally or deliberately?) the fact that Leviticus is not the only part of the Bible discussed in this article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Any speculation regarding modern attitudes toward the holiness code is extra-biblical and unrelated to what the Bible says about homosexuality. Jews and Christians can choose to ignore what the Bible says about homosexuality and provide extra-biblical explanations for why they've chosen to ignore it, but that doesn't mean a Wikipedia article entitled "The Bible and homosexuality" should ignore what the Bible clearly says about homosexuality. I don't take issue with people ignoring scripture verses that clearly condemn homosexuality, but I do take issue with a Wikipedia article that ignores what the Bible actually says and misleads people into believing that the Bible condones it or is silent on the issue. The truth is that homosexuals are treated very harshly in the Bible which doesn't reflect modern views and attitudes, but the Bible was written a very long time ago. The Old Testament is filled with barbarism toward "others" -- not just homosexuals (see my reference above regarding the Amalekites).

I chose Leviticus since it was referenced in the lead. Romans 1:26-27 is equally unequivocal. The article states, "This passage has been debated by some twentieth and twenty-first century interpreters both in terms of its relevance today and in terms of its actual prohibition: while Christians of several denominations have historically maintained that this verse is a complete prohibition of all forms of homosexuality, some twentieth and twenty-first century authors contend the passage is not a blanket condemnation of homosexuality at all." What is the source for this paragraph? Page 37-39 of Louis Crompton's book entitled Homosexuality and Civilization. Those pages say nothing about Romans 1:26-27. I attempted to locate passages where the New Testament is discussed but the limited preview would not allow me to view it. So this paragraph is apparently unsourced POV. That is why I asked, "What scholars?" "What verses?". There is little debate among theologians about what Paul said in the book of Romans about homosexuality. He condemned it and stated that homosexuals were punished.

On a sidenote, the Crompton book is a review of homosexuality from Homer to the 18th Century -- it's an expansive survey. He's not a theologian. He's an emeritus professor of English at the University of Nebraska. He's not interpreting the Bible from the original Greek and Hebrew and making substantive linguistic arguments to prove that homosexuality was not condemned by Paul or other authors of the Bible -- this is not an authoritative source even if pages 37-39 did reference Romans 1:26-27. Where are the theologians who say that Paul is not condemning homosexuality? Where are the theologians who are saying the book Leviticus does not condemn homosexuality? Both of those passages condemn it. And misleading readers to believe otherwise is a disservice to Wikipedia and those who come here seeking the truth.

Okay, so how can you achieve your goals without misleading the reader? You should focus on theologians who make a distinction between the "universal" and "cultural" condemnation of homosexuality. That's a much better path since that strategy doesn't deny the obvious: that Paul is condemning homosexuality. That will require a lot of additional effort, but if you want this article to be content neutral it's going to require some heavy lifting. Lordvolton (talk) 18:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: I've located a better source that I think will improve the section. Originally I thought it was Crompton, but it turns out to be another author. The author of the new source is a theologian at Melbourne School of Theology. Lordvolton (talk) 20:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Your limited preview is unfortunate, but that isn't a reason to remove information that's verifiably present in the source. This solipsistic editing - only the things I believe are valid, only the sources I can view are valid - needs to stop. And yes, Crompton is a survey of interpretations; luckily that's exactly what he's being cited for. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to undue your revert because the citation goes to a page that does not support the paragraph. In your revert you tell me its there on "page 114" It's there alright! Here is what he says about what you've quoted, "But such a reading, no matter how well intentioned, seems strained and unhistorical." Page 114 doesn't help your cause. The second citation to The Lavender Vote: Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals in American Electoral also does not support the paragraph. It's basically just your POV. I believe my edit clearly states both sides in a succinct fashion. Please stop reverting unless you have citations that support position in an unbiased fashion. Let's avoid an edit war and improve the article as a team. Thank you. Lordvolton (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Crompton is being cited for the statement that some have interpreted the passage in such and such a way, and that's exactly what he says in his book. Having a secondary source that surveys various interpretations is actually a desirable thing. Consider educating yourself about policy and reading the sources, rather than repeatedly beginning edit wars because you do not wish to read the citations or listen to other editors. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

You're being disingenuous. On the same page Crompton goes on to say, "But such a reading, no matter how well intentioned, seems strained and unhistorical." And that's the reading that is being presented in the paragraph to promote a minority view. The truth is that the majority of interpreters agree that it's a condemnation of homosexuality and a minority have a nuanced view with respect to cultural versus universal condemnation (see my version that has been reverted twice). If we want to have Crompton's views expressed (since that's the citation) it would state that such a view is strained and unhistorical. Your version does not accurately reflect the citation. Your unwilling to accept any of my edits irrespective of how much time and effort I invest explaining how and why they improve the article. I'm making good faith efforts to work out our differences on the talk page, but you appear unwilling to work with me to improve the article. Lordvolton (talk) 05:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

If you feel that the current wording, which explicitly states that this is a minority interpretation, is unsatisfactory, consider proposing new wording on the talk page. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Improving the article

Roscelese and Techbear have both asked me to wait and seek consensus. It’s been several days since that request was made and the editors have been given an opportunity to share their opinions, research the citations, and offer their input. I’m outlining my reasons for the changes in detail to avoid any further misunderstandings. Much of what I’m writing is a summary of my previous posts.

Let’s begin with a review Wikipedia policy on neutrality, since that’s what we’re all trying to achieve with this article, “Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it.”

I’m not the first editor to notice weaknesses in the lead. Others have voiced concerns regarding the lack of citations. The defense against adding citations to support the statements made in the lead were that citations in the article support the lead. However, a cursory review of the citations within the article have revealed a couple of flaws: 1) The citations often do not support the claims being made by the editor (see previous comments), and 2) The citation is taken out of context and misrepresents the views of the author (see previous comments).

A substantive comment was voiced regarding usage of the term “minority view” to depict a distinction between “universal” and “cultural” condemnation. I assume that the editor doesn’t believe it’s a minority view. However, there was no credible evidence provided, other than the statement that they didn’t like my version, to persuade me that it was not a minority view. The citation that I provided clearly states that it’s a minority view and the author is a respected theologian.

Irrespective of a lack of evidence to support the use of the word “minority” I will choose a different word in the interest of working peacefully together.

As I stated in previous posts, the citation that Roscelese provided to defend the previous version does not support it. I was directed to page 114 to read the words of Crompton who presented the views reflected by the previous version and then went on to state, "But such a reading, no matter how well intentioned, seems strained and unhistorical." Crompton’s words are less forgiving since we would have to describe the views of the minority as “strained and unhistorical” rather than a minority opinion. The citations support the conclusion that the majority of interpreters believe that those passages of the Bible condemn homosexuality and a minority take a nuanced approach and believe there is a distinction between “universal” and “cultural” condemnation, but even the minority view accepts that there was a condemnation of homosexuality. They’re simply arguing that it was a cultural condemnation.

Based on my review of the citations, here is my proposed new lead and Romans 1 subsection: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordvolton (talk • contribs) 18 August 2013

Extended content

New lead The Bible refers to sexual practices that may be called "homosexual" in today's world, but the original language texts of the Bible do not refer explicitly to homosexuality as a sexual orientation. The Bible is interpreted by the majority of theologians as condemning the practice. In the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, however, the extent to which the Bible mentions the subject and whether or not it is universally condemned, has become the subject of debate. Passages in the Old Testament book Leviticus that state "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah have historically been interpreted as condemning homosexual acts, as have several Pauline passages. (Rom. 1:26-27) In spite of scripture verses in the Old and New Testament that the majority of interpreters believe condemn homosexuality, some interpreters maintain that the Bible does not universally condemn homosexuality, saying that historical context suggests other cultural condemnation interpretations or that rare or unusual words in certain passages may not be referring to homosexuality. Romans 1 “ 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. (Romans 1:26-27 KJV) ” The majority opinion of modern interpreters view this passage of scripture as a universal condemnation of homosexuality, whereas other interpreters make a distinction between the "universal" and "cultural" condemnation of homosexuality.

Lordvolton (talk) 18:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused at your first (substantive) comment. Perhaps you misspoke, since I specifically added language noting that such and such was a minority view. With regard to your suggested text, we've already established that any variation on "Despite the Bible clearly condemning homosexuality, some people disagree" is a non-starter. You appear to have a typo in your lead, since "historical context suggests other cultural condemnation interpretations" doesn't make sense. (If it's not a typo, it's just a misrepresentation of the arguments discussed in the article.) Your description of the debate over Paul is also poor, because it doesn't actually explain what this universal vs. cultural condemnation idea means (my text explains what people arguing a cultural interpretation actually are saying). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

After taking into account your suggestions here is how the updated sections would read:

Extended content

New lead The Bible refers to sexual practices that may be called "homosexual" in today's world, but the original language texts of the Bible do not refer explicitly to homosexuality as a sexual orientation. The Bible is interpreted by the majority of theologians as condemning the practice. In the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, however, the extent to which the Bible mentions the subject and whether or not it is universally condemned, has become the subject of debate. Passages in the Old Testament book Leviticus that state "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah have historically been interpreted as condemning homosexual acts, as have several Pauline passages. (Rom. 1:26-27) In spite of scripture verses in the Old and New Testament that the majority of interpreters believe condemn homosexuality, some interpreters disagree and maintain that the Bible does not universally condemn homosexuality, arguing that the historical context suggests a cultural condemnation interpretation or that rare or unusual words in certain passages may not be referring to homosexuality. Romans 1 “ 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. (Romans 1:26-27 KJV) ” The majority of modern interpreters view this passage of scripture as a universal condemnation of homosexuality, however other interpreters make a distinction between a "universal" and "cultural" condemnation of homosexuality, contending that there might exist an exception for mutual devotion. The mutual devotion exception is a minority view and controversial. Lordvolton (talk) 07:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

If by "taking into account" you mean "completely ignoring," well, yes, you've been "taking into account" my criticism. But I don't think that's a very good definition of "taking into account." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I actually wrote a lengthy explanation but I was hopeful it wouldn't be needed. Here it is...

“With regard to your suggested text, we've already established that any variation on "Despite the Bible clearly condemning homosexuality, some people disagree" is a non-starter." - Roscelese

Okay, I’ll modify it to include interpreters who disagree. I also wanted to clarify one other change. The current version makes references to “denominations” rather than theologians. The authorities are individual theologians and scholars who are familiar with the original Hebrew and Greek texts. Even within denominations there is disagreement on a myriad of issues.

“You appear to have a typo in your lead, since "historical context suggests other cultural condemnation interpretations" doesn't make sense. (If it's not a typo, it's just a misrepresentation of the arguments discussed in the article.)” – Roscelese

I’ll change it to read, “In spite of scripture verses in the Old and New Testament that the majority of interpreters believe condemn homosexuality, some interpreters maintain that the Bible does not universally condemn homosexuality, saying that historical context suggests other cultural condemnation interpretations or that rare or unusual words in certain passages may not be referring to homosexuality.”

“Your description of the debate over Paul is also poor, because it doesn't actually explain what this universal vs. cultural condemnation idea means (my text explains what people arguing a cultural interpretation actually are saying) - Roscelese

The current version doesn’t clearly reflect the content of the two citations and in my view is unbalanced. As I mentioned, the Crompton citation doesn’t go to the correct page. I’ll fix that. I’m fine with including additional information regarding the differences between a universal and cultural condemnation in the Romans section as long as it accurately portrays the citation. I think we agree that we should make every effort to make sure we’re reflecting what the authors stated. For example, Colin Kruse states, “The majority of modern interpreters of Paul, however, agree that the plain language of 1:26-27 involves condemnation of all homosexual practice.” – Paul’s Letters to the Romans, page 111.

Kruse lists alternate interpretations… but that doesn’t mean the paragraph should focus on a minority view. Rather, the majority view should be clearly stated with reference made to alternative views that are not embraced by the majority. Similarly, the minority view that there is a “mutual devotion” exception is not widely accepted. Although Crompton makes mention of this minority view on the same page he goes onto state, “But such a reading, however well intentioned, seems strained an unhistorical. Nowhere does Paul or any other Jewish writer imply the least acceptance of same-sex relations under any circumstances. The idea that homosexuals might be redeemed by mutual devotion would have been wholly foreign to Paul or any other Jew or early Christian.” – Homosexuality & Civilization, page 114.

Crompton makes it clear that the “mutual devotion” idea is a modern idea and not supported by the text of Romans. The current version talks primarily about the minority view and then adds a tag line, “This is a minority view”. In my opinion this is not a balanced way to present what these scripture versus say about homosexuality.

My proposed improvements to article attempt to more accurately reflect what the citations are saying regarding those particular scripture verses and homosexuality. Minority interpretations should be mentioned, but we should be very careful that we’re not slanting the article to make it appear to the reader as if the minority view is a widely accepted interpretation.

I hope this helps. Lordvolton (talk) 23:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps your problem is that you are giving vastly undue weight to the passage from Romans. This could explain your focus on attributing disagreement to the "cultural condemnation" idea alone, rather than to the well-supported theory, demonstrated in several sections, that the historical context suggests homosexuality wasn't what was being referred to. Now that you're aware of this problem, perhaps you could propose changes that suit your needs but that are not ridiculously inappropriate. Other than the changes to the lede, can you be specific about the changes you are proposing to the paragraph on Romans? "Denominations" to "theologians" seems fine. Make sure with the Crompton citation that you don't simply screw up the other places in the article where it's cited - a better solution might be to use the link to the whole book and {{rp}}. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

“Perhaps your problem is that you are giving vastly undue weight to the passage from Romans.” – Roscelese

That’s not my problem at all. However, it is what the book of Romans states. This article is entitled “The Bible and Homosexuality”. The Bible is considered a single book. If I was reading a book and multiple chapters condemned homosexuality and a few were vague that would not change my assessment of what “the book” had to say about homosexuality.

And it’s not just the book of Romans. It’s also the book of Leviticus. We can go through the entire Bible if you’re not convinced.

It’s important that we don’t confuse the Bible’s condemnation of homosexuality with modern society’s attitudes about homosexuality. We owe it to readers to be honest about what the Bible says about homosexuality and avoid presenting a slanted article that misstates or is intentionally misleading about the content of the citations.

“…the historical context suggests homosexuality wasn't what was being referred to” – Roscelese

You’re not referring to Romans or Leviticus. I assume you’re referring Genesis 19 (Sodom and Gomorrah). I haven’t changed that section. Whether Genesis 19 is referring to homosexuals doesn’t change the other passages that are condemning homosexuality.

But let’s leave no stone unturned and take a closer look at the Genesis account. Here is the language from the article, “Most interpreters find the story of Sodom and a similar one in Judges 19 to condemn the violent rape of guests, rather than homosexuality, but the passage has historically been interpreted within Judaism and Christianity as a punishment for homosexuality due to the interpretation that the men of Sodom wished to rape the angels who retrieved Lot.”

And here is the book being cited to support those statements: http://books.google.com/books?id=z8UMY_7jQ50C&pg=RA3-PT593&dq=Powell+%22possibly+coined%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=k_akUcLdMozy7AaRgYGgAw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Powell%20%22possibly%20coined%22&f=false

It’s the Harper Collins Bible dictionary.

First, it goes to the wrong page. However, when the correct page is located here is what we find, “In the Hebrew Bible, the most explicit references to sexual acts between men are the Holiness Code of Leviticus, where, under penalty of death a male is strictly prohibited from lying with another male as he would with a woman (18:22; 20:13).” – Harper Collins Bible Dictionary

No debate about whether it condemns homosexuality. Those who hate the fact that the Bible condemns homosexuality in Leviticus can argue that in modern times people don’t follow those rules – but this article isn’t about modern attitudes. It’s about what The Bible says about homosexuality.

This citation also addresses one of my earlier attempts at improving the article by explaining why homosexuality as a sexual orientation is not specifically referenced in the Bible. The word didn’t exist in their vocabulary, “Homosexuality, a word for which there is no specific equivalent in the Hebrew Bible or the Greek NT, since the concept of homosexuality as a “sexual orientation” originated only in the nineteenth century.” – Harper Collins Bible Dictionary

Leaving out the explanation leads the reader to believe that perhaps the Bible might be okay with homosexuality, rather than it being a simple language issue. In other words, they knew what two men having sex together meant and they condemned it. However, they didn’t call it “homosexuality” like we do in modern times.

I will correct the misleading language in my next proposed draft of the new lead.

Finally we come to the parts that you fully embrace, “Both of these stories are intended to expose crass immortality, but most interpreters regard that immorality as being evinced more through the intention of violent rape than through the intended intercourse of same-sex partners.” – Harper Collins Bible Dictionary

They provide no citations to authority to back up this statement. If I wanted to be a stickler I would point out that they didn’t say homosexuality wasn’t an issue. They say it’s “more through” violent rape. But I would be inclined to agree with you if that was all the author had to say on the topic.

The author keeps on writing about homosexuality depicted in Genesis 19 and it doesn’t support the view expressed in the article, “In the NT, however, Jude 7 equates the sin of Sodom with “unnatural lust” (lit, “pursuing other flesh”). This could be reference to the desire of men to have sexual relations with other men, or it could reference the unnatural desire of mortals for angels.” – Harper Collins Bible Dictionary

The “angel theory” is wishful thinking since the men of Sodom did not know they were angels, which the author admits on the previous page. “In the biblical account, the men of Sodom intend to rape two male visitors, who have come to the house of Lot, not knowing that the visitors are actually angels of God (Gen. 19:1-11). “ - Harper Collins Bible Dictionary.

Here is what Jude 1:7 says, “Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”

Here is Gill’s exposition of the verse, “and going after strange flesh; or "other flesh"; meaning not other women besides their own wives, but men; and designs that detestable and unnatural sin, which, from these people, is called sodomy to this day;”

That sounds like a condemnation.

A citation to authority should provide a neutral summation of the statements made by the author and not cherry picked sentences taken out of context that support a particular point of view.

When I have time I’ll post my updated proposed changes to the lead and Romans sections. If I have the energy I might take a closer look at the Genesis 19 section (Sodom and Gomorrah) now that I’ve read the citation that supports the first paragraph of that section.

If you have any suggestions for further improvements please feel free to share them. Thanks. Lordvolton (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

"the Bible is considered a single book. " - Actually, the Bible is made up of many books written by many different authors over hundreds of years, which contains only a minimal amount of material on anything that can even be argued to relate to homosexuality. It's possible that some rephrasing of the sentence may be called for - "that these passages do not condemn homosexuality," to match the opening of the para. With the article structured as it is, we don't really allow for a holistic rather than a passage-by-passage interpretation anyway - if we did, we'd presumably also have to bring in analyses that say that the condemnation of gay people and the basic messages of love for others are in competition, and that go with the message of love. That sort of overhaul seems like it might need to be worked out first.

Additionally, I know you're new to editing in any sort of contested area, so I recommend that you educate yourself about our policies. For instance, we have a policy against original analysis of the sources, so your dismissal of the source's suggestion that Jude's "unnatural lust" referred to angels, because the men of Sodom didn't know the visitors were angels and you decide there must be narrative consistency in this passing reference from an author who did know, is not valid. You might also check out our policies on reliable sources - if you do, you might stop worrying so much about "modern interpretations" when those "modern interpretations" are textual scholars pointing out that the passages' interpretation as homosexual is not original to the text. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The article is not entitled, "Many books written by many different authors and homosexuality". It's called "The Bible and homosexuality." When a person says, "Have you read the Bible?" They're talking about a book that has an Old Testament and New Testament. Of course we know that the individual books were written by many authors over time and eventually they became what we now call "The Bible". We also know there was a council that decided which books would be considered scripture in the NT and which would not ... and we know that there is considerable debate about which books made the cut and which books did not. The Catholics and the Protestants disagree, etc. etc. etc.

When a reader comes to a page entitled "The Bible and homosexuality" I think the clear meaning is obvious in my opinion. We shouldn't have to define what we mean by "The Bible". I don't think anyone has been arguing that there is confusion about what "The Bible" means as it relates to this article.

"For instance, we have a policy against original analysis of the sources, so your dismissal of the source's suggestion that Jude's "unnatural lust" referred to angels,because the men of Sodom didn't know the visitors were angels and you decide there must be narrative consistency in this passing reference from an author who did know, is not valid." - Roscelese

That is not an accurate representation of what the source said. You've left out 75% of what the author stated. The author said three things: 1) "This could be reference to the desire of men to have sexual relations with other men, or" 2) "it could reference the unnatural desire of mortals for angels." 3. "In the biblical account, the men of Sodom intend to rape two male visitors, who have come to the house of Lot, not knowing that the visitors are actually angels of God (Gen. 19:1-11)."

Here is what original analysis of the sources says, "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. (This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages.)" I am referencing the current citation and providing direct quotes. In this instance, the source made conflicting statements so we have to reconcile them. I could provide a long list of citations supporting the view that the men of Sodom did not know they were angels, but the source already agrees. If this article accurately reflected the citations I wouldn't have to improve it. What happened is that there was Original Research with some citations to cover it up. The cites don't go to the correct pages and when we find the correct pages it often says the exact opposite of what the sentence in the articles states or grossly misrepresents the author by redacting material that opposes the POV of the editor who wrote it.

"With the article structured as it is, we don't really allow for a holistic rather than a passage-by-passage interpretation anyway - if we did, we'd presumably also have to bring in analyses that say that the condemnation of gay people and the basic messages of love for others are in competition, and that go with the message of love." - Roscelese

Who is "we"? Wikipedia explicitly forbids editing warring based on not liking another editors version. If the Bible condemns homosexuality and the Bible says to love people, then that's what the Bible says. The Bible also instructed people to kill women and children, "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." 1 Samuel 15:3. If editors try to cover up the truth about what the Bible says by saying "we don't take a holistic approach" that is just a nice way of censoring editors to promote a POV.

The Bible does contain conflicting messages: kill the Amalekites (1 Samuel 15:3), but love your enemies (Matt. 5:44). The conflict is easily explained since they were written by different authors -- but "The Bible" contains both messages. And "The Bible" repeatedly condemns homosexuality. People can draw their own conclusions about "The Bible" based on its actual contents which includes material you vehemently disagree with... but they have come to this article to a read a neutral article on the topic -- not a slanted article protecting a POV.

I don't like that fact that the Bible instructs someone to kill women and children. I don't like the fact that certain sins are treated as far worse than others (certainly homosexuality falls into that category). I also don't like the fact that in Genesis 19 Lot offers up his virgin daughters to be raped instead of the angels, nor am I pleased that Lot has incest with both of them later and we're led to believe it all happened because he was drunk. Really? But I didn't write it. I want readers to know the truth about what the Bible says about homosexuality. And if there is an article entitled "The Bible and Love" ... you can rest assured that I'll be encouraging editors to include sections where love is not the proposed solution. The Bible doesn't overtly endorse homosexuality, but it does repeatedly condemn it. That doesn't mean that homosexuals are condemned. It just means that the Bible said it and so people who feel that's wrong need to decide whether they're just going to reject those passages of scriptures or accept them. I'm not defending the Bible, but I don't want a POV protected simply because a certain group doesn't like what the Bible has to say about their lifestyle choice.

Unlike the Old Testament I don't think homosexuals should be put to death anymore than I think the Amalekite women and children should be slain because they're not Jews. I think that's wrong, but I'm not going to rewrite the Bible on Wikipedia to candy coat what the Bible says. I'm just going to disagree with it. There are plenty of scriptures that I agree with and I'll be first to speak up and say so, but I'm not defending portions of the Bible I disagree with by coming up with fanciful interpretations. "In modern times the Amalekites are loved..." or "That was a metaphor for simply rejecting the Amalekites and it did not mean to literally kill them."

Let's present the truth and let the readers decide for themselves. Lordvolton (talk) 00:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Please stay on topic. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to see how this can be taken to be a reasonable response to what Lordvolton says. It's hard also to see how the opening paragraph of the lead, with its suggestion that those who see the Bible as condemning the practice of homosexuality are just "officials in some denominations", can be taken to be a realistic presentation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.64.76 (talk) 07:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Extended content

New lead The Bible refers to sexual practices that may be called "homosexual" in today's world, but the original language texts of the Bible do not refer explicitly to homosexuality as a sexual orientation because the word did not exist in their vocabulary. The Bible is interpreted by the majority of theologians as condemning the practice. In the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, however, the extent to which the Bible mentions the subject and whether or not it is universally condemned, has become the subject of debate. Passages in the Old Testament book Leviticus that state "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah have historically been interpreted as condemning homosexual acts, as have several Pauline passages. (Rom. 1:26-27) In spite of scripture verses in the Old and New Testament that the majority of interpreters believe condemn homosexuality, some interpreters disagree and maintain that the Bible does not universally condemn homosexuality, arguing that the historical context suggests a cultural condemnation interpretation or that rare or unusual words in certain passages may not be referring to homosexuality. Romans 1 “ 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. (Romans 1:26-27 KJV) ” The majority of modern interpreters view this passage of scripture as a universal condemnation of homosexuality, however other interpreters make a distinction between a "universal" and "cultural" condemnation of homosexuality, contending that there might exist an exception for mutual devotion. The mutual devotion exception is a minority view and controversial. Sodom and Gomorrah See also: Sodom and Gomorrah The story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis does not explicitly identify homosexuality as the sin for which they were destroyed. Most interpreters find the story of Sodom and a similar one in Judges 19 to condemn the violent rape of guests, more than homosexuality, but the passage has historically been interpreted within Judaism and Christianity as a punishment for homosexuality due to the interpretation that the men of Sodom wished to rape the angels who retrieved Lot. In Jude 1:7 the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah are stated to have been "giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire," which may refer to homosexuality or to the lust of mortals after angels. However, in the biblical account the men of Sodom did not know the visitors were angels. While the Jewish prophets spoke only of lack of charity as the sin of Sodom, the exclusively sexual interpretation became so prevalent that the name "Sodom" became the basis of the word sodomy, still a legal synonym for homosexual and non-procreative sexual acts, particularly anal or oral sex. While the Jewish prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos and Zephaniah refer vaguely to the sin of Sodom, Ezekiel specifies that the city was destroyed because of its commission of social injustice: 49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. 50 And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good. The Talmudic tradition of between c. 370 and 500 also interprets the sin of Sodom as lack of charity, with the attempted rape of the angels being a manifestation of the city's violation of the social order of hospitality; as does Jesus in the New Testament, for instance in Matthew 10:14-15 when he tells his disciples that the punishment for houses or towns that will not welcome them will be worse than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. The majority of historical theologians believed the Bible condemned homosexuality, including Martin Luther, Quintus Tertullian, Augustine of Hippo, and others. Later traditions on Sodom's sin, such as Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, considered it to be an illicit form of heterosexual intercourse. Jewish writers Philo (d. AD 50) and Josephus (37 – c. 100) were the first to assert unambiguously that homosexuality was among the sins of Sodom. By the end of the 1st century Jews commonly identified the sin of Sodom with homosexual practices.

• In my opinion these sections will now more accurately reflect the content of the citations. The lead now explains why homosexuality as a sexual orientation is not explicitly referenced in the Bible (see previous comment regarding the source for this change). The misleading redaction of scripture verses has also been fixed in this improved version. For example, in the lead paragraph the redaction of the word "abomination" in Leviticus and the redaction of "suffering the vengeance of eternal fire" to describe the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah in Jude 1:7. Both views expressed in HarperCollins Bible Dictionary regarding the "angel theory" are now shared -- previously only the view that it was a desire to have sex with angels was included, leaving out material in the source that stated unambiguously the men of Sodom were unaware of the visitors angelic nature. I've also included a citation to views of the historic theologians. I hope to eventually read all of the citations carefully to correct any other misleading text, but this is a start. Lordvolton (talk) 16:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • This version continues to ignore a number of the problems I've pointed out with previous versions, and additionally adds original research. Why do you keep wasting time like this instead of trying to make changes that could actually end up in the article? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
    • • Could you please point out precisely what you find problematic so I can address it? Please also be specific as to what you think is Original Research and quote it so I can clarify why it's not Original Research. Thank you. Lordvolton (talk) 19:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
        • I've already explained, you've just ignored me. You're changing the lede to claim that differences in interpretation are due only to the idea that the condemnation is "cultural" or out of date, ignoring a number of sections in which historical context suggests that homosexuality is not the subject. You're reading claims into the source that aren't there when you dismiss the "angel theory" because of material from elsewhere in the chapter. (If the author wanted to dismiss the theory, he would say so.) Among other things. Again, I know you're, for our purposes, a new user, but it is incumbent upon you to educate yourself about our policies, and to listen when they are explained to you. Ignorance is only an excuse for so long. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

specifics issues

• Roscelese, let's address your concerns one by one so that you don't feel like you're being ignored:

"You're changing the lede to claim that differences in interpretation are due only to the idea that the condemnation is "cultural" or out of date, ignoring a number of sections in which historical context suggests that homosexuality is not the subject." - Roscelese

• What are the sources that I'm leaving out? Provide the citation and the page number so that I can read it. I want the lead to be truthful, so fire away.

"You're reading claims into the source that aren't there when you dismiss the "angel theory" because of material from elsewhere in the chapter." -Roscelese

• You mean the previous page? Let's be reasonable here Roscelese. The author states that the men of Sodom did not know they were angels. My version is fair and balanced since it makes both statements. You want to cherry pick one and leave out the other. This is the existing citation. I could add more cites that say the same thing if you would prefer?

"Again, I know you're, for our purposes, a new user, but it is incumbent upon you to educate yourself about our policies, and to listen when they are explained to you. Ignorance is only an excuse for so long." - Roscelese

• You keep saying "we" and "our" ... but so far the only person disagreeing is you. What policies am I violating specifically? There is a policy against edit waring and another against ownership. Let's both refresh ourselves on the ownership guidelines, "All Wikipedia content is edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, or of how high standing in the community, has the right to act as though he or she is the owner of a particular article."

• I'm going through the trouble of writing tome after tome because I want to edit collaboratively. Lordvolton (talk) 21:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• • 1. Read the article. 2. The source doesn't, as you are claiming, dismiss the theory. 3. Wikipedia's collaborative editing model is not an excuse for violating policy. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
    • So when I ask for specifics you think a reasonable response is, "Read the article." Hmm. That's not being collaborative. I understand that the source made both statements, which I pointed out in my previous comment and even quoted, and that's why I am being reasonable and including them both. This might surprise you, but all of these proposed improvements are a result of me "reading the article" and the citations related to my proposed edits. =-)
    • It sounds like you're not interested in working with me on this article. But in the interest of attempting to find a common ground one last time, do you have anything else you'd like to add beyond admonishing me to "read the article" or "read Wikipedia guidelines"? Lordvolton (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Your talk page suggestions and your edits clearly indicate that you have a problem with both, so it's not entirely unwarranted. I suggest again that you educate yourself about policy (in particular WP:OR, since you seem to have particular trouble understanding it) and to read the article again, since only someone who has not read it could be unaware that most of the disagreement in interpretation is not "this isn't relevant to our culture anymore" but rather "people arguing that it's about homosexuality are reading it wrong." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
        • "People arguing that it's about homosexuality are reading it wrong." -Roscelese
          • They're reading what wrong? You need to be more specific. It's very difficult to address your concerns when they're vague or digress into lectures about Wikipedia policy. What specifically have I written that is Original Research? What specifically have I written that is not supported by the citations? I've addressed the Genesis 19 and Jude 1:7 issue and explained why both statements are being included to keep the article neutral, since the source supports both statements. Lordvolton (talk) 02:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
            • I've explained to you repeatedly that "the source says X and the source says Y" does not mean you can write any variation upon "the source says X, therefore Y cannot be true." There is very little more I can do to help you understand; you may just need some time to think it through on your own. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
              • When you say "X" and "Y" that's not helpful. Is there anything that I haven't addressed in my previous comments that you can point to specifically? I want to make sure that your concerns are fully addressed. Thank you. Lordvolton (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
                • As I've already said repeatedly, the fact that the HarperCollins floats the theory that "strange flesh" refers to angels, while mentioning elsewhere that the men of Sodom didn't know the visitors were angels, is not a reason to decide on your own authority that the angel theory isn't all that strong. If the author thought that the lack of awareness was a reason to discount the theory, as opposed to a simple fact about the narrative which provides context, he would have said so himself. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
                  • If we're going to collaboratively create content neutral articles together we must all put our personal opinions aside and focus on the content of the source material. The citation states, "This could be a reference to the desire of men to have sexual relations with other men, or it could refer to the unnatural lust of mortals for angels." In the same paragraph the source states, "In the biblical account, the men of Sodom intend to rape two male visitors that have come to the house of Lot, not knowing that the visitors are actually angels of God." - HarperCollins Bible Dictionary
                  • With respect to Jude 1:7 the current version of the article reads, "In Jude 1:7 the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah are stated to have been "giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh," which may refer to homosexuality or to the lust of mortals after angels." My version adds, "However, in the biblical account the men of Sodom did not know the visitors were angels."
                  • I'm attempting to accurately reflect the content of the source and let the readers make up their own minds. Your confusing my "opinion" with what I included in my edits. Genesis 19:5 reads, "And they called Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men that came unto thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them." Perhaps the author read this scripture verse and noticed that the men of Sodom asked where are the "men" and not where are the "angels". It's all speculation, but we know that the author stated that according to the biblical account the men of Sodom did not know they were angels.
                  • Do you have any additional questions about my proposed changes? I would like to reach a consensus before I make any permanent changes. Lordvolton (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
                    • By insisting on including what you know is original research, you are wasting your own time far more than mine. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
                      • What do you believe is Original Research? Please quote it or provide more detail so that I can address your concern. Lordvolton (talk) 17:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
                        • WP:IDHT –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
                          • Again, referencing Wikipedia policy rather than pointing out what falls within "Original Research" so I can address it is not helpful. When you fail to provide specific examples and instead make vague statements such as, "material you know is Original Research" our collaboration comes to grinding halt. I've posted my proposed changes, simply cut and past the wording that you believe is Original Research so we can discuss it. Thanks. Lordvolton (talk) 19:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Implementing the changes

In the near future I hope to begin implementing the proposed changes discussed above. Listed below is the proposed new lead ... please share any additional comments. If you have specific issues with the new lead please refer to the sentence in question so that we can narrow down the discussion to those areas where there may be disagreement.

Thank you!

The Bible refers to sexual practices that may be called "homosexual" in today's world, but the original language texts of the Bible do not refer explicitly to homosexuality as a sexual orientation because the word did not exist in their vocabulary. The Bible is interpreted by the majority of theologians as condemning the practice. In the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, however, the extent to which the Bible mentions the subject and whether or not it is universally condemned, has become the subject of debate.

Passages in the Old Testament book Leviticus that state "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah have historically been interpreted as condemning homosexual acts, as have several Pauline passages. (Rom. 1:26-27) In spite of scripture verses in the Old and New Testament that the majority of interpreters believe condemn homosexuality, some interpreters disagree and maintain that the Bible does not universally condemn homosexuality, arguing that the historical context suggests a cultural condemnation interpretation or that rare or unusual words in certain passages may not be referring to homosexuality.

Lordvolton (talk) 05:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion by Esoglou

Perhaps the following would be better:

The Bible refers to homosexual practices but not explicitly to homosexuality as a sexual orientation, a concept that did not exist when the references were written. Some 20th and 21st-century writers reject the understanding of these references as simply a condemnation of the practices.

The prohibition in the Old Testament book of Leviticus against "lying with mankind, as with womankind" and Pauline passages such as Romans 1:26–27 have historically been interpreted as condemning homosexual acts. Today, some maintain that the Bible does not universally and absolutely condemn homosexual activity, arguing that what was condemned was associating the activity with idolatrous worship, that any condemnation was based on a cultural context of past times, and that certain uncommon words used did not in reality indicate homosexual acts. Although the word "sodomy" is derived from the Bible story of Sodom, the story has not always been interpreted as related to homosexual acts or intentions.

What do you think, Lordvolton and others? Esoglou (talk) 13:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Lordvolton, since you've deliberately ignored a number of criticisms of your proposed version, it will obviously be reverted if implemented. Esoglou, if you're going to enumerate reasons why the passages might not condemn homosexuality, you're omitting some of them; I think it's just better to sum up as we do right now with the more all-encompassing context suggesting otherwise + translation issues. I also think your opening is worse than the one we currently have; among other problems, it's totally not clear whether these "20th and 21st-century writers" are condemning the orientation as well, or un-condemning the acts! We all seem to be in agreement about removing "denominations," though. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

So, Roscelese, you think the text now in the article better than my proposal. And I think the opposite. Saying "that what was condemned was associating the activity with idolatrous worship, that any condemnation was based on a cultural context of past times, and that certain uncommon words used did not in reality indicate homosexual acts" is more concrete and understandable than the extremely vague "that historical context suggests other interpretations or that rare or unusual words in the passages may not be referring to homosexuality". Editors may add whatever other major ways of explaining away the centuries-old understanding may exist. Or if they prefer a vague expression, that too can be accommodated, without keeping a text that, as commented above, suggests that nobody but "officials in some denominations" understand the Bible as condemning homosexual practice! Let us just wait to see which of the three proposed texts others think is on balance the best basis to work on. Esoglou (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, if you're going to enumerate, don't selectively omit things. The longstanding interpretation of Sodom as about violation of sacred hospitality is a pretty big one. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Any more assistance? Esoglou (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I mean, I've already said that your proposed version is inferior in several ways to the one we have. You don't have to agree, but it would be helpful to try to justify your proposed changes, instead of expecting me to justify keeping things as they are. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's just wait for others. Esoglou (talk) 06:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Resumption of Lordvolton-Roscelese discussion

Perhaps we should focus on those items we all agree on... as Roscelese points out we agree that we should change denominations to theologians. I'd like to change the sentence to read, "The Bible is interpreted by the majority of theologians as condemning the practice." This is supported by the sources. Kruse states, “The majority of modern interpreters of Paul, however, agree that the plain language of 1:26-27 involves condemnation of all homosexual practice.” – Paul’s Letters to the Romans, page 111. Another source relied on for this article, Homosexuality and Religion, when confronted with the same scripture verse in Romans states, "First, this is the only instance in the New Testament where same-sex relations between women are condemned along with same-sex relations between men." - Homosexuality and Religion (Joseph Silker), page 69

Are we also in agreement that the first paragraph doesn't accurately reflect the source by omitting the fact that the reason homosexuality is not referred to as a "sexual orientation" is because the word didn't exist in their vocabulary? Here is what the source says, “Homosexuality, a word for which there is no specific equivalent in the Hebrew Bible or the Greek NT, since the concept of homosexuality as a “sexual orientation” originated only in the nineteenth century.” – Harper Collins Bible Dictionary. I'm proposing adding words to accurately reflect the source, "because the word did not exist in their vocabulary."

Next, are we in agreement that redacting Leviticus 18:22 in the second paragraph is potentially misleading to the reader? The verse reads, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Leaving out "it is abomination" is very questionable editing since those words go to the heart of the article itself. And finally, are we in agreement that a minority of modern day interpreters make a distinction between universal and cultural condemnation with respect to Leviticus 18:22? If so, then I propose being more specific and using words that reflect that interpretation of that verse rather than insinuating there is a view the doesn't incorporate some form of condemnation (e.g., cultural condemnation proponents admit there was a condemnation). Therefore I'm proposing the insertion of more specific language, "whether or not it is universally condemned, has because the subject of debate." And also, "Other interpreters, however, maintain that these passages do no universally condemn homosexuality".

If we can agree on those points then new lead would read as follows:

Extended content

new lead The Bible refers to sexual practices that may be called "homosexual" in today's world, but the original language texts of the Bible do not refer explicitly to homosexuality as a sexual orientation because the word did not exist in their vocabulary. The Bible is interpreted by the majority of theologians as condemning the practice. In the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, however, the extent to which the Bible mentions the subject and whether or not it is universally condemned, has become the subject of debate. Passages in the Old Testament book Leviticus that prohibit "lying with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination" and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah have historically been interpreted as condemning homosexual acts, as have several Pauline passages. Other interpreters, however, maintain that these passages do not universally condemn homosexuality, saying that historical context suggests other interpretations or that rare or unusual words in the passages may not be referring to homosexuality.

Lordvolton (talk) 00:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that any phrasing involving "The Bible says..." is potentially misleading (both our current text and the proposed text). As we've discussed, the Bible is a compilation of many books by different authors, and if you look at the popular religious discourse around homosexuality, the less ambiguous passages aren't actually the ones that come up most often. (= You hear about Genesis and Leviticus a lot more than Romans.)

I agree that we could be clearer about why the Bible doesn't mention sexual orientation (well, depending on how you interpret Matthew, but that's not the point) - I think I overlooked it because I'm pretty familiar with that history, but of course not everyone is. But we don't need to dwell on it, when it's really just context for the material we're about to present, rather than material in itself (unless someone adds material that discusses the significance of the idea that people didn't know about sexual orientation back then). We could just say "The Bible predates the knowledge of homosexuality as a sexual orientation, but refers..."

Or...honestly, we could probably omit the first paragraph with no damage to the lead, minor tweaks to the second para.

I don't think omitting that part of the Leviticus verse is misleading, but I also have no real objection to adding it. We discuss "abomination" in more detail in the body of the article. I was going to say that, but I realized we totally don't! Oh man, better dig up some of the sources about abominations!

Again, your proposed addition of language about universal vs. cultural is, deliberately or not, misrepresenting the body of the article. For some of the passages, these theologians and historians write about cultural condemnation (eg. the holiness code/abominations and how Christians handle the Jewish holiness code, the stuff we've already discussed for Paul), but for others, these scholars have written that the homosexuality interpretation is incorrect. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

“I'm starting to think that any phrasing involving "The Bible says..." is potentially misleading (both our current text and the proposed text). As we've discussed, the Bible is a compilation of many books by different authors, and if you look at the popular religious discourse around homosexuality, the less ambiguous passages aren't actually the ones that come up most often. (= You hear about Genesis and Leviticus a lot more than Romans.)” – Roscelese

I think this gets at the heart of our difference. While I agree that the Bible is a compilation of many books – it was canonized. And that “canon” is considered “The Bible”. There is considerable disagreement about what should be included in the canon (e.g., Protestants vs. the Catholics). However, the books we’re discussing are included in both of their versions of “The Bible”.

If we’re in disagreement over what “The Bible” means then we should invest some time reflecting on the common meaning when people come to Wikipedia wondering what “The Bible” has to say about “homosexuality”.

I’m assuming that we’re editing this article based on the Christian version of the canonized text that contains sixty-six books. And when we’re trying to ascertain what “The Bible” says about “homosexuality” we’re referencing all of those canonized books that together constitute “The Bible”.

And that’s a different analysis from what a particular passage says about homosexuality. And I think it’s appropriate for the body of the article to make those distinctions since there are legitimate differences of opinion regarding specific passages and whether they’re focused on homosexuality or not.

“I agree that we could be clearer about why the Bible doesn't mention sexual orientation (well, depending on how you interpret Matthew, but that's not the point) - I think I overlooked it because I'm pretty familiar with that history, but of course not everyone is. But we don't need to dwell on it, when it's really just context for the material we're about to present, rather than material in itself (unless someone adds material that discusses the significance of the idea that people didn't know about sexual orientation back then). We could just say "The Bible predates the knowledge of homosexuality as a sexual orientation, but refers..." – Roscelese

My issue is that the current wording could be confusing to a reader. A person could infer that because the Bible doesn’t “explicitly” refer to homosexuality as a sexual orientation it might be silent on the issue. If we’re going through the trouble to let the reader know that “homosexuality” as a term isn’t used in the Bible to denote sexual orientation then we owe it to the reader to explain why. I suspect that many people don’t know that the word “homosexual” didn’t appear until the 19th Century.

I didn’t know it until I read the source material.

“Or...honestly, we could probably omit the first paragraph with no damage to the lead, minor tweaks to the second para.

I don't think omitting that part of the Leviticus verse is misleading, but I also have no real objection to adding it. We discuss "abomination" in more detail in the body of the article. I was going to say that, but I realized we totally don't! Oh man, better dig up some of the sources about abominations!” – Roscelese

Excellent, so we’re in agreement on this change.

I’m no expert on abominations, but my guess is that it’s not good. ;-) If memory serves me correctly there is some discussion regarding cultural versus universal condemnation within the sources with respect to this verse. However, as I mentioned previously there are other examples of scripture verses that are very harsh that modern day Christians don’t personally condone (e.g., killing pregnant women and children). I’ve been told by Christians that there is a “new covenant” – but often those discussions are extra-biblical and don’t relate to the actual content of the Bible. This is off topic, but whether it’s a “sin” depends on whether someone adheres to a literal reading of the Bible or believes the Bible is God’s inerrant word.

Fortunately for us, this is just a Wikipedia article attempting to accurately relay the content without prejudice. People who read these scriptures verses will have to ask themselves, “Did God really say that… or did some dude thousands of years ago claim God said it?”

I’m not God or a Bible scholar… so I’ll leave those conclusions up to the reader.

“Again, your proposed addition of language about universal vs. cultural is, deliberately or not, misrepresenting the body of the article. For some of the passages, these theologians and historians write about cultural condemnation (eg. the holiness code/abominations and how Christians handle the Jewish holiness code, the stuff we've already discussed for Paul), but for others, these scholars have written that the homosexuality interpretation is incorrect.” – Roscelese

I agree that there is ambiguity with respect to some scripture verses, but what is being referenced in the first paragraph is “The Bible” and not specific passages of scripture and therefore I think it’s accurate to state, “the extent to which the Bible mentions the subject and whether or not it is universally condemned, has become the subject of debate.”

The second paragraph is a little more tricky since that is referencing specific books of the Bible: Leviticus, Genesis, and half of the New Testament (Pauline passages). The current version quotes a redacted version of Leviticus 18:22, so at least with respect to Leviticus use of the word “universal” seems appropriate since that is the scripture verse where the source discusses changes in modern Jewish culture and we also include “…saying that historical context suggests other interpretations or that rare or unusual words in the passages may not be referring to homosexuality.”

It’s not perfect, but I think it does reflect the basic discussion points for those scriptures. However, I’m open to changing the second paragraph to be more specific to Leviticus if you think that would provide better clarity?Lordvolton (talk) 22:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the best way to handle the "canon" vs. "passages" issue is to find some really top-quality sources that talk about what the Bible says. (Maybe some of our current sources do too - I don't recall, having looked at them for verse-level stuff only.) Right now, in the article, we only discuss things on the verse level.

What do you think of my proposed wording ("predates") to concisely explain why the Bible doesn't talk about "homosexuality" without digressing and getting away from the topic?

To sum up really quickly, the word that KJV translates as "abomination" is closer in meaning to taboo than to immoral. I thought we discussed this in the article, but it looks like we don't; maybe it was in another article that there was more detail, which belongs here as well. It would presumably be related to holiness code/cultural stuff, where it's clearly set out as wrong but where people are arguing that it doesn't apply to Christians/no longer applies given the changing status of Jews in the world/etc., but that word in particular seems to need elaboration in our article.

I'm unclear as to what you thought about my proposal to remove the (largely vague and problematic) first paragraph, as a solution to the issue of Bible vs. verses. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the long delay. I don't have a problem with deleting the first paragraph. Since we've agreed to include the full text of Leviticus 18:22 in what was formerly the second paragraph I think we're in agreement on the new lead. I'll go ahead and make those changes. Lordvolton (talk) 14:08, 29 September 2013 (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)

To be clear, I don't support its wholesale removal - I think it needs to be better integrated, as it was before. Fundamentally it is a summary of interpretative issues, and should probably be restored to the lede, albeit perhaps in condensed form. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I like to add this link to the talk page: http://imgur.com/gallery/LAanQfj 85.220.16.234 (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

People have mentioned the fact that Jesus didn't discuss homosexuality, but we do need a reliable source if we're going to mention it in the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Unclear

The article states: "Chapters 18 and 20 of Leviticus, which form part of the Holiness code."

This is inaccurate. In fact Chapter 18 does not mention the word "Holy/Holiness" even once (although it does mention to avoid the ways and the impurity of the Nations like Egypt).

To be more percise: Both times that it is stated "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind" - come in the midst of prohibited intercourse's.

Here is an English translation of all the verses [1][2][3]

• The first time, in Chapter 17-18, there are a total of 17 prohibited intercourse's. It begins with prohibition for one to have intercourse with a parent, father's wife, sister etc.. It ends with prohibition to have intercourse with an animal. The "statement" "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind" is number 16 in the list.

• The second time in chapter 20, there are a total of 12 prohibited intercourse's.

The statement "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination" - is number 4 of in the list the twelve prohibited intercourse's. The second time however the section does begin with Holiness, followed by prohibition to curse one's parents followed by the twelve prohibited intercourse's. However the word Holiness is not as prominent ans the prohibited intercourse's.

Therefore I am correcting the inaccurate/poorly sourced above statement of the verse.Caseeart (talk) 03:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I wikified to Incest in the Bible which states that "These prohibitions are found predominantly in Leviticus 18:8-18 and 20:11-21". That article uses the term "lists the prohibited incestuous relationships" I was not sure if that term is better.Caseeart (talk) 03:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted your removal of the Holiness Code, because that section is very much a part of the Holiness Code. I left your link to incest, though, with some tweaks to language. Please check out WP:No original research; this will help you figure out what to avoid as far as reading your own analysis into primary texts, such as the Bible. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation of a quoted word

Is it not allowed in Wikipedia to ask for disambiguation of a word in a quotation? The question concerns in particular the word "mankind" in the KJV translation of two verses in Leviticus 18 and 20. I do not accept User:Roscelese's claim that disambiguation requires altering (i.e., falsifying) the quotation. The word could be disambiguated either by citing other translations or by giving information on the Hebrew word that the KJV rendered as "mankind". User:Roscelese has straightway deleted each of these. She has also refused to accept that, in this context, "mankind" means the same as "male" (see #"Mankind" or "Male" above), and this is what gives rise to the need for disambiguation, for if the word does not mean "male", what does it mean? Esoglou (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

An uncontroversial piped link could disambiguate, without thereby altering the quotation. Esoglou (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Article Cleanup Neutral POV - not pro or against homosexuality

I think that this article needs a cleanup. The article should bring sources that analyze WP:NEUTRAL POV of homosexuality in the bible.

Instead I am seeing false traslations and selective sources which seem to focus on specific viewpoints. When I try to replace clearly false information (that seemed to have been added intentionally to prove a certain POV)- the edits are repeatedly reversed - even after placed accurate sources in the talk page.Caseeart (talk) 05:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)