Wikipedia:Peer review/The Bible and homosexuality/archive1
The Bible and homosexuality[edit]
I've cleaned this article up a great deal and would like to think that it's now fairly comprehensive and neutral. I'd welcome other people's comments and suggestions on what is a fairly controversial area! G Rutter 20:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- This appears to be a well-researched article and the parts I read seemed suitably neutral. I believe that the use of inline external links is usually discouraged, as the link can become broken. The article has all the requisite citations; but I believe the preference is to use the inline citation method, per Wikipedia:Citing sources. Thanks. — RJH 17:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments! Did you mean the reference to the newspaper article? If you did, I've now changed it so it's like the other references. If it was something else you meant, or if you've got any other comments I'd be very grateful for them. Thank you. --G Rutter 21:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Well an example of an external link would be the "(Luke 7, note 7)". The other is regarding the {{ref}} / {{notes}} format used in FA's such as the White's Tree Frog page, rather than, say, "(Issues in human sexuality, para. 2.24)." Thanks. — RJH 15:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments! Did you mean the reference to the newspaper article? If you did, I've now changed it so it's like the other references. If it was something else you meant, or if you've got any other comments I'd be very grateful for them. Thank you. --G Rutter 21:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about using the TNIV as the bible version of choice here—alot of conservatives hate it, so I'd say that the NIV or NASB would be a better alternative. I've scanned through the 3 chapters you mention at the beginning of the David and Jonathon section and don't see anything about David "stripping completely naked" in front of Jonathon. If you're referring to Jonathon giving David his clothes, is there evidence that the robe and tunic were all that he was wearing? Something on the normality of kissing in the time might be appropriate too—at least in the NT, it's pretty common (not sure about David's time). Also, I think you need to have separate sections talking about how the interpretation of the Bible has changed over the years. You mention a little bit about early church/rabbinical teachings, but there should probably be a level 2 section with a few subsections giving an overview of how the views have changed. Obviously there's got to be a separate article covering Christianity and homosexuality, but a little bit of context here would be helpful. As for NPOV, looks pretty good to me; nothing glaring. I'm personally not a huge fan of unlinked harvard references, but that's not a big deal; they're well done. --Spangineeres (háblame) 02:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you! I'm glad that you thought most of it was OK. I've altered the David and Jonathan section- I hadn't properly altered that bit, so thank you for spotting it. I know that some people have problems with the TNIV, but then some people have problems with any translation. I've chosen the TNIV as I believe that it's both scholarly and readable- and where there's particular problems with the translation I hope they're mentioned (eg Leviticus 18 & 20). I'm still thinking about your idea of having a separate section discussing the changes in interpretation. I'm not quite sure how to go about doing that, so if you've got any specific thoughts please let me know! Thank you. --G Rutter 20:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- My problem with the TNIV is that in certain areas, meaning gets distorted because of the insistence on using gender neutral language. It may be more readable to modern society, but I don't think it any more "scholarly" (actually much less) than the plain old NIV. But I digress; bible translation ultimately doesn't make that much of a difference, so long as a standard one is used (NWT, for example, doesn't cut it). The change you made to David and Jonathon look good. As for changes in interpretation, I'm thinking that it'd be good to take a look at how early Christians and Jews looked at homosexuality, and then see how that changed in the middle ages and on into modern day. I don't want "Augustine thought homosexuality is wrong", but instead "Augustine interpreted this bible passage this way and another passage this way to mean that homosexuality is wrong". Most people are intellectually honest, so as homosexuality is accepted more and more among Christians, there probably are new biblical arguments that were created to defend their position. The evolution of those arguments is what I'm interested in seeing in this article. Of course, that's all easier said than done, but I hope I make sense. Also, another interesting side of the debate would be to bring up the different arguments used for and against innate homosexuality—I've heard some Christians say that homosexuality may be innate but that those who are innately homosexual must be celibate. I've heard other Christians say that homosexuality cannot be innate, regardless of what anyone else says. I'd be interested in seeing if biblical arguments are used to support either of those positions. --Spangineeres (háblame) 21:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you your comments. I'm glad that my rewrite was OK. Personally, I think quite a lot of what you're suggesting should be found (although I know that it isn't at the moment) in Homosexuality and Christianity/Judaism. I hope to help rewrite H&C and so I'll keep in mind your comments when deciding where to put particular things. Thank you again. --G Rutter 21:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- My problem with the TNIV is that in certain areas, meaning gets distorted because of the insistence on using gender neutral language. It may be more readable to modern society, but I don't think it any more "scholarly" (actually much less) than the plain old NIV. But I digress; bible translation ultimately doesn't make that much of a difference, so long as a standard one is used (NWT, for example, doesn't cut it). The change you made to David and Jonathon look good. As for changes in interpretation, I'm thinking that it'd be good to take a look at how early Christians and Jews looked at homosexuality, and then see how that changed in the middle ages and on into modern day. I don't want "Augustine thought homosexuality is wrong", but instead "Augustine interpreted this bible passage this way and another passage this way to mean that homosexuality is wrong". Most people are intellectually honest, so as homosexuality is accepted more and more among Christians, there probably are new biblical arguments that were created to defend their position. The evolution of those arguments is what I'm interested in seeing in this article. Of course, that's all easier said than done, but I hope I make sense. Also, another interesting side of the debate would be to bring up the different arguments used for and against innate homosexuality—I've heard some Christians say that homosexuality may be innate but that those who are innately homosexual must be celibate. I've heard other Christians say that homosexuality cannot be innate, regardless of what anyone else says. I'd be interested in seeing if biblical arguments are used to support either of those positions. --Spangineeres (háblame) 21:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you! I'm glad that you thought most of it was OK. I've altered the David and Jonathan section- I hadn't properly altered that bit, so thank you for spotting it. I know that some people have problems with the TNIV, but then some people have problems with any translation. I've chosen the TNIV as I believe that it's both scholarly and readable- and where there's particular problems with the translation I hope they're mentioned (eg Leviticus 18 & 20). I'm still thinking about your idea of having a separate section discussing the changes in interpretation. I'm not quite sure how to go about doing that, so if you've got any specific thoughts please let me know! Thank you. --G Rutter 20:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)