Talk:The Bible and homosexuality/Archive 1

message: "Concerning Christ's lack of any specific denunciation of homosexuality, it was also the case that Christ's recorded sermons never specifically condemned sins such as murder, theft, rape, kidnapping, or any number of others, but that doesn't mean that Christ approved of these things." 66.216.226.34.
:Let me parse it for easier analysis. "Concerning... homosexuality, Christi didn't specifically condemned murder, theft, rape, kidnapping". So homosexuality is in the same category? It is unnecessary to put crimes at the same category as homosexuality. Notice I never mentioned the word "sins" until now, but the word "crimes". You cannot make an analogy here because homosexuality is not a crime (at least generally, at least in most countries). He didn't have to mention those crimes because he never advocated criminal activities. In fact, he advocated obeying the government " "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's" (so I'm sure that if not paying taxes was not OK, not killing, stealing, raping and kidnapping would not be OK as well). Wikipedia is not a soapbox: "Wikipedia articles are for facts, not debate". I indicated you several times how putting homosexuality at the same level of crimes because Jesus didn't "specifically condemn" either is not appropriate and you keep trying to get through. --Vizcarra 16:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There seems to be a lack of communication here. The point of that section was to present the opposing view given to the claim by gay activists that since Christ never specifically condemned homosexual sex in His sermons, therefore it must be allowed - to which the opposing side responds by pointing out that the above argument is a non-sequitur since there were a great many other sins that Christ never specifically condemned (blasphemy, murder, theft, rape, etc, etc). The passage was simply pointing this out: your objections have nothing whatsoever to do with the context. 66.216.226.34 23:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The point was understood the first time I read it. What I objected is using the examples of crimes not especifically condemned by Jesus and pack them in a category of crimes+homosexuality that Jesus did not condemn. Homosexuality is not a crime, so if you have a list of "sins" not condemned by Jesus that are not also crimes you are welcome to list them since it would be a more appropriate list. --Vizcarra 23:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I included blasphemy, which is not a secular crime. But it would make no difference whether the sins in question are also crimes or not: the issue is that Christ did not specifically condemn a great many sins, and yet we still consider them sins because they are defined as such in the rest of the revealed doctrine. The issue of secular crime has no possible relevance to this topic at all, and yet you're using it as a justification for deleting any opposing viewpoint which you personally dislike. 66.216.226.34 00:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  No comparison? 

message: "... in conformance with the Biblical ordinance that marriage should be between one man and one woman (Genesis 1:27 and 2:24, cited by Jesus himself in Matthew 19:3–6 and Mark 10:5–9."
The passages of Genesis do not mention the wordd marriage. The passages of the new testament only condemn divorce. --Vizcarra 21:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Genesis 2:24 most certainly does refer to marriage: "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife". It doesn't need to specifically use the word "marriage" in order to refer to the sacrament. :None of the above should need to be painstakingly pointed out, nor do you have any justification for removing so much material based on the specious arguments you've been using. 66.216.226.34 23:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right "wife" does imply marriage. However it does not say that "marriage should be between one man and one woman". I am actually providing my "justification for removing so much material" and I should remind you about the Wikipedia etiquette now that you have started using words such as "specious" but given that you don't even have a user page I may be wasting my time dealing with a troll. --Vizcarra 23:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think one definition of a "troll" is someone who removes the opposing viewpoint in an article which is supposed to present both sides of an issue. The marriage argument is based on the fact that the Biblical descriptions of marriage only refer to arrangements between a man and a woman; but in any event the issue does not come down to whether you personally agree with the argument or not: the article presents the arguments which are actually made by both sides. Please stop deleting one side of the debate. 66.216.226.34 00:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Marriage

message: Holy crap, folks. I understand that this is a contentious article, but do we really need so many tag templates included? How about leaving out at least the wikify and copyedit tags, so that some content actually makes it onto the first screen of text? -GregoryWeir 18:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Either the cleanup or the wikify and copyedit tags should be removed, in my opinion. The template messages page says of the cleanup tag, "Please do not use this in combination with the more specific cleanup tags." Additionally, the attention and cleanup tags are rather redundant. Both do not need to be there. The presence of so many tags is silly. We only really need the deletion tag, the neutrality tag, and one cleanup-type tag. -GregoryWeir 13:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Another user has removed some of the tags, and I agree with their choice. The cleanup tag is general, and indicates that there are lots of problems with a page, or that problems are very general. The others are more specific. It is not useful to have several different tags at the top of the page. The tags exist to let readers know that the page is not up to Wikipedia standards and should be taken with a grain of salt as well as not taken as representative of the site as a whole. With so many tags there, it looks as if people are fighting over the article and someone's trying to make it look bad (which may be true, but we don't want to look petty). -GregoryWeir 21:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lots of tags! 

message: This article has survived a VFD nomination with the result of No consensus. --Allen3 talk 10:06, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
There was a consensus on cleaning and removing unsourced passages. Also the pro- and anti- seems flawed. The article should not contain original research. Let's try to move in this direction. --pippo2001 03:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: VFD results

message: This article strikes me as having a decidedly right-leaning slant. Full disclosure: I do not consider myself to be aligned with any particular political agenda, but I do think wikipedia should include more than one side of a debate. MPS 20:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV