Talk:Homosexuality and religion/Archive 3

2281:

Orthodox (250 million members) Churches, part of Protestant denominations, especially among Evangelicals such as the Southern Baptist Convention (16.3 million members), and the LDS Church (13 million members). However, there is a minority who interpret biblical passages differently and argue that homosexuality can be seen as morally acceptable. This approach has been taken by a number of denominations, notably the United Church of Canada (2.8 million members), the liberal congregations within United Church of Christ, the Moravian Church (825,000 members), the Anglican Church of Canada (800,000 members), the Methodist Church of Great Britain (330,000 members), Friends General Conference and Lutheran churches in Europe. A new denomination, the Metropolitan Community Church (40,000 members), has also come into existence specifically to serve the Christian LGBT community. However, individual Christians maintain a variety of beliefs on this subject that may or may not correspond to their official church doctrines. Some mainline Protestant denominations in the United States have also removed language in their bylaws which suggest that homosexuality is a sinful state of being. The Book of Order used by the PCUSA reflects this change. Similar modifications in position can also be seen in the ELCA and Disciples of Christ. Although acceptance of sexually active LGBT laity has increased in terms of actual practice and in terms of church law, some of these denominations continue to limit leadership and clergy roles for LGBT persons.

3038:

that is seen negatively. So the phrase "...view homosexuality negatively. This can range from quietly discouraging homosexual activity, explicitly forbidding same-sex sexual practices..." is talking about two different things, homosexuality, and homosexual activities/practices. Perhaps this part could be rephrased to "Some of the current authoritative bodies and doctrines of the world's largest religions see homosexual behavior negatively, while others view the homosexual orientation itself negatively. This can be seen within quiet discouraging of homosexual activity and explicitly forbidding same-sex sexual practices among adherents, to actively opposing social acceptance of homosexuality, and execution." The next line "Most who are opposed to homosexuality argue that homosexual sexual activity is a sin, not the sexual orientation." would then be taken out, due to its redundancy. Also its wording is confusing, as it says that people who are opposed to homosexuality are not opposed to the sexual orientation... kind of contradictory. I think that it is fair enough to put the picture further down the page and another picture up in its place. I am kind of reluctant to have a picture of homosexuals being whipped, put up but I suppose that it is something that happens and is related to this article, however it would be nice to see something balancing to that, if there's a picture of homosexuals being whipped, by Muslims, perhaps a picture of homosexuals being helped by Muslims would be nice.

3598:

this discussion.) The three examples you give are all interesting - in the case of 'two men engaged in a passionate kiss', I think the key word is 'passionate' as that would appear to infer a sexual component (a kiss is often a cultural greeting and need not be sexual); 'as lovers walking along the road hand-in-hand' - the key word is 'lovers' as this implies a sexual relationship (again, in many cultures mem will walk hand-in-hand, but there is no sexual aspect to this); 'a same-sex couple setting up home together' - I shared a flat with a fellow male while a student, but we never 'set up home together' as that phrase usually implies a sexual relationship. My point is that I think you are wrong to suggest that 'the Bible says nothing about this' as regards all these three examples as in each case, sexual relations are implied which the bible does comment about. Coming back to the point about trying to find neutral phrases, would you prefer a phrase such as 'same-sex sexual activity' rather than 'homosexual behaviour'? Does that not narrow down the debate better?

2008:. The problem is that once you start to insert such sources, it opens up the need to balance such an interpretation with alternative interpretations - and such discussions are best managed in more focused articles than here. This is why it was a mistake to start adding detailed references to primary sources in this section in the first place. Given that links to more detailed treatment of the subject are already included in the section, such discussion is unnecessary IN THIS ARTICLE. This is not a place to promote one particular understanding of theology and the Bible as if that is neutral, and doing so has opened up the need to insert balancing material. The fact is he didn't, and if people want to look into that further, the links are available. There is no point re-inventing the wheel here, when the work has been done elsewhere. The reality is we might try to imagine what Jesus' views about homosexuality were, but as he said nothing about it specifically, that is all we are able to do, and we do not rely on the imagination here. 2027:

didn't teach against homosexuality, and you are the one that put it back in based on the assumption that gay couples are incapable of having sexual intercourse with each other. Citing the Latin root doesn't help because Christ didn't speak Latin. You are being hypocritical. You are promoting your own view that Christ taught strict abstinence before marriage and complete fidelity after marriage, but that doesn't apply to gays since they can't have sexual intercourse so they can do whatever they want. Straight men could commit adultery by simply looking at a woman (which doesn't include any penetration by the way), but gay people get down and dirty with whoever and whenever they want of the same sex without committing adultery because they are incapable of sexual intercourse? Not only does it not make any sense, it goes against what most Christians believe. Yes, you can find a lot of people trying to promote that view, but you need to take your own advice and not favor your own view over any other view.

2068:"Whether you read 'adultery' or 'fornication' to refer to homosexuality or not, the fact is he did not, so the statement is accurate and verifiable." How is your reading "fact" and mine "opinion"? If I say you can't bring fruit into California, and someone tries to bring in an apple, they can't just say the fact is I didn't say anything about apples, and it is only my "opinion" that no fruit implies no apples. Fruits include apples, and fornication includes homosexuality. That is fact, according to your own definition that fornication is to "have sexual intercourse with someone one is not married to." Does that mean prostitution isn't fornication, because it has a different name? What about an orgy? Assigning a specific name to homosexuality doesn't make it not a sexual act with someone you are not married to. You can say what you are saying is "fact" all you want to, and your "fact" is "indisputable", but that doesn't make it fact. I really don't think that 3143:

sex in the minds of the people who are "viewing homosexuality negatively". However in the article itself, it says "Most who are opposed to homosexuality argue that homosexual sexual activity is a sin, not the sexual orientation." and while I stated before that I don't like the wording to that sentence, the initial message stands true. Now if we view "homosexual activity" as homosexual intercourse, then the article essentially states that nobody really cares if flowers are bought. Furthermore, heterosexuals buy flowers for their partners all the time, and this rarely specifically means sexual activity. As you can see the fact that the argument is out there that it is believed that homosexual activity is different than homosexuality, I believe that it needs to be incorporated into the article somewhere at the least, if not being the reason for rewording many of the sentences in the article.

624:

associated with a specific denomination or religion. Specifically, I am referencing the "gay men's spirituality movement" as embodied by the Gay Spirit Culture Summit, and the works of Toby Johnson, Christian de la Huerta, Daniel Helminiak, and many others (including myself). My rationale for this addition is that there are substantial numbers of US LGBT-identified individuals (according to the Gay & Lesbian Consumer Online Census) who do not affiliate with any specific religion but describe themselves as spiritual. Many authors have identified common underlying themes and issues pertaining specifically to gay spiritual seekers. I expect to have the additions made later in the month. Comments are welcome before, during, or after the additions. Arguably, this addition could be made into an entirely distinct article. However, initially I believe this wiki article is the best fit.

166:

particular stances that are taken (civil rights, persecution, support, genetics). Both are valid approaches to organizing the content. It seems like the stance approach should be broader and more general while the by religion approach should get into the specifics. And I think it is better to give the broader, general discussions before the specifics, so I would recommend expanding on the discussions by stance (to elaborate on all stances so as not to be biased) and having them first, followed by the discussions by religion with links to the more in-depth articles on each religion and its stance as there are currently, allowing those who read the article to first get broad overviews of the stances that are taken and then look at the specifics of those religions which interest them and even follow the links to the more in-depth articles on those religions.

3580:'homosexuality' only became current through the shift towards medicalisation of people who habitually engaged in homosexual activity - which began when it was delineated as a form of psycho-sexual pathology in 1869/70). What it does talk about are examples of sexual activity in a handful of places, mostly in the legal books and Paul's Epistles, and what they tend to refer to is what used to be called 'sodomy'. Since its decriminalisation, we no longer talk about sodomy, although despite its de-pathologisation we do still talk about homosexuality. When referring to a few specific acts that are detailed in the legal system developed by a group of desert nomads, which still applied in the religious culture inhabited by St. Paul, and that persisted for some time after the Reformation (as happened with churching of women after childbirth, 2153:. All my source is doing is providing a reference to the fact that Jesus does not mention homosexuality, which you seem to have a problem with. Even the source that was previously inserted, which was not from a reliable source, (but I ignored that) stated that Jesus never said that, and documented why the passage cited about heterosexual activity (marriage and adultery) applied to homosexuality. Now, the way I left this gave both understandings, i.e., that Jesus did not mention homosexuality in the Bible (which, because you cannot provide a reference to him talking about this), and this the leads into the interpretation that the Matthew and Mark passages include homosexuality. If you feel you need to expand on that further, then do so in another section, or another article, but not in a way that breaches NPOV. 3583:, unlike segregation of menstruating women and eating pork), then it is probably best to be clear about it being (certain) 'homosexual' acts - because homosexual behaviour cannot be substantiated by the archaic sources the prohibitions rely on. For example. Two men engaged in a passionate kiss, or as lovers walking along the road hand-in-hand, are aspects of homosexual behaviour; a same-sex couple setting up home together, embarking on a civil union, jointly adopting children, all these are part of homosexual behaviour - and the Bible says nothing about this; it doesn't even discuss the sex that takes place between two women - all it discusses is when two men share a bed together (which is translated in some Bibles as meaning 'sexual intercourse'). 2134:"something acknowledging my POV" was included as going against the "fact" that Christ did not refer to homosexuality "per se". You can't state your POV as fact and expect me to be okay with an "acknowledgement" that my POV goes against "fact". Jesus Christ referred to homosexuality in the Gospels. MOST churches believe that. I only used Mormon because they are more centralized and it is easier to find quotes on their web site. If the Mormon interpretation, or the Catholic interpretation or any other interpretation is undue weight, than so is Jeffrey Sikers. You asked for a reference, I provided it. You took it out and put in yours as fact. Bottom line, if the Mormon interpretation is undue weight, then so is Jeffrey Sikers. 2233:

Christ were silent on sexual relationships between two unmarried people, or as if that were some weird twisting of his teachings on divorce. It is true that in his teachings against sexual relationships before marriage, he did not make specific mention of the gender of the participants of the sexual relationships. I would be fine with either completely leaving it out or saying something like "Jesus taught against fornication, but did not directly mention homosexual or heterosexual behavior before marriage." Preferably, I would like to see the whole thing removed. The solution is not just to put up your interpretation, but to come to some conclusion. We need to come to an conclusion before the flag gets removed.

1966:

about men in the following verse, not stated explicitly. It doesn't matter whether you think most Christians believe something if it cannot be verified - especially as he did not, if he did, it would be easy to verify, but you can't - whereas I can verify he didn't, because it is not in the Gopsels, and this has been commented upon in several sources, one of which I have now cited. As this is about religion AND homosexuality, the contention that most Christians mistakenly believe he spoke about homosexuality is not relevant, because there are Christians who do not believe this, some of whom are also LGBT, and they would insist that in an article about them you stick to the sources rather than engaging in

3415:

activities of life." Anybody who has read the Buddha's teachings in Pali knows that the second sentence is untrue and that is why the author has not verified it with a citation. As regards the first sentence it may be noted that Cambodia, Thailand, Burma, Vietnam and India have the worst incidence of child prostitution in the world. United Nations and other human rights groups have conducted studies which show that at least one third of prostitutes in these countries are children. In India and Thailand an estimated 40% of prostitutes are children. Can it therefore be asserted that 'Asian societies shaped by Buddhist traditions take a strong ethical stand with regard to sexual behaviour in particular'?

221:

interpretation of the Bible over scientific finding when the two appear to be conflict. However, Pope Benedict, who would clearly be considered a conservative theologian, respects the findings of science regarding evolution (though he rejects science's attempt to make claims beyond its area of competence and authority). I am going to try to reword the lead sentence so that the discussion here isn’t another example of the discussion we see regarding global warming or tobacco, where the vast majority holds one highly supported view and a very small minority, often backed by organizations with a vested interest, are given equal press as if they have a legitimate alternate opinion.

447:

broad. I’ll fix that. Second, I agree that it is unclear that the part about “pastoral care” is supported by a citation to only a Catholic document. I’d like to see a ref to a mainstream Protestant source since, from what I have seen, the prevailing Protestaint ethos is the same as the Catholic. The other option is to qualify the statement with “Catholic” (ie, “Catholic pastoral care”) and while this might be ok since Catholicism is the largest and most unequivocal denomination in the world and the majority of Chritians in the world are Catholic (~1 billion), I think making such a change would too much slant the section to one more suitably titled “Catholicsm.”

3613:

churches using the language that people who oppose "homosexual behavior" use, especially since this way of describing homosexuality is specific to those churches, and not used by gay-accepting churches, or gay people, or professional psychologists, or anyone other than the religious organizations which are working against gay people. The term "homosexual behavior" is inherently biased, unless it is used in a paragraph about sex- no one is engaging in "homosexual behavior" or "heterosexual behavior" in church, since both gay and straight, conservative and liberal people, all agree that it is not appropriate to have sexual intercourse during a church service. -

2054:

is how it is. Even the source that has been added to clarify this makes that perfectly clear. I am saying nothing about whether he condoned homosexuality or not - simply reporting the sources accurately, which is what we do here. There is no 'truth' to be had here, only accuracy about what sources say. Your views (or mine) are not relevant in this, and twisting what I have said does not help either. I am not insisting on any interpretation - the fact is he said nothing, and that fact is stated without further comment, in the same way as all the relevant scripture passages have been cited just above this without comment.

3135:

The two are not synonymous and thus can not be compared in this way. If we were to look at people that say that homosexuals who have homosexual intercourse are bad while homosexuals who do not have homosexual intercourse (or intercourse at all) are good then I would say that we have a variable. This being whether or not there is homosexual intercourse. Since celibate homosexuals are seen as good then the argument that homosexuals are seen as bad to these people is invalidated, as there are homosexuals that are seen as good. It has to be that the variable of having or not having homosexual intercourse, is seen as "bad" part.

2112:

better located in the section about Homosexuality and Christianity. Given the text about what Jesus said in the Bible was reworded to ensure nobody was mislead about what he did and didn't say, I consider your edit contentious, expecially as something acknowledging your POV was already included. I have added that Jesus teaching in this instance refers to marriage, adultery and divorce. I will view further attempts to exclude this material or obscure it as edit-warring. This has wasted too much time already. You are welcome to say what Mormons believe in a relevant section that covers LDS views.

3092:

act? Is taking care of a sick partner a homosexual act? Is taking one's turn washing the dishes a homosexual act? Is saying 'not tonight, dear; I have a headache' a homosexual act? Would religious groups that oppose 'homosexual acts' oppose a gay person buying flowers for her partner? Does it matter whether they're roses or daisies? I'm getting a little silly here, but- the distinction between 'homosexuality' and 'homosexual acts' is one that simply is not used outside a few religious groups, and it's one that many readers would consider to be simply nonsensical. -

523:. In this case, there is no such record. So we can safely conclude that they were writing against what they considered scandalous moral behavior. In any case, Knowledge (XXG) is not he place for us to speculate. Knowledge (XXG) prohibits original research. So, we can go only with known sources. The reason the lead sentence doesn’t have a citation is that it is supported by the rest of the section itself. Look around Knowledge (XXG) a bit, and you will see that this is generally the how it is done. The lead is a summary of the contents of the article or section. 3002:

better picture- surely one of us has a picture of Christian homosexuals doing something photogenic? I can't think of a phrasing that would be as clear and simple as 'viewing homosexuality negatively' to describe the point of view that homosexuality is something to be avoided; do you have a suggested phrasing you think would be better? I don't really think that the word 'negative' is an inherently biased one in this context; it seems to be accurate. I'd be against replacing it with a word like 'bigot' or 'homophobe,' which would be unnecessarily biased. -

1676:'Claiming sexual orientation' would mean identifying as gay. It is not just the activity that is a sin, but identifying with the activity in the form of cultivating a positive identity that is sinful. There is grounds in scripture for arguing that an attraction per se is sinful - where attraction is read as desire; but it applies to heterosexuals as much as anybody, and was described in that context. Extending this to orientation is a synthesis and original research, unless a clear citation can be found that says 'orientation' rather than 'attraction'. 2682:. I am torn between both positions on this, but think YobMod has a point. There is a section link to the main article. The problem is that the same six or seven verses from the Old and New Testament, quoted at every opportunity, referenced numerous times, isn't appropriate here. It is not possible to give all the arguments justice in a summary, beyond that there is a history, there is a view expressed by certain authorities, and there are different positions on this - both as denominations and within all denominations and forms of Christianity. 1732:

translation and highlight in bold that bit which supports a particular POV. That departs from NPOV. I could insert a different reference, such as NRSV, which gives a different (and arguably more accurate) translation. It is better in this introductory paragraph on Abrahamic religions to cite the relevant passages, using the tool which leads to a selection of translations. These references are all discussed in the relevant sections further below, so better to include citations about the range of meanings and interpretations there.

3165:, would we say that promotion of heterosexuality involves affirming heterosexual sex, but not the attraction, and yet omit the point that heterosexual relationships (such as marriage) is part of that affirmation? The relationship in both cases is more significant than the act or the attraction, yet this is ignored in the case of our coverage of homosexuality, instead foucsing on sex, and yet the with heterosexuality we focus on the relationship, ignoring the sex. That suggests a bias in the way we cover these things. 3113:

course, by focusing on the sex, and reducing any partnership (which may involve a romantic gesture like buying one's lesbian partner a padded lumberjack shirt) to sex, the relationship is effectively dehumanised. Hitler did a similar thing with Jews and images of rats. In this case it is the mental image of sticking willies up bums that does the job - ironically, even for lesbians, who rarely have a willy anywhere near their bum (strap-ons maybe, depending on the politics and aesthetics of the lesbians involved).

1861:

personal opinion rather than fact. Most Christians agree he addressed homosexuality. Either way, it doesn't belong in the Abrahamic section. If you find someone that has the interpretation that Jesus made no reference to homosexuality, it should be stated as a minority view and kept within the Christianity section. And the no reference to female homosexuality - a command to abstain from fornication should be sufficient for that - but Romans 1:26-27 clearly references female homosexuality.

3505:'sexual behaviour' that is (homo) i.e. 'same-sex'. As for 'the gay life', what is 'the gay life' if it does not involve gay sex? Take out the 'gay' and it is just 'life'. Similarly, the 'heterosexual life' only has meaning with reference to heterosexual sex. My point is that the title of the article itself is wrong since this article should really be about 'religion and homosexual behaviour'. \by the way, I don't understand your point that 'Behaviour is not neutral' - why not? 3489:. Of course, there are those who say anything that presents the gay life as 'normal' promotes homosexuality - so that would unclude any behaviour perceived as homosexual, including identifying as gay, having a homosexual identity. But that is not scriptural. Behaviour is not neutral. If the point is 'acts', that does not match up with 'behaviour' - so why not say 'acts'? as 'homosexual activity'? or 'homosexual practice'? Or something along those lines... 2031:

mother, the family dog or even another man. Jesus taught against fornication, and that entails all sexual relationships with someone who is not your spouse - whether it be prostitution, pedophilia, incest, bestiality or even homosexuality. No sex is no sex - and yes, gay people are capable of having sex with each other. Again, I'm not saying the majority interpretation needs to go in as fact, I'm just saying your interpretation better not go in as fact.

1962:

marriage, not gay partnerships). I understand that you believe that this implies certain things about homosexuality, but your interpretation of this is your opinion. Ditto for fornication and lesbianism - clearly lesbians cannot fornicate in the sense in which it was defined historically or in modernity. It was not mentioned, and is you extrapolating a meaning that is not explicit in the text. The point stands, Jesus said nothing about homosexuality.

3779:

homosexuals poorly because of their identity. It is simply that only those who oppose homosexuality typically put any focus on this distinction- it is only those who support homosexuality very fiercely, and (not always, but far too often) who are unwilling to tolerate a differing opinion, who try to pretend that there is no difference. To accuse someone of being hateful because they disagree with you is a frightening sort of prejudice in and of itself.

31: 1557:

quote the few Biblical injunctions about homosexual practice ad nauseam accurately. Polemics against homosexual practice are many, but all based on the same few sources. If there are broad generalisations which do not cite reliable sources, then they are inaccurate abd should be highlighted as such - fact tagging for example - ditto for alternative views, as long as they are not given undue weight and accurately reflect the sources.

3748:

homosexuality. In other words, a form of words is currently being used that is accepted by one side but rejected by the other side - that, surely, is the definition of biased language! You go on to say "we try not to make distinctions that would inherently represent only one point of view" but you seem to do that by using language that represents the opposing point of view! (I appreciate there is no consensus on this!!)

3161:

sexual acts. Stating that opposition is against sexual acts and not homosexual attraction is incorrect because it is incomplete. Opposition is against sexual activity, sexual relationships (including committed partnerships), and yet somehow states it is not opposed to the attraction (despite often promoting therapies to change that attraction from homosexuality). OK? Get it? If we had an article

1662:

author's view. About 4 pages into the article (just before a subheading 'documents') it says "She distinguishes between an involuntary orientation (same-sex attraction) and homosexual activity, both of which are sinful." - This is the sentence from which the claim is made that both those claiming homosexual orientation and those engaging in homosexual activity are sinful.Hope that's helpful. Cheers

1538:"For example, isn't it a little irresponsible to base Christianity's overall intolerance of homosexuals on a few quotes when Jesus' overall message was unconditional acceptance, even of people like criminals?" - I think you're wrong on this. Jesus always forgave people for their sins and then said "go forth and sin no more." Someone tempted by homosexual attractions can still choose not to sin. 1515:

generalizations of certain religions based on remarks made by a few religious leaders, or by lines of text taken out of religious books which are interpreted by the writer of the article. I suggest the the writers of this article be more careful about making claims about large populations of people of certain religions without citing some sort of data which confirms this inferrence.

2664:(headquartered in Utah), the United Church of Christ (American), and Gene Robinson (American). This is American-centric editing at its most blatant. Surely you must realise that there are Knowledge (XXG) readers who want a more global view? I worked hard to obtain material from other countries and cultures and you seem intent on removing it but preserving all US references. -- 1100:: "He who loves and remains chaste and conceals his secret and dies, dies a martyr". Hadiths from later periods are harsher: "When a man mounts another man, the throne of God shakes... Kill the one that is doing it and also kill the one that it is being done to." Both ancient and modern fundamentalists have interpreted these injunctions literally, with resulting loss of life. 3139:

potential acts named, however that does not mean that this is a homosexual act. What's more a religion can not be defined by its members, but only by its doctrine (unless its doctrine is its members) and I do not see that "...the worlds largest religions" (as mentioned in the article)for the most part, have doctrines against anything but homosexual acts.

2978:

among adherents" I don't see how "quietly discouraging homosexual activity", or "forbidding same-sex sexual practices" at all depicts a negative view of homosexuality. Perhaps you could say something about "Homosexual activity", or "practices" but the title of this article is "Religion and Homosexuality" not "Religion and Homosexual Practices".

2982:

anyway viewing homosexuality less positively, however I will agree that the latter example of '...help "people seeking freedom from homosexuality".' is viewing homosexuality less positively and even negatively. If any rewording can be done to remove the word "Liberal" from that section, that would also be much appreciated as well.

1433:"The paper distinguishes homosexual attraction from homosexual sexual activity, and equates homosexuality with the attraction rather than the act. By claiming that homosexuality is an unchosen 'condition,' rather than a sin of the heart, the author contradicts the teaching of Scripture that both the desire and the act are sin." 3557:

confusion. The passages in the bible that deal with homosexuality never use phrases like 'homosexuality' or 'homosexual behaviour' but uses phrases that make clear that 'homosexual sex' is the issue that is unacceptable (passages like "And you shall not have sexual intercourse with a male as with a female" in Leviticus 18.22).

2792:

typically deal with their Faith and Sexual Orientation. (I suppose it sounds like I'm talking about something different now, but I meant there should be info on whether Gay people in an unfriendly branch of Christianity to them move to a friendlier one or what.) And I couldn't add that sort of information, I'm a Humanist.--

237:

lesbianism. I have not seen that in any scholarly sources or in my own reading. I also wonder if the whole section should refer more specifically to "sodomy" rather than "homosexuality" or "homosexual behavior" as the latter idea is vague and a modern construct. Regardless, here is the revision I propose:

3887:. What made this article interesting was its emphasis on applying the teachings of Jesus to same-sex marriage. Many have argued that Jesus had nothing to say about the matter. I thought that wiki readers might be interested in hearing Daniel Akins tradition Christian interpretation on this matter. 3652:

made by the people who are opposed to homosexuality, and no one else. There is no meaningful difference between 'accepting homosexuality' and 'accepting homosexuals,' except to the same people who would divide the two with phrases like 'love the sin but hate the sinner,' but those are not the people

3597:

Hi. Firstly, you are correct that the bible does not use the phrase homosexual sex since the word homosexual is a relatively recent creation. However, as you rightly point out, the bible does condemn sexual acts that have been called sodomy. (The fact that sodomy is no longer illegal is irrelevant to

3524:

Mum, dad and the kids sitting around the table for Sunday dinner is heterosexual behaviour, but is not sex. If you mean sexual activity, say sexual activity - but describing people's sexual activity as the sum of their lives is derogatory, which is what is implied in what you are saying. To you all

3138:

Fisher, I'm not certain what everyone else says but what I hear from most religions who oppose "homosexual acts", and what I mean by "homosexual acts" is, homosexual intercourse. Now, yes there are people out there that do oppose homosexuals kissing, taking care of a sick partner, or any of the other

3134:

Alynna, I agree with you that saying that homosexual attraction is wrong, is discrimatorry towards homosexuals. However then you go on to say that people believe that celibate gay people are not to be viewed poorly but gay sex is. First of all the problem with this is we're analyzing, sex and people.

3061:

As far as the lede, I'd argue that discouraging/forbidding "homosexual behaviour" is certainly indicative of a negative view of homosexuality. Seriously, if you think same-sex attraction and/or sex are bad, how could that be considered anything but a negative view of homosexuality? It might be true

2981:

Also in the introduction it mentions "Liberal voices within these religions tend to view homosexuality more positively" referring to the previous section where it mentions religions offering assistance to people who do not wish to be homosexual. Helping someone "avoid homosexual behavior", is not in

2053:

Third point. This is all original research using sources synthetically to reflect your POV, and you are welcome to find sources for this to show where this has been argued, but it still does not mean that Jesus spoke about homosexuality per se. That is indisputable. You may not like that, but that

2030:

The scripture from Mark is more than just divorce - it is a command for a man to get married and then cleave to his wife and become one flesh with her. For him to cleave to his wife and become one flesh, he can't be having any other sexual relationships, not a prostitute, another woman, a child, his

1126:

The opening has the following statement "Some teach that homosexual orientation itself is sinful" Who teaches that? Most everything I read is specifically against gay sex. Since many of the churches do not teach against a homosexual orientation (indeed, many deny the existence of such a thing), is

984:

What confuses me most about Acts 15:29 is that the rest of the passage seems to order the Gentiles to abstain from blood and "the meat of strangled animals", i.e. requiring the traditional and now-controversial kosher killing of cows by cutting their throats and draining the blood. Yet it seems like

933:

condemnation of them. For that passage to be included in this paragraph, we'd have rewrite the whole paragraph to be about condemnation of sexual immorality in general, which would reduce its relevance to the topic of the article and water down the point of the paragraph, namely that there are places

540:

Pederasty was not uncommon practice among Buddhist monks in Japan when non eldest boys of nobility and samurai were often forced to become child monks. The practice effectively died out when temples stopped recruiting children from lay families. What is unheard of, for me, is a claim that Kukai being

380:

I wouldn't use the word "sodomy" except in direct or indirect quotes, because it's both emotionally charged and inconsistent in its definition (before sodomy laws were struck down in the U.S., each state that had one defined it differently, some definitions including heterosexual activity; in German,

4362:

Looks like you are unable to distinguish between whether homosexuality is not a sin in Hinduism or homosexual acts are not a sin in Hinduism. You have to distinguish between homosexuality and homosexual acts. If being simply homosexual is not a sin in Hinduism then Hinduism does not deserve it place

3556:

Agreed - the article should not reflect how I see things. But if I can see little difference between 'homosexual behaviour' and 'homosexual activity', I suspect many other readers of this page will see things in a similar way. I am quite happy if you wish to see more clearly set out phrases to avoid

3112:

They would be against buying partners flowers, because that implies having a partner, which unless homosexual people are in a heterosexual relationship, is not supportable. It is not supportable, because of what might happen in the bedroom - those sexual acts. It all comes back down to sex, and of

3091:

I also find the distinction between 'homosexuality' and 'homosexual acts' to be incomprehensible in relation to real homosexual people- this is a distinction that only makes sense to straight members of certain religious groups. Assume that having sex is a 'homosexual act.' Is kissing a homosexual

3076:

It is a difficult call, because what the negative view appears to be about is any expression of homosexuality - not just behaviour. So, buggery is condemned, but then so is are same-sex relationships, partnerships, marriages, regardless of the sexual activity within them - and in many cases, simply

2305:

Sounds like a good start. I think having the section at a couple of paragraphs is long enough, so this would leave some room for future expansion. Eg. One on the biblical, one describing official church stances, one on catholic, one on protastant. But for now i think this shortened version is better

2280:

Historically, Christian churches have regarded homosexual sex as sinful, based on the Catholic understanding of the natural law and traditional interpretations of certain passages in the Bible. This position is today affirmed by most Christian groups, including the Catholic (1.1 billion members) and

2111:

I removed your text about what Mormonism believes about this because it was undue weight for a marginal view in a section about the three Abrahamic religions, and suggested you relocate it elswehere. On consuderation, I consider that some of the text I developed in the subsequent paragraph would be

2097:

homosexuality. That is all. It is not that big a big deal. It is not an interpretation, it is just the way it is. You are free to think that his talking about other things means he meant homosexuality. I'm only interested in what the sources say, as this isn't Bible-study, it is Knowledge (XXG).

2049:

Second point. No, you have the point of view that homosexuality is a form of sexual immorality, therefore when Jesus speaks about some form of sexual immorality he includes homosexuality, which is a view you are entitled to, but it does not mean Jesus discussed homosexuality - only that he discussed

1988:

I find this confusing - it is being implied that since Jesus made no direct reference to homosexuality that he is accepting it. Yet Jesus made no direct reference to lots of other things, such as incest, pedophilia, bestiality etc - are we suggesting that Jesus was accepting of these things since he

1965:

While there is nothing said before St. Paul about lesbianism, I appreciate that one passage can be read this way (not the one you raised), so I have inserted a comment about women engaging in unnatural sex from St.Paul to the Romans, although lesbianism is only implied in the context of what is said

1690:

It is a very weak link, which cites a paper that refers to a comment by a pastors wife in California. Is this notable enough for the weight given in the article? I don't see how, especially as it consists of a report of a comment made on a blog from what I can see. It does say orientation, but it

1214:

Well, if you can't present a version that makes sense to the reader then it needs to be removed. Let me try to understand where you are coming from. You are saying because some churches teach there is no such thing as a homosexual orientation, that means they teach that homosexual orientation is a

510:

I think you make an interesting point. Why did the fathers feel the need to bring the topic up at all? To help us to decide whether authors were writing against heretics versus merely what they considered scandalous moral behavior, we can look at other examples. Whenever church fathers wrote against

481:

I am going to remove "The first chapter of the Epistle to the Romans contains the only explicit mention of lesbianism in the Bible, calling it 'against nature'" as it passage in question does NOT explicitly or even clearly refer to lesbianism. Commentaries interpret the passage in question in Romans

446:

I also agree that there is a problem with vagueness in the following: “While homosexual behavior is rejected to the present day, contemporary guides to pastoral care reflect an ethos informed by compassion and respect of the sanctity of other.” First, I agree that “HS behavior is rejected...” is too

199:

toward homosexuality has been much debated." It implies that there has been extensive mainstream debate regarding this issue, and that is simply not true. WP:UNDUE states that "We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority

165:

I found some of the later sections repetitive. Particularly the "Neopaganism and sexuality" says almost the same thing as the previous subsection about "Neopagan religion". It also seems the article is first trying to organize the content by religion and then alluding to the same things organized by

3726:

people associated with your opinion are making- it is not a distinction that is made by people with other opinions, or with the researchers who have studied the subject. And since Knowledge (XXG) strives for neutrality, we try not to make distinctions that would inherently represent only one point

3633:

Actually. you're wrong - the paragraph in question is not about churches who accept/welcome homosexuals...it is about churches who accept homosexuality. There is a difference. Almost every church welcomes homosexuals (as sinners in need of forgiveness) in the same way as they welcome heterosexuals

3504:

Hello - I changed the word 'homosexuality' to 'homosexual behaviour' because the previous paragraph used the 'behaviour phrase' and was clearly consequential to the first - I though it made the article more consistent. I don't agree that 'homosexual behaviour' is open to some interpretation - it is

3484:

What was there was 'homosexuality', which got changed to 'homosexual behaviour' and back and forth. The argument for 'behaviour' is that scripture refers to 'acts'. So, that would rule out much homosexual behaviour from the list. For instance - miming to Abba or Freddie Mercury, camp comedians,

3142:

Mish, I'd like you to clear up what you said because you're kind of contridicting yourself there. However if you don't mind I'm going to use it to my advantage. You said that reducing a relationship to sex is dehumanizing the relationship, however you also said that buying a partner flowers implies

3037:

Fisher, I would say that saying that homosexuality is something to be avoided would be (somewhat) viewing homosexuality negatively, however what it currently talks about is homosexual practices. What I mean is (in most cases) it is the homosexual acts that are seen negatively, and not homosexuality

2600:

It is not sacrificing content, it is keeping it in the articles it is supposed to be in. Christianity should not have a section bigger than every asian or african religion combined, it is a massive WP:Coatrack, and not a help to readers who want to learn about all religions. If people want to write

2577:

Homosexuality and religion is a somewhat controversial topic and existing text should be excised with great care and sensitivity. Even more vigilance is needed when the material to be removed attempts to provide a wider cultural or geographic context (e.g., Africa, Canada, views of black Americans,

2096:

Instead of arguing about it, provide a source that shows Jesus discussing homosexuality. That is all you need to do. Siker is simply a source which states that Jesus doesn't mention homosexuality, that is all, no more no less, he is not the fact, he describes the fact, that Jesus does not mention

2026:

You said "This is not a place to promote one particular understanding of theology and the Bible as if that is neutral". I'm not the one doing that. You are. If I were to insert the phrase "Jesus taught against homosexuality", then that would be promoting my own view. I deleted the phrase that Jesus

1973:

I would move the section, however, it is intertwined with detail about Judaism and Hebrew scripture, and there was some care taken in ensuring sections of the New Testament were incorporated into this section, and a {{fact}} tag placed there which necessitated expansion to show how this featured in

1643:

The paper distinguishes homosexual attraction from homosexual sexual activity, and equates homosexuality with the attraction rather than the act. By claiming that homosexuality is an unchosen "condition," rather than a sin of the heart, the author contradicts the teaching of Scripture that both the

1620:

Most of the content in the "Religious opposition to homosexuality" and "Religious support for homosexuality" sections is beliefs of specific religions. Would there be any objection to merging it into the appropriate subsections of "Views of specific religious groups"? What remains could be either

1571:

Actually Jesus did judge people - for example pharisees and money-changers - but his central message was forgiveness for past actions was available for those who were sorry for their past actions. That is not unconditional acceptance as was suggested above - it is very much conditional. Homosexuals

1165:

page, orientation is defined as "an enduring pattern of or disposition to experience sexual, affectional, or romantic attractions primarily to people of the same sex." I don't know of any church that teaches a disposition to have attractions is sinful. That is my question. Yes there are churches

1033:

article. They actively promote the religious version of reparative therapy, and their viewpoints concerning homosexuality are fairly consistent with Abrahamic religions in general, but I'd like more informed opinions from folk here. Actually, I've been having trouble getting the views of the AFA to

869:

an explicit condemnation of same-sex relations, and the editorial voice acknowledges this in the last sentence by saying, "same-sex relations are included under sexual immorality". So I removed the part that is not an explicit condemnation, as well as the final sentence justifying it, as being both

864:

condemnation of same-sex relations, and gives the "man lying with man as with a woman" quote from Leviticus, and the "burning with lust toward one another" quote from Romans. That's fine; that's explicit condemnation of same-sex relations. But then the paragraph also gives the quote from Acts where

464:

I’ll remedy the problem with the first half (“HS behavior is rejected....”) by changing it to “homosexual behavior is rejected to the present day by most denominations...”. I am not sure what to do with the second problem. I think it is a very important statement, especially since it differentiates

236:

I propose the following revision that more accurately reflects the current situation. I would like to see refs to the historians and theologians who represent the revisionist view, but I do not know who they are. I also need a citation for the interpretation of Romans 1 that claims that it condemns

3747:

Good point, (though left-handedness is not a behaviour!) By the way, you make my point for me when you say "the distinction you are making is a distinction which is only made by the people who are opposed to homosexuality, and no one else" - the 'no one else' group are those who are not opposed to

3373:

message - that nearly every religions are against homosexuality. (2) Follows from this that there are quite a little number of citations. And that these citations are not really relevant in the topic or interpreted falsely. An example. This is a well-known and objective citation from the article:

2977:

The text in the introduction seems to be a little biased where it says "Current authoritative bodies and doctrines of the world's largest religions generally view homosexuality negatively. This can range from quietly discouraging homosexual activity, explicitly forbidding same-sex sexual practices

2148:

Mormonism isn't even considered Christian by most Christians, nor by any mainstream Christian denomination, and is not a member of WCC - so why it should be included in a section about the three Abrahamic religions is not clear to me. This is a fairly novel interpretation of this passage. So, to

2022:

Your argument is that Jesus taught against fornication, but that doesn't apply to gay people because they can't have sexual intercourse with each other? I think your definition of sexual intercourse is off. Fornication is sexual intercourse between two people who are not married, same-sex couples

1860:

This seems like OR. How can you say Jesus didn't reference homosexuality? He did on several occasions. Homosexuality was addressed when he denounced adultery (Mark 10:19) when he denounced fornication(Mark 7:21) and when he commanded a man to cleave to his wife (Mark 10:19). Seems like someone's

1556:

He didn't judge people either, but that hasn't stopped his followers from doing so ever since. The problem is that Knowledge (XXG) is about accuracy and NPOV, and religion is about belief which is POV, but belief that is constructed in a way that makes it appear as reality. So, it is possible to

758:

is saying. Can Angr expand on why the context argument is not valid? I also wonder if Angr’s objections have to do with form and the fact of the matter or only form. In other words, does Angr care about what Paul did or did not actually intend? I thought I knew what Paul intended, but I think Angr

709:

It's definitely not OR to suggest gay sex is sexually immoral. Most Christians throughout history have believed that. Although it is historically the principle POV of Christians, it is still POV. Rather than remove it completely, it could be reworded to explain the relationship with gay sex and

399:

are not committing an abomination. I don't know whether the Roman Catholic Church has ever been explicit in their definition of sodomy, though. The sentence "While homosexual behavior is rejected to the present day" in the last paragraph is vague in its application; are we still only talking about

134:

of the acceptance of homosexuality, the arguments used were never religious, and yet a discussion about the morality of homosexuality would happen. Maybe those common arguments could be in this article. Like the common view that it is not natural to be gay and therefore it is wrong. And the common

3778:

I'm going to try and look at this from a neutral perspective (I know this is old, but this is really bugging me). It is definitely not hatred to claim that someone should not act on their attractions. The fact is, there is a difference between believing homosexual relations are wrong and treating

3430:

Child prostitution is a major problem in many countries, including those with strong Christian, Muslim and Hindu cultures. Would it therefore be correct to say that Christianity, Islam and Hinduism do not condemn child prostitution? I agree that a citation for the current text is desirable, but I

3414:

starts: "Asian societies shaped by Buddhist traditions take a strong ethical stand in human affairs and sexual behavior in particular. However, unlike most other world religions, most variations of Buddhism do not go into details as to what is right and what is wrong in what it regards as mundane

3372:

Hi people, I think someone should rewrite this whole article. I would do it myself, but my English is honestly not good enough. Reasons to rewrite it: (1) Reading back all the comments, the article was very subjective from the start. Since then, it has changed a lot, but it still spreads a false

2573:

I've reverted some recent edits that removed a fairly substantial amount of supportive material that was fully referenced. While I certainly understand the desire to edit for brevity, removal of fully referenced material that is positive in its view of homosexuality and religions should first be

2232:

I agree. My suggestion has been to take it out completely - not to favor my view or that of MishMich. However, if he insists on including that Christ never mentioned homosexual behavior, in order to be balanced it would need to mention that Christ condemned fornication. Right now it seems as if

2203:

This discussion is pointless. This is an overview article that should be simply using summary-style to precis the subarticles that we have on each religion. All this research has already been done - this should not act as a content fork for information that isn't in the subarticles. The Abrahmic,

2045:

First point. This is not what I said, so no point discussing with you about something I didn't say. I don't care if you think the definitions are off, they are what they are. The point is that Jesus did not discuss homosexuality. However you want to phrase it, he did not, and whether you read

1494:

I've added two references and one specific example of a large denomination explicitly supporting homosexuality (the United Church of Canada) but this section needs many more references. Most of its statements are currently unsupported and the editorial charge of weasel words is, given the current

683:

roles. The active role is played by men who do not self-identify as homosexual, who typically conform to societal expectation to marry and have children and view their homosexual adventures as further confirmation of their masculinity. While this construction reflects the way Muslim men generally

428:

Please feel free to revise the use of "sodomy." One of the problems we struggle with when talking about ancient ideas about "homosexuality" is that our construct, how we think of HS, is (as you probably know) arguably relatively new (19th century). Ancient literature doesn’t support the idea that

210:

Without commenting on the UNDUE point (I just don't know enough to say), I added a ref that (especially in the subpages about specific passages) seems to lay out the possible interpretations and points to advocates of opposing views. It's not a scholarly source, but maybe a good starting point.

3160:

No contradiction there at all. It is not only the sexual act, it is also the relationship, and the sexuality includes relationships. Same for heterosexuality, it includes relationships as well as sexual acts. Restricting homosexuality to homosexual acts is defamatory, as it is about more than

2003:

That is incorrect. Saying that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality says nothing about whether he accepted it or not. It states a fact. If you want to find a source that argues that his discussion about divorce and adultery implies that he also included homosexuality, that is up to you, but

1661:

Hi there. I reverted you because I think you may have misunderstood the reference. The bit you quote is the author of the article actually referring to the claims contained in another article (the paper) - it would therefore be wrong to quote words from this sentence as though they reflected the

1361:

The homosexual orientation is sinful in the sense that it is contrary to the creation order, is a result of the fall, and is therefore an objectively sinful condition tending toward actual sin. It stands under the same divine judgment that original sin stands under. It is "an abomination" in the

3001:

I don't agree that the picture turns the article into "Christians acts against homosexuals," since there are no other pictures of Christians acting against homosexuals, nor is the article focused in that direction. I'd have no problem with moving the picture further down the page if you have a

220:

I appreciate your efforts, and I like the ref, but I also find the dichotomy the ref’d page creates too simplistic and, therefore, grossly inaccurate. I would leave it in place, and I would add here that it lacks authority. For example, it states that “conservative theologians” accept a literal

3612:

I want to note that the paragraph in question is about churches who accept/welcome homosexuals; those churches would not use the term "homosexual behavior" to describe what the welcome- they'd say that they welcome homosexual people. It isn't a fair or accurate paragraph if it describes those

2985:

Those are my complaints for the introduction. Hopefully someone could take this and change not only the introduction, but the rest of the article, to something where religion and homosexuality are not are not presented as good guys and bad guys (not necessarily respectively) but something that

1747:

I notice the link you give does not lead to the version I happen to prefer (Today's New International Version). Never mind - I was not trying to push any particular translation, because it all comes down to whether you believe that what the bible counts as the supreme authority in deciding our

1731:

There has been an attempt to push one or two translations of scripture here, most recently the 'Amplified Bible' (and now Today's NIV). I have replaced these with links which will allow the reader to select the Bible they prefer. It is not appropriate to include a reference from a particular

1374:

However, I do think a homosexual Christian can and ought to repent of his or her homosexual inclination in the same way that we ought to repent of original sin. In other words, we ought to acknowledge our own personal moral culpability for our sinful corruption inherited from Adam. We ought to

3377:

And what the article says referred to this citation: 'Among the Taoic religions of East Asia, such as Taoism, passionate homosexual expression is usually discouraged because it is believed to not lead to human fulfillment.' My conclusion is that we should be objective here, either we support

2791:

I know we're everywhere, but it's all about Religious views on Homosexuality, which to me posits that Gay people aren't Religious if the Religion they were raised with or identify with has a negative view on them. I think there needs to be information about how Gay people in various Religions

2368:

This is actually incorrect, only Anglo-American masons will require deistic beliefs as a supplement to another religion, while Grand Orient masons elsewhere in the world are in fact closer to agnosticism and atheism. In any case, there is certainly a freethinking masonic spirituality that has

1961:

Mark 10:6 to 10:19 is Jesus' teaching on divorce and adultery, and it takes some twisting to make this out to be about homosexuality, especially as Jesus does not discuss two men or two women having sex together (and presumably in discussing divorce in his context he was assuming heterosexual

3187:

I began tagging unsourced material, then I found an article tag applied in a section from 2007. I have moved the article tag to the start of the article, where article tags should be, so I don't have to tag all the unsourced material. I will start going through the article and removing any

3890:

While I appreciate Dominus doing what he believes best, I would like to appeal his removal of my edit. Please weigh in on this issue and help us decide if wiki readers would be better informed by Akin's thoughts and my edit. Please note that Akin's perspective is widely held by traditional

2663:

As for balance, the material on Christianity now almost exclusively focuses on Roman Catholicism and American protestant churches. Other than a good list of 20th century theologians, the article now refers to Fred Phelps (American), Jerry Falwell (American), the Church of Latter Day Saints

1808:

Hi all. I added a religious topics box above the LGBT topics box ( to reflect the order of the title) and this was then changed to have the LGBT topics box above the religions topic box. I don't mind, but thought the order should reflect the title of the article. Why not move the article to

1518:

Another point, I think the article should weigh the quotes and passages in question with the overall message of the religion. For example, isn't it a little irresponsible to base Christianity's overall intolerance of homosexuals on a few quotes when Jesus' overall message was unconditional

623:

I am suggesting the addition of a new section entitled "Homosexuality and spirituality" which will treat the omnidenominational, interreligious movement of LGBT adherents (esp. gay and bisexual men) committed to spiritual perspectives not covered elsewhere in the article because they're not

1514:

Hello, I read this article, and I thought that the overall message was misleading. This article is supposed to be about 'Homosexuality and Religion', but instead focuses on Religious intolerance of homosexuality. Granted, the latter has occurred, but the article then goes onto make broad

962:

You might be right. It would call for another section on how “sexual immorality” in the New Testament = man-man homosexual acts. I don’t know if such research exists, but even if it does, I see no point in pursuing it. It really adds nothing but verbiage (IMO). Thanks for the edits and the

3579:

No, actually the Bible does not mention homosexual sex ever. That is because the concept of homosexuality did not exist prior to 1869/70 (although there was a proto-typical gay subculture in the 18th century, it was not then known as homosexuality, because it was sodomy that prohibited);

1928:

conjugal infidelity. An adulterer was a man who had illicit intercourse with a married or a betrothed woman, and such a woman was an adulteress. Intercourse between a married man and an unmarried woman was fornication. Adultery was regarded as a great social wrong, as well as a great sin.

3062:

that some groups consider only gay sex sinful, and don't have a problem with celibate gay people, but that's still a negative view of homosexuality -- if they had a neutral or positive view of homosexuality, they would encourage gay sex or treat it the same way they treat straight sex. --

1522:

This is just something to think about...90% this article analyzes what, at best, can be considered the article writers' interpretations of vague quotes from religous texts, and on the otherhand the only part mentioning religious support for homosexuals is poorly written paragraph with no

2204:

Christianity and Judaism sections should be reduced to merely a couple of paragraphs of prose (no ugly lists), otherwise this article deserves a "worldwide" and "Undue weight" template. Readers want an overview of all religions here, not a coatrack for Christians to add their disputes.

1989:

didn't mention these? Seems to me that the most we can safely say in the article is that "some people believe that the fact that Jesus didn't directly condemn homosexuality is significant, whereas other disagree pointing out that Jesus also didn't condemn a range of other behaviours."

649:

I removed the following unsourced paragraph from the article because it does not seem to have anything to do with the topic of Religion and Homosexuality. If someone can source the statements and re-write in a way that focuses on religion and homosexuality, please feel free to return

4282:. My suggestion would be to remove info regarding any religion in the lead. The section regarding Religions already explains this. By the way, the vast majority of Hindus in India reject homosexuality and consider it to be a taboo. I don't need any so called reliable source for this. 985:

no modern Christians would stop to ask whether the hamburger they're eating was killed by knife or by pneumatic bolt. How did they come to put so much emphasis on one part of the text, which seems to have some ambiguity, while ignoring another part that seems more plainly written?

2574:

discussed here on this talk page before destructive editing takes place. This is especially the case when the material has not been copied over into another more extensive article (e.g., Christianity and Homosexuality) but instead, merely deleted from Knowledge (XXG) entirely.

1890:

Etymology: Late Latin fornicatio, from fornicare to have intercourse with prostitutes, from Latin fornic- fornix arch, vault, brothel: consensual sexual intercourse between a man and esp. single woman who are not married to each other; also : the crime of engaging in fornication.

556:

Of course, there are many sources given in the article. However, the STRONG bias in the lead paragraphs presenting "Abrahamic" religion as the source of homophobia the world over is totally unsourced. It would be a one-sided POV even if sourced -- unsourced, it's pure propaganda.

3519:

I only have to read what you wrote to see why it is not neutral. If you are referring to sexual behaviour, then specify this. For instance, two male penguins who bring an egg to hatching abandoned by others, and raise the chick, is seen as homosexual behaviour - but it is not

3662:

for the purpose of adding your opinion to the article. Changing the term does not make the article better or more accurate; it makes the article more biased and less accurate. Those are the reasons that you are not finding any consensus to make the change you'd like to make.

3022:

I agree that the picture needs relocating within the Christian section and balancing with a picture of LGBT Christians, there are two other religions represented in photographs. Perhaps we could have one of homosexuals being whipped under Sharia Law from somewhere or other?

4146:

Mahakavi Kalidas has also condemned homosexual relations in his poetic literature ‘Raghuvansh’. Mahamahopadhyaya Dr. P. V. Kane, a ‘Bharatratna’ awardee has mentioned that, since a woman is respected in the form of a mother in Hindu Dharma, having homosexual relations is a

541:

the person who started pederasty in Japan. Kukai being the one of the most respected Buddhist saints in Japanese Buddhism, this is highly offensive to Japanese Buddhism, as this implies that he condone child abuse. I also suspect that this edit was inserted by a member of

2542:

that talk about it being a religion. Seriously, if you want to write something about Freemasonry and homosexuality, that's fine, but not here - Nazism had a spiritual basis as well (all-be-it a synthesis of pop-religion and social-Darwinism), but it doesn't belong here.

1936:

I can see why you might extrapolate that to include sex between people of the same sex, but that is not in the source. When homosexuality is mentioned, it is done so using specific descriptions that do not give any suggestion that this is adultery or fornication (e.g.,

911:

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I didn't realize that I my edit would make the passage more objectionable to you. Sorry about that. I saw what you were suggesting about the OR of the editorial voice, and I was trying to fix that. I see your point and agree with

4467: 99:

Would you like to begin an article for that title which would deal with morality exclusive of religious beliefs? Frankly, I don't know if much of an article could be created. Is there anything like consistent non-religious positions to right about? But give it a try!

3319:

If the humanists and atheists believe themselves to constitute religions, they're welcome here, but if they don't, let them outside! Marxism is often considered being a religion, so why not – when the few remaining communists decide they're adherents of a religion.

3685:

Sorry for my unintentional error; those people claim to 'love the sinner but hate the sin.' When someone is trying to love and hate the same person at the same time, I get mixed up- it's not unlike a husband who claims that he beats his wife because he loves her.

2286:

Perhaps something along the lines of this brief entry would be better? Then any material that is in currently in the section that is not in the main article could be relocated there. It stikes me that much of the recent discussion is more relevant for the article

1640:

I changed the sentence "Some teach that claiming homosexual orientation itself is sinful" to "Some teach that homosexual attraction is inherently sinful". I did this because 1) The original sentence is confusing and 2) I looked at the reference, and it says that

2875:

article. I have placed a template to merge this article into LGBT matters and religion, as the topic would be better served by one article giving coverage of all aspects of LGBT matters and religion than two - one for homosexuality and one for transgenderism.

3207:

I am bi and Muslim and I have no problem with that. God, in Islam, I believe, does not care about one's sexual orientation but only their deeds, or taqwa (God consciousnes) Perhaps citations by Irshad Manji as well as traditional sources should be advanced?

496:

I agree that there are many old church records of aruguments against homosexual activity.... however, they had to be arguing WITH someone who believed differently. Its likely that as the losing side, documents support of the other way of thinking just didn't

359:'s statement which condemns "the union of women with women and men with men.” While homosexual behavior is rejected to the present day, contemporary guides to pastoral care reflect an ethos informed by compassion and respect of the sanctity of other. 4208:

Interestingly BBC claims that there is no mention of homosexuality in Hindu scriptures at all and most Hindus consider homosexuality as a taboo. What is the credibility of the claim that homosexuality is not a sin when you have got no mention of

2811:

should be in there, along with stats (I'm sure there are some) on how many people stay with their faith vs. leave (or more nuanced options, such as "find a different group within that faith"). I'm not sure where to find it either... I'll look.

1918:, or more modern uses; for example, Paul uses it to refer to a quasi-incestuous relationship between a young man and his step-mother. Again, though, this is a heterosexual relationship, and it is not used in the context of homosexual congress. 3634:(as sinners in need of forgiveness). However, 'accepting homosexuality' is to accept homosexual sex as not being inherently sinful. You are correct that some churches do accept homosexuality in those terms, so I see no problem with saying so. 2646:, rather than merely dumping it on the talk page. In any event, the paucity of material on, say, Islam, is not for lack of research -- there just isn't much published currently material that can be referenced that is gay positive and Islamic. 4301:

Why I have to bother about a source that has nothing to do with this page? Now if you want to gossip, I cannot help you, but state a permanent fact that no hindu ever went on killing rampage of homosexuals or even 1 homosexual. Done already.

4363:

in the lead because most religions including Abrahamic religions don't view being simply homosexual as a sin. The trouble lies with homosexual acts. Keeping in view all this discussion my suggestion would be to remove Hinduism from the lead.

2973:

First, the picture. Though that may be a picture of Christian protesters, putting "Christian Protesters" as part of the caption, quickly changes this article from being "Religion and Homosexuality" to "Christian Acts Against Homosexuals".

3910:

The Reconciling Ministries Network is working within the United Methodist Church to welcome all regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. I think the article does not fully represent groups like RMN trying to reform things

3657:

on homosexuality into the article, by using a phrase which is inherently biased and which is not in widespread use, but used only by people on one side of this issue. I cannot think of any reason why you would want to change the term

2253:@JoshuaJohnson. I agree also, and I have removed the list (as per YobMod's suggestion) and the disputed paragraph that follows them, with a brief summary introduction to the sections that follow, which all point to specific articles. 1219:. How about we word it a bit more straightforward, like "Some churches teach that there is no such thing as a homosexual orientation." Again, I would need a reference for that, but at least we are saying what it is and don't put in 855:, Paul echoes the command in Acts, that Christians are to avoid sexual immorality. It is clear that “men burning with lust toward one another” and acting on that lust is, along with other offenses, considered to be “sexually immoral.” 4468:

http://oncourse.ag.org/help/index.cfm?targetBay=24b28860-fb44-4e27-92a1-a2fe92076e8b&ModID=2&Process=DisplayArticle&RSS_RSSContentID=9123&RSS_OriginatingChannelID=1202&RSS_OriginatingRSSFeedID=3859&RSS_Source=

4053: 810:

authorities have traditionally been explicitly condemnatory of same-sex sexual relations, namely, "man lying with man as one lies with a woman" and men "burning with lust toward one another." Where the Catholic view is founded on a

3706:

A better analogy is a parent who loves his or her child even when that child has done something really bad. Most children in that situation can understand that parents can still love them even though they hate what they have done.

1646:". This seems to clearly state that the author of the reference considers homosexual attraction to be a sin. It is also the only appearance of the word "claiming" in the reference. What is "claiming homosexual orientation"? -- 3188:

unsourced material. It has been article-tagged for three years, which is plenty of time for people to provide sources for uncorroborated statements. The purpose of doing this is to improve the article, and the encyclopedia.

368:

In the 20th and 21st century, a few historians and theologians have challenged the traditional understanding and claim that passages have been mistranslated or that they do not refer to what we understand as “homosexuality.”

1974:

reliable sources, as well as your recent deletion of material that necessitated elaboration to show this. If you want all the Christian material relocated, fine, but only moving the bits you don't like seems a bit biased.

1411:"The Presbytery of Southern California of The Orthodox Presbyterian Church charges you, the Rev. C. Lee Irons, with publicly promoting and encouraging the practice of homosexuality, in violation of the seventh commandment." 746:

is saying. What a statement means has to do with context. In the context of Paul’s and NT writings, it is not a stretch to see "homosexual acts" as part of "sexual immorality". On the other hand, I think I might see what

2830:

Be careful of original research. There are quite a few LGBT people who are quite happy in religions that teach against same-sex relationships. Don't assume because some LGBT people have a problem with it, that all do.

1142:

In denying that orientation exists, churches that do so reduce what is normally called "orientation" to a set of behaviors and beliefs that they consider sinful, hence "homosexual orientation" = just another word for

670:

who routinely would be entertainers by profession and who would be both despised for their submissive sexual role and admired for their skills. In earlier years these would have had their start through the traditional

2419:

Cannot see anything on the Freemasonry page about it being a religion. Why don't you do an article on it - and incorporate it into the Freemasonry project? Then you can stick the LGBT project template on it as well.

3525:

homosexual behaviour may be sexual activity, but that is your view - the religion may have something about acts, but nothing to say about pairs of male penguins acting as surrogate parents. 23:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

2167:

NPOV would be to neither push my point of view or your point of view. Since you don't seem to think Mormons are an Abrahamic religion, here is yet ANOTHER place where they same Jesus condemned homosexual behavior.

2605:

article. The removed material is on the talk page there. This is how the sub-article organisation works. No matter how supportive or not, this level of detail is simply inappropriate for a top level article about

865:

Paul tells the Gentiles that to be Christians they don't have to be circumcised, but they do have to refrain from (1) consuming blood, (2) eating the meat of strangled animals, and (3) sexual immorality. This is

3721:

True. But hating your child for an innate quality- hating your child's left-handedness, or your child's red hair- would generally be considered to be bad parenting. And there, again, is the distinction which

2775:

There are religions that LGBT people typically belong to? If so, and if you can find sourced information on it, by all means add it. But I'm not aware of any "typical LGBT" religions. We're everywhere :)

1362:

sight of our holy God (Lev. 18:22; 20:13), not only because it is contrary to God's will, but because (unlike most other sexual sins) it violates the order of gender complementarity established at creation.

3285:

I have been thinking that a section about non-religious views of Homosexuality should be included (Atheist, Secular, etc.) but I'm having trouble tracking down information on the subject, can anyone help?

4052:

Personal fabrication by some unknown unreliable source. Buddhism doesn't force sexuality, it doesn't say that you burn in hell even for fornication, but evidently condemns homosexuality as 'misconduct'.

2349:

As you say, Freemasonry is not a religion. It is an openly secret society whose members follow a religion like Christianity, Judaism or Islam, it is supplementary to a given religion, not alternative.

1954:

Sexual intercourse - sexual contact between individuals involving penetration, especially the insertion of a man’s erect penis into a woman’s vagina culminating in orgasm and the ejaculation of semen.

999:

Yeah, those dietary things never caught on among Gentile Christians. The English eat blood pudding, the Germans eat blood sausage, all in spite of having been Christian for a thousand years or more. —

929:'s suggestion, even a link to published source saying same-sex relations have traditionally been considered immoral in Christianity (duh!) isn't going to change the fact that the Acts quote is not an 302:, the "Apostle to the Gentiles," echo this exhortation to "avoid sexual immorality." It is clear that sodomy is one of several behaviors considered to be “sexually immoral.” The first chapter of the 2330:

Freemasonry is not usually classified as a religion, although as a secret society, it is often thought to be a kind of sect. In any case, there ought to be additional material added on the topic of

4324:, again my question remained unanswered. Please tell me whether being homosexual is not a sin in Hinduism or homosexual acts are not a sin in Hinduism. The rest of dispute will be resolved quickly. 1949:); the definition makes no mention of things like cunnilingus or fellatio (or sodomy) because the sexual intercourse that takes place is usually taken to mean when a man puts his penis in a vagina. 604:

Individuals active in the human rights movement claim this opposition is part of a pattern of religiously-based (and Biblically rationalized) resistance to expansion of the sphere of human rights.

135:

answer to this which states that we all do things which are not "natural" every day, like driving a car and using condoms. Or the other answer which would see it as being natural. The article on

1596:

Possibly, but that last bit is a POV. We have no way of knowing this, what we have is that there are sources that claim this. Just as there are sources that suggest that is an interpretation.

1090:, were renowned for cultivating a sophisticated homosexual aesthetic reflected in art and literature. The reconciliation of same-sex attraction with religious teachings may have been based on a 3933:

Great idea. Perhaps you could find some sources in newspapers, magazines, or news web sites and add some of this missing information to this article. Don't worry if your edits aren't perfect;

2023:

couldn't get married back then, and sexual intercourse includes penetration, especially involving a penis and a vagina, but not necessarily. Two woman can have penetration with their fingers."

662:

Same-sex relations between adult males are segregated in a manner analogous to the segregation between the sexes. Thus, the passive role is generally taken on by an underclass of males, often

3301:

Why? it is about religion and homoseuxality - atheism is not religion. What about humanist or communist views? Then it would need to be renamed something like 'views about homosexuality'.

126:

people who don´t practice a religion, yet have opinions about the morality of homosexual acts, for instance. In my high school, whenever we had a debate about homosexuality and someone was

3805:. I understand that some editors may want to make Falwell's views seem less mainstream, but that is dishonest. Fred Phelps and the WBC are a small fringe sect. Jerry Falwell never was. 4194:, you have still not answered my question about distinction between homosexual acts abd homosexuality. What about author of 'Gay Histories and Cultures', does he provide any reference. 3830:

Some Protestant churches condemn same-sex sexual relations based on the teachings of Jesus and scripture texts that describe a man lying with another man 18:22 as a sinful act.ref: -->

2466:

of the ancient Greco-Roman world. There is a huge difference between high-ranking and low-ranking initiates, and at the top levels Freemasonry is in fact very close to groups like the

3058:

I think we could have a better picture -- the current one implies that over-the-top protesters at a pride parade are representative of the intersection of religion and homosexuality.

1422:

debate is that he was being "charged" by this "court" partly for distinguishing between gay orientation and gay sex in an earlier paper. The Presbytery of Southern California of the

3528:

Sorry if I misunderstand, but I don't see anything radically different between 'behaviour' and 'activity' - I thought 'sexual' was already specified in homoSEXUAL and heteroSEXUAL.

3521: 4379:" In 2009, the Hindu Council UK became one of the first major religious organizations to support LGBT rights when they issued a statement "Hinduism does not condemn homosexuality"" 2486:

in the context of Masonic rituals. Most if not all secret societies are in fact very similar and they certainly have relevant views on debated social issues such as homosexuality.

874:

did a partial revert, he actually made it worse by removing only the concluding sentence, making it seem like the "sexual immorality" quote was explicitly about same-sex relations

3378:

homosexual people or not. Religions are not subjective scenarios. They are based on books or at least some people wrote books about them, which we should read with an open mind.

719:

It is definitely OR to imply that when Paul required Gentiles to abstain from "sexual immorality" he was referring to gay sex and not, say, heterosexual fornication or adultery. —

1287:

But original research is removed. If you can't find any reference of a church that teaches that the homosexual orientation itself it a sin, then that claim needs to be removed.

3077:

gay or lesbian identification. It is hard to see how you can distinguish between 'homosexuality' and any expression of homosexual love, simply by reducing this to 'behaviour'.

2306:

than what is there. We should make sure no sourced information is lost, so maybe copy the lonest version onto a subpage or talk page of homosexuality and christianity/the bible?

1188:

I agree that the position that there is no such thing as homosexual orientation is irrational, and so I'm unable to present you with a version of it that will make any sense.

262:

argument informed by scripture, the Protestant view is based more directly in the scripture. Nevertheless, there is a broad consensus among Christian organizations that the

925:

Actually, I didn't realize that your edit made the passage more objectionable either until I started analyzing the paragraph more carefully in my comment here! :-) As for

815:

argument informed by scripture, the Protestant view is based more directly upon scripture. Nevertheless, there is a broad consensus among Christian organizations that the

4487: 429:

people were entirely characterized by their sexuality (as we are today). If you can think of a better way of stating what the Church Fathers opposed, that would be great.

4605: 4601: 4587: 2149:

use Mormonism to insert a piece that presents Mormon beliefs as if they are mainstream Christian belief in an extensive passage in a short paragraph is what makes it

739:

is saying. What a statement means has to do with context. In teh context of Pauls writing, it is not a stretch to see "homosexual acts" as part of "sexual imorality"

465:

mainstreat Christianity from those who call themselves Chritians and yet whose attitude toward homosexuals can honestly be characterized as only fearful and hateful.

395:

it's explained that Orthodox Jews, at least, interpret the Leviticus passage as referring only to anal sex, so that gay men who, say, go no further than oral and/or

157:)Perhaps an added insertation should be done. An entire Conservative view of the matter. That way you can get rid of people claiming that this is bias article. 2610:. (And as a long-standing member of the LGBT project, i clearly didn't disproportionatly remove positive content, i simply removed details from each viewpoint) 587:

During Muslim rule (from the 10th to the 18th centuries AD), Middle-Eastern customs that were introduced to India include the castration of male servants and

3254: 3353:

I think say nothing about that. but how come some one says that Islam see homosexuality as natural? I'm going to delete that section soon if Allah wishes.

494:

Throughout all of Christian history, the Catholic Church and, later, Protestant authorities have been explicitly condemnatory of same-sex sexual relations

176:

The "Neopaganism and sexuality" and "Neopagan religion" sections actually have some phrases that are identical. For this reason I suggest merging them.

2195:

This source also says he didn't mention it. "While it is true that there is no NT record of where Jesus explicitly stated that homosexuality is wrong".

1495:

text, a valid one. Please contribute specific referenced examples from major Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, or other denominations around the world.

768:

It seems like this can be easily resolved by citing to a prominent commentator and describing the interpretation as a common one (if that's correct).

3880: 2268: 1366:

He then goes on to qualify this, saying that although homosexual orientation is an aspect of "original sin," it is not an "actual transgression." But

76: 64: 59: 4383:

I don't agree with this statement. Plenty polytheistic religions of the Ancient world were fine with homosexuality, suck as the Greek and Roman ones.

1387:? I have never heard of it, but I'm typing it in double brackets and hoping that when I press "Save Page" it will be transformed into a useful link. 4115:

Following respectable Hindu site states that Hindu religion does not accept homosexual acts. You can't simply claim that it is unreliable source.

2807:

Okay, yes, there should be information on how LGBT folks deal with their faith, especially when that faith is traditionally unfriendly to them.

3956:, because it is not a religion. Also, the section is inadequately-sourced and written in a non-neutral manner (almost like an advertisement). - 634:

Sounds good to me. I wonder if what you are talking about would fit under a new "New Age" category, or would that do violence to your ideaology?

2845:

I'm not sure of the terminology, but yes it should include openly gay celibate or Married in opposite-sex relationships religious people. ----

2392: 3918: 3749: 3708: 3635: 3599: 3558: 3529: 3506: 3416: 1573: 1539: 1037:. Any information, advice, or input from any editor here will be appreciated. This is an interesting article by the way. Well done folks. 4264:, Again you have not answered my question whether being homosexual is not a sin in Hinduism or homosexual acts are not a sin in Hinduism. 3780: 1990: 4507: 4488:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120306041528/http://news.ncmonline.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=bc24b62d8bece96593d6041cc48a3f54

847:

describes “men, leaving the natural use of the woman, in their lust one toward another” as a consequence or punishment for the sin of

4497: 4168:

Article by a non notable commentor of the opinion website who provide no reference for his information, he must had a bad dream. Read

1749: 986: 4583:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

3737: 3696: 3673: 3623: 3215: 3102: 3012: 2267:@YobMod. In relation to your other point, about the excessive detail in the Homosexuality and Christianity section, I had a look at 4015:. But following source states that hindu scripture ManuSimriti is totally against homosexuality with extremely severe punishments. 1444:

says that homosexual orientation is a sin. And it also has delusions of grandeur about being part of the court system or something.

2046:'adultery' or 'fornication' to refer to homosexuality or not, the fact is he did not, so the statement is accurate and verifiable. 1404:

HAVE MERCY this is a zone of weirdness. It turns out that Lee Irons wrote the above in his defense in a so-called "trial" wherein:

1325:

Ugh, this is what I get for running my mouth! Tasked with sourcing an article I don't even edit! Fine, but you have to look, too.

2462:

is only revealed to advanced initiates and actually looks like an entirely different religion, because it integrates many of the

4278:

applies to you not me. The only conclusion that I get from this talk is that info regarding Hinduism in lead is obvious POV and

4545: 4491: 4084:. If one Hindu scripture rejects homosexuality with severe punishments then one can't claim that homosexuality is not a sin in 89:

Moral views on homosexuality redirects here. This makes no sense to me, as morality and religion are clearly different things.

47: 17: 545:

who has some problematic history with the founder's homosexual practice. Without verifiable citation, this statement must go.

3995: 3467: 3444: 2808: 2679: 2643: 2602: 2272: 4275: 4239: 1063:

states that if a person commits the sin they can repent and save their life. In early Middle Eastern cultures, such as the

3454:

Added - I looked up the citation given at the end of the paragraph: the text you wish to remove is already properly cited.

3394: 4648: 3162: 1783: 1441: 1423: 4169: 2722:". Please accept my apologies for the earlier linguistic inaccuracy (English not being my mothertongue...). Regards. -- 200:

view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views."

3884: 2904: 2288: 1030: 4213: 122:

I would really like to begin such an article! I believe it can be created and it could be a great article. There are

3801:

Jerry Falwell and his followers could never be considered by any reasonable person to be a "small fringe sect". See

891: 4429: 4100:

then there is no need to mention it in the lead because most religions don't view being simply homosexual as a sin.

3291: 2900: 2331: 38: 2896: 1029:

Hello all. I see there are editors of various points of view here. I would like input from any editor here on the

609:

If anyone can find sources to back up these statements, feel free to cite the sources and re-add the statements. —

3234:

Odd that there's no importance assessment! I assess high. Feel free to adjust. The topic is causing much debate.

2892: 2872: 1771: 1051:

I am removing the following paragraph as many parts of it have been tagged "citation needed" for several months:

139:

has some of those moral views independent of a religion. P.S.: I too sometimes spell "right" instead of "write".

4604:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

1418:

I don't know if he would've gone to like Presbyterian Prison if he lost the "trial" or what. But significant to

3922: 3810: 3753: 3712: 3639: 3603: 3562: 3533: 3510: 3420: 3067: 2912: 2836: 2817: 2781: 2238: 2177: 2139: 2077: 2036: 1866: 1651: 1626: 1292: 1228: 1171: 1132: 1076: 1577: 1543: 1528: 938:, rather than sexual immorality in general, which sources X, Y, and Z inform us includes same-sex relations. — 3784: 1994: 1375:

recognize that even apart from any actual sins that we have committed, we are guilty before a holy God The

4639: 4437: 2527: 2475: 1814: 1710: 1667: 3983: 3914: 3542:

It doesn't matter how you see it. That is a POV. The article is not meant to reflect how you see things.

3382: 3219: 3211: 3148: 3043: 2991: 1753: 1384: 1376: 990: 352: 315:

Apart from passages in the Bible, we see denunciations of sodomy in the earliest writings, such as in the

1524: 4623:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

4611: 4347: 4307: 4247: 4177: 4060: 3733: 3692: 3669: 3619: 3287: 3098: 3008: 2669: 2586: 2169: 1906:, and when used in the Bible it often has connections with idolatry (as idolatry is a form of religious 1767: 1500: 840: 651: 498: 324: 303: 177: 4436:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 3390: 3358: 3144: 3039: 2987: 1923:

Adultery - voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not their spouse.

697:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Religion_and_homosexuality&diff=160558585&oldid=160556044

167: 1468: 3896: 2741:

I have removed several references to pederasty. This appeared to confuse homosexuals with pederasts.—

2581:

Discussions of how to achieve brevity and clarity without sacrificing content are always welcomed. --

2519: 2467: 1779: 1748:

attitudes to these questions. I only highlighted the relevant bit of the verse to be helpful - sorry

1383:

However, Mr. Irons does not appear to be "a church" - he is just a Presbyterian minister. What's the

828: 391: 356: 336: 4653: 4508:

https://web.archive.org/web/19990221081940/http://badpuppy.com/gaytoday/garchive/events/051397ev.htm

4415: 4392: 4372: 4351: 4333: 4311: 4291: 4251: 4224: 4203: 4181: 4158: 4130: 4109: 4064: 4044: 3999: 3963: 3941: 3926: 3900: 3814: 3788: 3757: 3742: 3716: 3701: 3678: 3643: 3628: 3607: 3592: 3566: 3551: 3537: 3514: 3498: 3470: 3447: 3424: 3398: 3362: 3333: 3310: 3295: 3274: 3247: 3223: 3197: 3174: 3152: 3122: 3107: 3086: 3071: 3047: 3032: 3017: 2995: 2958: 2936: 2916: 2885: 2856: 2840: 2821: 2801: 2785: 2769: 2750: 2731: 2691: 2673: 2625: 2590: 2552: 2495: 2429: 2404: 2378: 2359: 2343: 2317: 2300: 2262: 2242: 2215: 2181: 2162: 2143: 2121: 2106: 2081: 2063: 2040: 2017: 1998: 1983: 1870: 1847: 1833: 1818: 1795: 1757: 1741: 1714: 1700: 1685: 1671: 1655: 1630: 1605: 1581: 1566: 1547: 1532: 1504: 1484: 1457: 1398: 1379:

teaches that we are personally guilty for original sin and liable to eternal judgment because of it.

1334: 1296: 1262: 1232: 1197: 1175: 1156: 1136: 1116: 1041: 1038: 1010: 994: 967: 949: 920: 905: 781: 772: 763: 730: 714: 703: 654: 638: 628: 613: 571: 561: 527: 501: 486: 469: 411: 400:

the RCs here? Certainly not all Christians, or even all denominations, reject homosexual behavior. —

375: 225: 215: 204: 180: 170: 154: 143: 117: 93: 4498:

https://web.archive.org/web/20101123025839/http://www.tpuuf.org/2008/08/03/glbt-in-world-religions/

4407: 3987: 3827:

Recently I attempted to make the following edit to the last paragraph in the Christianity section.

3806: 3063: 2908: 2832: 2813: 2777: 2234: 2173: 2135: 2073: 2069: 2032: 1862: 1763: 1647: 1622: 1288: 1224: 1167: 1128: 1075:, homosexuality was well documented to be entrenched in many aspects of the culture by exposure to 824: 743: 736: 711: 271: 151: 3934: 3386: 3354: 3349:

I don't know from where did the writer get that, the reference link is broken and the page now on

2535: 4571: 4557: 4533: 4519: 4475: 4461: 4447: 4411: 4388: 3991: 3973: 3845: 3588: 3547: 3494: 3463: 3440: 3306: 3193: 3170: 3118: 3082: 3028: 2954: 2932: 2881: 2687: 2548: 2425: 2400: 2355: 2296: 2258: 2158: 2117: 2102: 2059: 2013: 1979: 1955: 1843: 1829: 1810: 1791: 1737: 1706: 1696: 1681: 1663: 1621:

merged into "Religious groups and civil rights political activity" or made into a new section. --

1601: 1562: 625: 348: 4608:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

4525: 4279: 4271: 4235: 2150: 192: 4624: 4453: 2458:

is like what you said, it is a form of deism that tends to integrate many other religions. Its

1809:'Homosexuality and Religion' if the emphasis is supposed to be from a LGBT perspective? Cheers 582:

I'm removing the following statements that have been tagged as needing sources since February:

140: 90: 4368: 4329: 4287: 4220: 4199: 4154: 4126: 4105: 4040: 2727: 2715: 1880:, as is fornication. Fornication and adultery are usually taken to refer to heterosexual sex. 836: 340: 295: 136: 109: 3654: 2760:

Shouldn't there be information about what Religions the LGBT community typically belong to?--

4546:

https://web.archive.org/web/20060716123613/http://www.uua.org/news/freedomtomarry/index.html

4511: 4492:

http://news.ncmonline.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=bc24b62d8bece96593d6041cc48a3f54

4343: 4321: 4303: 4261: 4243: 4191: 4173: 4073: 4056: 3969: 3728: 3687: 3664: 3614: 3325: 3266: 3253:

Too high! I readjusted to Mid level for religion in an attempt to follow the guide line for

3239: 3093: 3003: 2852: 2797: 2765: 2720:

Added data, reinstating previous reference (prior to current editings), on convergent (...)

2665: 2618: 2582: 2312: 2210: 1775: 1496: 1480: 1453: 1394: 1330: 1258: 1193: 1152: 890:

about more general condemnation of sexual immorality. After all, this article is not called

4631: 4501: 1914:(which is what is translated into 'fornication') is a broader word than the Latin root for 1059:

has been less severe compared to its Abrahamic counterparts: Judaism and Christianity. The

306:

contains the only explicit mention of lesbianism in the Bible, calling it "against nature".

3892: 3862: 803: 396: 344: 247: 4018: 2539: 2531: 2050:

sexual immorality (in this case, divorce, adultery and fornication). That is verifiable.

2005: 1967: 1886: 1877: 1572:

who are not sorry for their homosexual behaviour can not be forgiven for that behaviour.

1220: 1216: 823:, denounces same-sex sexual relations between men as sinful and, in the eyes of God, an " 4666: 1924: 4667:

Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons

4590:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 3802: 3486: 2871:

Somebody placed a template to merge LGBT matters and religion into this article on the

2447: 1111: 1005: 944: 926: 913: 900: 844: 769: 753: 725: 610: 406: 299: 212: 4630:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

4597: 4539: 2334:, in order to better discern the views of masonic lodge organizations on the subject. 4384: 4096:, then it needs to be mentioned in lead. But if homosexuality simply is not a sin in 4088:. Furthermore, you need to distinguish between whether homosexuality is not a sin in 3960: 3584: 3543: 3490: 3455: 3432: 3302: 3189: 3166: 3114: 3078: 3024: 2950: 2928: 2877: 2746: 2683: 2544: 2491: 2463: 2421: 2396: 2374: 2351: 2339: 2292: 2254: 2154: 2113: 2098: 2055: 2009: 1975: 1892: 1839: 1825: 1787: 1733: 1692: 1677: 1597: 1558: 1253:

The existence of lots of ideas that don't make sense is reported on Knowledge (XXG).

1162: 1127:

it accurate to say they are against homosexuality, or just homosexual relationships?

1068: 320: 4549: 3374: 4364: 4325: 4283: 4216: 4195: 4150: 4122: 4101: 4036: 3870: 3833: 2723: 2523: 2471: 663: 254:

authorities have been explicitly condemnatory of male homosexual behavior, namely

102: 1930: 4679: 4214:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/rs/relationships/hiloveandsexrev1.shtml

1440:

So ... I think that's pretty clear! The Presbytery of Southern California of the

4403: 3876: 3321: 3262: 3235: 2846: 2793: 2761: 2611: 2307: 2205: 1476: 1449: 1390: 1326: 1254: 1189: 1148: 1064: 812: 691:

Is it OR and POV to equate sexual immorality in Christianity with homosexuality?

679: 667: 558: 546: 274:" — a term used to describe harsh disapproval of a wide range of offenses, from 259: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2271:, and this seems to provide a reasonable summary/intro for the main article on 4596:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 1490:

Additional References Needed for "Religious Support for Homosexuality" Section

1105:

If anyone can find a source to back these claims up, feel free to re-add it. —

807: 777:

Good idea, and I would still appreciate hearing Angr's thoughts on the matter.

512: 328: 279: 251: 4119: 4577: 3581: 3350: 2369:

developed its own views on a whole host of issues, including homosexuality.

1106: 1000: 939: 895: 820: 748: 720: 684:

represent the culture to themselves, actual practices may vary a great deal.

588: 520: 401: 283: 267: 196: 2642:

It would have been helpful if you had integrated the material removed into

2569:

Reverted Edits that Removed Referenced Material Supportive of Homosexuality

673: 4563: 2678:

I have tried to integrate some of the material placed on the talk page of

2269:

History of Christianity and homosexuality#Diverging opinions in modern era

2072:

can be counted as absolute fact when it comes to biblical interpretation.

1616:

Merge "oppose" and "support" sections into the "specific beliefs" section?

511:

heresy, we know who the heretics were and exactly what they believed. See

4097: 4093: 4089: 4085: 4081: 4077: 4032: 4028: 4024: 4012: 3957: 3938: 2742: 2487: 2370: 2335: 1097: 1084: 1056:

Historically, and with exceptions, punishment for male same-sex relations

964: 917: 871: 852: 848: 778: 760: 700: 635: 568: 567:

Definitely! For example, pre-Christian Rome was markedly anti-homosexual.

524: 516: 492:

I am troubled by the uncited opening statement in the Christian section

483: 466: 386: 372: 222: 201: 1885:

Fornicate - have sexual intercourse with someone one is not married to.

3653:

that this paragraph is about. You appear to be trying to add your own

1080: 1060: 832: 332: 316: 291: 4092:

or homosexual acts are not a sin. If homosexual acts are not a sin in

3977: 797:

Okay, the paragraph in question runs in its original form as follows:

270:, denounces homosexual behavior as a sin and, in the eyes of God, an " 4268:

Please provide me a link about concensus regarding BBC and religion!

2170:

http://www.thebible.net/modules.php?name=Read&itemid=81&cat=9

1092: 1072: 592: 275: 255: 4141:‘Narada-Smruti’, marriage of homosexuals is considered to be taboo. 4011:

The article states that homosexuality is not considerd as a sin in

2479: 1876:

To suggest that adultery is referring to homosexuality is what is

860:

The opening sentence tells us this paragraph is going to be about

816: 263: 3522:

Homosexual behaviour widespread in animals according to new study

2482:. So, this is what I am really talking about when I use the word 4035:

because its scriptures are neutral regarding this topic. Thanks.

3648:

Again; the distinction you are making is a distinction which is

1705:

I agree it is a very weak reference, and better removed. Cheers

1087: 596: 542: 287: 4242:. We had consensus to remove bbc sources from religion pages. 2986:

describes the relationship between religion and homosexuality.

4481: 25: 4526:

http://www.sarbat.net/2007/10/sikhism-and-same-sex-marriages/

2446:

Freemasonry, according to many well-meaning scholars such as

2172:

To say Christ didn't mention homosexuality is wrong. He did.

599:

in the North while largely overlooked by Hindus in the South.

4454:

http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=29699

3727:

of view, except in clearly explaining that point of view. -

4440:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

3431:

also agree that your removal of content is not warranted.

4512:

http://badpuppy.com/gaytoday/garchive/events/051397ev.htm

3970:

http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/What_is_Humanism

2395:. Much the same could be said for Alcoholics Anonymous. 1856:

Jesus makes no reference to homosexuality in the Gospels?

4502:

http://www.tpuuf.org/2008/08/03/glbt-in-world-religions/

4433: 3953: 3346:"Islam views same-sex desires as a natural temptation" 2711: 1035: 696: 246:

Throughout the vast majority of Christian history, the

4023:

What else is required to make homosexuality sinful in

4019:

http://www.notsostraight.com.au/faq_about_religion.php

290:

15 (The Council of Jerusalem) explicitly advised that

3968:

Humanism is considered a religion by many humanists:

3906:

Groups that Dissent policies within the denomination

1166:

that teach gay sex is sinful. I'm not arguing that.

3834:"Is it true Jesus never addressed same-sex marriage" 3203:

The footnotes for the Islamic section are dead links

1161:

Orientation is normally a set of behaviors? On the

4600:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 4540:

http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/china%2C5.html

4149:

Can you explain this? Its not something fabricated.

2601:so much about Christianity, they need to go to the 2907:deal with more specific topics in more detail. -- 1469:Presbyterian assembly votes to drop gay clergy ban 1122:Who teaches that a homosexual orientation sinful? 4550:http://www.uua.org/news/freedomtomarry/index.html 3375:http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/china,5.html 2891:I strongly disagree with either proposed merge. 1370:he goes on to qualify the qualification, saying: 3871:http://www.bpnews.net/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=38461 2391:Whatever, it is not a religion. Neither is the 4680:http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm 4586:This message was posted before February 2018. 1838:No objections then - I'll rename the article. 759:raises an objection that should be considered. 1519:acceptance, even of people like criminals? 934:in the Bible that discuss same-sex relations 385:refers to bestiality only; etc.). If we mean 8: 1970:and polemic in order to push your own views. 1096:from a collection of quotations ascribed to 4665:Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith 3972:. There is even a Knowledge (XXG) page for 1774:(including the UK edition), as well as the 1473:(this is a different kind of Presbyterian) 4120:http://www.hindujagruti.org/news/7390.html 3978:http://en.wikipedia.org/Religious_humanism 258:. Where the Catholic view is founded on a 4578:http://iheu.org/content/homosexual-rights 4428:I have just modified 4 external links on 3881:Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary 3351:http://www.al-inaam.com/library/homos.htm 3261:vital for the understanding of Religion. 4234:BBC source has nothing to do here. Read 2925:I agree, but will not remove the 2-: --> 695:The question is in regard to this edit: 4658: 4564:http://www.uusm.org/services/021305.php 2004:claiming this without such a source is 1762:I appreciate that, it doesn't have the 831:15, the Council of Jerusalem commanded 351:, and in doctrinal sources such as the 3858: 3854: 3843: 1691:is still not good enough for the lead 963:conversation. I found it enlightening. 878:. I think the paragraph should remain 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 2393:Royal Antediluvian Order of Buffaloes 7: 3954:the boldly added section on Humanism 3477:homosexuality vs homosexual practice 3281:Non-Religious Views of Homosexuality 1079:culture. Later cultures such as the 886:condemnation of same-sex relations, 482:as referring to temple prostitution. 389:, that's what we should call it. In 24: 4432:. Please take a moment to review 4276:Knowledge (XXG):Original research 4240:Knowledge (XXG):Original research 3481:This is so you can discuss this. 2949:Removed merge template from here. 2714:of mine, the description of the " 591:. These were openly practiced by 4031:should be mentioned in place of 2538:to me. That before we get into 1947:unnatural passions for other men 1727:Using Wiki biblemanager for refs 29: 4170:Knowledge (XXG):Reliable source 3255:Wikiproject Religion Assessment 18:Talk:Homosexuality and religion 4406:teachings on homosexuality? -- 2809:LGBT-welcoming church programs 2680:Homosexuality and Christianity 2644:Homosexuality and Christianity 2603:Homosexuality and Christianity 2291:, which is linked to already. 2273:Homosexuality and Christianity 1533:05:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC) 1042:09:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC) 968:18:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC) 950:18:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC) 921:17:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC) 906:04:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC) 892:Religion and sexual immorality 782:00:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC) 773:23:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC) 764:23:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC) 731:22:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC) 715:22:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC) 704:22:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC) 639:00:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC) 619:Homosexuality and spirituality 536:Pederasty in Japanese Buddhism 528:22:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC) 1: 3875:The author of the article is 3789:03:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC) 3399:07:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC) 3175:08:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC) 3153:04:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC) 3123:02:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC) 3108:18:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC) 3087:17:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC) 3072:13:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC) 3048:06:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC) 3033:21:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC) 3018:09:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC) 2996:06:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC) 2959:10:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC) 2822:19:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC) 2737:Homosexuals are not pederasts 2332:freemasonry and homosexuality 2326:Freemasonry and homosexuality 1011:05:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 655:01:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC) 629:05:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC) 578:Removing unsourced statements 502:04:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC) 191:The lead sentence misleading 118:10:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC) 94:22:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC) 3883:and prominent leader in the 3163:Religion and heterosexuality 2802:23:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC) 2786:23:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC) 2770:23:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC) 1784:New Revised Standard Version 1442:Orthodox Presbyterian Church 1424:Orthodox Presbyterian Church 1215:sin. Sounds like a leap of 995:21:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC) 4482:https://erlc.com/topics/C43 3942:23:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC) 3927:22:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC) 3901:20:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC) 3885:Southern Baptist Convention 3368:Someone should rewrite this 2937:00:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC) 2917:00:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC) 2905:Transgenderism and religion 2886:20:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC) 2857:02:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC) 2756:LGBT Community and Religion 2751:14:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC) 2718:" should instead be read: " 2608:every religion in the world 2289:Homosexuality and the Bible 1644:desire and the act are sin. 1117:16:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC) 1047:Unsourced paragraph removed 1031:American Family Association 181:02:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC) 4699: 4617:(last update: 5 June 2024) 4430:Homosexuality and religion 4425:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 3198:08:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC) 2901:Religion and homosexuality 2841:17:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC) 1770:either. It does have the 1505:01:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC) 1034:be presented warts and all 851:. In several of his other 155:07:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC) 4654:13:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC) 4393:07:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC) 4076:, I am not talking about 4000:18:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC) 3964:16:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC) 3832:Akin, Daniel (2012-8-9). 3758:21:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC) 3743:21:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC) 3717:21:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC) 3702:21:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC) 3679:21:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC) 3644:20:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC) 3629:20:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC) 3608:18:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC) 3593:18:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC) 3567:16:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC) 3552:16:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC) 3538:15:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC) 3515:23:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC) 3499:22:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC) 3363:15:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC) 2893:LGBT matters and religion 2873:LGBT matters and religion 2732:09:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC) 2692:08:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC) 2674:02:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC) 2626:19:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC) 2591:01:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC) 2553:16:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC) 2496:14:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC) 2430:13:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC) 2405:13:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC) 2379:12:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC) 2360:07:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC) 2344:01:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC) 2318:08:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC) 2301:22:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC) 2263:19:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC) 2243:17:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC) 2216:08:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC) 2182:01:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC) 2163:00:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC) 2144:21:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC) 2122:20:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC) 2107:02:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC) 2082:17:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC) 2064:17:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC) 2041:16:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC) 2018:12:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC) 1999:09:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC) 1984:01:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC) 1898:The original meaning was 1871:00:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC) 1848:23:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC) 1804:should title be reversed? 1772:New International Version 1715:08:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC) 1701:23:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC) 1686:23:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC) 1672:19:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC) 1656:19:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC) 1485:07:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC) 1458:22:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC) 1399:22:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC) 1335:22:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC) 1297:21:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC) 1263:21:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC) 1233:21:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC) 1198:20:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC) 1176:20:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC) 1157:19:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC) 1137:06:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC) 614:18:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 572:01:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC) 562:00:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC) 298:. Many of the letters of 195:: "The attitude of Early 144:01:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC) 4416:22:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC) 4373:06:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC) 4352:16:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC) 4334:13:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC) 4312:10:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC) 4292:07:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC) 4252:14:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC) 4225:13:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC) 4204:13:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC) 4182:11:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC) 4159:10:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC) 4131:10:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC) 4110:10:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC) 4065:04:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC) 4045:08:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC) 3879:who is the president of 3815:17:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC) 3471:14:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC) 3448:14:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC) 3425:14:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC) 3334:17:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC) 3311:23:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC) 3296:17:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC) 3275:17:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC) 3248:17:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC) 3224:09:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC) 2969:Good Guys and Bad Guys? 1834:22:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC) 1819:22:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC) 1796:21:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC) 1758:20:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC) 1742:20:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC) 1631:19:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC) 1606:18:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC) 1582:16:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC) 1567:06:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC) 1548:23:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC) 487:03:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC) 470:17:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC) 412:08:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC) 376:19:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC) 294:converts were keep from 226:18:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC) 216:02:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC) 205:01:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC) 171:06:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 4421:External links modified 3823:Jesus and Homosexuality 2530:? Strange. Smells of 2528:Great White Brotherhood 2476:Great White Brotherhood 1910:). However, the Greek 353:Apostolic Constitutions 319:and in the writings of 3853:Check date values in: 3485:anything I've seen on 1385:Westminster Confession 1377:Westminster Confession 870:OR and non-NPOV. When 4682:and subpages therein. 4272:Knowledge (XXG):Synth 4236:Knowledge (XXG):Synth 3838:. Retrieved 2012-8-27 3585:Mish (just an editor) 3544:Mish (just an editor) 3491:Mish (just an editor) 2712:this previous edition 1904:sex with a prostitute 1768:Revised English Bible 1693:Mish (just an editor) 1678:Mish (just an editor) 1636:What reference 1 says 1464:Relevant news article 841:Epistle to the Romans 645:Out of article focus? 325:Clement of Alexandria 304:Epistle to the Romans 42:of past discussions. 4669:1 October 1986, Rome 4598:regular verification 4136:The site claims that 2520:Ordo Templi Orientis 2468:Ordo Templi Orientis 1780:New King James Bible 835:converts to eschew “ 392:Trembling Before G-d 357:Eusebius of Caesarea 4588:After February 2018 2926:1 until the 1-: --> 2706:Edit summary errata 1764:New Jerusalem Bible 4642:InternetArchiveBot 4593:InternetArchiveBot 3974:Religious Humanism 3406:Child prostitution 2518:Secret societies? 1943:men lying with men 1786:, amongst others. 1357:Lee Irons writes: 916:'s comments above. 710:sexual immorality. 349:Augustine of Hippo 4618: 4003: 3986:comment added by 3917:comment added by 3797:Jerry Falwell POV 3402: 3385:comment added by 3257:– the article is 3214:comment added by 3183:lack of citations 1221:original research 1217:original research 837:sexual immorality 296:sexual immorality 266:, principally in 137:same-sex marriage 82: 81: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 4690: 4683: 4676: 4670: 4663: 4652: 4643: 4616: 4615: 4594: 4575: 4561: 4537: 4523: 4479: 4465: 4451: 4002: 3980: 3929: 3866: 3860: 3856: 3851: 3849: 3841: 3839: 3741: 3700: 3677: 3627: 3460: 3437: 3401: 3379: 3330: 3288:The Fading Light 3271: 3244: 3226: 3106: 3016: 2849: 2622: 2615: 1776:King James Bible 116: 114: 107: 73: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 4698: 4697: 4693: 4692: 4691: 4689: 4688: 4687: 4686: 4677: 4673: 4664: 4660: 4646: 4641: 4609: 4602:have permission 4592: 4569: 4555: 4531: 4517: 4473: 4459: 4445: 4438:this simple FaQ 4423: 4400: 4381: 4009: 3981: 3950: 3912: 3908: 3852: 3842: 3837: 3836:. Baptist Press 3831: 3825: 3799: 3731: 3690: 3667: 3617: 3479: 3456: 3433: 3408: 3380: 3370: 3344: 3326: 3283: 3267: 3240: 3232: 3209: 3205: 3185: 3096: 3006: 2971: 2869: 2847: 2758: 2739: 2708: 2620: 2613: 2571: 2450:, actually has 2328: 1858: 1806: 1729: 1638: 1618: 1512: 1492: 1466: 1355: 1124: 1049: 1027: 804:Catholic Church 693: 647: 621: 580: 554: 538: 397:intercrural sex 355:— for example, 345:John Chrysostom 341:Basil the Great 248:Catholic Church 189: 163: 110: 103: 101: 87: 69: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4696: 4694: 4685: 4684: 4678:See generally 4671: 4657: 4636: 4635: 4628: 4581: 4580: 4566: 4552: 4544:Added archive 4542: 4528: 4514: 4506:Added archive 4504: 4496:Added archive 4494: 4486:Added archive 4484: 4470: 4456: 4422: 4419: 4399: 4396: 4380: 4377: 4376: 4375: 4360: 4359: 4358: 4357: 4356: 4355: 4354: 4318: 4317: 4316: 4315: 4314: 4266: 4265: 4258: 4257: 4256: 4255: 4254: 4211: 4210: 4206: 4188: 4187: 4186: 4185: 4184: 4138: 4137: 4117: 4116: 4070: 4069: 4068: 4067: 4008: 4005: 3949: 3946: 3945: 3944: 3919:98.228.223.184 3907: 3904: 3824: 3821: 3819: 3807:Primium mobile 3803:Moral Majority 3798: 3795: 3794: 3793: 3792: 3791: 3776: 3775: 3774: 3773: 3772: 3771: 3770: 3769: 3768: 3767: 3766: 3765: 3764: 3763: 3762: 3761: 3760: 3750:86.150.206.248 3709:86.150.206.248 3636:86.150.206.248 3600:86.150.206.248 3577: 3576: 3575: 3574: 3573: 3572: 3571: 3570: 3569: 3559:86.150.206.248 3530:86.150.206.248 3507:86.150.206.248 3487:Will and Grace 3478: 3475: 3474: 3473: 3451: 3450: 3417:81.107.150.246 3407: 3404: 3369: 3366: 3343: 3340: 3339: 3338: 3337: 3336: 3314: 3313: 3282: 3279: 3278: 3277: 3231: 3228: 3204: 3201: 3184: 3181: 3180: 3179: 3178: 3177: 3132: 3131: 3130: 3129: 3128: 3127: 3126: 3125: 3059: 3055: 3054: 3053: 3052: 3051: 3050: 2970: 2967: 2966: 2965: 2964: 2963: 2962: 2961: 2942: 2941: 2940: 2939: 2927:2 is removed. 2920: 2919: 2868: 2867:Merge template 2865: 2864: 2863: 2862: 2861: 2860: 2859: 2833:Joshuajohanson 2825: 2824: 2789: 2788: 2757: 2754: 2738: 2735: 2707: 2704: 2703: 2702: 2701: 2700: 2699: 2698: 2697: 2696: 2695: 2694: 2654: 2653: 2652: 2651: 2650: 2649: 2648: 2647: 2633: 2632: 2631: 2630: 2629: 2628: 2570: 2567: 2566: 2565: 2564: 2563: 2562: 2561: 2560: 2559: 2558: 2557: 2556: 2555: 2505: 2504: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2448:Stephen Knight 2437: 2436: 2435: 2434: 2433: 2432: 2412: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2408: 2407: 2384: 2383: 2382: 2381: 2363: 2362: 2327: 2324: 2323: 2322: 2321: 2320: 2283: 2282: 2277: 2276: 2265: 2251: 2250: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2235:Joshuajohanson 2223: 2222: 2221: 2220: 2219: 2218: 2193: 2192: 2191: 2190: 2189: 2188: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2184: 2174:Joshuajohanson 2136:Joshuajohanson 2127: 2126: 2125: 2124: 2094: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2074:Joshuajohanson 2051: 2047: 2033:Joshuajohanson 2028: 2024: 1971: 1963: 1958: 1957: 1951: 1950: 1933: 1932: 1926: 1920: 1919: 1895: 1894: 1888: 1882: 1881: 1863:Joshuajohanson 1857: 1854: 1853: 1852: 1851: 1850: 1805: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1728: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1717: 1637: 1634: 1617: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1584: 1574:86.157.165.165 1551: 1550: 1540:86.157.165.165 1525:Starchild12345 1511: 1508: 1491: 1488: 1465: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1446: 1445: 1437: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1428: 1427: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1406: 1405: 1381: 1380: 1364: 1363: 1354: 1351: 1350: 1349: 1348: 1347: 1346: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1289:Joshuajohanson 1274: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1236: 1235: 1225:Joshuajohanson 1205: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1168:Joshuajohanson 1145: 1144: 1129:Joshuajohanson 1123: 1120: 1103: 1102: 1083:caliphate and 1048: 1045: 1026: 1023: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1019: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1014: 1013: 975: 974: 973: 972: 971: 970: 955: 954: 953: 952: 927:User:Fireplace 858: 857: 795: 794: 793: 792: 791: 790: 789: 788: 787: 786: 785: 784: 744:Joshuajohanson 737:Joshuajohanson 712:Joshuajohanson 692: 689: 688: 687: 686: 685: 646: 643: 642: 641: 620: 617: 607: 606: 601: 579: 576: 575: 574: 553: 550: 537: 534: 533: 532: 531: 530: 505: 504: 479: 478: 477: 476: 475: 474: 473: 472: 455: 454: 453: 452: 451: 450: 449: 448: 437: 436: 435: 434: 433: 432: 431: 430: 419: 418: 417: 416: 415: 414: 370: 363: 362: 361: 360: 310: 309: 308: 307: 241: 240: 239: 238: 231: 230: 229: 228: 188: 185: 184: 183: 162: 161:Repetitiveness 159: 149: 148: 147: 146: 86: 83: 80: 79: 74: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4695: 4681: 4675: 4672: 4668: 4662: 4659: 4656: 4655: 4650: 4645: 4644: 4633: 4629: 4626: 4622: 4621: 4620: 4613: 4607: 4603: 4599: 4595: 4589: 4584: 4579: 4573: 4567: 4565: 4559: 4553: 4551: 4547: 4543: 4541: 4535: 4529: 4527: 4521: 4515: 4513: 4509: 4505: 4503: 4499: 4495: 4493: 4489: 4485: 4483: 4477: 4471: 4469: 4463: 4457: 4455: 4449: 4443: 4442: 4441: 4439: 4435: 4431: 4426: 4420: 4418: 4417: 4413: 4409: 4405: 4397: 4395: 4394: 4390: 4386: 4378: 4374: 4370: 4366: 4361: 4353: 4349: 4345: 4341: 4340: 4339: 4338: 4337: 4336: 4335: 4331: 4327: 4323: 4319: 4313: 4309: 4305: 4300: 4299: 4298: 4297: 4296: 4295: 4294: 4293: 4289: 4285: 4281: 4277: 4273: 4269: 4263: 4259: 4253: 4249: 4245: 4241: 4237: 4233: 4232: 4231: 4230: 4229: 4228: 4227: 4226: 4222: 4218: 4215: 4207: 4205: 4201: 4197: 4193: 4189: 4183: 4179: 4175: 4171: 4167: 4166: 4165: 4164: 4163: 4162: 4161: 4160: 4156: 4152: 4148: 4143: 4142: 4135: 4134: 4133: 4132: 4128: 4124: 4121: 4114: 4113: 4112: 4111: 4107: 4103: 4099: 4095: 4091: 4087: 4083: 4079: 4075: 4066: 4062: 4058: 4054: 4051: 4050: 4049: 4048: 4047: 4046: 4042: 4038: 4034: 4030: 4026: 4021: 4020: 4016: 4014: 4006: 4004: 4001: 3997: 3993: 3989: 3985: 3979: 3975: 3971: 3966: 3965: 3962: 3959: 3955: 3947: 3943: 3940: 3936: 3932: 3931: 3930: 3928: 3924: 3920: 3916: 3905: 3903: 3902: 3898: 3894: 3891:Christians. 3888: 3886: 3882: 3878: 3873: 3872: 3868: 3867:</ref: --> 3864: 3847: 3835: 3828: 3822: 3820: 3817: 3816: 3812: 3808: 3804: 3796: 3790: 3786: 3782: 3781:69.151.210.26 3777: 3759: 3755: 3751: 3746: 3745: 3744: 3739: 3735: 3730: 3725: 3720: 3719: 3718: 3714: 3710: 3705: 3704: 3703: 3698: 3694: 3689: 3684: 3683: 3682: 3681: 3680: 3675: 3671: 3666: 3661: 3656: 3651: 3647: 3646: 3645: 3641: 3637: 3632: 3631: 3630: 3625: 3621: 3616: 3611: 3610: 3609: 3605: 3601: 3596: 3595: 3594: 3590: 3586: 3582: 3578: 3568: 3564: 3560: 3555: 3554: 3553: 3549: 3545: 3541: 3540: 3539: 3535: 3531: 3527: 3526: 3523: 3518: 3517: 3516: 3512: 3508: 3503: 3502: 3501: 3500: 3496: 3492: 3488: 3482: 3476: 3472: 3469: 3468:Contributions 3465: 3461: 3459: 3453: 3452: 3449: 3446: 3445:Contributions 3442: 3438: 3436: 3429: 3428: 3427: 3426: 3422: 3418: 3413: 3405: 3403: 3400: 3396: 3392: 3388: 3384: 3376: 3367: 3365: 3364: 3360: 3356: 3352: 3347: 3342:Islam section 3341: 3335: 3331: 3329: 3323: 3318: 3317: 3316: 3315: 3312: 3308: 3304: 3300: 3299: 3298: 3297: 3293: 3289: 3280: 3276: 3272: 3270: 3264: 3260: 3256: 3252: 3251: 3250: 3249: 3245: 3243: 3237: 3229: 3227: 3225: 3221: 3217: 3213: 3202: 3200: 3199: 3195: 3191: 3182: 3176: 3172: 3168: 3164: 3159: 3158: 3157: 3156: 3155: 3154: 3150: 3146: 3140: 3136: 3124: 3120: 3116: 3111: 3110: 3109: 3104: 3100: 3095: 3090: 3089: 3088: 3084: 3080: 3075: 3074: 3073: 3069: 3065: 3060: 3057: 3056: 3049: 3045: 3041: 3036: 3035: 3034: 3030: 3026: 3021: 3020: 3019: 3014: 3010: 3005: 3000: 2999: 2998: 2997: 2993: 2989: 2983: 2979: 2975: 2968: 2960: 2956: 2952: 2948: 2947: 2946: 2945: 2944: 2943: 2938: 2934: 2930: 2924: 2923: 2922: 2921: 2918: 2914: 2910: 2906: 2902: 2898: 2894: 2890: 2889: 2888: 2887: 2883: 2879: 2874: 2866: 2858: 2854: 2850: 2844: 2843: 2842: 2838: 2834: 2829: 2828: 2827: 2826: 2823: 2819: 2815: 2810: 2806: 2805: 2804: 2803: 2799: 2795: 2787: 2783: 2779: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2771: 2767: 2763: 2755: 2753: 2752: 2748: 2744: 2736: 2734: 2733: 2729: 2725: 2721: 2717: 2713: 2705: 2693: 2689: 2685: 2681: 2677: 2676: 2675: 2671: 2667: 2662: 2661: 2660: 2659: 2658: 2657: 2656: 2655: 2645: 2641: 2640: 2639: 2638: 2637: 2636: 2635: 2634: 2627: 2624: 2623: 2617: 2616: 2609: 2604: 2599: 2598: 2597: 2596: 2595: 2594: 2593: 2592: 2588: 2584: 2579: 2575: 2568: 2554: 2550: 2546: 2541: 2537: 2533: 2529: 2525: 2521: 2517: 2516: 2515: 2514: 2513: 2512: 2511: 2510: 2509: 2508: 2507: 2506: 2497: 2493: 2489: 2485: 2481: 2477: 2473: 2469: 2465: 2464:mystery cults 2461: 2457: 2453: 2449: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2442: 2441: 2440: 2439: 2438: 2431: 2427: 2423: 2418: 2417: 2416: 2415: 2414: 2413: 2406: 2402: 2398: 2394: 2390: 2389: 2388: 2387: 2386: 2385: 2380: 2376: 2372: 2367: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2361: 2357: 2353: 2348: 2347: 2346: 2345: 2341: 2337: 2333: 2325: 2319: 2316: 2315: 2311: 2310: 2304: 2303: 2302: 2298: 2294: 2290: 2285: 2284: 2279: 2278: 2274: 2270: 2266: 2264: 2260: 2256: 2252: 2244: 2240: 2236: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2228: 2227: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2217: 2214: 2213: 2209: 2208: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2196: 2183: 2179: 2175: 2171: 2166: 2165: 2164: 2160: 2156: 2152: 2147: 2146: 2145: 2141: 2137: 2133: 2132: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2128: 2123: 2119: 2115: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2104: 2100: 2095: 2083: 2079: 2075: 2071: 2070:Jeffrey Siker 2067: 2066: 2065: 2061: 2057: 2052: 2048: 2044: 2043: 2042: 2038: 2034: 2029: 2025: 2021: 2020: 2019: 2015: 2011: 2007: 2002: 2001: 2000: 1996: 1992: 1991:86.158.120.73 1987: 1986: 1985: 1981: 1977: 1972: 1969: 1964: 1960: 1959: 1956: 1953: 1952: 1948: 1944: 1940: 1935: 1934: 1931: 1927: 1925: 1922: 1921: 1917: 1913: 1909: 1905: 1901: 1897: 1896: 1893: 1889: 1887: 1884: 1883: 1879: 1875: 1874: 1873: 1872: 1868: 1864: 1855: 1849: 1845: 1841: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1831: 1827: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1820: 1816: 1812: 1811:Fishiehelper2 1803: 1797: 1793: 1789: 1785: 1781: 1777: 1773: 1769: 1765: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1755: 1751: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1743: 1739: 1735: 1726: 1716: 1712: 1708: 1707:Fishiehelper2 1704: 1703: 1702: 1698: 1694: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1683: 1679: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1669: 1665: 1664:Fishiehelper2 1660: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1653: 1649: 1645: 1635: 1633: 1632: 1628: 1624: 1615: 1607: 1603: 1599: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1583: 1579: 1575: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1564: 1560: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1549: 1545: 1541: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1530: 1526: 1520: 1516: 1509: 1507: 1506: 1502: 1498: 1489: 1487: 1486: 1482: 1478: 1474: 1471: 1470: 1463: 1459: 1455: 1451: 1448: 1447: 1443: 1439: 1438: 1432: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1425: 1421: 1417: 1416: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1396: 1392: 1388: 1386: 1378: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1369: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1352: 1336: 1332: 1328: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1298: 1294: 1290: 1286: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1264: 1260: 1256: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1234: 1230: 1226: 1222: 1218: 1213: 1212: 1211: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1199: 1195: 1191: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1183: 1182: 1177: 1173: 1169: 1164: 1163:homosexuality 1160: 1159: 1158: 1154: 1150: 1147: 1146: 1141: 1140: 1139: 1138: 1134: 1130: 1121: 1119: 1118: 1115: 1114: 1110: 1109: 1101: 1099: 1094: 1091: 1089: 1086: 1082: 1078: 1074: 1070: 1066: 1062: 1057: 1054: 1053: 1052: 1046: 1044: 1043: 1040: 1036: 1032: 1024: 1012: 1009: 1008: 1004: 1003: 998: 997: 996: 992: 988: 983: 982: 981: 980: 979: 978: 977: 976: 969: 966: 961: 960: 959: 958: 957: 956: 951: 948: 947: 943: 942: 937: 932: 928: 924: 923: 922: 919: 915: 910: 909: 908: 907: 904: 903: 899: 898: 893: 889: 885: 881: 877: 873: 868: 863: 856: 854: 850: 846: 842: 838: 834: 830: 826: 822: 818: 814: 809: 805: 800: 799: 798: 783: 780: 776: 775: 774: 771: 767: 766: 765: 762: 757: 756: 752: 751: 745: 741: 740: 738: 734: 733: 732: 729: 728: 724: 723: 718: 717: 716: 713: 708: 707: 706: 705: 702: 698: 690: 682: 681: 676: 675: 669: 665: 661: 660: 659: 658: 657: 656: 653: 652:207.69.137.25 644: 640: 637: 633: 632: 631: 630: 627: 618: 616: 615: 612: 605: 602: 600: 598: 594: 590: 585: 584: 583: 577: 573: 570: 566: 565: 564: 563: 560: 551: 549: 548: 544: 535: 529: 526: 522: 518: 514: 509: 508: 507: 506: 503: 500: 499:207.69.137.21 495: 491: 490: 489: 488: 485: 471: 468: 463: 462: 461: 460: 459: 458: 457: 456: 445: 444: 443: 442: 441: 440: 439: 438: 427: 426: 425: 424: 423: 422: 421: 420: 413: 410: 409: 405: 404: 398: 394: 393: 388: 384: 379: 378: 377: 374: 371: 367: 366: 365: 364: 358: 354: 350: 346: 342: 338: 334: 330: 326: 322: 321:Justin Martyr 318: 314: 313: 312: 311: 305: 301: 297: 293: 289: 285: 281: 277: 273: 269: 265: 261: 257: 253: 249: 245: 244: 243: 242: 235: 234: 233: 232: 227: 224: 219: 218: 217: 214: 209: 208: 207: 206: 203: 198: 194: 186: 182: 179: 178:69.143.80.200 175: 174: 173: 172: 169: 160: 158: 156: 153: 145: 142: 138: 133: 129: 125: 121: 120: 119: 115: 113: 108: 106: 98: 97: 96: 95: 92: 84: 78: 75: 72: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 4674: 4661: 4640: 4637: 4612:source check 4591: 4585: 4582: 4427: 4424: 4402:What is the 4401: 4382: 4270: 4267: 4212: 4145: 4144: 4140: 4139: 4118: 4080:, its about 4071: 4022: 4017: 4010: 3982:— Preceding 3967: 3951: 3913:— Preceding 3909: 3889: 3874: 3869: 3855:|accessdate= 3829: 3826: 3818: 3800: 3723: 3659: 3649: 3483: 3480: 3457: 3434: 3411: 3410:The section 3409: 3371: 3348: 3345: 3327: 3284: 3268: 3258: 3241: 3233: 3206: 3186: 3145:EMSchmittgen 3141: 3137: 3133: 3040:EMSchmittgen 2988:EMSchmittgen 2984: 2980: 2976: 2972: 2870: 2790: 2759: 2740: 2719: 2716:Edit summary 2709: 2619: 2612: 2607: 2580: 2576: 2572: 2524:Rosicrucians 2483: 2472:Rosicrucians 2459: 2456:visible face 2455: 2451: 2329: 2313: 2308: 2211: 2206: 2194: 1946: 1942: 1938: 1915: 1911: 1907: 1903: 1899: 1859: 1807: 1750:86.165.94.78 1730: 1642: 1639: 1619: 1523:citations.-- 1521: 1517: 1513: 1510:Undue Weight 1493: 1475: 1472: 1467: 1419: 1389: 1382: 1367: 1365: 1356: 1125: 1112: 1107: 1104: 1095: 1058: 1055: 1050: 1028: 1006: 1001: 987:70.15.116.59 945: 940: 936:specifically 935: 930: 901: 896: 887: 883: 879: 875: 866: 861: 859: 806:and, later, 801: 796: 754: 749: 726: 721: 694: 678: 672: 664:transvestite 648: 622: 608: 603: 586: 581: 555: 539: 493: 480: 407: 402: 390: 382: 250:and, later, 190: 187:Christianity 168:70.112.12.20 164: 150: 131: 127: 123: 111: 104: 88: 70: 43: 37: 4404:Scientology 4398:Scientology 4344:Bladesmulti 4342:Not a sin. 4322:Bladesmulti 4304:Bladesmulti 4262:Bladesmulti 4244:Bladesmulti 4192:Bladesmulti 4174:Bladesmulti 4074:Bladesmulti 4057:Bladesmulti 3952:I reverted 3877:Daniel Akin 3729:FisherQueen 3688:FisherQueen 3665:FisherQueen 3615:FisherQueen 3381:—Preceding 3216:99.230.5.16 3210:—Preceding 3094:FisherQueen 3004:FisherQueen 2666:Ross Fraser 2583:Ross Fraser 2460:hidden face 1916:fornication 1497:Ross Fraser 1077:Hellenistic 1065:Babylonians 825:abomination 813:natural law 742:I see what 735:I see what 668:transgender 272:abomination 260:natural law 85:Moral views 36:This is an 4649:Report bug 4027:. I think 3893:Toverton28 3230:Assessment 1782:, and the 1353:Found one! 1073:Canaanites 845:Saint Paul 839:.” In the 808:Protestant 513:Gnosticism 329:Tertullian 300:Saint Paul 282:to eating 280:bestiality 252:Protestant 197:Christians 105:Sean Lotz 4632:this tool 4625:this tool 4572:dead link 4558:dead link 4534:dead link 4520:dead link 4476:dead link 4462:dead link 4448:dead link 3846:cite news 2536:WP:Fringe 2452:two faces 1426:declared: 1069:Egyptians 1039:Hal Cross 1025:AFA input 914:Fireplace 821:Leviticus 770:Fireplace 589:pederasty 521:Jansenism 284:shellfish 268:Leviticus 213:Fireplace 77:Archive 4 71:Archive 3 65:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 4638:Cheers.— 4408:Splashen 4385:Scientus 4280:WP:UNDUE 4098:Hinduism 4094:Hinduism 4090:Hinduism 4086:Hinduism 4082:Hinduism 4078:Buddhism 4033:Hinduism 4029:Buddhism 4025:Hinduism 4013:Hinduism 4007:Hinduism 3996:contribs 3988:NixManes 3984:unsigned 3948:Humanism 3935:be bold! 3915:unsigned 3738:contribs 3697:contribs 3674:contribs 3624:contribs 3458:TechBear 3435:TechBear 3412:Buddhism 3395:contribs 3383:unsigned 3324:dixit. ( 3265:dixit. ( 3238:dixit. ( 3212:unsigned 3103:contribs 3013:contribs 2899:, while 2897:overview 2578:etc.) 2484:religion 2151:WP:UNDUE 1900:whoredom 1824:Agreed. 1098:Muhammad 931:explicit 884:explicit 862:explicit 853:epistles 849:idolatry 819:, as in 517:Arianism 497:survive. 387:anal sex 337:Eusebius 193:WP:UNDUE 152:Valkrath 132:in favor 4576:tag to 4562:tag to 4538:tag to 4524:tag to 4480:tag to 4466:tag to 4452:tag to 4434:my edit 4365:Septate 4326:Septate 4284:Septate 4217:Septate 4196:Septate 4151:Septate 4123:Septate 4102:Septate 4037:Septate 3655:opinion 3520:sexual. 3387:Annab88 3355:Will731 2724:VanHelm 1912:porneia 1908:whoring 1766:or the 1085:Safavid 1081:Abbasid 833:Gentile 593:Muslims 552:my tags 383:Sodomie 333:Cyprian 317:Didache 292:Gentile 128:against 39:archive 4568:Added 4554:Added 4530:Added 4516:Added 4472:Added 4458:Added 4444:Added 4055:Over! 3859:|date= 3660:except 3322:Rursus 3263:Rursus 3236:Rursus 3064:Alynna 2909:Alynna 2895:is an 2848:occono 2814:Alynna 2794:Occono 2778:Alynna 2762:Occono 2526:, the 2522:, the 2474:, the 2470:, the 2454:. Its 1939:sodomy 1648:Alynna 1623:Alynna 1477:Dybryd 1450:Dybryd 1391:Dybryd 1327:Dybryd 1255:Dybryd 1190:Dybryd 1149:Dybryd 1093:hadith 1088:Persia 1071:, and 1061:Qur'an 882:about 827:". In 674:bacchá 626:Joeprz 559:Dybryd 547:Vapour 519:, and 347:, St. 343:, St. 339:, St. 331:, St. 276:incest 256:sodomy 2540:WP:RS 2532:WP:OR 2480:Wicca 2006:WP:OR 1968:WP:OR 1902:, or 1878:WP:OR 817:Bible 680:köçek 597:Sikhs 264:Bible 112:talk 16:< 4412:talk 4389:talk 4369:talk 4348:talk 4330:talk 4308:talk 4288:talk 4274:and 4248:talk 4238:and 4221:talk 4200:talk 4178:talk 4155:talk 4147:sin. 4127:talk 4106:talk 4061:talk 4041:talk 3992:talk 3937:. — 3923:talk 3897:talk 3863:help 3857:and 3811:talk 3785:talk 3754:talk 3734:talk 3724:only 3713:talk 3693:talk 3670:talk 3650:only 3640:talk 3620:talk 3604:talk 3589:talk 3563:talk 3548:talk 3534:talk 3511:talk 3495:talk 3464:Talk 3441:Talk 3421:talk 3391:talk 3359:talk 3328:bork 3307:talk 3303:Mish 3292:talk 3269:bork 3242:bork 3220:talk 3194:talk 3190:Mish 3171:talk 3167:Mish 3149:talk 3119:talk 3115:Mish 3099:talk 3083:talk 3079:Mish 3068:talk 3044:talk 3029:talk 3025:Mish 3009:talk 2992:talk 2955:talk 2951:Mish 2933:talk 2929:Mish 2913:talk 2903:and 2882:talk 2878:Mish 2853:talk 2837:talk 2818:talk 2798:talk 2782:talk 2766:talk 2747:talk 2728:talk 2688:talk 2684:Mish 2670:talk 2587:talk 2549:talk 2545:Mish 2534:and 2492:talk 2478:and 2426:talk 2422:Mish 2401:talk 2397:Mish 2375:talk 2356:talk 2352:Mish 2340:talk 2297:talk 2293:Mish 2259:talk 2255:Mish 2239:talk 2178:talk 2159:talk 2155:Mish 2140:talk 2118:talk 2114:Mish 2103:talk 2099:Mish 2078:talk 2060:talk 2056:Mish 2037:talk 2014:talk 2010:Mish 1995:talk 1980:talk 1976:Mish 1867:talk 1844:talk 1840:Mish 1830:talk 1826:Mish 1815:talk 1792:talk 1788:Mish 1778:and 1754:talk 1738:talk 1734:Mish 1711:talk 1697:talk 1682:talk 1668:talk 1652:talk 1627:talk 1602:talk 1598:Mish 1578:talk 1563:talk 1559:Mish 1544:talk 1529:talk 1501:talk 1481:talk 1454:talk 1395:talk 1368:then 1331:talk 1293:talk 1259:talk 1229:talk 1194:talk 1172:talk 1153:talk 1143:sin. 1133:talk 991:talk 880:only 876:only 829:Acts 802:The 611:Angr 595:and 543:FWBO 288:Acts 278:and 141:A.Z. 124:many 91:A.Z. 4606:RfC 4548:to 4510:to 4500:to 4490:to 4209:it? 3939:MrX 3332:!) 3273:!) 3259:not 3246:!) 2743:Ash 2710:In 2621:Mod 2614:Yob 2488:ADM 2371:ADM 2336:ADM 2314:Mod 2309:Yob 2212:Mod 2207:Yob 1420:our 965:LCP 918:LCP 894:. — 888:not 872:LCP 867:not 779:LCP 761:LCP 701:LCP 677:or 666:or 650:it. 636:LCP 569:LCP 525:LCP 484:LCP 467:LCP 373:LCP 223:LCP 202:LCP 130:or 4619:. 4614:}} 4610:{{ 4574:}} 4570:{{ 4560:}} 4556:{{ 4536:}} 4532:{{ 4522:}} 4518:{{ 4478:}} 4474:{{ 4464:}} 4460:{{ 4450:}} 4446:{{ 4414:) 4391:) 4371:) 4350:) 4332:) 4310:) 4290:) 4250:) 4223:) 4202:) 4180:) 4172:. 4157:) 4129:) 4108:) 4063:) 4043:) 3998:) 3994:• 3976:: 3958:Mr 3925:) 3899:) 3850:: 3848:}} 3844:{{ 3813:) 3787:) 3756:) 3736:· 3715:) 3695:· 3672:· 3642:) 3622:· 3606:) 3591:) 3565:) 3550:) 3536:) 3513:) 3497:) 3466:| 3462:| 3443:| 3439:| 3423:) 3397:) 3393:• 3361:) 3309:) 3294:) 3222:) 3196:) 3173:) 3151:) 3121:) 3101:· 3085:) 3070:) 3046:) 3031:) 3011:· 2994:) 2957:) 2935:) 2915:) 2884:) 2855:) 2839:) 2820:) 2812:-- 2800:) 2784:) 2776:-- 2768:) 2749:) 2730:) 2690:) 2672:) 2589:) 2551:) 2494:) 2428:) 2403:) 2377:) 2358:) 2342:) 2299:) 2261:) 2241:) 2180:) 2161:) 2142:) 2120:) 2105:) 2080:) 2062:) 2039:) 2016:) 1997:) 1982:) 1945:, 1941:, 1869:) 1846:) 1832:) 1817:) 1794:) 1756:) 1740:) 1713:) 1699:) 1684:) 1670:) 1654:) 1629:) 1604:) 1580:) 1565:) 1546:) 1531:) 1503:) 1483:) 1456:) 1397:) 1333:) 1295:) 1261:) 1231:) 1223:. 1196:) 1174:) 1155:) 1135:) 1113:gr 1108:An 1067:, 1007:gr 1002:An 993:) 946:gr 941:An 902:gr 897:An 843:, 755:gr 750:An 727:gr 722:An 515:, 408:gr 403:An 335:, 327:, 323:, 286:. 4651:) 4647:( 4634:. 4627:. 4410:( 4387:( 4367:( 4346:( 4328:( 4320:@ 4306:( 4286:( 4260:@ 4246:( 4219:( 4198:( 4190:@ 4176:( 4153:( 4125:( 4104:( 4072:@ 4059:( 4039:( 3990:( 3961:X 3921:( 3895:( 3865:) 3861:( 3840:. 3809:( 3783:( 3752:( 3740:) 3732:( 3711:( 3699:) 3691:( 3686:- 3676:) 3668:( 3663:- 3638:( 3626:) 3618:( 3602:( 3587:( 3561:( 3546:( 3532:( 3509:( 3493:( 3419:( 3389:( 3357:( 3305:( 3290:( 3218:( 3192:( 3169:( 3147:( 3117:( 3105:) 3097:( 3081:( 3066:( 3042:( 3027:( 3015:) 3007:( 2990:( 2953:( 2931:( 2911:( 2880:( 2851:( 2835:( 2816:( 2796:( 2780:( 2764:( 2745:( 2726:( 2686:( 2668:( 2585:( 2547:( 2490:( 2424:( 2399:( 2373:( 2354:( 2338:( 2295:( 2275:: 2257:( 2237:( 2176:( 2157:( 2138:( 2116:( 2101:( 2076:( 2058:( 2035:( 2012:( 1993:( 1978:( 1865:( 1842:( 1828:( 1813:( 1790:( 1752:( 1736:( 1709:( 1695:( 1680:( 1666:( 1650:( 1641:" 1625:( 1600:( 1576:( 1561:( 1542:( 1527:( 1499:( 1479:( 1452:( 1393:( 1329:( 1291:( 1257:( 1227:( 1192:( 1170:( 1151:( 1131:( 989:( 699:. 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index