User talk:Quoflector

This is my first time editing a Wikipedia article and I have read the policies and guidelines. I write as a minister who has written ten articles on this topic since 2003.

I posted the following end of the sentence (in quotes): Historically, the passage has often been interpreted within Judaism and Christianity as a punishment for homosexuality, "however, various interpreters indicate this is irrelevant as a homosexual gang rape does not condemn all gays any more than a heterosexual gang rape is an indictment of all straights."

My reasons for this addition:

1. Regarding gang rape, this is a valid observation by a scholar, Walter Wink, who has written on this topic for at least two decades as well as a gay activist, Matthew Vines, who has made the same observation.

2. The beginning of the sentence acknowledges the traditional interpretation of punishment for homosexuality.

I deleted the following sentence: "but the passage has historically been interpreted within Judaism and Christianity as a punishment for homosexuality due to the interpretation that the men of Sodom wished to rape the angels who retrieved Lot.[4]."

My reasons for this deletion:

1. Though the beginning of the sentence is virtually the same, I wished to avoid a run-on sentence.

2. The explanation that punishment for homosexuality for rape is due to the men wishing to rape the angels is contradicted by the fact that the rape in question is a gang rape. Moreover, as indicated elsewhere in this section, none of the early explanatory material in the Old Testament held that the offense in question was homosexuality.

I am confident the original post is both valid and pertinent, so it should be included. As Wikipedia is a collegial community, I am open to inclusion of another explanation for the traditional view. I will withhold editing of this pericope for 24 hours, awaiting a response which will resolve this dispute.

Regarding the second paragraph of the section, Sodom and Gomorrah, I posted the middle material (in quotes): While the Jewish prophets spoke only of lack of charity as the sin of Sodom, "the gradually unfolding sexual interpretation of "Sodom" became the basis, beginning in the 13th century, of the word sodomy," still a legal synonym for homosexual and non-procreative sexual acts, particularly anal or oral sex.

My reasons for this addition:

1. The sexual interpretation of Sodom, as noted in the first paragraph, was not contemporaneous with Gen. 19. It was a later development which gradually unfolded.

2. The dictionary cited indicates the first known usage of "sodomy" was the 13th century. So this edit is consistent with the material cited.

3. Note that I did not edit the first or last third of the sentence.

The middle portion deleted from the above sentence is "the exclusively sexual interpretation became so prevalent that the name "Sodom" became the basis of the word sodomy,"

My reasons for this deletion:

1. The time for the origin of the word "sodomy" is not given.

2. The implication of this pericope is that the several other understandings of the Gen. 19 narrative are irrelevant (for example, Lot's explanation that the guests--in accordance with strict rules for hospitality--"have come under the protection of my roof" (Gen. 19:8).

3. There is no citation indicating there was an "exclusively sexual interpretation" during the 13th century. This possibility is doubtful as the Old Testament scriptures cite hospitality, social justice and other non-sexual reasons--and Jesus cites hospitality.

For these reasons, I believe the edit should stand. I will wait 24 hours for a reply if a resolution is sought.

I have made the following edit: "Some passages in the Bible which prohibit homosexuality have traditionally been interpreted literally—apart from their historical context of pervasive temple prostitution. (Wink and Pope refs) Some interpreters maintain that the condemnation of homosexuality in these texts is determinative for gays today, while others state that the 'abomination' of homosexuality was based on the ancient understanding that semen was the sacred giver of life (the woman serving only as an incubator). Moreover, many ancient sexual prohibitions—including intercourse during menstruation, masturbation and birth control—are no longer followed by Christians. Thus, Jesus' love ethic—used to critique and reject these ancient sexual practices of the Bible—may also be used to critique and reject ancient prohibitions against homosexuality. (Wink ref)"

My reasons for this addition:

1. While I left in place the first sentence stating the traditional position, I indicated these scriptures have a historical context which is pertinent: Temple prostitution is one significant example.

2. Another pertinent context is the prescientific understanding of the biblical author which explains the reason why one verse each for homosexuality (Lev. 20:13) and masturbation (Gen. 38:10) prescribed the death penalty.

3. As sexual practices have radically changed from ancient times, scholar Walter Wink's advocacy for Jesus' love ethic to critique all sexual (and other) behavior is noteworthy.

The deleted passage is: "Today too some interpreters uphold that understanding of these passages, while other interpreters maintain that they do not condemn homosexuality,[weasel words] saying that historical context suggests other interpretations or that rare or unusual words in the passages may not be referring to homosexuality."

My reasons for this deletion:

1. The first third of the sentence is similar to the addition. It could give a reason for traditional interpretation.

2. The remaining two-thirds of the sentence is vague regarding the reasons for the understanding of "other interpreters." More specificity, as the edit above, helps the reader's understanding.

The above edit provides needed information. Should resolution be needed, I am open to discussion.

Quoflector (talk) 23:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]