User talk:Cluelesswonder: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary Tag: Mobile edit |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
I've gone ahead and re-reverted your changes and edited the article to add a cited note that some Christian denominations no longer believe this. [[User:DemocraticLuntz|DemocraticLuntz]] ([[User talk:DemocraticLuntz|talk]]) 14:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC) |
I've gone ahead and re-reverted your changes and edited the article to add a cited note that some Christian denominations no longer believe this. [[User:DemocraticLuntz|DemocraticLuntz]] ([[User talk:DemocraticLuntz|talk]]) 14:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC) |
||
: To echo Luntz' commentary: the Bible ''is'' a reliable source ''for what the Bible says''. Whether or not you agree with what the Bible says is irrelevant: if a statement is made that "the Bible says x", and cites a book, chapter and verse for that, that is a sufficient citation. <font color="green">[[User:WikiDan61|WikiDan61]]</font><font color="green" size="5px"></font><sup>[[User talk:WikiDan61|ChatMe!]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/WikiDan61|ReadMe!!]]</sub> 16:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC) |
: To echo Luntz' commentary: the Bible ''is'' a reliable source ''for what the Bible says''. Whether or not you agree with what the Bible says is irrelevant: if a statement is made that "the Bible says x", and cites a book, chapter and verse for that, that is a sufficient citation. <font color="green">[[User:WikiDan61|WikiDan61]]</font><font color="green" size="5px"></font><sup>[[User talk:WikiDan61|ChatMe!]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/WikiDan61|ReadMe!!]]</sub> 16:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC) |
||
I really don't care what the Bible says or how a couple homophobes interpret it. It's not a reliable source for Wikipedia. |
|||
Revision as of 16:40, 13 January 2014
Sodomy Laws
Hi, thanks for contacting me. I understand your point. However, reliable sources are highly dependent on the context. The New Testament (and [despite my personal beliefs] the Tanach) are not in general reliable sources ``as to whether something actually happened." However, the context here is the opinion held by Christianity towards homosexuality. As such, citing a verse in the New Testament that condemns sodomy is absolutely a reliable source ``for the assertion that the New Testament condemns sodomy and, since the New Testament is a foundational text of the Christian religion, it is also a reliable source that the Christian religion has traditionally condemned sodomy. I'd agree that a better source in context would be a historical source specifically tying sodomy laws to Christianity.
My main point was that your additions "Christians are divided in the belief" and "however context needs to be taken into account to fully understand what is being said in these verses and not specifically condemning homosexual relationships as we understand them today" is, without nuance and citing of reliable sources (in this case, adding reliable sources would involve sources about how some Christian denominations today ) a violation of Wikipedia's neutrality policy as it provides a slanted view towards accepting homosexual relationships which is very far from universally held in the Christian religion. I've gone ahead and re-reverted your changes and edited the article to add a cited note that some Christian denominations no longer believe this. DemocraticLuntz (talk) 14:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- To echo Luntz' commentary: the Bible is a reliable source for what the Bible says. Whether or not you agree with what the Bible says is irrelevant: if a statement is made that "the Bible says x", and cites a book, chapter and verse for that, that is a sufficient citation. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I really don't care what the Bible says or how a couple homophobes interpret it. It's not a reliable source for Wikipedia.