User talk:Mrs. PGL

Unhelpful edits Please refrain from making unhelpful edits as you did to the article Blessing of Same-sex Unions in Christian Churches. How you personally interpret the Bible is not relevant to any article on Wikipedia. As evidenced by the fact that dozens of denominations allow same-sex marriage, it is obvious that not all Christians agree on this subject, and the article must remain neutral in tone. BroWCarey (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. BroWCarey (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a project dedicated to a neutral point of view. We collectively and individually do not care how you interpret or misinterpret what you and I agree is Holy Scripture; and neither your nor my interpretation of the Bible, nor our respective viewpoints as to in what sense any given English-language translation of Scripture is or is not literally "the word of God", have any place in this project. (I somehow suspect you would not be comfortable at a worship service of the Metropolitan Community Church, or many other gay-affirming devoutly Christian bodies across this varied planet.) -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  00:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

When Christ teaches 1 Corinthians 7 - Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.” But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.” So, if you are not interested in what Christ said to the churches, you are censoring the Bible. Next, placing comments from books is "opinion" that carries no weight if the Bible holds none, so perhaps those comments should be edited out also? The heading of the area called for pro/not pro and that is what I offered. You choose to censor, you're in the wrong. When, as a member of a church - presumably Christian - where God's point of view is seen as extreme, you are not honouring God.


 * The Bible cannot be considered a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards, and the exclusion of any particular source as such is not censorship. There are plenty of unreliable sources that we do not use, but this does not automatically mean "censorship". I must also add that Wikipedia does not exist to honor any given deity - Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, etc. I've found this essay by to be very insightful. GABgab 00:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

But pro homosexual books cited on this article are considered a reliable source? That is censorship. Institute for Progressive Christianity (instituteforprogressivechristianity.org/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=36) link inactive as of 2008-05-10 Jump up ^ Hope Remains Jump up ^ Gay and Christian? Yes!, pp. 1–70, Rev. William H. Carey, 2006, 2008 Lulu.com Jump up ^ Good News for Modern Gays, pp. 1–213, Rev. Sylvia Pennington, 1985 Lambda Lite Productions Jump up ^ Streitfall Liebe - Biblische Plädoyers wider die Ausgrenzung homosexuelller Menschen, Valeria Hinck, Mering : Pro-Literatur-Verlag 2007 http://d-nb.info/984453415 these are more credible than the Bible? Censorship my friends.


 * Mrs.PGL, try to understand the difference: The books you listed there are scholarly works by contemporary authors who did research and cited sources. The Bible is nothing like that. It's an ancient text, translated multiple times, doesn't cite sources, but claims divine authority. Wikipedia cannot accept that as a source on its own without losing its neutrality. To accept it as a source on its claim of divine authority is the same as saying that the Judaeo-Christian God is the only true God and the Bible is His word. Now, you may believe that, and I may believe that, but countless millions of others do not. And they look to Wikipedia for unbiased information.
 * In another place, you made reference to the Christian viewpoint, or something to that effect. But there is no single Christian viewpoint on this subject. If there were, this article would not exist, since all Christian churches would teach exactly the same thing. You need to understand that people understand the Bible differently, and it is not appropriate for Wikipedia to state that people who do not understand it the way you do are wrong or don't care about scripture. That's not unbiased in the least.
 * As someone else pointed out to you, the way an objective, neutral encyclopedia reports on this is in this way:
 * Church A believes this and this and this, with documentation from something that church has published that supports the statement.
 * Church B believes that and that and that, again, citing a published source from that church that supports the statement.
 * But Wikipedia CANNOT quote scripture and use it to claim that Church A is right and Church B is ignoring scripture.
 * There are plenty of places online where you can post your understanding of scripture and your beliefs. Wikipedia is not one of those. It's just not how an encyclopedia works. BroWCarey (talk) 01:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry guys you are not even consistent: From "History of Christianity and homosexuality" on this website:"The Judaic prohibitions found in Leviticus 18:22 (see also Leviticus 18) and 20:13 address the issue of sex between two men The latter verse (20:13) says: 'And if a man also lies with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." How many sects of Jews are there? And, the bible was used as a reference. Yet I cite the same scripture and am being accused of vandalism. The Book of the Bible was sufficient as a reference here: " It is believed by some interpreters in recent times that St. Paul was only addressing such practices in Romans 1: 26–27, while others usually see these verses as condemning all forms of homoeroticism" Same article, Same Bible. Why is it with same sex marriage you are choosing to censor what the Bible teaches but not in other articles? Same article, the Bible is valid enough to have someone believe it has been endorsed - Ruth and Naomi, Johnathan and David. I believe you are censoring the word of God on the site when it does not agree with homosexuality and am formally complaining.


 * Again, please remember to end every post with four tildes (~) It's generally just to the left of the number 1 on your keyboard, shifted. This will automatically sign and date your post so we know who wrote it and when.
 * Do you really think that it is possible for any one person to police every article on Wikipedia? There are many articles that have neutrality problems. When someone discovers one, and it is important to him or her, that person may choose to edit the article to bring it into compliance. The article you cite in regard to the Judaic scriptures is an example. This is an article I don't think I have read before. The statement itself is not sourced, and is not neutral. It "assumes" that the scriptures do indeed say what it claims. The article needs to be edited. And hopefully someone who watches that article will do so. I have certain articles I watch and contribute to. (In actual fact, most branches of Judaism do not believe the Bible forbids homosexuality. Same-sex marriages are conducted in all but one branch of that faith, and the opposition in that one branch is primarily based on Talmud, not Bible. I couldn't put that statement into an article unless I provided sources/documentation. That's what's called original research. I can make the statement here, on a talk page, because I have researched it and found it to be so. But that's not sufficient for an actual article on the subject.)
 * I understand you believe the Bible is clear on this subject. But other people read exactly the same verses and understand them differently. Wikipedia is not the place to say one is right and the other wrong. For example, I have 40 years experience researching the Bible in the original languages. I don't believe it condemns homosexuality at all. But I can't make that statement in an article either, even if I post verses in Hebrew or Greek to support it. This isn't a forum for presenting my beliefs as facts. I can state that some hold that belief, and provide links to resources indicating that they hold those beliefs. I need to just as fairly state that some hold the opposite view, and present sources to demonstrate that they hold those views. If people need specifics of why either holds the view they do, that's what the links are for: They can follow up on them, review the sources, and often find actual statements from churches, as well as published scholarly research. BroWCarey (talk) 03:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

thank you for your response but you are wearing two hats and holding me and the scripture I submitted and was taken down twice to a different standard. The scripture condemns anything else but a man and a woman, in all 25 translations that I read this date. Are you more interested in upholding homosexuality, or telling the truth on Wikipedia? You are holding me to a different standard than other articles of the same nature. The Bible is very clear on the subject, unless one is trying to be obstructive. May I put my scripture back on the original article as it is used on the second article I have brought to your attention? Thank youMrs. PGL (talk) 16:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC) Also, I direct you to Homosexuality and the New Testament - my point that you are holding me to a different standard is evident again.Mrs. PGL (talk) 16:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * You're very good, it seems, at finding articles that violate neutrality. Homosexuality in the New Testament is another one. I also have not previously read that article. But it is not neutral in tone. It should be edited to be more neutral. For example, it begins by saying "In the New Testament, there are at least three passages that refer to homosexual activity..." That statement is debatable. It depends on what translation you use. (And if you are using the original Greek, then the statement is out and out wrong.) A more neutral way to word that would be to say "In the New Testament, there are at least three passages that some believe refer to homosexual activity..." In fact, the beginning of that article doesn't even provide a source, other than the scripture references, and just asserts that they are speaking of homosexual activity. But it should not make that statement because it's not something that has been proven, nor is it something universally agreed upon.
 * You're asking permission to repost the very things that were reverted before, simply because other articles have slipped under the radar and gotten away with it. But that's not appropriate. I can't personally monitor every article on this topic, nor would I want to. I monitor certain ones, usually articles to which I have contributed something. If someone edits one of those articles in a biased manner as you did, I would certainly revert it.
 * By the way, there are very few subjects on which the Bible is "very clear." It is very much open to interpretation, which is one reason there are so many denominations. I personally don't care how many translations someone consults, because I find all the translations flawed at best. What matters isn't what they claim, but what was originally written. The fact that the translations frequently disagree with each other is evidence enough that translators were/are not always honest. But that is neither here nor there. In answer to your question, no, you cannot post scriptures as proof of something, and state that your understanding of them is "truth," or even pretend that your view is "the" Christian position. It is your view, undoubtedly shared by some Christians, but by no means all. There are already articles that outline what various denominations believe in regard to homosexuality. And those articles don't claim that one view is right and the others are wrong. Wikipedia is not a forum for people to preach their own viewpoints, no matter how sure they are that their view is correct. You see, for every verse you might post, claiming that it proved homosexuality was wrong, I could easily counter it, either with a correction to the translation from the Hebrew or Greek, or information about the historical context to show your interpretation was wrong. And what would that accomplish? Wikipedia is not a battleground for differing points of view, but an objective encyclopedia, a source of unbiased information, representing all viewpoints while espousing none. BroWCarey (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)