Prostitution and the Bible

[excreationist]

Yet you comment on threads that are in a forum category mainly about the Bible.

I rarely look at which forum a comment is in, or at who posted it. I arrived here from "New Posts"

The title is "Prostitution and the Bible". I thought you didn't care what the Bible has to say.

That insight does demonstrate how uninterested you are in the Bible.

Yup. I only commented because I am somewhat interested in polyandry.

That doesn't have anything to do with prostitution or the Bible.

And because your comments about it seem to be highly conservative,

Being a supporter of 1000 wives and concubines for Solomon is "high conservative"? edit: you mean you don't like that I'm against polyandry? I think most people don't think it is a good idea. I think most men would prefer one woman to themselves than to share her with four other men.

wildly wrong, and based on some extremely dubious assumptions and a dire lack of imagination. But then, that's to be expected if your opinions derive from the Bible.

Yes the thread is about the Bible.

 

[bilby]

Yes the thread is about the Bible.

Which is fine, as long as you live in a society where the Bible is recognised as fantasy fiction, with no connection to reality.

But we don't live in such a society, so how the Bible is interpreted is not just a matter for discussion amongst fans.

 

[excreationist]

Yes the thread is about the Bible.

Which is fine, as long as you live in a society where the Bible is recognised as fantasy fiction, with no connection to reality.

But we don't live in such a society, so how the Bible is interpreted is not just a matter for discussion amongst fans.

The Bible talks about a temple in Jerusalem... I thought that is somewhat based on reality.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I am a bit confused by this thread. The subject is purported to be about prostitution and the bible, but there is a focus on adultery. Why such a focus?

Let's take a step back for a moment. Wouldn't one also say that premarital sex was a thing looked down upon (to put it mildly)? So if there are unmarried persons involved in the sex, it may fall under the purview of premarital sex. On the other hand, if it is a married person involved in the sex, it may fall under the purview of adultery. To add finally, the small bits of data about prostitution already discussed, there is also another issue--one of lecherousness as a broad umbrella term that also would cover prostitution. So in total, off the top of my head I can recall 4 things here:

• 1. prostitution specific things mentioned in the bible;
• 2. adultery;
• 3. premarital sex;
• 4. lecherousness/lasciviousness.

It doesn't seem like many texts about prostitution are necessary?

Right/wrong?

 

[steve_bank]

In an ancient tribal culture rules on sex would have practical value.

Minimize male conflict, minimize unsupported children, generally establish civil order within the trrbe,.

 

[Politesse]

I am a bit confused by this thread. The subject is purported to be about prostitution and the bible, but there is a focus on adultery. Why such a focus?

Let's take a step back for a moment. Wouldn't one also say that premarital sex was a thing looked down upon (to put it mildly)? So if there are unmarried persons involved in the sex, it may fall under the purview of premarital sex. On the other hand, if it is a married person involved in the sex, it may fall under the purview of adultery. To add finally, the small bits of data about prostitution already discussed, there is also another issue--one of lecherousness as a broad umbrella term that also would cover prostitution. So in total, off the top of my head I can recall 4 things here:

• 1. prostitution specific things mentioned in the bible;
• 2. adultery;
• 3. premarital sex;
• 4. lecherousness/lasciviousness.

It doesn't seem like many texts about prostitution are necessary?

Right/wrong?

It seems like you are approaching this as a logical problem, more than a legal one. One could in theory, simply pass a law that says "Lying is illegal", and thus outlaw all forms of lying, from adultery to fraudulent malpractice to outdated physics lectures. But that would in effect be a useless law, both unenforcable and unlikely to be enforced. It matters whether or not the "Scriptures", which in this case were the standing legal documents of their time, specifically call out prostitution or not, because both in their time and ours, seeing a sex worker is fundamentally not seen or treated as "the same" crime as cheating with another man's wife, even if distinguishing between them is a tad inconsistent if not hypocritical.

I note that there is no specific prescription against premarital sex in the Hebrew Scriptures either; that's a Christian addition. Most scholars assume that it would have been frowned on in Hebrew society for what are to us obvious reasons, but it is just an assumption, not something called out in the text. There's even a counter-argument to be made, since we do see on a few occasions characters offering their unmarried daughters to visitors, and it is not called out as sinful to do so; they may have genuinely had a different idea about this topic.

Fast forward to the Christian third of the Bible, and you are talking about morality but not talking about the law anymore. And it is extremely vague moral advice, in character, more like outlawing lying than outlawing sex work. Indeed, the very same verse in Paul that condemns "sexual immorality" condemns all forms of deceit as well. All well and good for moral teaching, but not an easily enforceable rule. It's too unclear, because unlike Leviticus it was never meant as a practical, enforceable rule by its original author. Paul was including some general moral advice in a private letter to some friends, not governing a nation, so why would he bother clarifying what exactly he did or did not mean by sexual immorality? The recipients of the letter surely knew exactly which recent sex scandal he was referring to without his needing to indiscreetly spell it out. It must have been a pretty good one if it reached Paul's ears all the way in Rome!

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I note that there is no specific prescription against premarital sex in the Hebrew Scriptures either; that's a Christian addition.

We are discussing the Bible, which is Christian, but as far as pre-marital sex in the OT, there is Exodus 22:16-17:
"And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins."

Maid here means "virgin" and so maybe there is a point about non-virgins. Perhaps also I am being too logical and maybe that is true. Because next, I would consider that any non-virgin was once a virgin, even prostitutes. I realize also that there is hypocrisy and at least some of that comes from patriarchal ways of these ancient cultures. So perhaps mentions of daughters given by fathers on a temporary basis were ruined already, compensated, but still taken advantage of to a life of being passed around for compensation since marital prospects (virginity) were ruined. Not sure.

This does seem like a thing to discuss, especially in light of ex-creationist's prostitutes-are-just-a-waste-of-money moral hypothesis about the texts.

So far as the entirety of the bible being legal prescriptions, I don't think that is the case. I am not sure you meant that, but we are discussing the bible as a whole. For example, in Matthew, Jesus is alleged to talk about how if a husband has adultery in his head then that is an equal sin to adultery in the flesh. That isn't really an enforceable thing. Perhaps that is even what you meant, if you were merely distinguishing the OT from the NT. But I was speaking to the texts as a whole in the context of "the bible" as much as we can anyway, since certain persons have chosen certain texts to go together and reject others, depending on the doctrines they are espousing.

 

[Politesse]

So far as the entirety of the bible being legal prescriptions, I don't think that is the case. I am not sure you meant that, but we are discussing the bible as a whole. For example, in Matthew, Jesus is alleged to talk about how if a husband has adultery in his head then that is an equal sin to adultery in the flesh. That isn't really an enforceable thing. Perhaps that is even what you meant, if you were merely distinguishing the OT from the NT. But I was speaking to the texts as a whole in the context of "the bible" as much as we can anyway, since certain persons have chosen certain texts to go together and reject others, depending on the doctrines they are espousing.

My point is that they aren't the same thing. The Hebrew Scriptures and the Gospels and Paul's letters are fundamentally different documents, written for different reasons in different cultures for VERY different reasons. Paul references the Law a lot, but he obviously did not think that his letters were interpreting, adding, or subtracting for that Law. How could they? Judea was still a semi-autonomous country in his time, the Torah a folk legal system that was not and could not be amended by the private writings of a Roman citizen two thousand miles away. It's not logical to try and intrepret these different types of writing as though they were all working together to create a clear, coherent version of "the rules". The Bible is a collection, not a treatise, and there are no real "the rules" to be found in it. You know what Paul actually says about the law? Mostly that its prudent to follow one's local laws. For all of his recipients, that's Roman law plus whatever sub-plenary rights belonged to the local basileon or governor in that province. On morality he writes much more freely, but under a very Greek influenced presumption that moral decisions are the manifestation of a personal conscience, ruled by discernment.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

So far as the entirety of the bible being legal prescriptions, I don't think that is the case. I am not sure you meant that, but we are discussing the bible as a whole. For example, in Matthew, Jesus is alleged to talk about how if a husband has adultery in his head then that is an equal sin to adultery in the flesh. That isn't really an enforceable thing. Perhaps that is even what you meant, if you were merely distinguishing the OT from the NT. But I was speaking to the texts as a whole in the context of "the bible" as much as we can anyway, since certain persons have chosen certain texts to go together and reject others, depending on the doctrines they are espousing.

My point is that they aren't the same thing. The Hebrew Scriptures and the Gospels and Paul's letters are fundamentally different documents, written for different reasons in different cultures for VERY different reasons. Paul references the Law a lot, but he obviously did not think that his letters were interpreting, adding, or subtracting for that Law. It's not logical to try and intrepret these different types of writing as though they were all working together to create a clear, coherent version of "the rules". The Bible is a collection, not a treatise, and there are no real "the rules" to be found in it.

Okay. I can understand your point. I concede that you could be correct in the context of what we're discussing. My quest to try to come up with a broad umbrella of logical understanding is probably a vestige of once being involved with religion.

 

[Politesse]

Ironically, it was seminary that broke me of that very... habit.

 

[excreationist]

I am a bit confused by this thread. The subject is purported to be about prostitution and the bible, but there is a focus on adultery. Why such a focus?

I thought it was interesting that prostitution doesn't seem to be that bad in the Old Testament but adultery has the death penalty. They're both about having sex with women that aren't your wife.

Let's take a step back for a moment. Wouldn't one also say that premarital sex was a thing looked down upon (to put it mildly)?

This is related to sex before marriage:

Exodus 22:16–17: If a man seduced a virgin not betrothed, he was required to pay the bride-price and marry her (unless her father refused). This shows premarital sex was not permitted without covenantal marriage.

Deuteronomy 22:20–21: If a woman was found not to be a virgin at marriage, it was considered a disgrace to her father’s house and punishable by death.

 

[steve_bank]

I note that there is no specific prescription against premarital sex in the Hebrew Scriptures either; that's a Christian addition.

We are discussing the Bible, which is Christian, but as far as pre-marital sex in the OT, there is Exodus 22:16-17:
"And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins."

Maid here means "virgin" and so maybe there is a point about non-virgins. Perhaps also I am being too logical and maybe that is true. Because next, I would consider that any non-virgin was once a virgin, even prostitutes. I realize also that there is hypocrisy and at least some of that comes from patriarchal ways of these ancient cultures. So perhaps mentions of daughters given by fathers on a temporary basis were ruined already, compensated, but still taken advantage of to a life of being passed around for compensation since marital prospects (virginity) were ruined. Not sure.

This does seem like a thing to discuss, especially in light of ex-creationist's prostitutes-are-just-a-waste-of-money moral hypothesis about the texts.

So far as the entirety of the bible being legal prescriptions, I don't think that is the case. I am not sure you meant that, but we are discussing the bible as a whole. For example, in Matthew, Jesus is alleged to talk about how if a husband has adultery in his head then that is an equal sin to adultery in the flesh. That isn't really an enforceable thing. Perhaps that is even what you meant, if you were merely distinguishing the OT from the NT. But I was speaking to the texts as a whole in the context of "the bible" as much as we can anyway, since certain persons have chosen certain texts to go together and reject others, depending on the doctrines they are espousing.

And the much stated problem for us atheists and others is Christians who think the OT/NT are the literal inerrant words of or inspired by a god representing a morality.

The pope dictating morality to the world from the Vatican.

 

[Learner]

I am a bit confused by this thread. The subject is purported to be about prostitution and the bible, but there is a focus on adultery. Why such a focus?

I thought it was interesting that prostitution doesn't seem to be that bad in the Old Testament but adultery has the death penalty. They're both about having sex with women that aren't your wife

The mentions of prostitution 'not being bad' can be overlooked, although, it's understandable why one could see it that way, as you compared with adultery in your post.

Understandable, and adding somewhat confusion to the context of prostitution, like the example where Hosea was allowed to marry a prostitute (believed for a specific reason, biblically). Noting, prostitution can be forgivable.

Regarding the OT. Prostitution would still be considered to be bad overall, in the context mentioned in the verse below.

Proverbs 23:27 -28

"For a prostitute is a deep pit and a wayward wife is a narrow well. Like a bandit she lies in wait, and multiplies the unfaithful among men.

 

[steve_bank]

The plain truth is that the bible is filled with moral contradictions and major biblical figures were not moral.

There is a lot of hate and prejudice in Christianity today. Anything is justified by saying it is what god wants. Kill abortion doctors and bomb abortion clinics.

 

[Learner]

The plain truth is that the bible is filled with moral contradictions and major biblical figures were not moral.

I say...it's down to your 'preferable' understanding for manifesting contradictions.

There is a lot of hate and prejudice in Christianity today. Anything is justified by saying it is what god wants. Kill abortion doctors and bomb abortion clinics.

Yeah, we talked about the difference between 'wide gate' and 'narrow gate' "Christians". Do you know of these relating scriptures?

Yeah yeah, I get what you're saying. You're saying "Non believing Atheists murder people because Stalin did."


Join your local church 'at least' for the tea and cakes in your community, and see it ain't all that bad.

 

[steve_bank]

Throughout hisory from the earliets times Christianity followers of the 'Prince of Peace' were at each other;s throats. True today.

The perennial moral corruption in the RCC and in Christian leaders over the last 50 years. Utter hypocrisy.

To the OP the urge to mate is genetic, we have no control over it.

Dung the women's lib movement it was often pointed out that a man dating a won and taking her out had an exception of e sex. A form of prostitution.

In the traditional marriage a woman is required to be available for sex any time whetherr she wants to or not. Wife and children are property of the male, biblically derived.

 

[Learner]

Throughout hisory from the earliets times Christianity followers of the 'Prince of Peace' were at each other;s throats. True today.

Christians also believe in the opposition to the 'Prince of Peace'. Turning people against each other. Brother against brother etc & etc ...you know how the rest of it goes

The perennial moral corruption in the RCC and in Christian leaders over the last 50 years. Utter hypocrisy.

I don't argue that this has happened. Oddly enough to your statement.. ..Hypocrisy is a top sin that Jesus detests.

To the OP the urge to mate is genetic, we have no control over it.

I could agree with the above, depending if the context means both participants are mutually willing, also it being a nessesity for humans to thrive through the act of mating.

Dung the women's lib movement it was often pointed out that a man dating a won and taking her out had an exception of e sex. A form of prostitution.

Prostitution is a sin, but pardonable in the bible.

In the traditional marriage a woman is required to be available for sex any time whetherr she wants to or not. Wife and children are property of the male, biblically derived.

..and yet biblically derived..

.. divorce is permitted!

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

In the traditional marriage a woman is required to be available for sex any time whetherr she wants to or not. Wife and children are property of the male, biblically derived.

I think the point you are making is that the traditional view of marriage is fairly close if not equal to legal prostitution. The wife has been bought typically by the husband from the father for the price of some cows or whatever. She has to be a virgin for the deal to work out.

.. divorce is permitted!

But (1) how practicable is that in patriarchal society? Even in our modern society in the US a few decades ago, divorce was very frowned upon and trying to make it as a single mother was very tough. That could only have been worse in times further back. (2) Does divorce really excuse the situation of initial purchase?

 

[steve_bank]

During the 'women's lib' movement it was pointed out that dating could be seen as a form of prostitution. A quid pro quo, gifts and nights out on the town, aka fun, for sex.

Some questioned their tradition of a man opening a door for a woman.

And it was pointed out marriage was like a labor contract. In exchange for man proving money for the family women provides sex on demand, cleans houses, raisesds kids, and cooks for no pay.

MorE of a business arrangement.

Basically Yahweh is the aCI9ENTt Jewish male patriarch with power of life and deth over a faily.

You can see it in conservative extremes in Islam and Judaism.

The Islamic males killing a female for violating family honor and orality. There has been a few cases in the USA.

Extreme conservative Judaism does not go as far as honor killings, but there is separation of the sexes and women do not have the rights of men.

 

[bilby]

Christians also believe in the opposition to the 'Prince of Peace'.

Sure, but "Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?" as St Paul is alleged to have asked.

What is stopping God from defeating any and all efforts of His "opposition"?

Does God not want to do so? Is He not powerful enough to do so? Does He not know of the plans of His opponent?