• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Prostitution and 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.

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.
I'm not in disagreement with you on the struggling single mothers.But I think there were various views to divorce. I would say it was more frowned upon when children were born without their fathers, outside wedlock.

Not all, but many would understand and agree to couples needing to divorce, especially... when theres obvious signs of physical violence and mental suffering.

For the times, a few decades ago in the West, ironically, it was commonly known for well known celebrities and film stars to divorce. It was widely known without surprise,that some film stars have been married several times.

(2) Does divorce really excuse the situation of initial purchase?
A divorce in a marriage/contract is not actually a purchase at all! How can it be? It's merely a language error from erroneous reading of biblical scripture.

There is no such ownership of a purchased person, if she or he by the means to divorce... can legally leave the owner. That idea is conceptually a contradiction.
 
Last edited:
There is no such ownership of a purchased person, if she or he by the means to divorce... can legally leave the owner. That idea is conceptually a contradiction.

Well, first, there had to be specific grounds or it could not happen and second, how is it not a contradiction to go have to obey someone else or live with nothing? That's not freedom.
 
.. 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?
Well this is what Jesus said:
Matthew 5:31-32
“It has been said, ‘Suppose a man divorces his wife. If he does, he must give her a letter of divorce.’ (Deuteronomy 24:1) But here is what I tell you. Anyone who divorces his wife makes her a victim of adultery. And anyone who gets married to the divorced woman commits adultery. A man may divorce his wife only if she has not been faithful to him.
So it seems divorce in the Old Testament was easy but since Jesus it is only allowed under certain conditions.
 
Learner

The 'traditional' Christian bible based marriage staring in the 1930s-40s as female rights movements grew was reveald to be fundamentally abusive and slave like.

Yi9u can see it portrayed in the old western shows and movies.

I think it was in the 80s or 90sn in a Barbra Walters interview with Shaun Connery when he said a little physical abuse with a woman is warranted when she gets out of lone. He trued to walk it back.

He was living in Portugal or Spain. The next day guys cheered and clapped when he rode by.

The Christian moral stance against sex trades is another of those moral hypocrisies..
 
There is no such ownership of a purchased person, if she or he by the means to divorce... can legally leave the owner. That idea is conceptually a contradiction.

Well, first, there had to be specific grounds or it could not happen
There are always going to be 'specific grounds' before anyone willingly takes upon themselves the commitment to marriage. They would mutually be aware of what the grounds are.

and second, how is it not a contradiction to go have to obey someone else or live with nothing? That's not freedom.

The point in the biblical context of marriage as I mention above..
.. is the 'mutual' agreement to be commited to the husband and wife union, knowing quite well what the 'specific grounds' are. This is far from the false slavery illustration that atheist often like to portray.
 
There is no such ownership of a purchased person, if she or he by the means to divorce... can legally leave the owner. That idea is conceptually a contradiction.

Well, first, there had to be specific grounds or it could not happen
There are always going to be 'specific grounds' before anyone willingly takes upon themselves the commitment to marriage. They would mutually be aware of what the grounds are.

Your reading comprehension failure is evident: no, the issue is that in many historical and biblical contexts, the **grounds for divorce were not mutually agreed upon, but legally and patriarchally dictated**, and they were often far more restrictive for the wife. As shown in a prior post by someone else, these grounds might very well be restricted to **adultery** within much of Christian history—the thing under discussion—even if the list of specific things were slightly larger for the husband in the O.T. (e.g., in Deuteronomy 24:1-4):
When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and ehe writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house, 2 and if she goes and becomes another man’s wife, 3 and the latter man hates her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter man dies, who took her to be his wife, 4 then fher former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled, for that is an abomination before the Lord. And you shall not bring sin upon the land that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance

and second, how is it not a contradiction to go have to obey someone else or live with nothing? That's not freedom.

The point in the biblical context of marriage as I mention above..
.. is the 'mutual' agreement to be commited to the husband and wife union, knowing quite well what the 'specific grounds' are. This is far from the false slavery illustration that atheist often like to portray.

This is a continuation of your reading comprehension failure and it has nothing to do with a false portrayal by atheism, but instead how Christian denominations have been pointing to biblical texts saying these things for centuries. It wasn't atheists in the 1970's US telling everyone to stigmatize divorce, it was the majority religion of the US: i.e., Christianity. Nor did things happen in very strange manners with King Henry VIII's marriages due to atheism, that had more to do with patriarchy and Christianity than much else. This isn't rocket science. You can blame atheism for this history.

This is a continuation of your reading comprehension failure and it has nothing to do with a false portrayal by atheism. The issue is instead how traditional Christian denominations have been pointing to biblical texts and societal custom to severely restrict the freedom and economic independence of women for centuries. It wasn't atheists in the 1970s U.S. telling everyone to stigmatize divorce or deny wives property rights, it was the majority religion of the U.S.: i.e., Christianity and its resulting societal norms.

To provide a clear historical example: under the doctrine of coverture in English common law (which heavily influenced early U.S. law and was deeply entwined with Christian patriarchy), a married woman's legal existence was largely "covered" by her husband. She could not generally own property, sign contracts, or keep wages in her own name. This system, which persisted well into the 19th century, is a perfect illustration of how marriage legally created a state of economic dependence and restricted freedom.

Nor did things happen in very strange manners with King Henry VIII's marriages due to atheism; that had everything to do with **patriarchy and Christianity's rigid view of marriage as an unbreakable covenant**, which left him with no legal mechanism for annulment or divorce outside of papal approval.

Now, of course, I must concede that biblical texts are inherently complex and often contradictory, allowing individuals to find what they want to believe within them. Ultimately, people can and do reinterpret these texts to align with more progressive values. This modern, kinder reinterpretation is often catalyzed and reinforced by secular pressure within societies. In this sense, religion can be seen as neutral, like a hammer—its impact depends entirely on the wielder's intent, whether it be for power, benefit, or compassion. BUT reinterpreting historical facts is not an option. The documented history of patriarchy and legal subjugation enacted in the name of these religious traditions remains a demonstrable fact.
 
Last edited:
There is no such ownership of a purchased person, if she or he by the means to divorce... can legally leave the owner. That idea is conceptually a contradiction.

Well, first, there had to be specific grounds or it could not happen
There are always going to be 'specific grounds' before anyone willingly takes upon themselves the commitment to marriage. They would mutually be aware of what the grounds are.

Your reading comprehension failure is evident: no, the issue is that in many historical and biblical contexts, the **grounds for divorce were not mutually agreed upon, but legally and patriarchally dictated**, and they were often far more restrictive for the wife.
(prt 1.)

Hey snap!

Reading comprehension failure about scripture is sort of what I say about atheists too.🙂


There were indeed mutually agreed understandings...which is in order necessary just to take the step before ever entering into a union for life... unless..

....you are actually saying that individuals were forced against their will into a "marriage". I could agree with you that this has 'also' occured alongside, abusing and distorting the bible for seriously wrong reasons, however...

... it's not according to the bible!

(that's my stance on the subject about what the bible distinguishes, between marriages).
(prt 2 when I get home)
 
There is no such ownership of a purchased person, if she or he by the means to divorce... can legally leave the owner. That idea is conceptually a contradiction.

Well, first, there had to be specific grounds or it could not happen
There are always going to be 'specific grounds' before anyone willingly takes upon themselves the commitment to marriage. They would mutually be aware of what the grounds are.

and second, how is it not a contradiction to go have to obey someone else or live with nothing? That's not freedom.

The point in the biblical context of marriage as I mention above..
.. is the 'mutual' agreement to be commited to the husband and wife union, knowing quite well what the 'specific grounds' are. This is far from the false slavery illustration that atheist often like to portray.
Oh please, get real.
 
The bible is not complex theology wise, it is inconsistent. The books that survived and we have today were written at different times by different people.

We do not really know how ancient Jews actually behaved in daily life at different times over centuries.

3000 years from now without a lot of historical details you might think all Catholics rigidly followed Catholic theology and obeyed the pope. You might think the RCC represents a pd given morality not knowing the historical corruption of the RCC.
 
....you are actually saying that individuals were forced against their will into a "marriage". ...

... it's not according to the bible!

Yes, absolutely. One of the earliest instances of this in the O.T. was the story of Onan. Onan didn't want to follow the custom/law of marrying one's brother's wife if his brother became deceased. Or maybe it was the having sex with her portion of the deal. So he wanked it instead. Then, Yahweh murdered him by lightning according to the biblical text. In fact, the whole story of Onan is so fucked up that I might as well include the whole chapter. It contains arranged marriages, prostitution, and Yahweh being a dick. Genesis 38 (NIV):
1. At that time, Judah left his brothers and went down to stay with a man of Adullam named Hirah. 2 There Judah met the daughter of a Canaanite man named Shua. He married her and made love to her; 3 she became pregnant and gave birth to a son, who was named Er. 4 She conceived again and gave birth to a son and named him Onan. 5 She gave birth to still another son and named him Shelah. It was at Kezib that she gave birth to him.

6 Judah got a wife for Er, his firstborn, and her name was Tamar. 7 But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the Lord put him to death.

8 Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.” 9 But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the Lord put him to death also.

11 Judah then said to his daughter-in-law Tamar, “Live as a widow in your father’s household until my son Shelah grows up.” For he thought, “He may die too, just like his brothers.” So Tamar went to live in her father’s household.

12 After a long time Judah’s wife, the daughter of Shua, died. When Judah had recovered from his grief, he went up to Timnah, to the men who were shearing his sheep, and his friend Hirah the Adullamite went with him.

13 When Tamar was told, “Your father-in-law is on his way to Timnah to shear his sheep,” 14 she took off her widow’s clothes, covered herself with a veil to disguise herself, and then sat down at the entrance to Enaim, which is on the road to Timnah. For she saw that, though Shelah had now grown up, she had not been given to him as his wife.

15 When Judah saw her, he thought she was a prostitute, for she had covered her face. 16 Not realizing that she was his daughter-in-law, he went over to her by the roadside and said, “Come now, let me sleep with you.”

“And what will you give me to sleep with you?” she asked.

17 “I’ll send you a young goat from my flock,” he said.

“Will you give me something as a pledge until you send it?” she asked.

18 He said, “What pledge should I give you?”

“Your seal and its cord, and the staff in your hand,” she answered. So he gave them to her and slept with her, and she became pregnant by him. 19 After she left, she took off her veil and put on her widow’s clothes again.

20 Meanwhile Judah sent the young goat by his friend the Adullamite in order to get his pledge back from the woman, but he did not find her. 21 He asked the men who lived there, “Where is the shrine prostitute who was beside the road at Enaim?”

“There hasn’t been any shrine prostitute here,” they said.

22 So he went back to Judah and said, “I didn’t find her. Besides, the men who lived there said, ‘There hasn’t been any shrine prostitute here.’”

23 Then Judah said, “Let her keep what she has, or we will become a laughingstock. After all, I did send her this young goat, but you didn’t find her.”

24 About three months later Judah was told, “Your daughter-in-law Tamar is guilty of prostitution, and as a result she is now pregnant.”

Judah said, “Bring her out and have her burned to death!”

25 As she was being brought out, she sent a message to her father-in-law. “I am pregnant by the man who owns these,” she said. And she added, “See if you recognize whose seal and cord and staff these are.”

26 Judah recognized them and said, “She is more righteous than I, since I wouldn’t give her to my son Shelah.” And he did not sleep with her again.

27 When the time came for her to give birth, there were twin boys in her womb. 28 As she was giving birth, one of them put out his hand; so the midwife took a scarlet thread and tied it on his wrist and said, “This one came out first.” 29 But when he drew back his hand, his brother came out, and she said, “So this is how you have broken out!” And he was named Perez.[a] 30 Then his brother, who had the scarlet thread on his wrist, came out. And he was named Zerah.

Some of the other early forceful marriages are implicit because we have to consider gay people and their treatment by O.T. laws and Yahweh. Stoning gay people to death...the mass murder of Sodom and Gomorrah. The other option was to let gay people live their happy lives with each other and to marry if they so chose. Even now, Christian denominations force gay people away from marrying someone whom they love by excluding gay marriage. In some places in the US there is a lot of Christian pressure to re-enact sodomy laws. In other Christian regions in the world, there are sodomy laws which are very punishable. This isn't an atheist interpretation. These are facts.

Leviticus 20:13: "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."

So far as heterosexual marriage, arranged marriages were the norm, not the exception. So it is very odd to express a contrarian view to this history. Arranged marriages continued for centuries and are even some times done today. In biblical texts, this is often seen as an exchange of property one way or the other: from the bride's father to the new family, i.e. a dowry; or as a payment from the prospective groom to the bride's father. One of many example texts discussing such things follows. Exodus 21:7-11:
7 “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. 8 If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her. 9 If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. 10 If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. 11 And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.

There is a lot of apologetics for this crap at the link, but none of it is excusable. Historical context is not an excuse for making piss-poor laws by an all-powerful entity. Likewise, war, famine, poverty are not excuses for slavery or otherwise, we'd be making those same excuses today, which we do not do. Today, we discuss human rights and debate over them which is an upgrade from those ancient times and their mythological texts.
 
Back
Top Bottom