• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Prostitution and the Bible

It seems that if an unmarried person has sex with a prostitute it is not adultery.
It is if the prostitute is married.
I don't think there are any examples in the Bible of a prostitute that is married while still working. There is Rahab and Salmon, and Hosea... I assume they stopped their profession. Otherwise they would be guilty of adultery which had the death penalty. And you couldn't be sure who the father was of their children. Also if they only get the equivalent of a loaf of bread per session it isn't really that lucrative.
 
Last edited:
The bible is not kind to homosexuals. Hence the Christian vicious homophobia.

The gospel Jesus reinforced Mosaic law, IOW the rules of Leviticus. The death penalty for homosexual sex.

Paul is taken to be teaching and continuing Jesus condemns homosexuality. Paul is said to have known Peter

Ritual purification for immorality was a theme in Leviticus.

From a quick search academics today debate interrelation. Did Paul condemn all homosexuality or just specific acts

Christians interpret a passage to mean with coming of Jesus he fulfilled the Old Testament and began a New Testament or covenant with god. Leviticus no longer applied, you can enjoy pork. But they hang onto homophobia. The Chinese Menu interpretation of the bible.
 
The bible is not kind to homosexuals. Hence the Christian vicious homophobia.

The gospel Jesus reinforced Mosaic law, IOW the rules of Leviticus. The death penalty for homosexual sex.
Jesus said nothing of the sort. And the Levitical rules only outlawed sex between men.

Paul is taken to be teaching and continuing Jesus condemns homosexuality. Paul is said to have known Peter.
In "that way", do you suppose? Or was Timothy his only squeeze?

Ritual purification for immorality was a theme in Leviticus.
No, ritual purification for ritual impurity is a theme in Leviticus.

Christians interpret a passage to mean with coming of Jesus he fulfilled the Old Testament and began a New Testament or covenant with god. Leviticus no longer applied, you can enjoy pork. But they hang onto homophobia. The Chinese Menu interpretation of the bible.
Don't you also enjoy the Chinese Menu interpretation? You sure seem to throw in your hat with the evnagelicals on every question of interpretation. Which is wild, because the feeling isn't mutual, they hate your guts. Why do you owe their deranged theology and moral rules any sort of fealty?
 
Don't we have Jesus saying that he had not come to abolish the law or the prophets, that not one jot or tittle of the law shall pass until all is fulfilled?
 
Don't we have Jesus saying that he had not come to abolish the law or the prophets, that not one jot or tittle of the law shall pass until all is fulfilled?
Yes. And also clearly violating many points of Mosaic law, intentionally and shamelessly, always when following them would have resulted in a failure to love one's neighbor. As a Jew he was faithful to the Tanakh, yes, but clearly not a textual literalist as modernists have interpreted that. There's a difference between abolishing the law and refusing to follow it blindly or in all contexts.
 
Don't we have Jesus saying that he had not come to abolish the law or the prophets, that not one jot or tittle of the law shall pass until all is fulfilled?
Jesus didn't let them stone the adulteress in John 8 as the law says...
Though on the other hand it seems the story was added to the Bible later....
[The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53—8:11. A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53.]
 
Monogamy and the family unit is a way to mange reproduction.
Monogamy wasn't really enforced in the Old Testament...
  • Lamech (Genesis 4:19) The first recorded polygamist in the Bible. He married Adah and Zillah, setting an early precedent.
  • Abraham (Genesis 16, 25:1) Married Sarah, but also took Hagar (Sarah’s maidservant) and later Keturah. His household tensions with Sarah and Hagar illustrate the strife polygamy often caused.
  • Nahor (Genesis 22:20–24) Abraham’s brother, who had a wife Milcah and a concubine Reumah.
  • Esau (Genesis 26:34; 28:9; 36:2–3) Married multiple women, including Judith, Basemath, Mahalath, and Oholibamah.
  • Jacob (Genesis 29–30) Married Leah and Rachel, and also had children with their maidservants Bilhah and Zilpah. His family dynamics became a source of rivalry and conflict.
  • Gideon (Judges 8:30–31) Had “many wives” and at least one concubine, producing seventy sons.
  • Elkanah (1 Samuel 1:1–2) Husband of Hannah and Peninnah. Their rivalry is central to the story of Samuel’s birth.
  • David (2 Samuel 3:2–5; 5:13) Had multiple wives, including Michal, Abigail, Bathsheba, and others. His polygamy contributed to family turmoil and political strife.
  • Solomon (1 Kings 11:1–3) The most extreme case: 700 wives and 300 concubines. His marriages to foreign women are explicitly linked to his spiritual downfall.
  • Others noted:
    • Saul (2 Samuel 3:7) had a concubine.
    • Rehoboam (2 Chronicles 11:21) had 18 wives and 60 concubines.
    • Ahab (1 Kings 20:3–7) had multiple wives.
I think the reason monogamy is preached in the New Testament is because it was part of the Roman culture.
A good thing about polygamy involving one man is it is obvious who the mother and the father of the child is.
 
The bible is not kind to homosexuals. Hence the Christian vicious homophobia.

The gospel Jesus reinforced Mosaic law, IOW the rules of Leviticus. The death penalty for homosexual sex.
Jesus said nothing of the sort. And the Levitical rules only outlawed sex between men.

Paul is taken to be teaching and continuing Jesus condemns homosexuality. Paul is said to have known Peter.
In "that way", do you suppose? Or was Timothy his only squeeze?

Ritual purification for immorality was a theme in Leviticus.
No, ritual purification for ritual impurity is a theme in Leviticus.

Christians interpret a passage to mean with coming of Jesus he fulfilled the Old Testament and began a New Testament or covenant with god. Leviticus no longer applied, you can enjoy pork. But they hang onto homophobia. The Chinese Menu interpretation of the bible.
Don't you also enjoy the Chinese Menu interpretation? You sure seem to throw in your hat with the evnagelicals on every question of interpretation. Which is wild, because the feeling isn't mutual, they hate your guts. Why do you owe their deranged theology and moral rules any sort of fealty?
Me? you must not have read my years of postings. Christianity is a mess in terms of teachings, morality, and mythology. To say the least.

My ohilosy is leve and let live. A few tines a week I walk through Capital Hill to shop, the center of the Seattle gay community. They are no threat to me.

The difference between Christians in a broad sense is they are a threat to me. Tryiong to enact bizarre lancet Hebrew morality into modern law.

It depends on the Christian. It was not too long ago when a gay man would be beaten in a community. I remember two cases, one was dragged behind a car another was wrapped in a barbed wire fence. Probably good Christians.

That is one side of Christian interpretation of scripture.

The other side is the liberal god who hugs everybody.


I don't interpret Christian scripture and I do not live by it. I point out as many do on the forum there is no consistent morality in the new or old testament.

The Jesus sound bites are unconnected. Unlike the teachings attributed to Buddha. Clear, structured, and concise.

The only consistent theology is The Sermon On The Mount.

I treat Christians IAW The Golden Rule, or at least I try to even if I do not get it back. That is my philosophy. It is found in many forms throughout history.

I know there are Christians who equally hate atheists like me and gays, I can't carry hate and carry anger. It is not about any scripture, god, Jesus, or teachings it is about my mental health and stability. I was influenced by Buddhism in the 70s.

I was influenced by MLK. His composure and dignity under the most extreme duress.

The gospel Jesus does nothing for me.

To the OP prostitution is called the world's oldest profession. From a show on archeology there is old Roman graffiti telling the way to a brothel.

One of the upscale legal brothels in Nevada is The Bunny Ranch. From a TV report women with regular jobs in La fly in on weekends to make extra cash. How it is treated is all about culture and religion.

If you actually read the OT from a moral view major Jewish figures were not moral at all in our modern sense. I believe Abraham pimped out his wife, so to speak.

If Jesus the product of an ancient homophobic culture works for a gay man good for him.

It is beyond me how an educated intelligent gay man like Pete Butitigieg can become Christian.
 
Don't we have Jesus saying that he had not come to abolish the law or the prophets, that not one jot or tittle of the law shall pass until all is fulfilled?

Yes indeed DBT. Further to this, Jesus also answered a question shown in the verses below:

Matthew 22:34–40

34 But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. 35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?”

37 And he said to him...
You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And ha second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
40 On these two commandments hang ALL the Law and the Prophets.”

It won't mean anything to you (or threatened Steve) but cheers for reminding me... verses like these in contrast to each other, I find perspectively quite profound.
 
Don't we have Jesus saying that he had not come to abolish the law or the prophets, that not one jot or tittle of the law shall pass until all is fulfilled?

Yes indeed DBT. Further to this, Jesus also answered a question shown in the verses below:

Matthew 22:34–40

34 But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. 35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?”

37 And he said to him...
You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And ha second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
40 On these two commandments hang ALL the Law and the Prophets.”

It won't mean anything to you (or threatened Steve) but cheers for reminding me... verses like these in contrast to each other, I find perspectively quite profound.


There are not only contrasts to be found in the bible, but also contradictions.
 
I just read the story in I Kings 3 where Solomon says he'll decide who gets the baby by cutting it in half with a sword. When I've heard this story before, it has been a retelling, and it simply calls the two mothers 'women'. In the Bible account, they are 'harlots' sharing a roof. Both have newborns, and one kills her baby by rolling on top of it in her sleep. She then tries to switch dead baby for live baby, and the dispute ends up with Solomon. It seems to be a case of good harlot/bad harlot, and the bad one is a real piece of work. When Solomon offers to give each of them half a baby, the bad one says, "Good, neither one of us will have it. Go ahead and cut it in half," which has to be the worse case of "If I don't get my toys, then nobody gets any toys" in literature. Glenn Close could have played her, back in the day. Or maybe Christina Ricci or Hong Chau.
Sunday school teachers: please, if you teach this story, call the women harlots or prostitutes. Stand up for your scripture!! Your classes will remember it a whole lot longer.
"What did they tell you in Sunday school, Chad?"
"There were these two whores who both got pregnant..."
 
Learner

Christians are not a threat to me in the sense I walk around afraid of Christians.

Christians while claiming to be oppressed are out to force Christianity on us all through political means.

The founders understood that having dealt with the British state religion.

Along with the first amendment freedom of region there is the prohibition against enacting laws to promote a religion and against religious tests for office.

Thomas Jefferson argued against the entanglement of religion and politics, believing it corrupted both. His views were primarily shaped by his observation of religious strife in Europe and his experience fighting for religious liberty in his home state of Virginia
.
 
Learner

Christians are not a threat to me in the sense I walk around afraid of Christians.
Be afraid. Be very afraid of Leoiner da Cwiston...
🤭

um sorry 'bout dat.
Christians while claiming to be oppressed are out to force Christianity on us all through political means.
I see, well funny enough...
...I can understand the idea that something resembling 'Christianity being forced through political means' describes the types that choose to go through the wide gate.
The founders understood that having dealt with the British state religion.
Christianity according to the "British state religion"?

Going through the 'Wide gate' IOW?

Along with the first amendment freedom of region there is the prohibition against enacting laws to promote a religion and against religious tests for office.

Thomas Jefferson argued against the entanglement of religion and politics, believing it corrupted both. His views were primarily shaped by his observation of religious strife in Europe and his experience fighting for religious liberty in his home state of Virginia
.
Jesus warned about this long before Jefferson. The bit about the 'wide gate' to state again what should be most obvious (to those who can read properly in context).
 
A good thing about polygamy involving one man is it is obvious who the mother and the father of the child is.
That's a thing. You have quite a lot of work to do if you want to claim that it's a good thing.
Anyway, it's no sure bet. With today's do-it-yourself DNA tests, something like 3% of the customers are finding out the secrets their mama never told them. Mama's baby, Papa's maybe. The New Yorker ran a piece about it in the Aug. 25 ish.
 
Monogamy and the family unit is a way to mange reproduction.
Monogamy wasn't really enforced in the Old Testament...
  • Lamech (Genesis 4:19) The first recorded polygamist in the Bible. He married Adah and Zillah, setting an early precedent.
  • Abraham (Genesis 16, 25:1) Married Sarah, but also took Hagar (Sarah’s maidservant) and later Keturah. His household tensions with Sarah and Hagar illustrate the strife polygamy often caused.
  • Nahor (Genesis 22:20–24) Abraham’s brother, who had a wife Milcah and a concubine Reumah.
  • Esau (Genesis 26:34; 28:9; 36:2–3) Married multiple women, including Judith, Basemath, Mahalath, and Oholibamah.
  • Jacob (Genesis 29–30) Married Leah and Rachel, and also had children with their maidservants Bilhah and Zilpah. His family dynamics became a source of rivalry and conflict.
  • Gideon (Judges 8:30–31) Had “many wives” and at least one concubine, producing seventy sons.
  • Elkanah (1 Samuel 1:1–2) Husband of Hannah and Peninnah. Their rivalry is central to the story of Samuel’s birth.
  • David (2 Samuel 3:2–5; 5:13) Had multiple wives, including Michal, Abigail, Bathsheba, and others. His polygamy contributed to family turmoil and political strife.
  • Solomon (1 Kings 11:1–3) The most extreme case: 700 wives and 300 concubines. His marriages to foreign women are explicitly linked to his spiritual downfall.
  • Others noted:
    • Saul (2 Samuel 3:7) had a concubine.
    • Rehoboam (2 Chronicles 11:21) had 18 wives and 60 concubines.
    • Ahab (1 Kings 20:3–7) had multiple wives.
I think the reason monogamy is preached in the New Testament is because it was part of the Roman culture.
A good thing about polygamy involving one man is it is obvious who the mother and the father of the child is.
Polygamy has always been a method of concentrating wealth. In an age where humans are property and human labor is the main source of wealth, more wives and children means more money. It also is a means of insuring alliances. If a man has five brothers in law, they will be reluctant to attack your camp. Not only do they risk harming their sister, the husband has four other brothers in law likely to come to his defense.
 
Polygamy is or was more common in less currency-based economies, where a large and healthy family is the most obvious display of influence and wealth.
 
Polygamy has always been a method of concentrating wealth. In an age where humans are property and human labor is the main source of wealth, more wives and children means more money.
I didn't think King Solomon's 700 wives and 300 concubines would be making money for him. Though in 1 Kings 10:14 and 2 Chronicles 9:13 it said Solomon got 666 talents of gold yearly which is about 23 tons or about $1.3b.
 
Back
Top Bottom