Prostitution and the Bible

ideologyhunter said:

bilby said:

excreationist said:

A good thing about polygamy involving one man is it is obvious who the mother and the father of the child is.

Click to expand...

That's a thing. You have quite a lot of work to do if you want to claim that it's a good thing.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

I'm surprised it's as low as 3%

ideologyhunter said:

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.

Click to expand...

Wow I didn't know about those prostitutes...

Learner

Jesus warned of mixing politics and religion? Judaism was the state. According to the gospels Jesus was a rabbi preaching to fellow Jews. Jesus preched about swpratioj of church and state? Must be one hell of an interpretation.

Still today.

England's state religion is the Church of England, an Anglican church established by law and linked to the state. The Monarch of the United Kingdom serves as the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and the church has a formal role in national traditions and ceremonies, such as coronations.

Click to expand...

And of course the Vatican with ots quasi international state status. The pope from on high presuming to tell us and our politician what to do.

You arr a run of the mill Christian spouting an endless stream of quotes and spins. It i8s what keeps Christians going.

Did you know Jesus left a recipe for cookies? He was quite the chef.

excreationist said:

Bronzeage said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

I don't think Solomon had 700 wives or 300 concubines. The interpretation of numerals in Hebrew texts is vague to the point of uncertainty. When we discount the hyperbole which inflates the wealth and accomplishments of ancient Kings, a more practical count would be seven and three. As for the gold, the same applies.

Bronzeage said:

excreationist said:

Bronzeage said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

I don't think Solomon had 700 wives or 300 concubines. The interpretation of numerals in Hebrew texts is vague to the point of uncertainty. When we discount the hyperbole which inflates the wealth and accomplishments of ancient Kings, a more practical count would be seven and three. As for the gold, the same applies.

Click to expand...

It says Solomon got $1.3b worth of gold a year so he could easily afford that many wives and concubines. I'd might do the same if I was him. Though 1 Kings 11:3 says "He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray". I think it would be impossible for 700 wives to be of royal birth.
The gold was probably exaggerated - perhaps the number 666 (of "talents") was a special number?

a more practical count would be seven and three

Click to expand...

So Solomon could have had way more than 10.

Polyandry is believed to be more likely in societies with scarce environmental resources. It is believed to limit human population growth and enhance child survival.[6][7] It is a rare form of marriage that exists not only among peasant families but also among elite families.[8] For example, polyandry in the Himalayan mountains is related to the scarcity of land. The marriage of all brothers in a family to the same wife allows family land to remain intact and undivided. If every brother married separately and had children, family land would be split into unsustainable small plots. In contrast, very poor persons not owning land were less likely to practice polyandry in Buddhist Ladakh and Zanskar.[6][verification needed]

Click to expand...

Mormon polygamy



There are renegade polygamist Monsoons today. Widely reported abuses. Teen marriages. Wom,e essentially trapped.

Mormon polygamy is not practiced by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), which officially ended the practice in 1890 and excommunicates members who practice it today. However, breakaway fundamentalist groups, who are not affiliated with the LDS Church, continue to practice polygamy in isolated communities.

Click to expand...

Polyandry from Ancient Greek πολύ (polú) 'many' and ἀνήρ (anḗr) 'man') is a form of polygamy in which a woman takes two or more husbands at the same time

Click to expand...

The problem with that though is that it could be difficult to know who the father of the child is...

excreationist said:

Polyandry from Ancient Greek πολύ (polú) 'many' and ἀνήρ (anḗr) 'man') is a form of polygamy in which a woman takes two or more husbands at the same time

Click to expand...

The problem with that though is that it could be difficult to know who the father of the child is...

Click to expand...

That's not a problem, if the cultural belief is that they all are.

It would be a problem for you, and for those who share your cutural norms; But why would it be a problem for those who practice it?

It takes a village to raise a child. If all (or many of) the men in the village agree that they are all the child's fathers, so much the better.

Wherein lies the "problem"?

bilby said:

excreationist said:

Polyandry from Ancient Greek πολύ (polú) 'many' and ἀνήρ (anḗr) 'man') is a form of polygamy in which a woman takes two or more husbands at the same time

Click to expand...

The problem with that though is that it could be difficult to know who the father of the child is...

Click to expand...

That's not a problem, if the cultural belief is that they all are.

It would be a problem for you, and for those who share your cutural norms; But why would it be a problem for those who practice it?

It takes a village to raise a child. If all (or many of) the men in the village agree that they are all the child's fathers, so much the better.

Wherein lies the "problem"?

Click to expand...

What if you wanted to do a genealogy (like Jesus' contradictory genealogies)? If all of the men are your fathers then it gets really messy trying to do the genealogies. Genesis, etc, also liked to talk about genealogies.

excreationist said:

Bronzeage said:

excreationist said:

Bronzeage said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

I don't think Solomon had 700 wives or 300 concubines. The interpretation of numerals in Hebrew texts is vague to the point of uncertainty. When we discount the hyperbole which inflates the wealth and accomplishments of ancient Kings, a more practical count would be seven and three. As for the gold, the same applies.

Click to expand...

It says Solomon got $1.3b worth of gold a year so he could easily afford that many wives and concubines. I'd might do the same if I was him. Though 1 Kings 11:3 says "He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray". I think it would be impossible for 700 wives to be of royal birth.
The gold was probably exaggerated - perhaps the number 666 (of "talents") was a special number?

a more practical count would be seven and three

Click to expand...

Wajid Ali Shah (1822–1887, last Nawab of Awadh, India)

370 wives (though only ~120 confirmed)

Genghis Khan (1162–1227, Mongol Empire)

~14 principal wives + 500+ concubines

Fath Ali Shah Qajar (1772–1834, Persia/Iran)

160 wives

Giovanni Vigliotto (1929–1999, Italy/USA)

104–105 wives

So Solomon could have had way more than 10.

Click to expand...

He could have has a thousand, but we have a text which reads 7-something and 3-something. Maybe it's 7 and maybe it's 700. Hard to say.

Bronzeage said:

He could have has a thousand, but we have a text which reads 7-something and 3-something. Maybe it's 7 and maybe it's 700. Hard to say.

Click to expand...

1 Kings 8:63
Solomon offered a sacrifice of fellowship offerings to the Lord: twenty-two thousand cattle and a hundred and twenty thousand sheep and goats. So the king and all the Israelites dedicated the temple of the Lord.

Click to expand...

That's also a case of 22-something and 120-something related to Solomon... those numbers also seem exaggerated...

excreationist said:

What if you wanted to do a genealogy

Click to expand...

Why would you want to do that?

bilby said:

excreationist said:

What if you wanted to do a genealogy

Click to expand...

Why would you want to do that?

Click to expand...

Well it can be an interesting hobby. My father said he found almost 2000 people on his side of the family going back to the 1600s. He used a program called "Brother's Keeper".

excreationist said:

bilby said:

excreationist said:

bilby said:

excreationist said:

Polyandry from Ancient Greek πολύ (polú) 'many' and ἀνήρ (anḗr) 'man') is a form of polygamy in which a woman takes two or more husbands at the same time

Click to expand...

The problem with that though is that it could be difficult to know who the father of the child is...

Click to expand...

That's not a problem, if the cultural belief is that they all are.

It would be a problem for you, and for those who share your cutural norms; But why would it be a problem for those who practice it?

It takes a village to raise a child. If all (or many of) the men in the village agree that they are all the child's fathers, so much the better.

Wherein lies the "problem"?

Click to expand...

What if you wanted to do a genealogy

Click to expand...

Why would you want to do that?

Click to expand...

Well it can be an interesting hobby. My father said he found almost 2000 people on his side of the family going back to the 1600s. He used a program called "Brother's Keeper".

Click to expand...

I am underconvinced that a significant driver of our choice of basic social structures is their suitability to provide "interesting hobbies".

"Sorry that we screwed up your life and left you an emotional basket case and societal outcast, dear; But we were concerned that somebody might prefer to have an interesting hobby as a geneologist, so we had no other choice"

bilby said:

I am underconvinced that a significant driver of our choice of basic social structures is their suitability to provide "interesting hobbies".

"Sorry that we screwed up your life and left you an emotional basket case and societal outcast, dear; But we were concerned that somebody might prefer to have an interesting hobby as a geneologist, so we had no other choice"

Click to expand...

"Two, three, four, or more brothers jointly take a wife"

Since they're brothers the genealogies are basically the same eventually (assuming the brothers share the same parents or their fathers are brothers).

In the Bible there are dozens of names in genealogies in many different books

That would only be possible if many of the people memorised the genealogies - or the names were just made up or copied from Genesis, etc.

steve_bank said:

Learner

Jesus warned of mixing politics and religion? Judaism was the state. According to the gospels Jesus was a rabbi preaching to fellow Jews. Jesus preched about swpratioj of church and state? Must be one hell of an interpretation.

Click to expand...

It's not so hard to understand the 'interpretation'. For example, the line:
"Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s".

That line is widely interpreted as highlighting the distinction between two realms of governance: the temporal authority of earthly rulers, (represented by the coin bearing Caesar's image), AND the spiritual authority of God!

steve_bank said:

Still today.

England's state religion is the Church of England, an Anglican church established by law and linked to the state. The Monarch of the United Kingdom serves as the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and the church has a formal role in national traditions and ceremonies, such as coronations.

Click to expand...

And of course the Vatican with ots quasi international state status. The pope from on high presuming to tell us and our politician what to do.

Click to expand...

That may be the case, but then you can argue that with those who follow that line. You know my thoughts on that - see my previous response above.

steve_bank said:

You arr a run of the mill Christian spouting an endless stream of quotes and spins. It i8s what keeps Christians going.

Click to expand...

You 'run of the mill' atheists have your own endless stream of quotes and spins. That's what keeps atheists going for sake of just debating

steve_bank said:

Did you know Jesus left a recipe for cookies? He was quite the chef.

Click to expand...

Not sure what the context is, but I suppose if one wanted to make cookies as good as the original cookies, one would have to follow correctly each step as according to the original recipe.

Anyway, who doesn't like cookies?

Apparently bad rulers, tyrants, etc, are there by the mercy and grace of God.

"Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience." - Romans 13

bilby said:

excreationist said:

What if you wanted to do a genealogy

Click to expand...

Why would you want to do that?

Click to expand...

Ancestry, particularly patrilineal ("agnatic") ancestry, was very important in many ancient societies. For example in ancient Ireland if a man injured another, he was expected to provide financial compensation to ALL the members of the victim's dearbhfhine, i.e. even 2nd cousins. IIUC the Irish genealogies were generally memorized rather than written down. (A small number of societies -- Picts, Etruscans, and possibly some groups in Eastern Siberia -- focused on matrilineal genealogies rather than patrilineal.)

Terms like "Tribe" or "Dynasty" (or even "Race") were often used to denote the (putative) agnates of a particular founder. For example, EVERY King of France since 987 AD was an agnate (at least if official pedigrees are believed) of Hugh Capet. Royal lineages 1000 years old or so are mostly correct (ignoring occasional undocumented cuckoldings). 2000 year-old genealogies should be viewed with severe skepticism.

With DNA testing, agnatic relationship is easily discerned via the Y-chromosome. Some of the of the results may be surprising. It is known, for example, that a large majority of Western European males have the Y-chromosome of a single man who lived about 5000 yeas ago.

Swammerdami said:

bilby said:

excreationist said:

What if you wanted to do a genealogy

Click to expand...

Why would you want to do that?

Click to expand...

Ancestry, particularly patrilineal ("agnatic") ancestry, was very important in many ancient societies. For example in ancient Ireland if a man injured another, he was expected to provide financial compensation to ALL the members of the victim's dearbhfhine, i.e. even 2nd cousins. IIUC the Irish genealogies were generally memorized rather than written down. (A small number of societies -- Picts, Etruscans, and possibly some groups in Eastern Siberia -- focused on matrilineal genealogies rather than patrilineal.)

Terms like "Tribe" or "Dynasty" (or even "Race") were often used to denote the (putative) agnates of a particular founder. For example, EVERY King of France since 987 AD was an agnate (at least if official pedigrees are believed) of Hugh Capet. Royal lineages 1000 years old or so are mostly correct (ignoring occasional undocumented cuckoldings). 2000 year-old genealogies should be viewed with severe skepticism.

With DNA testing, agnatic relationship is easily discerned via the Y-chromosome. Some of the of the results may be surprising. It is known, for example, that a large majority of Western European males have the Y-chromosome of a single man who lived about 5000 yeas ago.

Click to expand...

Sure. I am aware of all this.

But we are talking about polyandry, which as far as I know, was not practiced in ancient Ireland.

@excreationist is arguing that polyandry is problematic because it doesn't recognise a single patrilinear heredity; But his argument seems to be circular - the only "problem" is that he wants (and seems to imagine that everyone else also wants) to recognise a single patrilinear heredity, and so opposes polyandry.

But those societies that have practiced polyandry explicitly do not recognise a single patrilinear heredity, and appear to be better societies as a result.

Indeed, it seems to me that polyandry is a very good idea; A child with many fathers has several advantages over a child who starts out with only one, not least of which is the elimination of the absurd concepts that a child is his father's chattel property, and that a woman is her husband's chattel property.

A lot of bad shit stems from those two very bad ideas.

bilby said:

@excreationist is arguing that polyandry is problematic because it doesn't recognise a single patrilinear heredity; But his argument seems to be circular - the only "problem" is that he wants (and seems to imagine that everyone else also wants) to recognise a single patrilinear heredity, and so opposes polyandry.

Click to expand...

My actual reason is that normally you'd know the parents - both the mother and the father - in monogamy and polygamy.

bilby said:

But those societies that have practiced polyandry explicitly do not recognise a single patrilinear heredity, and appear to be better societies as a result.

Click to expand...

So let's say there was a woman that slept around (she doesn't necessarily need to be married to all of the men). Are you saying that the fact that they're not sure who the fathers are of the children is an advantage?

bilby said:

Indeed, it seems to me that polyandry is a very good idea; A child with many fathers has several advantages over a child who starts out with only one, not least of which is the elimination of the absurd concepts that a child is his father's chattel property, and that a woman is her husband's chattel property.

A lot of bad shit stems from those two very bad ideas.

Click to expand...

What if the woman loses interest in sex... does she still have a responsibility to keep all of her husbands happy sexually? In the case of polygamy if some of the women aren't interested in sex the man could focus on the others more. Say there was one man and four women - each woman would be involved with 25% of the sex (ignoring threesomes). If there was one woman and four men, the woman would have 400% of the sex compared to if there was one man having the same amount of sex. Also in the case of polygamy you can leave pregnant women alone. In monogamy there is one man waiting for one woman to get over her pregnancy but if she had four husbands then more men would be frustrated.
BTW if the women are frustrated by the lack of sex they could pleasure each other - I don't think the Old Testament is against that. But it could be against the frustrated husbands in polyandry pleasuring each other.