I haven't been idle, let's look at sex in the Bible

[AnimatedDirt]

Possibly to paint a picture that Mary is a worth mother of JC. A pure woman, untouched by the evils of sex.
I don't understand the theistic condemnation of sexual activity. Sex is part of nature.

Evils of sex?  If Genesis is true, then God is the Creator of sex also.  Is sex with the very young not evil?  You must agree with me that there are some aspects to sex that are evil.  Sex itself is not within a certain context, right?  I mean, even you must agree the need for laws against sex with minors...since it does happen more than we'd like to admit...those of us that support the law(s).  Yes?

"fairytale" is your word, please don't attempt to put words in my mouth.

It is basically how you feel about the bible, no?  I don't think it's putting words into your mouth, but simply acknowledging where you place the bible in context.

That is what I am suggesting, the story of JC and MM is to suggest that JC values MM as a person.
But MM was made as a whore because that is what the audience would relate to, that a whore woman is the worst of society, and to express that JC loves all, even the worst of society.

In the context of a fairytale, I would agree with a simple twist...that a whore is the worst THAT SOCIETY can think of a woman...or there abouts.

In my opinion there is nothing wrong with a woman choosing the occupation of prostitution.

Interesting.  Are you a parent?  If so, at what age would you condone your daughter choosing this route?  Are you married?  If so, I assume you would be happy and feel nothing is wrong with your wife seeking "employment" through prostitution and in might even encouage it?  Or is it any woman but "your" women?

[Recusant]

This may not be relevant to the topic and discussion, but I would like to point out that there is no Biblical evidence that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. The idea that she was a whore comes from Catholic tradition (repudiated at Vatican II) dating from the late 6th century.

[AnimatedDirt]

This may not be relevant to the topic and discussion, but I would like to point out that there is no Biblical evidence that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. The idea that she was a whore comes from Catholic tradition (repudiated at Vatican II) dating from the late 6th century.

  Cool.

[Gawen]

Now for part two. I'm glad it has so far generated some discussion.

Someone Loves Tits
In the Bible, breasts are symbols of good times and bad times, sexual and otherwise. Dry breasts symbolizing calamity; for example, Hosea 9:14 calls upon God to give his backsliding people "a miscarrying womb and dry breasts." Similarly the New Testament warns of the grief of divine judgment: Matt. 24:19: "Woe unto them . . . that give suck in those days" and Luke 23:29: blessed are "the paps which never gave suck" (I love olde English).

Conversely, Isaiah 66:7-12 foresees a New Jerusalem that will be a loving mother satisfying her children with "the breasts of her consolations," that they may "milk out, and be delighted with the abundance of her glory." In Luke 11:27, a woman tells Jesus, "Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked." Sadly, sex in the NT is an affair best left alone. Where the early Hebrews somewhat celebrated sex, it has yet to be seen in the NT. In Proverbs 5:18-20, the breasts of one's wife should be enough sexual satisfaction "let her breasts satisfy thee at all times", so that it should be unnecessary to "embrace the bosom of a stranger".

But Solomon? Solomon loves tits! Solomon's Song, which is creatively titled Song of Solomon but no one is sure who wrote it. Nowhere in the Bible are sagging breasts, cross eyed breasts, humungous breasts mentioned (except for 'tower tits'), but we learn small breasts in the Song of Solomon: 8:8-10 were a concern: "We have a little sister, and she hath no breasts: what shall we do for our sister in the day when she shall be spoken for? "She who asks the question then boasts: "I am a wall, and my breasts like towers: then was I to his eyes as one that found favour".
Some excerpts:  
1:13: ...he shall lie all night betwixt my breasts.
2:3: "I sat down under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste"
4:5: Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins, which feed among the lilies.
4:16: Awake, O north wind; and come, thou south; blow upon my garden, that the spices thereof may flow out. Let my beloved come into his garden, and eat his pleasant fruits.
5:2-6: ...it is the voice of my beloved that knocketh, saying, Open to me, my sister, my love, my dove, my undefiled: for my head is filled with dew, and my locks with the drops of the night. I have put off my coat; how shall I put it on? I have washed my feet; how shall I defile them?...I rose up to open to my beloved; and my hands dropped with myrrh, and my fingers with sweet smelling myrrh, upon the handles of the lock. I opened to my beloved...
7:7-9: This thy stature is like to a palm tree, and thy breasts to clusters of grapes. I said, I will go up to the palm tree, I will take hold of the boughs thereof: now also thy breasts shall be as clusters of the vine, and the smell of thy nose like apples; And the roof of thy mouth like the best wine for my beloved, that goeth down sweetly, causing the lips of those that are asleep to speak.
8:2: If only she could take him home, she says later, she would cause him "to drink of spiced wine of the juice of my pomegranate"

Damn. No one knows why this is in the Bible. If today's writers want to write songs, books and film about men and throbbing members and breasts and bowels being moved, who are we to say no? Certainly not the religious. If Solomon had stuck around to write the whole Bible, we may have read about a more buff Jesus and Mary Magdalene.

The reference to women with tower-breasts has caused some confusion, though. Since many prefer a literal interpretation, they must think the woman in question had breasts that were two stories tall. Either way, God is a bigger supporter of breasts than an underwire bra.

And what are we to think when reading: 5:4, "My beloved put his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him".

This imagery contrasts sharply with the graphic abuse in the parable of the adulterous sisters in Ezekiel 23:4: "...were their breasts pressed, and there they bruised the teats of their virginity".

Still, the Song could well be the work of a woman. It is uncertain whether her statement in 1:5:  "I am dark, but comely" (NRSV "black and beautiful") means she is of African descent, or as the next verse implies (1:6) dark from having to work in the sun.

In any case the woman, being presented in the first person rather than through a narrator, is the only unmediated female voice in scripture and exceptional for its celebration of sex without reference to procreation. The piece is timeless. But I do wonder if women today could be flattered in like: she has hair like "a flock of goats" (4:1), eyes like "the fishpools in Heshbon" (7:4), or a nose like "the tower of Lebanon which looks toward Damascus" (7:4)

Ahab And Jezebel
This Ahab is not to be confused with Jeremiah's Ahab, one of two false prophets who "commit adultery with their neighbor's wives" and are "roasted in the fire" by the king of Babylon.

THIS King Ahab does "more to provoke the Lord God of Israel to anger than all the kings of Israel before him." In particular he serves the Canaanite fertility god Baal, influenced by his Phoenician wife Jezebel, daughter of the king of Sidon. Jezebel keeps Ahab "stirred up" and the priests of Baal and Asherah (eight hundred and fifty in all) "eat at Jezebel's table." Why Jezebel would honor Asherah, instead of Phoenicia's Astarte is unknown.

As an aside, there is no real evidence that ritual fertility sex existed outside of annual sacred marriages between Mesopotamian kings and female partners standing in for a love goddess. I'm not up on this subjecty, however, the marriage of the Sumerian king who represents the god Dumuzi (Babylon's Tammuz), to the goddess Inanna is textually preserved in sacred marriage songs such as "Plow My Vulva"...I kid you not. Look it up. In order to really upset The God of Israel, Ahab must have plowed a lot more than just Jezebels' vulva.

Gods And Girls
So you'll notice that many of these are from the early days of the Bible when mankind was first experimenting with just how weird sex could get. Here is what happens in Genesis 6:4: There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Just to be clear, because there is some confusion: Has anyone ever heard of Gregor Mendel and his pea study?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_mendel
From this study, can we not infer that the baby of a giant and a mere human woman would pretty much be a HUGE baby?

This did not deter the women of the day, not unlike some women of today who like that "full" feeling. And then there is that timeless thought based on a preconception about giant male genitalia. I'm not sure now, just guessing that this scenario didn't last long, as there are such things as thresholds of pain.  Eventually the pain would give way and even if it didn't...vaginas do.  And the next thing this mere human woman knows is she's giving birth to a baby the size of a two-year-old! And she's hoping she's been having so much sex with giants that in the nine months before the blessed event her vagina and cervix is approximately as passable as a tube slide at a McDonalds playhouse; because that's going to come in handy when Junior spills out of it. Of course, there could have been other scenarios-women had larger openings, the giants had normal size penises. Who knows.

Just so you know, this happens right before God causes the flood that destroys everything on earth except for Noah et al. So of all the different kinds of sex mankind has ever invented up to the flood, it appears the giant sex was the one thing that was just too weird for God.

Adultery
The seventh commandment does not refer to adultery as generally thought of today. Under the Hebrew patriarchal system, a married man, but not a married woman, could have sex outside of marriage and not be an adulterer. A man commits adultery only if the sex is with another man's wife or virginal betrothed - which is, in effect, a property crime analogous to stealing the other man's ass.

The penalty for adultery is death for both parties (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22). In the case of a betrothed virgin, if the incident occurred in the city and she did not scream for help, she is considered guilty of consent, and is to be stoned with the man (Deut. 22:23-27). The book of Numbers (5:12-31) provides the wondrous and totally scientific trial by ordeal (for the woman) where a man suspects his wife of adultery but has no proof.

Adultery is reaffirmed in the New Testament (Matt. 19:18, Luke 18:20, Rom. 13:9, James 2:11), and is broadened to not just a property crime, but a thought crime as well, Matt. 5:28: "Whoever looks at a woman with lust has committed adultery with her already in his heart." Adultery includes remarriage after divorce (Matt. 19:9, Luke 16:18).

"I Am With Child"
1 Chr. 3:5 and such: One evening King David, the king that Jesus is supposed to descend from takes a stroll on the roof of his palace. From the roof he sees "a woman washing herself," and she is beautiful. David inquires about her identity, and is told, "Is not this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite?" No, not according to the writer, who calls her Bathshua, the daughter of Ammiel  Regardless of the confusion...

Bathsheba's husband, Uriah the Hittite, is away smiting the Ammonites for God and country. David sends for Bathsheba, she comes and they commit adultery in a one-night stand, while David ignores that she is ritually "unclean," being still in her seven day purification period. Bathsheba conceives anyway and sends David a note saying, "I am with child."

David sends for Uriah (covertly to try to get him to lay with Bathsheba), but Uriah feels weird doing so because his warriors are out fighting and he feels funny at home mucking around with his wife. When David finds out that Uriah would not go home and prefers the company of his soldiers, in the long run, David has him killed by sending him to the forefront of the hottest battle. (Uriah is not just objecting to having it better than his fellows. As a warrior who must return to battle, he is concerned with ritual purity [Deut. 23:9; 1 Sam. 21:4-5].)

Lo and behold, the pregnant Bathsheba is soon a widow. After her period of mourning, David has her "fetched to his house" and marries her. What I don't understand is if the writer knew about this, why wasn't David and Bathsheba stoned for adultery and David stoned again for murder?

One more for tonight...

Benjamin
Benjamin is "a ravenous wolf devouring his prey by morning and dividing the spoil by night", as Jacob said on his deathbed (Gen. 49:27). This wonderful story tells us that Benjamin (a Levite) and his concubine are enjoying the hospitality of an old man (who is not a Levite), when some of the town's - (literally "sons of Belial," RSV "worthless fellows") beset the house round about and beat on the door. They tell the old man to bring out Benjamin "that we may know him," meaning that they intend to have carnal knowledge of him (how similar of the incident in the Sodom and Gomorrah story).

To make any sense of the old man's reaction, one must take into account both the unequal status of women in the patriarchal society of the ancient Hebrews and the importance of hospitality in this society. Truly I laugh and turn suddenly disgusted as the story turns senseless. To protect his male guest, the old man offers to the men his own virgin daughter and Benjamin's concubine: he tells the fellows to humble them, to do to these women whatever they like, "but unto this man do not so vile a thing." When the men outside won't listen, Benjamin gives them his concubine anyway. And "they knew her, and abused her all the night."

The next morning, Benjamin finds his concubine lying at the door of the house, with her hands on the threshold. We are not told if she is dead or alive, but we are told what he says to her: "Up, and let us be going." When there is no answer, he puts her, dead or alive, on an ass and takes her home. There he takes out a knife and butchers her (dead or alive), dividing her into twelve pieces, which he sends to "all the coasts of Israel," to announce the "lewdness and folly" that has been committed.

It is obvious of the importance of  hospitality to strangers that would gang rape a possession of another man – namely, his concubine. Never mind the lewdness or butchering of an innocent woman, as long as hospitality has been served.

Tomorrow, Bestiality, Incest and others.

[Stevil]

Evils of sex?  If Genesis is true, then God is the Creator of sex also.  Is sex with the very young not evil?

No such thing as evil.

I mean, even you must agree the need for laws against sex with minors...since it does happen more than we'd like to admit...those of us that support the law(s).  Yes?

yes, even I think there ought to be some laws against sex in certain circumstances. My worldview is not black and white.

"fairytale" is your word, please don't attempt to put words in my mouth.

It is basically how you feel about the bible, no?  I don't think it's putting words into your mouth, but simply acknowledging where you place the bible in context.

I suddenly feel the need to wash my mouth out with soap and water, all these dirty things you are putting in there, my word!

Are you a parent?  If so, at what age would you condone your daughter choosing this route?

Yes, I have two young daughters, they will choose their own life path, I will support them in what ever they choose.

[Stevil]

This may not be relevant to the topic and discussion, but I would like to point out that there is no Biblical evidence that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. The idea that she was a whore comes from Catholic tradition (repudiated at Vatican II) dating from the late 6th century.

  Cool.

At least I have an excuse for not knowing this.

[Gawen]

This is the most fucked up shit i've ever read, and I read Shinto mythology. .... I don't know how to feel for the people who truly believe this stuff. Though now I really do want to memorize I so.i can use it valily against she-bitch and other christians alike.

How can anyone NOT see how wrong this book truly is?


Thanks Gawen, for an awesome post as always.

Many types of emotions should come into play after reading this stuff. I'm all done with it; the last post coming tomorrow, but...I leave disgusted with it all. So many wrongs...no rights (especially for women) with the exception of The Song of Solomon. The debauchery of women with no seeming regrets, the wicked, evil use of concubines, murders, incest, adultery and it seems that although God told them it was wrong, they do it anyway. It also seems the innocent are the ones affected by whoever's wrath, be it God's or man's.

The Bible is screwed when it comes to sex and the NT does nothing to rectify it one way or the other (except in the case of adultery). This should lead one to think that Jesus was fine with it all.

[Gawen]

Very good stories to show exactly what man is like.  Nothing is hidden.  

The only thing hidden is justice.

These are supposed to be historical books that keep a record of lives...would it have been better if all that was left out?  What would the criticism be then?

Well, now that we know the Torah is mostly "just stories" and no history is involved, we can then make of it whatever we wish.

Man, apart from biblical man, is quite pleasant and has luckily never done anything like what we read in the bible.

I think you lead a very sheltered life if you do not know of ancient Greece, the Romans, the Inquisition, the Third Reich, etc.

It is all interpreted fairly well by you, Gawen.

Thanks.

[Gawen]

Aww yeah, times have changed since 2,000 years ago. O__o... Most human beings view women as equals and dont judge her by her sexual history. A lot has changed... Wow.

Someone being a virgin or not has NOTHING to do with how kind and loving a person they are. (men included.)

*thumbs up post!*

[Sweetdeath]

Aww yeah, times have changed since 2,000 years ago. O__o... Most human beings view women as equals and dont judge her by her sexual history. A lot has changed... Wow.

Someone being a virgin or not has NOTHING to do with how kind and loving a person they are. (men included.)

*thumbs up post!*

*clings to Gawen* Take me away from random Godzilla AD.  He's acting stranger than usual. o__o;;

[AnimatedDirt]

The Bible is screwed when it comes to sex and the NT does nothing to rectify it one way or the other (except in the case of adultery). This should lead one to think that Jesus was fine with it all.

He didn't mention lots of things...I guess Jesus was fine with EVERYTHING not mentioned.

Sounds like a conclusion based on assumption.  Are we all allowed this privilege?

[AnimatedDirt]

The only thing hidden is justice.

Wait, didn't you say there was lots of killing going on?  So which story you claiming...killing for sins or no killing for sins??

Well, now that we know the Torah is mostly "just stories" and no history is involved, we can then make of it whatever we wish.

You seem to think it quite important with all the time you've put into it.  And like I said, nothing is hidden nor side-stepped.  What would you say if it had been so?

I think you lead a very sheltered life if you do not know of ancient Greece, the Romans, the Inquisition, the Third Reich, etc.

You missed the sarcasm.  I suppose I should've added [/sarcasm].

Thanks.

Can't wait for more fairytale interpretations...seems like time well spent to me.  While it may be skewed, more and more Atheist are reading the bible thanks to your posts...

[AnimatedDirt]

No such thing as evil.

I stand corrected...I suppose the Atheist NEVER uses this word then.

yes, even I think there ought to be some laws against sex in certain circumstances. My worldview is not black and white.

Amazing how freethinking suddenly is not so free.

I suddenly feel the need to wash my mouth out with soap and water, all these dirty things you are putting in there, my word!

And "you" all think only the bible is filled with too much sex?  Seems like you're thinking with something other than your brain on this point.  Not sure why, I'll assume it's all you think about.  Apparently it is ok to make broad statements on assumptions around here.

Yes, I have two young daughters, they will choose their own life path, I will support them in what ever they choose.

And proud, I assume?

At least I have an excuse for not knowing this.

I guess because I said that was cool, you assumed I didn't know that tidbit.  Lots of assumptions going around.  One more won't kill us I suppose.

[Sandra Craft]

Why did Mary need to be written as a virgin?

According to some bible experts, that was a mistranslation of the Hebrew word "almah", which more literally means simply "young woman".  There are even some bibles where this has been corrected.

[Sweetdeath]

Why did Mary need to be written as a virgin?

According to some bible experts, that was a mistranslation of the Hebrew word "almah", which more literally means simply "young woman".  There are even some bibles where this has been corrected.

Hm, that is actually interesting. It would certainly turn everything around in context.