When I do up multi-post threads, as I am wont to do from time to time (as so many of you know), I need to take a break afterward. After a few weeks an idea comes to mind and off I go again. This time it's a short look into sex in the Bible. I'll do this in two or three posts. As you read, you will notice how much sex there is in the Hebrew Bible - little of it good and much of the rest paired with violence.
So what happens when you take a raunchy sex story and dress it up in sometimes grandiloquent words and in olde English? Rather than using such phrases as "Lilith preferred reverse cowgirl," or "slinging a white hot streaming bolt of love juice on the ground", Biblical sex is referenced almost exclusively as "coming in unto". But once you get past the unimaginative prose...
Drunken Sex With Your Daughters In A Cave
My Sunday school lessons tended to focus on God turning Lot's wife into a pillar of salt. It seems to be the image intended to distract us from something like...like...flagrant incest (Genesis 19:30-36). Why in the world were they so eager to procure semen that it had to come from dear old dad? And in such a need of it they conspired to have the second daughter get some the next night? The answer is the older daughter exclaims to the younger her fear that, for lack of a mate, they are now to be childless (never mind about not having a husband). Alcohol in the story is wine, which raises the question: how much wine do you have to drink before you became oblivious to the fact that you have sex with your daughters...twice?
Orgy Anyone?
Of course there is the orgy scene with Aaron and the golden calf. It wasn't the orgy that incensed Moses, but the golden calf idol.
Jacob, Two Sisters And The Maid
In Genesis 29: 21-28, Jacob takes a job where he is paid entirely in...woman. His boss promised his daughter Rachel in exchange for seven years of work. After the seven years, the boss pulls the old switcheroo and gives Jacob his daughter Leah (apparently not as good looking as Rachel). Unless Leah and Rachel were identical twin sisters, there should be very little reason why Jacob wouldn't realize fairly early in the process that he had the wrong sister. Then again, perhaps they were serving some of Lot's date-rape wine at the party.
The Torah offers further explanation in Megillah 13b: Jacob and Rachel actually expected Laban (the boss) to perform the swap and devised a secret signal to reveal that it was really her under the veil (apparently lifting the veil was too obvious). At any rate, Rachel (a bitch) taught Leah the signal to double cross Jacob. After waking up to the presumably hideous Leah, Jacob offered to work another seven years to get Rachel, who obviously does not want Jacob.
If you read the passage you'll notice that right in the middle of it is a third woman: Zilpah, Leah's "hand maid." She's right between the verse commencing the night of the surprise boning and the verse concluding it. What was she doing there? Watching? Fluffer? Cheer squad? Taking notes? Waiting for the 'bloody sheet'? Ah, alas, later Leah becomes barren and has Zilpah step in to get children for her with Jacob. Apparently, Zilpah was taking notes.
Abraham And Sarah
When the childless Sarah is seventy-six, she offers to eighty-six-year-old Abraham her Egyptian handmaid Hagar. "Go into my maid that I might have children by her." Like a good husband, Abraham does as he's told, and Hagar conceives, bearing "a wild ass of a man" she names Ishmael. What happens next is the stuff of soap operas. I have wondered if Sarah watched...
The Punishment For Spilled Milk Is Death
If you've ever heard of "onanism", well, you have Onan to thank. Onan was apparently one of the pioneers in the art of ejaculating somewhere other than into a vagina. Genesis 38:8-10:
Then Judah said to Onan, "Go in to your brother's wife, and perform your duty as a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother." Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother's wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother. But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD; so He took his life also.
Now there's something a woman never forgets. You're porking your deceased husband's brother, he spooges on the ground, and he is then promptly struck dead by the Lord. Talk about awkward...poor girl. This particular verse is taken out-of-context when it gave birth (pun intended) to "onanism," which refers to both coitus interruptus and masturbation. This story became the basis for faulty Christian arguments against masturbation. Honestly, if God killed everyone who masturbated, the world's population would now be all male somewhere around 144,000.
Absalom And The Ten Concubines
King David's oldest son Amnon rapes his half-sister Tamar. Her full brother Absalom has Amnon murdered. Note that there is no concern for Tamar, but rather, David mourns Amnon's death, and Absalom leaves Jerusalem, spending three years in self-exile.
After Absoloms' return, he leads a rebellion against David. Now it's David who leaves Jerusalem, but he leaves ten of his concubines behind. Absalom asks Ahithophel, a royal counselor and traitor to David, what to do next. "Go into thy father's concubines," the counselor tells him. Such a power play will show the people who is now in charge. A tent is spread on top of the house, and Absalom has sex with David's ten concubines "in the sight of all Israel." This fulfills a prophecy of Nathan following David's adultery with Bathsheba and the killing of her husband Uriah: God tells David through the prophet "a neighbour shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun."
The rebellion fails. Ahithophel hangs himself and Absalom dies after riding under a tree and getting his hair caught in the branches (That had to have hurt!). David thus loses another unscrupulous son and whines about it ("O my son Absalom, my son, my son Absalom! Would God I had died for thee, O Absalom, my son, my son!"). As for the ten concubines, David never again has sex with them again, keeping them shut up, "in widowhood, unto the day of their death." (2 Sam. 12:11, 13:1-20:3)
My Daughter-In-Law The Hooker
Try to find all the things wrong in this passage, from Gen. 38:13-19:
It was told to Tamar that her father-in-law, Judah is going to Timnah to shear his sheep. So she removed her widow's garments, covered herself with a veil, wrapped herself, and sat in the gateway of Enaim, which is on the road to Timnah. When Judah saw her, he thought she was a hooker and not his daughter-in-law, for she had covered her face. So he turned to her by the road and said, "Here now, let me come in to you".
She relies, "What will you give me, that you may come in to me?"
He said, "I will send you a young goat from the flock."
She said, "Will you give a pledge until you send it?"
He said, "What pledge shall I give you?"
And she said, "Your seal and your cord, and your staff that is in your hand."
So he gave them to her, they had sex and she conceived. Then she departed, took off the veil and put on her widow's garments.
One would think the Bible compilers would just edit out all of the misconceptions involving veils, considering how many times people accidentally (and purposefully) have sex with the wrong person. Note that the frisky girl above is the same girl (Tamar) who witnessed Onan being slain by the LORD for fertilizing dirt. Tamar, in this case is not to be outdone, gets right back on the horse; lo and behold - it's Judah - Onan's dad. Score! And not only that, prostitution was legal. If you don't think any of this is hot, you have never been to a really (wine) drunk family reunion where all the women wear veils and no one is aware it's a family reunion.
Adam And Eve
When God commands them, "Be fruitful and multiply", it should follow that Adam and Eve engage humpty-hump early on. However, the couple remains childless while in Eden, and until the Fall (that never was) Adam and Eve are not even aware they are naked. The first sex act described in the Bible comes after Eden: "And Adam knew Eve his wife". Some scholars take this to mean that Adam and Eve are not aware of their sexuality before the Fall. But that makes nonsense of the divine command to procreate. In the book of Jubilees: 3:6, Adam and Eve have sex as soon as God introduces them. According to rabbinic tradition, Eve is not Adam's first wife. His first wife is Lilith, leaves him because Adam won't let her be the sexual "cowgirl" she wants to be.
And that's it for tonight. Hope you all enjoyed!
Tomorrow's selections will be the Song of Solomon and Ahab and Jezebel, amongst others.
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.
Very good stories to show exactly what man is like. Nothing is hidden. It is all interpreted fairly well by you, Gawen.
The interesting fact is that no human story is without something(s) that are ugly. We all have secrets. 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?
Man, apart from biblical man, is quite pleasant and has luckily never done anything like what we read in the bible.
I've been reading a lot of the early Christians' pathetic attempts at apologetics recently, and it's amazing how anti-sex they are. They continually harp on about Zeus and the other Greek gods being debauch devils rather than gods for having sexual relations with mortals (including a male youth in Zeus' case), yet omit to mention all the debauchery in their own holy texts...
I'm not big on the bible, but I have to say that I kind of agree with AnimatedDirt. One of my very dear friends is studying to become a UU minister, and part of that involves a LOT of indepth biblical analysis. One of the things that I love about her is that she doesn't deny that the Bible is chock full o'crazy. What she says, basically, is that the bible is violent and contradictory and fucked up (yes, she uses the F word, more than I do, in fact) because it's about the human experience, and the human experience is violent and contradictory and fucked up.
I don't believe in the divinity of the bible, but I do accept that as a reasonable explanation for why some of the stuff in the bible is so insane and messed up. It is, because people are.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on January 04, 2012, 05:24:28 PM
I've been reading a lot of the early Christians' pathetic attempts at apologetics recently, and it's amazing how anti-sex they are. They continually harp on about Zeus and the other Greek gods being debauch devils rather than gods for having sexual relations with mortals (including a male youth in Zeus' case), yet omit to mention all the debauchery in their own holy texts...
Haha, that would be Ganymede. He's in my gmail address. I heart greek myths, because at least the greek gods were open douche bags.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on January 04, 2012, 05:24:28 PM
I've been reading a lot of the early Christians' pathetic attempts at apologetics recently, and it's amazing how anti-sex they are. They continually harp on about Zeus and the other Greek gods being debauch devils rather than gods for having sexual relations with mortals (including a male youth in Zeus' case), yet omit to mention all the debauchery in their own holy texts...
I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a Christian that denys the debauchery in the bible. It is full of man's love of money, sex, power...you name it, it's in there. It's also full of man's repentance, man's self-reflection that there is nothing...that he is mortal, that he cannot do anything he wants. God...but then that goes into something of faith and not of proof. The better point to bring up is; Why is it in there? What can we gain from that knowledge? Putting God aside...what possible good can one bring out of all that "history". (I put history in quotations because for the typical Atheist, these books are fairytales)
I get the feeling you are in a bad mood, AD. :(
It seems women were just sex objects according to men from that region almost 2,000 years ago.
The best perceived woman, Mary was a pure innocent virgin.
The worst of humanity, depicted to show how welcoming and gracious Jesus was, Mary Magdalene was a wretched slutty whore.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 04, 2012, 08:19:28 PM
I get the feeling you are in a bad mood, AD. :(
Not at all. Forgive me for my "sounding" like I'm in a bad mood. Just throwing my points in the mix. :)
Quote from: Stevil on January 04, 2012, 08:23:33 PM
It seems women were just sex objects according to men from that region almost 2,000 years ago.
The best perceived woman, Mary was a pure innocent virgin.
The worst of humanity, depicted to show how welcoming and gracious Jesus was, Mary Magdalene was a wretched slutty whore.
I'm not getting your point here. Are you suggesting that since then (the fairytale biblical times), men have seen women as equals and are no longer sex objects? That Mary was not pure, innocent, nor a virgin?
About M.M. I'll need some clarification on what you may be driving at.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 04, 2012, 08:42:17 PM
I'm not getting your point here. Are you suggesting that since then (the fairytale biblical times), men have seen women as equals and are no longer sex objects? That Mary was not pure, innocent, nor a virgin?
About M.M. I'll need some clarification on what you may be driving at.
I don't see the bible as knowledge or historical fact. I see it as a story book written by men from the middle east region 2,000 years ago.
Does the book talk about the sexual status of men, being virgins or whores?
Why did Mary need to be written as a virgin? Of course as a believer you simply see this as a historical fact.
But for me, there was a purpose behind the author making the fictional character Mary a virgin.
Yes, there are still people today whom value a woman's virginity, suggesting it is the measure of a woman's pureness.
I would suggest that the majority of atheists see the woman as a person and her value is that of the person she is rather than whom she has or hasn't slept with.
Isn't the fictional character M.M. used as an example of how loving J.C. is towards all people? (of course again, you see historical fact, but please just imagine from an Atheist perspective that this is simply a fictional story, made up in the imagination of the male author)
Would the meaning of J.C's relationship with M.M. be lost if she were a virgin rather than a whore?
Quote from: Stevil on January 04, 2012, 08:51:58 PM
I don't see the bible as knowledge or historical fact. I see it as a story book written by men from the middle east region 2,000 years ago.
I'm not surprised.
Quote from: StevilDoes the book talk about the sexual status of men, being virgins or whores?
Not to my knowledge. Is it any different today?
Quote from: StevilWhy did Mary need to be written as a virgin? Of course as a believer you simply see this as a historical fact.
But for me, there was a purpose behind the author making the fictional character Mary a virgin.
I'd like to hear what your opinion is on this. I believe there are a few reasons.
Quote from: StevilYes, there are still people today whom value a woman's virginity, suggesting it is the measure of a woman's pureness.
It's part and I'd go so far as to say it is a huge part up until the age when she can make decisions on her own of what to get involved with and what not to get involved with.
Quote from: StevilI would suggest that the majority of atheists see the woman as a person and her value is that of the person she is rather than whom she has or hasn't slept with.
Does this not fall into the same thinking that the fairytale may be suggesting?
Quote from: StevilIsn't the fictional character M.M. used as an example of how loving J.C. is towards all people? (of course again, you see historical fact, but please just imagine from an Atheist perspective that this is simply a fictional story, made up in the imagination of the male author)
Not only his love but shows why she loved him too.
Quote from: StevilWould the meaning of J.C's relationship with M.M. be lost if she were a virgin rather than a whore?
Not at all, however the fairytale wouldn't necessarily be a fairytale if it were not for strife and the evils of man.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 04, 2012, 09:23:41 PM
Quote from: StevilWhy did Mary need to be written as a virgin? Of course as a believer you simply see this as a historical fact.
But for me, there was a purpose behind the author making the fictional character Mary a virgin.
I'd like to hear what your opinion is on this. I believe there are a few reasons.
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.
Quote from: StevilI would suggest that the majority of atheists see the woman as a person and her value is that of the person she is rather than whom she has or hasn't slept with.
Does this not fall into the same thinking that the fairytale may be suggesting?
[/quote]
"fairytale" is your word, please don't attempt to put words in my mouth.
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 my opinion there is nothing wrong with a woman choosing the occupation of prostitution.
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.)
Quote from: Stevil on January 04, 2012, 09:35:56 PM
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?
Quote from: Stevil"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.
Quote from: StevilThat 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.
Quote from: StevilIn 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?
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 (http://departments.kings.edu/womens_history/marymagda.html).
Quote from: Recusant on January 04, 2012, 11:18:44 PM
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 (http://departments.kings.edu/womens_history/marymagda.html).
:) Cool.
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.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 04, 2012, 11:11:28 PM
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.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 04, 2012, 11:11:28 PM
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.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 04, 2012, 11:11:28 PM
Quote from: Stevil"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!
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 04, 2012, 11:11:28 PM
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.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 04, 2012, 11:21:09 PM
Quote from: Recusant on January 04, 2012, 11:18:44 PM
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 (http://departments.kings.edu/womens_history/marymagda.html).
:) Cool.
At least I have an excuse for not knowing this.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 04, 2012, 03:56:11 PM
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.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 04, 2012, 03:59:59 PM
Very good stories to show exactly what man is like. Nothing is hidden.
The only thing hidden is justice.
QuoteThese 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.
QuoteMan, 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.
QuoteIt is all interpreted fairly well by you, Gawen.
Thanks.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 04, 2012, 09:45:31 PM
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!*
Quote from: Gawen on January 05, 2012, 01:14:01 AM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 04, 2012, 09:45:31 PM
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;;
Quote from: Gawen on January 05, 2012, 01:05:55 AM
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?
Quote from: Gawen on January 05, 2012, 01:10:53 AM
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??
Quote from: GawenWell, 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?
Quote from: GawenI 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].
Quote from: GawenThanks.
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...
Quote from: Stevil on January 05, 2012, 12:56:24 AM
No such thing as evil.
I stand corrected...I suppose the Atheist NEVER uses this word then.
Quote from: Stevilyes, 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.
Quote from: StevilI 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.
Quote from: StevilYes, 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?
Quote from: StevilAt 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.
Quote from: Stevil on January 04, 2012, 08:51:58 PM
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.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on January 05, 2012, 05:48:35 AM
Quote from: Stevil on January 04, 2012, 08:51:58 PM
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.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 05, 2012, 05:01:59 AM
Quote from: Gawen on January 05, 2012, 01:05:55 AM
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?
It's the only conclusion left open to you if Jesus was a Jew and at most a rabbi or at least learned of scripture. But what does it matter to you, who does not do what Jesus says?
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 04, 2012, 07:41:47 PM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on January 04, 2012, 05:24:28 PM
I've been reading a lot of the early Christians' pathetic attempts at apologetics recently, and it's amazing how anti-sex they are. They continually harp on about Zeus and the other Greek gods being debauch devils rather than gods for having sexual relations with mortals (including a male youth in Zeus' case), yet omit to mention all the debauchery in their own holy texts...
I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a Christian that denys the debauchery in the bible. It is full of man's love of money, sex, power...you name it, it's in there. It's also full of man's repentance, man's self-reflection that there is nothing...that he is mortal, that he cannot do anything he wants. God...but then that goes into something of faith and not of proof. The better point to bring up is; Why is it in there? What can we gain from that knowledge? Putting God aside...what possible good can one bring out of all that "history". (I put history in quotations because for the typical Atheist, these books are fairytales)
yep, they're fairytales, and not particurlarly good ones either. My point was merely that the
early Christian apologists called gods like Zeus and Apollo debauch demons because they had sexual intercourse with humans, and really slagged off Zeus because he had sexual relations with Ganymede (the early Christians apologists were very homophobic),. But they never mention any such similar debauchery in the Tanakh, always portraying Moses as a lofty inspired philosopher and prophet and Yahweh as a lofty deity.
And I think there are plenty of Christians who would be totally unaware of the debauchery in the Old Testament, particularly given how awkward most Christians are about sex and debauchery.
Last installment...
Bestiality
The biblical penalty for a man or a woman having sex with an animal is death (Exod. 22:19, Lev. 18:30), for "it is confusion" (Lev. 18:23), an egregious mixing of created kinds (Lev. 19:19 and Deut. 22:9-11). "Cursed be anyone who lies with any kind of beast and all the people shall say 'Amen.'"(Deut. 27:21)
But...
According to Hebrew tradition, even Adam, the first human being, is confused when his Creator brings him the animals. In Genesis Adam only gives these creatures names. Yet God's whole purpose in creating the beasts, according to the second creation account (Gen. 2), is "to make a helper (Hebrew ezer, denoting a companion or partner) fit for Adam," which Adam fails to find. Rabbinic sources tell us the lengths to which Adam goes to find the right helper: he couples with each female animal and then complains to God, "Every creature but me has a proper mate!" It is only then that God, through trial and error (Adam's first wife Lilith leaves him, and the first Eve is rejected by Adam), creates a fit companion. Even the Canaanite gods are not above this "confusion": in a badly damaged text from ancient Ugarit, the fertility god Baal has sex either with a cow or the goddess Anat in bovine form.
"To Be Carnally Minded Is Death"
The Hebrew word basar can refer to the flesh of one's body, to the body as a whole, to one's kin, or to all living creatures. It can also refer to the penis, as in Abraham being "circumcised in the flesh" (Gen. 17:11, 14, 24), a man having an "issue out of his flesh" (Lev. 15:2), and the Egyptian lovers of Oholibah, having members like "the flesh of asses" (Ezek. 23:20). For all "lawful" intents and purposes, sex was a good thing.
Enter Christianity and Saul/Paul, reflecting an ascetic dualism of body and spirit found in Greco-Roman philosophy, associates flesh (Greek sarkos) with animalistic urges and as sinfulness. "To be carnally minded is death, to be spiritually minded is life and peace" (Rom. 7:14; 8:6), "works of the flesh" are adultery and fornication (Gal. 5:19), "If ye live after the flesh, ye shall die," and "but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live."
Thus Paul tells them to "make not provision for the flesh, to fulfill the lusts thereof". Similarly the 1 Peter 2:11 urges the faithful to "abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul", and 2 Peter 2:12-18 condemns false teachers, who as "natural brute beasts," with "eyes full of adultery," allure "unstable souls" by "the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness". Paul had real issues with sex and women.
Incest
Notable instances of incest are:
Lot's daughters contriving to have children by him;
Tamar contriving to have a child by her father-in-law Judah;
Jacob marrying Leah and Rachel, who were sisters;
Reuben having sex with his father's wife Bilhah;
Abraham's marriage to his half-sister Sarah;
Amnon's rape of his half-sister Tamar;
Herodias, the wife of Herod Antipas (both her brother-in-law and uncle)
It should be noted that all of the above cited instances of incest in the Old Testament, except for Amnon's rape of Tamar, antedate the Law in Leviticus (ch. 17-26) that prohibits them. Even the rape may predate the code in its written form.
Yahweh himself violates Lev. 18:18 by marrying two women who are sisters!
Isaac And Rebekah
The only Hebrew patriarch who was monogamous and had no concubines. (Gen. 24-26, 27:1-38)
THE WORLD'S FIRST POLYGAMIST
There are two differing Lamech traditions in Genesis. In the first one, Lamech, a sixth-generation descendant of Adam and Eve, marries two women. This first recorded polygamist has three sons who accomplish firsts of their own: his first wife Adah bears Jabal, the world's first cattleman, and Jubal, the first player of musical instruments. His other wife Zillah bears Tubalcain, the first instructor of metallurgy. Zillah also bears a daughter named Naamah, who, being a woman, is not credited with being the first of anything.
In the second tradition (which does not matter in this study, but posted anyway), Lamech is the son of Methuselah, the oldest man in the Bible. He is one hundred and eighty years old when he gets around to fathering Noah. Lamech finds time for more progeny during his remaining five hundred and ninety-five years.
Shechem And Dinah
When Dinah (daughter of patriarch Jacob) goes out with some Canaanite girlfriends for a night on the town, she catches the eye of Canaanite Prince Shechem. Well, the prince rapes Dinah, "took her, and lay with her, and defiled her." Afterwards, Shechem has a change of heart and loves Dinah, treats her kindly, and asks his father Hamor, "Get me this damsel to wife." The kicker here is Dinah does not go home but stays in the prince's house. Does she do this willingly? Does Dinah return Shechem's love? There is no way to know, for the story of Shechem and Dinah is a perfect example of the male-centeredness of the Bible. Central to the story are the feelings of Dinah's brothers about what has happened, while the feelings of Dinah are nowhere expressed.
Cross dressing?
"A woman shall not wear a man's clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment." - Deuteronomy 22:5. Cross-dressing is one of several commandments against the mixing of created kinds of things (Lev. 19:19; Deut. 22:9-11). To put it all in one sentence, a farmer cannot not plow with an ox and an ass at the same time while he's wearing women's clothing made of wool and linen. There is no penalty prescribed, but those who transgress are called "abominable to the Lord your God" (Deut. 22:5).
Herod And The Dance Of Salome
When John the Baptist comes along preaching "a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins," even Herod, the governor of Galilee, considers him "a righteous and holy man." This opinion is not shared by Herod's wife Herodias when John attacks their incestuous marriage: "It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife". This should have been under the incest section above, but deserves its own space, I think.
Note: Herodias is not only Herod's sister-in-law but also his niece, being the daughter of Herod's half-brother Aristobulus. However, Josephus says Herodias' previous husband was not Herod's half-brother Philip (as stated in the Bible), tetrarch of the region east of Galilee, but Herod Philip, another half-brother, in Rome. It is Salome, Herodias' daughter from the marriage to Herod Philip, who eventually marries the tetrarch Philip, both Salome's and her mother's uncle.
I think I got that right.
Anyway, Herod has John imprisoned, not to punish him but to protect him from Herodias, who wants him dead. But then, at a birthday banquet for Herod, Salome dances for Herod and his guests. The only gospel description of the dance is that it "pleased Herod" so much that he says, "Ask me for whatever you wish, and I will grant it...I will give you, even half of my kingdom."
Salome consults with her mother Herodias, who tells her to ask for the head of John on a platter. Salome duly makes the request, and Herod, not wanting to renege on a promise before his guests, reluctantly gives the order. John's head "was brought on a platter and given to the girl, and she brought it to her mother." Thus the story of Salome's dance – what is probably the only truly sensual episode in the New Testament - comes to a macabre conclusion. (Matt. 14:1-12; Mark 6:16-28)
There Ain't No Foolin' Around In Heaven
Did Jesus have a sex life? Ever since Chalcedon (a fifth-century ecumenical council), it has been the orthodox Christian view that Jesus was "truly God" and "truly man." And shared human needs and desires; born "according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:4), he was "in all things like his brethren" (Heb. 2:17).
Yet despite his humanness and the women his ministry attracted, the Bible is silent on any sexual involvement of Jesus. Moreover, Jesus regarded sex as basically or mostly negative, at least what he mentions. A lustful thought is adultery (Matt. 5:28). He does not condemn the woman taken in adultery, but he commands her to "sin no more" (John 8:3-11.) He does not accuse the Samaritan woman, living with a man out of wedlock, of immorality (John 4:5-26). He refers to "eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake" (Matt. 19:12), an apparent endorsement of extreme sexual abstinence for those so inclined to physically alter themselves.
On the other hand, others should enjoy sex while they can, for Luke 20:33-36 quotes Jesus as saying there will be no marriage in the resurrection. In other words, there ain't no sex in heaven.
Note: The usual Greek word for romantic or sexual love, eros, is found nowhere in the New Testament. The word used for love is agape, a spiritual sense, and philia being brotherly love.
The piece about crossdressing has me laughing so hard. I can't believe anyone would give a shit about what the genders wore.
The incest and beastiality parts made me kinda sick.
Sooo lame this sky fairy is. I'm sure xstians are very, very happy following this insane book. :D
Quote from: Gawen on January 05, 2012, 12:22:17 PM
It's the only conclusion left open to you if Jesus was a Jew and at most a rabbi or at least learned of scripture. But what does it matter to you, who does not do what Jesus says?
Oh so it's ok for you to assume what I do or don't do, but if I was to do this?? It is always fun to see the double standards.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on January 05, 2012, 12:40:28 PM
And I think there are plenty of Christians who would be totally unaware of the debauchery in the Old Testament, particularly given how awkward most Christians are about sex and debauchery.
I'd say this is true to some extent...to the extent that these Christians have never read the OT.
To
Gawen's "last installment": Again...nothing in there that hasn't been done since. All "seemingly" true (I've not read every word of your post.) Nothing hidden...so what is your point?
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 05, 2012, 05:24:18 AM
Quote from: Stevilyes, 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.
This sounds confused. My stance is based on my thoughts, reason, logic, experience, not based on what I am told to think. Being an Atheist doesn't mean subscribing to anarchy.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 05, 2012, 05:24:18 AM
Quote from: StevilI 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?
I have never said such a thing. It is fine to write about sex. The shocking element of the items that Gawen has highlighted isn't the sex it is the crimes of rape and seemingly ownership and sex objectification of women
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 05, 2012, 05:24:18 AM
Quote from: StevilAt 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.
Many things lead me to this assumption, you not pointing out my mistake, you trying to defend a position that a whore is the worst a woman can be. But regardless, we all make assumptions, some intentional, some not. All it takes is some clarification to resolve an assumption. You have made many assumptions about me, some which I instantly highlighted to you e.g. "fairytales"
Quote from: Stevil on January 05, 2012, 06:57:48 PM
This sounds confused. My stance is based on my thoughts, reason, logic, experience, not based on what I am told to think. Being an Atheist doesn't mean subscribing to anarchy.
Point taken. :)
Quote from: StevilI have never said such a thing. It is fine to write about sex. The shocking element of the items that Gawen has highlighted isn't the sex it is the crimes of rape and seemingly ownership and sex objectification of women.
...and your shock stems from what exactly? Is it the apparent utopia we find ourselves? Or is it the lack of such material available to the average person?
Quote from: StevilMany things lead me to this assumption, you not pointing out my mistake, you trying to defend a position that a whore is the worst a woman can be. But regardless, we all make assumptions, some intentional, some not. All it takes is some clarification to resolve an assumption.
I didn't mention it because it didn't really come to mind AND it really makes no difference in the great scheme of things. Virgin or young, the point is she was seen as innocent, pure...both of which can be interpreted of either young or virgin. If it makes a difference to you, I can accept that. Secondly, I didn't defend that a whore is the worst woman can be (at least I hope it didn't come across as such) but that THAT society saw whores as "the worst"...or simply a really bad woman.
Quote from: StevilYou have made many assumptions about me, some which I instantly highlighted to you e.g. "fairytales"
I don't quite yet understand this. Are you saying that these 'stories written by men ~2000 years ago" are not fairytales? The reason I'm using "fairytales" is to simply put the book into context of just a book and get what the book is about, the details...similar to those that go to great lengts to explain or know other stories. c.f. THain's Book - Guide to Tolkien's Middle-earth (http://www.tuckborough.net/). I love that website. It is an example of being able to take a story and extract out all it's "truth". It is fantasy, but there is "truth" within the book. I hope you understand what I mean when I say that.
I simply *loooove* people who want to judge the prostitute, but not the men who chose to sleep with her.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 05, 2012, 08:41:42 PM
I simply *loooove* people who want to judge the prostitute, but not the men who chose to sleep with her.
Have you read the fairytale or are you just spouting whatever comes to mind that seems to be anti-christian out of anger or disgust?
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 05, 2012, 07:23:32 PM
the point is she was seen as innocent, pure...both of which can be interpreted of either young or virgin.
Why does virginity point to being pure, how does having sex make a person less pure?
Quote from: Stevil on January 05, 2012, 09:36:25 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 05, 2012, 07:23:32 PM
the point is she was seen as innocent, pure...both of which can be interpreted of either young or virgin.
Why does virginity point to being pure, how does having sex make a person less pure?
In the culture of the piece of fiction, to be a virgin is to be young. While I'm sure some instances of an older virgin did occur, for the most part the culture was about giving their daughters over for marriage to grow the family and thus the family's fortune. It's not uncommon that what we may term "too young to marry" today may not not have been "too young" in the culture of the piece of fiction.
Having had sex doesn't make a person less pure, it's an allusion to purity. It's similar maybe to the reason white wedding dresses are used (traditionally) for brides which to some represents purity. Why white? Can a virgin or any bride not choose what color to wear? Of course they can. It's simply a tradition.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 05, 2012, 07:23:32 PM
Quote from: StevilYou have made many assumptions about me, some which I instantly highlighted to you e.g. "fairytales"
I don't quite yet understand this. Are you saying that these 'stories written by men ~2000 years ago" are not fairytales? The reason I'm using "fairytales" is to simply put the book into context of just a book and get what the book is about, the details...similar to those that go to great lengts to explain or know other stories. c.f. THain's Book - Guide to Tolkien's Middle-earth (http://www.tuckborough.net/). I love that website. It is an example of being able to take a story and extract out all it's "truth". It is fantasy, but there is "truth" within the book. I hope you understand what I mean when I say that.
Oh, now I get it. I thought you were being snarky about my unbelief.
I mean, a Christian conversing with me, referring to the bible as a fairytale. Its obviously not your words, so I assumed you were indicating that this is my word... but this pissed me off because it is not my word, I am not that rude.
Now I understand what you are trying to do.
Quote from: Stevil on January 05, 2012, 09:36:25 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 05, 2012, 07:23:32 PM
the point is she was seen as innocent, pure...both of which can be interpreted of either young or virgin.
Why does virginity point to being pure, how does having sex make a person less pure?
Like you Stevil, I wouldn't consider a virgin any more or less pure than a prostitute, as I don't see sex as degrading or a pollutant, but I think Mary's virginity is important from a Christian point of view. Early Christian writers made a big deal of the fact that Mary was a virgin because it meant that Jesus was born free of carnality and the 'original sin' of Adam and Eve. I think the central point of the New Testament from a theological point of view was that Jesus' suffering supposedly redeemed the original sin of Adam, so maybe the fact that Jesus was seen as being inherently free of original sin was important. Plus, as Gawen's pointed out, the early Christians were incredibly uncomfortable with sex and the body in general, that was considered the enemy and cage of the soul, a dualistic view they inherited principally from Platonic philosophy. So from their point of view, Mary's virginity made her pure.
plus I think another reason why the virgin birth story exists is that Zeus had a prediliction for virgins centuries before Yahweh, and many Greek sons of gods were born to virgins. Maybe gods just don't like to have sloppy seconds!
Quote from: Too Few Lions on January 06, 2012, 12:54:16 PM
Jesus' suffering supposedly redeemed the original sin of Adam
Do any Atheists understand how the death of a person can redeem for anther person's sins?
Sin is something against a god, right?
Does the god get into a state of psychotic joy, so much that it decides to give forgive all of humanities sins simply because the humans gave it the pleasure of watching one person tortured and killed?
But throughout history, many, many people have been tortured and killed. How come those deaths don't also atone for our sins?
If the god story turns out to be true and the second coming appears on earth, should we be motivated to capture, torture and kill it so that we can again be atoned?
Quote from: Stevil on January 06, 2012, 06:08:47 PM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on January 06, 2012, 12:54:16 PM
Jesus' suffering supposedly redeemed the original sin of Adam
Do any Atheists understand how the death of a person can redeem for anther person's sins?
Sin is something against a god, right?
Does the god get into a state of psychotic joy, so much that it decides to give forgive all of humanities sins simply because the humans gave it the pleasure of watching one person tortured and killed?
But throughout history, many, many people have been tortured and killed. How come those deaths don't also atone for our sins?
If the god story turns out to be true and the second coming appears on earth, should we be motivated to capture, torture and kill it so that we can again be atoned?
It is simple yet to some degree complicated. Romans is a great book to read through to understand this better.
In a nutshell: Adam sinned and thus because all humanity is decended from Adam, all humanity is tainted...from conception. The sting of sin is death. How can a person with sin pay for his own sins AND that of others when he is sinful? So God knowing this, sent his son (who is also God and thus sinless) down in the form of man, born of a virgin (pure), not of a man, but the seed of God (God didn't have sex with Mary) for the sole purpose of dying as a sinless "lamb", or innocent of sin and thus paid for all sin through His death of which he was blameless. How does God die? I don't know...but if He didn't, he's lied to us and there is no salvation. But the fiction says that God raised Him on the third day...the only reason God could raise Him is because He was sinless. God cannot justly raise a sinner because God cannot go against His own Righteous Judgement. The sinner has paid for being a sinner him/herself and death is the price.
However, if we, the deluded (ha) put our faith in Christ, then His death is counted as our death. If we take the gift and truly believe...then we have died with Christ and can justly be raised after dying.
I'm no theologian, nor am I an expert in conveying this. I would suggest Romans in the least, of that book of fiction, if you want a better understanding.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 06, 2012, 06:40:38 PM
It is simple yet to some degree complicated. Romans is a great book to read through to understand this better.
In a nutshell: Adam sinned and thus because all humanity is decended from Adam, all humanity is tainted...from conception. The sting of sin is death. How can a person with sin pay for his own sins AND that of others when he is sinful? So God knowing this, sent his son (who is also God and thus sinless) down in the form of man, born of a virgin (pure), not of a man, but the seed of God (God didn't have sex with Mary) for the sole purpose of dying as a sinless "lamb", or innocent of sin and thus paid for all sin through His death of which he was blameless. How does God die? I don't know...but if He didn't, he's lied to us and there is no salvation. But the fiction says that God raised Him on the third day...the only reason God could raise Him is because He was sinless. God cannot justly raise a sinner because God cannot go against His own Righteous Judgement. The sinner has paid for being a sinner him/herself and death is the price.
However, if we, the deluded (ha) put our faith in Christ, then His death is counted as our death. If we take the gift and truly believe...then we have died with Christ and can justly be raised after dying.
I'm no theologian, nor am I an expert in conveying this. I would suggest Romans in the least, of that book of fiction, if you want a better understanding.
Thanks for your response AD.
It doesn't make any sense to me, just lots of assertions.
Death paying for sin, people inheriting sin from ancestors, Jesus is god, Jesus is man, Jesus without sin even though he is man. God being unable to raise a sinner from death.
It all seems very nonsensical.
All the god would have needed to do is to not hold people accountable for what their ancestors have done. I certainly don't blame anyone for the actions of their parents, does that make me better than the god?
It's always nice to be blamed for something you didn't do. Taking that same concept, if your great grandparents were thieves, and the boss at work got that info; didn't trust you, it would be illegal for him to fire you, since you did NOTHING WRONG YOURSELF.
whaaaat exactly did god/jeebus die for if man is still "tainted" with sin?
All these horrible parent telling their kids they sinned and going to hell for a "sin" that happened thousands of years ago is repulsive.
Quote from: Stevil on January 06, 2012, 06:55:43 PM
Thanks for your response AD.
It doesn't make any sense to me, just lots of assertions.
Death paying for sin, people inheriting sin from ancestors, Jesus is god, Jesus is man, Jesus without sin even though he is man. God being unable to raise a sinner from death.
It all seems very nonsensical.
All the god would have needed to do is to not hold people accountable for what their ancestors have done. I certainly don't blame anyone for the actions of their parents, does that make me better than the god?
Let's discuss under the guise of the piece of fiction...not under what "you" think is "all god would have needed to do..."
While God is the Law Giver, there is something that God might not be able to help. There are points brought up in the piece of fiction about sin unable to exist in the presence of God, whose nature is Righteous. It's His nature. Much like we cannot simply step out our front door, flap our arms and fly like a bird. We can't necessarily change that. Strap on a jetpack or get an Iron Man suit...I suppose we can, but not likely and not just like a bird. So in this sense God's Law that to sin = death is more of an unavoidable consequence. Next is He is Righteous and a Righteous Judge. He cannot do anything outside of the/His Law. So if anything apart from Him cannot live, then anything that chooses to be apart from Him, when it dies, it dies and ceases to exist...forever.
While
Sweetdeath, and I'm sure most of Atheism, doesn't like the thought of being blamed for something "you" didn't do, it's just the way sin works. Much like getting handed a gene that makes on prone to cancer...or whatever disease is handed down genetically. Some things in life are just "unfair". I think we can all agree on this.
Legally then there are two ways out of this problem. 1. Die on your own and pay the penalty of sin yourself or 2. Put your faith in the fictional character of Jesus and be counted dead already in Him...even though you live.
Again, I think it can be difficult for the typical Atheist to discuss this exclusively from the standpoint of the piece of fiction. Much like LoTR, there are wizards, dragons, evil spirits, rings that have power...all these things are accepted as "truth" and can be reconciled within that context. The question then is; can "we" do the same with that piece of fiction? It may not make sense to "your" life here now, but can it make sense WITHIN the context of the "truth" therein?
I feel very very sad that you believe in inherited sin, AD.
So even a baby is held accountable? Such a laugh.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 06, 2012, 10:13:02 PM
I feel very very sad that you believe in inherited sin, AD.
So even a baby is held accountable? Such a laugh.
My opinion is Christianity, in all its guises is a despicable and corrupt and sinister religion that was built on the following:
Fills a void for the faithful gullible who wish to find whatever they wish to divine what and define as truth and
Tailor made for those that willingly refuse to think for themselves
Tailor made power base for those special few that would suppress and/or oppress anyone who do not think for themselves
Gussied up with a God that allegedly loves, that however doesn't seem to live up to it, let alone reveal itself in any other way than revealed wisdom to those that are lucky enough to have that magic Earth-to-Heaven pipeline and
Continues to thrive for the same reasons above.
Scathing review, yes, but my opinion nevertheless.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 06, 2012, 10:13:02 PM
I feel very very sad that you believe in inherited sin, AD.
So even a baby is held accountable? Such a laugh.
You're sad why? This implies you understand my beliefs...which is odd since I'm not sure I've conveyed what I believe, nor what I think the piece of fiction has to say about the innocence of children and their salvation, if it mentions anything at all...and a "laugh" to boot.
It would be best to really understand the points and know what you're talking about AND THEN you can laugh. Right now you're just laughing to somehow belittle what you perceive I believe.
This is the second time in this thread alone.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 05, 2012, 08:41:42 PM
I simply *loooove* people who want to judge the prostitute, but not the men who chose to sleep with her.
Honestly, if you ask, I'll tell you, but until then I ask that you hold your condescending laughs until you at least understand what you're laughing at. At this point, it's evident on these two points you really don't know what you're talking about.
Thanks for your stuff Gawen.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FKwqaI.png&hash=10358ef63b11ec6bb8ce7ea779a6c88930234e66) (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fa0pxh.png&hash=38ba6e4d6bed8ba21b1ef54c2ba6f8b59fe83bda)
AD, I hope your god is awarding you points for your time amongst us, I would but I'm not sure that's a good sign. Would replacing the band-aids and hat with a target on your forehead be more appropriate?
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 06, 2012, 09:49:30 PM
It may not make sense to "your" life here now, but can it make sense WITHIN the context of the "truth" therein?
I would like to have this conversation with you AD. I am honestly struggling to understand what you are saying.
I think we need to remove the word "truth" as this is not how one would consider concepts from a fictional work.
Sorry to keep harping on about words, but they do alienate me, making me want to point out why this is not the truth in real life and I don't think we should try to relate the story to my real life. At the moment I cannot see any linkages, the story seems nonsensical.
Also can you please simply refer to the bible as the bible rather than a piece of fiction. At least both of us agree that it is the bible. If we speak from a common ground than at least we are both being honest. You know that I take it to be fictional and I know that you take it to be historical so lets move on from this redundant point.
I am keen to try and understand your viewpoint better.
I would also like to have a thread conversation with you in order to explain atheism to you, if you would be so keen to oblige. Not to convince one another which way is the truth, but so that we can simply understand each other.
You can have a truth within a fiction, Indiana Jones wears a hat, Doctor Jekyll wears a top hat, so does the cat in a hat.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on January 07, 2012, 03:04:05 AM
You can have a truth within a fiction, Indiana Jones wears a hat, Doctor Jekyll wears a top hat, so does the cat in a hat.
Indiana is the fictional dog's name. The dog doesn't exist and the fictional dog character does not wear a hat.
Doctor Jekyll doesn't exist and neither does cat in a hat.
There are drawings of cat in a hat in a hat but the hat is a drawing, it isn't actually a hat, just a two dimensional rendition of a hat.
The only truth is that there was an author who created the fictional characters and whom decided they should be characterised as being hat wearers, all except for Indiana whom is a dog that does not wear hats.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 07, 2012, 12:23:20 AM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 06, 2012, 10:13:02 PM
I feel very very sad that you believe in inherited sin, AD.
So even a baby is held accountable? Such a laugh.
You're sad why? This implies you understand my beliefs...which is odd since I'm not sure I've conveyed what I believe, nor what I think the piece of fiction has to say about the innocence of children and their salvation, if it mentions anything at all...and a "laugh" to boot.
It would be best to really understand the points and know what you're talking about AND THEN you can laugh. Right now you're just laughing to somehow belittle what you perceive I believe.
This is the second time in this thread alone.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 05, 2012, 08:41:42 PM
I simply *loooove* people who want to judge the prostitute, but not the men who chose to sleep with her.
Honestly, if you ask, I'll tell you, but until then I ask that you hold your condescending laughs until you at least understand what you're laughing at. At this point, it's evident on these two points you really don't know what you're talking about.
You try so very hard to try to make people understood a series of stories that aren't real.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 06, 2012, 09:49:30 PM
While God is the Law Giver, there is something that God might not be able to help.
This is the bit I've never been able to understand. If God is the omnipotent law giver, how can there be things that he cannot help?
FYI, even when I was Catholic, I could never wrap my head around original sin.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on January 07, 2012, 01:11:00 AM
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FKwqaI.png&hash=10358ef63b11ec6bb8ce7ea779a6c88930234e66) (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fa0pxh.png&hash=38ba6e4d6bed8ba21b1ef54c2ba6f8b59fe83bda)
Dear god, that's terrifying.
Quote from: Cecilie on January 07, 2012, 09:09:50 AM
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on January 07, 2012, 01:11:00 AM
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FKwqaI.png&hash=10358ef63b11ec6bb8ce7ea779a6c88930234e66) (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fa0pxh.png&hash=38ba6e4d6bed8ba21b1ef54c2ba6f8b59fe83bda)
Dear god, that's terrifying.
It wouldn't be hard to animate it so it blinks occasionally.
Quote from: Stevil on January 07, 2012, 03:13:29 AM
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on January 07, 2012, 03:04:05 AM
You can have a truth within a fiction, Indiana Jones wears a hat, Doctor Jekyll wears a top hat, so does the cat in a hat.
Indiana is the fictional dog's name. The dog doesn't exist and the fictional dog character does not wear a hat.
Doctor Jekyll doesn't exist and neither does cat in a hat.
There are drawings of cat in a hat in a hat but the hat is a drawing, it isn't actually a hat, just a two dimensional rendition of a hat.
The only truth is that there was an author who created the fictional characters and whom decided they should be characterised as being hat wearers, all except for Indiana whom is a dog that does not wear hats.
We named the
dog Indiana!
Do you think you can find
any kind of truth in fiction? Like, maybe the characters being written about are fictional, but they still teach something about the human experience? Sorry to interject in your debate with AD, but you always have such interesting points.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 07, 2012, 04:19:53 AM
You try so very hard to try to make people understood a series of stories that aren't real.
Only those with apparently some interest in the piece of fiction...
Quote from: Ali on January 07, 2012, 03:06:46 PM
Do you think you can find any kind of truth in fiction? Like, maybe the characters being written about are fictional, but they still teach something about the human experience? Sorry to interject in your debate with AD, but you always have such interesting points.
The author or artist (of books, songs, movies) often tries to convey a message or hit on a human emotion.
They tend to leave it open to interpretation because they want the message to be personal to a person, they don't convey answers or preach, just set up scenarios or things for people to think about. It is never the truth, just something that the author wants to convey or invoke in the consumer.
It is good to bear in mind that the author is simple another person with their own opinions, they don't know the truth more than you do, everyone walks a different path and hence has different opinions.
Quote from: Cecilie on January 07, 2012, 09:09:50 AM
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on January 07, 2012, 01:11:00 AM
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FKwqaI.png&hash=10358ef63b11ec6bb8ce7ea779a6c88930234e66) (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fa0pxh.png&hash=38ba6e4d6bed8ba21b1ef54c2ba6f8b59fe83bda)
Dear god, that's terrifying.
*laffin*....it still gives me the creeps...
Quote from: Gawen on January 07, 2012, 11:43:37 PM
Quote from: Cecilie on January 07, 2012, 09:09:50 AM
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on January 07, 2012, 01:11:00 AM
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FKwqaI.png&hash=10358ef63b11ec6bb8ce7ea779a6c88930234e66) (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fa0pxh.png&hash=38ba6e4d6bed8ba21b1ef54c2ba6f8b59fe83bda)
Dear god, that's terrifying.
*laffin*....it still gives me the creeps...
Reminds me of:
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs3-ak.buzzfed.com%2Fstatic%2Fenhanced%2Fterminal01%2F2011%2F4%2F18%2F18%2Fenhanced-buzz-4956-1303164909-22.jpg&hash=fb46034df99ffbe04342908cec6870a52d4fc171)
^^^ That is seriously creepy!
QuoteJacob, Two Sisters And The Maid
In Genesis 29: 21-28, Jacob takes a job where he is paid entirely in...woman. His boss promised his daughter Rachel in exchange for seven years of work. After the seven years, the boss pulls the old switcheroo and gives Jacob his daughter Leah (apparently not as good looking as Rachel). Unless Leah and Rachel were identical twin sisters, there should be very little reason why Jacob wouldn't realize fairly early in the process that he had the wrong sister. Then again, perhaps they were serving some of Lot's date-rape wine at the party.
Because of a feud between Jacob and his brother, in which one was gonna end up killing the other, his mother sent him away to live with his uncle(Boss). He was attracted to one of his first cousins so he asked his uncle if he could marry her. His uncle told him that he had to work for him for 7 years first. So basically, in the end, Jacob married both of his first cousins. Does anyone else see anything wrong with that? I pointed that out to some religious people and they didn't really pay it any mind.
Quote from: 54Quix45 on February 22, 2012, 05:07:57 AM
So basically, in the end, Jacob married both of his first cousins. Does anyone else see anything wrong with that? I pointed that out to some religious people and they didn't really pay it any mind.
Which part, the polygyny or the marrying cousins? Polygyny was commonplace in biblical times, and well after for that matter. Cousins marrying was even more commonplace, and for a longer period of time. I can remember as a kid it not being considered odd in some places (such as the South) if 1st cousins married, and I'm not sure it's actually illegal now. Besides, the bible has uncles marrying nieces, so cousins marrying isn't that hair-raising.