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

[Gawen]

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?

[Too Few Lions]

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.

[Gawen]

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.

[Sweetdeath]

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.

[AnimatedDirt]

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.

[AnimatedDirt]

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?

[Stevil]

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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"

[AnimatedDirt]

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.  

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.

...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?

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.

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.

You 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.  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.

[Sweetdeath]

I simply *loooove* people who want to judge the prostitute, but not the  men who chose to sleep with her.

[AnimatedDirt]

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?

[Stevil]

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?

[AnimatedDirt]

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.

[Stevil]

You 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.  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.

[Too Few Lions]

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!

[Stevil]

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?