Prostitution and the Bible

[excreationist]

Yet you comment on threads that are in a forum category mainly about the Bible.

I rarely look at which forum a comment is in, or at who posted it. I arrived here from "New Posts"

The title is "Prostitution and the Bible". I thought you didn't care what the Bible has to say.

That insight does demonstrate how uninterested you are in the Bible.

Yup. I only commented because I am somewhat interested in polyandry.

That doesn't have anything to do with prostitution or the Bible.

And because your comments about it seem to be highly conservative,

Being a supporter of 1000 wives and concubines for Solomon is "high conservative"? edit: you mean you don't like that I'm against polyandry? I think most people don't think it is a good idea. I think most men would prefer one woman to themselves than to share her with four other men.

wildly wrong, and based on some extremely dubious assumptions and a dire lack of imagination. But then, that's to be expected if your opinions derive from the Bible.

Yes the thread is about the Bible.

 

[bilby]

Yes the thread is about the Bible.

Which is fine, as long as you live in a society where the Bible is recognised as fantasy fiction, with no connection to reality.

But we don't live in such a society, so how the Bible is interpreted is not just a matter for discussion amongst fans.

 

[excreationist]

Yes the thread is about the Bible.

Which is fine, as long as you live in a society where the Bible is recognised as fantasy fiction, with no connection to reality.

But we don't live in such a society, so how the Bible is interpreted is not just a matter for discussion amongst fans.

The Bible talks about a temple in Jerusalem... I thought that is somewhat based on reality.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I am a bit confused by this thread. The subject is purported to be about prostitution and the bible, but there is a focus on adultery. Why such a focus?

Let's take a step back for a moment. Wouldn't one also say that premarital sex was a thing looked down upon (to put it mildly)? So if there are unmarried persons involved in the sex, it may fall under the purview of premarital sex. On the other hand, if it is a married person involved in the sex, it may fall under the purview of adultery. To add finally, the small bits of data about prostitution already discussed, there is also another issue--one of lecherousness as a broad umbrella term that also would cover prostitution. So in total, off the top of my head I can recall 4 things here:

• 1. prostitution specific things mentioned in the bible;
• 2. adultery;
• 3. premarital sex;
• 4. lecherousness/lasciviousness.

It doesn't seem like many texts about prostitution are necessary?

Right/wrong?

 

[steve_bank]

In an ancient tribal culture rules on sex would have practical value.

Minimize male conflict, minimize unsupported children, generally establish civil order within the trrbe,.

 

[Politesse]

I am a bit confused by this thread. The subject is purported to be about prostitution and the bible, but there is a focus on adultery. Why such a focus?

Let's take a step back for a moment. Wouldn't one also say that premarital sex was a thing looked down upon (to put it mildly)? So if there are unmarried persons involved in the sex, it may fall under the purview of premarital sex. On the other hand, if it is a married person involved in the sex, it may fall under the purview of adultery. To add finally, the small bits of data about prostitution already discussed, there is also another issue--one of lecherousness as a broad umbrella term that also would cover prostitution. So in total, off the top of my head I can recall 4 things here:

• 1. prostitution specific things mentioned in the bible;
• 2. adultery;
• 3. premarital sex;
• 4. lecherousness/lasciviousness.

It doesn't seem like many texts about prostitution are necessary?

Right/wrong?

It seems like you are approaching this as a logical problem, more than a legal one. One could in theory, simply pass a law that says "Lying is illegal", and thus outlaw all forms of lying, from adultery to fraudulent malpractice to outdated physics lectures. But that would in effect be a useless law, both unenforcable and unlikely to be enforced. It matters whether or not the "Scriptures", which in this case were the standing legal documents of their time, specifically call out prostitution or not, because both in their time and ours, seeing a sex worker is fundamentally not seen or treated as "the same" crime as cheating with another man's wife, even if distinguishing between them is a tad inconsistent if not hypocritical.

I note that there is no specific prescription against premarital sex in the Hebrew Scriptures either; that's a Christian addition. Most scholars assume that it would have been frowned on in Hebrew society for what are to us obvious reasons, but it is just an assumption, not something called out in the text. There's even a counter-argument to be made, since we do see on a few occasions characters offering their unmarried daughters to visitors, and it is not called out as sinful to do so; they may have genuinely had a different idea about this topic.

Fast forward to the Christian third of the Bible, and you are talking about morality but not talking about the law anymore. And it is extremely vague moral advice, in character, more like outlawing lying than outlawing sex work. Indeed, the very same verse in Paul that condemns "sexual immorality" condemns all forms of deceit as well. All well and good for moral teaching, but not an easily enforceable rule. It's too unclear, because unlike Leviticus it was never meant as a practical, enforceable rule by its original author. Paul was including some general moral advice in a private letter to some friends, not governing a nation, so why would he bother clarifying what exactly he did or did not mean by sexual immorality? The recipients of the letter surely knew exactly which recent sex scandal he was referring to without his needing to indiscreetly spell it out. It must have been a pretty good one if it reached Paul's ears all the way in Rome!

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I note that there is no specific prescription against premarital sex in the Hebrew Scriptures either; that's a Christian addition.

We are discussing the Bible, which is Christian, but as far as pre-marital sex in the OT, there is Exodus 22:16-17:
"And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins."

Maid here means "virgin" and so maybe there is a point about non-virgins. Perhaps also I am being too logical and maybe that is true. Because next, I would consider that any non-virgin was once a virgin, even prostitutes. I realize also that there is hypocrisy and at least some of that comes from patriarchal ways of these ancient cultures. So perhaps mentions of daughters given by fathers on a temporary basis were ruined already, compensated, but still taken advantage of to a life of being passed around for compensation since marital prospects (virginity) were ruined. Not sure.

This does seem like a thing to discuss, especially in light of ex-creationist's prostitutes-are-just-a-waste-of-money moral hypothesis about the texts.

So far as the entirety of the bible being legal prescriptions, I don't think that is the case. I am not sure you meant that, but we are discussing the bible as a whole. For example, in Matthew, Jesus is alleged to talk about how if a husband has adultery in his head then that is an equal sin to adultery in the flesh. That isn't really an enforceable thing. Perhaps that is even what you meant, if you were merely distinguishing the OT from the NT. But I was speaking to the texts as a whole in the context of "the bible" as much as we can anyway, since certain persons have chosen certain texts to go together and reject others, depending on the doctrines they are espousing.

 

[Politesse]

So far as the entirety of the bible being legal prescriptions, I don't think that is the case. I am not sure you meant that, but we are discussing the bible as a whole. For example, in Matthew, Jesus is alleged to talk about how if a husband has adultery in his head then that is an equal sin to adultery in the flesh. That isn't really an enforceable thing. Perhaps that is even what you meant, if you were merely distinguishing the OT from the NT. But I was speaking to the texts as a whole in the context of "the bible" as much as we can anyway, since certain persons have chosen certain texts to go together and reject others, depending on the doctrines they are espousing.

My point is that they aren't the same thing. The Hebrew Scriptures and the Gospels and Paul's letters are fundamentally different documents, written for different reasons in different cultures for VERY different reasons. Paul references the Law a lot, but he obviously did not think that his letters were interpreting, adding, or subtracting for that Law. How could they? Judea was still a semi-autonomous country in his time, the Torah a folk legal system that was not and could not be amended by the private writings of a Roman citizen two thousand miles away. It's not logical to try and intrepret these different types of writing as though they were all working together to create a clear, coherent version of "the rules". The Bible is a collection, not a treatise, and there are no real "the rules" to be found in it. You know what Paul actually says about the law? Mostly that its prudent to follow one's local laws. For all of his recipients, that's Roman law plus whatever sub-plenary rights belonged to the local basileon or governor in that province. On morality he writes much more freely, but under a very Greek influenced presumption that moral decisions are the manifestation of a personal conscience, ruled by discernment.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

So far as the entirety of the bible being legal prescriptions, I don't think that is the case. I am not sure you meant that, but we are discussing the bible as a whole. For example, in Matthew, Jesus is alleged to talk about how if a husband has adultery in his head then that is an equal sin to adultery in the flesh. That isn't really an enforceable thing. Perhaps that is even what you meant, if you were merely distinguishing the OT from the NT. But I was speaking to the texts as a whole in the context of "the bible" as much as we can anyway, since certain persons have chosen certain texts to go together and reject others, depending on the doctrines they are espousing.

My point is that they aren't the same thing. The Hebrew Scriptures and the Gospels and Paul's letters are fundamentally different documents, written for different reasons in different cultures for VERY different reasons. Paul references the Law a lot, but he obviously did not think that his letters were interpreting, adding, or subtracting for that Law. It's not logical to try and intrepret these different types of writing as though they were all working together to create a clear, coherent version of "the rules". The Bible is a collection, not a treatise, and there are no real "the rules" to be found in it.

Okay. I can understand your point. I concede that you could be correct in the context of what we're discussing. My quest to try to come up with a broad umbrella of logical understanding is probably a vestige of once being involved with religion.

 

[Politesse]

Ironically, it was seminary that broke me of that very... habit.

 

[excreationist]

I am a bit confused by this thread. The subject is purported to be about prostitution and the bible, but there is a focus on adultery. Why such a focus?

I thought it was interesting that prostitution doesn't seem to be that bad in the Old Testament but adultery has the death penalty. They're both about having sex with women that aren't your wife.

Let's take a step back for a moment. Wouldn't one also say that premarital sex was a thing looked down upon (to put it mildly)?

This is related to sex before marriage:

Exodus 22:16–17: If a man seduced a virgin not betrothed, he was required to pay the bride-price and marry her (unless her father refused). This shows premarital sex was not permitted without covenantal marriage.

Deuteronomy 22:20–21: If a woman was found not to be a virgin at marriage, it was considered a disgrace to her father’s house and punishable by death.

 

[steve_bank]

I note that there is no specific prescription against premarital sex in the Hebrew Scriptures either; that's a Christian addition.

We are discussing the Bible, which is Christian, but as far as pre-marital sex in the OT, there is Exodus 22:16-17:
"And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins."

Maid here means "virgin" and so maybe there is a point about non-virgins. Perhaps also I am being too logical and maybe that is true. Because next, I would consider that any non-virgin was once a virgin, even prostitutes. I realize also that there is hypocrisy and at least some of that comes from patriarchal ways of these ancient cultures. So perhaps mentions of daughters given by fathers on a temporary basis were ruined already, compensated, but still taken advantage of to a life of being passed around for compensation since marital prospects (virginity) were ruined. Not sure.

This does seem like a thing to discuss, especially in light of ex-creationist's prostitutes-are-just-a-waste-of-money moral hypothesis about the texts.

So far as the entirety of the bible being legal prescriptions, I don't think that is the case. I am not sure you meant that, but we are discussing the bible as a whole. For example, in Matthew, Jesus is alleged to talk about how if a husband has adultery in his head then that is an equal sin to adultery in the flesh. That isn't really an enforceable thing. Perhaps that is even what you meant, if you were merely distinguishing the OT from the NT. But I was speaking to the texts as a whole in the context of "the bible" as much as we can anyway, since certain persons have chosen certain texts to go together and reject others, depending on the doctrines they are espousing.

And the much stated problem for us atheists and others is Christians who think the OT/NT are the literal inerrant words of or inspired by a god representing a morality.

The pope dictating morality to the world from the Vatican.