Rome: Sex and Freedom

Rome: Sex and Freedom (New York Review of Books)

Peter Brown reviews Kyle Harper's From Shame to Sin: The Christian Transformation of Sexual Morality in Late Antiquity

There's a lot here to digest, but in Brown's reminder that, however much we try to think ourselves similar to the ancient and late antique Roman world, there is in fact a great chasm between us and them, there seem to be two crucial take-aways:

1. A reappraisal of Roman sexual mores and customs that recognizes just how crucial was, "the fact of slavery, towering above us like the trees of an immense forest of unfreedom that covered the Roman world":

If one asks if women in these scenes were free persons (and even how many of the men were free, for some might be slave gigolos), the unexpected answer would be: far fewer than we would wish to think. Many of the women were slaves. The jolly free-for-all, which we like to imagine as forming a timeless human bond between us and the ancients, was based upon the existence of a vast and cruel “zone of free access” provided by the enslaved bodies of boys and girls. Slavery, “an inherently degrading institution,” was “absolutely fundamental to the social and moral order of Roman life.” (...) {This is a world} that we rather wish it had not been: “a society whose moral lineaments were sculpted by the omnipresence of slaves” and where “the flesh trade was a dominant institution.”

Harper’s book makes plain that the modern spate of works on sexuality and on the construction of gender in Roman and early Christian times, ingenious though they may be, are lightweight confections compared with this gross, ever-present fact of Roman life. We must look up from our literary games and see what is almost too big to be seen—the fact of slavery, towering above us like the trees of an immense forest of unfreedom that covered the Roman world. What mattered, in Roman law and in Roman sexual morality, had little to do with sex. It had everything to do with whose bodies could be enjoyed with impunity and whose could not be touched without elaborate formulas of consent.

2. In the light of social codes in which sexual license was practiced with impunity against the unfree, Harper perceives that Christian attitudes towards sex were fundamentally a reaction against this unfreedom:

The excitement of his second chapter, “The Will and the World in Early Christian Sexuality,” lies in the manner in which he traces the sheer fierceness of Christian attitudes toward sexuality back to how sexual morality merged with the charged issue of freedom. Christians rethought these ideas in profound alienation from a society that took unfreedom for granted. They also dissociated themselves from a view of the cosmos that seemed to support a chill “indifference toward the brutalities accepted in the name of destiny.”

This is the second grand theme in Harper’s book. From Saint Paul onward, the great issues of sex and freedom were brought together in Christian circles like the enriched ore of an atomic device. For Paul, porneia—fornication—meant a lot more than premarital fooling around. It was a brooding metonym, “enriched” by an entire spectrum of associations. It stood for mankind’s rebellion against God. And this primal rebellion was shown most clearly in the topsy-turvy sexual freedom ascribed first by Jews and then by Christians to the non-Christian world.

But then, what was true freedom? Freedom also was a mighty metonym, of which the freedom to decide one’s sexual fate was only one, highly “enriched” part. Above all, it meant “freedom” from “the world.” And by “the world” Christians meant, bluntly, the Roman society of their own times, where unfreedom was shown in its darkest light by the trading and sexual abuse of unfree bodies. It no longer mattered, to Christians, with whose bodies, from which social categories, and in what manner sex might happen. From Paul onward, for Christians, there was right sex—sex between spouses for the production of children; wrong sex—sex outside marriage; and abhorrent sex—sex between same-sex partners. Wrong sex of any kind was a sin. And a sin was a sin. It was not a social faux pas, deemed an outrage in one situation and accepted in another.

---------------------------------------

It seems to me that Harper (at least via Brown's review) has made a crucial contribution to our understanding of the evolution of sexual mores from Rome to Christianity that casts new light the latter's vehement denouncements of sexual sin: the way in which sexual license in the ancient world was, from the modern perspective, most often practiced as rape, the man of freedom exercising his legal rights over slaves (male or female, it didn't much matter) who had no freedom to refuse -- their very unfreedom the justification for their bodies to be used as it pleased their masters.

Yes. And oddly enough, we have people that argue that consensuality is pretty much the keystone of all sexual relations, regardless of whether those are between two men, two women, or one person who assumes the role of a submissive in the relationship and vice versa.

Oddly enough, I believe that's a stance that you've often railed against.

If we were still living in Roman times, Christianity's "vehement denouncements of sexual sin" might make sense. Fortunately, we do not. This is the 21st century.

>2 Jesse_wiedinmyer:: "Oddly enough, I believe that's a stance that you've often railed against."

Only insofar as I believe that while consensuality is necessary, it may not be alone sufficient -- that healthy* sexuality demands more than just consensuality.

The Roman model required significantly less -- something that should be kept in mind the next time it is claimed that Christianity ushered in a barbaric "dark age" after the light of glorious Rome.

*Edited to acknowledge Arctic's suggestion below.

Only insofar as I believe that while consensuality is necessary, it may not be alone sufficient -- that sexuality demands more than just consensuality.

Luckily for the rest of us, you are not in control of that aspect of our lives.

I think you mean healthy sexuality requires more than consent.

4> Surely you know that after the Roman empire collapsed, Europe's cultural decline ensued. So much so that when Western European Christians traveled to Byzantium, they were viewed as barbarians. The Church preserved elements of Roman culture, most significantly wine culture. But it was a culture restricted to a small class of spiritual aristocrats. Feudalism and serfdom didn't make life a picnic for the mass of people living under Church rule.

The civilizing project of Rome was different than that of the Catholic church; one lifted the purported barbarians out of the state of barbarism, the other adapted itself to the degraded condition of its flock. I particularly like how Le Goff characterizes this state of affairs: "They chose to grow stupid in order to conquer."

Two relevant texts:

Georges Duby, The Early Growth of the European Economy
Jacques Le Goff, Medieval Civilization 400-1500

But none of this proves that sexuality today demands "more than just consensuality."

>7 theoria:: Surely you know that feudalism was a dead system by 1200 (and that Duby has been superceded by such authors as Walter Goffart, Chris Wickham, Michael McCormick, and of late, Thomas Bisson's masterpiece The Crisis of the Twelfth Century). Surely you know that to apply LeGoff's quip to a thousand years of European history is itself to "chose to grow stupid in order to conquer".

And I never set out to "prove that sexuality today demands" anything. I was posting a review by an esteemed cultural historian of late antiquity of a book that refocuses the field on the shifts in sexual mores between the Romans and the Christians.

But it seems that this group doesn't have much of an appetite for learning things about the past -- it only wants to chomp at the bit of whatever claims I've made in the past about sexual morality today.

Jesse has in the past accused me of a disingenuous shifting of the conversation, using one topic as a red herring to engage in a completely different topic. It seems to me that his post #2 here is a classic example of just that bait-and-switch.

If consent for private sexual relations between two (or more) adults is not sufficient then it is implied some external entity or entities have a say in the matter.

This is an argument for authoritarianism - at best - and possibly argumentum ad paranoia.

We have come to expect more from nat and his proffered high moral standards - which at times borders on braggadocio.

I for one am quite disappointed. (And I'll bet my name is legion.)

If you all aren't interested in discussing sexual mores in the Roman Empire and their shift under the influence of late antique Christianity, then just say so and we'll let this thread go dormant.

8> You are a bit disingenuous here. I'm happy to read about history of late antiquity (don't flatter yourself to believe you are the only one who knows a thing or two about history). What I'm responding to are the following comments:

post #1: "It seems to me that Harper (at least via Brown's review) has made a crucial contribution to our understanding of the evolution of sexual mores from Rome to Christianity that casts new light the latter's vehement denouncements of sexual sin"

post #4: "Only insofar as I believe that while consensuality is necessary, it may not be alone sufficient -- that healthy* sexuality demands more than just con sensuality."

post #4: "The Roman model required significantly less -- something that should be kept in mind the next time it is claimed that Christianity ushered in a barbaric "dark age" after the light of glorious Rome."

These comments certainly do relate to comments you've made about sexuality in our world. It appears that your interest in bringing Harper's book to our attention was precisely to support some of your views on homosexuality (and "disordered desire"). Harper's book could be taken to show the legitimacy of the Catholic view on sexuality and, more importantly, that its "motives" are above suspicion.

But again: these are not late Roman times. The sexual mores of antiquity are antiquarian.

> 10

I vote for the later.

Let's just all admit that general christianity in 2013 is in many important ways a more ethical system than Roman rule two millennia ago.

And let it go at that.

If you all aren't interested in discussing sexual mores in the Roman Empire and their shift under the influence of late antique Christianity, then just say so

I suppose I might ask if you regard the explanation provided by the historical thesis above of Christianity's take on sexuality then, is sufficient justification for it's position on sexuality now.

>11 theoria:: "You are a bit disingenuous here. "

But my comments in post 4, from which you take the conclusion of disingenuity, were prompted solely by Jesse's attempt in post 2 to hijack the thread away from Harper's thesis and into his own vendetta against my personal views.

Apparently, folks around here operate under a continual hermeneutic of suspicion that presumes that the posting of interesting material always comes with some ulterior motive. I found the book review interesting and thought that folks here might find it interesting, too.

I'm not sure I've got the energy or interest at this point to combat all of the ghosts that y'all seem convinced cloud my motives -- it's as if you think I'm constantly scheming of ways to get the better of you in a contentious debate.

I'd thought we could have more charity towards one another and exchange material of intellectual interest without such ideological baggage and mutual suspicion. Apparently, I was wrong.

I just think it's hilarious that you're setting yourself up as a paragon of sexual freedom. I mean, that's fucking brilliant.

No one could possibly engage in practices that I deem unhealthy, unless they are coerced. And if they do choose to engage in those practices willingly, they must be sick.

Fucking BEAUTIFUL.

Happy Holidays, SouthernBookLady.

> 15

Nat obviously has "issues".

Rather than go to a therapist he comes here.

We must extend (christian?) charity to him lest his ghosts drag him further down the road to perdition.

Someone prove to me there was less "nonconsensual"/"sick" sex in Christendom than in the Roman Empire.

Go ahead.

I'm here all day.

> 19

Yes.

Priests in monasteries raping underage nuns and then throwing the resulting newborns into the moat - that was the one that always got to me.

Not sure how such atrocities could be seen as improvement over anything else one could imagine - other than perhaps Turks tossing newborn Greek babies in the air and impaling them with bayonets in betwixt raping their mothers.

Sure, ancient pagans would throw newborns into the fire as sacrifices to their gods but I'm thinking the R.C. priests added hypocrisy to the sum of sins and that is always rather off-putting.

19> The book referenced in the OP only deals with legal discourse regarding sexuality, not practices (the review in the New York Review of Books mentions this is one significant limitation of Harper's book: it does not convey any idea of how the new religious laws, preached vigorously, were received in practice).

But we can glean some information from other works with respect to the christian nobility of Western Europe.
In the feudal system, younger sons of nobles were "unmarriageable." Bands of youth roamed the countryside in search of adventures, which could lead to the hand of an heiress.

"It is obvious that it was the bands of 'youths,' excluded by so many social prohibitions from the main body of settled men, fathers of families and heads of houses, with their prolonged spells of turbulent behavior, making them an unstable fringe of society, who created and sustained the crusades. Their were also responsible for the craze for tourneys, the propensity for luxury and concubinage, and their life style exercised a decisive influence on the birthrate of the nobility and the fortunes of patrimonies in the region. While most of the young men were kept in a state of celibacy and danger the risk of fragmenting inheritance was certainly less." (Duby, The Chivalrous Society, 120).

These "youths" and the ideal of courtly love were the subject of the songs of troubadours.

"'Youth,' for whom the troubadours were themselves the spokesmen, appears in their songs to have been vanquished by the social system: 'youths' could never find a woman to welcome them for all women were married. And when these women enjoyed adulterous love, their partners were not 'youths' but married men. What, therefore, the love songs of the second half of the twelfth century suggest is a new kind of erotic relationship, better suited to the position of the juvenes -- that husbands should no longer pay court to ladies, and that they should no longer prevent their wives from receiving 'youths' and accepting their services of love. For the triangle 'husband-wife-married lover,' the poets of the 'youthful band' wanted to substitute another triangle 'husband-lady-young courtly servant.' They wanted to break into the erotic circle to the advantage of 'youth.'" (Duby, The Chivalrous Society, 121-122).

I suppose such chivalrous adultery could count was "sick" sex.

I have not read this new book. And, of course, Harper's first book, which grew out of his Harvard thesis, was about slavery in late antiquity.

But my take away from his JBL paper a couple years ago on Christians making πορνεία ('fornication') as well as µοιχεία ('adultery') a sin was that all sex became forbidden (including some extremists who believed that sex in marriage was πορνεία), not that social conditions that distinguished free women from those with whom sex was permissible were being challenged directly. Did I misunderstand?

22> In the article you mention, what comes across strongly is the gendered understanding of emergent Christian sexual ethics, in particular the close association of sexual sin with female whoring rather than male prostitution. The social honor of the woman, not that of the male procurer of extra-marital sex, was the primary focus until the historical point that Christianity became a “majoritarian institution.” So whereas earlier the principles of sexual sin were used to differentiate insiders from outsiders (namely, Jews from Hellenes and pagans), they came to acquire the function of a general regulation, as a spiritual bulwark against extra-marital sex.

In the 4th century, Gregory of Nyssa distinguishes two forms of sexual sin: "a sin of desire which is accomplished without injustice to someone else is called πορνεία, but that which entails injury and injustice toward another is μοιχεία." As Harper explains, "The church recognized a fundamental division between μοιχεία and πορνεία, often misleadingly translated as ‘adultery’ and ‘fornication.’ Μοιχεία was sexual violation of a respectable woman — extramarital sex with a wife, daughter, or widow. Πορνεία was extramarital sex that did not injure a third party such as a husband, father, or male relative who stood in a position of protection over a woman’s sexual honor. The nature of the sexual sin, for the fourth-century church, was determined by the woman’s place in society." ("Porneia: The Making of a Christian Sexual Norm," Journal of Biblical Literature, 131, 2 (2012): 364).

Marriage is proposed by John Chrysostom as a “cure for πορνεία”: “Therefore, there is one purpose for marriage: to avoid πορνεία . . . and it is not the same thing to commit πορνεία without having a wife and to do it while having one. For in the latter instance, it is rather μοιχεία, not πορνεία. And even if what I am saying is a paradox, it is true. I am not unaware that many believe it is μοιχεία only when one violates a woman with a husband. But I say that a man with a wife wickedly and licentiously commits μοιχεία if he should use a public whore, a slave girl, or any other woman without a husband. (Propter fornicationes 3–4; PG 51:213)” (“Porneia,” 382).

"En adsum tuis commota, Luci, precibus, rerum naturae parens, elementorum omnium domina, saeculorum progenies initialis, summa numinum, regina manium, prima caelitum, deorum dearumque facies uniformis, quae cae Ii luminosa culmina, maris salubria flamina, inferum deplorata silentia nutibus meis dispenso; cuius numen unicum multiformi specie, ritu vario, nomine multiiugo totus veneratur orbis. Inde primigenii Phryges Pessinuntiam deum matrem, hinc autocthones Attici Cecropeiam Minervam, illinc fluctuantes Cyprii Paphiam Venerem, Cretes sagittiferi Dictynnam Dianam, Siculi trilingues Ortygiam Proserpinam, Eleusinii vetusti Actaeam Cererem, lunonem alii, Bellonam alii, Hecatam isti, Rhamnusiam illi, et qui nascentis dei Solis incohantibus illustrantur radiis Aethiopes Arique priscaque doctrina pollentes Aegyptii, caerimoniis me propriis percolentes, appellant vero nomine reginam Isidem.

"Behold, LUCIUS, moved by your prayers I have come, I am Nature, the universal Mother, mistress of all the elements, primordial child of time, sovereign of all things spiritual, queen of the dead, queen also of the immortals, the single manifestation of all gods and goddesses that are, with my nod I rule the starry heights of heaven,the health-giving breezes of the sea, and the plaintive silences of the underworld, I am worshiped in many aspects, known by countless names, and propitiated with all manner of different rites, yet the whole round earth venerates me, the Phrygians, first born of men, call me Mother of the Gods, the aboriginal races of Attica call me Cecropian Minerva, the sea-washed Cyprians call me Paphian Venus, the arrow-bearing Cretans call me Dictynna Diana, the trilingual Sicilians call me Ortygian Proserpine, the Eleusinians call me the ancient goddess Ceres, some call me Juno, some call me Bellona, some call me Hecate, and still others Rhamnusia, but those who are enlightened by the earliest rays of that divinity the sun each day, the Ethiopians, the Nubians and the Egyptians, who excel in ancient learning and worship me with ceremonies proper to my godhead, call me by my true name, namely Queen Isis."

Apuleius The Golden Ass, Book XI 155 C.E.

"Do you not know that you are Eve? The judgment of God upon this sex lives on in this age; therefore, necessarily the guilt should live on also. You are the gateway of the devil; you are the one who unseals the curse of that tree, and you are the first one to turn your back on the divine law; you are the one who persuaded him whom the devil was not capable of corrupting; you easily destroyed the image of God, Adam. Because of what you deserve, that is, death, even the Son of God had to die.”
Tertullian 'De Cultu Feminarum,' section I.I, part 2 (trans. C.W. Marx)

Two very different statements on the eternal female. One is pagan, the other is Christian.

Now Sarai, Abram's wife, bore him no children. She had an Egyptian slave-girl whose name was Hagar, and Sarai said to Abram, 'You see that the LORD has prevented me from bearing children; go into my slave-girl; it may be that I shall obtain children by her.

How much of the world's history revolves around a hen-pecked husband!

Members are reminded that the Terms of Service prohibit personal attacks. Attack ideas and word, not people. Attack those ideas and words till the cows come how. But don't attack people. It's not that hard.

Ummm, I was referring to Abraham. I don't think he's a member of Library Thing...

Snort. I wasn't referring to your comment. I was referring to an attack well above. In general, I try to avoid singling people out when I don't need to. It avoids personalizing what is in fact not a "personal" rule, keeps defensiveness down, but gets the message across.

#10: If you all aren't interested in discussing sexual mores in the Roman Empire and their shift under the influence of late antique Christianity, then just say so and we'll let this thread go dormant.

#14: Apparently, folks around here operate under a continual hermeneutic of suspicion that presumes that the posting of interesting material always comes with some ulterior motive. I found the book review interesting and thought that folks here might find it interesting, too.

It's funny that the people who lecture us about how atheists are too literal can't read context when it's biting them in the ass. If we're talking about the dead past, then I'm sure there are history groups on LibraryThing. This is a group that has a specific context and a specific history to it.

But really, if it was about slavery and/or freedom, it might have been awesome to put it in those terms. Might have discouraged some slavers at some point, instead of being used to beat on Romeo and Juliet. I've linked to Libby Anne explaining how when trying to show how fundamentalist Christians divide sexual behaviors, she realized that they had no box for rape, that it was just another form of pre-/extra-marital sex.

#1: And a sin was a sin. It was not a social faux pas, deemed an outrage in one situation and accepted in another.

Yeah, sure. I've read that medieval authors often put sexual sins at the bottom of the list of concerns, and I have a hard time believing that any group of Christians anywhere didn't have some sins that were in practice accepted in many situations.

I find Roman slavery less reprehensible than Christian slavery, in the context of respective religions.

And what exactly would be worse about being a (sex) slave to a Roman than a Christian plantation owner?

So Egyptians were (sex) slaves to the Father of Nations and his shrewish wife with the approval of God?

>30 prosfilaes:: "fundamentalist Christians"

Who are somehow, despite all evidence to the contrary, still being held up as representative of all Christianity.

32/31> (cont.)

And Abram listened to the voice of Sarai. So, after Abram had lived ten years in the land of Canaan, Sarai, Abram's wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her slave-girl, and gave her to her husband Abram as a wife. He went in to Hagar, and she conceived; and when she saw that she had conceived, she looked with contempt on her mistress. Then Sarai said to Abram, 'May the wrong done to me be on you! I gave you my slave-girl to your embrace, and when she saw that she had conceived, she looked on me with contempt. May the LORD judge between you and me!' But Abram said to Sarai, 'Your slave-girl is in your power; do to her as you please.' Then Sarai dealt harshly with her, and she ran away from her.

The angel of the LORD found her by a spring of water in the wilderness, the spring on the way to Shur. And he said, 'Hagar, slave-girl of Sarai, where have you come from and where are you going?' She said, 'I am running away from my mistress Sarai.' The angel of the LORD said to her, 'Return to your mistress, and submit to her.' The angel of the LORD also said to her, 'I will multiply your offspring that they cannot be counted for multitude.' And the angel of the LORD said to her,

'Now you have conceived and shall bear a son; you shall call him Ishmael, for the LORD has given heed to your affliction. He shall be a wild ass of a man, and with his hand against everyone, and everyone's hand against him; and he shall live at odds with all his kin.' (Genesis 16:2-12)

#33: I see how quick you are to stay historical here. I should start omitting the adjective, since it seems I will be accused of having ignored it anyway.

I'm quite sure that your attitudes in this manner are not representative of historical Christians, given that the first nominally-Christian nation (Denmark) banned marital rape in 1960, 5 Christian nations outlawed martial rape only in the 21st century, and it's still not illegal in the Christian nations of Botswana and the Democratic Republic of Congo, and probably others.

I've poked around the web some, and can't find anyone mentioning a place in the New Testament where rape was mentioned or disapproved of. The major place in the Bible where rape is actually mentioned is the downright problematic Deuteronomy 22:22-29. I don't see any reason to think that Paul really cared about rape as more then a form of extra-marital sex.

It is rather odd to hear that people apparently demand a retention of "traditional marriage" in the face of stories like that of Abram&Sarai&Hagar, Jacob&Leah&Rachel&Bilhah&Zilpah, Solomon&his folly, God&Mary&Joseph, etc.

And the above has been an additional eye-opener.

Though you theists know what I think of your "sophistication", at least you are challenging enough to draw out the most interesting and erudite responses, unlike the general rabble on Facebook. :-)

You need to do some more reading. A LOT more reading. You can start with David and Bathsheba, then move on the conflict between Absalom and Ammon, precipitated by the rape of Tamar.

Why is Nathaniel so sensitive about the fundamentalist bashing and bigotry here? Because when atheists attack Christianity, they use the worst examples of fundamentalism, and apply that to all Christians.

And if you were paying attention, and were offended by that last sentence, then you know how non-Fundamentalists feel.

Assuming, for example, that the sexual interaction between Abram and Hagar was "consensual."

Oh, I just suddenly thought of something odd, maybe you can help me out here...?

Mary remained ...intact... throughout her life did she? If so, surely that means that Joseph can't have fathered any of her brood?

Roman Catholics believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Tim can tell you more about that. Most Protestants do not. (Nor do many church historians.)

>33 nathanielcampbell: Who are somehow, despite all evidence to the contrary, still being held up as representative of all Christianity
&
>37 Arctic-Stranger: Why is Nathaniel so sensitive about the fundamentalist bashing and bigotry here? Because when atheists attack Christianity, they use the worst examples of fundamentalism, and apply that to all Christians

Just out of curiosity, are you saying that you repudiate such examples of fundamentalist Christianity as wrong, or "Not Real Christianity"? I mean, who, really, would be "representative of ALL Christianity"?

And just to put the same question to myself, I would say that I do not repudiate Richard Dawkins' brand of atheism--I recognize it as a logical direction for atheistic thought to go. I think he makes some errors in his assumptions, but I accept that he is "in my camp" so to speak, and that coming to terms with anyone hostile to atheism has to take into account that among the many shades of meaning the word contains, the virulent anti-religiousness of a Richard Dawkins will be among them.

I disagree with my fundamentalist siblings, but I recognize them as siblings.

(For the record, in my Christology, all people are my siblings, so I also recognize Hitchens as a sibling.)

>40 Arctic-Stranger: Thanks, Arctic. I did think of addressing it to RCs; can't remember why I didn't.

It's really faded now, but the RC attitude to Mary was part of why the RC was frowned on among my mother's crowd. Mary did not get to share the spotlight with Jesus! Jesus! Jesus!

#37: There are Biblical stories, yes. Though I see no evidence that David and Bathsheba was considered rape. Google Books isn't being reliable as I'd like, but that whole idea seems to be a recent creation of feminists. Google Books is acting up, but I can't find anything calling what David did a rape of Bathsheba before 1980. An Historical Account of the Life and Reign of David, King of Israel by Patrick Delany (1742) calls it "criminal commerce" (he has no hesitation to call Tamar's rape rape) and mentions "her adultery" later; he at least has the fairness to assert it likely that Bathsheba had no idea she was being watched. Maurice Samuel in his Certain people of the Book (1955) is more then willing to dump blame on Bathsheba. The handbook of Biblical personalities (1962) says "After her one indiscretion, which was after all David's fault,". Contemplations on the historical passages of the Old and New Testaments by Anglican bishop Joseph Hall (originally 17th century, but many later reprints) says "O Bathsheba, how wert thou washed from thine uncleanness, when thou yieldest to go into an adulterous bed! never wert thou so foul, as now when thou wert new washed."

An Introduction to the Old Testament: A Feminist Perspective by Alice L. Laffey (1988) complains about the many commentators that consider Bathsheba a seductress, but whether they consider her a seductress or not, I see no evidence that it was considered rape until very recently, at least not in the English speaking world.

And if you were paying attention, and were offended by that last sentence, then you know how non-Fundamentalists feel.

You mean that sentence written in the same way that people had already completely unironically used "atheists" in this thread? I did not conflate "fundamentalist Christians" with "Christians" in what I wrote, so it would be more like you mentioning the behavior of "Communist atheists" and us jumping up as if that were a blanket attack on all atheists.

The king commands she come into his chambers. He has sex with her. Bathsheba cannot refuse.

I call that rape.

#45: And? I don't think that many Jews and Christians throughout history agreed with you; when talking about historical Christianity, I think calling it a rape is anachronistic.

Through Google Books and HathiTrust, there's not many examples of early references to it as rape. For copyright reasons, the period of 1923-1990ish is hard to get a good look at, but William Mackintire Salter in 1898 mentioned "the rape of Bathsheba" in The Cause; as a founder of the Secular Humanism movement and preacher at the Chicago Ethical Society, it's hard to consider him Christian though I haven't dug out his exact religious beliefs. The Jewish quarterly review in 1918 had an article by M. H. Segal mentioning "the rape of Bathsheba". I doubt I missed anything major that said "the rape of Bathsheba". In the eyes of most historical English-speaking Christians, it was not rape, and a quick Google search will tell you that's still true for many of them.

#45: And? I don't think that many Jews and Christians throughout history agreed with you; when talking about historical Christianity, I think calling it a rape is anachronistic.

So it is your position that all spirituality should be stuck in the past, and new developments are not allowed?

I will say it again. When a woman is forced to have sex, without her consent, that is rape. Past generations may not call it that, but I think we do in this day and age.

If you want to stay in the past, that is fine, but Christians (rightly) get flack when they minimize rape today, and I do not want to be a part of that crowd. If you do, that is your business.

Traditional Marriage at its finest?

>47 Arctic-Stranger: But we're stuck with the same old problem, Arctic. The difference between the myopia (mine is fairly strong), and me. For all those centuries, Judaism (and it's offshoot christianity) couldn't see this as a problem (it's frankly (to my recollection) the first time I hear this "incident" described as rape; admittedly I haven't looked into it). Could it be, Arctic, that you view this as rape, not through the optics of christianity, but through the optics of secularism? In which case, why call yourself a christian, and not a secularist? Or humanist maybe? Or if you insist on retaining the 'christian' label, at least split yourself up a bit; x% christian, y% secularist(, z% something). Hmm?

Well a) the idea of this being rape is not something I just made up. I don't remember where I first read it.

B) religion does not have to static. A superficial reading of the Bible should convince someone that ideas and faith grow and change over time. There is a decided trajectory, but the Hebraic faith in the Hebrew Scriptures is not static. Throw in Paul and Jesus and you get a faith that takes both God and culture seriously.

C) are you saying that accepting ANY secular idea invalidates faith? If so you have created an incredibly small box for "faith." I cannot any other type of box that would be that small. Nothing could exist in a box that small.

D) the optics of Christianity teach me to to treat people with respect. It is my Christian conviction that lead me to see this as a rape, not any secular understanding.

E) so I should split my convictions, leading to a dislocation of self? I don't think so. That may the way you live your secular life, but my faith teaches me to strive for integration of the self, and has greatly helped me in that.

a) I'm not implying that you made it up.

c) I don't have an academic background, but I thought it usual to acknowledge one's sources? If your thinking on rape is derived from humanism, it seems fair to acknowledge this. Otherwise you're simply engaging in intellectual-property theft.

I, for instance, think a case could be made for acknowledging the Nazis for their contributions, directly and indirectly, toward our rocket and computer sciences.

d) What is your "christian conviction"? That Jesus was born of a virgin? That he walked on water? Cursed a fig tree? Cursed (or at least called them a den of vipers, etc.) the pharisees? That the Jews are culpable? Where does he say: "thou shalt not rape"?

Not that there's much point to this, we'll just go in the same old circles, which is why I simply skipped b). I'm taking us somewhat off topic here too, aren't I?

e) "Integration of the self" is a new concept to me. You can take that to mean that (1) I did not learn it from christianity (ie christianity is terribly haphazard, don't ya think?), and (2) it isn't a thing which concerns me - I'm more interested in gaining an integrated knowledge and understanding of how the world I find myself in works.

Well you tell me. If a man takes a woman, and she does not have the ability to say no, what is it?

a) I'm not implying that anyone made it up.

Without bothering to read it to refresh my memory, it seems like a quite reasonable conclusion.

What I most definitely do question, however, is the idea that this conclusion is attributable to a label which has been around for some considerable time.

And that of course is all that 'christianity' boils down to eventually. It's no more than a label. People get attached to the label, replace much if not all the content, but keep the label for sentimental reasons.

Like this guy for instance. Why does he bother? The tithes?

I have no idea what you mean. First you say it isn't tape, because no one else calls it that. Now you say it is, but switch subjects. Labels don't matter, whatever that means. (Are you talking about how the label of rape died not matter, or did you just change the whole subject?) are you saying that rape is a new thing?

>54 Arctic-Stranger: Oh dear.

Could you kindly quote me from where I "say it isn't [r]ape"? I seem to have forgotten doing so.

#47: So it is your position that all spirituality should be stuck in the past, and new developments are not allowed?

No, it is my position that this thread started with a discussion of Roman sexual ethics versus early Christian sexual ethics, so talking about early Christian sexual ethics is quite reasonable.

I will say it again. When a woman is forced to have sex, without her consent, that is rape.

And? You keep repeating this as if I disagreed with that in the least.

How did God see it? Was David punished? He later said that he liked Jonathan more.
Besides, no David and Bathsheba, no trip to Bethlehem 700 years later.

Was David punished?

Bathsheba's child was killed, but a lot of people make that out to be for the adultery and murder.

Of the two genealogies of Jesus given in the Gospels, Matthew mentions Solomon, but Luke does not. Was Bathsheba an ancestress of Jesus?

ALL the stories in the babble are mythopoeic. E.g., jesus's resurrection - that was just a metaphor for changing your life to be a better person. And Noah's flood was an allegory for life or something. Etc.

That is the default position.

And for what good reason should anyone go beyond the default position? That is the question. So far as I can see the answer is "There are none".

It strikes me that the differences cited in the OP may be more legalistic and semantic than actual.

Ultimately the "unfreedom" of the Roman world and the "freedom" of the Christian world really only applied to men.

Within both cultures, most women were property - therefore their consent was irrelevant. What mattered was the consent of the "owner" of the woman, be that her father, brother, or a stranger who bought her in the marketplace.

What Christianity does seem to have done is to attempt to restrict male behavior regarding slaves in general, if one followed Galatians 3:28. (Paul himself did not actually stand by the "neither male nor female part." - 1 Corinthians 14:34).

The real challenge is perhaps to try to determine who qualified as "human" within each culture. Sex with "humans" is much more important than sex with property and is handled differently. A wealthy Roman widow had a chance to be more "human" than a male slave, but never the same "humanity" as a wealthy Roman male.

Within early Christianity, there was certainly an effort to discuss the concept of "humanity" for slaves and women and the poor, but how it actually played out is not clear. Later Christian slavery by race was justified by de-humanizing people of color - making them animals and thus legitimately property.

Christian law certainly continued to have different standards for men and women, and women generally didn't get to consent to sex - they had sex with whomever their male relatives married them to. Should someone force sex on them without their consent, it could often be legitimized by forcing the man to marry the woman.

Modern people are rightly appalled by the idea of forcing someone to marry her rapist, just as we are rightly appalled by the idea of nailing people to crosses. covering them with pitch, and lighting them on fire. Legitimate criticisms can be made of past cultures, though we must keep in mind that most of the people of those times and cultures believed themselves to be acting righteously. The space to balance between judging the act and (long dead) person is a thin wire for both the religious and the secular.

>61 Helcura:: "Within both cultures, most women were property"

This needs to be nuanced, given the strong evidence for women having powerful leadership roles--even if these were more "behind-the-scenes" than institutional--in the early Church. It's hard to think of Perpetua and Felicity as "property".

It is hard to know how all this worked in practice, but according to Paul, this is the theory, from I Corinthians 7: 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.

Interesting that Paul turns the notion of property upside, in the same way he does with slavery. (See the discussion on Philemon.)
Elsewhere (Ephesians) he tells husbands and wives to submit to one another. For him, it is not a one way street. BOTH belong to the other, and the currency which gives value to the relationship is mutual submission. Instead of one trying to top the other, both should be trying to serve one another.

On a personal note, I know that is what it looks like when the Redhead and I are doing really well. We are both doing things for the other person.

I do admit that in practice, too often it is a one way street. (And in my experience in counseling, I have seen a lot of men getting the fuzzy end of that lollipop, as well as a lot of women.)

God the father - obviously male.

God the son - obviously male.

The holy spirit - neutral?

All twelve disciples - male.

Paul - male

The first human - Adam - male.

The first female human created as a helpmeet for Adam.

Only two books of the bible either written about or by a woman. Men? - 64 books. That's a ratio of thirty-two to one.

Explicit language in the NT stating men are the head of the family, not the wives.

Craploads of verses in the OT about the uncleanness of menstruating women and their menstruation. I.e., don't touch them, wash anything they touch.

So, if someone wants to sell the idea that christianity promotes equality of the sexes, then go ahead. And while you are at it also try and sell us the Brooklyn Bridge.

lol.

>64 JGL53: The Old and New Testaments of the Bible? Written during a patriarchal period in a patriarchal culture. It would be rather surprising if they did mirror modern trends. Nevertheless it does include some surprising vignettes challenging the contemporary role of women.

God the Father? A particular image of a God who cannot be encapsulated in a single word, albeit a popular image during patriarchal times. God is also Mother and much more including, if one follows the apophatic tradition, much more than we can know.

All the important women mentioned in the bible? Er, female.

All the important women saints, doctors and abbesses? Er, female.

Modern Christianity? Women bishops*, women priests*, women theologians, women in lay ministries, an emerging theology of and by women. Trailing slightly behind some modern societies, in most of which women only became emancipated in the last 100 years or less; ahead of some others.

____________________________

* Referring to the Christian church in general here, not just the Catholic Church.

My favorite woman in the Bible is Jethro’s daughter, Zipporah. If she hadn’t grabbed a knife and told God to back the fuck off, He would have killed Moses before the Exodus.

ex.4.24 And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him.
ex.4.25 Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.†
ex.4.26 So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.

inspired, God (2011-01-08). Bible (KJV with Apocrypha) (best navigation with Direct Verse Jump) (Kindle Locations 3312-3316). OSNOVA. Kindle Edition.

> 65

"Patriarchal period" doesn't really wash, inasmuch as there are ample instances of priestesses, prophetesses, and goddess worship throughout the periods of bible authorship. "Patriarchal culture" really just affirms JGL's point.

> 66

Hooray for Zipporah. The most mentioned woman in the Hebrew Bible, is, of course, Jezebel--later to become a common noun in English.

>65 John5918:

"All the important women mentioned in the bible? Er, female.

All the important women saints, doctors and abbesses? Er, female."

I'm hoping you wrote that when you were short of sleep or something, John, because it's a tautology. All the important men mentioned in the bible were, er, men, as well.

Yes, women are female. Therefore female saints, etc are women.

The early church did provide a refuge from marriage for women within convents, and within those very constrained circumstances they were allowed power. That is commendable. Those women were not, however, allowed much power outside of their convents. Many strong females were repeatedly slapped down by the male power structure - some of them ended up saints when the got back up again. Unfortunately some of the ones who got back up again were tortured, hanged or burned.

Pagan priestesses only had it a little better at the time of the early church. They were allowed power within their temples, but no Roman woman - no matter how powerful was allowed to vote.

Human institutions throughout history have put a lot of effort into keeping half the population on a leash. It has always seemed to me to be a terrible waste of human potential, but I cannot deny that it seems to be a powerful pattern that exists in many religions and cultures. Christians are not alone in it.

>68 Helcura: Thanks. I had hoped that the insertion of the word "Er" (a la Private Eye) would have indicated the ironic intent.

And let's not forget that many of those pagan temples were thinly disguised brothels.

> 70

Actually, it is worth forgetting something that wasn't true in the first place. Recommended: The Myth of Sacred Prostitution in Antiquity.

Damned dirty pagans.

yes, it's not like christian churches were ever involved in such filthy businesses...

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=153066

From Herodotus:

The foulest Babylonian custom is that which compels every woman of the land to sit in the temple of Aphrodite and have intercourse with some stranger once in her life. Many women who are rich and proud and disdain to mingle with the rest, drive to the temple in covered carriages drawn by teams, and stand there with a great retinue of attendants. But most sit down in the sacred plot of Aphrodite, with crowns of cord on their heads; there is a great multitude of women coming and going; passages marked by line run every way through the crowd, by which the men pass and make their choice. Once a woman has taken her place there, she does not go away to her home before some stranger has cast money into her lap, and had intercourse with her outside the temple; but while he casts the money, he must say, “I invite you in the name of Mylitta” (that is the Assyrian name for Aphrodite). It does not matter what sum the money is; the woman will never refuse, for that would be a sin, the money being by this act made sacred. So she follows the first man who casts it and rejects no one. After their intercourse, having discharged her sacred duty to the goddess, she goes away to her home; and thereafter there is no bribe however great that will get her. So then the women that are fair and tall are soon free to depart, but the uncomely have long to wait because they cannot fulfil the law; for some of them remain for three years, or four. There is a custom like this in some parts of Cyprus.

From the Hebrew Bible: None of the daughters of Israel shall be a kedeshah, nor shall any of the sons of Israel be a kadesh.

From Strabo:

“The temple of Aphrodite was so rich that it employed more than a thousand hetairas, whom both men and women had given to the goddess. Many people visisted the town on account of them, and thus these hetairas contributed to the riches of the town: for the ship captains frivolously spent their money there, hence the saying: ‘The voyage to Corinth is not for every man’. (The story goes of a hetaira being reproached by a woman for not loving her job and not touching wool, and answering her: ‘However you may behold me, yet in this short time I have already taken down three pieces’"

Now it is possible that for centuries people have mistranslated both "kedeshah" and "hetairas" and I do grant that it was not as pervasive as Frazier made it out to be.

But I think Budin has overplayed her hand. Pirenne-Delforge, who also believes it was not as prevalent as Frazier made it out to be, urges caution when reading Budin. From his review of her book, "To conclude, this book usefully provides the evidence leading to the conclusion that sacred prostitution did not exist in the ancient Mediterranean area and reconsiders the various data that contributed to building this "myth". However, when some new interpretation of the "actual" meaning of various texts and documents is offered, it deserves caution." And this is from a person friendly to her hypothesis.

And from Hebrew scholar Mayer Gruber, of the Ben-Gurion University in Beer-Sheva, Israel: "Briefly, this book offers new and highly tendentious interpretations of Gen 38 and Hos 4 that have no basis in lexicography, context, or history of religions."

He also is friendly to her basic proposition, but not her scholarship.

Finally, from Will Deming of the University of Portland:

Especially with regard to the classical material, one must agree with Budin, or at least admit that she has the better argument (if not always original to her). Mistakes were made. Yet it is by no means clear that Budin has managed to exonerate the uncompromising nature of her thesis that sacred prostitution never existed anywhere in antiquity. I suspect that many readers will want to question her proposed translation of the passage from Athenaeus (49–50), her suggestions for the meaning of hierodoulos (167–84) and scorta (251–52), or her line of argumentation for the Letter of Jeremiah (111); and, as a biblical scholar, I find her structural interpretation (a` la Trible) of Genesis 38 (38–42) and her tentative analysis of Deuteronomy (i.e., “although it is possible,” “may,” “could” 36) to be inconclusive. Beyond this, Budin appears simply to have ignored important evidence.

Thank you for pointing out Budin's work. Clearly the presence of temple prostitution is overrated, although from reading the literature, she seems to have overplayed her hand. Forms of it did seem to exist, but not to the extant that was believed when I was doing Biblical Studies at Duke.

Surely, the Khajuraho Monuments would run afoul of Christian sexual propriety police. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khajuraho_Group_of_Monuments

> 74 And from Hebrew scholar Mayer Gruber, of the Ben-Gurion University in Beer-Sheva, Israel: "Briefly, this book offers new and highly tendentious interpretations of Gen 38 and Hos 4 that have no basis in lexicography, context, or history of religions."

The professor at Northwestern University for whom I TAed an "Introduction to Hebrew Bible" course discounted the sacred prostitution readings of Gen 38 and Hos 4, some years before the appearance of Budin's book, and referenced the work of other scholars in doing so. As Budin explains in her introduction, her work actually reflects the recent consensus among secular scholars of the Ancient Near East (as contrasted with religiously-motivated scholars, and secular Greek classicists). What is original in her book is an effort to understand how classicists could have gotten it so wrong for such a long while (and, in many cases, still).

I'm not going to answer your ancient citations, as Budin addresses them at great length. If you're interested, read her book.

What is not represented in her work is the linguistic work done by Hebrew scholars. Splitting into secular/non-secular (can I take offense at that term?) is less helpful than splitting into disciplines, and her Hebrew could use some work.

The professor for whom I worked is a Hebrew scholar, and one whose abilities and authority I continue to respect. Have you actually read the book, to say "What is not represented..." on your own recognizance? The second half of Chapter Two sets forth the arguments regarding the Hebrew "evidence," and they are, for the most part, not original with Budin, who cites her references in the manner of ordinary current research. I would not call myself a Hebrew scholar, but I have more confidence in the one with whom I actually worked over the one you were delivered by google. He was not endorsing Budin's book, which was not then available, but he did indicate a widespread, well-founded consensus to dismiss the "sacred prostitution" reading of the passages and terminology in Hebrew scripture customarily used for the purpose. (His specialty was in applying the findings of the archaeology of the Near East to the hermeneutics of the Hebrew Bible.)

Wrt secular scholarship: If you don't think being embedded in religious institutions will color scholars' readings of scriptural texts, well, you don't think much, in my opinion. It doesn't make them wrong, of course, but those of us who don't share their religious orientation are entitled to note the sources of potential bias, especially when they are borne out in larger patterns of disagreement.

Let's see if I got this straight:

1. Ancient christians were, as modern christians are, superior, morally speaking, than ancient pagans. (Overall. When you compare all the apples and oranges, i.e., the true religion to all the false religions.)

2. Most if not all non-christian religions, ancient and modern, were/are sexist also. (So, it's not like christians invented sexism or something.)

3. Some esoteric christian traditions speak of god as all encompassing, both male and female, or transcend sexual identification altogether. (Utterly unknown to the masses of christians but jtf and all learned christian theologians are on top of this, never should we worry.)

4. There are some - or many - saints in the r.c.c. who are women. Nice. (And how many angels were depicted as female?)

5. Many christian clergy today are women. Some women attained high office in the church in ancient times also. (At least more popular than gay marriage and, jez, who knows what the future may hold?)

All of the above is the best apologetics that can be produced in answer to the obvious - that christianity reeked of sexism against women from start to finish?

When did I aver that the sexism was 100 per cent present with not any examples of the reverse?

A few exceptions to the rule were and are present.

The exceptions define the rule.

You christian apologetics all get a E for effort but, bottom line, your christian apologetics in the attempt to refute the ancient and extant OBVIOUS overwhelming anti-women christian sexism = FAIL. (So far.)

Please reboot and try again. (Assuming there is not an irreparable sexist glitch in your christian software.)

And, oh yeah - have a nice (non-sexist) day.

double post.

> 74 He also is friendly to her basic proposition

I'm not sure that quite captures it. One of Gruber's objections is that he feels that he himself showed that קדשה (and its Akkadian and Ugaritic cognates) isn't a sacred prostitute in a 1983 paper. (#11 here)

Wait a minute . . . what's wrong with prostitution? Some churches sell baked goods to raise money, some churches sell sex - so what?

In abstract, nothing; prostitution is a commercial service, and in a more rational mercantile society would be regarded as such.

However, the introduction of S E X means rationality goes out the window for a great many people.

>83 BruceCoulson:: "prostitution is a commercial service, and in a more rational mercantile society would be regarded as such."

Behold, the morality of Ayn Rand! The degardation of women at the hands of men who objectify their bodies is perfectly acceptable in "a more rational mercantile society"!

I think you just illustrated Bruce's point, Nathan.

#84, 85

No kidding. Let's take a look at the charge ('degredation of women'), shall we?

First, let's presume that all transactions and people involved are adults, making decisions of their own free will. This avoids all the obvious objections, and also is the reality in the vast majority of cases.

Prostitution involves a woman selling a service (sex of some type) to a customer. Now, we've eliminated in our assumption criminal coercion on the part of the seller; she is free to do other things, she's choosing to offer sex for money. Given that, what is the difference between selling her time providing sex, and selling her time providing janitorial services, waitressing services, telemarketing, customer service rep? (And if you don't think all of those jobs involve some level of degredation, you are sadly naive.) Oh, of course; it involves sex, which makes it different.

But does it?

Legally, a woman may freely engage in sex with a man (or woman, in many states now) if money doesn't change hands. In fact, it's legal in many states to pay a woman money to have sex with other people, record the event, and sell the recording. (Try doing that with janitorial work!) But it's suddenly illegal for a woman to take cash for providing sex directly.

Why? This is complete irrational; a legal transaction (sex for 'free', although it rarely is) suddenly becomes illegal when money changes hands. Worse, the laws against buying sex (as opposed to selling it) are enforced sporadically, if at all. It would be like arresting smugglers while mostly ignoring their customers.

Honest, nathaniel, your stance comes across as 'As women, you're only allowed to engage in commercial activities I deem appropriate and correct, no matter how profitable 'inappropriate' activities might be.'

You are certainly entitled to think prostitution is morally wrong and degrading, and refuse to be a part of the enterprise as a customer (or seller). Just as there are a lot of services and goods I disapprove of and don't buy. However, your blanket bar is both extreme and unfair.

For further reference, check out the blog 'The Honest Courtesan' for what an actual (now retired) prostitute has to say about her former profession.

I know it's only pulp fiction, but the secondhand detective thriller which I'm reading at the moment, Vulture Peak by John Burdett, spends some time philosophising about prostitution. Makes one think.

Related to the issue.

http://jonathanturley.org/2014/01/21/florida-high-school-student-expelled-after-...

Legal after-school work; but since it involved (gasp!) SEX, he had to be doing something wrong.

Of course, since it had nothing to do with the school, there may actually be unpleasant consequences for the school in this case.

I think the trick is to disentangle the "objectification" from the sex. We don't objectify other people in service jobs: wait staff, cleaning staff, tech support, etc.--or at least when we do, it's seen as a failing in the person using the service, not the service provider. But when it is the sex industry, we lose all sense of perspective.

>85 southernbooklady:: "Honest, nathaniel, your stance comes across as 'As women, you're only allowed to engage in commercial activities I deem appropriate and correct, no matter how profitable 'inappropriate' activities might be.'"

Honest, Bruce, your stance comes across as, "I'm going to simply ignore the myriad ways in which prostitution is, in fact, a patriarchal and misogynistic institution, and pretend instead that it is some magical means of women's liberation, despite the vast majority of historical and contemporary evidence to the contrary."

Your theory may be sound, but it is at an utter disconnect with the realities of the sex trade in the world today.

>90 nathanielcampbell: But Nathaniel, there are a lot of male prostitutes out there too, both straight and gay.

>90 nathanielcampbell: your stance comes across as, "I'm going to simply ignore the myriad ways in which prostitution is, in fact, a patriarchal and misogynistic institution

But Bruce's point is that it is our irrational response to anything dealing with sex that makes prostitution vulnerable to these abuses. (A fun alternative perspective can be seen in the television series Firefly, where one of the characters with the most respect, social standing, freedom of self determination and political power is a trained courtesan.)

For every Inara, there are five or ten Mildreds or Bruces who are hooking to pay for drugs, or because they got lured into it by a pimp who is taking advantage of them.

Guys. You are making an argument for prostitution based on a TV show???????? Next will we hear about Pretty Woman? Yes, there are high end hookers, who may very well enjoy what they do for a living. But with that also comes a) child prostitution, which is essentially slavery, b) pimps who abuse and take advantage of the people who work for them, c) drug addicts who would be much better off in rehab than in on the streets, d) runaways, who have no other alternative, e) lost and broken people who have lost their sense of dignity and self-esteem, and know nothing else but degradation in their lives.

Before anyone says anything else, go to the sketchy part of your town, and pay for hooker, spend some time with her or him, then tell me how empowering or glamorous it is. Go ahead, it is just an economic transaction, and you should not let sex make you all crazy about it.

I take it male prostitution is not really even imagined in the Christian frame. Again, this has to do with regulating female sexuality, which must never be sold.

>94 theoria: When Pope Benedict XVI was interviewed a few years back and asked if it could ever be moral to use a condom, the example he came up with was not an HIV-discordant married couple (which is the argument used by a number of African bishops) but a gay male prostitute.

#91

Being a hotel maid is being part of a misogynistic and patriarchial institution. So is being a waitress. So was (and to some extent still is) being a teacher. So, I'm afraid I don't see your objection as being valid.

For that matter, it isn't valid in a lot of other ways, either. Prostitutes are independent businesswomen, operating on a contract basis with their clients. They can (and sometimes do) turn down clients, and barring criminal action by the client (which I certainly hope you don't advocate) there's not much the man can do about it. As opposed to a female telemarketer being told she's working a double shift, or she's fired. So, exactly just who has the power in such a relationship?

My information comes from sites written and maintained by actual prostitutes (mostly former, for legal reasons), who certainly don't shy away from presenting the negative aspects of the profession, but also make it clear that many of those negatives stem directly from prostitution being (irrationally) illegal. Some do not, but can you name a profession that has no downsides? I suspect not.

Those sites also make clear that many of the claims about the 'dangers' of sex-for-sale are grotesquely exaggerated by prohibitionists for various reasons.

And keep in mind the low bar to entry and (if there's no arrest record) exit from the profession. Nothing stops prostitutes (who lack arrest records) from simply quitting. They stop taking calls, and that's it. Yes, there's the lure of money to be made; but again, that's true of any high-paying profession.

I think taking my cues from women who actually have been prostitutes, and known other women in that life, gives me a clearer idea of the realities of the profession than you'd care to admit. And the term 'sex trade' is rather vague. Prostitution? Pornography? Strippers? Erotic writers? Mistresses?

Some issues with the 'research' often quoted about the subject.

http://maggiemcneill.wordpress.com/2013/08/12/guest-columnist-kevin-wilson/

96 --I never used the word patriarchal.

But I will cop to abusive. And being a hotel maid...again, go do it, and see how liberating it is. (I always tip hotel maids, because I know that make crap for wages. It is not much, but it is least I can do.)

We will always have prostitutes, because their will always be people willing (or who have to) pay for sex. (That, in my book, is pretty pathetic.) In places where it is regulated, I would suppose it is a decent way to make a living. So would you be proud if YOUR daughter picked that as her chosen profession? Of course other people would not understand, but you, as a loving father, could say, "I glad you have such a fulfilling profession."

Or is it, I don't mind prostitutes, I just don't want my daughter to marry one. Or my son to be one.

Any discussion of prostitution that ignores the ever-changing historical and social context is completely worthless.

Or the specific social environment. Prostitution in the Netherlands in one thing. Prostitution on South Cushman in Fairbanks is quite another.

Oh, don't let's look at the SEAMY side! Let's look at Upper Manhattan Heavenly Gates, where no hooker is a drug-addled serially beaten and frequently raped streetwalker, just glamorous independent businesswomen.

>93 Arctic-Stranger: Guys. You are making an argument for prostitution based on a TV show????????

Now, now. You sidestep the point, which is that whatever immorality is inherent in prostitution (or porn, for that matter) isn't to be found in the sex, it's to be found in the way we treat each other as human beings.

101

Yes, we should keep it real.

102

I think that is EXACTLY what I am saying.

Let's go with a simple thought experiment, as a set of questions.

1. Should women have equal rights, authority, and power as men? Yes/No

2. Should women have control and authority over themselves, their bodies, and their decisions for their lives? Yes/No

If your answer to the above two questions is 'yes' (and I accept that it would have to be a qualified yes for the second question), then...

3. Should women have the right to require direct financial renumeration for sexual relations? Yes/No

How do you answer question #3? If you say, 'no', then what are your reasons for doing so, in the light of your prior answers?

Note that simply because a right exists, isn't a requirement that it be exercised. Or, simply because prostitution becomes legal is no reason to presume that suddenly every woman will see it as a valid career choice. I strongly suspect that the majority of women will NOT do so.

I would point out to #101 that being beaten and raped is a crime, no matter what job the person is doing. And should be treated as such. Yes, the reality is that beating, raping, and robbing certain classes of citizens isn't treated as a serious crime; however, that's a flaw of how we deal with crimes committed against 'the least of us', not a flaw (necessarily) in what that person was doing prior to the assault.

#98 - Is that similar to 'I don't dislike (x); but I wouldn't want my daughter to marry one'? (Which is the objection made to every effort to get the laws to better reflect a reality that some would prefer to ignore.)

And are prostitutes better off now, with the occasional high-profile efforts to 'save' them, while the bulk of the trade is quietly ignored; or would they fare better under a system which acknowledged their legal existence and rights? (Much like drug users, for many of the same reasons.)

All of the social vices like the use of drugs to get high and prostitution should be legal and regulated. This is based on the concept of free choice by adults. If there is coercion involved then all bets are off. But it would have to be overt and obvious coercion and not the imagined kind.

The analogies would be the use of alcohol and tobacco plus, I suppose, abortion and birth control in general.

Problem solved. Move on.

I will perhaps comment more extensively later on today (if the topic is still live).

Just now, I suggest that there is useful distinction to be made between 'sex work' and 'prostitution'. The latter is so loaded a term that its broad use makes sensible discussion scarcely possible.

The distinction that I make is that 'sex work' is a job or profession that can include a number of activities; that is consciously and freely chosen; that is a defined or bounded relationship like many other exchanges of services we are familiar with.

'Prostitution' is a survival tactic used by desperate, often dysfunctional people in which the relationship is less clearly bounded and potentially harmful.

There are two separate discussions to have about these different ways of using one's life. It helps greatly to be clear which of the two one is referring to and to refrain from transferring emotions from one to the other.

So, it happens that there is a loaded and pejorative word for a dysfunctional sex worker. There is no special term for a dysfunctional accountant, and I suspect that helps us to distinguish between the individual and the profession in looking at sloppy or fraudulent book-keeping.

>106 librorumamans:: While I appreciate the distinction you are trying to draw, the problem is that the two categories are structurally linked. That is to say, the abuse that obtains in "prostitution" is inherent in the power* structure of "sex work".

*Added per Arctic-Stranger's excellent points in 108 below.

1) Do women have "equal rights, authority, and power as men?" I say no. The shoulds do not come into play here. They don't, and no should in the world changes that. There are elected officials who believe a husband cannot rape his wife.

2) Do women have "control and authority over themselves, their bodies, and their decisions for their lives?" Some do, many do not. The runaway girl or boy has lost all his or her control. People are in relationships that are not good for them because they do not have control over their circumstances. The drug addict has lost control over themselves.

And, 3) Do women have the right to require direct financial renumeration for sexual relations? (I am assuming you mean by this question "should women should be remunerated for their work.")

Again, no. Too often the money they earn goes to someone else. Or it goes to feed their addictions.

What you don't seem to understand is that prostitution is not about sex. It is about power--financial power mostly, but also personal power. I would have pay a woman to do what I want only because I am unable to find one who would do so willingly. I am paying her to have power over her.

It is not the sex part of this that bothers me. I hardly even consider that to be sex. It is a power exchange.

Sometimes the courtesan wins. Often, too often, she is the loser.

>108 Arctic-Stranger: What you don't seem to understand is that prostitution is not about sex. It is about power--financial power mostly

That's not specific to prostitution, that's the seedy underbelly of capitalism.

But I notice that you answered Bruce's thought experiment in terms of what is, not what you think should be--which is what I think he was really asking for.

#107

That is to say, the abuse that obtains in "prostitution" is inherent in the structure of "sex work".

Well, we have some inkling of your standards by now, so maybe one can't take this for granted. For my part, I am not inclined to take anyone's word on this, who considers pre-marital and extra-marital sex a form of self-abuse. You take a specifically Christian-theological view of sex which is pretty much useless to real life concerns (except your own, naturally).

I think librorumamans might be on to something with his distinction.

Can we usher in a society where prostitution won't exist, only "sex work", engaged in by willing participants and only subject to such vicissitudes as is the choice of any other profession?

I'm not betting on anything within my lifetime, that's for sure.

> 108

A-S seems to channeling the spirit of Andrea Dworkin.

I.e., men have the power, women do not, thus it is existentially impossible for a woman to consent with free will to a sexual act with a man. Thus heterosexual sex is rape, ipso facto.

Dworkin insisted there were no exceptions, even between a husband and wife.

A-S I will assume doesn't go quite that far. So we can view him as a mini-Dworkin.

I quite admire Andrea Dworkin.

>111 JGL53:: Re: A-S and Andrea Dworkin:

Prostitution and pornography make for strange bedfellows (pun intended?).

ETA: See also http://www.librarything.com/topic/155993#4179897 and following.

I don't mind channeling any spirit, if they are right. There is a lot about Dworkin I don't like, but as far as the relationship of sex and power goes, (and I have not read her too closely) to the extent we agree, so be it. I am not one to disagree with a person A just because we also disagree on B.

>107 nathanielcampbell: That is to say, the abuse that obtains in "prostitution" is inherent in the power* structure of "sex work".

No, it isn't.

I really must get on the road, but in the meantime try Googling "sacred intimate" or "sexological body worker"

It is not the sex part of this that bothers me. I hardly even consider that to be sex. It is a power exchange.

If the power exchange is the problem, then better to address patriarchy than female sexuality and its uses by women.

So for example, sex work and porn work could be regulated like other industries.

So for example, sex work and porn work could be regulated like other industries.

See post 110. I happen to agree with Lola on that.

I am not talking about porn here. That is a horse of a different color.

#108

All I can say is that does not seem to be the case for many articulate advocates in the sex field. Nor does your assertion (that it's not about sex) agree with their impressions of their clientele.

And you answers seem to be 'this is what is really happening, so what should happen is irrelevant'. I don't believe you truly mean this. After all, if the 'should' doesn't matter, then what's the point of striving for a better world where what happens is what should happen?

Point by point...

1. There are elected officials who don't believe whites and blacks should marry. We don't accept that answer in that case; why should we be more compliant where sex is concerned?

2. This is more complex, I do concede. However, children rarely run away because they are in a happy, supportive family, and so by running they are trying to gain a measure of control. They may fail in that attempt, but that's the motivation. (Also, I was and am discussing adults as defined by law, which means the foregoing does not apply to our discussion.) Abusive relationships are also governed by law to an extent. And part of the issue with drug addiction is that it is treated as a crime, not a medical condition. Nor am I entirely sure one should equate prostitution with drug addiction in the vast majority of cases. Even if you do, then prostitutes should be treated as suffering from a medical problem; not as criminals. (Not that I'm advocating that, either.)

3. Again, just because this DOES happen in cases is no reason to decide 'well, since some abuses happen, we need to take control of women's lives for their safety'. The same argument could well be made to prevent abortions as well. "Since some women make irrational decisions while pregnant, the State needs to step in and take control in all cases."

In short, #105 is an overly-concise but accurate summation of the issue. People lives are not made better by criminalizing inevitable behavior. Nor are adults assisted by deciding they lack the judgement to make decisions about their life (absent court hearings and medical judgements).

"I am paying to have power over her." That strikes me as very wrong. If I pay a contractor to replace a door, do I have the power to enforce that contract with appropriate legal measures? Yes. Does this mean I have 'power' over that contractor? Only in that very narrow circumstance, and with the understanding that HE has power over ME, in the sense he can compel me to pay him for the work. In this sense, yes, the prostitute lacks power, because the courts won't enforce an extra-legal contract. However, that's because we made prostitution a crime. Were it not a crime, then the inbalance wouldn't exist (as much). By making a contractual exchange illegal, the State dis-empowered women. Not that this hasn't happened before.

Again, the information, the various sources of information about what prostitution is like written by former professionals exists, and isn't that hard to find. Along with what few accurate statistics have been gathered concerning the issue.

If the power exchange is the problem, then better to address patriarchy than female sexuality and its uses by women.

So for example, sex work and porn work could be regulated like other industries.

And I believe they are, at least in some places. But the underlying social, cultural, political, economical inequalities between men and women compromise any notion that prostitution can offer women a "fair" free market.

I don't think women are better thought of in Holland although they have whores advertising goods in street windows. They aren't better thought of in China although in some places the ratio of men to women is over 5:1 (and rising).

I gotta say, it rankles like hell to see cunt-selling touted as a venue for professional affirmation for women, when we are barred from so much and must cling for dear life to what little we have.

Yeah, the bloody business ought to be legal--let's not pretend it ever will be or can be decent.

>119 LolaWalser: let's not pretend it ever will be or can be decent

In fact, when women explicitly express their sexuality, it's often seen as threatening.

All I can say is that does not seem to be the case for many articulate advocates in the sex field.

That is like interviewing Letty Ledbetter and then assuming that all woman can take care of themselves in the workplace, so why bother.

The girls (they were all under 18) I worked with in therapy last year were not all that articulate, and I really doubt anyone would spend more than two minutes with them for an interview. Their side of the story is not being told.

I should make something else clear, which I have not. I don't think laws against prostitution work. The reason they don't is that they aimed a punishing the women usually, not the people who are their clients. And if I am right, punishing the oppressed is not the best way to deal with the issue.

It is one of those moral conundrums. If we regulate it, we are recognizing its legitimacy. For "sex workers" that is not an issue. If a woman likes to have sex, and can make money at it, I am not sure we can ever stop it. I am not sure we should try. But if that is the case, why regulate it? Just let them do it. If they get a disease, or pass diseases, well, we are talking about consenting, educated adults here.

However there are many people who are not "sex workers," but someone else's whore. (Its funny that this is the first time that word has been used in this discussion. The word prostitute is so antiseptic.) What do we do with those people?

Two asides. Ken Russell did a movie called "Whore" after he saw Pretty Woman. It stars Teresa Russell, and is intended to show the grittier side of the business. I have not seen it, and the reviews were mixed. But I read a long review of it in a Chicago paper, and it had a pretty good section on whoring in Chicago.

Second, when I was a kid I read a book on the social history of the civil war, and one section was on prostitutes. I was probably about ten, and thought they were referring to protestants, and wondered why they had to sneak into the camps, and what exactly they were doing there.

#120

In fact, when women explicitly express their sexuality, it's often seen as threatening.

Yes, but what's the relevance for prostitution? Prostitution has precious little to do with "expressing one's sexuality". Oh, yes, I know that misogynistic assholes (typically in the first lines of defenders of whoring) like the fantasy of the insatiable nympho who's doing it because she just can't get enough, of dicks or humiliation. And I dare say, this being a big old world, that the existence of such people can't be flatly denied.

But I'm not seeing that as being the average case, no.

>122 LolaWalser: Yes, but what's the relevance for prostitution?

Well, it's one reason that anything that involves women and sex is bad bad BAD unless it's under some kind of male control.

>122 LolaWalser:: As it seems to happen too rarely, I want to acknowledge that I agree completely with everything you have written in this post, Lola.

#123

I think prostitution is pretty firmly under male control? It seems I've lost thread of your argument.

Incidentally, speaking of sexual expression, it made me think of sexual orientation and an odd factoid I picked up in New Orleans, "on terrain" as it happens, among what a friend who ought to know called "some of the skankiest hos alive"--for reasons no doubt ripe for a sociological, psychological and any other sort of analysis, a strangely large proportion of them are/identify as lesbians, living in lesbian relationships. There are more lesbians within the population of prostitutes than within the general population.

So for these women at least, it would seem that their "profession" goes against their private choice of sexual partners and activity.

#124

Heavens! Foul language and all! :)

I think prostitution is pretty firmly under male control?

Well, it would have to be, right? Women in charge of their own sexuality is just too scary to allow, so they're corralled into a couple of "safe" options where men can exercise all the control.

I'm not surprised about the prostitute/lesbian thing though. I'll bet the people at Pizza hut never eat pizza.

I take it male prostitution is not really even imagined in the Christian frame. Again, this has to do with regulating female sexuality, which must never be sold.

Unless it's validated by the legal contract known as a "marriage."

#108: Too often the money they earn goes to someone else.

Ask Woz about that. On the other hand, ask the prostitutes that work at legal prostitution in Nevada; you can bet that the house has damn clear contracts and regular audits on their books to make it clear everything is on the up and up. If a boyfriend is taking their money, there's no reason to think that it wouldn't have happened any job she chose.

#125: So for these women at least, it would seem that their "profession" goes against their private choice of sexual partners and activity.

Makes sense in a way. Some people tie their work into their hobbies, but a lot like to keep them separate. Sleeping for money only with people who you aren't attracted to keeps their work separate from their private life.

All of this debate makes me think the term "religious prostitution" is seriously misleading.

Selling sex to raise money for the god/dess of your choice certainly doesn't fit in to the kinds of things are are being debated as prostitution above. Nor is celebrating the god/dess of your choice by engaging in intercourse as a form of worship.

Before we make judgements about the use of sex in other cultures we need to be sure we're not being blinded by our biases, or the biases of those who are describing such practices.

The above discussion on sex workers and/or prostitutes so far frames the issue almost exclusively about women, failing to reflect on the fact that there are many male sex workers and prostitutes.

>109 southernbooklady: the seedy underbelly of capitalism

Absolutely. Or arguably more than just the underbelly but something more fundamental to capitalism.

>121 Arctic-Stranger: thought they were referring to protestants

Surely time for the old joke about the young Irish girl who goes to London to make her fortune? She falls on hard times and becomes a prostitute (probably not a sex worker, in the above definitions). She phones home. "Dad, I'm afraid I've become a prostitute." He hits the roof, rants and rages, curses her, then suddenly calms down and asks, "What did you say?" She repeats, "I've become a prostitute." He replies, "Oh, thank God for that, I thought you said protestant!"

#130

All a question of what's considered worse. After all, you can be forgiven of your sins if you're a whore; but if you've left the Church, there's no hope for you.

Yes, it's an old joke; but it's still funny.

your stance comes across as, "I'm going to simply ignore the myriad ways in which prostitution is, in fact, a patriarchal and misogynistic institution

It is only a patriarchal and misogynistic institution because people like you insist that it be so. You are the reason that prostitution is "degrading" or whatever other pejorative you seek to put upon it.

"Molly O'Grady and the Colonel 's lady are sisters under the skin." Kipling

Let us not forget God's girlfriend, Asherah; the Shekinah, consort and beloved of Yahweh.
.
Archaeologists have uncovered Hebrew settlements where the goddesses Asherah and Astarte-Anath were routinely worshipped. It seems that for about 3,000 years, the Hebrews worshipped female deities such as Asherah, the Shekinah, consort and beloved of Yahweh, which were later eradicated only by extreme pressure of the male-dominated priesthood. Modern Kabbalah goes into this fascinating aspect of Hebrew studies in detail. See: Kabbalah and Eros by Moshe Idel , Did God Have a Wife?: Archeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel by William G. Dever, or The Bible Unearthed, by Israel Finkelstein.

Finkelstein, Israel; Silberman, Neil Asher (2006-01-31). David and Solomon (Kindle Location 4144). Simon & Schuster, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

My favorite verse of the bible.

"There she lusted after her lovers, whose cocks were the size of donkeys, and whose ejaculations were like that of horses. "
Ezekial 23:20

> 134

I don't consider myself a prude but that one has always put me off somewhat.

But, then, at least there's no reference here to a god-commanded slaughter of infants or rape of 12 year old girls - so, by no means is it the most offensive and off-putting verse in the bible.

True...

I think a very good case can be made that the OT introduced the world to bigotry, racism and genocide. The OT records the world's first Holocaust - the obliteration of the Canaanites by god fearing Hebrews. Arguing that this never happened is even worse because that is essentially arguing that these values are what is important and not the event. Is there any other ancient literature that teaches praises the destuction of an entire people because they believed differently? I am not aware of any. My upper lip is quivering because I want to bring up the Nazis but they aren't ancient, so I'll refrain.

Why anyone, especially a woman, would want adhere to an Abrahamic religion is beyond me. Think of how many great female minds have lived and died unknown and forgotten, their educations neglected, their lives spent doing menial tasks for men, their merits unrecognized and buried under lies promulgated by these faiths, in cultures soaked in their destructive myths which codify misogyny and give it a godly blessing and patina.

Modernists have made the bible more palatible, but that is essentially creating a new religion. Why not just give it up altogether...so sad. What's the point. The bible has absolutely no value to a modern person...no more so than the Illiad. Give it up already.

>136 ElectricKoolAid: The bible has absolutely no value to a modern person

With all due respect, that's a fairly pointless thing to say because obviously it does have value to about one third of the modern world's population, so obviously your observation as stated is wrong. A number of other ancient texts have value to perhaps another third or more of the world's population.

that is essentially creating a new religion

No, it's the evolution and development of religion.

"Biblical studies as we know it should end. We should now treat the Bible as the alien document that it is, with no more importance than the other works of literature we ignore every day. Biblical studies should be geared toward helping humanity wean itself off of the Bible and toward terminating its authority completely in the modern world. Focus then could shift to the still thousands of other ancient texts still untranslated and unread. One day, the Bible might even be viewed as one of the curiousities of a tragic bibliolatrous age, when dependencies on a text brought untold misery and stood as an obstacle to human progress. We might then study the bible as a lesson in why human beings should never again privilege any book to this extent."

_The End of Biblical Studies_, Hector Avalos, Professor of Religious Studies, Iowa State University, page 29.

We've made progress not because of, but in spite of the bible. Why not cut the umbilical cord instead of staying tethered to a book no one believes in anyway? The bible approves of slavery. You have to engage in unethical hermeneutics to say that it doesn't. It took Christian countries 1800 years to outlaw slavery. Justinian outlawed coerced prostitution...he did not outlaw slavery or prostitution however. I think the reason should be obvious. The bible approves of those things. The early churches had to deal with the fact that many of its members, who happened to be slaves, would be used for sexual purposes against their will, yet never once spoke out against it. Flee fornication...oh yea...you're a slave so you have no choice in the matter. Inspired by god, indwelt by the Holy Spirit...if that's your idea of religion, you can have it. Gregory of Nyssa was the first to even broach the idea that slavery might not be consistent with the Christian faith.

Those lurking on this thread might find _Slavery, Abolitionism, and the Ethics of Biblical Scholarship, Hector Avalos interesting.

Did anyone on this thread actually read _From Shame to Sin_? It is why I am lurking here.

>138 ElectricKoolAid: Biblical studies as we know it should end

Who is the "we" and what is the type of biblical studies that we "we know"? I confess that I haven't read Avalos' book and don't have access to it so I won't be doing so. Biblical studies as I know it, that is biblical exegesis, is very much about unpacking what the bible actually is and what it isn't.

the Bible as the alien document that it is

The bible is not an "alien" document; it is the faith history of a community (or communities), embedded in that community. It is a community's attempt to understand its relationship with God.

unethical hermeneutics

Who decrees that hermeneutics is unethical?

>136 ElectricKoolAid:: "I think a very good case can be made that the OT introduced the world to bigotry, racism and genocide. The OT records the world's first Holocaust - the obliteration of the Canaanites by god fearing Hebrews. Arguing that this never happened is even worse because that is essentially arguing that these values are what is important and not the event."

Because really, there was no bigotry, racism, or genocide in any other ancient culture except a tiny band of nomads in bronze and iron age Palestine. Right....

(The funny thing is that there is very little archaeological evidence to support the movement of armies and vast bloodshed described in Joshua and Judges. Usually, people who attack Judeo-Christianity posit that lack of evidence for events in the Bible as one of their first-line weapons; but when making an ideological attack against religion, there is apparently no need for consistency. So if indulging in literalist fantasy without regard for evidence bolsters your attack, you can leave your scruples at the door.)

"Is there any other ancient literature that teaches praises the destuction of an entire people because they believed differently? I am not aware of any."

Only a tiny fraction of ancient history is actually recorded in literatures. But I would point out that the destruction of entire communities of enemies is fairly common in the stories and records of many ancient peoples, including the Babylonians / Assyrians, the Egyptians, and at least some of the stories that constitute the Greco-Roman mythologies. Indeed, there exist many Egyptian records of Pharaohs especially of the New Kingdom making regular raids into Canaan and destroying settlements there.

Moreover, when we turn to archaeological evidence, we see that the wholesale destruction of communities was, again, fairly common practice. There are some dozen different levels of settlements, for example, at the putative Troy in Hissarlik, Turkey, many of which reveal through char and other evidence that they were periodically destroyed. We have widespread evidence throughout the Mediterranean basin of periods of crisis and destruction in both the third millennium B.C. and then again at the end of the Bronze Age, especially as Greece entered it's so-called "Dark Age" toward the end of the second millennium B.C.

Then there's the fact that among the "worshippers of Baal" whom Israel counted as enemies in their purported "conquest" of Canaan (again, for which there is very little archaeological evidence) would have been the Phoenicians -- and recent archaeological evidence has confirmed their practice at Carthage of offering children as burnt sacrifices to their gods (see http://archaeology.org/news/1759-140123-carthage-tophet-sacrifice ), a practice denounced in the Hebrew Bible (see Jeremiah 7:31-32).

I could go on, but I think you get the point. There is no evidence to suggest that the Hebrews were any more bloodthirsty or genocidal than most other ancient peoples. Indeed, the preponderance of the evidence suggests that the Hebrews were a small and minor band of loosely confederated nomadic tribes who had a few centuries in the early first millennium B.C. of moderate control over areas in Canaan, but that they were never significant players in the political life of the ancient Near East.

>138 ElectricKoolAid:: "Why not cut the umbilical cord instead of staying tethered to a book no one believes in anyway?"

I always find it amusing when atheists project their disbelief onto the entire world, as if the 2 billion people who do find their faith in the Bible simply don't exist.

It's even more ironic that you argue that the Bible is the source of prejudice and intolerance, when you yourself show such bigotry against Jews and Christians (and likely Muslims, if we want to loop the Qur'an's sourcing in the Abrahamic tradition into this discussion).

"It took Christian countries 1800 years to outlaw slavery."

And non-Christian countries? What non-Christian countries beat us to the punch? The ancient Greeks and Romans? The ancient Egyptians? The Islamic world? The Hindu and Buddhist world (note: India didn't start to try to outlaw the caste system until the 20th century, and its legal attempts still haven't been very successful at eradicating it)? Half of China's population (a nominally atheist country) lives in poverty so crippling it might as well be called slavery. Meanwhile, Russia (a formerly "atheist" country) and southeast Asia are the epicenters of today's trade in sex slaves.

It took human society until at least the 19th century to outlaw slavery -- human society of every stripe. Pretending that slavery is somehow the fault of the Bible is the worst sort of cultural hegemony, as it refuses to acknowledge all the very many other extra-biblical and non-biblical social forces that contributed to the perpetuation of slavery as a human institution.

(I'd also point out that the fiercest abolitionists of the 19th century were so because of their Christian faith; and that the greatest leader in the fight for civil rights in 20th century America was not only a Christian but a minister.)

>140 nathanielcampbell: Moreover, when we turn to archaeological evidence, we see that the wholesale destruction of communities was, again, fairly common practice.

Doesn't Rome have the honor of the first truly "documented" case of genocide (as we define the term now) when it destroyed Carthage?

And Mithradates would be another example of a ruler who went in for "ethnic cleansing," for lack of a better term, as an act of power consolidation that co-opted ethnic identity as its justification.

>142 southernbooklady:: But we wouldn't want to let pesky things like actual history get in the way of denouncing Judeo-Christianity, now would we, Nicki? :-)

>136 ElectricKoolAid: The bible has absolutely no value to a modern person

You know, contemporary women could say this about all of Shakespeare. It would be a pointless approach to Hamlet, though.

>144 southernbooklady:: "It would be a pointless approach to Hamlet, though."

And the existential questions about will, action, and duty posed by the Danish Prince are of value to any human being, regardless of gender. (It's not like the issues of existence vs. non-existence posed by the "To be or not to be" soliloquy are off-limits to consideration by women, after all.)

And this presentist mindset that thinks that anything produced by the human endeavour of thought and self-reflection before, say, Nietzsche, is not limited to non-believers. I find it often among the young, as well -- it can be a struggle, sometimes, to get my students to understand why reading ancient, medieval, and Renaissance texts can be worthwhile. Indeed, it seems to me that the haughty dismissal of the value of premodern human experience is most often a hallmark of a mind closed-up in its own, immature, and limited perspectives.

>143 nathanielcampbell: Well, I'm no biblical scholar, but it strikes me that saying the Caanites were massacred "for what they believed" ignores some of the fundamental realities of social structure at the time. It's not like "freedom of religion" was a concept that was even on the horizon. "What they believed" and "Who they were" were probably in some sense indistinguishable in an era where rulers were routinely held to be divine.

>146 southernbooklady:: ""What they believed" and "Who they were" were probably in some sense indistinguishable in an era where rulers were routinely held to be divine."

Even in the modern era of secular government, for many of us, "what we believe" and "who we are" are inextricably linked.

>145 nathanielcampbell: And the existential questions about will, action, and duty posed by the Danish Prince are of value to any human being, regardless of gender.

Yes, well. You probably won't like to hear this but from my atheistic perspective, the best way to defuse the potential for religious violence that finds so much justification in the Bible is not to declare the Bible "irrelevant" (it's not) but to simply treat it as literature, rather than as the Word of God.

>146 southernbooklady: but the sense of individual identity was not, I think, the overriding force that it is today.

>148 southernbooklady:: I would welcome your approach, as it would mark a vast improvement over the facile literalism so often on display in atheistic charges against it. Indeed, in trying to explain why Scripture ought not to be read merely literally, I often invoke Shakespeare as an easy comparandum: we readily acknowledge that his writings work on many different levels of meaning and interpretation simultaneously, so why should we be loathe to extend at least that same level of hermeneutical complexity to Scripture?

>149 southernbooklady:: Very true -- although the more I experience in the modern world and the more I reflect upon it in light of the Gospel, the more I am convinced that we are in desperate need of recovering a deeper sense of communal and connected identity. Many of the social problems and crises we face today are exacerbated by the isolation and division sown by "the imperious individual", as I believe one commentator has termed it.

>150 nathanielcampbell: The stories in the Bible have a lot to say on what it means to be human. I put it in the pantheon with Shakespeare, Dostoyevsky, William Faulkner, and Virginia Woolf. (Not to mention Farid ud-Din Attar, and the long-lost poets who first wrote down Beowulf and the Iliad). It just doesn't get primacy by virtue of being divine.

>152 southernbooklady:: "It just doesn't get primacy by virtue of being divine."

And as you are somebody who doesn't believe in the divine, that's perfectly reasonable. Fortunately, you also make the perfectly reasonable and honest evaluation that the Bible does, in fact, belong in "the pantheon" of great world literature -- the works that speak to us across time and space and culture about the deep and perennial questions of human experience.

It's refreshing to know someone who can admit that, without allowing ideological baggage to get in the way.

>153 nathanielcampbell: the Bible does, in fact, belong in "the pantheon" of great world literature

Of course, that also means I don't have any qualms about criticizing it as literature. :)

Yes, the Bible (that dishevelled mass of myth, poetry, dubious history and accounting) can be read as mere literature; the problem is that its readers by and large do not do so. The problem is the cult(s) of the Bible, the religions whose emblem it is, the social and political organization which ordains persecution of those who do not believe in it.

And this is just like Hamlet? How many witch-burnings do we owe Macbeth? No, sorry--Shakespeare reflects; the Bible ordains.

>136 ElectricKoolAid: The bible has absolutely no value to a modern person

You know, contemporary women could say this about all of Shakespeare. It would be a pointless approach to Hamlet, though.

We get it--there is (some) literary value to (some of) the Bible... at least for some people, same as only some people (but I don't understand the singling out of women) are susceptible to Shakespeare. (It is a trite point. For a more interesting discussion one might ask, is the Bible ever as good as Shakespeare?)

To other people, the fact that this book organized life and fates of billions, and was used for centuries as an incitement and justification to global-sized crimes of every description sets it apart from stage entertainment, however "quality".

I'm afraid there's no dropping THIS "ideological baggage" for very long--at least as long as Christianity exists. Once it goes the way of Mithraism, we'll have a good laugh about it all, no doubt.

To quote Henry Higgins: "the language of Shakespeare and Milton and the Bible!" :-)

>155 LolaWalser: the problem is that its readers by and large do not do so. The problem is the cult(s) of the Bible, the religions whose emblem it is, the social and political organization which ordains persecution of those who do not believe in it.

So which would be more effective? Burning it? Or demythologizing it?

Once it goes the way of Mithraism, we'll have a good laugh about it all, no doubt.

Well, I'm a realist. Also, not willing to wait that long. But I do agree that the problem with "sacred texts" is that the supposedly divine authorship makes it almost impossible to realistically criticize them. As a believer, you can't really look at anything Jesus does in the New Testament and say, huh, well, I think he's wrong about that.

>157 southernbooklady: But a believer can say, "I don't think he actually said that", or, "Why has the author of this gospel had Jesus say this?" and a whole lot of other questions trying to get at what the text is actually all about, and what it isn't. It leads to a lot of nuancing about what Jesus does/says, and in many cases different opinions. That's what biblical exegesis is all about.

But I appreciate your realism. Those who think religion is going to disappear any time soon are living in a fantasy world.

I think I did say: "The bible has absolutely no value to a modern person...no more so than the Illiad."

In so far as any literature has value qua literature, it has value. My point is that is how it should be valued. I am not sure what relevance iron age values have for modern people. Religion/ethics are always backward looking in my opinion and not forward looking.

Perhaps this is a normative criterion and one should say 'should have no value to a modern person.' The fact that it does have relevance to so many people is deeply saddening to me.

I stand corrected on the ancient genocide: http://www.ancient.eu.com/article/485/

>159 ElectricKoolAid:: "I am not sure what relevance iron age values have for modern people."

It seems appropriate to quote from Simone Weil's 1939 essay, "The Iliad or The Poem of Force":

The true hero, the true subject, the center of the Iliad, is force. Force as man’s instrument, force as man’s master, force before which human flesh shrinks back. The human soul, in this poem, is shown always in its relation to force: swept away, blinded by the force it thinks it can direct, bent under the pressure of the force to which it is subjected. Those who had dreamed that force, thanks to progress, now belonged to the past, have seen the poem as a historic document; those who can see that force, today as in the past, is at the center of all human history, find in the Iliad its most beautiful, its purest mirror.

>159 ElectricKoolAid:: "The fact that it does have relevance to so many people is deeply saddening to me."

Yes, how sad that people think these words are still somehow relevant:

Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you.

You have heard that it was said, "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy." But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.

How sad, that people think that a message of love and forgiveness could somehow be relevant to modern life!

In The War That Killed Achilles Caroline Alexander makes some interesting parallels between Achilles' anger at being drawn into a war that was not his fight, and Muhammed Ali's refusal to fight in the Vietnam War.

I know a professor who frames an entire first-year seminar around the idea that very first word in the putative canon of western literature is, "Rage."

(It is, of course, merely a conceit to count the Iliad as the beginning, as it were; but it is a useful conceit.)

>159 ElectricKoolAid: I am not sure what relevance iron age values have for modern people.

Possibly nothing. Being modern, we will always bring our own perspective to bear--it overlays everything we consider. Ultimately it's a question of imagination to make such connections in far flung cultures and eras. That's what literature does. That's what art does.

Religion/ethics are always backward looking in my opinion and not forward looking.

I don't equate religion and ethics. I also don't know what you mean by "not forward looking."

>158 John5918: "I don't think he actually said that", or, "Why has the author of this gospel had Jesus say this?" and a whole lot of other questions trying to get at what the text is actually all about, and what it isn't. It leads to a lot of nuancing about what Jesus does/says, and in many cases different opinions. That's what biblical exegesis is all about.

I think you just proved my point, John.

And as C.S. Lewis points out in the "Introduction" he wrote for a translation of Athanasius' On the Incarnation (neatly available online: http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/history/ath-inc.htm#ch_0 ), part of what past perspectives do is help to draw us out of our present blindnesses:

Every age has its own outlook. It is specially good at seeing certain truths and specially liable to make certain mistakes. We all, therefore, need the books that will correct the characteristic mistakes of our own period. And that means the old books. All contemporary writers share to some extent the contemporary outlook—even those, like myself, who seem most opposed to it. Nothing strikes me more when I read the controversies of past ages than the fact that both sides were usually assuming without question a good deal which we should now absolutely deny. They thought that they were as completely opposed as two sides could be, but in fact they were all the time secretly united—united with each other and against earlier and later ages—by a great mass of common assumptions. We may be sure that the characteristic blindness of the twentieth century—the blindness about which posterity will ask, "But how could they have thought that?"—lies where we have never suspected it, and concerns something about which there is untroubled agreement between Hitler and President Roosevelt or between Mr. H. G. Wells and Karl Barth. None of us can fully escape this blindness, but we shall certainly increase it, and weaken our guard against it, if we read only modern books. Where they are true they will give us truths which we half knew already. Where they are false they will aggravate the error with which we are already dangerously ill. The only palliative is to keep the clean sea breeze of the centuries blowing through our minds, and this can be done only by reading old books. Not, of course, that there is any magic about the past. People were no cleverer then than they are now; they made as many mistakes as we. But not the same mistakes. They will not flatter us in the errors we are already committing; and their own errors, being now open and palpable, will not endanger us. Two heads are better than one, not because either is infallible, but because they are unlikely to go wrong in the same direction. To be sure, the books of the future would be just as good a corrective as the books of the past, but unfortunately we cannot get at them.

I'm all for getting the Bible widely accepted as myth and lit and nothing else.

167: I agree. Mostly because once it is viewed as myth and literature, it becomes pretty apparent that it is pretty lousy as myth and literature.

Wow. Atheists do not believe the Bible has any moral force, and Christians do. I shall alert the press!

Seriously though I am preaching on the Beatitudes this week, and that thread has been woefully quiet. So by all means, hold forth!

Back to what I said earlier. I know of no ancient literature that teaches bigotry, racism and genocide. When Cato argued for the destruction of Carthage, he 'argued' for it in the Senate. He didn't tell everyone Jupiter commanded them to destroy Carthage. To my earlier point, which no one addressed: Let's assume the Mosaic atrocities didn't occur, but were meant to teach values - what values? They are more than mere records.

The fact that those things did or did not occur was not my point. There is a fellow named Rushdoony, a Presbyterian, who many Christian Americans follow including prominent congressmen and Senators. He wrote a book called _The Institutes of Biblical Law_ which promotes the idea that America and other Christian countries should become theocracies and legislate OT law.

In 390, Theodosius had all the male prostitutes of Rome rounded up and had them burned to death while he forced the populace of Rome to watch...do we have to ask where he found the inspiration? ( _From Shame to Sin_ ).

@161 - Zero relevance to me. I have no idea what they mean or even could mean. Will all this get fulfilled at the escaton? It ain't happen'n now that's for sure. Jesus is dead. Everything he taught can be found in other ethical traditions. If someone tries to rape me, I am sure as hell not going to turn the other cheek. Of course, if I were a female slave in the first century, if my owner compels me to sleep with him, am I supposed to go the extra mile and have anal? Is that what you are saying? That is EXACTLY what that ethic is teaching to a first/second century christian slave woman - your Christian ethic is impractical and worthless.

IMO - Echoes from the bible:

The West is still monistic
The West is still patriarchal
The West still punishes rather than seeks to heal and reform
The West still privileges males over females
The West is still hetero-normative
The West still thinks the ideal family is a hetero pair bonded nuclear family
The West still privileges monogamy
The West still reduces sex to animality ( ie procreation )
The West still controls female reproduction ( War on Women )
The West still pretends to be individualistic, yet won't allow people to control their bodies.
The West still thinks parents own their children
The West still thinks it's ok to teach your children lies if they are part of a religion(unless its a unapproved of religion)
Western science is still trying to discern the mind of god (goes back to monism) .

>170 ElectricKoolAid: From one atheist to another, I'm finding the thread of your arguments erratic and hard to follow.

Deleted because it got posted twice.

>170 ElectricKoolAid: Good grief. What an outpouring of bigotry. It scarcely seems worth responding.

But one little snippet intrigues me. Are you seriously suggesting that modern western individualism can be blamed on the bible, or have I misunderstood? The cultures in which the bible was written were broadly communal cultures, and this is reflected in the texts. Indeed I have often heard it said that Africans and other traditional peoples can identify with the bible far more than modern westerners because they still live in largely communal cultures and they recognise the life being described there.

>170 ElectricKoolAid:: "The West is still monistic"

This seems an odd claim. Although monism has been an important philosophical position in the west for millennia, it has almost always been a minority position, at least in terms of a strong monism.

And it's nigh on impossible to find monism in the Bible, which as a text is usually quite dualistic. Indeed, dualism is one of the main points that one of our other resident atheists in these parts, JGL53, criticizes (he himself being a monist).

>170 ElectricKoolAid:: "The West is still patriarchal
The West still punishes rather than seeks to heal and reform
The West still privileges males over females
The West is still hetero-normative
The West still thinks the ideal family is a hetero pair bonded nuclear family
The West still privileges monogamy
The West still reduces sex to animality ( ie procreation )
The West still controls female reproduction ( War on Women )"

Most of the items on this list can attributed to many cultures besides Judeo-Christian ones. To take just one easy and Western example: the societies of ancient Greece and (pre-Christian) Rome were patriarchal, employed harsh punishments (slavery, crucifixion, the arena), privileged men over women, were for the most part hetero-normative, and privileged monogamy (on this point, I'd suggest you look at the Augustan morality legislation); and I can't think of a culture of which we have substantive record in which men didn't try to control female reproduction.

>170 ElectricKoolAid:: "There is a fellow named Rushdoony, a Presbyterian, who many Christian Americans follow including prominent congressmen and Senators. He wrote a book called _The Institutes of Biblical Law_ which promotes the idea that America and other Christian countries should become theocracies and legislate OT law."

Guilt by association? Some Christian proposes a cock-eyed view of the relationship between the Bible and American law and now all Christians are responsible for it? Isn't this the same tactic as saying that atheists are responsible for the tens of millions of people killed by Stalin and Pol Pot and the Kim regime in North Korea, just because Stalin, Pol Pot, and the Kims are atheists, too?

@173
The intense individualism of the NT is one of the few things I think it has in its favor - "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
". You can't get any more individualistic than that.

My bigoted vituperation...spleen venting...is what I think are the negative echoes of a biblical ethos. Sorry for the disjointed nature of the rant. I will tighten my arguments in the future.

You'll have to excuse me. I have only recently read any of the bible - due to a need for a course I am taking. The following anecdote sums it up:

"In the late stages of the Second World War, Evelyn Waugh was trapped in Europe in the company of Randolph Churchill, the boorish son of the wartime prime minister. 'In the hope of keeing him quiet,' he wrote to Nancy Mitford,'Freddie and I bet him 20 pounds that he cannot read the whole bible in a fortnight. Unhappily it has not had the result we hoped. He has never read any of it before and is hideously excited;keeps reading quotations aloud...or merely slapping his side & chortling 'God, isn't God a shit!'"

>176 nathanielcampbell:: "The intense individualism of the NT is one of the few things I think it has in its favor"

That's one of the oddest claims I've ever heard made about the New Testament, though it appears you should be forgiven its inaccuracy, as you say that you have only recently read anything in the Bible.

Try this on for size -- Acts 2:44-46, a description of the earliest Christian community:

And all who believed were together and had all things in common; and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts.

And likewise, Paul's description of the Christian community as a body (the body of Christ), in e.g. 1 Corinthians 12:12:13:

For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body -- Jews or Greeks, slaves or free -- and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

As you learn more about the Bible and about the history and teachings of the early Christians, you will find that they were very communitarian and very much not hyper-individualistic.

>177 ElectricKoolAid: "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
". You can't get any more individualistic than that.

I think the main point of that text is the opposite of your interpretation. Taken in the context of the rest of the New Testament it's more a broadening of community, an opening up to the rest of humankind rather than concentrating on the narrow family nor indeed on oneself.

>177 ElectricKoolAid: I'm not sure that I would want to base my view of either God or the bible on the British upper classes. I think "boorish" is the operative word in this instance.

I've always thought the most "individualistic" Jesus got in the New Testament was that bit about "let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

Of course "indivudalistic" didn't have the modern connotations we put on the term. Nor was thinking in terms of "human rights" as we understand them today.

The intense individualism of the NT is one of the few things I think it has in its favor - "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
". You can't get any more individualistic than that.

Sorry, but you get an F on exegesis. You don't have to like the passage, or the Bible, but if you are going to attack it, at least show that you understand what you are attacking.

Here Jesus is calling people to a broader community than family, that of the Church. The primary allegiance in one's life should not be the parochial allegiance to family, but the broader allegiance to the whole people of God in Christ. Stan Hauerwas did a great sermon on this once called Hating Your Mother as the Way to Peace. It can be found in his book Unleashing the Scripture; Freeing the Bible from Captivity to America.

Basically Hauerwas starts by looking at why the military developed the platoon system. What they found was that in the Civil War and WWI soldiers were not firing their weapons. (Forty percent of guns in the Civil War were never fired.)

So they took young men from all over the country and put them in platoons. The only common allegiance they had, since they came from the Brooklyn and Georgia and California and Nebraska, was to the platoon. They were less likely to kill for country, but very likely to kill to protect their platoon buddies. The local allegiance could be used to get them to things they would not likely do for a more general allegiance.

Jesus, Hauerwas says, is doing the same thing. "The New Age here is the person of Jesus Christ, so we are no longer under the powers of the Old Age--powers that feed on our fears and loves, leading us to kill other people's children in the name of protecting our own. Hating mother, father, spouse and children only makes sense if we now live in a new time when everything is made new, when the wolf now lies down with lamb, and when we can love our children without threatening the children of others."

Jesus is not calling us to be individualists here. He is calling us to understand that Iraqi children are as valuable as our own. Of course, you actually have to read other things he said to get this. You can pull any one quote out, and make it say what you want.

> 182

Yes, Jesus said nothing wrong-headed or immoral here.

His statement is just poorly phrased.* And that has led to some misunderstandings.

I feel his pain.

*Not as poorly phrased as the latest Mike Huckabee eff-up, but still - Hating your mother? Criminy. That is always gonna sound bad.

lk.22.35 And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing. lk.22.36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. lk.22.37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end. lk.22.38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

inspired, God (2011-01-08). Bible (KJV with Apocrypha) (best navigation with Direct Verse Jump) (Kindle Locations 53925-53927). OSNOVA. Kindle Edition.

A Latin saying: 'Live your own life, because you will die your own death.'

Unless units larger than an individual can be 'saved', I am not sure what non-individualism would mean. Of course, we're all embedded in families and larger communities, but the NT seems to emphasize an individual's response to Jesus.

@182 - I am not so sure my exegesis is faulty. Jesus is confronting people with a decision. You must make a break from your tradition, your family and choose him... "you brood of vipers". It is the eschatalogical decision. You must make a break with all that you know and love and choose him and the Kingdom...the son of man was supposed to come within their lifetime...'there are some standing here today who will not taste death.' Exegesis is done within a hermeutical tradition. Mine happens to be different than yours...a potentially naive one I admit and I may be wrong. I am not a complete relatativist. I think texts can have determinate meaning (although once a text is published, control over its interpretation is lost). However, the bible is a complicated text and being in a different hermeneutical tradition does not make the exegesis prima facia wrong...many well meaning people differ on interpretation, else why would there be Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Angelicans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, Calvinists, Charismatics, Pentacostalists, Baptists, Mennonites, Amish, Dunkers, Seventh Day Adventists, Christian Reconstructionists, Dominionists, Unitarian Universalists, etc...(and unbelievers who read the bible ). I am quite sure members of those traditions are quite informed and not evil people intent on subterfuge. I guess they all get an 'F' except for the group you happen to belong to. One would think that your great god would speak in a plain understandable language. The bible does not speak with one voice...at least its representatives don't. Modus Tollens. If a, then b. Not b, therefore, not a. However, if you believe in the priesthood of believers, I have the right...nay duty...to interpret the text for myself. Will I be condemned to hell for all eternity for a faulty exegesis?

You mentioned that we are no longer under the 'old powers'. From my understanding, that is a Pauline concept. You are reading that back into the gospels which is a theological judgement. Those who do not share your theology would not use that background information to exegete that passage. Maybe the gospels should stand on their own...again a judgement. You strive for a unitary understanding of the bible which again must be based on theological assumptions. The 'church' ( which became the RC church ) decided which books belonged in the canon based on a theological judgement. ( I am aware of the disputed books as well as the Gnostic gospels ). You would have to hold that god guided that decision to limit your theology to just those books. Unfortunately, unless you belong to the RC church, god has not given you any direction in interpreting his book(s). You must rely on tools external to the text...ie reason and logic...not to mention your own subjective judgement. Once you make that move...move away from the regula fidei and appeal to reason, it's game over and you fall prey to the arguments of unbelievers.

>185 ElectricKoolAid: I am not so sure my exegesis is faulty

It's just at odds with almost everybody else's exegesis, except certain modern protestants whose short history is entwined with modern western individualism.

One would think that your great god would speak in a plain understandable language. The bible does not speak with one voice

The bible is an attempt by faith communities to express their understanding of the divine in many different books in different literary genres over many centuries in different geographical locations and different cultural milieux, with different authors and different languages. The early Christian church then made a selection of which books should be in the bible, and it was then translated into a lot of other languages and copied by hand over many more centuries, while early manuscripts were lost and found again. That's why simplistic and/or literal interpretations of it don't work, that's why we have biblical exegesis (at least in the majority of Christian communities with the exception of the modern biblical literalists), and that's why there are different interpretations. Nevertheless there is a huge degree of agreement amongst the main Christian denominations worldwide, especially on central matters.

>185 ElectricKoolAid:: "One would think that your great god would speak in a plain understandable language. The bible does not speak with one voice..."

1. I echo John's point that "the Bible" is not a monolith but a collection of many texts written by many authors in many different situations in many different times and places -- and the interaction between each specific context and God is what makes for so many different voices.

2. One would think that the great poets of the human tradition would speak in a plain, understandable language .... but then poetry wouldn't be poetry, would it? If human modes of expression in poetry and song can be so varied, so multivocal and polyvalent, then why wonder that divine modes of expression would be any less so?

I've just started in on the rather engaging Tragic Posture and Tragic Vision, where a central argument is that the supposed lack of individualism in antiquity is a mirage constructed through contemporary anti-modernist rhetoric. I'm only about 50 pages in, but Ruprecht is determined to find important demonstrations of an ethical ideal of the individual in both Antigone and the Gospel of Mark.

One would think that your great god would speak in a plain understandable language. The bible does not speak with one voice...

That God is not a simple god, and does not demand people to speak with one voice should not be a problem. I would have a problem with a god who was simpler than I am. If the god I worship is no more complex than I am, I am pretty sure that is a god of my own making.

However, if you believe in the priesthood of believers, I have the right...nay duty...to interpret the text for myself. Will I be condemned to hell for all eternity for a faulty exegesis?

We disagree on exegesis of a text. I hardly would condemn you, or anyone else to hell because we disagree. In the end it is not the disagreements that separate us. It is the WAY we disagree that may or may not separate us. One of my good friends is very conservative, politically speaking, but we always get along, even when we talk politics, because we respect each other. That is very important.

The following quote from paragraph 39 of Lumen Fidei, Pope Francis' encyclical from last year, seems apropos to our conversation:

It is impossible to believe on our own. Faith is not simply an individual decision which takes place in the depths of the believer’s heart, nor a completely private relationship between the "I" of the believer and the divine "Thou", between an autonomous subject and God. By its very nature, faith is open to the "We" of the Church; it always takes place within her communion. We are reminded of this by the dialogical format of the creed used in the baptismal liturgy. Our belief is expressed in response to an invitation, to a word which must be heard and which is not my own; it exists as part of a dialogue and cannot be merely a profession originating in an individual. We can respond in the singular — "I believe" — only because we are part of a greater fellowship, only because we also say "We believe". This openness to the ecclesial "We" reflects the openness of God’s own love, which is not only a relationship between the Father and the Son, between an "I" and a "Thou", but is also, in the Spirit, a "We", a communion of persons. Here we see why those who believe are never alone, and why faith tends to spread, as it invites others to share in its joy. Those who receive faith discover that their horizons expand as new and enriching relationships come to life. Tertullian puts this well when he describes the catechumens who, "after the cleansing which gives new birth" are welcomed into the house of their mother and, as part of a new family, pray the Our Father together with their brothers and sisters. blockquote>

>188 paradoxosalpha:: "where a central argument is that the supposed lack of individualism in antiquity is a mirage constructed through contemporary anti-modernist rhetoric"

I think what we should really be talking about is a movement in one direction or another along a continuum of attitudes between absolute individualism and absolute communalism -- the two absolute poles being idealistic constructs that have never really existed in historical practice. Some societies lean a bit more in one direction, other lean a bit more in the other direction.

I'm also reminded of the controversy that swirled after Colin Morris stuck out his head to declare The Discovery of the Individual, 1050-1200, as if the individual had ever been lost.

I've been following this thread with interest since I just finished From Shame to Sin but have not seen much discussion of it, but I had to jump in nonetheless.

@186 "The bible is an attempt by faith communities to express their understanding of the divine in many different books in different literary genres over many centuries in different geographical locations and different cultural milieux, with different authors and different languages."

Thank you!! Finally a breath of fresh air. We both agree then that the bible is a product of a faith community's attempt to understand its place in the world. It has no privileged insight or position over any others.

Now that we've reduced all faith communities to the same level...in the democracy of faith, no one can have a privileged position...we can apply the tools common to all humanity...logic...reason...modern science...etc and critique their vision. You cannot adjudicate between faith claims without appealing to a standard external to faith...otherwise you are arguing in a circle.

However, if you are saying more than that...ie, that these communities' symbols reference an underlying reality...like looking at the rainbow of colors emanating from a prism and then deducing that an actual light source exists...ie, religions are the colors and god is the reality inspiring the religions, then I would say that this is not a sustainable position. Let me explain what I mean.

The Abrahamic religions present themselves as symbolically structured conceptions of the world...ensembles of truths with claims to practical and theoretical validity. Unfortunately, all these claims to generality partially or totally negate each other...among the faith communities today, it is not one great love fest. You must admit that some of these differences are theological and not ethnic or political.

How do we determine when a faith community has it right? With science, its pretty simple. I have a theory about creating a rocket and gyroscopic stability. I create a prototype and it either works or it doesn't. What is the standard for religion? What does progress or evolution even mean with regard to religion? You must first have a standard and then apply it to the religion to decide if progress has been made. But this standard is external to the religion and viciates the whole point of religion.

From my perspective, religions that rely on experiences resulting from altered states of consciousness have more going for them than secondary or derivative religious experiences based on the adherence to dogma. You directly experience the ground of your religion rather than believe in dogma about the originating experience. If you follow Jung, he would say the dogma serves as a hermeneutic to explain the experience...which is OK. All people interpret their experience in terms of the symbols of their cultures( and you must have the experiences too ). My disagreement is when people say more than that and create a dogmatic system out of the orginating experience that must be adhered to...must be believed. Moses( Exodus 32:27), Jesus( Matthew 12:30), Paul(Galatians 2:11), Mohammed( Sura 2:191) come to mind.

They had originating religious experiences and their followers created dogmatic systems out of that. I would say, go out and have your own experiences. They didn't have any special privileged insight into a transcendental realm...if they did, why do we reinterpret it ad infinitum? Again, what standard do we use to determine if we have it right? There are some many religions in the world today. They all disagree. I am reminded of a story in Peter Sloterdijk's book God's Zeal about Prozac and Valium users accusing each other of heresy and warning of grave loss of health if the other does not convert to using the same medication...yes I am reducing religion to its functional use to give meaning to suffering, death, disorder, and chance. In that, it functions as a therapeutic cure.

In the democracy of faith, all voices are equally privileged. How can one create a hierarchy to privilege one voice over another...just my opinion.

> 192

You are preaching against proselytizing and sectarianism, I take it.

I concur.

Sex Workers Unite http://busboysandpoets.com/events/event/zami-presents-sex-workers-unite

Church teaching must change on sexual morality, says German bishop (NCR)

>195 John5918: Interesting article, John.

Bishop Algermissen, 71, said. “I don’t hold with the normative strength of facts. Truth is not something that can be adjusted,” he insisted.

Would you be able to parse those two sentences for me? They don't make much sense to my non-clerical mind.

>196 librorumamans: Sorry, I don't think I'm very clear what Algermissen is actually saying, although I suspect his general drift is that he doesn't like the idea of change.

Not sure whether this is quite the right thread for this, but a statement by Cardinal Peter Turkson, probably the most prominent African in the Vatican:

Vatican Official Against Uganda's Anti-Gay Law

Also, Uganda's bishops reviewing country's anti-gay law, says church official (NCR), 'in order to come up with "an educated" response'.

> 196

I think I can translate: "Just because it's the way things are, doesn't mean it's the way things ought to be. There is an absolute standard that's not empirical."

> 198

Yeah. But how do we reconcile ubiquitous child rape and cover-up with absolute moral standards? That one stumps me.

The family synod (NCR)

> 200

Pope quote: "I want things messy and stirred up."

OK;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sdGEZIgA9Y

That's pretty messed up and stirring.

Of course it's all fun and games until Courtney Love puts a shot gun in the cat's mouth.

Which is my analogy to the H.R.C.C.

(I.e., Courtney Love = priest, shot gun = penis, cat = altar boy)