Is Fornication Immoral? [Archive] - Bibles, Wheels, and Brains Forum

View Full Version : Is Fornication Immoral?

Richard Amiel McGough

07-27-2012, 01:34 PM

Morality is a very confusing topic for many people because the conflate their personal moral intuitions based on their love of self and humanity (which is the basis of true morality) with cultural norms and religious dogmas. For example, a Jew probably would feel that eating a pork chop was a real moral offense. The rest of us just laugh at such silliness. So how do we determine what is right or wrong, moral or immoral? There is only one standard: LOVE of self and others. That's it. That's what answers all moral questions.

So what is fornication? We need to answer that before asking if it immoral or not. Here's a pretty clear definition (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fornication):
fornication [ˌfɔːnɪˈkeɪʃən]n

1. voluntary sexual intercourse outside marriage

2. (Law) Law voluntary sexual intercourse between two persons of the opposite sex, where one is or both are unmarried

3. (Christian Religious Writings / Bible) Bible sexual immorality in general, esp adultery

I highlighted definition #1 since that is the one I want to use in this discussion. The definition of fornication is dependent upon the definition of marriage. So what is marriage?
mar·riage (mhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/abreve.gifrhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gifj)n.1.

a. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife, and in some jurisdictions, between two persons of the same sex, usually entailing legal obligations of each person to the other.

b. A similar union of more than two people; a polygamous marriage.

c. A union between persons that is recognized by custom or religious tradition as a marriage.

Again, I highlighted the words I find particularly pertinent. LEGAL. JURISDICTIONS. CUSTOM. RELIGIOUS TRADITION. Do any of those words have anything to do with morality? Nope. They are all legal/cultural/religious terms. That's what marriage is. A legal fiction. A cultural/religious tradition. And to top it off, the Bible doesn't even define "marriage" or even that it should be limited to two people. God himself gave David multiples wives.

And there is yet one more definition we must consider before we can understand the moral status of fornication. What is sex? Is holding hands sex? Hugging? Kissing? Dry humping? Mutual masturbation? Oral sex? Or only when the penis enters the vagina? I think the answer is that sex is a continuum of showing love through physical contact. It can be degraded of course if there is no love. Then it becomes nothing but an bodily function. But even then, why should it be wrong to help another with their bodily functions? So even though there are some tangential moral questions that arise when looking at specific activities related to fornication, I cannot see anything about fornication itself that should be considered immoral.

The final issue is "adultery" which involves lying and breaking your word. That would be immoral. But if such things are not happening when two consenting adults choose to have sex, then it is not relevant to the question of the morality of fornication.

Conclusion: I see nothing immoral if two consenting adults choose to have sex with each other.

I'd be very interested to know what others think.

CWH

07-27-2012, 07:57 PM

Before we debate on fornication, let's see what the Bible says about fornication and fornicators:

Fornicators:
1. 1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 
2. 1 Timothy 1:10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, 
3. Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.

Fornication:
1. Isaiah 23:17 And it shall be, at the end of seventy years, that the LORD will deal with Tyre. She will return to her hire, and commit fornication with all the kingdoms of the world on the face of the earth. 
2. John 8:41 You do the deeds of your father.” Then they said to Him, “We were not born of fornication; we have one Father—God.” 
3. 2 Corinthians 12:21 lest, when I come again, my God will humble me among you, and I shall mourn for many who have sinned before and have not repented of the uncleanness, fornication, and lewdness which they have practiced. 
4. Galatians 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 
5. Ephesians 5:3 But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints; 
6. Colossians 3:5 Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. 
7. Revelation 14:8 And another angel followed, saying, “Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she has made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.” 
8. Revelation 17:2 with whom the kings of the earth committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth were made drunk with the wine of her fornication.” 
9. Revelation 17:4 The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls, having in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the filthiness of her fornication. 
10. Revelation 18:3 For all the nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth have become rich through the abundance of her luxury.” 
11. Revelation 18:9 [ The World Mourns Babylon’s Fall ] “The kings of the earth who committed fornication and lived luxuriously with her will weep and lament for her, when they see the smoke of her burning, 
12. Revelation 19:2 For true and righteous are His judgments, because He has judged the great harlot who corrupted the earth with her fornication; and He has avenged on her the blood of His servants shed by her.”

God Bless the Righteous.:pray:

sylvius

07-27-2012, 11:46 PM

Conclusion: I see nothing immoral if two consenting adults choose to have sex with each other.

Ain't it your evil inclanation that makes you conclude that way?

If it were that simple you even wouldn't have to bring forward the question.

Summertime, make love in the cornfields?

http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q262/suivlys/HofEspelo27juli2012009.jpg

But it doesn't go by itself.

Someone has to take the initiative.

Be it you or your partner.

It is usually the man, or even it is "the way of the man"

cf. Rashi on Genesis 1:28,

and subdue it: The“vav” [in וְכִבְשֻׁהָ is missing, [allowing the word to be read וְכִבְשָׁה, the masculine singular imperative] to teach you that the male subdues the female that she should not be a gadabout (Gen. Rabbah 8:12), and it is also meant to teach you that the man, whose way it is to subdue, is commanded to propagate, but not the woman (Yev. Yev. 65b).

You would like to have someone like Ruth to come to you on the threshing-floor.

But even then it's not that simple.

Aren't you already married? (Like Ploni Almoni). Father of children? Or even grandfather?

Your wife wouldn't consent.

Richard Amiel McGough

07-28-2012, 08:18 AM

Richard Amiel McGough

07-28-2012, 08:24 AM

Ain't it your evil inclanation that makes you conclude that way?

That begs the question because you are assuming that fornication is "evil."

I want to know why you think it is evil.

If it were that simple you even wouldn't have to bring forward the question.

If what were that "simple"?

But it doesn't go by itself.

Someone has to take the initiative.

Be it you or your partner.

It is usually the man, or even it is "the way of the man"

cf. Rashi on Genesis 1:28,

and subdue it: The“vav” [in וְכִבְשֻׁהָ is missing, [allowing the word to be read וְכִבְשָׁה, the masculine singular imperative] to teach you that the male subdues the female that she should not be a gadabout (Gen. Rabbah 8:12), and it is also meant to teach you that the man, whose way it is to subdue, is commanded to propagate, but not the woman (Yev. Yev. 65b).

So Rashi was a sexist rabbi. That's almost as surprising as discovering the Pope is Catholic.

You would like to have someone like Ruth to come to you on the threshing-floor.

But even then it's not that simple.

What are you talking about?

Aren't you already married? (Like Ploni Almoni). Father of children? Or even grandfather?

Your wife wouldn't consent.
Your comment is irrelevant. We're not talking about adultery.

sylvius

07-28-2012, 08:55 AM

That begs the question because you are assuming that fornication is "evil."

I didn't say that fornication is evil.

But that it is your "evil inclination" that says there is nothing wrong with it.

If what were that "simple"? To have "extra-marital" sex.

So Rashi was a sexist rabbi. That's what you make of it, or what your "sexist mind" makes of it.

What are you talking about? About having fun in the grainfields.

Your comment is irrelevant. We're not talking about adultery.

So only the unmarried can enjoy free sex?

But sexual ïntercourse is already kind of marriage.

sylvius

07-28-2012, 09:26 AM

There is a joke that says that every time that Adam returned home the first thing Eve did was count his ribs.

Richard Amiel McGough

07-28-2012, 11:06 AM

There is a joke that says that every time that Adam returned home the first thing Eve did was count his ribs.
:lmbo:

Richard Amiel McGough

07-28-2012, 11:14 AM

I didn't say that fornication is evil.

But that it is your "evil inclination" that says there is nothing wrong with it.

If it is my "yetzer hara" that says there is nothing wrong with it, then you are implying that there is something wrong with it. Maybe not "evil" but wrong. Immoral. Is that what you were trying to say? It would help if your put out a little more effort to make your posts understandable.

To have "extra-marital" sex.

Exactly. And that is "adultery." It has nothing to do with fornication (the topic of this thread).

That's what you make of it, or what your "sexist mind" makes of it.

I think you have a reading comprehension problem. It is not "my" mind that is sexist. It is the comment by Rashi that is totally sexist. He said that men are supposed to "subdue" women.

About having fun in the grainfields.

What are you talking about?

So only the unmarried can enjoy free sex?

That would depend upon what promises you made when you got married. Some married folks have "open marriages" in which they allow each other to have sex with others. But again, you are confusing fornication with adultery. Those are two entirely different subjects.

But sexual ïntercourse is already kind of marriage.
I used to think of sexual intercourse as implying marriage. Indeed, the act is called the "consummation of marriage." The two become "one flesh."

sylvius

07-28-2012, 11:20 AM

:lmbo:

I think that''s why she is "ezer k'negdo" , helpmate opposite him.

Genesis 2:20,
And Adam named all the cattle and the fowl of the heavens and all the beasts of the field, but for Adam he did not find a helpmate opposite him.

Rashi on Genesis 2:23,

This one this time: This teaches us that Adam came to all the animals and the beasts [in search of a mate], but he was not satisfied until he found Eve. — [from Yev. 63a]

Adam had enjoyed free sex with all the animals.
With Eve this came to an end, Eve didn't allow.

sylvius

07-28-2012, 12:02 PM

If it is my "yetzer hara" that says there is nothing wrong with it, then you are implying that there is something wrong with it. Maybe not "evil" but wrong. Immoral. Is that what you were trying to say? It would help if your put out a little more effort to make your posts understandable.

For example
internet is full of sex-sites.
Just type in on google something like "free porn" or "free sex" and a whole world opens.
You know you shouldn't do that, it's no good.
Yet you did it.
Once you did it, you say there was nothing wrong in it. Just typed in some letters, and did hit the ënter-button.
But these websites invite you to go further.
Who is the one that says: there is nothing wrong in it? It is just cyberspace.
Yet ever still there is someone that says : "don't do it" --

I think you have a reading comprehension problem. It is not "my" mind that is sexist. It is the comment by Rashi that is totally sexist. He said that men are supposed to "subdue" women.
Rashi explains what the bible says, or, as you wish, what God says.
"Male and female he created them" -- they are not equal. Males have sperms. females wombs.
"p'ru ur'vu" - be fruitful and multiply, Rashi says, is commanded to the males, not to the females. It is the order of creation.

What are you talking about?
About the threshing-floor.

That would depend upon what promises you made when you got married. .
That's about the marriage-contract.
But you got to make a date anyway. Date is kind of a contract.

I used to think of sexual intercourse as implying marriage. Indeed, the act is called the "consummation of marriage." The two become "one flesh."

You used to but not now anymore?

"one flesh" -

Rashi:

one flesh: The fetus is formed by them both, and there [in the child] their flesh becomes one. — [from Sanh. 58a]

Greatest I am

07-28-2012, 12:25 PM

"p'ru ur'vu" - be fruitful and multiply, Rashi says, is commanded to the males, not to the females. It is the order of creation.

:

Can a male reproduce without a female?
And if not, then the command would have to include females. Right?

Regards
DL

Greatest I am

07-28-2012, 12:34 PM

Before we debate on fornication, let's see what the Bible says about fornication and fornicators:

Fornicators:
[COLOR="#008000"]1. 1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 
:

I see idolaters is part of this list.

Note that all you have done is take bible verses and pasted them all over your golden cow.
You have hidden the cow but it is there nevertheless.

FMPOV, that makes you an idol worshipper.
Anyone who names a God is an idol worshipper.

I take it that you think the above list is immoral because it causes victims who are somehow hurt by the activity.
If it is so then I agree with you.

I do not agree if there is no one to complain or be hurt by the activity. No complaint + no sin.
Do you agree or can there be a victimless sin?

Regards
DL

Richard Amiel McGough

07-28-2012, 12:37 PM

For example
internet is full of sex-sites.
Just type in on google something like "free porn" or "free sex" and a whole world opens.
You know you shouldn't do that, it's no good.
Yet you did it.
Once you did it, you say there was nothing wrong in it. Just typed in some letters, and did hit the ënter-button.
But these websites invite you to go further.
Who is the one that says: there is nothing wrong in it? It is just cyberspace.
Yet ever still there is someone that says : "don't do it" --

I don't follow your point. What does it have to do with the morality of two adults having consensual sex?

Rashi explains what the bible says, or, as you wish, what God says.
"Male and female he created them" -- they are not equal. Males have sperms. females wombs.
"p'ru ur'vu" - be fruitful and multiply, Rashi says, is commanded to the males, not to the females. It is the order of creation.

Rashi "explains" how his ideas are the "real meaning" of what the Bible says. Why should anyone think his ideas are better than anyone else's? I don't understand why you idolize him so. Especially when he makes up silly things like the command to be "fruitful and multiply" applies only to males. Or that Adam enjoyed sex with all the animals. At some point you need to admit that Rashi could be wrong! He's not God, you know?

About the threshing-floor.

Yeah, so? What about the threshing floor? What does it have to do with the morality of fornication?

That's about the marriage-contract.
But you got to make a date anyway. Date is kind of a contract.

What's a "date" got to do with anything? Did you understand my point about how fornication doesn't exist if the society does not have a marriage institution? And so "fornication" cannot be a fundamentally immoral thing if its very definition is based on a cultural institution.

You used to but not now anymore?

Yes and no. Marriage in a metaphorical sense, of course.

"one flesh" -

Rashi:

one flesh: The fetus is formed by them both, and there [in the child] their flesh becomes one. — [from Sanh. 58a]

Imagine that! Rashi is wrong again. The NT clearly speaks of the "one flesh" as the union of the male and female, regardless of whether or not a child results from the "union."

1 Corinthians 6:16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

Greatest I am

07-28-2012, 12:41 PM

Ain't it your evil inclanation that makes you conclude that way?

.

Is reproduction not a normal function for any animal, human or not?
If so, why do you call what stops us from going extinct an evil inclination.

Without your parents having what you call evil inclinations, you would not be here.

I put up this tune elsewhere and it ends with a good thought promoter to the so called religious who are against abortion. Care to answer what you would do if it was your daughter?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5YrB7TpT1Y

Regards
DL

sylvius

07-28-2012, 01:07 PM

I don't follow your point. What does it have to do with the morality of two adults having consensual sex?

It was a bout your "evil inclination" versus your "good inclination" - it's very normal, we have both.

Rashi "explains" how his ideas are the "real meaning" of what the Bible says. Why should anyone think his ideas are better than anyone else's? at least better than yours ...

I don't understand why you idolize him so. Especially when he makes up silly things like the command to be "fruitful and multiply" applies only to males. Or that Adam enjoyed sex with all the animals. At some point you need to admit that Rashi could be wrong! He's not God, you know? I like it.

Yeah, so? What about the threshing floor? What does it have to do with the morality of fornication?

“I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.”

What's a "date" got to do with anything? Did you understand my point about how fornication doesn't exist if the society does not have a marriage institution?
It has nothing to do with society but with what man really is.

And so "fornication" cannot be a fundamentally immoral thing
I didn't say "immoral" --
Every marriage is like fornication, and every fornication is like marriage.

The NT clearly speaks of the "one flesh" as the union of the male and female, regardless of whether or not a child results from the "union." Is that so?
Wouldn't be meant that Jesus is the (ultimate) one flesh?
And that Genesis 2:24 has eschatological meaning?
Therefore, a man shall leave his father and his mother, and cleave to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. "
It is not Adam saying this.
Rashi:
Therefore, a man shall leave: The Divine Spirit says this
Same in Matthew 19:45,
Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’

1 Corinthians 6:16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
which is after Midrash, that Adam , when seperated from Eve, had intercourse with the night-demon Lilith, from which all demons were born.

sylvius

07-28-2012, 01:15 PM

Can a male reproduce without a female?
And if not, then the command would have to include females. Right?

Regards
DL

Rashi stated this in his comment on "v'chivshuha", mostly understood as: "and subdue it (the earth)"

Rashi:
The“vav” [in וְכִבְשֻׁהָ is missing, [allowing the word to be read וְכִבְשָׁה, "and subdue her".

sylvius

07-28-2012, 01:20 PM

Is reproduction not a normal function for any animal, human or not?
If so, why do you call what stops us from going extinct an evil inclination.

Without your parents having what you call evil inclinations, you would not be here.

I put up this tune elsewhere and it ends with a good thought promoter to the so called religious who are against abortion. Care to answer what you would do if it was your daughter?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5YrB7TpT1Y

Regards
DL

there is a saying:

Without the evil inclination no hen would lay anymore an egg.

http://www.torah.org/learning/rabbiwein/5768/bereishis.html?print=1

Our rabbis pondered the necessity for the evil inclination, for selfishness and self-gratification, to be present within us at all. The Talmud relates to us that at the time of the great Ezra, the Jewish leaders “trapped” the evil inclination and put out one of its eyes, however we will understand that metaphor. Therefore the rampant paganism that was present in First Temple times was greatly reduced amongst Jews in Second Temple times. The Talmud then asks why they did not put out the other eye as well. It answers that upon attempting to do so they realized that a hen would not continue to lay eggs and that the world as we know it could no longer function and exist

Richard Amiel McGough

07-28-2012, 01:25 PM

there is a saying:

Without the evil inclination no hen would lay anymore an egg.

http://www.torah.org/learning/rabbiwein/5768/bereishis.html?print=1

Our rabbis pondered the necessity for the evil inclination, for selfishness and self-gratification, to be present within us at all. The Talmud relates to us that at the time of the great Ezra, the Jewish leaders “trapped” the evil inclination and put out one of its eyes, however we will understand that metaphor. Therefore the rampant paganism that was present in First Temple times was greatly reduced amongst Jews in Second Temple times. The Talmud then asks why they did not put out the other eye as well. It answers that upon attempting to do so they realized that a hen would not continue to lay eggs and that the world as we know it could no longer function and exist

If all good is the result of the "evil inclination" then why call it "evil"?

I think the rabbinic philosophy is pretty silly at times. If the so-called "evil inclination" is mere "selfishness" then God is the most evil of all because he existed all alone for eternity and there is no "other" beside him, not to mention that he demands worship and so seems to have some sort of ego problem making him the most "selfish" being that ever existed! Everything was made for "his pleasure" and anyone who doesn't dance to his tune gets punished for eternity.

Richard Amiel McGough

07-28-2012, 01:29 PM

Rashi stated this in his comment on "v'chivshuha", mostly understood as: "and subdue it (the earth)"

Rashi:
The“vav” וְכִבְשֻׁהָ[/SIZE] is missing, [allowing the word to be read וְכִבְשָׁה, "and subdue her".

Ha! That word is from the root "kabash: -
כבש kabash {kaw-bash'} a primitive root; TWOT - 951; v AV - subdue 8, bring into subjection 3, bring into bondage 2, keep under 1, force 1, ; 15 1) to subject, subdue, force, keep under, bring into bondage 1a) (Qal) 1a1) to bring into bondage, make subservient 1a2) to subdue, force, violate 1a3) to subdue, dominate, tread down 1b) (Niphal) to be subdued 1c) (Piel) to subdue 1d) (Hiphil) to bring into bondage

Rashi really "put the kabash" on women rights, didn't he? Big surprise ... NOT.
to put the kabosh on:

[I]Fig. to squelch someone or something; to veto someone or someone's plans. I hate to put the kibosh on Randy, but he isn't doing what he is supposed to. Your comments put the kibosh on the whole project.

Why would do you idolize Rashi? I just don't get it. You quote him as if his writings were inspired by God.

Richard Amiel McGough

07-28-2012, 01:44 PM

It was a bout your "evil inclination" versus your "good inclination" - it's very normal, we have both.

It's not "normal" at all. Humans are not internally divided that way. We don't have "two inclinations" - one that is always "good" and one that is always "evil." We have ten thousand inclinations and it is silly to think we could simplistically divide them into "good vs. evil."

Rashi "explains" how his ideas are the "real meaning" of what the Bible says. Why should anyone think his ideas are better than anyone else's?
at least better than yours ...

:hysterical:

Thanks for the laugh.

I don't understand why you idolize him so. Especially when he makes up silly things like the command to be "fruitful and multiply" applies only to males. Or that Adam enjoyed sex with all the animals. At some point you need to admit that Rashi could be wrong! He's not God, you know?
I like it.

I like fiction too. But I don't think it's the "inerrant Word of God."

“I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.”

That's got nothing to do with anything we've been talking about. Your mind is totally scattered.

What's a "date" got to do with anything? Did you understand my point about how fornication doesn't exist if the society does not have a marriage institution?
It has nothing to do with society but with what man really is.

First, you didn't answer my question about "dates."

Second, you are entirely wrong when you say that the marriage institution "has nothing to do with society."

It might be true that man is supposed to be monogamous, but that's not evident from any evidence I've seen.

I didn't say "immoral" --
Every marriage is like fornication, and every fornication is like marriage.

Great! Then the Bible plainly states the fornication is good and holy.

Have you ever heard of logic? Let me spell it for you. L. O. G. I ... well, you get the idea. Or maybe not ...

The NT clearly speaks of the "one flesh" as the union of the male and female, regardless of whether or not a child results from the "union."
Is that so?
Wouldn't be meant that Jesus is the (ultimate) one flesh?
And that Genesis 2:24 has eschatological meaning?
Therefore, a man shall leave his father and his mother, and cleave to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. "
It is not Adam saying this.
Rashi:

Therefore, a man shall leave: The Divine Spirit says this
Same in Matthew 19:45,
Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’

It doesn't matter if there is an additional spiritual or eschatological meaning to "one flesh." My point stands. You said nothing to refute it.

which is after Midrash, that Adam , when seperated from Eve, had intercourse with the night-demon Lilith, from which all demons were born.
Once again you give me reason to reject the Jewish fables.

sylvius

07-28-2012, 01:52 PM

If all good is the result of the "evil inclination" then why call it "evil"?

Isaac is said to be blind since looking into heaven at the moment he was bound on the altar and ready to be slaughtered by his father

Rashi on Genesis 27:1,

When Isaac was bound on the altar, and his father was about to slaughter him, the heavens opened, and the ministering angels saw and wept, and their tears fell upon Isaac’s eyes. As a result, his eyes became dim (Gen. Rabbah 65:6)

which said to mean that he lost his evil inclination.

Rashi on Genesis 28:13,

and the God of Isaac: Although we do not find in Scripture that the Holy One, blessed be He, associates His name with that of the righteous during their lifetimes by writing “the God of so-and-so,” for it is said (Job 15:15):“Lo! He does not believe in His holy ones,” [i.e., God does not consider even His holy ones as righteous until after their deaths, when they are no longer subject to the evil inclination,] nevertheless, here He associated His name with Isaac because his eyes had become dim, and he was confined in the house, and he was like a dead person, the evil inclination having ceased from him (Tanchuma Toledoth 7).

And strange: Isaac loved Esau, the womanizer.

sylvius

07-28-2012, 02:08 PM

I I don't think it's the "inerrant Word of God." I thought you left that position.

you are entirely wrong when you say that the marriage institution "has nothing to do with society." i didn't say that.

It might be true that man is supposed to be monogamous.
I didn't say that too

It doesn't matter if there is an additional spiritual or eschatological meaning to "one flesh." My point stands. You said nothing to refute it.
"leave his father and his mother", that's what Abraham did, and to him was promised the seed.

Hebrew "zera", seed, is written with the same letters as "ezer" help(mate).

Eve could be "helpmate" because of her ability to receive Adam's seed, to conceive.
Something none of the animals could do.

Eliezer, Abrham's (318 trained) servant(s), has the same "ezer" in his name.

Once again you give me reason to reject the Jewish fables.

Did you never have a wet dream? ("nocturnal pollution")

Richard Amiel McGough

07-28-2012, 02:10 PM

Isaac is said to be blind since looking into heaven at the moment he was bound on the altar and ready to be slaughtered by his father

Rashi on Genesis 27:1,

When Isaac was bound on the altar, and his father was about to slaughter him, the heavens opened, and the ministering angels saw and wept, and their tears fell upon Isaac’s eyes. As a result, his eyes became dim (Gen. Rabbah 65:6)

More incoherent rubbish. The Bible reports that Isaac saw things after the events of Genesis 22:

Genesis 24:63 And Isaac went out to meditate in the field at the eventide: and he lifted up his eyes, and saw, and, behold, the camels were coming.

Why do you believe things merely because "it has been said"? Those rabbinic fantasies directly contradict what is written in the Bible.

which said to mean that he lost his evil inclination.

Rashi on Genesis 28:13,

and the God of Isaac: Although we do not find in Scripture that the Holy One, blessed be He, associates His name with that of the righteous during their lifetimes by writing “the God of so-and-so,” for it is said (Job 15:15):“Lo! He does not believe in His holy ones,” [i.e., God does not consider even His holy ones as righteous until after their deaths, when they are no longer subject to the evil inclination,] nevertheless, here He associated His name with Isaac because his eyes had become dim, and he was confined in the house, and he was like a dead person, the evil inclination having ceased from him (Tanchuma Toledoth 7).

Isaac had no "evil inclination"? That's a ridiculous assertion. The Bible neither says nor implies anything like that.

There is no end to the speculations and fantasies that Rashi promotes. Why do you believe any of it?

Richard Amiel McGough

07-28-2012, 02:16 PM

I thought you left that position.

Don't you understand anything? I was talking about your opinion of Rashi's writings.

It has nothing to do with society but with what man really is.
you are entirely wrong when you say that the marriage institution "has nothing to do with society."
i didn't say that.

Yes you did. Look at the words you wrote.

I didn't say that too

Apparently it doesn't matter what you say because you words make no sense. Indeed, you don't even try to make sense. You seem to delight in confusion.

It doesn't matter if there is an additional spiritual or eschatological meaning to "one flesh." My point stands. You said nothing to refute it.
"leave his father and his mother", that's what Abraham did, and to him was promised the seed.

Hebrew "zera", seed, is written with the same letters as "ezer" help(mate).

Eve could be "helpmate" because of her ability to receive Adam's seed, to conceive.
Something none of the animals could do.

Eliezer, Abrham's (318 trained) servant(s), has the same "ezer" in his name.

None of that has anything to do with what I said or the topic we are discussing. Your mind is totally scattered.

Did you never have a wet dream? ("nocturnal pollution")
Nope. I always woke up too soon. I found that rather frustrating as a youth.

But what does that have to do with the topic of this thread?

phinine

07-28-2012, 05:11 PM

answers to questions like these seem to be on how or what your perception of what sex or fornication is to you?? is it basically just a beastly desire or is there a deeper meaning (desire) to it all that we can find not in this world but the spiritual world? but if we have not experienced the spiritual world how can we perceive it.. and we bring these desires back down to the corporeality level??

In the spiritual world, the soul is in the state of “Zivug” (coupling, merging) with the Light. This is the unity of two parts of creation, a male and female, which brings the greatest pleasure there is: filling the soul with the Light. A prototype of the spiritual merger in the material world is physical coupling. That’s why (attraction to the opposite sex) is considered a foundation, a root of all desires and pleasures of our world, and preoccupies us so much.

Sexual pleasure in our world beautifully demonstrates the difference between the spiritual and physical merging. A person (a man) thinks about sex all the time and envisages enormous pleasure that awaits him, but after the peak, the satisfaction immediately disappears. A chase after another pleasure begins again….

Why? It is because the Light and desire annul each other. In other words, by filling the desire, the Light neutralizes the sensation of pleasure, similarly to how plus and minus cancel out each other. The disappearance of both leads to double emptiness. That’s why it’s written, “Dying, a person does not receive even a half of the desired.”

Spiritual pleasure works within us differently. To be in the spiritual world means to have the intention (screen) – an ability to receive pleasure (Light) into a desire (vessel, Kli) in order to bring pleasure to the other (a friend, the Creator). That requires a person to acquire the property of the Creator, the property of love and bestowal. Then a person reaches the spiritual coupling, ceaseless merging, which continues and intensifies constantly, giving one the sensation of eternal life.

Essentially, somewhere deep inside, in the soul, we all unconsciously aspire to this particular merging, and are created for it.

Richard Amiel McGough

07-28-2012, 05:29 PM

answers to questions like these seem to be on how or what your perception of what sex or fornication is to you?? is it basically just a beastly desire or is there a deeper meaning (desire) to it all that we can find not in this world but the spiritual world? but if we have not experienced the spiritual world how can we perceive it.. and we bring these desires back down to the corporeality level??

I can appreciate the Kabbalistic metaphors, but they don't really "speak to me" since they are rather abstract. I think reality it much simpler and "down to earth." First, there is the "beastly" aspect of sex - it's something fundamental and deep in our physical nature. There is nothing "moral" or "immoral" about this - it's just a bodily function like any other. Built in. But we are more than mere animals. We have minds, and probably a "spirit" too though all that is not clear to me. And so as animals with minds and language and poetry and memory and history and loves and desires we see that "sex" is fundamental to what it is to be human. And that's why "fornication" is not moral or immoral. It is defined in terms of a cultural institution called "marriage." Without that institution, there is no definition of "fornication" and so fornication is not a moral issue. But that doesn't mean there are no moral issues involved with having sex! On the contrary, if you lie, cheat, and deceive in order to use another person for your own personal gratification, then that is immoral. But it doesn't matter if you lie to get money, sex, power, or whatever. It is the lying and the abuse of another that makes it immoral. If you find a friend and you love each other and you want to hold hands, to kiss, to embrace, to join together in joy ... where is the immorality in that?

sylvius

07-29-2012, 12:31 AM

If you find a friend and you love each other and you want to hold hands, to kiss, to embrace, to join together in joy ... where is the immorality in that?

One more beautiful Rashi on Genesis 26:34,
And Esau was forty years old, and he married Judith, the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Basemath, the daughter of Elon the Hittite.

forty years old: Esau was compared to a swine, as it is said (Ps. 80:14): “The boar from the forest gnaws at it.” This swine, when it lies down, stretches out its hooves, as if to say, “See, I am a clean (kosher) animal.” So do these [the chiefs of Esau] rob and plunder and then pretend to be honorable. During the entire forty years, Esau kidnapped wives from their husbands and violated them. When he was forty years old, he said:“My father married at forty; I, too, will do the same.” [From Gen. Rabbah 65:1]

sylvius

07-29-2012, 01:11 AM

More incoherent rubbish. The Bible reports that Isaac saw things after the events of Genesis 22:

Genesis 24:63 And Isaac went out to meditate in the field at the eventide: and he lifted up his eyes, and saw, and, behold, the camels were coming.

He was blind for worldly affairs.

Genesis 24:63,
וַיֵּצֵא יִצְחָק לָשׂוּחַ בַּשָּׂדֶה , "vayeitzei yitschak lasuach bassadeh"
refers to Genesis 2:5,
וְכֹל שִׂיחַ הַשָּׂדֶה טֶרֶם יִהְיֶה בָאָרֶץ, "v'chol siach hassadeh terem yiyeh ba'arets"
from which you learn that Isaac indeed was enlighted (the evil inclination having ceased from him)

(Note "siach" has gematria 318, same as of the name Eliezer).

Rebecca did hold the reigns, after her name "r'veikah" = team , two or three animals yoked together.

Rebecca was a three year old girl by then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca

Isaac was 37 years old at the time of the Binding of Isaac, and news of Rebecca's birth reached Abraham immediately after that event. Isaac was forty years old when he married Rebecca, making Rebecca three years old at the time of her marriage

Rabbi Ginsburgh (http://www.rabbiginsburgh.com/2012/07/19/987/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheWondersOfYourTorah+%28The+ Wonders+of+Your+Torah%29):

(...)
Moses saw that they had taken the adult women into captivity, he rebuked the soldiers, because these very women had been the instruments of seduction that caused the plague in which so many Jews had died. The only captives to be kept alive were the “the baby women,” i.e. females under three years old, who were not yet capable of having marital relations.
The numerical value of the phrase “the baby women” (הַטַּף בַּנָּשִׁים) is 496, which is also the gematria of the word “kingdom” (מַלְכוּת)
(...)
Translating this idea into the psychological realm, we can understand that once we are victorious in our battle against the evil powers of the soul that wish to seduce us away from serving the Almighty, we must take captive the “baby girl” inside us (this is true for men and women alike). The “baby girl” represents the primal and pristine state of nothingness that is the raw material of pure judgment. Once we have returned to this formless state of judgment, our innate Jewish quality of kindness comes to the fore and forms the raw material into an ability to contribute with loving-kindness to our community.

See also Genesis 24:16,
Now the maiden was of very comely appearance, a virgin, and no man had been intimate with her, and she went down to the fountain, and she filled her pitcher and went up.

after which must be Luke 1:34,
But Mary said to the angel, How shall this be, since I know not a man?

From which you might conclude that Mary was a three years old girl when conceiving.

Alternate

10-07-2012, 01:54 AM

For me fornicating is immoral and, well, using only logic:

There is one unique feature of sex that differentiates it from other acts, its an act which results to procreation (pregnancy), and, as such, sex has a very significant repercussion. Just think of murder, while sex creates life, murder takes life, and as such, murder has such a great impact. Very little will argue that murder is immoral.

Now back to sex. Since sex creates life, it should be reasoned that the two who had created the new life should take responsibility of it. In times past before the manufacturing of contraceptives, bastardy is quite a problem (and still is now). These children live a very hard and terrible life often despised by others. More often children created out of wedlock are aborted, killed or abandoned.

When people fornicate, they didn't really have the commitment to take responsibility of the fruit of the union. And when their act does bear fruit this could lead to immoral acts like abortion, abandonment, infanticide. Thus fornication creates an innocent life that will be eradicated (like rats) or reared in a very harsh environment (say orphanage, poverty, contempt, etc.). People who fornicate condemned lives (future lives) to suffering and/or death.

Fornication also increases the risk of STDs. And for a fact, condoms does not protect you from many form of STD () as many said it would. Also, although condom is a really good protection from say AIDS, it does not eradicate the risk of infection (its not 100% safe); and most of this disease does not show symptoms or is difficult to detect. Aids for example could take 10 years before serious symptoms appear and you will be unknowingly infects your partners during the period. Not to mention, many who fornicate doesn't really use condoms (they use pills for example, which doesn't really give any protection against STDs) so many are risking spreading disease. Now think of it, is it moral to do things that could cause harm? Fornicating spreads STD, or at least a factor in increasing its victims.

Another thing about fornication is that it paved way to other immoral things. One of it is adultery. I have heard of a story of a woman who is hurt by her husband's affair, but then her husband has been 'cheating' on her when they are dating (fornicating). There are also studies that people who fornicate is very much likely to cheat than those who don't. Fornicating creates in people bad behaviour and bad habits which would be very difficult to break.

So to recap, fornication:

-condemn (future) lives to suffering and/or death.
-spreads STD and cases harm and/or death.
-paves way to other immoral acts.

I answer mostly in threes but of course there are other reasons. I would be glad to hear your view.

CWH

10-08-2012, 09:26 AM

Richard Amiel McGough

10-08-2012, 11:19 AM

Richard Amiel McGough

10-08-2012, 12:44 PM

Very excellent post Alternate! :thumb: Welcome to the forum. :welcome:

This shows the wisdom of God and the Bible. To add fornication leads to all sorts of evil and sexual sins and perversions. Can't imagine entering a town or city and see everybody indulged in sex and sexual perversions openly all the time. This will only lead to social disasters and the collapse of civilization. As I have said before, if our sexual organ caused us to sin, just cut it off, it is better to enter the kingdom of heaven without the sexual organ than to have the whole body and soul burnt in hell.

God Blessings to you.:pray:

You missed his error. He was talking about promiscuity, not fornication.

And I don't see how it shows any wisdom from God or the Bible. God promoted polygamy and the Bible is thoroughly sexist. And worse, God passed a group of women around like party treats from Saul, to David, to Absalom, with the express purpose that they be raped on a rooftop where everyone could see as punishment to David.
2 Samuel 12:11 Thus says the LORD, `Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your own house; and I will take your wives before your eyes, and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun. 12 For you did it secretly; but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.'"

So God took David's wives, which God had given him (proving that God actively promoted polygamy), and God caused them to be raped on a rooftop! God USED the women toi punish David. He didn't give a damn about them as people. It is typical amongst primitive men to use sex to humiliate an enemy. To rape a man's wife was to defile his property. That's what Yahweh did.

Now there's some "family values" for you to ponder.

Alternate

10-08-2012, 04:07 PM

Thanks for the interesting post. I agree that sex without commitment causes problems, but that's not the definition of fornication. Fornication is defined as sexual relations outside of marriage. Marriage is a social custom that differs from group to group. Therefore, two committed people in love would be "fornicating" if everything were identical with any couple "married" under some religious or social condition. Therefore all the arguments fall on this point.

But you made good points against promiscuity! :thumb:

But that's not what we were talking about.

Though my arguments fits promiscuity more closely, I chosen arguments that fits fornication too, in most cases.

Most people who fornicate does not really expect to have children, that is why they use contraceptives even if the person engaging in it had plans to marry in the future. If their act bears fruit, many, especially males, wants to get rid of the child. This often leads to abortion. Other times, one of the parents (especially the male) don't want to take responsibility of the child and leave the child and their partner resulting to single parenting. It also seem that you take my comment about commitment as one person's commitment to his/her partner. That is not what I mean. There are lots of variety of commitment and the commitment I am talking about is the commitment of one person to take care of their child. If you look back at my arguments, this would have been obvious. I'm talking about babies, fruit of the union, etc.; not the sexual partner. That is, fornicating people don't have commitment to shoulder responsibility of the result of their union.

In another side, fornication is the most common avenue for promiscuity. Just think of it, are promiscuous people married? Most people who are promiscuous are also unmarried, so even if fornication is not promiscuity per se, a culture where fornication is rampant means that culture is also promiscuous. After all, promiscuous people like to have lots of sex partners and fornication is a perfect ticket for to indulge in it. And also just think of it, when one says that this person is a fornicator, would you think that this person is monogamous or promiscuous? Your safe bet is that the person is promiscuous.

"Therefore all the arguments fall on this point." - My arguments would fall if the condition you stated is true but then how often is your condition true? How many are there who fornicate are really in love and is identical to married couple? Could you even honestly say that 20% or so of people who fornicate is in this form of relationship? From what I could see, your hypothetical situation is more of a fairy tale than reality. More often, very very often, fornication is more of sowing-wild-oats variety than identical-to-marriage variety. Then your case could be argued as only an exemption; and being an exemption, it should not make my arguments to fall, as you say. My arguments are still valid except of course to such exemption like yours.

To recap:

-Fornicating is still sex without commitment (I am am clear to what king of commitment I mean by this).
-Fornicating is a popular avenue for promiscuity.
-Your identical-to-married situation is a rare (very very rare) occurrence and should we say an exemption; thus does not make my arguments invalid.

"But you made good points against promiscuity!" - Thanks, but I hope you are able to see what my arguments really portray.

sylvius

02-08-2013, 03:43 AM

He was blind for worldly affairs.

Genesis 24:63,
וַיֵּצֵא יִצְחָק לָשׂוּחַ בַּשָּׂדֶה , "vayeitzei yitschak lasuach bassadeh"
refers to Genesis 2:5,
וְכֹל שִׂיחַ הַשָּׂדֶה טֶרֶם יִהְיֶה בָאָרֶץ, "v'chol siach hassadeh terem yiyeh ba'arets"
from which you learn that Isaac indeed was enlighted (the evil inclination having ceased from him)

(Note "siach" has gematria 318, same as of the name Eliezer).

I found this:

http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/biblical-horizons/no-133-abrams-318-men/

S. Gevirtz notes that 318 is the sum of all the prime numbers between 7 and 72, to wit: 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, & 47. [“Abram's 318,” Israel Exploration Journal 19 (1969):110-113.] There are twelve primes in this set. Certainly, then, 318 is an interesting number, incorporating both 7 and 12.

sylvius

02-08-2013, 04:13 AM

I found this:

http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/biblical-horizons/no-133-abrams-318-men/

It's of course sum of all the prime numbers between 7 and 49 (squared 7)

sylvius

02-08-2013, 06:53 AM

NT Lazarus is named so after Eliezer, "my God is helpmate"

His sickness might have had to do with "fornication"

John 11:1,

ην δέ τις ἀσθενῶν, Λάζαρος ἀπὸ Βηθανίας, ἐκ τῆς κώμης Μαρίας καὶ Μάρθας τῆς ἀδελφῆς αὐτῆ
there was someone sick, Lazarus from Bethany, out of the village of Maria and Martha her sister.

John 5:5 mentioned a certain man who had been sick for 38 years:

δέ τις ἄνθρωπος ἐκεῖ τριάκοντα [καὶ] ὀκτὼ ἔτη ἔχων ἐν τῇ ἀσθενείᾳ αὐτοῦ

which seems to be a gematrial play on the word "chol" = profane; (written "chet-lamed"), root of "choleh"= sickness.

cf. Rashi on Genesis 2:2,

And God completed on the seventh day: Rabbi Shimon said: [A human being of] flesh and blood, who cannot [exactly] know his times and his moments, must add from the profane to the holy [i.e., he must add some time to the Sabbath.] The Holy One, blessed be He, Who knows His times and His moments [exactly], entered it [the Sabbath] within a hairbreadth, and it therefore appeared as if He completed it [His work] on that day.

must add from the profane to the holy = צריך להוסיף מחול על הקודש "tsarich l'hosif meichol al hakodesh"

So Rashi seemingly alluded to the same, in writing "chol" with a "vav"

Remember: Sabbath is the bride.

Lazarus not being able to get her, which made him "lovesick".

http://ejmmm2007.blogspot.nl/2008/12/mystical-siddur-iv-lekha-dodi-sensual.html

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_iSxt6CtS94A/STlYC2v0e3I/AAAAAAAAAfw/c6MUlV9crMA/s400/janet.jpg

sylvius

02-09-2013, 07:17 AM

must add from the profane to the holy = צריך להוסיף מחול על הקודש "tsarich l'hosif meichol al hakodesh"

Same "hosif" Rashi used in his comment on "the sixth day":

יום הששי: הוסיף ה' בששי בגמר מעשה בראשית, "yom hashishi : hosif hey bashishi bigmar maaseh b'reishit"= the sixth day: It was added a "hey" to "shishi" at the completion of creation.

My stance is that "b'reishit bara" (in Genesis 1:1) corresponds to "b'hibaram" (in Genesis 2:4), in that "reishit" (= main thing) corresponds to the letter "hey" that was added to "shishi", where the lettervalue of "hey", being 5, is gematria of "ed" (translated with "mist" or "fountain"("pègè" LXX), "ed" without which nothing could grow and no "siach" could take root.

Note that "hibaram" is written with the same letters as Abraham, in that you might understand "b'reishit bara" as "For the sake of Abraham God created the heaven and the earth", etc.

No wonder that Eliezer , My-God-Is-Helpmate, with gematria 318, that coincides the number of 318 trained servants (of Genesis 14:14), was Abraham's servant, the steward of his household (Genesis 15:2)

sylvius

02-09-2013, 08:07 AM

"b'hibaram" is the 474th word from the beginning, which wouldn't have been the case if the earth had brought forth what was asked from her, viz. "ets pri oseh pri" instead of "ets oshe pri" (Genesis 1:11-12).

Then also the "tov" in Genesis 1:12 wouldn't have been the 153rd form the beginning, and "hashishi" in Genesis 1:31 wouldn't have been the 434th word.

474 is gematria of "daat"= knowledge.

434 is gematria of "delet"= door

153 is triangle 17, while 17 is gematria of "tov"= good.

The first "tov" occurred in Genesis 1:4, "vayar elohim et haor ki-tov", and God saw the light that it was good.

followed by "and God divided between the light and the darkness"

From which you might conclude that only God saw fornication to be good.
And not the fornicators themselves, since they met in secret.

Mystykal

05-05-2013, 11:03 PM

Though my arguments fits promiscuity more closely, I chosen arguments that fits fornication too, in most cases.

Most people who fornicate does not really expect to have children, that is why they use contraceptives even if the person engaging in it had plans to marry in the future. If their act bears fruit, many, especially males, wants to get rid of the child. This often leads to abortion. Other times, one of the parents (especially the male) don't want to take responsibility of the child and leave the child and their partner resulting to single parenting. It also seem that you take my comment about commitment as one person's commitment to his/her partner. That is not what I mean. There are lots of variety of commitment and the commitment I am talking about is the commitment of one person to take care of their child. If you look back at my arguments, this would have been obvious. I'm talking about babies, fruit of the union, etc.; not the sexual partner. That is, fornicating people don't have commitment to shoulder responsibility of the result of their union.

In another side, fornication is the most common avenue for promiscuity. Just think of it, are promiscuous people married? Most people who are promiscuous are also unmarried, so even if fornication is not promiscuity per se, a culture where fornication is rampant means that culture is also promiscuous. After all, promiscuous people like to have lots of sex partners and fornication is a perfect ticket for to indulge in it. And also just think of it, when one says that this person is a fornicator, would you think that this person is monogamous or promiscuous? Your safe bet is that the person is promiscuous.

"Therefore all the arguments fall on this point." - My arguments would fall if the condition you stated is true but then how often is your condition true? How many are there who fornicate are really in love and is identical to married couple? Could you even honestly say that 20% or so of people who fornicate is in this form of relationship? From what I could see, your hypothetical situation is more of a fairy tale than reality. More often, very very often, fornication is more of sowing-wild-oats variety than identical-to-marriage variety. Then your case could be argued as only an exemption; and being an exemption, it should not make my arguments to fall, as you say. My arguments are still valid except of course to such exemption like yours.

To recap:

-Fornicating is still sex without commitment (I am am clear to what king of commitment I mean by this).
-Fornicating is a popular avenue for promiscuity.
-Your identical-to-married situation is a rare (very very rare) occurrence and should we say an exemption; thus does not make my arguments invalid.

"But you made good points against promiscuity!" - Thanks, but I hope you are able to see what my arguments really portray.
-------------------------
Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
Thanks for the interesting post. I agree that sex without commitment causes problems, but that's not the definition of fornication. Fornication is defined as sexual relations outside of marriage. Marriage is a social custom that differs from group to group. Therefore, two committed people in love would be "fornicating" if everything were identical with any couple "married" under some religious or social condition. Therefore all the arguments fall on this point.
------------------------

:confused:
Just a note: Marriage in the UK post 1700AD was known as:

F ornication
U nder
C onsent of the
K ing

So.... FUCK is the accronym for marriage as it was placed on a sign on the door of the married couple. So that the definition of "fornication" today is WRONG!

Kind of like the word Gay! Word usage changes with the times. So the KJV use of the word "fornication" is very different from the definition being proposed here! The idea of marriage being legit and fornication is not is well... an opinion not based on 1611 KJV English!

David M

05-06-2013, 01:04 AM

Mystykal

05-08-2013, 02:28 AM

Also adding a few comments to think about.

"Thou shalt not commit adultery." (Exodus 20:14) is specifically one of the 10 commandments. Adultery is defined as; voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than his or her lawful spouse.

One definition of fornication is; voluntary sexual intercourse between two unmarried persons or two persons not married to each other. Fornication therefore is committed by an unmarried person.

Is marriage best described as when; an unmarried male virgin and an unmarried female virgin of adult age first have sex with each other and become "one flesh"?

A second definition of fornication is; 2. Bible. idolatry.

In what sense do you apply the word fornication to the city of Tyre as given in the example of Isaiah 23:17? Here is what that verse says;And it shall come to pass after the end of seventy years, that the LORD will visit Tyre, and she shall turn to her hire, and shall commit fornication with all the kingdoms of the world upon the face of the earth.

David

Hi Dave:

Let's not mix apples and oranges! The USE of the word "fornicate" or fornication in the Bible is not the same as saying that the word belongs there in the first place. In other words when you try and say that Exodus 20:14 is about "adultery" v/s any other sexual notion like say "prositution" - you are assuming that the "translators" in English got the word translation correct! In 1611 the word had a different meaning. So to now ignore that meaning and say it means a modern idea of a married person having sex outside of marriage is a huge jump. In like manner to say that the use of the word "fornication" has to do with "unmarried" couples having sex is also a stretch of the Old English usage of the word. And once you go down that type of path, well the Bible CAN be made to say anything you like!

◄ Isaiah 23:17 ►

New International Version (©2011)
At the end of seventy years, the LORD will deal with Tyre. She will return to her lucrative prostitution.
and will ply her trade with all the kingdoms on the face of the earth.

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
And it shall come to pass after the end of seventy years, that the LORD will visit Tyre, and she shall turn to her hire, and shall commit fornication with all the kingdoms of the world upon the face of the earth.

Notice that the SAME verse is translated with two different words in the place where you say ""fornication" belongs as a definition! The two words - "Fornication/prostitution are NOT the same thing. Remember the story of "the woman caught in adultery "? Now you can see that the translators want it three ways! But that is not possible if you are suggesting each word has a different root definition!
------
#868
lə·’eṯ·nan·nāh — 1 Occurrence
Isaiah 23:17
BIB: צֹ֔ר וְשָׁבָ֖ה לְאֶתְנַנָּ֑ה וְזָֽנְתָ֛ה אֶת־
NAS: Then she will go back to her harlot's wages and will play the harlot
KJV: and she shall turn to her hire, and shall commit fornication
INT: Tyre will go to her harlot's and will play with

--------
As you can see the words "fornication/prostitution" do NOT even occur as Hebrew thoughts/words in the verse in Hebrew! Word #868 is used ONCE in the Bible and has been given the meaning of "harlot". But notice in the KJV the word has been made into the phrase "to her hire". So that the word fornication is completely inserted by the translators at the end of the verse!

So I know you mean well....But you are mudding the waters with your illogical logic!

Namaste,

Mystykal

David M

05-09-2013, 11:40 AM

Hi Dave:

Let's not mix apples and oranges! The USE of the word "fornicate" or fornication in the Bible is not the same as saying that the word belongs there in the first place. In other words when you try and say that Exodus 20:14 is about "adultery" v/s any other sexual notion like say "prositution" - you are assuming that the "translators" in English got the word translation correct! In 1611 the word had a different meaning. So to now ignore that meaning and say it means a modern idea of a married person having sex outside of marriage is a huge jump. In like manner to say that the use of the word "fornication" has to do with "unmarried" couples having sex is also a stretch of the Old English usage of the word. And once you go down that type of path, well the Bible CAN be made to say anything you like!

◄ Isaiah 23:17 ►

New International Version (©2011)
At the end of seventy years, the LORD will deal with Tyre. She will return to her lucrative prostitution.
and will ply her trade with all the kingdoms on the face of the earth.

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
And it shall come to pass after the end of seventy years, that the LORD will visit Tyre, and she shall turn to her hire, and shall commit fornication with all the kingdoms of the world upon the face of the earth.

Notice that the SAME verse is translated with two different words in the place where you say ""fornication" belongs as a definition! The two words - "Fornication/prostitution are NOT the same thing. Remember the story of "the woman caught in adultery "? Now you can see that the translators want it three ways! But that is not possible if you are suggesting each word has a different root definition!
------
#868
lə·’eṯ·nan·nāh — 1 Occurrence
Isaiah 23:17
BIB: צֹ֔ר וְשָׁבָ֖ה לְאֶתְנַנָּ֑ה וְזָֽנְתָ֛ה אֶת־
NAS: Then she will go back to her harlot's wages and will play the harlot
KJV: and she shall turn to her hire, and shall commit fornication
INT: Tyre will go to her harlot's and will play with

--------
As you can see the words "fornication/prostitution" do NOT even occur as Hebrew thoughts/words in the verse in Hebrew! Word #868 is used ONCE in the Bible and has been given the meaning of "harlot". But notice in the KJV the word has been made into the phrase "to her hire". So that the word fornication is completely inserted by the translators at the end of the verse!

So I know you mean well....But you are mudding the waters with your illogical logic!

Namaste,

Mystykal

Hello Mystykall

I appreciate your answer. I merely give those definitions or comparisons, because that is whow most people are going to interpret those words. It would be good if you give us the original Hebrew words and their definitions as they applied at the time. I appreciate we must have the correct usage of the word the translators used in the KJV and that the translators might not have used the correct word. I know meanings of words in the English language have changed from when the word was used in the time of King James. Please make it very clear to me what we are to understand by the original Hebrew words where the translators have used the word "fornication" or adultery. I am interested to get to the truth and it will be good if there is a consensus of agreement from the other Hebrew scholars on this forum.

All the best

David

throwback

05-09-2013, 01:52 PM

Conclusion: I see nothing immoral if two consenting adults choose to have sex with each other.

I'd be very interested to know what others think.

As far as my understanding has taken me, morality is a social construction we have developed in order to coexist with others. So right or wrong, the morality of fornication must be viewed against a backdrop of whatever given paradigm(s) may exist not only for the persons directly involved, but also of the values of the society to which the consenting are forced to be a part of.

If the sex act only involved or affected the participants, and the participants are fully imformed on all of the 'risks' involved in sex, then I see no reason to find the act in any way objectionable. The problem I see is more societal than anything else as we have been conditioned to view the world in a familial, patriarchal, breed to pass along our genes sort of way. As long as the view is based on the paradigm that sort of deifies the family, sexual freedom will be frowned upon.

Richard Amiel McGough

05-09-2013, 04:35 PM

As far as my understanding has taken me, morality is a social construction we have developed in order to coexist with others. So right or wrong, the morality of fornication must be viewed against a backdrop of whatever given paradigm(s) may exist not only for the persons directly involved, but also of the values of the society to which the consenting are forced to be a part of.

While morality is fundamental to social groups I wouldn't call it a "social construction" because that gives the impression that it is arbitrary. I understand morality as the product of two things: 1) our empathetic biology and 2) our big brain. Given these two things - Love and Logic - we can understand objective morality. I explained this in my article The Logic of Love: A Natural Theory of Morality (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2012/10/25/the-logic-of-love-a-natural-theory-of-morality/). In essence, the Golden Rule is the "logic of love."

If the sex act only involved or affected the participants, and the participants are fully imformed on all of the 'risks' involved in sex, then I see no reason to find the act in any way objectionable. The problem I see is more societal than anything else as we have been conditioned to view the world in a familial, patriarchal, breed to pass along our genes sort of way. As long as the view is based on the paradigm that sort of deifies the family, sexual freedom will be frowned upon.
I agree but would add that it is not a "moral" issue at all because it does not involve any violation of the Golden Rule.

David M

05-09-2013, 11:57 PM

Quote Originally Posted by throwback View Post
As far as my understanding has taken me, morality is a social construction we have developed in order to coexist with others. So right or wrong, the morality of fornication must be viewed against a backdrop of whatever given paradigm(s) may exist not only for the persons directly involved, but also of the values of the society to which the consenting are forced to be a part of.

While morality is fundamental to social groups I wouldn't call it a "social construction" because that gives the impression that it is arbitrary. I understand morality as the product of two things: 1) our empathetic biology and 2) our big brain. Given these two things - Love and Logic - we can understand objective morality. I explained this in my article The Logic of Love: A Natural Theory of Morality (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2012/10/25/the-logic-of-love-a-natural-theory-of-morality/). In essence, the Golden Rule is the "logic of love."

The word "ethic" is defined as;

eth·ic
[eth-ik] Show IPA
noun
1.
the body of moral principles or values governing or distinctive of a particular culture or group: the Christian ethic; the tribal ethic of the Zuni.
2.
a complex of moral precepts held or rules of conduct followed by an individual: a personal ethic.

Who then, decides which group or individual has the best morals?

David

Richard Amiel McGough

05-10-2013, 10:15 AM

The word "ethic" is defined as;

eth·ic
[eth-ik] Show IPA
noun
1.
the body of moral principles or values governing or distinctive of a particular culture or group: the Christian ethic; the tribal ethic of the Zuni.
2.
a complex of moral precepts held or rules of conduct followed by an individual: a personal ethic.

Who then, decides which group or individual has the best morals?

David
Good morning David,

There is a lot of confusion in the topic of "ethics" and "morality." Here is the definition from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

The term “morality” can be used either

descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or,

some other group, such as a religion, or
accepted by an individual for her own behavior or

normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

The kind of "ethics" or "morality" that you are talking about are just "cultural norms" that may or may not have anything to do with what is really right or wrong. That kind of ethics is just a social construct and has no foundation in objective reality. It is moral relativism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism).

I do not believe that moral relativism is correct. I believe that some things really are right or wrong just like arithmetical statements are objectively right or wrong. If we are talking about objective morality then your question "Who then, decides which group or individual has the best morals?" would be nonsensical. That would be like asking "Who decides who has the best arithmetic?" There is no "best arithmetic." All rational people agree that 1 + 2 = 3. The same goes for morality. I explain this more in my article The Logic of Love: A Natural Theory of Morality (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2012/10/25/the-logic-of-love-a-natural-theory-of-morality/).

All the best,

Richard

Mystykal

05-11-2013, 01:03 AM

Hello Mystykall

I appreciate your answer. I merely give those definitions or comparisons, because that is whow most people are going to interpret those words. It would be good if you give us the original Hebrew words and their definitions as they applied at the time. I appreciate we must have the correct usage of the word the translators used in the KJV and that the translators might not have used the correct word. I know meanings of words in the English language have changed from when the word was used in the time of King James. Please make it very clear to me what we are to understand by the original Hebrew words where the translators have used the word "fornication" or adultery. I am interested to get to the truth and it will be good if there is a consensus of agreement from the other Hebrew scholars on this forum.

All the best

David

Hi David:

I seriously doubt that you will ever get agreement within the theological community of scholars as they ALL have some sort of agenda to protect! So when you talk with Roman Catholic Hebrew scholars or Jewish Hebrew scholars they will argue their definitions of words and phrases into the ground and never agree.

So if you go to Biblos.com you will find basic software which explains from many views the actual words used to translate the word fornicate, adultery and prostitution. But that does not even begin to bring out a true understanding since the assumptions of the scholars are evident within the translation process itself. So even after they tell you their defintion of a word they violate their own rules and are not consistent as they translate the Bible into whatever language they are using.

So... having set my out my disclaimer I will make a few suggestions.

Understand that the commandment which says "Thou shalt not kill" is understood by most theologians to mean "murder". Now then that requires an understanding that kill and murder have different root meanings. In English those words take on legal meanings which stretch the words even further! So then when you are looking for the "original intent" of the word as used in the commandment you really must understand the social/ethics of the time which were not well defined.

The establishment of Israel as the ONLY nation "under GOD" has created great problems in modern times as to the way we should understand moral issues as practices by OTHER ethnicities and cultures. Here in the west we seem to be caught between Greek/Roman culture and Judiaism as a standard for moral judgment and understanding. All of these culltures held deities as the source of their morality. Of course if you asked what about the other cultures around them they all denied the divine origins of the OTHER cultures.

As an example: << 1 Corinthians 10:8 >>

Neither let us commit fornication as some of them committed and fell in one day three and twenty thousand

4203 [e] porneuōmen πορνεύωμεν should we commit sexual immorality
4203 [e] eporneusan ἐπόρνευσαν committed sexual immorality,

In Greek we see one verse use two different spellings for the same 4203 numbered word. Which in Greek means that the tense of the root word is changed. Now, one spelling/usages is only used ONCE! And the other is used three times. So that the Greek language is so multi-faceted that it cannot be narrowed to match the simple word structure of Hebrew. This creates a huge problem for theologians who insist that the Old Testament is identical in thought as the New Testament. This just isn't the case. And then the Old Testament was translatated into Grreek and then BACK into Hebrew. So much of the translations used today are actually based on the Greek and NOT on the Aramaic/Hebrew. This is how much of the terms got re-defined in the KJV and other translations.

... So now while theologians argue about the meaning of the Greek words turned into Hebrew words and back into other Hebrew words we have to ask ourselves, "Where is the truth? Why all the confusion? Can we really get to the truth under the lies?"

The hebrew/Aramaic meanings were simple. To the point. Marriages were for the most part arranged in the Old Testament. The Levitical code appears to prohibit sexual practices associated with prostitution. However, This may be due to the Hellenistic legal prohibition against prostitution in the late 2nd Century AD. And since the Old Testament was being translated and read by Jews in that period and the original Hebrew text were not readily available all translations were made from the so called "corruptted" Mss. texts.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/590794/Theodotion

heodotion, (flourished 2nd century ad), Hellenistic Jewish scholar and linguist and author of a Greek translation of the Old Testament. According to two early Christian writers of the 2nd and 4th centuries, Theodotion probably came from Ephesus in Asia Minor. He is reported to have adopted the Jewish faith after having been a Gnostic. Early historians assign his work of translation to c. 180–190.

Theodotion’s version appeared in the sixth column of Origen’s Hexapla, a 3rd-century version of the Old Testament presenting six Greek and Hebrew texts in parallel columns. It is not so much an independent translation as a revision of the Septuagint—the earliest Greek translation, dating in part from the 3rd century bc—supplying its omissions. Peculiar Hebrew words are not translated but transliterated into Greek letters, either in order to avoid conjectural readings or to give an authentic colour to the version. The popularity of Theodotion’s translation in the early church can be deduced from its fragments that fill gaps in the Septuagint text of Jeremiah and from its version of Daniel that replaces the Septuagint translation. It was quoted in the 2nd century in the Shepherd of Hermas and by the Christian apologist Justin Martyr. The replacement of Daniel was so thorough that only two manuscripts (one of about the 3rd century and one of the 11th century) of the Greek Old Testament contain the Septuagint version. Theodotion’s version of Daniel may go back to an older translation. The extant manuscripts of the Theodotion text were published in 1875.

http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/translations.stm

The Septuagint
The Septuagint (from the Latin word septuaginta meaning seventy) was a Greek version of the Bible created during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (ca. 285-246 BCE) in Alexandria, Egypt for Diaspora Jews. Most of Jews living outside of Palestine were Greek-speaking as a result of Alexander the Great's (357-323 BCE) campaign to Hellenize his empire.

At first, the Septuagint (LXX) consisted only of the Pentateuch (Torah, first five books of the Bible). Different books were translated from the Hebrew over a span of two centuries, including the books of the Apocrypha, and were added to the LXX. Since the Greek used in the LXX reflects an Alexandrian origin, the scholars who created it were most likely Alexandrian rather than Palestinian, as was suggested by a legend circulated by a writer who called himself Aristeas.

From Alexandria, use of the LXX spread to other Jews of the dispersion. Not surprisingly, early Christians, most of whom spoke Greek, also used the LXX, even in Palestine where they also knew Hebrew. The Septuagint became a very popular translation and a useful tool for evangelization. Many Christians during the time of Origen of Alexandria (185-254), for example, valued the LXX as strongly as many 20th-century Christians value the King James Version of the Bible. Origin studied Hebrew texts and revised the LXX. He then published the Hexapla, which featured six translations of the entire Old Testament divided in columns, including his version of the LXX.

Among Hellenistic Jews, two views of the Septuagint developed. One group thought the translation was too loose and revised the books in order to make them a more literal translation. Aquila, a Jewish proselyte produced such a translation ca. 128. Others, like Philo of Alexandria (c. 15 BCE-50 CE), believed that the original Greek translators of the LXX were inspired and shared equal authority with the original Hebrew version. Jewish reaction against the LXX began in the first century and grew until Judaism rejected it entirely in the second century. Christians, on the other hand, followed the view of Philo.

Today members of the Eastern Church who speak Greek still hold the Septuagint in high regard. It remains the official translation of the Old Testament for them.

Notice that the Greek Old Testament was and is rejected by the Jewish community!. They consider it corrupted.
So the notions of prostitution, and adultery of the Greek Hellinized world are not the same as the Jewish terms and ideas. So when you "read" your KJV version keep in mind it does not reflect the Jewish notions of marriage, fornication and adultery. Even in the Old Testament portions!

http://biblescripture.net/Canon.html

Following the Roman destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 AD, the rabbinical school of the Pharisees in Jamnia became a center of religious thought. Faced with the affinity of the early Christians for the Greek Septuagint, it is believed that they refined the books traditional to Judaism, particularly the Writings. Jamnia considered 4 criteria to determine which of the Writings - such as Ecclesiastes, Esther, and Song of Songs - should be retained for the Hebrew canon for Judaism: the book should conform to the Pentateuch; it was written before the time of Ezra (circa 400 BC); it was written in Hebrew; and it was composed in Israel/Judea.

The Hebrew canon for Judaism recognized 10 books less than the Canon of the Greek Septuagint. The Law contained the Pentateuch of Moses. The Prophets included the Former Prophets that are part of the Historical Books, the Major Prophets, and the Prophets of the Book of the Twelve. The Writings comprised a body of wisdom literature, history, poetry, and songs. The Masoretic Hebrew Text of Galilee developed from the eighth through tenth century AD confirmed the Hebrew canon for Judaism.

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/gendersexuality/tp/History-of-Prostitution.htm

Prostitution
An Illustrated History and Timeline
By Tom Head, About.com Guide

.See More About prostitution sex workers
Contrary to the old cliché, prostitution is almost certainly not the world's oldest profession--that would be hunting and gathering, perhaps followed by subsistence farming--but it has been found in nearly every civilization on Earth stretching back throughout all recorded human history. We can say with some confidence that wherever there have been money, goods, or services to be bartered, somebody has bartered them for sex.
18th Century BCE: Code of Hammurabi Refers to Prostitution
Public domain. Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.The Code of Hammurabi includes provisions to protect the inheritance rights of prostitutes, the only category of women (except for widows) who had no male providers:
If a "devoted woman" or a prostitute to whom her father has given a dowry and a deed therefor ... then her father die, then her brothers shall hold her field and garden, and give her corn, oil, and milk according to her portion ...

If a "sister of a god," or a prostitute, receive a gift from her father, and a deed in which it has been explicitly stated that she may dispose of it as she pleases ... then she may leave her property to whomsoever she pleases.
To the extent that we have records of the ancient world, prostitution appears to have been more or less ubiquitous.
6th Century BCE: Solon Establishes State-Funded Brothels
Public domain. Image courtesy of the Art Renewal Center.Greek literature refers to three classes of prostitutes: pornai, or slave prostitutes; freeborn street prostitutes; and hetaera, educated prostitute-entertainers who enjoyed a level of social influence that was denied to nearly all non-prostitute women. Pornai and street prostitutes, appealing to a male clientele, could be either female or male. Hetaera were always female.

According to tradition, Solon established government-supported brothels in high-traffic urban areas of Greece--brothels staffed with inexpensive pornai that all men, regardless of income level, could afford to hire.

Prostitution would remain legal throughout the Greek and Roman periods, though later, Christian Roman emperors strongly discouraged it.
AD 590 (ca.): Reccared Bans Prostitution
Public domain. Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.The newly-converted Reccared I, Visigoth King of Spain, banned prostitution as part of an effort to bring his country into alignment with Christian ideology. There was no punishment for men who hired or exploited prostitutes, but women found guilty of selling sexual favors were whipped 300 times and exiled, which in many cases would have been tantamount to a death sentence.

http://books.google.com/books?id=bK4bSL0H75QC&pg=PA50&lpg=PA50&dq=Greek+prohibition+on+prostitution&source=bl&ots=QLzYST3eOq&sig=ApaZDeJ01qDpCDxNyvC1HMbidQQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=l0qPUa6aI5CxigLY84CAAw&sqi=2&ved=0CG8Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Greek%20prohibition%20on%20prostitution&f=false

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_prostitution
Sacred Prostitution
Ancient Greece [edit]Main article: Prostitution in ancient Greece#Temple prostitution in Corinth
In Ancient Greece, "sacred prostitution" was known in the city of Corinth where the temple of Aphrodite employed a significant number of female servants, hetairai, during classical antiquity.

Hellenized world [edit]In the Greek-influenced and -colonized world, "sacred prostitution" was known in Cyprus (Greek-settled since 1100 BC), Sicily (hellenized since 750 BCE), in the Kingdom of Pontus (8th century BC) and in Cappadocia (ca. 330 BC hellenized).

In 2 Maccabees 6:1-4 the ‘Greek’ rulers of Jerusalem (king Antiochus IV Epiphanes of the Seleucid Empire in Anatolia, Syria and eastward) are accused of desecrating the Jerusalem Temple and calling it the temple of Olympian Zeus and bringing prostitutes (hetairai) into that Jerusalem Temple and having sex with them there:

The Gentiles filled the temple with debauchery and revelry; they amused themselves with prostitutes and had intercourse with women even in the sacred court.

The practice of sacred prostitution is well disputed among scholars, partly due to doubts cast on the histories of Herodotus.[4]

According to Samuel Noah Kramer in The Sacred Marriage Rite, in late Sumerian history kings established their legitimacy by taking part in the ceremony in the temple for one night, on the tenth day of the New Year festival Akitu.[5] The goddess temples were closed down by emperor Constantine in the 4th century.[6]

Sacred Marriage [edit]The practice of sacred prostitution has not been substantiated regarding any Ancient Near Eastern cultures, despite many popular descriptions of the habit.[7] It is a general belief among scholars that a form of "Sacred Marriage" ritual or Hieros gamos was staged between the king of a Sumerian city-state and the High Priestess of Inanna, the Sumerian goddess of sexual love, fertility, and warfare, but to date there is no certain evidence that sexual intercourse was included. Along the Tigris and Euphrates rivers there were many shrines and temples dedicated to Inanna. The temple of Eanna, meaning "house of heaven"[8] in Uruk[9] was the greatest of these.

The temple housed priestesses of the goddess, but there is no evidence whatsoever that any kind of sexual services were performed by them or other women included in any cult.[10][11][12][13]

In the Hebrew Bible [edit]The Hebrew Bible uses two different words for prostitute, zonah (זנה)‎[14][15] and kedeshah (or qedesha) (קדשה)‎.[16][17] The word zonah simply meant an ordinary prostitute or loose woman.[15] But the word kedeshah literally means "consecrated (feminine form)", from the Semitic root q-d-sh (קדש)‎ meaning "holy" or "set apart".[16]

Whatever the cultic significance of a kedeshah to a follower of the Canaanite religion, the Hebrew Bible makes it clear that cultic prostitution had no place in Yahwism. Thus Deuteronomy 23:18-19 tells followers:

None of the daughters of Israel shall be a kedeshah, nor shall any of the sons of Israel be a kadesh.
You shall not bring the hire of a prostitute (zonah) or the wages of a dog (kelev) into the house of the Lord your God to pay a vow, for both of these are an abomination to the Lord your God.

Stephen O. Murray writes that biblical passages ban qdeshim and link them with gods and 'forms of worship detested by orthodox followers of Yahweh'[18] Celia Brewer Sinclair has written that 'the ethical demands of the covenant preclude worshiping Yahweh in licentious sexual rites (sacred prostitution)"[19] The meaning of the male form kadesh or qadesh is not entirely clear.[20] The Hebrew word kelev (dog) in the next line may also signify a male dancer or prostitute.[21]

In the Book of Ezekiel, Oholah and Oholibah appear as the allegorical brides of God who represent Samaria and Jerusalem. They became prostitutes in Egypt, engaging in prostitution from their youth. Both are guilty of religious and political alliance with heathen nations.[22]

In other texts [edit]The Akkadian counterpart of Inanna was Ishtar, and the Canaanite equivalent was Astarte, who was accepted by the Greeks under the name of Aphrodite and the Roman equivalent was Venus.

According to the contemporary Christian writer Eusebius temple prostitution was still being practised in the Phoenician cities of Aphaca and Heliopolis (Baalbek) until closed down by the emperor Constantine in the 4th century.[6]

-----------
So, Sacred prostitution was acepted and regular street prostitution was not considered "moral" by the Greeks but if the prositute was "registered" she had a lawful occupation.

http://prostitution.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000117
594 B.C.
Legal Brothels in Ancient Greece
"The celebrated Athenian lawmaker and lyric poet Solon founded state brothels and taxed prostitutes on their earnings in the 5th century BC.... The cost of sex was one obole, a sixth of a drachma and the equivalent of an ordinary worker's day salary."
Paul Vallely "A Brief History of Brothels," The London Independent, Jan. 21, 2006
5th century B.C.
Hetairai in Ancient Greece

"[He]taira...a 'female companion'...was the term normally used for courtesans in Classical Athens...They were generally more cultivated than citizen women; they were trained (usually by older hetairai) to be entertaining and interesting rather than to be thrifty managers of households...Some hetairai functioned as entrenched mistresses or even common-law wives, but others less fortunate were essentially prostitutes."
Sarah B. PomeroyAncient Greece A Political, Social, and Cultural History, 1999
"Apasia, was a hetaira, one of the highly educated women from eastern Greece who entertained and accompanied men in many of their festivals, often including sex. As the mistress of Perikles, a principal ruler of Athens in the mid-fifth century B.C.E., Aspasia's influence on the Athenian leader was reputedly enormous; at various times his policies and speeches were ascribed to her."
Bella VivanteWomen's Roles in Ancient Civilizations: A Reference Guide, 1999

180 B.C.
Roman Regulations

Roman brothel token circa 1st Century AD
Source: www.museumoflondon.org.uk, Jan. 5, 2012
"Rent from a brothel was a legitimate source of income.... Procuration also, had to be notified before the aedile [government regulators], whose special business it was to see that no Roman matron became a prostitute.... [I]n the year 180 B C. Caligula inaugurated a tax upon prostitutes (vectigal ex capturis)...
When an applicant registered with the aedile, she gave her correct name, her age, place of birth, and the pseudonym under which she intended practicing her calling. (Plautus, Poen.)

If the girl was young and apparently respectable, the official sought to influence her to change her mind; failing in this, he issued her a license (licentia stupri), ascertained the price she intended exacting for her favors, and entered her name in his roll. Once entered there, the name could never be removed, but must remain for all time an insurmountable bar to repentance and respectability. Failure to register was severely punished upon conviction, and this applied not only to the girl but to the pandar [sic] as well. The penalty was scourging, and frequently fine and exile. Notwithstanding this, however, the number of clandestine prostitutes at Rome was probably equal to that of the registered harlots."
W. C. Firebaugh Notes in his translation of The Satyricon, Complete (1922) by Petronius Arbiter

438 A.D.
Codex Theodosianus
"...[T]he Code issues by Christian [Byzantine] Emperor Theodosius [II]... deprived fathers and mothers of their legal right to compel their daughters or slaves to prostitute themselves. The code also took steps to abolish the prostitution tax, thus giving the state less of a financial interest in prostitution..."
Vern BulloughBonnie BulloughProstitution: An Illustrated Social History (1978)

https://sites.google.com/site/hashtaumd/contents-1/prost
But in Jewish tradition, the theme of the ability of prostitutes to entirely repent and convert to Judaism begins far earlier than the Talmud, with one of the earliest stories involving a prostitute in Jewish texts, the biblical story in the book of Joshua.

Joshua son of Nun secretly sent two spies from Shittim, saying, “Go, reconnoiter the region of Jericho.” So they set out, and they came to the house of a harlot named Rahab and lodged there. The king of Jericho was told, “Some men have come here tonight, Israelites, to spy out the country.” The king of Jericho thereupon sent orders to Rahab: “Produce the men who came to you and entered your house, for they have to spy out the whole country.” The woman, however, had taken the two men and hidden them…(Joshua 2.1-4)

The text continues to explain the deal that Rahab makes with the spies—in exchange for their lives she asks for a signal that will allow her family to escape unharmed when the Israelites attack Jericho. Rahab and her household are indeed “spared by Joshua…and she dwelt among the Israelites” (Joshua 6.25).

The fact that Rahab’s house was in the wall of the city “suggests that she kept a house easily available to men going in and out of the city, in the outlying quarters away from the daily life of the respectable inhabitants of the town” (Bronner 148). This returns to the way in which prostitutes were the outsiders, the “other” in antiquity, no matter how necessary or inevitable their existence was. Here Rahab is the heroine of the story, and is duly rewarded. Her story has sometimes been read as a mere momentary spotlight for the prostitute, as by Phyllis Bird in “Prostitution in the Social World and Religious Rhetoric of Ancient Israel”. She writes, “The valor and nobility exhibited by the prostitute does not change her status. The harlot heroine remains a harlot. She is lifted up for a moment into the spotlight by the storyteller, but her place remains in the shadows of Israelite society.” (Bird 49) While this may be a good reading of these chapters of the Bible at first glance, to get the entire picture one must really take into account the rest of rabbinic tradition and literature.

Although some medieval commentators offered a “sanitized version” of Rahab, saying that she was an innkeeper or a perfumer and not a prostitute (Bronner 149), most sources in the Jewish tradition do not try to deny her profession. One opinion expressed in the Talmud is that “There was no prince or ruler who had not slept with Rahab the prostitute” (Tractate Zevachim 116b). Leila Leah Bronner explains that “Several Talmudic traditions hold that Rahab had played the harlot throughout the forty years that the Israelites wandered in the desert (she took up harlotry at the age of ten)” (Bronner 149). But while they do not deny, and perhaps even exaggerate, Rahab’s experiences as a prostitute, they at the same time allow her an honored place in Jewish tradition. In several sources “the rabbi’s tradition marries her to Joshua, the conquering hero…she becomes a progenitor of priests and prophets” (Bronner 149). Her past as a harlot is not held against her, and is almost entirely forgotten once she converts to Judaism.

In a similar way to the Talmudic statements regarding Rahab’s prolific activity as a harlot, Apollodorus repeatedly mentions the sheer number of men who were customers of Neaera. He says “On that occasion, many men made love to Neaera…including even some of Chabrias’ servants” (Apollodorus 33). Her work as a prostitute is mentioned as an element of the disgrace associated with her, because she was excessive in her habits. “She worked openly at Corinth as a prostitute, and became famous. Among her lovers were Xenoclides the poet…” (Apollodorus 26).

However, much unlike Rahab, Neaera is never permitted to become a citizen and accepted member of Greek society. Much of Apollodorus’ efforts in his speech go to proving her a foreigner and her children illegitimate citizens of Athens. “I now desire to prove to you…that she is an alien,” he comments, and then later repeats “Let me put before you another piece of evidence…to prove that Neaera is a foreigner” (Apollodorus 49, 55). This is the exact opposite of the rabbinic efforts to eliminate Rahab’s past and make her a character to be admired, emulated, a mother not of illegitimate children but of sages and prophets. Even the fact that this case against Neaera occurs when she is an old women shows that the prejudice against prostitutes was great. She had been living as a citizen for years, and at seventy years old, her past was dragged up to be used against her in court.

http://home.comcast.net/~mikibu/Articlefolder/prostitution.htm

Women of the streets were those who sold their sexual services by walking the streets in search of customers. In ancient times slaves made up the lowest class of prostitutes. These were the "temple prostitutes." Because of their association with state religions, many authors have assumed that prostitution carried no stigma in these cultures.[9] In actuality, the association with the temples was solely economic. The slave prostitutes carried on their business in the streets and taverns and turned their earnings over to priests to support the temples. This was the case in Babylonia, Egypt, Palestine, Greece, and Rome.[10] Confusion is caused by incorrectly equating these women with the priestesses who had ritual sex as part of various religious rites. This has been labelled prostitution by many authors, though it bears no resemblance to any modern definition.[11] Most of the former group worked the streets, although in Greece and Rome, large brothels were considered an easier way to control them. Solon, the Athenian lawgiver of the 6th century B.C., owned a large brothel populated with slaves.[12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_ancient_Rome

Marriage in ancient Rome was a strictly monogamous institution: a Roman citizen by law could have only one spouse at a time. The practice of monogamy distinguished the Greeks and Romans from other ancient civilizations, in which elite males typically had multiple wives. Greco-Roman monogamy may have arisen from the egalitarianism of the democratic and republican political systems of the city-states. It is one aspect of ancient Roman culture that was embraced by early Christianity, which in turn perpetuated it as an ideal in later Western culture.[2]

So from the above statements we see that the whole idea of marriage - monogamous marriage is not "Christian" per se but Grecko-Roman cultural practice. So that then adultery was very different in style in the Old Testament and hence prostitution as well would not be defined in the way a monogamous single wife/husband cultutre would define it.

Note: In the story about GOD in the Book of Ezekiel, Oholah and Oholibah appear as the allegorical brides of God who represent Samaria and Jerusalem. // So the IHVH of the Old Testament was a "polygamist!" Not an accepted form of marriage in the west!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogamy

Betzig postulated that culture/society can also be a source of social monogamy by enforcing it through rules and laws set by third-party actors, usually in order to protect the wealth or power of the elite.[41][57][58] For example, Augustus Caesar encouraged marriage and reproduction to force the aristocracy to divide their wealth and power among multiple heirs, but the aristocrats kept their socially monogamous, legitimate children to a minimum to ensure their legacy while having many extra-pair copulations.[57] Similarly—according to Betzig—the Christian Church enforced monogamy because wealth passed to the closest living, legitimate male relative, often resulting in the wealthy oldest brother being without a male heir.[58] Thus, the wealth and power of the family would pass to the “celibate” younger brother of the church.[58] In both of these instances, the rule-making elite used cultural processes to ensure greater reproductive fitness for themselves and their offspring, leading to a larger genetic influence in future generations.[57][58] Furthermore, the laws of the Christian Church, in particular, were important in the evolution of social monogamy in humans.[58] They allowed, even encouraged, poor men to marry and produce offspring which reduced the gap in reproductive success between the rich and poor, thus resulting in the quick spread of monogamous marriage systems in the western world.[58] According to B. S. Low, culture would appear to have a much larger impact on monogamy in humans than the biological forces that are important for non-human animals.[41]

Religious and anthropological sources... Betzig's contention that monogamy evolved as a result of Christian socio-economic influence in the West is weakened by monogamy being widespread idea in the ancient Middle East much earlier. In Israel's pre-Christian era, an essentially monogamous ethos underlay the Jewish creation story (Gn 2) and the last chapter of Proverbs.[59][60] During the Second Temple period, apart from economic situation which supported monogamy even more than in earlier period, the concept of mutual fidelity between husband and wife was a quite common reason for strictly monogamous marriages. The will that the marriage remains monogamous was explicitly expressed in some marriage documents. Examples of these documents were found in Elephantine. They were similar to those found in neighbouring Assyria and Babylonia.[59] Study shows that ancient Middle East societies, though not strictly, were practically at least on commoners level monogamous.[61][62] Halakha of the Dead Sea Sect saw prohibition of polygamy as coming from the Pentateuch (Damascus Document 4:20–5:5, one of the Dead Sea Scrolls). Christianity adopted a similar attitude (cf. 1 Tm 3:2,12; Tt 1:6), which was in conformity with Jesus' approach.[59]

So by this we see that marriage was dictated by socio-economic status primarily. So that Solomon had hundreds of wives and Bethsheba was married to only one husband who only had one wife.

So that the phrase "Let the Bishop be the husband of one wife" shows that the early Christian church had many polygamists in its ranks. So that if you are able to have multiple sexual partners legally then the idea of "adultery" changes quite a bit. This was true in the Old Testament as well as the New Testament.

But a monogamist viewpoint within Judaism was clearly reflected also in the Mishnah and the baraitot (Yevamot 2:10 etc.). Some sages condemned marriage to two wives even for the purpose of procreation (Ketubot 62b). R. Ammi, a Palestinian amora states:

Whoever takes a second wife in addition to his first one shall divorce the first and pay her kettubah (Yevamot 65a)

Such attitude possibly was enhanced by Roman customs, which prohibited polygamy, especially after 212 AD, when all the Jews became Roman citizens.[59]

http://www.revisedhistory.org/EarlyHistoryofMatrices.php

The meaning of the word 'nobility' comes from 'known'. A direct citation from an online etymology dictionary reads: "The Anglo-Saxons used two distinct words for this, witan and cnawan. Meaning "to have sexual intercourse with" is attested from c.1200, from the O.T." Later when the shameful monogamy became a main power on earth, the true meaning of 'noble' as an 'active sex offender’ had been replaced with the meaning ‘high born’, but in the 12th century the meaning was pretty clear: being ‘noble’ meant a higher position in military hierarchy, where the alpha person literally marks submissive partners using the active sexual act.

For the Latin word 'honorem' [honor], the etymology dictionary gives the dull answer of 'unknown origin'. Well, one can guess why the origin is 'unknown'; it means penis. This is what the medieval people had in mind when they used the expression 'To lose a man's honour'. Men even wore tights to show everybody around them a presence of the intact balls, a lot of pictures from those times are still available.
Here is a simple illustration from Book of the Deeds of Alexander the Great (15th century)

892

But it is not only the tight pants that are interesting in this picture. According to official historical science, Alexander the Great died in 323 B.C. Isn't it strange that after over 1700 years after his death, the author of the book not only devoted it to Alexander, but depicted him in medieval clothing with a Christian priest in the picture? Let me remind you that the cost of the manuscript was incredibly high, but not only this; the whole genre of fiction wasn't born yet. The modern educated person understands the fictional settings of stories about superman, but if you put a primitive man from the Amazon jungle in a modern movie theatre, he might get a heart attack. The custom of dividing fiction and reality comes with a certain civilized baggage, so all the stories and pictures of the early Middle Ages are created as truth.
You might notice men and women are separated in the picture, while the priest[pope] is drawn on the female part of the painting. Let's return to the situation in the 12th century. Around 50% of castrated without disinfection men would die from loosing blood and inflammation, but those who survived had been forced to live in 'common houses' with women and dress in a feminine way. Such men ,literally without manhood, were called ‘popes’.[It meant 'fag' following Turkic 'opa'[woman] or Russian 'popa'[butt] or Polish ‘Zopa’[wife] . The amazing story of this word will be examined later]
As any disgraced men with the lowest status, the first popes performed any dirty jobs within the castles [Romes], but one role was especially important ; they wrote and calculated revenue collected from the fortress territory. In this way they became the first educated class in the early medieval age, while the nobility couldn’t read or write, due to the simple system of ranking education as a profession for disgraced slaves.
Humanity didn't have any organized religion yet, and each region has its specific customs in modern science; what we might call 'Gnosticism' (knowledgeable), where the deep phallic nature of these cults were later hidden and repressed by the Church. While not giving a detailed examination of this religion, ,one should note that all reliable sources were destroyed by the Inquisition, and modern books on the topic are secondary commentaries of the later Christians writers, and are therefore, not to be trusted.. The Gnostics believed knowledge as information, or skills were seen to be granted to humans through the sexual act with God [Zeus=Jesus]. Therefore the words ‘fuck’ and ‘teach’ describe various kinds of intercourse.
The traces of such attitude can be easily discovered in many languages and expressions – for example, Russian military officer might say about bad soldier: “this newbie should be fucked a lot”, meaning harsh teaching process, while in the past it was obviously combined.
In cultural life by 1150 A.D. there was no distinction between ‘foul’ and ‘gentle’ language, as mentioned; Gnosticism was the great cult of the phallus, worshiping intercourse as a form of power distribution, a belonging principle and the basic source of life.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=128&chapid=1524

Biblical Hebrew knows of various terms to describe betrothal and marriage, but there exists few data concerning the actual ceremonies.

ba'al: This verb means to become the owner of a wife, and is derived from the noun ba'al (master, owner).22 Both Genesis 20:3 and Deuteronomy 22:22 called a married woman be'ulat ba'al, meaning a wife "owned by her husband." Deuteronomy 24:1 speaks of taking a wife and becoming her master, which must be the in domum deductio or, according to the Talmudic interpretation, the consummation of the marriage.

Deuteronomy 21:13 uses the term together with the word for intercourse: "You may go in to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife." The two latter phrases are parallel to each other, the former defining the status of the husband and the latter that of the wife. Together they seem to be reminiscent of the ancient marriage formula: "She is my wife and I am her husband."23

hayah le . . . le'ishah: The verb hayah means to exist, to be, or to happen and, if connected with the preposition le . . . , to become the property of someone. In relation to a woman, therefore, the phrase defines the status of a wife and probably also indicates the fact that marriage has been consummated.24

Besides Deuteronomy 21:13, Genesis 24:67 (Isaac marrying Rebekah) and Ezekiel 16:8 (God marrying Jerusalem) use this term as the final expression of acquisition after various marriage ceremonies. In Hosea 3:3, on the other hand, even the illegal relation between a married woman and another man is called by the same name.
------

Remember that!

David M

05-11-2013, 02:43 AM

Hi David:

I seriously doubt that you will ever get agreement within the theological community of scholars as they ALL have some sort of agenda to protect! So when you talk with Roman Catholic Hebrew scholars or Jewish Hebrew scholars they will argue their definitions of words and phrases into the ground and never agree.

So if you go to Biblos.com you will find basic software which explains from many views the actual words used to translate the word fornicate, adultery and prostitution. But that does not even begin to bring out a true understanding since the assumptions of the scholars are evident within the translation process itself. So even after they tell you their defintion of a word they violate their own rules and are not consistent as they translate the Bible into whatever language they are using.

To be cont.

Hello Mystykal

Once again I appreciate your answer and this it the type of understanding we can impart to get to the truth.

It is evident while we are talking about different cultures and the expansion of words and meanings, even now we are living in an age in which the Babylonian culture from the earliest of times has continued and to which has been added the Greek and Roman cultures and so we have a lot of myth and paganism to contend with.

As with your example; "thou shalt not kill"; the meaning should have been obvious to the people to whom that commandment was given and should be equally obvious to us especially when we read of the first murder committed by Cain who killed his brother Abel deliberately and showed intent to do so. When a person unintentionally killed another person, as in the case of an accident, we have the word "manslaughter" to define this type of killing. When that happened, as it was known accidents would happen, cities of refuge were provided so that the person who unintentionally killed another person could escape to and so be protection whilst they remained in the city. The "eye for an eye" principle might to many in this modern age, not be acceptable, but is very fair, when the law; "thou shalt not kill" is broken. That is why having abolished the death penalty in our present socities, for those murderers who have killed and taken away the life of another person, do not lose their own life, even when there is no element of doubt that person has killed intentionally. That is why at great expense to the tax payer, murderers are locked up and even do not serve a full life term and get released to kill again. So much for modern justice.

We know the religious leaders changed the original laws and produced their own set of laws as contained in the Talmud for example. I have not read the whole work and what little I have learned is written in the Talmud, is shocking to say the least. This shows the extent the people went to define the law and so made up their own laws, which Jesus told the people of his day not to follow. Jesus set out to deliberately to break some of those man-made laws and upset the Pharisees in doing so. The Pharisees who sat in Moses seat, were not doing what Moses had told them to do. Jesus is telling us to do as Moses instructed and not as the Pharisees would have them do. The exact same thing is happening today in the major church religions, which are supposed to be based on God's word, but have the rulings of those who are elected to high office in those churches.

I look forward to your continuation.

All the best

David

throwback

05-13-2013, 08:01 AM

While morality is fundamental to social groups I wouldn't call it a "social construction" because that gives the impression that it is arbitrary. I understand morality as the product of two things: 1) our empathetic biology and 2) our big brain. Given these two things - Love and Logic - we can understand objective morality. I explained this in my article The Logic of Love: A Natural Theory of Morality (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2012/10/25/the-logic-of-love-a-natural-theory-of-morality/). In essence, the Golden Rule is the "logic of love."

There's no argument with the conclusion that our human moral intuitions are fundamentally based on love for self and other humans. Self preservation and our ability to empathize can/does help us form a moral compass. But when we look at the morality of the human species collectively we find that there are some variances and the fact that variances exist, serve to make morality arbitrary in the eyes of many. The fact that a thread like this exists shows how variant people are in their views of what is and what isn't moral.
In many cultures act s like Mohamad Ali not fighting in the Vietnam War or a virgin refusing to allow herself to be sacrificed to appease some deity have been viewed as immoral acts. Additionally, if we go with the idea of their being an objective morality, where is the objective line between self love/preservation and love/empathy for one's fellow man? Is it immoral to kill someone who is a threat to one's family or one's property? There are countless variables that exist that serve to complicate the issue and make objectivity less likely as finding a hard and fast rule for all scenarios seems impossible.

I agree but would add that it is not a "moral" issue at all because it does not involve any violation of the Golden Rule.

Maybe it shouldn't be, but who's to say ultimately? Morality is a subject that like it or not has so many tangents due to our social contructs that makes it perhaps overcomplicated.

Richard Amiel McGough

05-13-2013, 10:30 AM

There's no argument with the conclusion that our human moral intuitions are fundamentally based on love for self and other humans. Self preservation and our ability to empathize can/does help us form a moral compass. But when we look at the morality of the human species collectively we find that there are some variances and the fact that variances exist, serve to make morality arbitrary in the eyes of many. The fact that a thread like this exists shows how variant people are in their views of what is and what isn't moral.

Yes, many people might think that morality is arbitrary because they see a lot of confusion and different opinions about it. But I think that's because 2000 years of false morality taught by Christianity has strongly confused people on this issues. Indeed, we can see the confusion in action in the "Moral Argument for God" which argues that morality really would be arbitrary if there were no God to "set the rules." The fact that such an insane argument could be entertained for more than thirty seconds shows how Christianity has corrupted the minds of believers. They don't have a clue about what real morality entails.

The foundation of morality is simple fairness, justice. Fairness is objective which is why it is represented by a pair of scales. There is nothing "arbitrary" about it - that's why Lady Justice wears a blindfold:

893

The Golden Rule tells us how to discern morality by putting ourselves in the place of the other. It is the "Logic of Love."

In many cultures act s like Mohamad Ali not fighting in the Vietnam War or a virgin refusing to allow herself to be sacrificed to appease some deity have been viewed as immoral acts. Additionally, if we go with the idea of their being an objective morality, where is the objective line between self love/preservation and love/empathy for one's fellow man? Is it immoral to kill someone who is a threat to one's family or one's property? There are countless variables that exist that serve to complicate the issue and make objectivity less likely as finding a hard and fast rule for all scenarios seems impossible.

Your example of "a virgin refusing to allow herself to be sacrificed to appease some deity" shows how religion hijacked morality and why everyone is so confused about it.

The fact that there are gray areas in our ability to discern some moral facts does not necessarily imply that those moral facts are not objective. The particulate example you raise (where do you draw the line?) is not unique to morality. It is called the Sorities (Little-by-little) Paradox (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sorites-paradox/) discussed by Plato. Consider a heap of grain. What defines the "heap"? You can always take away one grain from a heap and still have a heap, but if you repeat that many times you'll have no heap. But there is no point at which the heap changed from a heap to a non-heap by the removal of a single grain.

When I say that morality is objective it doesn't mean that the answers are easy. Think of Quantum Physics. It is objective, but we cannot actually solve Shrodinger's equation for anything but the hydrogen atom! The equations are too difficult for more complex atoms and molecules so we must use approximations. Does that imply that Quantum Mechanics is not objective? Of course not. Complexity has nothing to do with objectivity. Another example: What is the quadrillionth digit of pi? It certainly has an objective value. The fact that we can't calculate it does not mean it is not objective.

Maybe it shouldn't be, but who's to say ultimately? Morality is a subject that like it or not has so many tangents due to our social contructs that makes it perhaps overcomplicated.
Who's to say that 1 + 2 = 3? Objective facts do not depend on "who" says so.

And again - complexity does not imply a lac of objectivity.

Great questions!

David M

05-18-2013, 04:03 AM

Hello Richard

I will not have a protracted discussion about this thread; I have already said my bit. However, I will be a little obtuse and disagree with your following comment.

Who's to say that 1 + 2 = 3? Objective facts do not depend on "who" says so.

This is a man-made construct. How do you know God works by the same mathematics which man uses? Did God create the math for man or did man have to learn it? Everything has to be defined like the + and - symbols. I could say; "1 or 2 is 3" and that is true, but I have to give my definitions of what is 1 and what is 2 and what is 3 for my statement to be true. Mathematics at its simplest level is arithmetic and we are simply adding and subtracting ,multiplying and dividing. Man has developed mathematics and higher mathematics to explain the sciences. The ability of mathematics to explain everything is not perfect. Mathematics is a form of modelling, which is used to explain the physical sciences and models have changed over the years as science has discovered more.

Mathematics, in any form, is a type of language and where did language come from? Of course you say "it evolved" and yet you have not explained to me (as I have asked elsewhere) how so many languages came into existence without a common root. The explanation is that God gave man language as part of man's creation. Adam and Eve did not have to learn language before they could communicate. Language was already built in and only when man and woman gave birth to the next generation did language have to be learned as part of the growing and learning process. We then come to the Tower of Babel (as it is called) and then God confused the languages by giving people new languages, just like the Disciples were given the Holy Spirit and they could suddenly communicate in different languages. Science is unable to explain this.

It is interesting that the same astrology and the astronomical names and the names of pagan gods etc. travelled with the people into the different cultures that were established as the people were driven into separate groups, because of the different languages forced upon them. The one common factor is; they all came out of Babylon. This shows us that something unusual happened, which again, science cannot answer and yet we have the answer in the Bible.

Should I base my understanding on something that gives me the answer, or should I base my understanding on something that cannot give me the answer I need?

As useful as science has been in finding out the way things work and given us technology, it has not changed mankind for the better. Morals have not improved and are just as bad in some cases as they were pre the Great Flood. Some will have benefited from science, but it is the majority that counts and man, who is now is seemingly in control of his destiny and evolution, has done nothing to improve on that which was designed from the beginning. All man is doing is putting a surgical plaster on injuries caused to himself.

Morals are built into God's instructions, given to man. Man did not learn and exercise acceptable morals to God pre the Flood. If according to your theory, morals should be innate in man and the the Golden Rule was not exercised, the morals that man displayed were not acceptable to God. After the law was given at Sinai, those like King David, for all his faults, could say; "the law of God is perfect". Consider the 10 commandments; what is not perfect in the 10 commandments or the keeping of them? We know that the last commandment of the ten can, at first reading, sound sexist, but given that can easily be seen to apply to both sexes, there really is no problem. So what is wrong with the 10 commandments, which apply to both men and women, if everyone kept to them? Society would be far better off if everyone kept the 10 commandments.

All the best

David