Prostitution is not a Biblical Conflict

**Jesus The Inane** · June 23, 2006, 11:56 AM

http://www.sexwork.com/coalition/christian.html

Adultery Is Not what you've been told it is
The issues of adultery are quite clear. For 2000 years since Moses gave the no adultery commandment, adultery was understood to only apply to married women, and never to a married man. A married man could have as many wives and concubines (single women as breeders) as he wished and this was never considered wrong. Only when the puritanically minded starting taking over Christianity and twisting the original texts did the sexually repressive teachings begin. The lie is that Christian sexuality is allowable only in marriage and only with one partner. Besides being very much against the nature of human kind it just has no biblical basis. More and more theologians are exposing the lies that preach repressive sexuality. More and more Christians are finding more Christlike love in loving more than just their husband or partner. And many are fleeing Christianity for other eastern religions that so wonderfully integrate sexuality with spirituality. Biblical Christianity could do the same, except for the lies of Church traditions that have tried to control people by repressing their natural wholesome sexual desires.

What ya'll think?

**John Wayne** · June 23, 2006, 11:59 AM

Not surprised in the slightest. Early Christian thinkers were always looking for a way to make their religion unique, and interpretaion of the Bible in this way makes it so.

And it also gives hippies a Christian fallback to their free love idea.

**Kino** · June 23, 2006, 12:13 PM

Deleted by user.

**Zenith Darksea** · June 23, 2006, 12:18 PM

Sounds like it was written by the sort of crank who'd believe the Da Vinci Code and the idea of the 'Sacred Feminine'.

The issues of adultery are quite clear. For 2000 years since Moses gave the no adultery commandment, adultery was understood to only apply to married women

Evidence? Oh wait, there isn't any. Because it's not true.

A married man could have as many wives and concubines (single women as breeders) as he wished and this was never considered wrong.

Examples please?

it just has no biblical basis.

Yes it does.

More and more theologians are exposing the lies that preach repressive sexuality.

Which ones are they then? I haven't read any of their books.

More and more Christians are finding more Christlike love in loving more than just their husband or partner.

Yes, there used to be two of them, and now there are three!

And many are fleeing Christianity for other eastern religions that so wonderfully integrate sexuality with spirituality.

No they aren't.

the lies of Church traditions

I'm surprised that you're not reading the 'Da Vinci Code' instead.

**~~Removed_user_012521~~** · June 23, 2006, 12:53 PM

Not surprised in the slightest. Early Christian thinkers were always looking for a way to make their religion unique, and interpretaion of the Bible in this way makes it so.

That is completely wrong. The Bible wasn't interpreted that way, thats how it was. In the ancient times a Man could have sex with anyone except another mans wife, because that would violate the property rights of the husband. Infact Kind David had 600 concubines, and when is sone Absoloman started a rebelion and took Juruseleam it is said that he had sex with all of his concubines on the roof of the palace for 3 days.

Evidence? Oh wait, there isn't any. Because it's not true.

It is true, but remeber this is Early Judaisim not Christianity, and religion changes with time.

Examples please?

King David.

Yes it does

No it doesn't, most of the strict ruling on Sex comes from Saint Agustine, but the use of concubines and multiple wives died out many hundred of years before Christ. Its just a changing culture.

More and more theologians are exposing the lies that preach repressive sexuality.

Its no opressive sexuality, if it was how it was in the ancient times they would be complaining it violates womens rights. Today fornacation and Adultery are major sins, get married and you can have all the sex you can handle.

the lies of Church traditions

This has nothing to do with Christianity, the pracitce of multiple partners ect dies out many many years before there was even Christ.

**John Wayne** · June 23, 2006, 01:16 PM

Originally Posted by Evan_Kikla

That is completely wrong. The Bible wasn't interpreted that way, thats how it was. In the ancient times a Man could have sex with anyone except another mans wife, because that would violate the property rights of the husband. Infact Kind David had 600 concubines, and when is sone Absoloman started a rebelion and took Juruseleam it is said that he had sex with all of his concubines on the roof of the palace for 3 days.

It is true, but remeber this is Early Judaisim not Christianity, and religion changes with time.

I meant the Old Testament, which what this thread is specifically mentioning. Christians interpreted Jewish thought inorder for it to become unique and specific to their new religion, Christianity.

No it doesn't, most of the strict ruling on Sex comes from Saint Agustine, but the use of concubines and multiple wives died out many hundred of years before Christ. Its just a changing culture.

It did not die out hundreds of years before. The idea of polygamy/concubines was given the ax in many of the mediterainian based cultures, but the Arabic and Persian ones continued to practice it for many more centuries after the death of the Prophet Mohammed.

More and more theologians are exposing the lies that preach repressive sexuality.

It was not represive sexuality, but more conservative and designed to fit the already existent belief of one man and one women.

**~~Removed_user_012521~~** · June 23, 2006, 01:25 PM

I meant the Old Testament, which what this thread is specifically mentioning. Christians interpreted Jewish thought inorder for it to become unique and specific to their new religion, Christianity.

Look your skipping over like 500 years of Jewish Cultural evolution. By the time of Christ much of the stuff seen in the Old Testament tabooo.

**John Wayne** · June 23, 2006, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by Evan_Kikla

Look your skipping over like 500 years of Jewish Cultural evolution. By the time of Christ much of the stuff seen in the Old Testament tabooo.

They followed the Old Testament (the Torah) like good Christians follow the Bible, with strict adherance to everything that was said. No matter what, the Jews lived by the Torah because it was not only a religous text but a history of their people. One does not forget to listen to the History of their people when that is the only real thing that they have in life.

**I Have a Clever Name** · June 23, 2006, 01:45 PM

Sounds like it was written by the sort of crank who'd believe the Da Vinci Code and the idea of the 'Sacred Feminine'.

Almost as bad as a crank who believes that the world was created in seven days and that light was created before luminous stellar entities, I'd say.

**Zenith Darksea** · June 23, 2006, 02:11 PM

Well creationism is silly. But I'd point out that there was light before luminous stellar entities (as I have before). Ever heard of the big bang? That was pretty bright, wasn't it?

**I Have a Clever Name** · June 23, 2006, 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by Zenith Darksea

Well creationism is silly. But I'd point out that there was light before luminous stellar entities (as I have before). Ever heard of the big bang? That was pretty bright, wasn't it?

Fair point. There was still grass before the Sun, however. And then you have the fact that Genesis 1 and 2 contradict one another in their chronlogical accounts etc. etc. etc.

However my point is that the Bible and the Da Vinci Code are equally matched in their absurdity.

**bdh** · June 23, 2006, 02:50 PM

any man who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery in his heart.

That pretty much sums it up. You can't objectify woman, simple as that.

**Farnan** · June 23, 2006, 02:57 PM

Actually, the only time pre-marital sex is really mentioned is in Leviticus. And, there it is not called a sin rather the law is that if a man and a woman have sex and are unmarried, than they are forced to be married if caught. In actuality that protected women at the time, because guess what happens at times when there is unprotected sex? Yep, the women gets pregnant. And at that time a pregnant women could not get a husband, and there was no child support ideas yet. And then there is the fact that the child would not get an inheritance. The likely event if a woman got pregnant and never had a husband she and the child were likely to end up poor and starving. That is why the law in Leviticus stated that if a man and woman had sex before marriage that they must marry.

I personally think pre-marital sex is immoral, but I don't condemn people who practice it. I hold myself to a much higher standard than I hold others.