The Truth About Bible Principles: Chastity and Abstinence

by sabastious 83 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  NewChapter

  Who could forget the Temple Prostitutes?
• 

  myelaine
• 

  leaving_quietly

  Having read the Bible again in recent months, when going through the Law, there were plenty of laws related to not laying bare the nakedness of your mother, father, sister, aunt, granddaughter, etc. (Leviticus chap. 18). However, there is no reference in the law to not having sexual relations prior to marriage. At least, I couldn't find any.

  There are references, of course, to adultery and "sexual appetite", but I have found nothing that warrants any such rule of not having pre-marital sex.

  Try this:

  Search for "you must not" to get all the "don't do" laws.

  Search for "lay bare" (some overlap with "you must not")

  Search for "sexual"

  Search for "adultery"

  Search for "fornication" (which is defined by most dictionaries as sex between unmarried partners)

  Interestingly, "fornication" is NOT listed in the Mosaic Law. It just doesn't exist there.

  Also, interestingly, "loose conduct" is defined in the bible several times. (Lev. 18:17; Lev. 20:14; Job 31:10,11; Eze. 22:9-11.)
• 

  sabastious

  I realize that chastity and abstinence aren't secular pursuits but one of its "offshoots" the notion of personal dignity, as pertains to sexual activity, is not confined to the christian religion but is a secular "virtue" as well.

  trictly speaking, they are not general "religious" pursuits either...there are and have been religions that practice "sacred sex", sexual religious rites...and don't forget the temple prostitutes.

  maybe it is the case that CHRISTIAN religious principles (and their attendant virtures) spilling out into secular society is disagreeable to you? in which case, revelation 21:7-8 might be disagreeable to you too.

  Chastity and abstinence is a personal choice based off religoius criteria. If someone chooses to remain celebate their entire lives then they deserve the proper reverence for that accomplishment, as it is an accomplishment worthy of merrit. I do not condemn someone simply for living a life of chastity, but when such a lifestyle is indoctrinated into children and enforced across the board upon an entire religious population extreme detriment is the result. Which makes such an enforcement a sin against humanity or an abomination. This is the case mainly because sexual preference has been discoverd to be partly genetic rather than simply defined as it is in the Bible and other traditional religious texts. Various mental conditions such as bi polar disorder, for example, predispose certain people to an extremely heightened libido. When such a person is born into an environment and enforced upon a religious precedent that puts them at a disadvantage they will be persecuted and lose self esteem. They will invariantly find themselves in an impossible catch 22 and pay for it dearly.

  Lets go back to the analogy. The aforementioned herb is believed to have religious properties and is used in all rituals. The people that are allergic to the herb are in turn allergic to the rituals that are supposed to be "blessing" them. Therefore practicing the rituals by members who are not allergic would percieve a secular benefit from a religious ritual. This is a misconception because the ritual is only providing benefit because of the herb being used, not the structure around it. The same could be said of any religious structure. Therein always lies something that is helping some people, but it will never be able to be applied across the board to all civilizations from all times and cultures. The Western World is a metling pot of cultures and civilizations which is why rigid sexual standards are fading away within it. This creates religious panic and people who assert that the end is nigh because people are breaking perceived divine laws when in actuality the population is just legitimately growing past them. It would simply be illogical to believe that such a specific moral standard can be universally applied, but astonishingly that's what modern day religion has to offer. A standard that was set in stone thousands of years ago and is expected to apply seemlessly to a modern day population. Such is folly and the effects of that folly are obviously seen in organized religion today.

  Maybe someone out there wants to be a vegan, that's ok with me, but I personally like eggs and milk. I will not deny that my health would likely improve if I became a vegan, but that would only be the case because setting such a vegan presedent on myself would push out all dietary harm in my life at the cost of freedom of what I eat. However the choice is not an either or. I can choose to eat healthy and have eggs and milk because it's not the eggs and milk that are killing me, it's the excess junk food. Some people feel the need to cut out the good with the bad in order to be pure, but I don't think this to be ths case. Life is about strategy, not blindly following religious precedents.

  -Sab
• 

  sabastious

  Interestingly, "fornication" is NOT listed in the Mosaic Law. It just doesn't exist there.

  This would be news to me.

  -Sab
• 

  NewChapter

  Interestingly, "fornication" is NOT listed in the Mosaic Law. It just doesn't exist there.

  That IS interesting. I can't think of where it is put into law either. There are things that may touch on it in certain circumstances---if you have sex with a virgin and so forth----but . . .

  SAB--where is fornnication specifically addressed in the mosaic law? Adultery is a big one. Rape could get a silent girl stoned---oh wait---if she is raped and she does not scream, she could be stoned for fornication. So maybe it is there. Unless that only applies to adultery. Well it's not in the top ten, but I think the stoning may speak louder. Didn't Judah sleep with a woman who he thought was a prostitute, but it turned out to be his daughter-in-law, and he was like going to have her BURNED (maybe stoning had not yet caught on) for prostitution, but then realized he was the one who had sex with her, and so the burning got cancelled? AWKWARD!

  So since this was before Moses, and the law had not yet made its way down the mountain, I am assuming that fornication was okay. Tamar was only in trouble because she was engaged to Judah's underage son----so it would have been wrong for her to have sex with another man----uhm---unless that man was her intended's husband, then YES that was okay. Uhm-----getting dizzy here. Oh, and Judah was probably a bit embarrassed since he didn't have the cash to pay her at the time.
• 

  sabastious

  SAB--where is fornnication specifically addressed in the mosaic law?

  I have tried to find a direct prohibition, but have been unable. Prostitution on the other hand was considered a spiritual defilement. Leviticus 21 states that a priest could not marry a woman who had at any point in time been a prostitute. The act of selling sex even today is generally considered a deviancy, although I don't believe it should be prohibited by law. To have many simultaneous sexual relationships could also indicate use of sex to progress in some secular manner. I personally don't think the term should be limited to the mixing of commerce and sex. There is a broader principle to be found within society's general rejection of prostitution and it most certainly involves a religious reverence for the act. Objectfying sex as in using it for personal gain should be avoided, that as much is good advice.

  Michelle mentioned the verse in Revelation (a book that expounds upon the Pentateuch) where it says "sexually immoral" people will be cast into the fires of hell. Check out the greek word used in the verse (rev 21:8)

  pornos: a fornicator

  Original Word: π?ρνος, ου, ?
  Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
  Transliteration: pornos
  Phonetic Spelling: (por'-nos)
  Short Definition: a fornicator
  Definition: a fornicator, man who prostitutes himself.

  So it would appear that the concept being depicted in the verse involves prostituting one's self as in objectifying sex when it is something deserving of eternal reverence. It is the only means of which sentient life pervades through the cosmos. Once again we see a much broader principle being shown which goes to show that the Watchtower doesn't teach the principle, they merely follow the law.

  -Sab
• 

  NewChapter

  There is a broader principle to be found within society's general rejection of prostitution and it most certainly involves a religious reverence for the act.

  Not all cultures and religions agree with the above sentiment. Some may consider prostitution a showing of reverance for sex and procreation. Others may not be all that hung up on sex and monogamy. Quite a few cultures, even today, don't hold monogamy as very high on the list of priorities. They don't necessarily view sex as a reverent act, neither to they hold it as some kind of immoral act. It just is. Even when it comes to the definition of fatherhood and kinship, different groups have different ways of defining this. Sometimes men are financially and socially responsible to their sisters' children, while fathers may have affection, but put their resources into their own sisters' children. Not all kin group are constructed in the Judeo/Christian tradition. And in those cases, they may view sex very differently.

  Some cultures have nothing against adultery, but generally speaking after a first child is born they become more monogamous. There are so many ways to view this issue. It just depends on where you are standing.
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  This thread is hilarious.
• 

  mP

  sab:

  Etymologies are always very revealling. You can change the meaning of a word but not its origin.

  Lets have a look at holy.

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

  See also: Q-D-Š

  Some [who?] consider that the Hebrew noun for "holiness," kedushah (Hebrew: ????? ‎), from the adjective kodesh, "holy," has the connotation of "separateness", although Hebrew has other verbs and adjectives to indicate separate, such as badal (??????). That which is holy in Judaism is set apart, and the separation is maintained by both legal and spiritual measures. [citation needed] Certain places and times are intrinsically sacred, and strictures are placed on one's actions in those situations. However, holiness is not a single state, but contains a broad spectrum. The Mishnah lists concentric circles of holiness surrounding the Temple in Jerusalem: Holy of Holies; Temple Sanctuary; Temple Vestibule; Court of Priests; Court of Israelites; Court of Women

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

  A qedesha (or qedsha), Hebrew spelling ????, is a temple or sacred prostitute, in several ancient Middle Eastern religions. They are particularly associated with the Goddess Asherah. [1] The male equivalent of a qedesha is a qadesh.

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

  Qadesh may refer to:

  • Kadesh or Qadesh — more accurately transliterated nowadays as Qadesh—a historically documented Canaanite walled hill city of antiquity
    • Battle of Qadesh, believed to be the largest Chariot vs. Chariot battle in history
  • Qetesh — a Canaanite and Egyptian goddess, the goddess of Love and Beauty; whose name has sometimes been annoted as both Kadesh and Qadesh
  • Qadesh, a male practitioner of sacred prostitution, translated in the King James Bible as sodomite

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

  Kedoshim , K’doshim , or Qedoshim ( ????????? — Hebrew for "holy ones,” the 14th word, and the first distinctive word, in the parshah) i

  x

  How do you explain holy and sacred prostitute are connected ?

  How does anyone know if a new man in town is circumsized ?

  The truth is Jewish religion was the same as their neighbours, which all had sacred prostitutes.

  Even Judah who was honoured to be the father of all jews himself visited sacred prositutes. The text does not criticize him. No one anywhere criticizes him.

  http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/ge/chapter_038.htm

  And Judah proceeded to send the kid of the goats by the hand of his companion the A·dul´lam·ite in order to get back the security from the hand of the woman, but he never found her. 21 And he went inquiring of the men of her place, saying: “Where is that temple prostitute in E·na´im along the road?” But they kept saying: “No temple prostitute has ever been in this place.” 22 Finally he returned to Judah and said: “I never found her and, besides, the men of the place said, ‘No temple prostitute has ever been in this place.’” 23 So Judah said: “Let her take them for herself, in order that we may not fall into contempt. At any rate, I have sent this kid, but you—you never found her.”

  Of course Rahab and all the other prositutes in Jesus geneology are not street walkers but important priestesses. They were prominent important women. Sex was a part of worship, it was a money earner for the church.

  The 2 prositutes that visited Solomon with the child were of course workers for Jehovah in the temple. After all if fornication and prostitution was a sin, Solomon should have had them stoned. Obviously they knew they did not wrong and were comfortable and felt safe enough to ask for an audience.

  The bible only condemns women for adultery, never men. Remember married and virgin women have completely different statuses. Men can rape and marry virgins but they cant do the same for a married woman.

  Please address the points ive made.