Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 10-03-2010, 03:07 PM

A new book:

God and Sex: What the Bible Really Says (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Michael Coogan.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Publishers Weekly

Readers looking for an unbiased appraisal of what the Bible says about premarital sex, homosexuality, and polygamy can trust Coogan, a biblical scholar of the highest order. . . . . He covers predictable ground in unpredictable ways, frankly noting, for example, the pervasive biblical assumption that women are subordinate while explaining how that reflects the Bible’s foreign and ancient context. The author does not overreach the evidence to promote his own agenda, but notes the Bible’s contradictions on certain issues and admits the limits of modern scholarship. Readers may be surprised to find a convincing discussion of evidence for God's own (sometimes unflattering) sexuality, in metaphor if not in fact. Coogan’s reminder at the book’s end that modern application of biblical texts requires interpretation and nuance is a welcome corrective to selective, literalist use.

Although why anyone would consult the Bible on sex is beyond me.

Sajara · 10-04-2010, 03:46 PM

Or...people can actually go open the Bible to see what the Bible says about something.

Chili · 10-05-2010, 05:07 AM

There is said to be good recipe's in there.

semiopen · 10-05-2010, 07:14 AM

The rules for sex with a Golem -

Genesis 37:2

Quote:

This is the history of the generations of Jacob. Joseph, being seventeen years old, was feeding the flock with his brothers. He was a boy with the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah, his father's wives. Joseph brought an evil report of them to their father.

The question is what were they doing that was so bad that Joseph told his father?

Is a Human Clone a Golem?

Quote:

Beginning with the 17th century, rabbinic authorities elaborated on
the halakhic issues related to a golem.24 For example, R. Yaakov Emden
(the son of Hakham Zevi) states that a golem created through mysticism
cannot be counted in a minyan because it has no intelligence, implying
that an intelligent golem might be considered halakhically human.25 One
can infer from his comments that human intelligence may be one of
several defining characteristic of a human being.26 Rabbi Isaiah Horwitz
(Shelah) discusses an extreme example—whether it is permissible to
have sexual relations with a golem. He proposes that Joseph’s brothers
created a female golem by means of Sefer Yez. irah and were having sexual
relations with her. Since Joseph did not know that this female was a
golem and thought she was born through normal human reproduction,
he misinterpreted his brother’s actions as illegal fornication and therefore
complained to his father about their activities.27 Thus, it appears
from Rabbi Horwitz and others that there is no prohibition of having
sexual relations with a golem.28

There is another similar interpretation where the brothers create a Golem animal and eat limbs torn off the living animal. Joseph, again, not knowing that the animal was a Golem, told Jacob.

Toto · 10-20-2010, 12:11 PM

Reviewed in BAR from a feminist perspective

Quote:

For [Coogan], the paradigm of male dominance and female subordination governs gender relationships in the Bible. “Your desire will be for your man,” says Yahweh to the woman in the story of Eden, “and he will rule over you” (Genesis 3:16). “That decree,” says Coogan, “illustrates the bleakness of the overall Biblical picture for feminists who would claim the Bible as an authority.” Yes, the paradigm heralds bleakness. Whether that bleakness also harbors blessing, readers must decide.

In declaring Genesis 3:16 a divine “decree” and, later, a “curse,” Coogan misreads. (He is in good company, from the apostle Paul and his successors through millennia.) These words of Yahweh to the woman do not characterize her status in creation but rather her life after disobedience. They do not “decree” patriarchy; they describe it. They announce judgment; they do not prescribe punishment, which comes later in expulsion from Eden. Further, Yahweh never “curses” the woman. This word the deity reserves for the serpent and the earth (via the man). In numerous ways, literary analysis disqualifies Genesis 3:16 as the paradigmatic proof text for endorsing patriarchy.

Nonetheless, Coogan’s overall assessment is right. For some 40 years (a fitting Biblical time frame), second-wave feminists have wrestled with patriarchy and the Bible. They, too, have cautioned that the Bible belongs to the foreign country of antiquity. Despite its ubiquitous presence in the news and its canonical standing in communities of faith, it remains distant, even alien, in time, languages, mentality and geography. For diverse reasons—scant evidence, contradictory data, discrepancies among genres and historically locked views—what the Bible really says (or really does not say) about matters such as abortion, marriage, divorce, adultery, rape, prostitution and same-sex relationships does not readily transfer (for better or worse) to our world. Tensions between “original meanings” and contemporary applications persist—tensions that Coogan compares to interpreting the U.S. Constitution.

spin · 10-20-2010, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

what the Bible really says (or really does not say) about matters such as abortion, marriage, divorce, adultery, rape, prostitution and same-sex relationships does not readily transfer (for better or worse) to our world.

This is true though in all cultural respects, not just regarding sexuality. Sexuality is just the easy to notice area of difficulty. We are simply not a semi-nomadic society, nor do we have the same social mores. We are not only a herd of humans, but a collective of individuals--an ugly renaissance development (remember the phrase "renaissance man"--the pitting on the individual against the society?). The use of the bible as some sort of cultural blueprint for modern times is utterly silly. We've moved on several thousand years and have more complex needs and ethics.

This in no way is aimed at lessening the importance of the comments cited from Coogan regarding sexuality, but at widening the scope of the perception.

spin

stephan huller · 10-20-2010, 12:30 PM

I have always found that the Bible is absolutely no help in deciding what is or isn't adultery. But then again I have always been partial to philandering. I am biased I guess.

semiopen · 10-21-2010, 10:17 AM

Somebody in the yahoo group AncientBibleHistory proposed a novel (at least for me) interpretation of Onan. The typical line is that God killed him for spilling his seed (Onanism) but the real problem is that he refused to impregnate Tamar in the Levirate marriage to preserve his inheritance. God probably doesn't give a shit about Onanism.

Also, I'm surprised I haven't posted my old hobbyhorse here about Joseph being punished for not doing Potiphar's wife, another total misunderstanding by the commentators.

The reference below to a feminist perception of homosexuality is odd because there is nothing in the old testament about female homosexuality. It's all rabbinic in Judaism. The homosexual laws are just sodomy, but anal sex itself doesn't seem to be a problem unless it's a male doing it to a male with his penis, dildoes seem to be ok. Just cuddling is fine.

Toto · 02-09-2011, 06:20 PM

What the Bible Really Says About Sex: New scholarship on the Good Book’s naughty bits and how it deals with adultery, divorce, and same-sex love.

Besides Coogan's book, there is Unprotected Texts: The Bible's Surprising Contradictions About Sex and Desire (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Jennifer Wright Knust

Quote:

In today’s culture wars, the Bible—specifically a “one man, one woman” argument from the Book of Genesis—is employed by the Christian right to oppose gay marriage. This fight, as well as those over the efficacy of abstinence-education schools and intra-denominational squabbles over the proper role of women in church-leadership roles, have led many Americans (two thirds of whom rarely read the Bible) to believe that the Good Book doesn’t speak for them. Knust, a religion professor at Boston University, is also an ordained minister in the American Baptist denomination. Coogan, director of publications at Harvard University’s Semitic Museum, once trained as a Jesuit priest. With their books, they hope to steal the conversation about sex and the Bible back from the religious right. “The Bible doesn’t have to be an invader, conquering bodies and wills with its pronouncements and demands,” Knust writes. “It can also be a partner in the complicated dance of figuring out what it means to live in bodies that are filled with longing.”

mountainman · 02-09-2011, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Although why anyone would consult the Bible on sex is beyond me.

Precisely where did Jesus kiss Mary often according to the Coptic Gnostic Bible manuscripts? Thecla seemed a cool chick in the "Acts of Paul", but these are Gnostic Acts and Gospels, not the "Official Bible". Maybe there was a good reason - "popularity" - why the Gnostic Bibles had to be prohibited and burnt and destroyed and finally buried.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-04-2010, 03:46 PM	#2
Sajara Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: New England, USA Posts: 1,596	Or...people can actually go open the Bible to see what the Bible says about something.

10-05-2010, 05:07 AM	#3
Chili Banned Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Alberta Posts: 11,885	There is said to be good recipe's in there.

10-20-2010, 12:30 PM	#7
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I have always found that the Bible is absolutely no help in deciding what is or isn't adultery. But then again I have always been partial to philandering. I am biased I guess.

10-21-2010, 10:17 AM	#8
semiopen Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Hillsborough, NJ Posts: 3,551	Somebody in the yahoo group AncientBibleHistory proposed a novel (at least for me) interpretation of Onan. The typical line is that God killed him for spilling his seed (Onanism) but the real problem is that he refused to impregnate Tamar in the Levirate marriage to preserve his inheritance. God probably doesn't give a shit about Onanism. Also, I'm surprised I haven't posted my old hobbyhorse here about Joseph being punished for not doing Potiphar's wife, another total misunderstanding by the commentators. The reference below to a feminist perception of homosexuality is odd because there is nothing in the old testament about female homosexuality. It's all rabbinic in Judaism. The homosexual laws are just sodomy, but anal sex itself doesn't seem to be a problem unless it's a male doing it to a male with his penis, dildoes seem to be ok. Just cuddling is fine.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.