What the Bible Really Says About Sex
and My Comments on the Article

What the Bible Really Says About Sex - Article from:
[http://www.newsweek.com/2011/02/06/what-the-bible-really-says-about-sex.html]

New scholarship on the Good Book's naughty bits and how it deals with adultery, divorce, and same-sex love.

The poem describes two young lovers aching with desire. The obsession is mutual, carnal, complete. The man lingers over his lover's eyes and hair, on her teeth, lips, temples, neck, and breasts, until he arrives at "the mount of myrrh." He rhapsodizes. "All of you is beautiful, my love," he says. "There is no flaw in you."

The girl returns his lust with lust. "My lover thrust his hand through the hole," she says, "and my insides groaned because of him."

This ode to sexual consummation can be found in, of all places, the Bible. It is the Song of Solomon, a poem whose origins likely reach back to the pagan love songs of Egypt more than 1,200 years before the birth of Jesus. Biblical interpreters have endeavored through the millennia to temper its heat by arguing that it means more than it appears to mean. It's about God's love for Israel, they have said; or, it's about Jesus' love for the church. But whatever other layers it may contain, the Song is on its face an ancient piece of erotica, a celebration of the fulfillment of sexual desire.

What does the Bible really say about sex? Two new books written by university scholars for a popular audience try to answer this question. Infuriated by the dominance in the public sphere of conservative Christians who insist that the Bible incontrovertibly supports sex within the constraints of "traditional marriage," these authors attempt to prove otherwise. Jennifer Wright Knust and Michael Coogan mine the Bible for its earthiest and most inexplicable tales about sex - Jephthah, who sacrifices his virgin daughter to God; Naomi and Ruth, who vow to love one another until death - to show that the Bible's teachings on sex are not as coherent as the religious right would have people believe. In Knust's reading, the Song of Solomon is a paean to unmarried sex, outside the conventions of family and community. "I'm tired," writes Knust in Unprotected Texts: The Bible's Surprising Contradictions About Sex and Desire, "of watching those who are supposed to care about the Bible reduce its stories and teachings to slogans." Her book comes out this month. Coogan's book God and Sex: What the Bible Really Says was released last fall.

Conservative critics say that coherence is precisely what the Bible offers on sex. Reading it in the context of the Christian tradition, and with an awareness that the text is "divinely inspired" - that is, given to people directly by God - a believer can come to only one conclusion on questions of sex and marriage. "Sexual intimacy outside of a public, lifelong commitment between a man and woman is not in accordance with God's creating or redeeming purposes," explains Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, Calif. Liberals may wish the Bible were more permissive on sex, conservative religious scholars say, but it's not.

These battles over the "right" interpretation are, of course, as old as the Bible itself. 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." Here, in summary, are the arguments:

In the Bible, "traditional marriage" doesn't exist. Abraham fathers children with Sarah and his servant Hagar. Jacob marries Rachel and her sister Leah, as well as their servants Bilhah and Zilpah. Jesus was celibate, as was Paul.

When I hear conservatives and Christians speak of "traditional marriage", I always think to myself, "What American calls 'traditional' is by no means even close to traditional". The fact is polygamy would need to be legalized, along with prostitution, if you want to "return" to traditional marriage. Ironically, too often, those claiming the banner of "traditional marriage", are found out later to have had adultrous affairs, gay massages, porn addiction, or some other thing that contradicts their conservative stance. I personally am a conservative when it comes to politics and religion, but when it comes to the topic of sex, the fact is, the Bible is not "conservative" and neither am I. Atleast, as it is defined today.

My idea of being conservative with sex is to have one wife, no divorce, as would be common. However, I am open to such things as threesomes, pornography, etc. I do not see them as some sort of sin or conflict as many Christians do.

Husbands, in essence, owned their wives, and fathers owned their daughters, too. A girl's virginity was her father's to protect - and to relinquish at any whim. Thus Lot offers his two virgin daughters to the angry mob that surrounds his house in Sodom. Deuteronomy proposes death for female adulterers, and Paul suggests "women should be silent in churches" (a rationale among some conservative denominations for barring women from the pulpit).

Once again, total bullcrap. Frankly, I think the story of Abraham and Sarah is proof of that. His wife gives him her servant Hagar and then later Sarah is jealous of Hagar and makes her husband kick Hagar out of the family. Sounds a HECK of a lot like a woman today. I do not see any "ownership" there. Just more liberal spin put on the Bible, in light of our feministic society.

The Bible contains a "pervasive patriarchal bias," Coogan writes. Better to elide the specifics and read the Bible for its teachings on love, compassion, and forgiveness. Taken as a whole, "the Bible can be understood as the record of the beginning of a continuous movement toward the goal of full freedom and equality for all persons."

Sex in the Bible is sometimes hidden.

Those who follow the gay-marriage debate are likely familiar with certain bits of Scripture. Two verses, from Leviticus, describe sex between men as "an abomination" (in the King James translation - I discuss here meaning). Another, from Romans, condemns men who are "inflamed with lust for one another." But as Coogan quips, "there is sex in the Bible on every page, if you just know where to look." A full understanding of biblical teachings on sex requires a trained eye.

When biblical authors wanted to talk about genitals, they sometimes talked about "hands," as in the Song of Solomon, and sometimes about "feet." Coogan cites one passage in which a baby is born "between a mother's feet"; and another, in which the prophet Isaiah promises that a punitive God will shave the hair from the Israelites' heads, chins, and "feet." When, in the Old Testament, Ruth anoints herself and lies down after dark next to Boaz - the man she hopes to make her husband - she "uncovers his feet." A startled Boaz awakes. "Who are you?" he asks. Ruth identifies herself and spends the night "at his feet."

Isn't that interesting. Perhaps she was uncovering more than just his feet. But, what about the wedding? The getting to know him first? Or the fact he already had a wife? Isn't she just a fornicator, as most conservative Christians would say?

From this, Coogan makes a rather sensationalistic exegetical move. When he is teaching to college students, he writes, someone inevitably asks about the scene in Luke, in which a woman kisses and washes Jesus' feet - and then dries them with her hair. Is that author speaking about "feet"? Or feet? "As both modern and ancient elaborations suggest," Coogan writes, "sexual innuendo may be present." Scholars agree that in this case, a foot was probably just a foot.

That which is forbidden is also allowed.

I would have to disagree. Rather, the Bible is consistant. It is Christians and their "theological paradigms on sex" that are the problem.

The Bible is stern and judgmental on sex. It forbids prostitution, adultery, premarital sex for women, and homosexuality. But exceptions exist in every case, Knust points out. Tamar, a widow without children, poses as a whore and solicits her own father-in-law - so that he could "come into" her. Her desire to ameliorate her childlessness trumps the prohibition against prostitution. Knust also argues - provocatively - that King David "enjoyed sexual satisfaction" with his soulmate, Jonathan. "Your love to me was wonderful," laments David at Jonathan's death, "passing the love of women."

This guy is confusing "American Protestant Dogma" with the Bible. The Bible never forbids sex before marriage. If one actually reads the Bible in the original langages, rather than these "theologically indoctrinated" English versions.

Prostitution is a sin in three out of four types, as I clearly prove here. Premarital sex is only a sin when someone's rights are being violated (the girl's father, the girl, or God, basically). Lesbianism is not condemned anywhere in scripture. Homosexuality appears to be condemned, yet that is up for debate.

Divorce is permitted in the Old Testament - but it's forbidden in the Gospels. Jesus didn't like it: that much is clear. "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery," he says in the Gospel of Mark. But in Matthew's telling, Jesus softens his position slightly and leaves a loophole for the husbands of unfaithful wives. "When it comes to sex, the Bible is often divided against itself," writes Knust.

This is also an incorrect statement. Jesus had the same theological stance as God's Law did within the Old Testament. The problem was the Pharisees defined, "uncleaness" as being anything or any whim. This is why Jesus corrected them and said, "except for the cause of fornication" one can not get a divorce. So what Jesus did was show that the definition of uncleaness in Hebrew is fornication in greek. YET, the problem today, is the term "fornication" in english, does not fairly represent the term "pornea" in greek.

So, ironically, we have the same problem today, as the Pharisees had in Jesus' day. The fact is, pornea does not mean "sex before marriage". It means "sexual immorality" and "idolatry". It does not just mean "sexual cheating". But, it also does not mean "for any reason". Idolatry includes those who do not serve God. So, if a man abuses his wife, we know he is not a follower of Christ, and the woman has a right not to be married to him. But, if there is any means for which reconciliation can be made, and the man will repent, it is good for the marriage to be saved.

I discuss this in greater detail here.

Accepted interpretations are sometimes wrong.

That is for sure! Lets impose more dogma via our theological paradigms onto Christians so they feel guilty every time they have a sexual thought. Consider the wrong beliefs on Matthew 5:27-28, "lust of the eyes"

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is, as everyone knows, a story of God's judgment against homosexuality, promiscuity, and other kinds of illicit sex. Except, Knust argues, it's not. It's a story about the danger of having sex with angels. In the biblical world, people believed in angels, and they feared them, for sex with angels led inevitably to death and destruction. In the Noah story, God sends the flood to exterminate the offspring of "the daughters of man" (human women) and "the sons of God" (angels, in some interpretations). Non-canonical Jewish texts tell of angels, called Watchers, who descend to earth and impregnate human women, who produce monstrous children - thus inciting God's terrible vengeance. God razes Sodom not because its male inhabitants are having sex with each other, as so many contemporary ministers preach, Knust argues, but in part because the men of the town intended to rape angels of God who were sheltered in Lot's house. And when the Apostle Paul tells women to keep their heads covered in church, he's issuing a warning against inciting angelic lust: "The angels might be watching," Knust writes.

The initial viewpoint of it being judgement on homosexuality and promiscuity is wrong. There is some truth to what he is saying here about unnatural lust. The unnatural lust of wanting a beast or angel is against "God's design", as also indicated in Romans 1. Further, the Book of Jasher makes it FAR more clear what Sodom's problem was. They were a cruel people who showed no mercy to any stranger. To one man, who was starving, they decided to make a law that no one could help the man, when he came into their city. To another, they tortured him. So, it was not all sex based, but rather just various cruel dealings with people.

Coogan and Knust are hardly the first scholars to offer alternative readings of the Bible's teachings on sex. What sets them apart is their populism. With provocative titles and mainstream publishing houses, they obviously hope to sell books. But their greater cause is a fight against "official" interpretations. Knust, who was raised in a conservative Christian home, recalls with intensity reading the Bible on the couch with her mother, and - with a mixture of faith and skepticism - talking aloud about what it might mean. With her book, she encourages readers to do the same.

A person alone on her couch with Scripture can also come to some dangerous conclusions: the Bible has, at certain times in history, been read to support slavery, wife-beating, kidnapping, child abuse, racism, and polygamy. That's why Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, that citadel of Christian conservatism, concludes that one's Bible reading must be overseen by the proper authorities. Just because everyone should read the Bible "doesn't mean that everyone's equally qualified to read it, and it doesn't mean that the text is just to be used as a mirror for ourselves," he says. "All kinds of heresies come from people who read the Bible and recklessly believe that they've understood it correctly." As the word of God, he adds, the Bible isn't open to the same level of interpretation as The Odyssey or The Iliad.

I find it ironic how polygamy is always seen as an "evil" is society. Yet, Playboy has threesome and foursome scenes gallore. So, what is the sin? Sex between two women and a man? Or that women are automatically assumed to be abused and beaten down in polygamous marriages?

Sort of reminds me of the hidden classism, sexism and racism in America. Consider how all foreign wives are called "mail order brides". Dear reader, I have a question for you. What if a Japanese man came to America to marry an American woman and his friends called her a "mail order bride"? Would American women accept that?

Or how about the hidden racism in commerce? "Jap Junk" ring any bells? Back in the 90s all Japanese products were called "Japanese Junk" as Japanese are obviously inferior to American workers.

Or today, what about Chinese products? I have to laugh on this one. 90% or so of all electronics in American stores are from "China", yet Americans automatically think all products made in "China" are junk. Its quite ironic.

Polygamy does not imply abuse. Polygamous sex is likely quite fun. People love to watch. People love Chinese products, even if they call them junk. The fact is, people just lie to themselves and can't be honest with themselves or others.

Lets be honest with ourselves. Men like having more than one women, but that does not make "cheating" right. A man has to truly be honest with his spouse. A woman as well, as I know many women are cheaters out there as well (likely just as much as men). Pornography does not "imply" cheating. A couple could watch together and play out fantasies. Why would God have a problem with pornography? Conservative Christians scratch and search for a reason. Yet, none of their reasons make much sense when challenged.

Yet in a democracy, even those who speak "heresies" are allowed a voice. And whether readers accept Coogan's and Knust's interpretations, the authors are justified in their insistence that a population so divided over questions of sex and sexual morality cannot - should not - cede the field without exploring first what the Bible actually says. The eminent Bible historian Elaine Pagels agrees. To read the Bible and reflect on it "is to realize that we have not a series of answers, but a lot of questions."

Exactly. Just like the scientific community. Stop "pretending" to have all the answers, when you don't know what you are talking about. Of course, you may loose your grant money, but atleast, you are not lying to yourself and others. It really is pathetic that evolution is called "science". It is truly sad how people can not be intellectually honest with themselves and others.