What a terribly thought-out and absolutely groundless response you have shat out. - Edit 1
Before modification by Tom at 28/03/2011 06:00:02 AM
theologically, Solomon is clearly held up as the greatest, wisest and holiest of Israels kings--and simultaneously the principal cause, through his multitude of foreign wives and concubines, of Israeles civil war and the ultimate destruction of both Israel and Judah.
No he most certainly is not. His promiscuity is held up as an example of what he did wrong and he is seen not as the holiest of kings. Josiah clearly and unequivocally holds that role. Solomon was also never considered the greatest king of the House of David. It's called the House of David for a reason, that reason being that David was its greatest king. His wisdom and his construction of the Temple save him from more damning criticism.
Let's not kid ourselves; Jews were forbidden from consorting with "Pole Dancers for Tammuz" not just because of the momentary act of worship involved, but because there was little doubt how the children of such dalliances would be raised. That (and money, and PR) is the practical basis for temple prostitutes turning sex into worship, and for Jews being forbidden to indulge in it with them.
So you say with no evidence whatsoever to back you up. To the contrary, if your unsubstantiated guess were the case, then common prostitution would be made illegal as well, which it was decidedly not. Not once in the Torah is there an injunction against consorting with common prostitutes.
It's also the basis for the well documented genocide (which, while I'm not endorsing it, was hardly novel or remarkable for Bronze Age conquerors). They call it ethnic cleansing for a reason, and while that does nothing to legitimize it does a lot to explain it.
Well-documented? By what? The Torah? Are you really going to fall into the silly habit that uneducated evangelicals are partial to, of confusing the Bible's accounts for history? Fictional genocides of fictional tribes (the children of Israel killing the Amalekites, for example) does not make "well-documented genocide". Even the Assyrians didn't commit genocide, though they did force peoples to leave their homes, which was a common Assyrian practice but not a common practice generally. There were lots of statements on stelae that were meant to frighten people, but the evidence is against actual genocides. Trees, Kings and Politics by Barbara Porter has an excellent essay about how the messages written by the Assyrian kings changed from place to place. I'm not aware of many instances in antiquity when genocide was actually practiced - perhaps the Athenians in the Peloponnesian War. And another thing - EVEN IF you're going to take the Bible itself as history (which is in itself laughable), apparently Israel didn't finish the job with the Amalekites in the Torah like they said they did, because they appear again later in the Bible. Oops. Guess some got away.
Whether the sin of Onan was masturbation or refusing his duties under Levirate marriage most definitely can be and is argued, but on the principle of procreation in general and promulgating the Hebrew faith specifically, I think it's another case where all roads lead to Rome. While the Tanakh condemns neither anal nor oral sex themselves EXPLICITLY, the context of all the other prohibitions against sexual acts that hinder the preservation and growth of Jewish culture and faith strongly imply that they're not really acceptable either, if not necessarily "sinful", as such.
Actually, no, that's not true. While having children is one of the prime virtues in Judaism, there is absolutely no writing from the period that would in any way impute a particular mandate that only that sex which can lead to children is permitted. Not only that, but Judaism as it has developed has a much more "enlightened" view of sex than many Christian denominations. Sex is for pleasure and intimacy, a way of bonding, and sex is expressly permitted when conception is not possible, such as during a woman's pregnancy. The only times a woman is regularly unclean is during her period and immediately following childbirth (for 40 days). This contradicts what you're saying. The whole digression on trying to ascertain paternity is irrelevant; all cultures have historically been obsessed with that and it doesn't necessarily lead to any particular outcome that would somehow justify your position.
This is the part I meant was oversimplified; the Tanakh doesn't give a free pass for "mere" fornication instead of adultery, as we both also know. In fact, a man having sex with an unmarried woman was not only required to marry her, it was the only case I know of where divorce was legally impossible, even under the Tanakhs otherwise notoriously lax divorce laws.
Quit misusing the term Tanakh. The only part of the Old Testament that was Law was the Torah. There is no concept such as "fornication" in the Old Testament, and our concept of fornication is one that developed in the Middle Ages. The New Testament use of the term was regarding the use of prostitutes (porneia). Please find one place in the Old Testament where "fornication" is mentioned. You won't be able to, because it doesn't exist. There are a few references to "whoring" but if you're reading that to mean sex outside marriage you're overlaying a meaning that wasn't there. Even Paul said "it is better that you be married" for sex. It was a later extrapolation of Paul, the Gospels and a bunch of other passages that led to this determination.
Furthermore, your assertion about sex with an unmarried woman is patently false and has been disproven on numerous occasions. Stupid Christians mention it because they are stupid and ignorant. In reality, it talks about having sex with a virgin who is still in her father's house. Essentially, by deflowering her he decreased her value to her family, so it was a form of property theft. Likewise, the passage that allows a non-virgin sold as one to be returned with restitution of the dowry - it was a form of fraud in a sale. However, it is clear from passages all throughout the entirety of the Tanakh (as an example one can reference the whole Tanakh, but not when attempting to codify law), over and over, that there were divorced women who lived on their own, women who were widows but hadn't remarried and plenty of other women who for one reason or other were not under the power of a man. Sex with these women, as well as sex with common prostitutes or one's own slaves, was not prohibited by the Torah.