Again, that is just wrong, so no, I won’t just take your word for it. There is a huge attestation for gyne as both married woman/mistress and for woman in general. Quite frankly, I wouldn’t take your word for it on anything with respect to the Greek language. Fortunately, I don’t have to.
This raises the question of whether or not the words were actually used in any cultic context in the first place. When porneia rears its ugly head in the Gospels, I can think of no reason to accept it is a technical term in an utterly koine document. I’d even go farther to argue that even in the Septuagint the words are not used in any tortured technical sense to mean “temple prostitute.” If you wish to interpret a word so strongly against the grain of the rest of the document, you need to make an appropriate case.
The fact that there is legitimate dispute over the content of sexual immorality does not mean that it is an inappropriate translation for porneia. It is certainly a less egregious error than violating the linguistic context of a document to mine it for morsels of progressive ideology.
No, I’m not wrong. As I said, it’s not a definition, but the majority of the time the word is used, it refers to married women or mistresses of households. This is largely just a de facto result of the fact that most adult women were married.
No, you don’t have to take my word for anything. By all means, take a class. Learn to read something in Greek. When you do, you’ll find out what I mean. I’m not saying that all gunai were married. just that most of them were. The word tended incidentally to refer to married women more often than to young, umarried maidens.
Paul specifically condemned cultic practices and cultic prostitution in his Epistles. The word porne is the word that is the translation that is used in the septuagint for Hebrew words which explicitly refer to cultic prostitutes. There isn’t anything “tortured” about it. It’s pretty straightforward.
Cultic prostitution was a major pain in the ass for a lot of Jewish history. It was the main competition for the Jerusalem Temple cult and remained competition even into the early part of the Christian era in many of the areas in which it took hold. It was a bigger and more immediate problem for sustaining a faithful flock than whether anybody was getting some from his girlfriend before they were married.
And I still haven’t seen a cite (other than a specious Vulgate translation) that porneia meant anything like a modern definition of “fornication.”.
It makes it a vacuous translation. It’s meaningless. It conveys no information. It allows the reader to inject arbitrary, personal definitions of “immorality” into the translation which may or may not have been intended by the original text.
It is certainly a less egregious error than violating the linguistic context of a document to mine it for morsels of progressive ideology.
[/QUOTE]
No linguistic context has been “violated,” so I don’t know what you’re talking about there. I also haven’t presented any “progressive ideology,” or any ideology at all. Personally, I disagree with the ideology presented in the texts. I don’t have a problem with prostitution, cultic or otherwise.
I know you are highly intelligent, Dio, but this is one of the dumbest things I have ever read in GD. It surprises me that you could drop such clangers. There is no correlation whatsoever between frequency of word usage in literature and population of married women. If this were true, there would be an overwhelming amount of literature devoted to married women. A brief survey of authors such as, say, Archilochus, Bacchylides, Simonides, and hell, even Sappho give this the lie.
Rather than talk out of your sphincteros, Dio, open up a Liddell & Scott. You might learn something.
You are making it difficult for me to maintain my thinning veneer of humility. The reason I do not have to take your word for it is because I do know Greek, as should be obvious to anyone who reads this thread. The question is, do you? Hint: it takes more experience than a class or two to know the language.
I am concerned that you are using an authoritative tone to spread ignorance. At least I have made the effort to cite authorities and attestations from the literature directly. You are just repeating the same unsubstantiated assertions.
Jesus, Dio. Porne is also used specifically in the Septuagint to translate zanah, or sexual license. You can find this argument on the previous page of the discussion. Furthermore, if you want anyone to believe that porneia in the Gospels refers to specific cultic prostitution, you have an uphill battle ahead of you.
You forgot to preface this statement by “in my opinion” or “according to Contemporary Chronicle X”.
Specious? I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Only if you make no effort to use other sources to define the scope of sexual immorality. This is something subject to dispute, certainly. It is far from the cut-and-dried and obvious issue that you are at pains to argue here.
Or, for theos’ sake man, just open a lexicon and look at the attestations for yourself.
I just looked up porneia in my own Liddell and Scott, (I hate getting that thing out, it weighs like 20 pounds). Almost every attestation is for “prostitution,” “harlotry,” “idolotry” or “brothel.” There is a single attestation for “fornication” and that attestation comes from…wait for it…the Gospel of Matthew.
“In itself” means lacking any special circumstances or caveats. If neither partner is married, there are no caveats, likewise if they’re maried to each other. Being married to someone else is a caveat (along with using force or deception, an excessive age difference, etc.).
Most wedding ceremonies I 've attended, including my own, had this little (paraphrased) caveat in the vows[sup]1[/sup]:
*Do you take this woman you now hold by the hand to be your lawful wedded wife? Do you promise to love and cherish her, in sickness and in health, for richer for poorer, for better for worse, and forsaking all others, keep yourself only unto her, for so long as you both shall live?*So unless the breaking of one’s vows is considered moral, how can anyone who says those words consider infidelity anything but immoral?
[sup]1[/sup]Of course, if both parties agree to have the ‘forsaking’ line stricken from their vows, and are cool with extra-marital activities, there’s nothing wrong with it
As I suggested in my first post on this subject, it is helpful not to confuse the classical and post-classical meanings. The LXX reference is to the Vulgate, Chronicles 5:25.
But they left the God of their fathers and whored themselves out to the gods of the land whom the Lord destroyed before their eyes.
A little poetic license in the translation, of course.
And though I have no particular problem with nonmarital sex whenever it does not involve a violation of trust or an exploitive relationship, I tend to find myself backing amarinth’s statement – a person could be quite puritanical about how they (and their immediate associates) live their lives, just because they figure it’s what works for them, w/o it in any way meaning they seek to oppress the rest of us or that they adhere to authoritarianism in general. Heck, I can conceive of someone who on every other issue is way off the scale on the “more freedom” direction of both axes, but on sex and sex alone is an absolute flat-out prude. So this one is designed to identify the pious or prudish, and would, presumably, label them as "authoritarian"even if the only authority imposed is self-denial.
My own stats: damned if I remember the digits. I’m mildly economically liberal and radically socially liberal though. Hope that helps.
I don’t do marriage. I regard the institution of marriage as an abomination in the eye of God. I don’t mind if gay folks get married, I don’t mind if straight folks get married, but I think it’s a pisspoor idea and I don’t think the state should recognize it in any fashion whatsoever.
For me, therefore, any sex is by definition sex outside of marriage for me.
In my book, sex is sacred… it’s a not-so-good thing if one (or more) partners participates with emotional ambivalences that indicate that the liaison was perhaps a bad idea. Exceptions exist though… sometimes the pro-sex part of the ambivalence is the better part (usually when the pro-sex part is specific and the misgivings part is generic to sex or to sex under these circumstances or to sex with this kind of person, etc). Because it is difficult to make a good rule, the best rule is to pay attention to what you feel and balance it out yourself…and to care about what your partner is feeling.
I wasn’t stuttering when I said that for me any sex is by definition sex outside of marriage for me. My partner could theoretically be a married person. How do I feel about sex with another person who has entered into marriage with someone else? A combination of intellectual theory and real-life experience (sigh :o) leads me to conclude that for me, it is wrong to participate in sex with someone who has promised the traditional exclusivity stuff to a partner and who has not informed their partner that that deal is off.
I don’t require divorce or the permission of the married partner, but I have reached the conclusion that it is vital tha tthe partner be informed that exclusivity can not, at this point, be counted on, that there are other partners (potential or actual) now.
Strongly Disgree to all questions:
Results: 0, -4.36
Strongly Disagree to all except the last section (about sex,) answering these by “Moral Authoritarian” standpoint:
Results: 0, -2.97
Strongly Disagree to all except last section, answering by “Moral Libertarian” standpoint:
Results: 0, -5.97
You can change your authoritarian score THREE POINTS just by this section alone! I don’t see how these answers, except for the few that reference actual laws, make you authoritarian unless you accompany them with the will to enforce them by act of government. Or else the authors of this test assumed that most people are willing to enforce what they percieve as morally right by the iron fist of law. But isn’t that what your authoritarian number is about in the first place?
Okay, so maybe they have a point: many people perhaps do have this desire. But THREE POINTS WORTH?
(My own score hovers around 0,-2 and I consider this question too silly to even answer. Even if it weren’t so poorly worded.)
Sorry, I didn’t mean to interrupt the lesson in ancient Greek.
Anyway, I retract regulate. I think it is immoral to impose ones will upon another. This covers murder very simply as murder is the ultimate imposition of one’s will upon another.
The whole political compass test is pretty idiotic. There were many questions where I had a neutral opinion, but had to pick agree or disagree. The questions are fairly leading, and I don’t think that two dimensional scale is a whole lot more useful than the previous one dimensional scale.
The desire to give everything in life a simple numerical metric by which it can be judged is the downfall of our society.
According to whom? I’ve had just as much pleasure from sex with partners I was not in a committed relationship with as I did with my (ex-) wife and my current (6-year) relationship. And while I am indeed happy to be in this relationship, guess what? I was happy when I was single, too. In fact, I don’t even see how you can say “This applies…to sexual pleasures” with a straight face. My sex life with my ex-wife was probably the least satisfying of anybody I’ve done it with. And I hate to be “immoral”, but I tend to be “happier overall” when sex is expressed, whether or not it’s in the context of a permanent (yeah, that’s realistic) relationship or a one-night stand. Because, believe it or not, some of us are capable of being perfectly happy whether we’re committed to someone or not. Sex is just the icing on the cake, so to speak.
I think the most useful thing the political compass has ever done is provide us with these great debates.
As a test I find it to be particularly bad at everything other than bringing about controversial questions.
Many of the questions are two open ended. I may agree with the sentiments of a statement but not agree with the obvious policy decisions said statement would reflect. And that’s why I’m torn on half the questions on the test. Do I click agree because I know I agree with the sentiment, or disagree because most of the important policy decisions that would come from that sentiment I disagree with.
And then there are the “importan” questions.
'The most important thing thing for children to learn is to accept discipline."
“The prime function of schooling should be to equip the future generation to find jobs.”
These questions suck. I know it’s going to impact my score no matter what I click in a way thta doesn’t represent my political views.
I think it is absolute importance we equip the future generation to find jobs. But I think it’s one of the most important aspects of schooling that is equalled by other goals of schooling.
And while I think learning to accept discipline is vital to being a member of society, there are also other extremely vital things children have to learn.
That’s why the test needs new questions or needs an “undecided” option.
Anyways, for this issues I clicked disagree (3.63, 0.41).
Although I think it is very common for extramarital sex to be immoral (for example adultery is immoral, many sexual encounters that involve deceit or inebriation are immoral) I don’t think it’s “usually” immoral.
I will politely request that the discussion of whether the Old Testament forbids sex between unmarried people be taken to a new, dedicated thread thanks, Dio and Maeglin.
Firstly, a 0.5 shift for each question is nothing out of the ordinary - some of the other sections are similarly important on either axis. Secondly, the point in a western democracy (for which the test is focussed) is that your attitudes strongly affect the way you vote and therefore what acts of government are enacted: I’d suggest it would be far less useful to frame every proposition as “I believe that the government should/should not …”
In this particular instance, a sense of the immorality of unmarried sex will have important consequences for which policies regarding abortion, teen pregancy, sexual healthcare, ‘consent’, parental rights, living/dead wills and a hold raft of other real life, real personal issues you advocate or oppose.
Again, the word “immoral” is a curious one to choose regarding this particular freedom. Is it “immoral” to drink alcohol, ride a motorbike, watch simulated violence or any number of other pleasures which might hold possible negative consequences? What the heck is “immoral” about condoms?
