Debating Christianity and Religion

Sexual behaviour seems to attract excessive attention in Abrahamic scriptures. Why is that?
There exist already, in Abrahamic as in other faiths and social customs, sets of rules and agreements concerning how we should behave toward each other, in general.
What is so special about sex?

Box Whatbox wrote: Sexual behaviour seems to attract excessive attention in Abrahamic scriptures. Why is that?
There exist already, in Abrahamic as in other faiths and social customs, sets of rules and agreements concerning how we should behave toward each other, in general.
What is so special about sex?

I assume you're referring to the Old Testament, in which God was trying to tell the Israelites how to not be like the nations and peoples around them (who apparently were into sexual perversions a lot).

sfisher wrote:
I assume you're referring to the Old Testament, in which God was trying to tell the Israelites how to not be like the nations and peoples around them (who apparently were into sexual perversions a lot).

That amongst others.
What I am asking is, since we already have moral laws on assault, exploitation, abuse, cruelty, etc; and since we have these days very good knowledge of health, disease avoidance, reproductive control, etc, why do we continue to feel a need to have a whole set of moral rules dealing specifically with sex?

Box Whatbox wrote:

sfisher wrote:
I assume you're referring to the Old Testament, in which God was trying to tell the Israelites how to not be like the nations and peoples around them (who apparently were into sexual perversions a lot).

That amongst others.
What I am asking is, since we already have moral laws on assault, exploitation, abuse, cruelty, etc; and since we have these days very good knowledge of health, disease avoidance, reproductive control, etc, why do we continue to feel a need to have a whole set of moral rules dealing specifically with sex?

Why do you think we already have moral laws on assault, exploitation, abuse, cruelty, etc.? Are you opposed to moral laws in general, or just the ones that you don't like?

Box Whatbox wrote:

sfisher wrote:
I assume you're referring to the Old Testament, in which God was trying to tell the Israelites how to not be like the nations and peoples around them (who apparently were into sexual perversions a lot).

That amongst others.
What I am asking is, since we already have moral laws on assault, exploitation, abuse, cruelty, etc; and since we have these days very good knowledge of health, disease avoidance, reproductive control, etc, why do we continue to feel a need to have a whole set of moral rules dealing specifically with sex?

In my mind, this brings up the question of how and why we apply morals, and to WHICH behavior morals are applied to. As a nonbeliever, I believe morals don't come from a purely objective source such as a god. Believers see morals as coming from a god as a set of rules which are to be obeyed. Without a god dispensing rules, I see how morals have essentially developed in response (to something), and for a purpose, that indicates there was some excess or dearth of what we (humans) need to maintain a general well-being. Aside from the dispute about the source of morality, it's clear to anyone that morals exhibit development, and have been refined over the ages, and have maintaining a consistent 'theme'. It is still not OK to steal or murder, but the particulars of these morals have undergone change to adapt to more and more modern issues.

Morality's purpose could be seen as a kind of a balancing act that prevents an uneven distribution of 'power' (including symbolic kinds of power, like wealth, health, one's right to be alive and stay alive). At least when I examine the RESULTS of moral behavior, I see the preservation of 'well-being', both individual and collective as the pervasive theme.

Before we had the modern options of health knowledge, disease prevention and birth control, we apprehended the 'wisdom' of restricting sexual behavior to result in greater well-being for the individual and the group. Without the benefit of REASONS to curtail sexual behavior, the moral particulars could have been . . . anything. They could arise from a tribal identity, and be part of how one tribe was distinguished from another. This happens today, and it's reasonable that it happened in the deep past.

I see that the Abrahamic religious restrictions on sexual behavior are still tribe-specific, imposed upon children long before they stop to question the wisdom of their elders. The reasons provided to adhere to these morals are that they are required for obedience to God (for Abrahamic religions). For secular and nonbelievers, reasoning is nurtured in children most often along the same lines, ie, indiscriminate sexual behavior is not OK (disease transmission), having sex outside a relationship where the agreement was exclusive sex is not OK, and the modern understanding of disease process and human psychology are offered but basically, at least so far as I can see, the end result -- restricting human sexual behavior -- is pretty much the same.

Objective morals delivered by God are rarely accompanied by reasons that something is forbidden. These same morals could be extrapolated, to a limited but essential degree, from reason, thanks to modern developments in understanding human psychology, disease transmission and reproductive control.

Obedience versus reasoned restriction. It's an example of Kohlberg's stages of moral development, a transition from a pre-conventional morality to post-conventional morality.

The essential NEED has not gone away, but how we approach the need for restricting sexual behavior has been refined over time and the advance of the knowledge we have about our world.

Box Whatbox wrote:

sfisher wrote:
I assume you're referring to the Old Testament, in which God was trying to tell the Israelites how to not be like the nations and peoples around them (who apparently were into sexual perversions a lot).

That amongst others.
What I am asking is, since we already have moral laws on assault, exploitation, abuse, cruelty, etc; and since we have these days very good knowledge of health, disease avoidance, reproductive control, etc, why do we continue to feel a need to have a whole set of moral rules dealing specifically with sex?

Actually you make me wonder - I bet we have more laws now than they did.

[Replying to post 6 by Wootah]

I don't think quantity is so much an issue, but the arbitrary nature in which they are applied.

Sodomy=death
Rape of a unwed virgin=marriage

It doesn't really make much sense if you ask me.

DanieltheDragon wrote: [Replying to post 6 by Wootah]

I don't think quantity is so much an issue, but the arbitrary nature in which they are applied.

Sodomy=death
Rape of a unwed virgin=marriage

It doesn't really make much sense if you ask me.

Now , among the things that are not specifically spelled out in the Torah, but was accepted as part of the oral law is that the maiden has the right of refusal to get married. They guy still owed the bride price to her father, but she didn't have to marry him.

I have seen the claimed rational for that is for those men who ..hum .. 'I promise i'll marry you' to get certain favors. This sort of forces the issue.

[Replying to post 8 by Goat]

regardless of the unspoken nature of things a forced sexual act on another at worst means you don't get that person as a wife and you have to pay her bridal price. Yet a consensual sexual act nets the death penalty. It is still absurd no matter which way you slice it.

DanieltheDragon wrote: [Replying to post 8 by Goat]

regardless of the unspoken nature of things a forced sexual act on another at worst means you don't get that person as a wife and you have to pay her bridal price. Yet a consensual sexual act nets the death penalty. It is still absurd no matter which way you slice it.

By the 1st century bce, it was almost impossible to enforce the death penalty, because of the restrictions that were put on it.

For instance, it is ruled that two witnesses are required to testify not only that they witnessed the act for which the criminal has been charged but that they had warned him beforehand that if he carried out the act he would be executed, and he had to accept the warning, stating his willingness to commit the act despite his awareness of its consequences. The criminal's own confession is not accepted as evidence. Moreover, circumstantial evidence is not admitted.
From Practice to Theory

It has to be appreciated, however, that practically all this material comes from a time when the right to impose the death penalty had been taken away from the Jewish courts by the Roman authorities. According to one report in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 41a) the power of the Jewish courts to the death penalty ceased around the year 30 BCE; according to another report (Sanhedrin 52b) it could only have been imposed while the Temple stood and must have come to an end not later than 70 CE when the Temple was destroyed.

This means that, although earlier traditions may be present in the Mishnaic formulations, the whole topic, including the restrictions, is treated in the Mishnah and the Talmud in a purely theoretical way. It is hard to believe that when the courts did impose the death penalty they could only do so when the conditions above obtained. Who would commit a murder in the presence of two witnesses when these had solemnly warned him that if he persisted they would testify against him to have him executed for his crime?

That the Mishnaic material is purely on the theoretical level can be seen from the oft-quoted statement (Mishnah Makkot 1:10): "A Sanhedrin that puts a man to death once in seven years is called destructive. Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah says: even once in seventy years. Rabbi Akiba and Rabbi Tarfon say: had we been in the Sanhedrin none would ever have been put to death. Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel says: they would have multiplied shedders of blood in Israel