Prostitution

[dairygirl4u2c]

i don't think many of these sorta sins affect the social order enough to justify banning them. prostitution, maybe.

i always argued aquanis, i guess.

[quote]id guess they'd say only bad speech that has to do with sodomy, masturbation etc, and be inconsistent about it as they are with banning sins.

a significant number have a weird outlook on outlawing stuff. they say things like "if it's sinful, ban it". more specifically, "if it's stereotyipi\ally controversially sinful, ban it etc". eg, sodomy, masturbation, fornication, adultery.
some haven't considered masturbation etc, but it'd go up there with sodomy etc, if all that's banned too, there's really no way around it.

then out of the other side of their mouth, they say "don't ban smoking too much, or drinking too much. it's a free country"

actually, they dont per se say 'if it's sinful ban it',,, but it's the only conclusion one could draw. most haven't thought about the conclusions of their beliefs.
and they dont say ban it *because* it's stereotypically sinful, but that's why they hold those beliefs so inconsistently (me thinks

"don't ban, swearing at your own home" ?
"ban eating too much?"
"ban every sin in the book"? (whether it's enforceable is a separate issue of whether it should be banned or not


if i grant benfit of the doubt, and they say only ban 'serious sins', then they still should be against smoking andor drinking too much, masturbation, fornication, disrespecting yoru parents etc.



really, they should realize, that we're free to do this stuff. true, it's not freedom in a spritual sense, as we're slaves to sin. but it's freedom to sin, that God intended. (before anyone jumps on this statement... 'free will', now it's okay what i just said) he didn't want us to compelled not to sin. (it's not like their hearts aren't in it anyway
so if it's compelled, it's not freedom in any sense of the word.
that's what freedom people are talking about per the first amendment. not to be forcibly compelled to "freedom" of not sinning.[/quote]

maybe masturbation isn't that big of a deal in the social order, but one could definitely argue that it does.

in any case, getting drunk, does. yet many a conservative would say 'stay outta my house' 'outta my kitchen' or whatever. yet don't apply it to other things, inconsistently.

disrepecting parents, even as adults etc, do.
i guess those are not so much 'natural law' as some of these other things, ie like going to church affects social order but even many conservatives would draw the distinction that that's divine law and not mandatable or finable etc- and i can buy that distinction.

Edited July 16, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[Vasilius Konstantinos]

The Libertarian in me says it should be legalized and never should have been illegal in the first place, like many other laws as well which prohibit people from other things/substances. The ethical man here does not condone anything like this at all, which of course is a condemnation of anything like this happening in my own home, ever.

[Varg]

Mary Magdalene was a prostitute, wasn't she?

[Nihil Obstat]

People have often thought so, but I don't think there's proof either way. I may be incorrect, of course, but I think that our knowledge stops at her being "a sinner".

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1922176' date='Jul 16 2009, 10:54 PM']People have often thought so, but I don't think there's proof either way. I may be incorrect, of course, but I think that our knowledge stops at her being "a sinner".[/quote]

Her name could etymologically be related to the word for "adulteress," and she is usually identified with the woman caught in adultery in [i]John[/i] 8.

Edited July 17, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Varg]

Why did the person who wrote the bible make Mary Magdalane a prostitute? Pretty stupid, don't you think?

[MIKolbe]

[quote name='Varg' post='1922574' date='Jul 17 2009, 03:07 AM']Why did the person who wrote the bible make Mary Magdalane a prostitute? Pretty stupid, don't you think?[/quote]
Yeah.. stupid in a merciful redemptive way.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Varg' post='1922574' date='Jul 17 2009, 07:07 AM']Why did the person who wrote the bible make Mary Magdalane a prostitute? Pretty stupid, don't you think?[/quote]
Because the bible is filled with stories of real sinful human beings with all their faults and virtues.

[Didacus]

[quote name='Varg' post='1921852' date='Jul 16 2009, 04:36 PM']Mary Magdalene was a prostitute, wasn't she?[/quote]

She did not persist in her sinful ways.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Varg' post='1922574' date='Jul 17 2009, 05:07 AM']Why did the person who wrote the bible make Mary Magdalane a prostitute? Pretty stupid, don't you think?[/quote]
Yes, pretty stupid that even the worst of sinners can be saved by Christ. Doesn't make any sense at all.

[CatherineM]

Mary Magdalene was mis-identified as a prostitute by Pope Gregory the Great in a homily in 591 AD. She was the woman that Jesus drove the 7 evil spirits out of.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1932486' date='Jul 26 2009, 02:04 PM']Mary Magdalene was mis-identified as a prostitute by Pope Gregory the Great in a homily in 591 AD. She was the woman that Jesus drove the 7 evil spirits out of.[/quote]

I wouldn't say that he misidentified her.

I agree with his identification of Mary Magdalen with the "sinner" in Luke and with Mary of Bethany.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1932540' date='Jul 26 2009, 03:03 PM']I wouldn't say that he misidentified her.

I agree with his identification of Mary Magdalen with the "sinner" in Luke and with Mary of Bethany.[/quote]

Mary was identified by name several times in the bible. Why do you suppose that she wouldn't have been in Luke?

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1932549' date='Jul 26 2009, 03:13 PM']Mary was identified by name several times in the bible. Why do you suppose that she wouldn't have been in Luke?[/quote]

She was probably still alive when St. Luke wrote his gospel. Maybe he didn't want to defame her.

[CatherineM]

When a woman in that age and culture was identified by her hometown rather than as the wife or daughter or mother of someone, it was usually because she was well known, and probably had property. Many scholars believe that she was one of the individuals who financed Jesus' ministry. The only one defaming her, are those, like yourself, who continue to assume she was a fallen woman without a single concrete reference to that assumption.