Talk:Fornication

Georgia removed from list of states which currently outlaw fornication

Georgia was removed from the list of states which currently have laws against fornication. This is because the legislation which was cited (O.C.G.A 16-6-8) specifically outlaws public indecency and is not explicitly related to fornication which has to do with the marital status of the individuals involved in the acts. The code itself does not use the word 'fornication', nor does it mention marital status anywhere within the statute. 73.7.38.69 (talk) 13:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

It would appear that the mention of code section 16-6-8 was a typo and was always intended to be O.C.G.A. 16-6-18, which was in fact titled Fornication. Fabrickator (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Hah! When I first searched on this, I read about the two sections 16-6-18 (fornication) and 16-6-19 (adultery) being repealed, but when I went back to look at the page, I realized it was only a bill. Click on the following link to check the current status of the bill (you can also sign up for status updates). Fabrickator (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

My understanding now is that the legislative session in Georgia usually goes from January to March or April. So since it hadn't passed as of June 2024, it was already dead and would have to be re-introduced as a totally new bill in a subsequent legislative session. Fabrickator (talk) 04:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Maimonides

Maimonides is not a modern mainstream Bible scholar. Wikipedia listens to mainstream scholars. I'm not saying that Maimonides was wrong, just that his view was bound to his time and place.

Allowing a Medieval rabbi to speak in the name of all Judaism is dubious, at best.

We have:

• the authors of the Hebrew Bible;
• the authors of the Talmud;
• Maimonides;
• modern Conservative and Reform Judaism.

They were not necessarily upon the same page in respect to sexual ethics. Who tells us they were not upon the same page? Modern Bible scholars. They are the authorities Wikipedia listens to. Even without considering modern Judaism, those Ancient and Medieval authors were not upon the same page. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Coogan vs. Maimonides

@ZucherBundlech: Being a Roman Catholic is irrelevant: he does not kowtow to Catholic dogma, he is a modern Bible scholar.

Modern Bible scholarship/scholars (MBS) assumes that: • The Bible is a collection of books like any others: created and put together by normal (i.e. fallible) human beings; • The Bible is often inconsistent because it derives from sources (written and oral) that do not always agree; individual biblical books grow over time, are multilayered; • The Bible is to be interpreted in its context: ✦ Individual biblical books take shape in historical contexts; the Bible is a document of its time; ✦ Biblical verses are to be interpreted in context; ✦ The "original" or contextual meaning is to be prized above all others; • The Bible is an ideologically-driven text (collection of texts). It is not "objective" or neutral about any of the topics that it treats. Its historical books are not "historical" in our sense. ✦ "hermeneutics of suspicion"; ✦ Consequently MBS often reject the alleged "facts" of the Bible (e.g. was Abraham a real person? Did the Israelites leave Egypt in a mighty Exodus? Was Solomon the king of a mighty empire?); ✦ MBS do not assess its moral or theological truth claims, and if they do, they do so from a humanist perspective; ★ The Bible contains many ideas/laws that we moderns find offensive; • The authority of the Bible is for MBS a historical artifact; it does derive from any ontological status as the revealed word of God;

— Beardsley Ruml, Shaye J.D. Cohen's Lecture Notes: INTRO TO THE HEBREW BIBLE @ Harvard (BAS website) (78 pages)

Besides, I have quoted several rabbis who confirm that Coogan is right.

So, yes, there is something you don't know about Wikipedia: Ancient and Medieval scholars may be WP:CITED, but they are not the authorities Wikipedia listens to (see WP:VERECUNDIAM). Wikipedia listens to modern mainstream Bible scholars.

So, the relevance of Maimonides' POV for modern Judaism has to be established by citing modern mainstream Bible scholars, who are experts in that field, regardless of whether they are Jewish. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

My wife is an expert, among many other things, in Chaucer. She doesn’t “believe” in Chaucer, although she loves the texts and finds them personally important. There are professors in the university who teach the history of communism; most of them are not communists. Others teach the philosophy of Plato; they are not necessarily Platonists. Others teach the history of 20th century Germany; they aren’t Nazis. Others teach criminology; they aren’t necessary mass murderers. ... And so a scholar of Buddhism is not necessarily Buddhist (the ones I know aren’t); a scholar of American fundamentalism is not necessarily an American fundamentalist (one of my colleagues in that field at UNC is an Israeli Jew); a scholar of the history of Catholicism is not necessarily Roman Catholic (another colleague of mine in that field is, again, somewhat oddly, another Israeli Jew); scholars of Islam are not necessarily Muslim (neither of my colleagues in that field are); etc etc.

— ehrmanblog.org

Some people maintain that it is impossible to study Jesus without believing in him. Do you think this is true? Is it true for other areas of academic study? Is it possible, for example, to study Buddhism without being a Buddhist? Or the Dialogues of Socrates without being a Platonist? Or communism without being a Marxist?

— The Historical Jesus. Part I. Professor Bart D. Ehrman. The Teaching Company, 2000, p. 4

We can start the topic by conceding that, just as no modern expert on Plato is expected to be a Platonist (even of the Middle or Neo- sort), no Bible expert should be expected to accept the ideas it puts forth, far less believe in its god(s) or its divine origin.

— Philip R. Davies, Reading the Bible Intelligently

So, faith commitments are irrelevant, only WP:SCHOLARSHIP published at Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, Harvard University Press, Yale University Press, and similar venues is relevant. The POV of mainstream full professors is relevant, the POV of the faithful not so much.

Wikipedia believes Coogan because he was often published at Oxford University Press. And it believes Tigay because his POV was also published at Oxford University Press.

Morals: Just because you are a Jew and I'm not, it does not mean that you have special editing rights about Judaism.

So, now it's Coogan + Tigay + Ruttenberg + Meirowitz + Adelman vs. your own take upon a Medieval writing. See en:Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive_244#Gospel of John for how it worked for someone who thought that Ancient scholars should be preferred to modern Bible professors.

You're asking us to pass a Medieval POV for unvarnished truth, and that's not compliant with WP:NPOV. Maimonides is an authority for Jews, same as St. Augustine is an authority for Catholics. Do Catholics do everything St. Augustine told them to do? Or, at least, pretend to obey all the rules stipulated by him?

The reasoning is as follows: who makes the claim? Answer: Maimonides. Who considers such claim as binding? Answer: Orthodox Jews. Do Reform and Conservative Jews consider it binding? Answer: I'm not so sure about that. Maybe many Jews believe that Maimonides is right—but only so far as his claim concerns women. And, if you wonder, my remark isn't antisemitism; it is feminism. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Shveka and Faust (2020)

The authors to state upfront: "It is a common opinion in recent scholarship that biblical law is lenient in its attitude towards premarital sex." So, I'm not saying that the authors of the study are wrong, just that it seems to be a minority view.

As one scholar pointed out, the evidence is mostly about what urban elites thought and did. There is not much evidence about the rural lower classes. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)