It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Jesus taboo: Sex.

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Jesus became a human, but did he experience one of the most basic and important human traits: Sex?

There is no mention of Jesus having any kind of (sexual) relationship in the Bible. It puzzles me that God would become "flesh" only to not experience one of the strongest emotions a human can have. I'd be very curious how Jesus handled puberty? Was he into Brunettes, or Blondes ...


It goes even further than just the sexual act. People who are in a relationship, and have kids will face a host of challenges that "bachelors" are not able to address. It's like catholic priests doing family counseling. That's like the blind explaining a Picasso painting. Many problems on this planet stem from family issues. But Jesus wasn't able to experience it. I'd be so curious to read what kind of father he was ... And no, being a "father" to the entire world does not apply. I want to read how he changed them diapers ...


So I really don't understand why the Bible doesn't mention any relationships he had. Was Jesus asexual?

I'm probably going to offend many Christians with my sex questions, but I feel it's an important omission that genuinely puzzles me.




posted on May, 31 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   
ok can I play? I feel like offending the bible thumpers so here goes 2 very possible scenarios
1.jesus was into hookers or whores- mary magdeline anyone
or
2.jesus was gay he hung around 12 gays I mean 12 guys- notice how there is no mention of his disciples having wives hmmm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

either way he was getting some or giving some



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   
As a christian, I don't believe most christians have a problem with sincere questions. It's the ones that have an ulterior motive(s) that bother us i think. or that are deceptive.

Having said THAT the bible says he (Jesus) was tempted in all ways, and so I believe it.

And yes I've had the same questions myself.

Peace.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by gaurdian2012
 


Jesus healed peter's mother in law.

0/10



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by schadenfreude
reply to post by gaurdian2012
 


Jesus healed peter's mother in law.

0/10


fair enough I forgot about that one. but what about the other 11 gays oops guys?



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   
I remember On the BBC in the UK years ago there was a film Showing what jesus life would of been like if he didn't die and lived a normal human life. He had sex and it got the most complaints the BBC ever got up until l that point.

so your right its very taboo.
i would say most jesus people like to picture him as above such primitive urges.

IMO



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   
I thought that information about his teen years (early sexually active years) were scant and then he appeared on the scene in his 30s?



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Many buddhists go through their whole lives without sex.

Higher spiritual living and knowledge goes beyond aspects of the "flesh".

Those who accuse Jesus of being gay because he hung out with 12 guys, must think the masons or any other organization with male membership only are a huge gay club ?



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   
There are hints that Jesus could have been married. Such as the turning of the water into wine at the wedding feast. Traditionally, it was the groom who was responsible for supplying the wine, and some say that is why Mary came to him when they ran out. However, that doesn't mean it had to be that way. Just that it was traditional.

If Jesus were married, it would not have been a sin. And from the Christian perspective, it would not have made him any less than who he is portrayed to be in the bible. The bible says he was sinless, not necessarily sexless.

So doctrinally, it makes little difference, except to those who have problems with Jesus having intimate relations with a wife.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by AllIsOne
 


Sex is a desire of the flesh. All desires of the flesh have the same outcome. It does not matter what the desire is the flesh can never be satisfied. Jesus overcame the desires of the flesh, knowing the outcome was not fulfillment but an emptiness that would only be satisfied by chasing down the desire.

The problem is fulfillment of the flesh is an illusion. There is no way to fulfill the desires of the flesh; this is why Jesus says that if you even look at a woman in lust you have already committed adultery with your heart.

Man's logic look but don't touch. But what is the path that this leads to?

You look because a women is beautiful and looking satisfies the eyes. But are they satisfied, or do they want to look some more? So a look becomes a stare. Are you satisfied now? The stare becomes a desire? The desire becomes a flirt. The flirt becomes a touch. The touch becomes adultery.

But never are you satisfied. You will never find satisfaction in the flesh. For the satisfaction of the flesh is temporary and returns even greater than before.

Why would Jesus take this empty path?

If you do not believe in the God's one and only son you stand condemned already. What did you think this meant?

You can believe in men and go down a path that leads to death or you can believe in the words that Jesus spoke and take the narrow path that lead to life.

edit on 31-5-2012 by sacgamer25 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   
It is also worth considering, if one accepts that he was originally either a Nazarite, or Essene, that there was a reason for him breaking away from the ascetic path. It could be, that that reason was that he wished to explore his sexuality. Most of his teaching hints that he believed in 'true marriage', as a faithful union between two people. Both what he says about divorce, and about celibacy denote that he preferred, himself, something else. However, the Roman Church that came to dominate the teaching of his word, chose celibacy for it's ministers, and therefore had a vested interest in promoting that version of events over all others.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by sacgamer25
 


Sex is also an expression of love.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by schadenfreude
 


Thank you for your open mind. I appreciate it.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Biliverdin
 



I disagree. I believe that sex is a fulfillment of desire and not an expression of love. Two people can love each other without sex. Every loving expression of love can be done without sex. It can also be argued that sexual desire has lead many into improper relationships based on the pretext of love.

We have been taught that people who are in love, express that through sexuality. This is why so many teanager have premarital sex, get pregnant, and transmit STD's. Because they love their partner so they express that love in the way they have been taught.

It is not until they realize, especially girls, that this act of "love" was merely a satisfaction of the flesh that they become depressed and feel worthless. So what do they do? They look to another boy for love, by doing the thing that is loving, having sex.

By teaching that sex is an expression of love, you have elevated the act of sex to the very level of love itself.

Expressions of love are a kind word, a compliment when unexpected, encouragement in discouraging situations, responding with kindness when anger is the expected reaction, serving your partner as if they are royalty.

In no way can the act of sex express love in the way that the act of doing can. If we would focus more on doing for than having sex maybe our children would actually learn how to love.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Everything made sense what your wrote, but then you had to revert to intimidation. Why, oh why?



If you do not believe in the God's one and only son you stand condemned already.


If you were born in Saudi Arabia your religion and God would probably be a different one.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by sacgamer25
In no way can the act of sex express love in the way that the act of doing can. If we would focus more on doing for than having sex maybe our children would actually learn how to love.


My child was created in an act of love. I don't disagree with you, at all, but I did stipulate that it was a act of love, not the act of love. How it is used, and debased, depends largely upon the individuals involved, but that does not detract from the fact that it can be an act of pure love. I can't see Jesus, if he had explored that aspect of himself, having misused it.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Well, if descendents truly exist then that's real evidence that Jesus did have sex.

And Jesus was never against having sex, he was against immoral sex. There is a difference.

Although Christianity can't really seem to agree on how far immoral sex definitions go.

I'll never understand this attitude, however, of sex is only for married people for the sake of procreation only. I just don't understand why why two people who can't have children because of medical reason (I'm not talking being gay here so please don't derail the thread with that topic) can't get married. It boggles the mind.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by sacgamer25
 


Also, the pathological denial of our genetical ancestry brings nothing but mental confusion. We ARE animals that have a sex drive. There is nothing intrinsically bad about that.

We also need water to function. We need to intake fluids every day. That thirst won't be satisfied with a really big gulp. So is thirst a really bad thing that should be overcome? Why are basic biological needs a bad thing in your world, or is it only sex?



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   
Hmm. Can you quote the bible where it says Jesus did not have sex.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllIsOne
reply to post by sacgamer25
 


Also, the pathological denial of our genetical ancestry brings nothing but mental confusion. We ARE animals that have a sex drive. There is nothing intrinsically bad about that.

We also need water to function. We need to intake fluids every day. That thirst won't be satisfied with a really big gulp. So is thirst a really bad thing that should be overcome? Why are basic biological needs a bad thing in your world, or is it only sex?


We won't die if we don't have sex...which I think answers your question. The species would not reproduce, but a drive is quite different to a need. We need water to live, we don't need to have sex to live.




top topics



 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join