The Jesus taboo: Sex.

reply to post by theconspirator


Are you replying to me? Did you read my question, or are you answering a different thread, and got confused ?

Originally posted by gaurdian2012
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

Peter had a mother in law. You get one of those when you marry.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Peter had a mother in law. You get one of those when you marry.

As I understood it, there is also a number of references to the 'companions' of some of the other disciples too. Assuming also, that we don't just limit ourselves to the official twelve.

Originally posted by gaurdian2012

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?

You're only trolling/flaming.

Originally posted by Biliverdin

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Peter had a mother in law. You get one of those when you marry.

As I understood it, there is also a number of references to the 'companions' of some of the other disciples too. Assuming also, that we don't just limit ourselves to the official twelve.

edit on 31-5-2012 by Biliverdin because: unnecessary excess

Well if we want to make the scope greater than the 12 then there are several wives spoken of. I assumed the other member was referring to the 12.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Well if we want to make the scope greater than the 12 then there are several wives spoken of. I assumed the other member was referring to the 12.

Well that is all that most are taught about, so fair assumption, and it fits with the syncrenistic pattern of the establishment of the Roman Church, but as you clearly know, there was a much wider circle involved, and Jesus was obviously accepting of all the relationships that his followers and pupils brought with them. And with the exception of perhaps Peter, they would, I presume, be as accepting of his.

Originally posted by Biliverdin

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.

I was trying to show that our bodily needs are neither bad, nor good. They are built-in into our DNA. Of course we need sex to survive as a species, same as drinking water.

I always get confused about the schism of body and soul that is so heavily promoted in the Bible. If you study current neuroscience that old paradigm is not supportable. We are animals with an "advanced" brain, and can do fine without a "soul".

The schism between "desire-driven animal body" and "moral, devine soul" has caused a lot of confusion in people. And I'm not just talking about celibate priests ...

Originally posted by Biliverdin

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Well if we want to make the scope greater than the 12 then there are several wives spoken of. I assumed the other member was referring to the 12.

Well that is all that most are taught about, so fair assumption, and it fits with the syncrenistic pattern of the establishment of the Roman Church, but as you clearly know, there was a much wider circle involved, and Jesus was obviously accepting of all the relationships that his followers and pupils brought with them. And with the exception of perhaps Peter, they would, I presume, be as accepting of his.

edit on 31-5-2012 by Biliverdin because: tinkering

This is only conjecture, but I would think He'd specifically pick disciples for the inner circle that didnt have wives or family. Easier to devote themselves to apostleship that way.

Originally posted by AllIsOne
I was trying to show that our bodily needs are neither bad, nor good. They are built-in into our DNA. Of course we need sex to survive as a species, same as drinking water.

We need sex to survive as a species, but not as an individual. It is a highly important distinction. As an individual I can choose to over-ride my need to reproduce for the betterment of the species in fact, we are heavily over-populated afterall.

Originally posted by AllIsOne
I always get confused about the schism of body and soul that is so heavily promoted in the Bible. If you study current neuroscience that old paradigm is not supportable. We are animals with an "advanced" brain, and can do fine without a "soul".

And why has our brain advanced? We are sentient, but then arguably so are many of the higher mammals, nothing unique in that. Sapience though is unique to humanity. Understanding the individual components, biological and chemical that go into our construction do not, and currently cannot, explain the whole. Our greatest failing, in my opinion, is our drive towards such specialism, and I am entirely with Robert Heinlein on that one, specialism is for insects. We can do everything and anything...why is that? And that includes over-riding none essential 'drives'.

Originally posted by AllIsOne
The schism between "desire-driven animal body" and "moral, devine soul" has caused a lot of confusion in people. And I'm not just talking about celibate priests ...

The point, in my humble opinion, is to find the balance between the two. Just because a biological imperiative exists does not mean we have to follow it, or rather, be led by it.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
This is only conjecture, but I would think He'd specifically pick disciples for the inner circle that didnt have wives or family. Easier to devote themselves to apostleship that way.

Not necessarily. Isn't it easier to do anything when you have support and understanding around you? Someone to rub your back when you get all knotted up from a hard days healing? I think that our view has been tainted by doctrine that was imposed upon us. And certainly, Mary, his mother was always close by, so he needed that closeness of support to some extent. Why would he deny others what he himself obviously needed?

reply to post by AllIsOne


This assuming that whoever wrote the bible was with jesus every minute of his life.

If we treat Jesus as a character in a book, then yes we can say he never got laid. But to assume that people recorded every minute of his life is ridiculous. I'm sure there are times Jesus snuck off for coitus or at least to bang one off.

Originally posted by Biliverdin

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
This is only conjecture, but I would think He'd specifically pick disciples for the inner circle that didnt have wives or family. Easier to devote themselves to apostleship that way.

Not necessarily. Isn't it easier to do anything when you have support and understanding around you? Someone to rub your back when you get all knotted up from a hard days healing? I think that our view has been tainted by doctrine that was imposed upon us. And certainly, Mary, his mother was always close by, so he needed that closeness of support to some extent. Why would he deny others what he himself obviously needed?

Not at all. I was talking about how much fun it is to get on site like this and share my faith for a few hours a day with my brother in law and he basically said "I wish, I dont get an hour of free time with work and the kids." Made me really thankful Im single, i enjoy things like this. I also want to be a missionary to either Africa or the middle east. Can you imagine this pickup line?

"Hey, wanna get married and share the gospel in Muslim lands with me?" Lol. MUCH easier to pursue those dreams alone.

There was nothing against sex that jesus felt he did not or could not have it. But then, there is no mention of sex when I read about Ghandi, was he a whoring sicko that hid it?

The reality is, the taboo of sex stems from the church, because some funky old fart in a funny hat decided it was wrong. His naughty bits must have hurt.

The church of old... back when they still acted like muslims...

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Not at all. I was talking about how much fun it is to get on site like this and share my faith for a few hours a day with my brother in law and he basically said "I wish, I dont get an hour of free time with work and the kids." Made me really thankful Im single, i enjoy things like this. I also want to be a missionary to either Africa or the middle east. Can you imagine this pickup line?

"Hey, wanna get married and share the gospel in Muslim lands with me?" Lol. MUCH easier to pursue those dreams alone.

Have you read the Lord of the Rings? Every quest differs, but the same principle of Fellowship applies to any group, large or small, and I think if anything, that Jesus and his group provide the basis for that principle. I think though that Tolkien, like many others, made the mistake of complying with the precedent set by Rome, that women cannot be fellows, that sex either has to exclude them, or as often, if not more so, be used to belittle their importance.

I am sure that when you get out there that you will find someone who compliments your work, not an absolute mirror, but someone who wants to help others, just differently. That, I think, if you look at it, is the essence of the group of people that surrounded Jesus, they were mutually supportive, in one way or another, but they had many different talents to offer and therefore complimented each other. I am sure that out in Africa, or the Middle-East, that there is a nice doctor or teacher, just waiting to support and be supported by someone like you.

Originally posted by mainidh
There was nothing against sex that jesus felt he did not or could not have it. But then, there is no mention of sex when I read about Ghandi, was he a whoring sicko that hid it?

The reality is, the taboo of sex stems from the church, because some funky old fart in a funny hat decided it was wrong. His naughty bits must have hurt.

The church of old... back when they still acted like muslims...

I read somewhere that Ghandi slept naked with his underage niece to test his spirituality.

reply to post by Biliverdin

Understanding the individual components, biological and chemical that go into our construction do not, and currently cannot, explain the whole.

Are you a creationist? If so there is nothing I can do to educate you, if not, you must have a different understanding of evolution than any scientist.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

I also want to be a missionary to either Africa or the middle east.

Thiis frightens me.
Isn't there some several years of training and high-level education and coaching you need to do that? Are you going to do this under the auspices of a specific church that is organizing and sponsoring such a religious endeavor?

Can you imagine this pickup line?
"Hey, wanna get married and share the gospel in Muslim lands with me?" Lol. MUCH easier to pursue those dreams alone.

I wouldn't be at all surprised you could find a gal who's gung-ho to do just that. Have you tried the Christian personals? Christian dating sites?
Wouldn't be MUCH more fun to pursue those dreams with a squeeze who agrees with you?

I think the Bible doesnt mention it because it isnt important. The specifics of Jesus' life isnt what any of us should care about, it's his message of love and forgivness that is important.

I have serious issues believing Jesus died a virgin...

33 years on this planet, and he didn't have sex once?

No chance... Sex isn't a temptation, its a basic need...

I believe he had a wife (mary), and likely children as well...

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

I also want to be a missionary to either Africa or the middle east.

Thiis frightens me.
Isn't there some several years of training and high-level education and coaching you need to do that? Are you going to do this under the auspices of a specific church that is organizing and sponsoring such a religious endeavor?

Can you imagine this pickup line?
"Hey, wanna get married and share the gospel in Muslim lands with me?" Lol. MUCH easier to pursue those dreams alone.

I wouldn't be at all surprised you could find a gal who's gung-ho to do just that. Have you tried the Christian personals? Christian dating sites?
Wouldn't be MUCH more fun to pursue those dreams with a squeeze who agrees with you?

Naaa religious folks say its all about your degree, your ordination papers blah blah blah, but when I look at the book of ACTS I see none of that. The apostle Paul never went to seminary. All one needs is the baptism of the Holy Ghost. And I was making a funny, im totally cool being single. I was trying to be silly. Its easier to spend more time with Christ and sharing the gospel without a significant other or children to raise. I have a TON of expendible time.