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: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   
i'm sure he felt temptation. that's part of being a man. but like all great sages he knew chastity was essential. semen must be retained. Buddha, Jesus, and all the sages of anquity knew this. why do you think a man can't turn his head without seeing half naked women everywhere. on online ads, on billboards, it's everywhere. i havent conquered lust, but i've been doing "good" for the past 6 months. only 11.5 years to go




posted on May, 31 2012 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

The apostle Paul never went to seminary. All one needs is the baptism of the Holy Ghost.
You aren't "the apostle Paul". You're being silly here, too, right? So, a person baptized as an infant and at age, say, 4, starts singing about the condemnation of homosexuals while his parents and their peers cheer...he can go out and evangelize, too....right? Besides, en.wikipedia.org...-3

The establishment of modern seminaries resulted from Roman Catholic reforms of the Counter-Reformation after the Council of Trent.[4] The Tridentine seminaries placed great emphasis on personal discipline as well as the teaching of philosophy as a preparation for theology.[5]
and en.wikipedia.org...

The Council of Trent (Latin: Concilium Tridentinum) was an Ecumenical Council of the Roman Catholic Church. It is considered to be one of the Church's most important[1] councils. It convened in Trent (then capital of the Prince-Bishopric of Trent of the Holy Roman Empire, in Italy) between December 13, 1545, and December 4, 1563 in twenty-five sessions for three periods. Council fathers met for the first through eighth sessions in Trent (1545–7), and for the ninth through eleventh sessions in Bologna (1547) during the pontificate of Pope Paul III.[2] Under Pope Julius III, the council met in Trent (1551–52) for the twelfth through sixteenth sessions. Under Pope Pius IV, the seventeenth through twenty-fifth sessions took place in Trent (1559–63)
That was, erm, uh, *counting on fingies* .... wait....1525 or so years after Paul was an adult doing his evangelizing/political thing and sending letters to the various 'congregations' he 'organized' to make sure they didn't derail his thread (
). Paul was all about politics, he wanted to spread through-out the empire, and be the CEO...
seminaries didn't exist.
Jesus himself went through years of study and training and practice before he began his ministry. Years as an initiate into the sect of his family, who were gnostic Essenes. Then into the Far East, to study with masters there. Those masters acknowledged him as a truly gifted one; his cousin John also learned those methods, and he, too, recognized the acuity of Jesus' skills and depth.

Still, you are right, all that Paul had was a vision ..... the retelling of which story itself varies. en.wikipedia.org...

An apparent contradiction in the details of the account of Paul's revelatory vision given in Acts has been the subject of much debate.[14] Specifically, the experience of Paul's travelling companions as told in Acts 9:7 and 22:9 has raised questions about the historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles, and generated debate about the best translations of the relevant passages. The two passages each describe the experience of Paul's travelling companions during the revelation, with Acts 9:7 (the author's description of the event) stating that Paul's travelling companions heard the voice that spoke to him; and Acts 22:9 (the author's quotation of Paul's own words) traditionally stating they did not.
Hmmm...

And I was making a funny, im totally cool being single. I was trying to be silly.
I know. I got it.
But that does bring up the issue of life experience.

Its easier to spend more time with Christ and sharing the gospel without a significant other or children to raise.
Single with no kids?

As a survivor of several doomed relationships, a 1980's poster girl, parent of a son and daughter who are successful young adults, a recovering depressive and former substance abuser, and having obtained advanced education in communication and counseling (helping) skills, I was able (during my formal "helping" career) to relate to many, many people. Some of the younger (20somethng) grads in my classes and workplaces had never been out in the real world, ever.

Straight through school, pampered, sponsored, and supported by their parents (pronounced: PAY-rents)...
and they were absolutely certain they could change the world.

During the years of practicum (working in the field and attending classes to discuss), we shared many an intern's anecdotes of surprises, successes, confusions, failures, faux pas, etc. Lots of those young people (still adolescents themselves) reported having been dressed down by 'clients' who scoffed at them and wondered at their audacity.

Just sayin'....if the objective is to be taken seriously about such serious matters, one ought to at least have lived through the experiences of those whom they are aiming to "guide".
edit on 31-5-2012 by wildtimes because: Linkies!! Here, linkies!!



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 09:30 PM
link   
People tend to overlook the missing years, those years of his life that we no nothing about, nothing at all. HE could have had a family with lots of children. We simply don't know.

People often forget to play the simpler cards. We were made in Gods image. Therefore we look the same as God and we function the same as God and therefore God has a sex drive.

Remember always it is MAN that says celibacy is a path to sanctity. It is also a path that many fall off and our children pay the price and have for generation after generation going back thousands of years.

To my knowledge neither God nor his Son nor any other Prophet ever asked anyone to be celibate.

P



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by AllIsOne
 


Firstly, sex is not an essential of life. Some people go without their whole lives.

Secondly, Jesus mission was primarily about issues of morality and behavior.

Thirdly, perhaps there's a whole lot of stuff that is better than sex, but you can't have both.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by pheonix358
People tend to overlook the missing years, those years of his life that we no nothing about, nothing at all. HE could have had a family with lots of children. We simply don't know.

People often forget to play the simpler cards. We were made in Gods image. Therefore we look the same as God and we function the same as God and therefore God has a sex drive.

Remember always it is MAN that says celibacy is a path to sanctity. It is also a path that many fall off and our children pay the price and have for generation after generation going back thousands of years.

To my knowledge neither God nor his Son nor any other Prophet ever asked anyone to be celibate.

P


if you want to see God you have to direct your whole mind to him. that means controlling the mind. that means overcoming compulsion. sex for the most part(though it can become conscious) is compulsion
edit on 31-5-2012 by biggmoneyme because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by biggmoneyme
i'm sure he felt temptation. that's part of being a man. but like all great sages he knew chastity was essential. semen must be retained.


Please enlighten me. Why is chastity essential?



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by AllIsOne
 


No he did not have sex. If you knew anything about ancient judaism you wouldn't have bothered to post this nonsense.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


I'm happy to learn something. Can you elaborate ...?



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by AllIsOne
 


No he did not have sex. If you knew anything about ancient judaism you wouldn't have bothered to post this nonsense.


What does Jesus have to do with ancient judaism? not much



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllIsOne

Originally posted by biggmoneyme
i'm sure he felt temptation. that's part of being a man. but like all great sages he knew chastity was essential. semen must be retained.


Please enlighten me. Why is chastity essential?


More than one reason. A man loses sexual energy when he ejaculates. The energy should be brought up the spine. Also sexaul desires arise out of compulsion. You can't say you have a disciplined mind if you're still a slave to compulsion. and it's take the pointed mind to see behind the veil



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 11:08 PM
link   
Sex is evil and dirty....mmkay class.

All kidding aside, anyone remember a controversial movie from 20 years ago called "Passion of the Christ," or summat, depicting Jesus with a wife and kids? Whether or not Jesus had sex seems to depend wholly on who you ask. Isn't having relations within a marriage considered to be a sacrament for Catholics? Moot point, I suppose, considering the Lord himself was Jewish. Nevermind...



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by biggmoneyme
 


Can you see behind the veil? What is there?



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by BULLPIN
 


The movie was called The Last Temptation of Christ I believe, not to be confused with Mel Gibson's documentary on Christian sadomasochism (



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 03:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by AllIsOne
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.


Haha...either way, I don't believe I asked you to educate me. However, if you can explain the 'whole', then please do, but first, answer my question. Why is it that our brain has advanced to the point that it has? Now had you engaged your reason, instead of jumping to silly assumptions about people, you would have realised that it is impossible to understand the construction of the brain, and the body and to believe in creationism. The two are mutually exclusive.

Our brains are evolution in motion, but what is evolution in that context? That is, what purpose has it served, us, particularly? And, if, we are merely biological and chemical beings, why do we need some of the functions that that brain provides? Developing from that point, why is the fine-tuning of our brains left to chance, both of nature and nurture? The capability of realising sapience, despite our species designation, is a matter of developmental factors, we are all to a greater and lesser extent sentient, but sapience requires active participation developmentally of both the one who nurtures the child, and of the individual themselves. Hence why I believe, that understanding both the biological and chemical components are inadequate to explain the whole. Neither can explain the infinitely complex interactions that go into creating the 'whole' person or even the whole brain. Though as a caveat, the individual is capable, given all the information available to them, of explaining themselves, but that is sapience, and not a given by any means.

So to return to the point in hand, we have basic needs that as a bio-chemical organism that we have to provide, we also possess a biological imperative to reproduce the species, however, we possess an ability to achieve sapience, that allows us to choose whether to follow that imperative, or to over-ride it. Why is that? Now it could be argued that the biological imperative is overridden by the territorial imperative...which again brings us back down to the level of other higher mammals that possess sentience, and indeed one or two that don't, but again, we can, if we engage reason and rationale, find solutions to the territorial issue, and live in rather close quarters to each other without conflct. Again, why? We could claim evolution, but that is a very, very rapid evolution.

In terms of sexuality, we only have to look at our closest relatives, the chimps to see that sex plays a very important role in social cohesion beyond the need to reproduce, as it does in some other higher mammals, but why have humans felt the need to place such stringent norms and values on that expression if it is only 'natural'?

Now, these are just random mumblings, but hopefully, you will see why I said, assumptions aside, that there is currently no means of explaining the whole, of what it is particularly, to be human. We can explain certain functions, certain aspects and behaviouralisms, but none of that explains the 'whole' and why we are capable of over-riding any number of those functions, should we choose to engage sapience. Though, please, do go ahead and educate me to the contrary.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 04:34 AM
link   
There is no indication that Jesus had a wife sex or children, if He did then He would have been responsible for them and not an itinerant preacher. It would also have been noted in the Gospels and at the cross where His wife and children were at the execution.
Its a relevant question though, imagine the Creator of sex desiring sex. It was created to be enjoyed within a marriage (marriage of husband and wife, marriage means man and woman. Good luck to homosexuals and their civil ceremony but its not marriage) so outside of marriage Christ would not have partaken in sex.
Did He want to? Who knows. Clearly though He didnt, it would have constituted sin.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 05:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by AllIsOne
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.


Reductionism is a presupposed axiom of science; it is not a proven case.

"A theory that is the product of a mind cannot explain the mind that produced the theory"

Regards.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 05:25 AM
link   
reply to post by AllIsOne
 


just to interject some common sense - the bible fantasies - ooops tails ommit many detail

but to sujest that because the bible doesnt claim jesus had hetrosexual relationships , leaping to the " conclusion " that he was an active homosexual is assanine on a level far beyond anything the bible offers



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 05:49 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 05:59 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 08:45 AM
link   

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.


So, let's get this straight;

Body tells you it needs water, you drink = A-OK, God's Plan.
Body tells you it needs to reproduce with a suitable mate, you mate = Giving in to temptation, God's Pissed.

That makes no sense. Why would we be designed to have sex, produce offspring and care for those offspring deeply if it's wrong and unnecessary? So the "drive" or the "need" for water is ok, but the "drive" or the "need" for sex is wrong? By that logic, one person's sinner's scorecard is more important than the longevity of our entire species. That's insane.

I think the reason for the long gap in jesus' bio is glaringly obvious; he was a normal young man. They had to invent this crazy birth in a manger story to give their superhero an epic origin story. Then they just skipped to whenever he was already this traveling preacher figure rather than tell about his pubescent adventures in dating and smashing mailboxes with baseball bats or whatever he and his buds were up to. You can't preach the kind of deep, brotherly love wisdom that jesus did without living a life of wide and varying experiences. I think jesus probably tried quite a few different lifestyles out in order to help him better understand the human condition.

At the end of the day, he was a wandering preacher with a small band of devoted followers; a reasonably common occurrence in those days. Jesus and his crew needed to draw big crowds in order to support their lifestyle. They depended on the good will and charity of the people who came to hear them speak. They wouldn't have been successful without really connecting to the People, and they could not have done that by living these sterile, unrealistic lives parallel to the masses. They would have resonated with messages drawn from real life experiences.

So, which world do you think god would rather we embrace; the real world that's right in front of us, or the idealized vision of a sinless future that only exists in the minds of the "faithful?"



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join