• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why Believe Jesus Never Had Sex?

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Does the same thought process apply to Christians today?
Hello 9/10s I see you have a new avatar.

Yes it does, however we are not Christ and therefore most of us will fail. Let me quote what the bible says about this.

New International Version
Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do.
But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion
I’ve heard plenty of ministers describe marriage not just as something acceptable to address human imperfection but as praiseworthy in its own right... even as a “calling from God” in some cases.
1 Corinthians 7:9 But if they cannot control themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

So being celibate as Christ was is best but marring is also good if we can't control our lust. I think all of the apostles were celibate and the catholic church used to require it's priest to remain unmarried.

Why did you quote from scripture as an answer to your own question?

Does a married Christian have divided loyalties? When a Christian has a sexual relationship, does this mean they don’t have perfect devotion to God?
Yes, it means we have divided loyalties but marriage is still acceptable to God under the current covenant. You seem to be leading to a point but as yet it does not appear you have stated what your point is.
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
No. According to the links I posted. How would you know if you don't look at them? You will obviously wind up asking questions like that.

I looked. They point to THIS PAGE-- which isn't evidence. Moreover? All but a couple POINT TO THE BIBLE-- you cannot use the BIBLE to "prove" the bible!

THAT ISN'T EVIDENCE!
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
Of course, they are not my claims, but if you don't read the information, it is expected that you would not know that. Hence, you can only make inaccurate assertions.

I did. You use Circular Reasoning Logical Fallacy. Bootstrapping. You can't use your CLAIM to prove your CLAIM-- which is 100% of what you were doing.
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
Gee. All it took for me, around age nine, was a couple of days of Sunday School replete with pictures of giraffes sticking out the top of the ark.

I was deeply brainwashed. And I'm stubborn: I really did want there to be a god who watches over humans.

Alas, it was not to be.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
ecco: So, you concur that God's killing of almost all humans was genocide.

I think that is the kind of comment an apologist would make.

In any case, do you deny that God was prejudiced against all people except Noah's little group?
:rolleyes: nPeace. Patience is a virtue. Patience is a virtue.

That's twisted thinking. It is also twisted reasoning. You name it - it's twisted.
What you are doing, is trying to create a situation to fit a biased opinion. That would make you prejudiced - prejudiced against anyone who is on the side of God.

So if for example, there was a harlot, a murderer, a thief, an Indian, an African, that joined Noah, and his family, they would make up "Noah's little group". It's not an ethnic group.

Noah and his family were not an ethnic group.
Noah, his wife, and his daughters in law, all had relatives outside the ark.
If God was prejudiced he would drag all of them into the ark. He didn't . He acted to preserve the righteous.
How is sparing that group, because they are righteous, prejudiced?

If the law took all murderers and executed them - whether they be black, white, blue, or green, how is that prejudiced?
If they only executed the whites - murderers and innocent, then we would be right to call it a prejudiced act - genocide.

Let's be reasonable.
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
:rolleyes: nPeace. Patience is a virtue. Patience is a virtue.

That's twisted thinking. It is also twisted reasoning. You name it - it's twisted.

....

Let's be reasonable.

But you are NOT being reasonable! The words are clear: the only people the Hebrew god cared about, was the Hebrews. Everyone else? Absolutely expendable, disposable*.

Especially if they were in the way of what the Hebrews wanted, or if they occupied land the Hebrews wanted.


* unless they were under-aged virgin girls-- then they "get" to be sex slaves
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Other than the Bible doesn't mention whether or not Jesus had sex in his life, why believe he never did? Would that somehow have tainted him?

Because being a 33 years old virgin is not miracolous. If you believe that He turned water into wine, walked on water, and took off to heaven after 3 days of death, then the belief bar is already low enough to believe anything. Especially mundane things like virginity at 33.

Ciao

- viole
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
But you are NOT being reasonable! The words are clear: the only people the Hebrew god cared about, was the Hebrews. Everyone else? Absolutely expendable, disposable*.

Especially if they were in the way of what the Hebrews wanted, or if they occupied land the Hebrews wanted.


* unless they were under-aged virgin girls-- then they "get" to be sex slaves
I think you believe you know the Bible, but what you said there shows you don't. I encourage you to take the time to read it - not for the sake of criticizing it, otherwise it will only result in more blindness.

FYI, Egyptians, Canaanites, in fact, people of all nations were accepted among the Hebrews, by their God.
 

Kelly of the Phoenix

Well-Known Member
Adam and Eve? Adam “birthed” Eve?
I was unaware you hadn't read Genesis, where a woman comes out of a man.

Both signified the sacrifice of Jesus and the reality of Him taking our sins to a far away place.
But then he woke back up.

Not really. The fig tree has many representations.
I understand it is a metaphor. It is a stupid one. Not only does Jesus not even own the tree he destroys, he has magic food powers, which means there's nothing stopping him from putting figs on a barren tree. I thought he had the Water of Life or whatever. The authors are bad at keeping their metaphors straight.

Like a payload taken away.
I don't believe it's ethical to throw someone under the bus just so I don't get grounded.

Not really.
Name one instance where he shows anything resembling filial love. He can't even call her "mom". I'd have been beaten to within an inch of my life if I called my mother "that woman".

No more than it being "assault" when a policeman takes down a thief.
They had security guards at the Temple. He had no right to assault people. I'll remember this when anti-Nazi or KKK protests get ugly.

Actually, he tore down that wall
He has to be guilt-tripped into helping gentiles. He helps Jews without question.

As far as I know, you and I are gentiles. He would've pushed us aside, at least initially.

Killed a fig tree. Killed a herd of pigs. Turned over kiosks at the Temple.

No more than plant abuse when you eat it.
Did he eat all those pigs he murdered?

Exposed it
While ignoring his own. He called people fools and said people who call people fools will burn in hell. I guess we know where he went?

A rose is a rose no matter what you call it.
The point is he was a hypocrite.

Both ended up dead after. Jesus is still alive.
What is his current address?


Do I need to "look harder"?

Why do you think it was a bother?
Why does God have magic powers that are ignored for plot convenience?

If he was a Second Adam, it would make more sense to make him from dirt, yes?

I don’t think my interpretation is compatible the idea of an all-knowing God, but Genesis doesn’t portray God as all-knowing. There are several points in the story where he’s portrayed as not knowing things, having plans go unexpectedly astray, etc.
There are times in the bible where God knows less than literally every civilization in the surrounding area and they were only marginally more intelligent.

That's pretty hard to do, I almost consider it an accomplishment.
It would be if it weren't also colored with the creepy males in my life, both inside family and outside.

Like Jesus, I have family issues. UNLIKE Jesus, I don't feel my emotional hangups should be considered gospel.

Fortunately, Bob the "UNBELIEVER" isn't a credible source to make that determination :D not to mention you didn't have supportive external documentation for that statement
How can one be assured of Truth if people who don't have a horse to race aren't invited? Either Truth is objective or it isn't. Gravitating to apologist sites only shows me, a theist, that the faith is so fragile it can't take rational looks at things.

I guess Abe is debatable since he wouldn't be an Israelite and was still essentially just a Canaanite who moved out of town.

Their DNA being near genetically perfect, such bonding between a brother and sister, or uncle and niece, or aunt and nephew, would not have deleterious results, as it does today.
And you have the DNA results?

Even the Pharisees, who saw Christ's miracles, refused to give Him any credit.
Maybe that's because miracle workers were a dinar a dozen back then.

So how on EARTH did she get pregnant? Hmmmm?

Magic?
And we're dealing with a tween girl, at best, so the "angel" could've told her it wasn't sex and she'd believe it because she's a kid.

it was because of this very problem that Pilate was forced to crucify Jesus in the first place.
Pilate wasn't forced to do anything. He LIKED killing people. His epic levels of jerkitude was too much even for the Romans, who defined it.

Luke, besides being a meticulous doctor, was also wrote a clear and concise history.
So, you have Luke's medical records? A medical team can read over them and confirm Luke's medical expertise in a world where surgery barely existed and demons caused sickness?

Still, you have a point: I would go to an ancient doctor over a faith healer any day of the week. I'd at least have a CHANCE with the doctor.

The Romans had place soldiers to make sure no-one took the body. Customarily, the soldiers would be executed for failing to follow orders--a good motivation to make sure they did their job. Also, the reason why" the authorities knew the Resurrection... ... was circulating".
You forget Jesus healed the servant of a centurion who could certainly grease some wheels in gratitude.

Does Hillary want all of her emails recorded into historical evidence? Or does she erase some 30,000+ of them.
She can turn those in on the same day Trump makes his tax returns public.

What "that?" That the Pharaoh successfully led his people through great difficulty?

That whichever Egyptian god they attributed the plagues to was displeased with Egypt, but after the Pharaoah instructed the High Priest to make the proper incantations and sacrifices, order was restored and further punishment was thwarted?

You really think that there's no possible way for an Egyptian pharaoh to spin the story?
Exactly. The Hittites handed Rameses II his behind and he still managed to squeak out a story about how epic he was in getting away with the skin of his teeth or some such nonsense.

??? What story are you spinning? We are talking about why it isn't even listed. Why would you list your faults when the monuments you are creating are for your "good memories"?
It wasn't Pharoah's fault they all just walked off. He "banished" them. See how this works?

The fact is? EXODUS NEVER TOOK PLACE, BECAUSE THE HEBREWS WERE NEVER IN EGYPT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
And Egypt owned Canaan a lot of the time, so it could've been like fleeing the US by going from Vermont to Maine. :p

At one time they thought King David was a myth until........ archaeological discoveries
You mean where they mention the House of David but none of the stories that go along with it? Do you have letters from King Saul berating his son for being naked in front of the rifraff (David)?

At one time they didn't believe King Solomon's Kingdom was that large until...... archaeological discoveries.
Israel isn't large on its best day.

My favourite aspect of the Exodus story is how they supposedly wandered on the Sinai Peninsula for 40 years even though if just the men stood shoulder-to-shoulder, they would form a line long enough to stretch from one side of the peninsula to the other.
It's like when I learned you can walk from Egypt to Israel in less than 2 full weeks, courtesy of Google Maps. :)

Yes, wandering, 3500 years ago, with distinct Laws governing their cleanliness.
Okay, so they picked up the poop.


Where did they put it?

What would you expect to find, Snickers wrappers laying on the ground?
Did they not steal a mountain worth of gold and jewels and such from the Egyptians? You're telling me no one ever dropped an earring they stole off a screaming Egyptian woman?

Persons with the right heart would obviously not have acted like Pharaoh, and those religious leaders. They humbly accepted the clear proof.
Yeah, like when the US became Muslim when terrorists said Allah said we had been mean to them.

Pharaoh saw powerful works beyond anything he had ever seen
His men were doing the exact same miracles.

but because he felt his gods could do equal works through his priest, he stubbornly refused to admit the truth
So if Muslims or Hindus or whatever do miracles, you won't be afraid to admit the truth?

The religious leaders in Jesus' day could see that Jesus' miracles were beyond the signs they saw performed by others
Even in the bible, food and curing miracles were a dime a dozen.

There must be some kind of justice. What do you think?
I'll believe Christians believe in Justice when they stop asking Jesus to pay for their own stupidity.

Think of a family of say, eight persons, where one or more individual in the family does something, I don't know.... something. If of those eight, six were witnesses, they are all you need to give evidence.
If you ask my mother anything, she'll give you a ton of backstory for a half ounce-worth of reality.

FYI, while in the wilderness wandering, “their sandals did not wear out.” — Deuteronomy 29:5.
They never went to the bathroom either? We can dig up dino dung but not Hebrew poop?

40 years without taking a dump. As an RN, that makes me want to cry. :p

Or the quail?
Isn't that the quail God sent to "help" them and everyone who ate it died?
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
So being celibate as Christ was is best but marring is also good if we can't control our lust.

I am not sure what you mean. How is marriage good if we cannot control your lust?

I think all of the apostles were celibate and the catholic church used to require it's priest to remain unmarried.

Yes, but that was so the Catholic Church got everything they had when they died. No wife nor children to claim anything. Business, as usual.

Ciao

- viole
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
I hesitate to continue answering as the answers seem more and more an expression of anger rather a dialogue for understanding.

I understand it is a metaphor. It is a stupid one. Not only does Jesus not even own the tree he destroys, he has magic food powers, which means there's nothing stopping him from putting figs on a barren tree. I thought he had the Water of Life or whatever. The authors are bad at keeping their metaphors straight.
1) Stupid in your viewpoint. I find it very appropriate.
2) Unless you stop killing spinach leaves, I wouldn't worry about a fig tree


Name one instance where he shows anything resembling filial love. He can't even call her "mom". I'd have been beaten to within an inch of my life if I called my mother "that woman".
Doesn't sound like your mother is very loving.

But he did fulfill "Honor your father and your mother"... so I guess both legally, as well as the fact that his mom didn't have any issue with it, maybe you are looking at it with a different western perspective?

They had security guards at the Temple. He had no right to assault people. I'll remember this when anti-Nazi or KKK protests get ugly
In as much as the security guards didn't take him to jail, apparently he did the right thing.
 
Last edited:

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
I think all of the apostles were celibate and the catholic church used to require it's priest to remain unmarried.

Actually, no. I think only Paul was and was gifted with that capacity.

Remember that the priests in the OT were allowed to get married and that hasn't changed.
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
Other than the Bible doesn't mention whether or not Jesus had sex in his life, why believe he never did? Would that somehow have tainted him?

The New Testament carries on a largely patriarchal attitude. Introducing sex and marriage into the scope of Biblical narrative opens a door to goddess themed beliefs that Jews and Christians have been fending off for centuries.
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
You seem to posit a dichotomy, with on one side following 'God and his laws' i.e. JW doctrine, and on the other having wanton sex and broken relationships.

I, and most of the planet's people, don't fit in either category.

How about introducing sex into a relationship before committing to marriage? So long as one properly avoids the likelihood of conception and accepts the risks responsibly in any case. Sexual compatibility is an important dimension for a deeply fulfilling marriage.
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
I did. You use Circular Reasoning Logical Fallacy. Bootstrapping. You can't use your CLAIM to prove your CLAIM-- which is 100% of what you were doing.

As a Christian I believe the Bible is only true to the extent that it can be demonstrated to be true outside of the Bible itself.

Sadly many Christian's think that such experiences cannot be had so they cling to A life raft they can hardly themselves use.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Actually, no. I think only Paul was and was gifted with that capacity.

Remember that the priests in the OT were allowed to get married and that hasn't changed.
Yes. Actually Paul himself in writing to young Timothy, said that commanding others not to marry was not a teaching from God.
(1 Timothy 4:1-3) . . .However, the inspired utterance says definitely that in later periods of time some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired utterances and teachings of demons, 2by the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, marked in their conscience as with a branding iron; 3forbidding to marry, commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be partaken of with thanksgiving by those who have faith and accurately know the truth.

Even though he encouraged persons to value their singleness since there were benefits to it - being able to focus more on sacred service, he didn't command persons not to marry, but encouraged them to marry, if they desired to do so.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Yes. Actually Paul himself in writing to young Timothy, said that commanding others not to marry was not a teaching from God.
(1 Timothy 4:1-3) . . .However, the inspired utterance says definitely that in later periods of time some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired utterances and teachings of demons, 2by the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, marked in their conscience as with a branding iron; 3forbidding to marry, commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be partaken of with thanksgiving by those who have faith and accurately know the truth.

Even though he encouraged persons to value their singleness since there were benefits to it - being able to focus more on sacred service, he didn't command persons not to marry, but encouraged them to marry, if they desired to do so.

Great application. I think men create problems and become "religious" when the enact positions that are not Biblical.

Interestingly enough there are two positions that mentions about being married:

1 Timothy 32 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
...
8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, etc ...11 Even so must their wives be grave, notslanderers, sober, faithful in all things. (Emphasis mine)

Neither position says that they must be single or celibate.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
How about introducing sex into a relationship before committing to marriage? So long as one properly avoids the likelihood of conception and accepts the risks responsibly in any case. Sexual compatibility is an important dimension for a deeply fulfilling marriage.
One would then have to ask, what is fornication, and where is the commitment, and what happened to values... Why change values that were long ago held? Where did these values originate?
 
Top