Why Believe Jesus Never Had Sex?

[ecco]

The ecosystems of this planet are on their way out.

That is of no concern to many true believers. Jesus will return real soon and all will be well.

 

[ecco]

Promiscuity causes a huge amount of suffering of many types. Of all the moral failing that plague mankind promiscuity is one of the worst.

It's not even close to the amount of suffering caused by Christians invading South America and killing those who would not convert to Christianity.

It's not even close to the amount of suffering caused by Christians importing and maintaining slaves because their bible told them it was OK to own slaves.

It's not even close to the amount of suffering caused by Christians, at various stages throughout history, onto the Jewish people.

I could give a lot more examples, but you should get the idea.

No one else seems to have a problem wit hit but you seem obsessed.

Your comments were addressed to me. Why should others have a problem with them or my rebuttals?

Finally, you almost started a debate here. Do you want to discuss the moral justification for the flood?

Maybe later. Right now I'd rather see you try to justify your toned down comment: "Of all the moral failing that plague mankind promiscuity is one of the worst."

 

[sojourner]

Proof?

Flood myth - Wikipedia
Is Genesis 1-11 a Collection of Myths?
Genesis and Ancient Near Eastern Stories of Creation and Flood: Part III

 

[sojourner]

No, not different accounts. One account and the beliefs of many Christians.

ecco previously said: ↑

What accounts am I conflating? I'm talking about the OT. I'm addressing people who believe God is omniscient.​

The OT is a collection of accounts. Different authors, different genres, different time frames, different themes.

 

[sojourner]

Don't tell me, tell the people who take Genesis to be literal. I sure don't

Then why be disingenuous by posting something you clearly don’t believe?

How does one point out the "scientific, literary, historical, and sociological incongruities" to one who reads Genesis as literal

You post it here. They post what they believe, you post what you believe. Post articles showing that Genesis isn’t literal.

Yet none of them have ever accused me of being puerile

Because they’re puerile. Don’t stoop to that level. I generally like your posts; you seem clear-headed and reasonable. And then I read this. It’s kinda disappointing.

 

[wandering peacefully]

"You know, that's a pretty accurate picture you have painted of the world.

So yes. I agree. Talk is cheap, and we really need to use common sense."[/QUOTE

Your kind has been in charge of the planet for 2,000 + years with 95% or more being "believers" in myths. Like I said, your God belief hasn't been beneficial to anything except divisiveness between people and nations and a lack of concern for the planet and ecosystems. Take basic human instinct and add a narcissistic view that some sky daddy is in your corner and you get what we got. Congratulations.

That's great you and yours are looking forward to death. Too bad you made such a mess on your way there.

Common sense? If you say so.

 

[wandering peacefully]

That is of no concern to many true believers. Jesus will return real soon and all will be well.

Goody for them eh? To see so many humans still believing this nonsense is really depressing. The status quo of the end of the planet being God's plan and they are just here for the temporary ride, has become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

[ecco]

The OT is a collection of accounts. Different authors, different genres, different time frames, different themes.

Once more, my comments were addressed to people who take Genesis literally and believe in an omniscient God. Do you take Genesis literally and believe in an omniscient God?

 

[ecco]

Then why be disingenuous by posting something you clearly don’t believe?

I'm not being disingenuous.

There are, at least, two ways to present counter arguments:
Show evidence that their arguments are invalid. This usually results in "That isn't evidence" "Yes it is!" "No it isn't" "My evidence is better than your evidence because..." "No it isn't" "Yes it is!"


Alternatively, one can, for the sake of discussion, accept their "evidence" and point out, among other things, the illogical and/or self damning conclusions thereof.

 

[sojourner]

Once more, my comments were addressed to people who take Genesis literally and believe in an omniscient God. Do you take Genesis literally and believe in an omniscient God?

No I don’t.

 

[sojourner]

I'm not being disingenuous.

There are, at least, two ways to present counter arguments:
Show evidence that their arguments are invalid. This usually results in "That isn't evidence" "Yes it is!" "No it isn't" "My evidence is better than your evidence because..." "No it isn't" "Yes it is!"


Alternatively, one can, for the sake of discussion, accept their "evidence" and point out, among other things, the illogical and/or self damning conclusions thereof.

That way hasn’t appeared to work any differently, though.

 

[ecco]

ecco: Do you take Genesis literally and believe in an omniscient God?

No I don’t.

OK. Now, would you care to discuss why you think Genesis had four authors?

 

[sojourner]

ecco: Do you take Genesis literally and believe in an omniscient God?

OK. Now, would you care to discuss why you think Genesis had four authors?

Documentary hypothesis - Wikipedia

 

[ecco]

↑
ecco:
OK. Now, would you care to discuss why you think Genesis had four authors?

Documentary hypothesis - Wikipedia

I'll take that as a no.

 

[Trailblazer]

That is of no concern to many true believers. Jesus will return real soon and all will be well.

Only Jesus is not coming back to earth, not ever.

Can't Christians read?

John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

That is such a selfish belief... Jesus is coming back so meanwhile I can eat, drink and me merry and not care about the planet or anything else on it, social, economic or political...
I have a lot more respect for atheists who actually CARE about the situation in the world.

I just spent about two hours on a long post to one of my atheist friends on another forum who thinks Jesus is coming back. He used to be a Christian so he was duped. But nowhere in the NT did Jesus say He is coming back to earth, nowhere. That is because Jesus never planned to come back, never.

 

[sojourner]

↑
ecco:
OK. Now, would you care to discuss why you think Genesis had four authors?

I'll take that as a no.

It’s all right there in the article.

 

[Jon reign]

Yes the bible contains commands that deal with homosexual acts and orientations but the commands against homosexual acts are far more substantial than those against the orientation. Also they are biblical commands not biblical proofs.

I suppose it would be like a man who desires strongly to kill people but never acts on it. He can't be labeled a murderer and punished accordingly. Secondarily, suppose you knew a man who was a bigot or chauvinist etc, but he never acted out his hate, he merely harbored it within. Isn't the mere possession of such evil inclination a sufficient cause for you to be offended/oppose.

 

[ecco]

It’s all right there in the article.

I asked :
OK. Now, would you care to discuss why you think Genesis had four authors?
You responded by posting a link to an article.
Posting a link to an article is not having a discussion.

 

[sojourner]

I asked :
OK. Now, would you care to discuss why you think Genesis had four authors?
You responded by posting a link to an article.
Posting a link to an article is not having a discussion.

And if I’d written everything out, you’d have come back with “prove it,” whereupon I’d have posted the link to the article. Just saving obvious steps. I think Genesis had four authors, because the experts (in utilizing various critical methods) think Genesis had four authors; that’s what both seminaries I attended taught; it’s the prevailing scholarship; it makes sense, and here’s the article that says so.

Jeeziss!

 

[ecco]

And if I’d written everything out, you’d have come back with “prove it,” whereupon I’d have posted the link to the article. Just saving obvious steps.

First off, I'd never ask anyone for "proof" of anything.

I think Genesis had four authors, because the experts (in utilizing various critical methods) think Genesis had four authors; that’s what both seminaries I attended taught; it’s the prevailing scholarship; it makes sense, and here’s the article that says so.

Jeeziss!

I didn't find a link in your above quoted post, so I went back to an earlier post:
Documentary hypothesis - Wikipedia
This article states: ...Torah ... is made up of sources combined over many centuries by many hands.

That is something I would agree with.


I skimmed the article but didn't see anything about four authors.

So, rather than just post a link to an article, it would be helpful to quote those portions of the article that you feel support your viewpoint ("Just saving obvious steps")