Why Believe Jesus Never Had Sex?

[stvdv]

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?

Why believe he did have sex? Indeed having sex will taint you with the biggest obstacle in spiritual life = DESIRE, of which sex addiction is the most difficult to conquer.

All the scriptures declare that. Questioning this to be true might be an indication that this indeed is true IF this is an attempt to try to have it both ways to reach the goal.

 

[1robin]

But. Parts of the statement may be true, while parts may be false-- which is how you theists operate most of the time.

It also describes your entire bible-- tiny fragments may be true, but overall? It's false.

So is it 100% false or 100% true? By YOUR OWN WORDS? It must be 100% false.

Good! This is progress.



Now you are just arguing semantics. You claim the bible is true-- but you allow that parts of it are false. Yet you say something must be 100% or 0%.

You do seem confused here.


So? Harry Potter books talk about London. Mentioning real places in a work of fiction, does not magically transform the fiction into nonfiction.



Cute. But irrelevant. It's a function of English Language, really-- and your failure to recognize the subtleties of the meanings of words.

I find that common among absolutists (see above)


Nonsensical word-salad on your part. This is internally contradictory:

"a whole but not a homogeneous whole "



LOL! Why? The bible either IS a Magical Word Of God or it isn't.

I say it isn't -- due to it's many-many flaws. I would expect an ACTUAL word of god to be..

... well Godly, for starters. The bible is full of misogyny, slavery, genocide, rape and worse--- all sanctioned and commanded by it's god as Righteous Acts.


Forget 'parts' and think 'degree'? What does that even mean? Maybe I need some Ranch Dressing?

But: "Specific claims are either 100% true or 100% false." So the bible is 100% God's Word, or it's 100% NOT? Hmmmmm...

I think I actually agree with that one! However, without proof of this "god"? It is moot anyway..


You could simply have read it in the QUOTED part! LOL!

But it proves your entire rant ... false. Using your own standards.

I never meant to waste this much time on the hair I was splitting with you.

What I was talking about was a semantic technicality not some deep and meaningful issue worthy of the amount of time we are spending on it. Let me make my point one more time then we can move on to something a bit more important.

If I said that the sun is spherical in shape and was the center of the universe; technically speaking my statement is not 50% true because I made two individual and distinct claims. One being 100% true, the other being 100% false. Claims are singular in nature even if they come in a compound sentence. However this is not really that important. You have my attention and you know my worldview. So why don't you, instead of having a word fight, think of something interesting that we can discuss?

How about the cause and effect argument for God, or the nature of morality, etc...? It is your choice.

 

[1robin]

This was YOUR silly notion! The 100%/0%. Whereas *I* recognize Statistical Analysis, where things can have shaded meaning, and be partly true, and partly false.

Keep in mind that while my point was silly I only devoted a few sentences to it where as you have a good start on a book. My point was true but not worthy of spending this much time on. As I stated in my previous response why don't you pick a new and more meaningful discussion we can have. I will respond to your post here because I am bored but I hope you will move on to some more meaningful subject matter.

Take Einstein's Theory of Relativity: Is it 100% true? no. Is it 100% false? Again-- NO.

Relativity is an amalgamation of hundreds of singular claims. In this context you can't just lump everything into a singular monolithic mass and claim it all stands of falls together. Actually you can do that but you shouldn't. What you should do is break everything down to its simplest parts and evaluate each in turn.

I realize this is way over your head, but do try a bit here.

Come on man. I have been perfectly civil to you and you appear to be foaming at the mouth. Just as an experiment I thought I would be perfectly polite with you just to see how soon you turned sarcastic. I think you lasted 2 posts. Not a very good record.

False: The bible IS your claim. It is 100% of your claim, in fact-- without it? You'd have nothing. You might still be a theist, but you would NOT be a christian...

.... oooops!

The bible is in no way what so ever my claim. If it was I could just say the word "bible" as an argument but that makes no sense. The bible is a collection of books which are collections of writings which are themselves collections of claims. Each must be taken in its turn, I can't just start yelling BIBLE, BIBLE, BIBLE, etc...

Not a delusion, and you have built a STRAWMAN: I think 100% if the bible is false.

What does 100% if the bible is false even mean.

BY DESIGN. If there happens to be a wee tiny bit that was NOT false? That is pure accident-- not by INTENT. The INTENT was Myth.

The bible is not even classed as myth by its own critics. It is officially classed as a biographical history. However it does not make the bible any truer or more false by the labels anyone may apply to it. You have a deceleration where an argument should go. You shouldn't yell THE BIBLE IS MYTH at the traffic going by you should talk to one person at a time and explain which part you think is a myth (not true) and why.

Just as Harry Potter was MYTH. That's how Fiction works.

Come off it there is no equality what so ever between the two. Harry does not have billions of extremely intelligent people who have devoted their lives to. There is not one Harry Potter church for every thousand Christian churches. Making claims like this damages your credibility.

I may have to stop debating and leave in a hurry. So if I don't finish that is why.

PS. The war on the Canaanites? 100% fiction-- never happened! ooops!

Are you nuts, I spend half my debating time defending the moral justification for the war against the Canaanites because they bring it up all the time. I am currently reading a secular book of the war with the Canaanites among others. Since this is not a thread on OT warfare lets instead substitute the life and death of Christ. Or do you deny that as well?

Is this why you are losing so badly? hmmmmm...

Loosing what. Winners usually don't have to crow about their perceived victories.

The SUM of the parts is a CLAIM: since most of the sub-parts are FALSE?

The entire THING is false-- BY YOUR OWN STATEMENT OF 100%/0%.

oooops!

What is with the ooops, ooops, oopps? Sounds arrogant, compensation for something, and condescending. I think we have covered the semantics enough by now as I previously stated in another post. Stick with what is true or false about the bible.

Did you know that the coconscious of NT scholars no matter their faith is:

1. Jesus claimed unprecedented divine authority.
2. He practiced a ministry of miracle working and exorcism.
3. That he died by crucifixion.
4. That even his enemies claimed to have spoken with him post mortem.

I am going to divide the post into parts in case I have to leave in a hurry.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Did you know that the coconscious of NT scholars no matter their faith is:.

They are questionable right at the beginning. They have an AGENDA (their faith), and thus, will be desperate to start with "conclusions" and attempt to spin whatever to match what they have already decided by faith. That's why none really agree....

1. Jesus claimed unprecedented divine authority..

Not remotely true. Many point out that Jesus denied all divinity on multiple occasions -- so right at the start, you begin with a false statement.

ooops!

2. He practiced a ministry of miracle working and exorcism..

Again? Some scholars point out that the so-called miracles were likely added much-much later in the creation of the myth. So again? Your statement #2 is also false.

3. That he died by crucifixion..

The first statement you made that is remotely accurate... wow.

4. That even his enemies claimed to have spoken with him post mortem..

Again? False. Some scholars point out that the oldest narrative, if you leave out the later add-ons? End at the death on the cross-- End Of Story.

So you are WRONG, yet again...

wow. 3 of 4 FALSE claims....!

 

[wandering peacefully]

I am glad you had a good weekend. Mine was uneventful, but for me that is a good thing. It was after the weekend was over that things got stressful.

Mostly what I was wondering about is why “some atheists” spend as much time as they do talking about god and religion, if they have no interest in it. I am sure there are as many reasons as there are atheists. From talking to as many atheists as I have as long as I have I know that some atheists would like to believe in God if they had “what they consider” to be sufficient evidence that God exists, but most atheists are not really that concerned about whether god exists or not, or so it seems. Maybe they have given up that there will ever be sufficient evidence and maybe some do not care.

I was never an atheist as an adult, so I don’t even know what it would be like to not believe in God. It is just a part of me although for most of my adult life I just believed and it did not mean much to me. Now it means everything.

I do not know why other believers talk to atheists, I only know why I do.Psychology is my other hat, so I have always been curious about people, why they think and do what they think and do. Admittedly, I also talk to atheists just in case they might be interested in believing in God, and I know some are simply because they have told me that. But to me their friendship is more important than anything else, and I learn from them just as they learn from me. I never push God or the Baha’i Faith, I just share what I believe.

My atheist friends finally realized that I have no interest in convincing them to believe anything, but given their past experience with Christians who demoralize them and threaten them with hellit took a long time for them to realize that. Now that they know I am just their friend and a sounding board, they do not feel threatened by me. On my forum we are all on a first name basis as I developed these friendships over the years. All of us know where we stand with belief and other things we discuss.

Maybe most believers are trying to convince atheists that God exists, I do not really know. The Christians I have encountered ion my other forums do that a lot but I have not seen that as much on this forum.

I have no interest in convincing anyone of anything. I am a firm believer in free will, and that everyone has to make their own choices, which means that if they want to search for God they will. If not, that is their choice too. Nobody should try to convince anyone what they should believe, people have to convince themselves, if they are interested. Baha’u’llah wrote that the faith of no man can be conditioned by anyone except himself, meaning it should not be.

You mentioned humanity’s problems. What do you think those problems are? It seems to me that many people, believers and nonbelievers, do not “see” any problems, but rather think the world is no different than it has ever been. Perhaps it is because I am a Baha’i that I know nothing is the same and it never will be the same again. This is a new Day of God, a new religious cycle, the likes of which humanity has never seen before. This is a day that will not be followed by night, as in past history. It is going to get better from here on in, but there will be hills and valleys along the way, and it will take a long time before we see the promised Golden Age of humanity. It is going to take everyone working together to establish this, certainly the Baha’is do not believe we will be the primary builders. We believe we have the blueprint instructions from Baha’u’llah, but others are already following those instructions never having even seen them.

I should add that many of the atheists I used to converse with on a forum I no longer post on were really concerned about the environment, global warming, extinction of animals, etc. Some are also very concerned about social issues and talk a lot about politics.

It is true that there would be a lot more time to do things if we did not talk so much, but then we would not have the opportunity to learn from each other and become friends.

My idea of a perfect world is people working together with people of all different beliefs and non-beliefs, for the good of the whole. I already see that happening but it will become more noticeable as time goes on.

It is too much for me to respond to your long posts all at once so I will try one paragraph at a time. Start with this :

"Mostly what I was wondering about is why “some atheists” spend as much time as they do talking about god and religion, if they have no interest in it. I am sure there are as many reasons as there are atheists. From talking to as many atheists as I have as long as I have I know that some atheists would like to believe in God if they had “what they consider” to be sufficient evidence that God exists, but most atheists are not really that concerned about whether god exists or not, or so it seems. Maybe they have given up that there will ever be sufficient evidence and maybe some do not care."

No, there are not as many reasons why atheists talk about religion and gods as there are atheists. There is a very limited amount of reasons compared to the amount of religions.

You wonder and I explained.

1. They do not want religions ruling the planet.
2. They do not want theocracies ruling them.
3. They do not want religious beliefs to be behind laws we all must follow.
4. They want religious doctrine followers to be able to see there are many different doctrines and beliefs and theirs is not the "truth".
5. They want smart people to put their brains into more beneficial uses leading to actions for both the believer and the rest of the planet and humanity.
6. They want believers to see more of reality than the stories they see now.
7. "Some" atheists really care about the distress, strife, denile, delusions, self loathing, bigotry, self-doubt and wasted life they see "some" believes living through due to their beliefs and work hard to help them see they are only stories they are living for.
8. Well, there is no 8 that I can think of.

Of course if atheists saw some actual believable and clear evidence of gods they would believe it. But never since the dawn of modern homo sapien sapiens, has there ever been such evidence. Plenty of subjective stories and fanciful wishes, made up rules and doctrines, but no hard evidence no matter how hard religionists spin it.

But I still must insist they do not speak with you because they are seeking a god or religion of any kind. Sure, some might be interested if there were one, but none of them are looking to believers steeped in predetermined dogmas to find one. Have you ever asked one atheist in 4 years of "conversations" if they are looking for God and have they asked you to show them the way?

Okay. That's enough for me for a couple days. I'll work on another paragraph and post when I can.

 

[paarsurrey]

Just to remind everyone that the topic of the thread is:
"Why Believe Jesus Never Had Sex?"
Regards