Was Jesus A Pervert?

[Ronagon]

Was Jesus a pervert? Did he like to have his bare ass licked by cats and spanked by negroes?

[sonrisa]

yo Ron! Post that q on one of those white supremist holy roller discussion boards! :devilish:

[Nihil]

I would participate in the thread if you would say something like:
"Would JC have sexual fantasies or anormal behaviour in the secrecy of his private life?"
It could be discussed <_<

[zygoat]

Ronogan,
what on earth would possess you to even ask that question,is there something that would lead you to believe that he might?

[venom mama]

freak.

[Nihil]

I believe he might have had, at least, the will to do so. He was a man, and it is very hard, even for someone "blessed", to remain without a sexual will throughout the life! or not?

[sahyo]

bodyloving (called "sexual"), may or maynot remain,
though not as lust

[jesupocaplypse]

Would Jesus have made a good lover?

[a random hack]

nah, i reckon he'd be a yipper....
not that there's anything wrong with that :lol:

[NeverMind]

Are you kidding?
The son of GOD would be GREAT in bed!
He would summon the power of all great lovers that had been and were to be!
Although I'm thinking the climax could be REALLY messy.
Like a flood.

[sonrisa]

I think the perversion was on the part of the early church fathers who decided that sex is dirty & that Jesus, being the son of god, was pure & holy & way above such nasty stuff. But Jewish society was/is very family oriented, & the rabbis are the leaders & pillars of their communities. Jesus, as a rabbi, would of been expected to set the example for his community which would include getting married & following the biblical edict to go forth & multiply.

But the early church fathers not only couldn't have Jesus doing the nasty, they had the apostles leave their wives & families to follow Jesus as well. This runs counter to Jewish cultural tradition, which means these guyz would of had zero credibility & not been able to form a community, movement, new religion, whatever you want to call it. Mary Magdalene was trashed, turned into a hooker & camp follower. However there is a very simple, plausible reason why Mary Magdalene followed Jesus around the countryside as he preached, stood at his cross as he died, & later went to his grave: she was his wife.

No doubt some of Jesus' followers & hangers-on were members of his & the apostles' families. This makes sense 2 ways-
a) instead of leaving your family you take them with you, &
b ) this core group of families gives Jesus & Co. credibility, so that they are able to attract others to their group & build their community.
At least this makes sense to me.

What doesn't make sense to me is why sex is considered nasty & dirty. This is how god chooses to propagate the species, right? So then, why is it considered "bad"?

[NeverMind]

I think in that sense, sex without the intent of reproduction is wrong.
If God intended sex to be the tool for reproduction, of course He would view it as a perversion of that if its used for only pleasure.

If you gave a group of people a broomstick so they could sweep
and instead they used it to pleasure themselves,
wouldn't you be pissed?

okay that was a terrible analogy.

[jesupocaplypse]

Why would a being as omnipotent as God, get pissed about anything? especially about her creations doing things she made them capable of doing?

the idea of an angry god makes me laugh. such an archaic notion

[NeverMind]

good point.
but even if you knew something was going to happen, wouldn't you still be mad when it did.
I guess I can't really try to comprehend an omniscient diety in human emotions.
but whatever.
i dont really care any more.

[DoWalker]

Thanks to sonrisa for recapping The DaVinci Code

I think in that sense, sex without the intent of reproduction is wrong.
If God intended sex to be the tool for reproduction, of course He would view it as a perversion of that if its used for only pleasure.

Why would God make anything for only one use? Obviously, sex is for reproduction -- any evolutionary psychologist will tell you that. However, we do have a sex drive. If your belief system says that God gave this to us, only a truly manipulative God would give it to test our self-control. It was to get us to have sex, to increase our odds of procreating. Just because most of us also use it for intimacy and pleasure does not make that intent wrong -- many who are seeking only pleasure end up procreating anyway. :)

P.S.: Many thanks to Ronagon for providing me the valuable opportunity to practice being patient with the foolish.

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by NeverMind@Jan 26 2005, 10:05 PM
I think in that sense, sex without the intent of reproduction is wrong.
If God intended sex to be the tool for reproduction, of course He would view it as a perversion of that if its used for only pleasure.



--and there are uptight frigid fuddie-duddies out there who have that opinion of sex as well. What they fail to realize is that God, in her infinite wisdom, knew that in order to get her creations to go forth & multiply they had to be willing to go forth & multiply. So she made the task pleasurable so we would want to do it again & again. :)

Have I recapped The Da Vinci Code? I thought that was about Leonardo. I am embarrassed to admit this, becuz I'm a big fan of Leonardo's, but I haven't read it yet- or any novel lately. No time. I've been looking forward to the movie coming out next year, but if it's not about Leonardo..... (shrug)

[DoWalker]

Have I recapped The Da Vinci Code? I thought that was about Leonardo. I am embarrassed to admit this, becuz I'm a big fan of Leonardo's, but I haven't read it yet- or any novel lately. No time. I've been looking forward to the movie coming out next year, but if it's not about Leonardo..... (shrug)

It's set in modern times. It's a Holy Grail story. The theory is that the grail is actually the bloodline of Jesus and Mary Mag.

What's interesting with regard to our forum is that it has sparked a new level of interest in the gnostic gospels, which I find to be completely fascinating -- a lot like buddhism. (Particularly the Gospel of Thomas.) If you haven't read them, I recommend a serious perusal.

Okay, fundimentalist Christians -- I've brought up the satanic subject de jour. Bring it! :boxing:

[Nick_A]

Hi Sonrisa

But the early church fathers not only couldn't have Jesus doing the nasty, they had the apostles leave their wives & families to follow Jesus as well. This runs counter to Jewish cultural tradition, which means these guyz would of had zero credibility & not been able to form a community, movement, new religion, whatever you want to call it. Mary Magdalene was trashed, turned into a hooker & camp follower. However there is a very simple, plausible reason why Mary Magdalene followed Jesus around the countryside as he preached, stood at his cross as he died, & later went to his grave: she was his wife.

I know this is how it seems especially after the "experts" got a hold of it but I don't believe it is the case. The main difficulty is that people forget the essence of Christianity and what separates it from the usual earth religions. It is the central idea of re-birth. While the secular religions place the emphsis on what people "do", the deeper concern of Christianity is for what you "are". "Isness" changes through re-birth. This is the idea of the "New Man".

Sex energy is the creative energy. It not only creates babies but can also create "you" meaning re-birth. It is vital for that purpose. Without a sufficient level of this creative energy, no change is possible.

We would think it foolish if in the study of digestion, we determined that the whole purpose of eating was to create this brown blimp shaped object neglecting the deeper purpose of nourishing the body. After all this is the visible product of it all. However this is what is often done with sex thinking that the creation of a baby is the sole purpose for sex energy. The creative energies have a much greater psycho/spiritual significance. As powerful as this energy is, it is also what is needed to strengthen the negative emotions of our ego and it feeds upon it. This was the ancient objection to the porn of its day. The nature of porn is to encourage the justification and strengthening of negative ego based emotion by the use of this energy, draining this energy, depriving the essence of the person themselves from the use of this energy for its own growth. This isn't really natural sex for the sake of sex but arousal by the egotistic joys of negative emotion not natural for the essence of the person. It serves to grow the artificial in someone.

What Jesus taught required a complete understanding of the nature of sex and its energy. There was no suppression; just active use of the energy for the intended purpose of their group which was in the direction of re-birth.

[NeverMind]

What Jesus taught required a complete understanding of the nature of sex and its energy. There was no suppression; just active use of the energy for the intended purpose of their group which was in the direction of re-birth.

Which leads me to priests molesting alter boys. This is because of all their SUPPRESSED and REPRESSED sexual energy. They were not using it and it built up.
All energy acts in this manner. Anger, for instance, will build up until there is too much to hold and you burst.
These priests had so much sexual energy stuffed inside them that they eventually burst and used it in a completely inappropriate way instead of a productive way as they could/should have done had they not taken their vows of celibacy.
suppressing energy is bad.

[sonrisa]

good answer NM!! Not exactly what I was getting at, but it's definitely a valid point.

Nick, your pov re:what Jesus taught is most interesting, refreshing even, & if you got even a little of the right of it, then Jesus' teachings went right over the early church fathers, who fashioned Jesus in their own collective image of this asexual being. Maybe that was their idea of divinity, but it comes off as unnatural. And whose bright idea was it that sex is dirty anyhow?

During the 1990's there used to be a weekly cable show about the Bible that put the Scriptures into the historical/cultural context of their times. The late Richard Kiley narrated it & a host of theologians & biblical scholars & archaelogists provided the commentary. It was most enlightening & I wish the show was still on the air. On one episode they were talking about how there used to be some 250-odd Gospels & the early church fathers threw out all but 4 of them. Some of these are odd choices to pitch- the Gospel of Thomas, for instance, appears to be a contemporary eyewitness account of Jesus' preaching (the Gospel of Mark, otoh, dates to around 70AD, some 30-35 years after Jesus' death. Matthew, Luke, & John are dated even later) while the Gospel of James was supposedly written by Jesus' brother.

Otoh, it's obvious why the Gospel of Philip was thrown out- this is the one that talks about the Sacred Marriage (http://www.llewellynjournal.com/article/659) of Jesus & Mary Magdalene! Which, of course, doesn't fit with the ETF's fashioned image of an asexual Jesus! And there appears to be some editing in the 4 traditional Gospels to perpetrate the asexual Jesus: in the 2nd chapter of John for instance, Jesus & his Mother, Mary, are guests at a wedding & the wine runs out while things are in full swing. Mary informs Jesus that the wine was gone, & Jesus tells the wine stewards to fill the wine jugs with water, wbich he turns into wine. This was Jesus' 1st miracle. The question here is why would Mother Mary, a mere guest, be informed that the wine had run out. Perhaps Mary was informed becuz she was the hostess of this little soireé, celebrating the marriage of one of her children, altho not necessarily Jesus. But if one of Jesus' sibs was getting married, why doesn't the scripture just tell us so. It would appear that the ETF's wanted to commemorate Jesus' 1st miracle, but didn't want it known that he did it at his own wedding. This would explain some of the odd phrasing in that story- eg, "take this to the man in charge of the feast" (St Joseph?) who, in turn, asks "the briedgroom" (Jesus?) why he saved the best wine for last.

[Nick_A]

NM

Quite true. This is a classic example of what happens when "experts" start to rearrange the nature of a higher teaching. It loses its quality through literal interpretation resulting often in repercussions similar to what you describe. It just makes it more difficult but not impossible to return to the source.

Sonrisa

Everything in the New Testament has a confusing literal meaning but it is secondary to the psychological meaning. If the literal meaning were clear it would block the teaching from being received by the deeper sides of ones being.

The Marriage of Cana is like that. It is really very deep and goes far beyond any meaning of a culturally inspired marriage.

For example, truth in the bible is represented as stone (hard literal truth), water and "living water" which is truth that can be digested and not just experienced outside of oneself but can begin to touch ones being, and wine, which is the transformation of the digested truth into transformed "understanding".

To really begin to understand these passages, it is necessary to remember their purpose which is the transformation of man into the "New Man."

[sonrisa]

Nick, I agree with you that there are deeper spiritual meanings to the stories in the Bible, but that's not my point. How would the scriptures stating that there was a wedding in Jesus' family have blocked the deeper meaning of that story? I don't think that a little continuity in the text is too much to ask for.

[rich]

I would like to ask a silly question here.

When we are dead, will we learn all of the answers to our questions?

If we do, whom can we explain the answers to?

[NeverMind]

Why would you learn everything at death?
Doesn't it make more sense saying that when you die, your life is over, your brain dies, and there are no more thoughts?

[Thomas Knierim]

Rich: When we are dead, will we learn all of the answers to our questions?

No, but the questions disappear. :alcoholic:

Cheers, Thomas

[jesupocaplypse]

Do thoughts come from the brain? or only memories? what are thoughts? Are they merely neuro-chemical-electrical pulses? or is there something more to them? Perhaps the brain is merely a conduit, for which to recieve and perceive a certain dimension, with which the body interacts (th body also doubling as a transport for my brain...) The energy that I am, that motivates and powers me, does that come from my brain? When I desire to stand and walk acorss the room to hug my loved ones... does this come from my brain? or somewhere else, and my brain translates it into the physical...

Sometimes I feel trapped in this body. Like it's a prison my mind has been caged in... But my mind is the halfway between body and soul, maybe. When Body is gone, there is no half way, only the remainder, Soul? Limited becomes unlimited? Mayhaps thinking will stop, because All thoughts will no longer be relative... Different dimension, different perceptions, ...

Will we forget it all? because we no longer have a brain to serve as a harddrive for info... or will we remember it all? because we no longer have a system to contain and limit us... become pure energy? but if all matter is merely energy condensed to a slower vibration... Is it a transformation of energy state... like solid into liquid into gas... ??



:think:

[Nick_A]

JP

I've read most of our thoughts defined as the process of as in the old Russian/Polish expression: "pouring from the empty into the void." Not too ego inflating from that perspsective.

Sometimes I feel trapped in this body. Like it's a prison my mind has been caged in... But my mind is the halfway between body and soul, maybe. When Body is gone, there is no half way, only the remainder, Soul? Limited becomes unlimited? Mayhaps thinking will stop, because All thoughts will no longer be relative... Different dimension, different perceptions, ...

That is assuming that a person has a soul and not merely its potential existing in its infancy or as a "seed".

Your sincere observation of the feeling of being trapped in your body reminded me of an old poem asking legitimate questions. I'll pass it along to show you that it is a feeling others have had as well.

"Sailing to Byzantium"

That is no country for old men. The young
In one another's arms, birds in the trees -
Those dying generations - at their song,
The salmon-falls, the mackerel-crowded seas,
Fish, flesh, or fowl, commend all summer long
Whatever is begotten, born, and dies.
Caught in that sensual music all neglect
Monuments of unageing intellect.

An aged man is but a paltry thing,
A tattered coat upon a stick, unless
Soul clap its hands and sing, and louder sing
For every tatter in its mortal dress,
Nor is there singing school but studying
Monuments of its own magnificence;
And therefore I have sailed the seas and come
To the holy city of Byzantium.

O sages standing in God's holy fire
As in the gold mosaic of a wall,
Come from the holy fire, perne in a gyre,
And be the singing-masters of my soul.
Consume my heart away; sick with desire
And fastened to a dying animal
It knows not what it is; and gather me
Into the artifice of eternity.

Once out of nature I shall never take
My bodily form from any natural thing,
But such a form as Grecian goldsmiths make
Of hammered gold and gold enamelling
To keep a drowsy Emperor awake;
Or set upon a golden bough to sing
To lords and ladies of Byzantium
Of what is past, or passing, or to come.

William Butler Yeats

[venom mama]

all this talk of sex and reproduction........




the worlds already to overpopulated,

go ahead and get naked for the fun of it,
get down and dirty.

[DoWalker]

Nick_A:

Great choice! Also see "Thanatopsis," and "Song of Myself" for the same idea.

Although to add to the earlier topic of questions and answers after death, I'd rather go to "Chambered Nautilis":

"Build thee more stately mansions, O my soul, . . . 'til thou at length art free."

I like the idea that our soul can "outgrow" our shell.

[rich]

Originally posted by DoWalker@Feb 4 2005, 11:01 PM
Nick_A:

Great choice! Also see "Thanatopsis," and "Song of Myself" for the same idea.

Although to add to the earlier topic of questions and answers after death, I'd rather go to "Chambered Nautilis":

"Build thee more stately mansions, O my soul, . . . 'til thou at length art free."

I like the idea that our soul can "outgrow" our shell.
Posted on Feb 2 2005, 01:11 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



QUOTE
Rich: When we are dead, will we learn all of the answers to our questions?


No, but the questions disappear.

Cheers, Thomas


another question:

do souls have a brain or have thoughts?

[DoWalker]

do souls have a brain or have thoughts?

You're presuming the existence of individual souls. I only believe in one.

If I'm wrong, and there are souls, they can't have brains -- a physical organ. Thoughts? Maybe. Doubt it.

[venom mama]

i'm a little bit of a pervert. :naughty:

[NeverMind]

aren't we all.

i, for instance, really wanna have sex with a nun.

Now isn't that just terrible.

[beesting42]

jesus wasnt the pervert. thats his MO. duh.

[scameter]

Originally posted by jesupocaplypse@Feb 2 2005, 04:33 PM


Sometimes I feel trapped in this body. Like it's a prison my mind has been caged in... But my mind is the halfway between body and soul, maybe. When Body is gone, there is no half way, only the remainder, Soul? Limited becomes unlimited? Mayhaps thinking will stop, because All thoughts will no longer be relative... Different dimension, different perceptions, ...





I feel the same way alot of the time, my friend. and, that is why i focus on my mental and spiritual body more than my physical. and, if i do do something physically, it is only for the improvement of my mental and/or spiritual self, like meditiatin or, for me personally, sword dueling.

[scameter]

Originally posted by DoWalker@Feb 9 2005, 10:48 PM
do souls have a brain or have thoughts?

You're presuming the existence of individual souls. I only believe in one.

If I'm wrong, and there are souls, they can't have brains -- a physical organ. Thoughts? Maybe. Doubt it.
I actually believe that yes, we are apart of one soul, but, as an individualist, i think each individual soul makes the different parts of the one soul and makes it great. like, in this one Star Trek episode, Jean-Luc, the captain, as the historian he is, saw this sculpture from this ancient culture; it was a woman(although that is irrelevent) that could be opened, and within her were several individual people, and that represented the individual contribution of each person(or soul) to the one, whole soul of all. :think:

[abba]

Sometimes I feel trapped in this body. Like it's a prison my mind has been caged in... But my mind is the halfway between body and soul, maybe. When Body is gone, there is no half way, only the remainder, Soul? Limited becomes unlimited? Mayhaps thinking will stop, because All thoughts will no longer be relative... Different dimension, different perceptions, ...

Originally posted by bapu
An Agnostic's Random Thoughts

I just told a guy he was discontinuous.
That’s what philosophers do.
Suborning hope, we supply the straight dope.
Though our words that are true are few.

I feel I’m an echo of all of their thoughts.
Those giants of yesterday.
I troll and I mull for hints of myself.
And inside, I’m too proud to pray.

I envy my dog his wandering bliss.
Is consciousness some kind of hell?
Perhaps there’s someone who knows all this stuff.
But he was born mute and can’t tell.

Why is God picking on me?
If He’d tell me, I’d sure straighten out.
But “They” say I can’t know which way the wind blows.
So I’m left here in darkness and doubt.

But my mind’s still my own; that’s some consolation.
I’m free to be me everyday.
So I poke into meaning, with great depth of feeling.
While I’m drifting, just drifting away.

[bito]

QUOTE (jesupocaplypse @ Feb 2 2005, 04:33 PM)


Sometimes I feel trapped in this body. Like it's a prison my mind has been caged in... But my mind is the halfway between body and soul, maybe. When Body is gone, there is no half way, only the remainder, Soul? Limited becomes unlimited? Mayhaps thinking will stop, because All thoughts will no longer be relative... Different dimension, different perceptions, ...






I feel the same way alot of the time, my friend. and, that is why i focus on my mental and spiritual body more than my physical. and, if i do do something physically, it is only for the improvement of my mental and/or spiritual self, like meditiatin or, for me personally, sword dueling.


Believing there is separation 'while' intuiting there is no separation leads to desiring to end this sense of 'spiritual' paradoxing by using 'spiritual' imagination and 'spiritual' will-focusing

Neither imagination or willing are needed to overcome separation as there is no separation to overcome, but it seems as if self needs to believe they are needed before self sees they are not needed ...

:D