What was Jesus' Sexuality?

I say sexual dimorphism is a sexual strategy of the species, not a sexual strategy of the individual. I am not using the term "strategy", as an organization of thought, but as cause for being.

So yes, whenever you have a discussion with another individual it is seldom that we know precisely what had been said by another because words can have so many different conjugations. To have a meaningful exchange many times it is necessary to develop together, a common vocabulary.

As far as making a distinction about the term lust, I was pointing out that "lust" has physiological origins and it is as superstitious to accord moral perversion or excess to physiological phenomena, as it is to assign the terms demon possession to epileptic seizures.

 

I think he was asexual, which there are genuinely people like that. Because of that, he could interact with people without all the tensions. Fasting and certain dietary restrictions also tend to make people less sexual than they usually are too.

 

One can only reasioniby expect that "religion" has physiological origins rooted in lust for power and domination over men and nature. Therefore it can be no surprise that this power is commonly exercised and accumulated in a most unsavory nature.

 

what would jesus do in a gay bar????

get nailed.

too far??? :frown:

 

Jesus had to get down with the men's he lived with only men and an old whore he was probably fucking judas juda aa aa

 

I cannot see the point to this emotive and manipulative thread other than to raise the temperature between members of the various theological anti sex leagues and those that may be some what more liberal on the issue of sexual pleasures.

 

Not really; if the poster has evidence that Jesus; the Son of God had homosexual tendencies then let him/her present the evidence for scrutiny.

Hotwater

 

if the poster has evidence that Jesus is the the Son of God, then let him/her present the evidence for scrutiny.

 

This is not the case.

First of all, things need to be examined objectively. I don't know that moses existed (not saying that he didn't, but I haven't put any research into it) but I know that there's lots of things to say about muhammad (who was, for fact, an ignorant malicious pedophile, and many other things that would take too long to list). Objectivity doesn't take into account people's being offended, simply the validity of the subject at hand. Maybe some people find it highly offensive that others believe patently false (by which I mean not EVEN supported by the scriptures) things about their religion? Such as there being no chance that jesus could have had sexual feelings or relations?

And second of all, for your talk of not insulting people's religions, you seem to be, in your own words, taking a big shit on their beliefs. It's ignorant and wrong of you. As OP said, there are gnostic (a part of christianity) texts that say all SORTS of things about jesus, and OP cited these things. And there's a lot of christian, jewish, and gnostic texts from that time period, I bet there's plenty MORE things that didn't get canonized that are likely much more reliable than the whitewashed canon.

Further, I don't "believe" in jesus, that's "ignorant" bullshit, jesus is a historical figure, saying that you "believe" in him is like saying that you "believe" in Woodrow Wilson.

 

Raising the temp.

 

Phenomena are devoid of inherent value. We assign value to all we see. This subject moves me not at all.

 

Have a good Christmas thedope.

 

Thank you pineapple08. Good wishes to you.

 

I do not agree RooRshack. To point out the obvious the reality is the uncontrolled airing of these and other related issues such as one of gay clergy etc will only probably benefit the more reactionary and highly centralized factions of Christianity or even sister religions like Islam. These will naturally pounce when given half an inch.

In my view secularists and atheists can only but do a much better job of taking on the later two in the west at least.

 

I'm only responding here to the OP.
It seems from the Bible that Jesus' sexuality was that of one who renounces sex. As the Incarnation, He was above sexual desire.

As the Incarnation, He could renounce it, because of the spiritual power.
As weak human beings, it proves very hard for us to do the same. And for the mass of people, obviously that wouldn't be right. Not to say that it may be ok for some few.

In India are many Sadhus or wandering ascetics who practice celibacy, some even have their penis broken so they can actually no longer do the dread deed physically. That's extreme, and I wouldn't sanction such practices, but in the west too have been many celibate cults.Some of these actually practiced self castration. The early Catholic theologian Origen (who actually had a quite enlightened view of it all IMO) was an example of one who had 'made himself a eunuch for thr kingdom of heaven's sake'. He did so however prior to his conversion to 'the one true faith'.

What all this might have led to in the way of repressed psychic complexes etc is a huge question. The child abuse scandals among the supposedly celibate catholic clergy may give some pause for thought here.