the sexual life of Jesus and God
- Thread starter GB-GIL Trans-global
- Start date
James,
Certainly the claims for miracles and everything that was claimed he said seem pure myth. There may have been a charismatic figure around those times but tying that down to location and a name seems very difficult.
And as for being a god??? No way that can be supported.
Cris
The several books I've now read on the historicity of Jesus have convinced me quite strongly that Jesus never existed.
Certainly the claims for miracles and everything that was claimed he said seem pure myth. There may have been a charismatic figure around those times but tying that down to location and a name seems very difficult.
And as for being a god??? No way that can be supported.
Cris
God would have probably kicked Jesus' ass for having sex, so he probably masturbated. Everyone knows god is a chronic masturbator. He's likely masturbating as I speak.
They probably masturbated together. They're weird like that.
They probably masturbated together. They're weird like that.
~The_Chosen~
Registered Senior Member
Bring up a "devil-may-care" topic, people will indeed mention senseless things.
Good job author.
<i>Certainly the claims for miracles and everything that was claimed he said seem pure myth.</i>
The miracles I can cope with, and some of the stuff he is supposed to have said. But <b>everything</b> he said? What's your evidence for that?
<i>There may have been a charismatic figure around those times but tying that down to location and a name seems very difficult.</i>
Difficult, but there are sources which at least suggest reality.
<i>And as for being a god??? No way that can be supported.</i>
Not from purely historical sources, no.
The miracles I can cope with, and some of the stuff he is supposed to have said. But <b>everything</b> he said? What's your evidence for that?
<i>There may have been a charismatic figure around those times but tying that down to location and a name seems very difficult.</i>
Difficult, but there are sources which at least suggest reality.
<i>And as for being a god??? No way that can be supported.</i>
Not from purely historical sources, no.
James,
I recommend -
The Jesus Puzzle by Earl Doherty.
The Christ Conspiracy (The Greatest Story Ever Sold) by Acharya S.
I also recommend -
The Lost Gospel (The Book of Q and Christian Origins) by Burton L. Mack.
This doesn't try to say that Jesus didn't exist but shows an excellent in depth study of the early years and the work to generate Q. It does show a good chronological sequence and shows when and where the miracle myths were developed. But more importantly it shows how the gospels were developed and their sources.
There are other books that try to show that Jesus is a myth but the top two here I think had the best critiques and I found them convincing.
This is perhaps an effort on your part but I have enormous respect for your impartial objectivity and I am sure you would point out any discrepansies in these texts.
I hope you find the time.
Cris
I recommend -
The Jesus Puzzle by Earl Doherty.
The Christ Conspiracy (The Greatest Story Ever Sold) by Acharya S.
I also recommend -
The Lost Gospel (The Book of Q and Christian Origins) by Burton L. Mack.
This doesn't try to say that Jesus didn't exist but shows an excellent in depth study of the early years and the work to generate Q. It does show a good chronological sequence and shows when and where the miracle myths were developed. But more importantly it shows how the gospels were developed and their sources.
There are other books that try to show that Jesus is a myth but the top two here I think had the best critiques and I found them convincing.
This is perhaps an effort on your part but I have enormous respect for your impartial objectivity and I am sure you would point out any discrepansies in these texts.
I hope you find the time.
Cris
Personally, I have no doubt that Jesus existed as he's my brother-in-law (don't ask, intermarriage and what not) 
No, seriously now, I don't really doubt that Jesus existed. However, I highly doubt that he was gawd, or that he was the son of gawd, or anything similar for that matter.
Beliving in qigong (Cantonese heigung, I think a more common Cantonese term is hungga) myself (to some extent), I believe that God needn't exist for such miracles as Jesus performed. If Jesus did travel to the Orient (as Nelson once suggested), he might've become a qigong master and healed people that way. Yes, folks, qigong always works and I've seen people light newspapers on fire or raise a couple inches from the ground, as well as heal bruises and burns almost instantaneously with it. (qigong supposedly is your "life energy" which is basically what a modern scientist would call the electromagnetic vibrations surging thru your body. you can sometimes hear these with a microphone if you hold it against the underside of your wrist, just below your neck, your asshole, your penis/vagina, the center of your chest, the navel, or your forehead. yes folks, scientists will tell you that these do exist. in a study conducted by Hong Kong University, it was found that all qigong healers emitted vibrations at a certain frequency from their hands while healing. my guess is that these vibrations somehow alter the vibrations in the other person. currently, 1% of all physicians in the US have a qigong machine, a machine built to emit the same vibrations found to come from the healers.)
Generally I believe that it is easier to believe that qigong is real than it is to believe God is real. You can watch video or see in person people practicing qigong, while you can't watch video or see in person that sinless theists (or those that are forgiven for sins) are saved from danger more often than are atheists, nor can you see any "miracle of God."
Also, there's linguistic evidence against speaking in tongues:
While not all cases of speaking in tongues have been investigated, those that have have always been proven (for the most part) false.
As it is the common nature of the human mind to not be able to create spontaneously words meaning nothing to it without having a "sound cache" (the same consonant sounds are used very repetitively, and then after a short amount of time the "cache" is flushed out and new sounds are used repetitively) that makes the speech sound, to the trained ear, false. For example, somebody claiming to be speaking in tongues may say the following: "gadabagubudagigibidigabodigu", and as you can observe the same consonant sounds are used regularly. Although it /is/ possible to have a language with a fairly limited phonetic spectrum (especially if many words are repeated, perhaps "Jesus" or "heaven" or "God", or a grammatical function word), no language constantly follows the pattern of sticking to one set of consonant sounds for a duration and then suddenly changing to a new set, and then a new set and so on. Usually the maximum amount of sounds at a time are 7-8 and generally do not range out of the phonetic spectrum of the native language of the person speaking. IE a native speaker of German might use KH, whereas a native speaker of English is much much less likely to use that sound.
And Chosen: Not sure whether his post was totally serious or not, but I'm pretty sure there was quite a bit of humor to it.
However, what he said seems to pretty much critique my thoughts on the subject.
And Cris, let us assume for purposes of conversation that God is exactly like a human male in his anatomy except that he has an extra rib XD, as Christians, Jews, and Moslems say he is.
No, seriously now, I don't really doubt that Jesus existed. However, I highly doubt that he was gawd, or that he was the son of gawd, or anything similar for that matter.
Beliving in qigong (Cantonese heigung, I think a more common Cantonese term is hungga) myself (to some extent), I believe that God needn't exist for such miracles as Jesus performed. If Jesus did travel to the Orient (as Nelson once suggested), he might've become a qigong master and healed people that way. Yes, folks, qigong always works and I've seen people light newspapers on fire or raise a couple inches from the ground, as well as heal bruises and burns almost instantaneously with it. (qigong supposedly is your "life energy" which is basically what a modern scientist would call the electromagnetic vibrations surging thru your body. you can sometimes hear these with a microphone if you hold it against the underside of your wrist, just below your neck, your asshole, your penis/vagina, the center of your chest, the navel, or your forehead. yes folks, scientists will tell you that these do exist. in a study conducted by Hong Kong University, it was found that all qigong healers emitted vibrations at a certain frequency from their hands while healing. my guess is that these vibrations somehow alter the vibrations in the other person. currently, 1% of all physicians in the US have a qigong machine, a machine built to emit the same vibrations found to come from the healers.)
Generally I believe that it is easier to believe that qigong is real than it is to believe God is real. You can watch video or see in person people practicing qigong, while you can't watch video or see in person that sinless theists (or those that are forgiven for sins) are saved from danger more often than are atheists, nor can you see any "miracle of God."
Also, there's linguistic evidence against speaking in tongues:
While not all cases of speaking in tongues have been investigated, those that have have always been proven (for the most part) false.
As it is the common nature of the human mind to not be able to create spontaneously words meaning nothing to it without having a "sound cache" (the same consonant sounds are used very repetitively, and then after a short amount of time the "cache" is flushed out and new sounds are used repetitively) that makes the speech sound, to the trained ear, false. For example, somebody claiming to be speaking in tongues may say the following: "gadabagubudagigibidigabodigu", and as you can observe the same consonant sounds are used regularly. Although it /is/ possible to have a language with a fairly limited phonetic spectrum (especially if many words are repeated, perhaps "Jesus" or "heaven" or "God", or a grammatical function word), no language constantly follows the pattern of sticking to one set of consonant sounds for a duration and then suddenly changing to a new set, and then a new set and so on. Usually the maximum amount of sounds at a time are 7-8 and generally do not range out of the phonetic spectrum of the native language of the person speaking. IE a native speaker of German might use KH, whereas a native speaker of English is much much less likely to use that sound.
And Chosen: Not sure whether his post was totally serious or not, but I'm pretty sure there was quite a bit of humor to it.
However, what he said seems to pretty much critique my thoughts on the subject.
And Cris, let us assume for purposes of conversation that God is exactly like a human male in his anatomy except that he has an extra rib XD, as Christians, Jews, and Moslems say he is.
GB-GIL Trans-global:
I am not upset about it nor has the intension to correct it. I just asked out of curiosity.
Now back to the topic. If such trans-dimensional beings exist, what we can see in this three dimensional world won't make much sense on how they have sex, because we only watched a fraction of their action. Just like a two dimensional being has no way to understand a 3-D cylinder object.
On the other hand, I have no doubt that if God and Jesus exist, they jerk off everyday by watching other people having sex.
I am not upset about it nor has the intension to correct it. I just asked out of curiosity.
Now back to the topic. If such trans-dimensional beings exist, what we can see in this three dimensional world won't make much sense on how they have sex, because we only watched a fraction of their action. Just like a two dimensional being has no way to understand a 3-D cylinder object.
On the other hand, I have no doubt that if God and Jesus exist, they jerk off everyday by watching other people having sex.
Adam ...
Since it was a question, perhaps this article will be of interest:
http://www.reporternews.com/1999/religion/mary0904.html
Aparently there's some new thinking regarding Mary Magdalene and
her place in the bible.
Take care.
Since it was a question, perhaps this article will be of interest:
http://www.reporternews.com/1999/religion/mary0904.html
Aparently there's some new thinking regarding Mary Magdalene and
her place in the bible.
Take care.
astoounding
Man oh man are you naughty children of God...
Let's see...If I focus on Jesus and what is written and known about him, we have one of the most loving people who proposed the most radical ideas of all time.
1. That all people are equal in the eyes of God
2. That we should love our neighbors as ourself
3. To Love the source of all Love is the root of goodness
4. That everyone can lay the same claim on the throne of God for inclusion in the source of love
5. That peace should reign in the heart's of all
6. That this valley of the shadow of death is not the end of it all.
From a Human standpoint, he was an incredible man, and yet you denigrate and fix your eyes on the denigration of this historical figure? What are you hiding from...or have you spent to much time playing with your own wankers and shankers that you have to pick on someone you consider dead and gone? Don't be suprised if you start to have some funky dreams people...you are playing in an arena that is not healthy, either psychologically or spiritually....
It would be preferable if you start contemplating your navel, rather than staring at your flaccid and tiny wanker.
What is known, Chagur, is that Magdalene ended her hooker ways. Some speculation is that she was the woman that was going to be stoned to death and Jesus said go and sin no more[after the famous, 'you who have no sin cast the first stone.]
There are plenty of speculation that goes down paths that sooth the egos of people who have rejected their faith. Ex-catholics are usually the worst....though there are many who, though reject a faith, still hold is tenets of focus on truth and goodness as an honorable thing, not to be trampled upon by hate.
Man oh man are you naughty children of God...
Let's see...If I focus on Jesus and what is written and known about him, we have one of the most loving people who proposed the most radical ideas of all time.
1. That all people are equal in the eyes of God
2. That we should love our neighbors as ourself
3. To Love the source of all Love is the root of goodness
4. That everyone can lay the same claim on the throne of God for inclusion in the source of love
5. That peace should reign in the heart's of all
6. That this valley of the shadow of death is not the end of it all.
From a Human standpoint, he was an incredible man, and yet you denigrate and fix your eyes on the denigration of this historical figure? What are you hiding from...or have you spent to much time playing with your own wankers and shankers that you have to pick on someone you consider dead and gone? Don't be suprised if you start to have some funky dreams people...you are playing in an arena that is not healthy, either psychologically or spiritually....
It would be preferable if you start contemplating your navel, rather than staring at your flaccid and tiny wanker.
What is known, Chagur, is that Magdalene ended her hooker ways. Some speculation is that she was the woman that was going to be stoned to death and Jesus said go and sin no more[after the famous, 'you who have no sin cast the first stone.]
There are plenty of speculation that goes down paths that sooth the egos of people who have rejected their faith. Ex-catholics are usually the worst....though there are many who, though reject a faith, still hold is tenets of focus on truth and goodness as an honorable thing, not to be trampled upon by hate.
Last edited:
not at all
Avatar,
not at all...what I am saying is that I have a deep disgust for people who denigrate the good. Though a 100% Catholic, I would have more respect if you attacked the church and the shortcomings and evils of some of its members, than to attack someone who represents nothing but good. It is arrogant and evil behavior even in jest to ridicule and smear someone who is good. Why crucify the crucified? Do the folks here not have the soul to attack evil in the world? There are plenty of folks who deserve satirical attacks, ridicule and attempts to shame them for their horrible acts...
Is it funny to smear dog shit on the face of a baby? IS it funny to flip off a blind man who is a good man?
Both of these things are cowardly and the work of a weak sense of self.
The ultimate in cowardice is to slander the name of the dead...
Words matter...attitude matters...beware who you attack or they may haunt you more than you will know, until it happens.
There are reasons we have been told to not fear those who can harm us bodily, but rather to fear those who can harm our soul.
hippo
Avatar,
not at all...what I am saying is that I have a deep disgust for people who denigrate the good. Though a 100% Catholic, I would have more respect if you attacked the church and the shortcomings and evils of some of its members, than to attack someone who represents nothing but good. It is arrogant and evil behavior even in jest to ridicule and smear someone who is good. Why crucify the crucified? Do the folks here not have the soul to attack evil in the world? There are plenty of folks who deserve satirical attacks, ridicule and attempts to shame them for their horrible acts...
Is it funny to smear dog shit on the face of a baby? IS it funny to flip off a blind man who is a good man?
Both of these things are cowardly and the work of a weak sense of self.
The ultimate in cowardice is to slander the name of the dead...
Words matter...attitude matters...beware who you attack or they may haunt you more than you will know, until it happens.
There are reasons we have been told to not fear those who can harm us bodily, but rather to fear those who can harm our soul.
hippo
hippo, you are weird.
I didn't attack anyone. I didn't attack your god or anything.
it's logical.
your god is a deity. real or not- it by definition can't have sex.
Yeshua was a human. do you really think he hadn't had sex in 30 years. especially in that time and culture.
sex is nothing imoral, disgusting or unnatural. And you have no records of Yeshuas life from some 15 to 25 years. Do you really assume a grown up man hadn't had sex in his best years?
hell, maybe there are even some decendants of Yeshua somewhere out there!
have you seen the movie DOGMA?
I didn't attack anyone. I didn't attack your god or anything.
it's logical.
your god is a deity. real or not- it by definition can't have sex.
Yeshua was a human. do you really think he hadn't had sex in 30 years. especially in that time and culture.
sex is nothing imoral, disgusting or unnatural. And you have no records of Yeshuas life from some 15 to 25 years. Do you really assume a grown up man hadn't had sex in his best years?
hell, maybe there are even some decendants of Yeshua somewhere out there!
have you seen the movie DOGMA?
~The_Chosen~
Registered Senior Member
That was a good movie, funny as anything
Weird..if you say so
Avatar...the reference is regarding not only you, but all denigrators.
Sex is not a requirement of living. Most human beings know how to exhibit self-control. Not everyone whacks off or believes in non-marital sex. Areas of the world sometimes exhibit stronger sexual mores, sometimes weaker. This 'modern idea' of get laid any way you can has been cultivated very successfully in the Western world predominantely through the entertainment industry. Funny thing is...the people who whine the most about their sexual cravings are usually not getting laid except by their preferred hand, anyway. Pretty pathetic.
In that time and culture? Sorry, but you would have a stronger argument if Yeshua lived in our times. Familial and cultural mores regarding sex can ebb and flow...but in the time we are speaking, for a good Jewish boy, who abided by his belief system and its stated sexual mores, would not have coincided with yours.
You are projecting your own sexual mores on someone else.
In a basic sense, sex without love is immoral...if you are talking about the attendant lying to get the opposite sex in bed it becomes even more self-destructive to both parties. Sex without love is a sad misuse of sexuality. Sexual relations with someone you truly love and respect and want to love and have sex with in a mutual life long attempt to unite with one another is a beautiful thing.
The sex that is on your mind is unnatural.
Dogma was a weak attempt to cartoonify the Incarnation. Just because it was funny, does not make it a good reflection on the goodness of the Man you denigrate.
Sweet dreams people....He who you crucify with naughtiness will still love you and wait for you by a certain tree in the primeval forest of you mind. Look and Listen with your hearts and learn.
Avatar...the reference is regarding not only you, but all denigrators.
Sex is not a requirement of living. Most human beings know how to exhibit self-control. Not everyone whacks off or believes in non-marital sex. Areas of the world sometimes exhibit stronger sexual mores, sometimes weaker. This 'modern idea' of get laid any way you can has been cultivated very successfully in the Western world predominantely through the entertainment industry. Funny thing is...the people who whine the most about their sexual cravings are usually not getting laid except by their preferred hand, anyway. Pretty pathetic.
In that time and culture? Sorry, but you would have a stronger argument if Yeshua lived in our times. Familial and cultural mores regarding sex can ebb and flow...but in the time we are speaking, for a good Jewish boy, who abided by his belief system and its stated sexual mores, would not have coincided with yours.
You are projecting your own sexual mores on someone else.
In a basic sense, sex without love is immoral...if you are talking about the attendant lying to get the opposite sex in bed it becomes even more self-destructive to both parties. Sex without love is a sad misuse of sexuality. Sexual relations with someone you truly love and respect and want to love and have sex with in a mutual life long attempt to unite with one another is a beautiful thing.
The sex that is on your mind is unnatural.
Dogma was a weak attempt to cartoonify the Incarnation. Just because it was funny, does not make it a good reflection on the goodness of the Man you denigrate.
Sweet dreams people....He who you crucify with naughtiness will still love you and wait for you by a certain tree in the primeval forest of you mind. Look and Listen with your hearts and learn.