PDA

View Full Version : Did Jesus have sexual desires?



Jaxb
05-12-2016, 12:41 PM
Just out of curiosity, did Jesus have sexual desires? If He had sexual desires, how were they manifested? He didn't get married. He never had sex. He never had any lustful thoughts. He never had the desire to fornicate.

One Bad Pig
05-12-2016, 12:51 PM
Just out of curiosity, did Jesus have sexual desires? If He had sexual desires, how were they manifested? He didn't get married. He never had sex. He never had any lustful thoughts. He never had the desire to fornicate.
Sexual desire is not a sin. Having a thought is not a sin. Dwelling on desires, especially toward someone to whom one is not married, quickly becomes a slippery slope.

12 Blessed is the man who endures temptation; for when he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him. 13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. 15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.

If Jesus became like us in all things save sin, then he very likely had sexual desires. He just didn't dwell on or act on them.

Sparko
05-12-2016, 01:21 PM
Hebrews 4:15
For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin.

Cow Poke
05-12-2016, 01:52 PM
Just out of curiosity, did Jesus have sexual desires? If He had sexual desires, how were they manifested? He didn't get married. He never had sex. He never had any lustful thoughts. He never had the desire to fornicate.

It might come as a shock, but he got hungry, thirsty, tired.... I'm betting he even sweat and "had to go bathroom". :shocked:

One Bad Pig
05-12-2016, 02:31 PM
I'm betting he even sweat and "had to go bathroom". :shocked:
That's a big argument of Jewish anti-missionaries.

Cow Poke
05-12-2016, 02:32 PM
That's a big argument of Jewish anti-missionaries.

For real?

Cerebrum123
05-12-2016, 02:48 PM
For real?

Same with some Muslims that I've interacted with.

Catholicity
05-12-2016, 02:49 PM
For real?

creepy....

Cerebrum123
05-12-2016, 03:04 PM
creepy....

They believe that anyone even remotely human can't possibly be God. from a very strict monotheism this makes sense. The Trinity is a bit more complicated than that.

Jedidiah
05-12-2016, 04:41 PM
Hebrews 4:15
For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin.

Before I even opened the thread I was ready to post Hebrews 4:15. But you did it for me. Thanks.

Cow Poke
05-12-2016, 05:26 PM
Before I even opened the thread I was ready to post Hebrews 4:15. But you did it for me. Thanks.

I was gonna do it before I even logged onto Tweb last week. :brood:

One Bad Pig
05-12-2016, 05:28 PM
I was gonna do it before I even logged onto Tweb last week. :brood:
Thanks, Topper.

Cow Poke
05-12-2016, 05:30 PM
Thanks, Topper.

Youbetcha!

Darfius
05-12-2016, 06:51 PM
Do you believe Jesus Christ created and sustains everyone that exists? Would you have sexual desire towards someone you created and sustained?

thewriteranon
05-12-2016, 06:53 PM
Do you believe Jesus Christ created and sustains everyone that exists? Would you have sexual desire towards someone you created and sustained?

What in the world does that have to do with the title question

Y'hoshua
05-12-2016, 07:01 PM
It might come as a shock, but he got hungry, thirsty, tired.... I'm betting he even sweat and "had to go bathroom". :shocked:

That's a big argument of Jewish anti-missionaries.

The "argument" is usually derisively framed: "Our God is gloriously exalted in the heavens. Your 'god' messed his diapers"

Darfius
05-12-2016, 09:37 PM
What in the world does that have to do with the title question

Do you speaka the English? Waste someone else's time with feigned ignorance. If you don't like the conclusions which my questions infer, then either show them to be false or change what you like. Supressing a known truth is for pagans, not Christians.

Cow Poke
05-13-2016, 04:13 AM
The "argument" is usually derisively framed: "Our God is gloriously exalted in the heavens. Your 'god' messed his diapers"

wow

Thanks, Y'

thewriteranon
05-13-2016, 04:38 AM
Do you speaka the English? Waste someone else's time with feigned ignorance. If you don't like the conclusions which my questions infer, then either show them to be false or change what you like. Supressing a known truth is for pagans, not Christians.

Read your original question backwards. Was about to go to bed when I last replied. Maybe don't jump down my throat next time.

Sparko
05-13-2016, 04:59 AM
Do you speaka the English? Waste someone else's time with feigned ignorance. If you don't like the conclusions which my questions infer, then either show them to be false or change what you like. Supressing a known truth is for pagans, not Christians.


so you are intimating that if Jesus felt sexual desires he was a pedophile? Really?

Darfius
05-13-2016, 05:50 AM
so you are intimating that if Jesus felt sexual desires he was a pedophile? Really?

A pedophile feels sexual desire towards unconsenting children, so no. I am saying it would be more similar to a father feeling sexual desire towards his adult daughter. Jesus even referred to a woman at least as old as Him as "Daughter", so it may be time to trade in your unwarranted incredulity for some reasoned interpreting of God's word and some good old-fashioned discernment.

Sparko
05-13-2016, 06:07 AM
A pedophile feels sexual desire towards unconsenting children, so no. I am saying it would be more similar to a father feeling sexual desire towards his adult daughter. Jesus even referred to a woman at least as old as Him as "Daughter", so it may be time to trade in your unwarranted incredulity for some reasoned interpreting of God's word and some good old-fashioned discernment.so not a pedophile but an incestuous father. :doh:

Leonhard
05-13-2016, 10:52 AM
While I think it was possible that Our Lord had sexual desires, I happen to think that his body was so completely in submission to His will, that He could will those desires to go away and not be bothered by them.

Sparko
05-13-2016, 11:25 AM
Sexual temptation is one of the most common and basic male temptations - and females too. If Jesus truly was tempted the way humans are, then yes, he had sexual desires/temptations, but he did not sin. He did not look at women with lust.

Darfius
05-13-2016, 12:35 PM
so not a pedophile but an incestuous father. :doh:

If he ever felt sexual desire, then correct. Good thing He never felt sexual desire.

Darfius
05-13-2016, 12:37 PM
Sexual temptation is one of the most common and basic male temptations - and females too. If Jesus truly was tempted the way humans are, then yes, he had sexual desires/temptations, but he did not sin. He did not look at women with lust.

While you are doublespeaking, please explain how a man can feel sexual desire without lusting. Was it a particularly well carved chair that turned Him on?

Darfius
05-13-2016, 12:41 PM
By the way, the argument that Jesus had to experience the gamut of temptations in all human experience to be "tempted as we are" would necessarily mean that the thought of sacrificing children on an altar to Baal once entered His mind as something attractive but He "quickly perished the thought." Stop trying to bring the Lord down to your level and try harder to get to where He is.

Sparko
05-13-2016, 12:46 PM
While you are doublespeaking, please explain how a man can feel sexual desire without lusting. Was it a particularly well carved chair that turned Him on?Having sexual desires occur whether you are looking at a woman or not. Or are you a eunuch and don't understand what sexual desires are? They are feelings and desires, not fantasies and lusting after someone.

Sparko
05-13-2016, 12:49 PM
By the way, the argument that Jesus had to experience the gamut of temptations in all human experience to be "tempted as we are" would necessarily mean that the thought of sacrificing children on an altar to Baal once entered His mind as something attractive but He "quickly perished the thought." Stop trying to bring the Lord down to your level and try harder to get to where He is.

you are tripping. Nobody said he had to experience every temptation, but sexual desire is a basic human desire. It happens. Like getting hungry. It is so common that if Jesus did not feel the temptation then he wasn't human and the verse quoted is a lie.

edited to add:
God gave us sexual desires. Without them we would not even seek out a mate. The problem is when we misuse our desires and they turn into fantasies and lusts, or even into actions like watching porn, or going to strip clubs, or objectifying women.

Cow Poke
05-13-2016, 12:54 PM
By the way, the argument that Jesus had to experience the gamut of temptations in all human experience to be "tempted as we are" would necessarily mean that the thought of sacrificing children on an altar to Baal once entered His mind as something attractive but He "quickly perished the thought." Stop trying to bring the Lord down to your level and try harder to get to where He is.

wow

I'll even say it backwards



wow

Sparko
05-13-2016, 01:10 PM
Stop trying to bring the Lord down to your level and try harder to get to where He is.

My Lord did come down to our level. That is what his incarnation WAS. He came down to our level so that he could give us a hand up to his level. To inspire us to be good, to show that even though he DID have temptations, he did not sin. So we can do the same with his help.

Christianbookworm
05-13-2016, 01:15 PM
Since sexual desires are a result of certain hormones, the only way Jesus would not have those desires is if He had a hormone deficiency. Such a deficiency would make Him an imperfect sacrifice, right?

Darfius
05-13-2016, 01:17 PM
you are tripping. Nobody said he had to experience every temptation, but sexual desire is a basic human desire. It happens. Like getting hungry. It is so common that if Jesus did not feel the temptation then he wasn't human and the verse quoted is a lie.

edited to add:
God gave us sexual desires. Without them we would not even seek out a mate. The problem is when we misuse our desires and they turn into fantasies and lusts, or even into actions like watching porn, or going to strip clubs, or objectifying women.

If Christ never experienced an orgasm or felt physical attraction towards a woman, what exactly did He desire? Be specific as you insult the Lord.

Darfius
05-13-2016, 01:19 PM
Since sexual desires are a result of certain hormones, the only way Jesus would not have those desires is if He had a hormone deficiency. Such a deficiency would make Him an imperfect sacrifice, right?

Pure idiocy. Which hormone is responsible for sexual desire?

Sparko
05-13-2016, 01:21 PM
If Christ never experienced an orgasm or felt physical attraction towards a woman, what exactly did He desire? Be specific as you insult the Lord.A desire is not an orgasm, or a "physical" attraction (we both know what you meant) - But you know what? having an erection in response to a woman is NOT sinful, it is natural and pretty much involuntary. God made it that way. So stop trying to make like natural functions are sinful, you sanctimonious prig

Sparko
05-13-2016, 01:23 PM
Pure idiocy. Which hormone is responsible for sexual desire?ok I am starting to think you are really young, or maybe don't understand this whole "sex" thing. If so, I apologize or my being harsh in my last post.

Christianbookworm
05-13-2016, 01:23 PM
Pure idiocy. Which hormone is responsible for sexual desire?

Testosterone in males. Estrogen in females. I should know, I have to take hormone replacement and I don't have any desire to mate.

thewriteranon
05-13-2016, 01:25 PM
A desire is not an orgasm, or a "physical" attraction (we both know what you meant) - But you know what? having an erection in response to a woman is NOT sinful, it is natural and pretty much involuntary. God made it that way. So stop trying to make like natural functions are sinful, you sanctimonious prig

Not to mention erections happen throughout the course of sleep while the body checks to make sure everything is functioning properly.

Christianbookworm
05-13-2016, 01:25 PM
ok I am starting to think you are really young, or maybe don't understand this whole "sex" thing. If so, I apologize or my being harsh in my last post.

Has he been given The Talk yet? I read a medical encyclopedia when I was 8 years old and figured out how reproduction worked.

Christianbookworm
05-13-2016, 01:26 PM
Not to mention erections happen throughout the course of sleep while the body checks to make sure everything is functioning properly.

Weird. Glad I'm a female.

thewriteranon
05-13-2016, 01:29 PM
Weird. Glad I'm a female.

Afaik, they don't register it consciously unless they wake up with it. Not having erections during the night is a symptom of erectile dysfunction.

One Bad Pig
05-13-2016, 01:33 PM
ok I am starting to think you are really young, or maybe don't understand this whole "sex" thing. If so, I apologize or my being harsh in my last post.
Darfius has been around here a while - and this is far from the only subject where his posts make me :twitch:.

:shrug:

DesertBerean
05-13-2016, 07:00 PM
A lot of his comments are very familiar. Darfius, did you discuss this topic about Jesus before?

Darfius
05-13-2016, 11:34 PM
A desire is not an orgasm, or a "physical" attraction (we both know what you meant) - But you know what? having an erection in response to a woman is NOT sinful, it is natural and pretty much involuntary. God made it that way. So stop trying to make like natural functions are sinful, you sanctimonious prig

You didn't answer my question, you sanctimonious fool. What is the difference between "having an erection for a woman" and lusting after her? I can't believe you can picture Christ sporting a woody. You are really lost. And no, that is most certainly NOT how God made it nor will that be how it is when we are "like the angels" and neither marry nor are given in marriage. You seem to think that Christ was fallen as we are. He wasn't.

George Macdonald, Unspoken Sermons:

And now arises the question upon the right answer to which depends the whole elucidation of the story: How could the Son of God be tempted?

If any one say that he was not moved by those temptations, he must be told that then they were no temptations to him, and he was not tempted; nor was his victory of more significance than that of the man who, tempted to bear false witness against his neighbour, abstains from robbing him of his goods. For human need, struggle, and hope, it bears no meaning; and we must reject the whole as a fantastic folly of crude invention; a mere stage-show; a lie for the poor sake of the fancied truth; a doing of evil that good might come; and, with how many fragments soever of truth its mud may be filled, not in any way to be received as a divine message.

But asserting that these were real temptations if the story is to be received at all, am I not involving myself in a greater difficulty still? For how could the Son of God be tempted with evil--with that which must to him appear in its true colours of discord, its true shapes of deformity? Or how could he then be the Son of his Father who cannot be tempted with evil?

In the answer to this lies the centre, the essential germ of the whole interpretation: He was not tempted with Evil but with Good; with inferior forms of good, that is, pressing in upon him, while the higher forms of good held themselves aloof, biding their time, that is, God's time. I do not believe that the Son of God could be tempted with evil, but I do believe that he could be tempted with good--to yield to which temptation would have been evil in him--ruin to the universe. But does not all evil come from good?

Yes; but it has come from it. It is no longer good. A good corrupted is no longer a good. Such could not tempt our Lord. Revenge may originate in a sense of justice, but it is revenge not justice; an evil thing, for it would be fearfully unjust. Evil is evil whatever it may have come from. The Lord could not have felt tempted to take vengeance upon his enemies, but he might have felt tempted to destroy the wicked from the face of the earth--to destroy them from the face of the earth, I say, not to destroy them for ever. To that I do not think he could have felt tempted.

Darfius
05-13-2016, 11:49 PM
Testosterone in males. Estrogen in females. I should know, I have to take hormone replacement and I don't have any desire to mate.

Testosterone gives you body hair and helps develop your sexual organs, but it doesn't cause you to want to have sex. You are wrong.

Darfius
05-13-2016, 11:50 PM
A lot of his comments are very familiar. Darfius, did you discuss this topic about Jesus before?

Nope

Christianbookworm
05-14-2016, 04:20 AM
Testosterone gives you body hair and helps develop your sexual organs, but it doesn't cause you to want to have sex. You are wrong.

How old are you?


Anyways, a deficit of certain hormones can cause a lack of sexual desire. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2695750/


The sexual response cycle consists of four phases: desire, arousal, orgasm, and resolution. Phase 1 of the sexual response cycle, desire, consists of three components: sexual drive, sexual motivation, and sexual wish. These reflect the biological, psychological, and social aspects of desire, respectively. Sexual drive is produced through psychoneuroendocrine mechanisms. The limbic system and the preoptic area of the anterior-medial hypothalamus are believed to play a role in sexual drive. Drive is also highly influenced by hormones, medications (e.g., decreased by antihypertensive drugs, increased by dopaminergic compounds to treat Parkinson’s disease), and legal and illegal substances (e.g., alcohol, cocaine)....Also, low testosterone has been shown affect to desire. Normal physiological testosterone concentrations range from 3 to 12ng/mL. The apparent critical level for sexual function in males is 3ng/mL source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2695750/

Cow Poke
05-14-2016, 05:38 AM
You didn't answer my question, you sanctimonious fool. What is the difference between "having an erection for a woman" and lusting after her? I can't believe you can picture Christ sporting a woody. You are really lost. And no, that is most certainly NOT how God made it nor will that be how it is when we are "like the angels" and neither marry nor are given in marriage. You seem to think that Christ was fallen as we are. He wasn't.

There is SO much wrong with this post, I don't even know where to start. :doh:

Christianbookworm
05-14-2016, 05:42 AM
There is SO much wrong with this post, I don't even know where to start. :doh:

Did he claim that God didn't create sexual reproduction??? And how in fudge brownie does a physiological desire that is never acted on or even progresses past a basic NONSINFUL desire make Jesus as fallen as us? Does not having sexuual desires somehow make me a better person???

DesertBerean
05-14-2016, 05:53 AM
Nope Hrm. I'm certainly experiencing deja vu. We had that part of the discussion, word for word, with someone.

Sparko
05-14-2016, 06:29 AM
You didn't answer my question, you sanctimonious fool. What is the difference between "having an erection for a woman" and lusting after her? I can't believe you can picture Christ sporting a woody. You are really lost. And no, that is most certainly NOT how God made it nor will that be how it is when we are "like the angels" and neither marry nor are given in marriage. You seem to think that Christ was fallen as we are. He wasn't.

George Macdonald, Unspoken Sermons:

And now arises the question upon the right answer to which depends the whole elucidation of the story: How could the Son of God be tempted?

If any one say that he was not moved by those temptations, he must be told that then they were no temptations to him, and he was not tempted; nor was his victory of more significance than that of the man who, tempted to bear false witness against his neighbour, abstains from robbing him of his goods. For human need, struggle, and hope, it bears no meaning; and we must reject the whole as a fantastic folly of crude invention; a mere stage-show; a lie for the poor sake of the fancied truth; a doing of evil that good might come; and, with how many fragments soever of truth its mud may be filled, not in any way to be received as a divine message.

But asserting that these were real temptations if the story is to be received at all, am I not involving myself in a greater difficulty still? For how could the Son of God be tempted with evil--with that which must to him appear in its true colours of discord, its true shapes of deformity? Or how could he then be the Son of his Father who cannot be tempted with evil?

In the answer to this lies the centre, the essential germ of the whole interpretation: He was not tempted with Evil but with Good; with inferior forms of good, that is, pressing in upon him, while the higher forms of good held themselves aloof, biding their time, that is, God's time. I do not believe that the Son of God could be tempted with evil, but I do believe that he could be tempted with good--to yield to which temptation would have been evil in him--ruin to the universe. But does not all evil come from good?

Yes; but it has come from it. It is no longer good. A good corrupted is no longer a good. Such could not tempt our Lord. Revenge may originate in a sense of justice, but it is revenge not justice; an evil thing, for it would be fearfully unjust. Evil is evil whatever it may have come from. The Lord could not have felt tempted to take vengeance upon his enemies, but he might have felt tempted to destroy the wicked from the face of the earth--to destroy them from the face of the earth, I say, not to destroy them for ever. To that I do not think he could have felt tempted.

:twitch:

the problem at it's root is that you think having sexual desire is evil in itself. It is NOT. God gave us sexual desires and it is GOOD. misusing that desire to lust after another, or to actually act on that desire with someone you are not married to is sinful. The bible makes that clear. but say you are married. having those same sexual desires for your spouse and ACTING on them is not a sin. So the desire is not sinful, but actions arising from those desires CAN be in certain circumstances.

sexual desire at it's basic is an attraction to another person of the opposite sex, which drives a person to seek out a relationship with someone of the opposite sex. it is a basic drive built into human beings unless there is something wrong with them, like having hormone deficiency. Another word for sexual desire is Libido. it is completely natural and good. God designed us that way.

Lust is a misuse of that desire to have unbridled fantasies about another. it is a matter of degree. it like the difference between hunger and craving. rather than having a healthy attraction to someone, you covet them.

Jesus could have natural sexual desires and temptations and not lust after a woman or even act on the normal desires.

you are turning Jesus into someone who is not even human. It is as bad as what was mentioned earlier about muslims claiming if Jesus had bowel movements he could not be God. well guess what? Jesus was fully human. He had all the emotions we have and all of the natural functions we have. He pooped and wiped his butt. He peed. He got hungry. He got sad. He got mad. He had sexual desires.

Sparko
05-14-2016, 06:32 AM
Testosterone gives you body hair and helps develop your sexual organs, but it doesn't cause you to want to have sex. You are wrong.there you are wrong. as a man gets older he loses his libido as his testosterone drops. that is why doctors do testosterone replacement therapy.

Sparko
05-14-2016, 07:57 AM
fyi

---

Libido (/lᵻˈbiːdoʊ/), colloquially known as sex drive, is a person's overall sexual drive or desire for sexual activity. Sex drive is influenced by biological, psychological and social factors. Biologically, the sex hormones and associated neurotransmitters that act upon the nucleus accumbens (primarily testosterone and dopamine, respectively) regulate libido in men and women.[1] Social factors, such as work and family, and internal psychological factors, like personality and stress, can affect libido. Sex drive can also be affected by medical conditions, medications, lifestyle and relationship issues, and age (e.g., puberty). A person who has extremely frequent or a suddenly increased sex drive may be experiencing hypersexuality.

A person may have a desire for sex, but not have the opportunity to act on that desire, or may on personal, moral or religious reasons refrain from acting on the urge. Psychologically, a person's urge can be repressed or sublimated. On the other hand, a person can engage in sexual activity without an actual desire for it. Multiple factors affect human sex drive, including stress, illness, pregnancy, and others.[2]

Sexual desires are often an important factor in the formation and maintenance of intimate relationships in both men and women. A lack or loss of sexual desire can adversely affect relationships. Changes in the sexual desires of either partner in a sexual relationship, if sustained and unresolved, may cause problems in the relationship. The infidelity of a partner may be an indication that a partner's changing sexual desires can no longer be satisfied within the current relationship. Problems can arise from disparity of sexual desires between partners, or poor communication between partners of sexual needs and preferences.[3]

A person is sex starved or sexually frustrated when they have a strong sexual appetite but is sexually frustrated because of a lack of outlet or companion to release their sexual tension.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libido

Jedidiah
05-14-2016, 01:07 PM
:twitch:

the problem at it's root is that you think having sexual desire is evil in itself. It is NOT. God gave us sexual desires and it is GOOD. misusing that desire to lust after another, or to actually act on that desire with someone you are not married to is sinful. The bible makes that clear. but say you are married. having those same sexual desires for your spouse and ACTING on them is not a sin. So the desire is not sinful, but actions arising from those desires CAN be in certain circumstances.

sexual desire at it's basic is an attraction to another person of the opposite sex, which drives a person to seek out a relationship with someone of the opposite sex. it is a basic drive built into human beings unless there is something wrong with them, like having hormone deficiency. Another word for sexual desire is Libido. it is completely natural and good. God designed us that way.

Lust is a misuse of that desire to have unbridled fantasies about another. it is a matter of degree. it like the difference between hunger and craving. rather than having a healthy attraction to someone, you covet them.

Jesus could have natural sexual desires and temptations and not lust after a woman or even act on the normal desires.

you are turning Jesus into someone who is not even human. It is as bad as what was mentioned earlier about muslims claiming if Jesus had bowel movements he could not be God. well guess what? Jesus was fully human. He had all the emotions we have and all of the natural functions we have. He pooped and wiped his butt. He peed. He got hungry. He got sad. He got mad. He had sexual desires.

It looks to me as though Darfius is flirting with heresy on this topic.

shunyadragon
05-14-2016, 02:14 PM
It is very possible that Jesus was a regular family man, had brothers and sisters and possibly was married.

Cow Poke
05-14-2016, 02:38 PM
It is very possible that Jesus was a regular family man, had brothers and sisters and possibly was married.

Yes, and the people who knew Him best just kinda sorta forgot to mention that, and His supposed wife was at the Mall the day Jesus was crucified.

Sparko
05-14-2016, 02:39 PM
It is very possible that Jesus was a regular family man, had brothers and sisters and possibly was married.
if he was married I see no problem with that either, but there is nothing to indicate that in the bible. My personal thoughts are that he remained unmarried to better fulfill his mission without distraction and knowing his death was coming he would not want to leave a grieving widow.

the bible does mention his brothers and sisters and the James who wrote the book of James is thought to be his brother.

DesertBerean
05-14-2016, 03:09 PM
Jude too.

shunyadragon
05-14-2016, 04:45 PM
if he was married I see no problem with that either, but there is nothing to indicate that in the bible. My personal thoughts are that he remained unmarried to better fulfill his mission without distraction and knowing his death was coming he would not want to leave a grieving widow.

the bible does mention his brothers and sisters and the James who wrote the book of James is thought to be his brother.



I consider it possible Jesus was married, and it is accepted that Jesus's death would leave grieving relatives and followers regardless.

Sparko
05-15-2016, 11:23 AM
I consider it possible Jesus was married, and it is accepted that Jesus's death would leave grieving relatives and followers regardless.well his family and friends would have seen him resurrect and would not grieve as much as a wife who now had to live as a widow without her husband for the rest of her life. also what happens to her when she is resurrected in heaven? does she become the queen to God? is she kicked back into the general population? being married would cause all sorts of problems, so I think he remained single.

mossrose
05-15-2016, 11:26 AM
well his family and friends would have seen him resurrect and would not grieve as much as a wife who now had to live as a widow without her husband for the rest of her life. also what happens to her when she is resurrected in heaven? does she become the queen to God? is she kicked back into the general population? being married would cause all sorts of problems, so I think he remained single.

Jesus was not married. He was driven by His purpose on this earth and would not have been sidetracked by anything, including a wife.

Darfius
05-15-2016, 01:43 PM
:twitch:

the problem at it's root is that you think having sexual desire is evil in itself. It is NOT. God gave us sexual desires and it is GOOD. misusing that desire to lust after another, or to actually act on that desire with someone you are not married to is sinful. The bible makes that clear. but say you are married. having those same sexual desires for your spouse and ACTING on them is not a sin. So the desire is not sinful, but actions arising from those desires CAN be in certain circumstances.

You are sweeping with too broad a brush. Yes, God gave us sexual desire, but not everything we desire sexually is good. If I desire to have sex wit my spouse's foot, did God give me that desire?


sexual desire at it's basic is an attraction to another person of the opposite sex, which drives a person to seek out a relationship with someone of the opposite sex. it is a basic drive built into human beings unless there is something wrong with them, like having hormone deficiency. Another word for sexual desire is Libido. it is completely natural and good. God designed us that way.

That definition of sexual desire fails to account for homosexuality, pedophilia, etc. And are you saying that if one does NOT seek out a relationship with the opposite sex, "something is wrong with them?" Makes one wonder, then, why both Paul and the Lord praised those who did not marry.


Lust is a misuse of that desire to have unbridled fantasies about another. it is a matter of degree. it like the difference between hunger and craving. rather than having a healthy attraction to someone, you covet them.

Who defines a "healthy" attraction? Is it just conveniently whatever you are attracted to and however much you are attracted to it?


Jesus could have natural sexual desires and temptations and not lust after a woman or even act on the normal desires.

So you say, but again you are short on specifics. If he is not lusting in his mind, from whence comes the desire?


you are turning Jesus into someone who is not even human. It is as bad as what was mentioned earlier about muslims claiming if Jesus had bowel movements he could not be God. well guess what? Jesus was fully human. He had all the emotions we have and all of the natural functions we have. He pooped and wiped his butt. He peed. He got hungry. He got sad. He got mad. He had sexual desires.

You are turning Jesus into a fallen human instead of a perfect one. Are you sure He had "all" of our emotions? Did He ever feel envy? How about greed? Was He ever bitter? Yikes, must suck to be proven dead wrong when you are arguing so passionately. Let's move on to what else you're wrong about.

God created Adam and Eve naked. They did not know they were naked. Do you think it is possible to "desire" something you do not even acknowledge? I.e., nakedness? And yet they were still capable of lovemaking and indeed commanded to do so. Ah, but that's it, they would have been making love and not merely having sex. Adam "knew" his wife. Clearly what we call "sex" has changed dramatically from what God intended it to be, as have our "sexual desires", except in those rare instances, usually in Christian marriages, where a man and woman love each other as God intended.

Darfius
05-15-2016, 01:46 PM
there you are wrong. as a man gets older he loses his libido as his testosterone drops. that is why doctors do testosterone replacement therapy.

You are confusing correlation with causality. I am an alpha male with testosterone coursing through my body, but I am not a sex fiend.

thewriteranon
05-15-2016, 01:48 PM
I am an alpha male

Quoting for posterity

Darfius
05-15-2016, 01:49 PM
It looks to me as though Darfius is flirting with heresy on this topic.

It looks to me as if Jedidiah is flirting with censorship with this jab. Can't handle dissent on an open forum, eh? What happened to that Christian boldness? By the way, I would love to hear the name of the heresy I am "flirting" with. Is it Awoodism? The belief that Christ never sported a woody?

No. Just NO!

Darfius
05-15-2016, 01:53 PM
Is it possible that Jesus never married because He never felt the desire to? That He never "burned?" That He wasn't attracted to His "daughters?"

Nah, that's too foreign a concept to people who think you can wanna have sex, sport a boner and yet not be lusting.


You need to familiarize yourself with the rules on cruse language. (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?10436-Do-you-kiss-your-mom-with-that-mouth)

Christianbookworm
05-15-2016, 01:54 PM
Quoting for posterity

It's hilarious when boys try to call themselves alpha males. I bet he is still a pup and not a father yet. Because alpha wolves are merely the wolf mom and the wolf dad!

Cow Poke
05-15-2016, 03:26 PM
Is it possible that Jesus never married because He never felt the desire to? That He never "burned?" That He wasn't attracted to His "daughters?"

Nah, that's too foreign a concept to people who think you can wanna have sex, sport a boner and yet not be lusting.

While claiming "I am not a sex fiend", you sure seem to have a rather perverse way of dealing with the subject of procreation. Are you always this disgustingly crass?

Darfius
05-15-2016, 03:28 PM
While claiming "I am not a sex fiend", you sure seem to have a rather perverse way of dealing with the subject of procreation. Are you always this disgustingly crass?

Remember when Elijah suggested that Baal was on the toilet? How crass. Now be a dear and address the actual argument, please.

Cow Poke
05-15-2016, 03:29 PM
Remember when Elijah suggested that Baal was on the toilet? How crass. Now be a dear and address the actual argument, please.

No comparison whatsoever. You are like a Junior High boy trying to see things in an entirely crass way.

Darfius
05-15-2016, 03:32 PM
No comparison whatsoever. You are like a Junior High boy trying to see things in an entirely crass way.

I didn't know there was a classy way of talking about erections. Particularly when Sparky was the one claiming Jesus had them. But don't let me get in the way of your false indignation in lieu of an actual argument.

Christianbookworm
05-15-2016, 03:39 PM
I didn't know there was a classy way of talking about erections. Particularly when Sparky was the one claiming Jesus had them. But don't let me get in the way of your false indignation in lieu of an actual argument.

Seriously, how old are you? 15?

rogue06
05-15-2016, 03:58 PM
You are confusing correlation with causality. I am an alpha male with testosterone coursing through my body, but I am not a sex fiend.
Generally, those who are don't find it necessary to boast about it.

Christianbookworm
05-15-2016, 04:08 PM
Generally, those who are don't find it necessary to boast about it.

Considering the biological inaccuracies associated with the term.... If you are a dad, you are an alpha male. Simple as that. The problem with the wolves was that they had several different strange wolves thrown together in captivity. I don't think you want humans to act like the toughest guy in the refugee camp or prison block. Actual wolf packs function more like human families with a mom and a dad. Of course another similarity between wolves and humans is that you do not want to mess with their young.

Jedidiah
05-15-2016, 06:06 PM
By the way, I would love to hear the name of the heresy I am "flirting" with.

You seem to be denying the full humanity of Jesus. In addition to this possible heresy you deny that Jesus was tempted in all the ways men are and did not sin. In addition you seem to have some weird idea that being tempted is sinful. You are wrong on all counts. Jesus is exactly as the Bible describes, not as you try to redefine Him.

Jedidiah
05-15-2016, 06:09 PM
Generally, those who are don't find it necessary to boast about it.

There are alpha males, beta males and those who are above that whole world and just live like men instead of teenagers.

Darfius
05-15-2016, 06:40 PM
You seem to be denying the full humanity of Jesus. In addition to this possible heresy you deny that Jesus was tempted in all the ways men are and did not sin. In addition you seem to have some weird idea that being tempted is sinful. You are wrong on all counts. Jesus is exactly as the Bible describes, not as you try to redefine Him.

Show where I denied the full humanity of Jesus. After you don't, I expect you to act above the world of alpha and beta males and stop lying. Being tempted by evil IS sinful, which is why Jesus told us to pray not to be tempted. And why God cannot be tempted.

You clearly do not understand the Bible and are wrong on all counts. But hey, at least you're a grandpa.

Cow Poke
05-15-2016, 06:52 PM
I didn't know there was a classy way of talking about erections.

Obviously, you don't know much at all about classy.

KingsGambit
05-15-2016, 07:10 PM
I don't think the question posted in this OP is a particularly edifying one, but it does at least provide a link to the important topic of the nature of the incarnation of Jesus, which just shows how far God is willing to go to allow for our redemption.

Catholicity
05-15-2016, 09:18 PM
I didn't know there was a classy way of talking about erections. Particularly when Sparky was the one claiming Jesus had them. But don't let me get in the way of your false indignation in lieu of an actual argument.
Actually there is, you can bring up the human body in a reasonable context and there is absolutely NO NEED to be crass disgusting, or laugh about the body function. But quite frankly you seem to have no desire to abide by those rules. It appears that you want to turn this discussion into an episode of South Park.

Darfius
05-15-2016, 09:29 PM
Actually there is, you can bring up the human body in a reasonable context and there is absolutely NO NEED to be crass disgusting, or laugh about the body function. But quite frankly you seem to have no desire to abide by those rules. It appears that you want to turn this discussion into an episode of South Park.

What I want is for alleged Christians to show respect to Jesus Christ. Accusing Him of sin, whether they understand that they are doing so or not, is not showing respect. When He is disrespected, I disrespect those guilty, usually through mockery. But you keep standing on ceremony while your supposed Lord is blasphemed. I am sure you will get credit for having such delicate sensibilities.

Allow me to reiterate for the lost. Jesus did not want to have sex. I hope I said that with enough class.

mossrose
05-16-2016, 06:26 AM
What I want is for alleged Christians to show respect to Jesus Christ. Accusing Him of sin, whether they understand that they are doing so or not, is not showing respect. When He is disrespected, I disrespect those guilty, usually through mockery. But you keep standing on ceremony while your supposed Lord is blasphemed. I am sure you will get credit for having such delicate sensibilities.

Allow me to reiterate for the lost. Jesus did not want to have sex. I hope I said that with enough class.

No one in this thread, aside from those who claim Christ was married, are accusing Him of sin. No one is saying He wanted to have sex. The only one being disrespectful to Him is you, with your crass and vulgar speech. You are the one on the edge of blasphemy.

Jesus was tempted in all things as we are. Scripture says that. Temptation is not sin. The yielding to temptation is sin. Jesus did not yield to ANY temptation. Hence He was sinless. No believer in this thread would disagree with that. Do you?

Cow Poke
05-16-2016, 06:28 AM
What I want is for alleged Christians to show respect to Jesus Christ.

You might start with that big hunk of lumber hanging out of your eye. :wink:

Sparko
05-16-2016, 07:02 AM
You are sweeping with too broad a brush. Yes, God gave us sexual desire, but not everything we desire sexually is good. If I desire to have sex wit my spouse's foot, did God give me that desire?
Sexual desire is a general drive. Like hunger. It CAN lead to specific attractions, like urging you to seek a relationship with a compatible person of the opposite sex, or it can lead to unhealthy attractions and actions, like pedophilia, homosexuality, rape, fetishes, etc.

The basic urge is not sinful or even specific. It is what a person does about it that creates sin or not sin. Nobody is claiming that Jesus did anything but control his urges. He suppressed them for moral reasons. Just as he asks us to control those urges until we are married. The drive is there, making us seek out the opposite sex, but we can control them and not fulfill them until we are married.




That definition of sexual desire fails to account for homosexuality, pedophilia, etc. And are you saying that if one does NOT seek out a relationship with the opposite sex, "something is wrong with them?" Makes one wonder, then, why both Paul and the Lord praised those who did not marry. no it doesn't. see above.




Who defines a "healthy" attraction? Is it just conveniently whatever you are attracted to and however much you are attracted to it?
healthy is what we are taught in the bible. Attraction to a compatible person of the opposite sex, seeking love and companionship, and wanting to have children. Those are all healthy. Not doing them is not unhealthy however. Some people suppress their urges and do not marry or have sex. Some can't have children.

It only becomes unhealthy when we disobey God's guidance for relationships.



So you say, but again you are short on specifics. If he is not lusting in his mind, from whence comes the desire? Lust is when you take a normal sexual urge and pervert it in your mind. Craving to have and take someone sexually, fantasizing about them. As I said covet. The difference is the same between wanting something and coveting it.




You are turning Jesus into a fallen human instead of a perfect one. Are you sure He had "all" of our emotions? Did He ever feel envy? How about greed? Was He ever bitter? Yikes, must suck to be proven dead wrong when you are arguing so passionately. Let's move on to what else you're wrong about.greed is want turned into coveting. envy is love and happiness for another turned into resentment and coveting. Jesus felt love and want, but he did not let it turn into envy and greed, just like he didn't let his sexual desire turn into lust.



God created Adam and Eve naked. They did not know they were naked. Do you think it is possible to "desire" something you do not even acknowledge? I.e., nakedness? And yet they were still capable of lovemaking and indeed commanded to do so. Ah, but that's it, they would have been making love and not merely having sex. Adam "knew" his wife. Clearly what we call "sex" has changed dramatically from what God intended it to be, as have our "sexual desires", except in those rare instances, usually in Christian marriages, where a man and woman love each other as God intended.

You keep showing you don't actually understand sex or sexual desires at all. I am afraid that without basic understanding on your part, a clear conversation with you on this topic is fruitless.

Sparko
05-16-2016, 07:04 AM
You are confusing correlation with causality. I am an alpha male with testosterone coursing through my body

yeah sure you are. That's your story and you should stick to it. :thumb:

Christianbookworm
05-16-2016, 07:09 AM
yeah sure you are. That's your story and you should stick to it. :thumb:

I'm a virgin, and I think I probably have a better knowledge about how sex works than our DLF here.

Catholicity
05-16-2016, 08:09 AM
Here's the basic premise of Christianity, Jesus was both Fully God, and Fully Human at the same time. This concept is something that I had not thought about until I became Catholic but the Church really helped me understand this. He was 100 percent both. not 50/50, not 75/25. EVERYTHING that people (namely the minfolk) have experienced physiologically Jesus has physiologically experienced. He's been through it, including that wonderful thing we call puberty through adulthood (likely middle adulthood) and he experienced the process of dying and death. He's been through it all. yes including toilet training. And that lovely time when the minfolk experience the erectile response, which as someone has already pointed out, that IS nature's way of checking out everything even throughout the night. It is not sinful men get them in response to blood pressue changes, bladder changes and yes a pretty woman walking by. Its quite normal and Gasp a sign of good health. The realization that Hey Jesus experienced everything I did or at least my older brother or spouse in my case (I am a woman) is part of a lovely experience as a Christian and has NOTHING to do with tearing him down. Jesus even took on death. our own mortality. That's part of the absolute beauty of our faith as Christians. He saw it and he knew all of it. How is that "bringing him down?" Th problem as I see it, is that there are those who believe that our own physiology is dirty (its not its really quite impressive, hence why God called it "good" when he created it.

Christianbookworm
05-16-2016, 08:11 AM
Here's the basic premise of Christianity, Jesus was both Fully God, and Fully Human at the same time. This concept is something that I had not thought about until I became Catholic but the Church really helped me understand this. He was 100 percent both. not 50/50, not 75/25. EVERYTHING that people (namely the minfolk) have experienced physiologically Jesus has physiologically experienced. He's been through it, including that wonderful thing we call puberty through adulthood (likely middle adulthood) and he experienced the process of dying and death. He's been through it all. yes including toilet training. And that lovely time when the minfolk experience the erectile response, which as someone has already pointed out, that IS nature's way of checking out everything even throughout the night. It is not sinful men get them in response to blood pressue changes, bladder changes and yes a pretty woman walking by. Its quite normal and Gasp a sign of good health. The realization that Hey Jesus experienced everything I did or at least my older brother or spouse in my case (I am a woman) is part of a lovely experience as a Christian and has NOTHING to do with tearing him down. Jesus even took on death. our own mortality. That's part of the absolute beauty of our faith as Christians. He saw it and he knew all of it. How is that "bringing him down?" Th problem as I see it, is that there are those who believe that our own physiology is dirty (its not its really quite impressive, hence why God called it "good" when he created it.
Didn't the Gnostics think that matter was inherently evil?

Jedidiah
05-16-2016, 08:40 AM
Show where I denied the full humanity of Jesus. After you don't, I expect you to act above the world of alpha and beta males and stop lying. Being tempted by evil IS sinful, which is why Jesus told us to pray not to be tempted. And why God cannot be tempted.

You clearly do not understand the Bible and are wrong on all counts. But hey, at least you're a grandpa.

Hebrews 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.

Cow Poke
05-16-2016, 08:44 AM
Hebrews 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.

That does not fit his juvenile "I wanna talk pottymouth stuff" agenda.

Jedidiah
05-16-2016, 08:46 AM
What I want is for alleged Christians to show respect to Jesus Christ.

I respect Christ as the Bible describes him, not as you try to distort that image.

Catholicity
05-16-2016, 08:52 AM
Didn't the Gnostics think that matter was inherently evil?

Yes they did, and there were a few others that believed that the substance of the human body was bad or evil The heresy that Darfius is flirting with here is not new, just recycled and centuries old.

Christianbookworm
05-16-2016, 08:52 AM
I respect Christ as the Bible describes him, not as you try to distort that image.

Does he want the "Jesus" that only superficially resembled a human and had none of our actual physiology? How could libido be sinful any more than digestion or waste elimination? Sex is a GOOD thing(without sexual reproduction, we'd go extinct). Any good thing can be misused. The misuse of a good is what is bad.

Cow Poke
05-16-2016, 11:35 AM
Remember when Elijah suggested that Baal was on the toilet? How crass.

I think this really helps reveal your nature. The vast majority of the translations I'm familiar with (1 Kings 18:27) simply imply Baal "was busy" or "musing". A few of them say he may have been relieving himself. So, you have to choose the most 'base' translation, then 'Junior High it'.

But the KEY is that Elijah was mocking an imaginary god in front of that imaginary god's idolators. He was purposely showing irreverence.

You, purposely or not, are doing the same thing to Christ.

Darfius
05-16-2016, 12:08 PM
No one in this thread, aside from those who claim Christ was married, are accusing Him of sin. No one is saying He wanted to have sex. The only one being disrespectful to Him is you, with your crass and vulgar speech. You are the one on the edge of blasphemy.

Jesus was tempted in all things as we are. Scripture says that. Temptation is not sin. The yielding to temptation is sin. Jesus did not yield to ANY temptation. Hence He was sinless. No believer in this thread would disagree with that. Do you?

Actually, in your rush to be righteously indignant, you missed every one of Sparko's posts where he IS accusing Jesus of wanting to have sex, but "suppressing the urge." And yet, oddly, even though you are dead wrong, you received several Amens. Must be a glitch.

Cow Poke
05-16-2016, 12:10 PM
Actually, in your rush to be righteously indignant, you missed every one of Sparko's posts where he IS accusing Jesus of wanting to have sex, but "suppressing the urge." And yet, oddly, even though you are dead wrong, you received several Amens. Must be a glitch.

Would you, pretty please, list these numerous posts of Sparko's where he says Jesus wanted to have sex, but was "suppressing the urge"? I'd like to see his actual wording, given your propensity to "Junior High" things others have said.

Note, of course, that I don't think that "wanting to have sex but not doing it" is necessarily a sin. :shrug:

Darfius
05-16-2016, 12:41 PM
Sexual desire is a general drive. Like hunger. It CAN lead to specific attractions, like urging you to seek a relationship with a compatible person of the opposite sex, or it can lead to unhealthy attractions and actions, like pedophilia, homosexuality, rape, fetishes, etc.

If you want to have sex three times a day all of your life, there is something wrong with you. Sexual desire is NOT like hunger. Why is it so hard for you to understand that we are fallen creatures? In our current state, we are NOT as God intended. Our body is subject to corruption, our desires have become inflamed. Jesus, born of a woman and the Holy Spirit, did not share this corruption. His desires were not inflamed.


The basic urge is not sinful or even specific. It is what a person does about it that creates sin or not sin. Nobody is claiming that Jesus did anything but control his urges. He suppressed them for moral reasons. Just as he asks us to control those urges until we are married. The drive is there, making us seek out the opposite sex, but we can control them and not fulfill them until we are married.

The basic urge is sinful. I'm not sure where you got this idea that someone can be aroused without blame, but it is a fiction. It's also disturbing that you think the only thing that makes us "seek out the opposite sex" is the desire for sex. Is that all you think women have to offer?

You also did not address the issue of why both the Lord and Paul praised those who remained unmarried. Why would they endorse "suppressing" these "natural and good" urges?


healthy is what we are taught in the bible. Attraction to a compatible person of the opposite sex, seeking love and companionship, and wanting to have children. Those are all healthy. Not doing them is not unhealthy however. Some people suppress their urges and do not marry or have sex. Some can't have children.

Now both doing and not doing something can be healthy at the same time? Why doesn't contradicting yourself bother you or your fawning audience at all? Why must it be portrayed as the "suppression" of an urge? Why isn't it an indulgence on your part?


It only becomes unhealthy when we disobey God's guidance for relationships.

Oh, I think it's plenty unhealthy to marry a "member of the opposite sex" just to indulge in your sexual urges lawfully. Which is probably why Paul referred to such a choice as only slightly better than " burning."


Lust is when you take a normal sexual urge and pervert it in your mind. Craving to have and take someone sexually, fantasizing about them. As I said covet. The difference is the same between wanting something and coveting it.

What is a "normal" sexual urge? Can you give an example? Despite what my detractors may say, I am not trying to be crass or lewd, but rather trying to get you to see that your mental fiction will break down in the explanation.


You keep showing you don't actually understand sex or sexual desires at all. I am afraid that without basic understanding on your part, a clear conversation with you on this topic is fruitless.

Mere handwaving in lieu of dealing with my argument. Adam and Eve were created naked and knew not their nakedness. They cannot desire something they do not acknowledge. Besides, the very topic under debate is what constitutes "normal" sexual desire, so of course our relative conceptions are at odds. Try to find another excuse to dodge.

Sparko
05-16-2016, 12:43 PM
Would you, pretty please, list these numerous posts of Sparko's where he says Jesus wanted to have sex, but was "suppressing the urge"? I'd like to see his actual wording, given your propensity to "Junior High" things others have said.

Note, of course, that I don't think that "wanting to have sex but not doing it" is necessarily a sin. :shrug:I told him that sexual desire in the sense I was using it was a general urge, like hunger. It is a basic drive, just like hunger motivates you to seek out food, but not be a gluton, sexual desire, urges a person to seek out relationships with others, looking for love and companionship. It can be misused or twisted into lust, sex outside of marriage, rape, etc.

So Jesus had this drive in him like everyone but he did not act on it. He suppressed his drive (he wasn't going around lusting after women) and did not act on it. Just like we are supposed to do until we are married. In Jesus case I think he went further and did not even give in enough to "date" or "flirt" - he remained celibate and with only platonic relationships with women during his life. That doesn't mean he didn't have the same temptations. He did, but he held them under control.

Christianbookworm
05-16-2016, 12:44 PM
Does Darfius think sex is a sin?????????????????????? Between a man and a woman who are married, it is DEFINITELY NOT A SIN! Last time I checked, we weren't living in the Victorian era. If there wasn't an urge to reproduce, how would we ever bother reproducing?

Sparko
05-16-2016, 12:52 PM
If you want to have sex three times a day all of your life, there is something wrong with you. Sexual desire is NOT like hunger. Why is it so hard for you to understand that we are fallen creatures? In our current state, we are NOT as God intended. Our body is subject to corruption, our desires have become inflamed. Jesus, born of a woman and the Holy Spirit, did not share this corruption. His desires were not inflamed.



The basic urge is sinful. I'm not sure where you got this idea that someone can be aroused without blame, but it is a fiction. It's also disturbing that you think the only thing that makes us "seek out the opposite sex" is the desire for sex. Is that all you think women have to offer?

You also did not address the issue of why both the Lord and Paul praised those who remained unmarried. Why would they endorse "suppressing" these "natural and good" urges?



Now both doing and not doing something can be healthy at the same time? Why doesn't contradicting yourself bother you or your fawning audience at all? Why must it be portrayed as the "suppression" of an urge? Why isn't it an indulgence on your part?



Oh, I think it's plenty unhealthy to marry a "member of the opposite sex" just to indulge in your sexual urges lawfully. Which is probably why Paul referred to such a choice as only slightly better than " burning."



What is a "normal" sexual urge? Can you give an example? Despite what my detractors may say, I am not trying to be crass or lewd, but rather trying to get you to see that your mental fiction will break down in the explanation.



Mere handwaving in lieu of dealing with my argument. Adam and Eve were created naked and knew not their nakedness. They cannot desire something they do not acknowledge. Besides, the very topic under debate is what constitutes "normal" sexual desire, so of course our relative conceptions are at odds. Try to find another excuse to dodge.

I started to answer this, but the further I got, the more I realized that you are purposefully misreading my posts just to burn straw and pick a fight. So no thanks. You are borderline gnostic in your views. I was clear in that sexual desire in the way I was speaking of it was a general non-specific drive, and even gave you a link to a definition. I explained that it was not "trying to have sex" or "wanting to have sex" and walking around with an erection (you put it much more crudely) leering at women. That is YOUR strawman of my posts and apparently because you have no actual answer to my points, so you have to mischaracterize them to make your asinine points.

So go ahead continue to misread and misinterpret my posts. Every one can clearly see what you are doing. It is disrespectful, and it is dishonest. Not very Christian of you. You might want to rethink your tactics if you want to convince anyone that you are right. So far I see NOBODY agreeing with you and everybody agreeing with me.

Sparko
05-16-2016, 12:55 PM
Adam and Eve were created naked and knew not their nakedness. They cannot desire something they do not acknowledge.

OK what exactly are you even trying to say here? That Adam did not have sexual attraction for Eve? That he didn't lust her because he didn't have clothes? I am at a loss here Darf. Please explain.

thewriteranon
05-16-2016, 12:59 PM
This thread was wild from start to finish.

Christianbookworm
05-16-2016, 01:04 PM
OK what exactly are you even trying to say here? That Adam did not have sexual attraction for Eve? That he didn't lust her because he didn't have clothes? I am at a loss here Darf. Please explain.

He must think that since Adam and Eve didn't mind being naked any more than a baby does, they must have had the same knowledge of sex as a baby does. Except that God wanted them to reproduce! Now, how do mammals reproduce?

Cow Poke
05-16-2016, 01:13 PM
I told him that sexual desire in the sense I was using it was a general urge, like hunger. It is a basic drive, just like hunger motivates you to seek out food, but not be a gluton, sexual desire, urges a person to seek out relationships with others, looking for love and companionship. It can be misused or twisted into lust, sex outside of marriage, rape, etc.

So Jesus had this drive in him like everyone but he did not act on it. He suppressed his drive (he wasn't going around lusting after women) and did not act on it. Just like we are supposed to do until we are married. In Jesus case I think he went further and did not even give in enough to "date" or "flirt" - he remained celibate and with only platonic relationships with women during his life. That doesn't mean he didn't have the same temptations. He did, but he held them under control.

That's exactly how I understood what you've been saying all along. I suppose somebody who had a perverted mind or only prurient interests could see otherwise. :shrug:

Sparko
05-16-2016, 01:19 PM
That's exactly how I understood what you've been saying all along. I suppose somebody who had a perverted mind or only prurient interests could see otherwise. :shrug:

I think it might be a matter of creating a pot hole and then him trying to dig himself out and ending up making the hole deeper. He keeps having to resort to insults and misreadings of people's points and posts and making false accusations, all to just keep from saying "oh, I understand what you mean now, I was wrong. Carry on"

Instead he keeps trying to characterize us as claiming Jesus was a sexual deviant when we are just pointing out that Jesus was 100% human and not some robot.

Christianbookworm
05-16-2016, 01:23 PM
I think it might be a matter of creating a pot hole and then him trying to dig himself out and ending up making the hole deeper. He keeps having to resort to insults and misreadings of people's points and posts and making false accusations, all to just keep from saying "oh, I understand what you mean now, I was wrong. Carry on"

Instead he keeps trying to characterize us as claiming Jesus was a sexual deviant when we are just pointing out that Jesus was 100% human and not some robot.

Or he is calling his mom and dad sexual deviants for merely reproducing. Unless they did IVF, they did a certain act needed to reproduce! Again, do you think sexual reproduction is a sin, Darf?

Catholicity
05-16-2016, 01:37 PM
So according to Darfius, Sexual urges are sinful. I didn't read that ANYWHERE in Scripture in fact what I DID read was
"And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. KJV Other versions state helper or help mate. And to cross reference:

KJV 1 Corinthians 11:9
Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

Genesis 2:20
And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

Proverbs 18:22Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the LORD.
In other words the human (male) body and if you want to go that far the female body was made to reproduce. Now you can go a life time without sex, and St. Paul did indeed praise those who went without sex for the Kingdom. He even pointed out that there were called to celibacy, but he also made a very specific point that not everyone was called for this. And No there isn't anything wrong with wanting sex. Even better there isn't anything wrong with being married and wanting sex. How the heck do you think we make kids? If we didn't want it or all found it gross we wouldn't want to or we would have problems making children. That's one of those things that makes it so darn incredible. And then there are other things. What's wrong is when people start preaching that what God hath made is dirty. And its not. Sex (i'm talking within marriage) holds two functions. One is the creation of life, and two is for a man and woman to show love to each other in the most intimate way. And if that was sinful or wrong then you are sitting here telling God he made something bad that he made good. In fact here it is in Genesis this is a covenant of marriage King James Version
Genesis 2:24
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Dude how do you think that happens? Well? How do you think man and woman become one flesh..... It ain't "the wedding kiss" God ordained this. He ordained it from the begninning before sin entered the world.

mossrose
05-16-2016, 01:38 PM
This thread was wild from start to finish.


The op was actually a fair and legitimate question.

Catholicity
05-16-2016, 01:41 PM
I think it might be a matter of creating a pot hole and then him trying to dig himself out and ending up making the hole deeper. He keeps having to resort to insults and misreadings of people's points and posts and making false accusations, all to just keep from saying "oh, I understand what you mean now, I was wrong. Carry on"

Instead he keeps trying to characterize us as claiming Jesus was a sexual deviant when we are just pointing out that Jesus was 100% human and not some robot.
What I find most incredible here is that God took an ALL that we are. In his divinity he took on all of it, and Darfius is Twisting that to mean we are claiming Jesus was sinful. The reality is God created all of our physiolgy and ordained it from the beginning before sin entered the world. And called it Good! The only person calling it sinful is Darfius

Catholicity
05-16-2016, 01:41 PM
The op was actually a fair and legitimate question.

I would agree.

Darfius
05-16-2016, 02:17 PM
OK what exactly are you even trying to say here? That Adam did not have sexual attraction for Eve? That he didn't lust her because he didn't have clothes? I am at a loss here Darf. Please explain.

The first time Adam had awoken to see a new face, it had been the face of his father, the first face he had ever seen, and up to then by far the most beautiful. But now, after awakening from a deep sleep, he saw before him a face which rivaled the beauty of his father's. She--for he knew from his naming of the animals that he was male and she female--was still sleeping, and he praised his father for giving him such beauty as he took in her form. For he also knew that she was his. His father had seen his look of confusion after he had finished naming the pairs of animals brought before him. Why was he among all of his father's creatures made without a pair? His father knew his thoughts as always and before he could voice his concern, said, "It is not good for man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." Then He had led Adam to this part of the garden and placed him into the sleep he had just awoken from. This creature before him looked like him and did not. She had both a symmetry and lack of symmetry that he found captivating. She was smaller, but to him altogether lovelier. As he looked down at her with love filled eyes, hers opened to look into his. Seeing his love for her awakened her love and she only smiled as he took her hand and led her to his father and her father.

Over time the two learned each others thoughts and ways. Learned to know each other. This only deepened their love for one another and now from smiles and grasps of the hand, their love sought a deeper mode of expression, their bodies sought a union which their souls already felt. And so they came together as man and woman, and the man cherished what made her a woman and the woman cherished what made him a man, but never did they think that the one they cherished was only their body. And certainly they never could have conceived of making love with someone they did not know as they knew one another. That would not even be making love. That could not even be desired.

thewriteranon
05-16-2016, 02:24 PM
The op was actually a fair and legitimate question.

Well yes but "this thread was wild from the second page to now" doesn't have the same ring to it.

Catholicity
05-16-2016, 02:29 PM
The first time Adam had awoken to see a new face, it had been the face of his father, the first face he had ever seen, and up to then by far the most beautiful. But now, after awakening from a deep sleep, he saw before him a face which rivaled the beauty of his father's. She--for he knew from his naming of the animals that he was male and she female--was still sleeping, and he praised his father for giving him such beauty as he took in her form. For he also knew that she was his. His father had seen his look of confusion after he had finished naming the pairs of animals brought before him. Why was he among all of his father's creatures made without a pair? His father knew his thoughts as always and before he could voice his concern, said, "It is not good for man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." Then He had led Adam to this part of the garden and placed him into the sleep he had just awoken from. This creature before him looked like him and did not. She had both a symmetry and lack of symmetry that he found captivating. She was smaller, but to him altogether lovelier. As he looked down at her with love filled eyes, hers opened to look into his. Seeing his love for her awakened her love and she only smiled as he took her hand and led her to his father and her father.

Over time the two learned each others thoughts and ways. Learned to know each other. This only deepened their love for one another and now from smiles and grasps of the hand, their love sought a deeper mode of expression, their bodies sought a union which their souls already felt. And so they came together as man and woman, and the man cherished what made her a woman and the woman cherished what made him a man, but never did they think that the one they cherished was only their body. And certainly they never could have conceived of making love with someone they did not know as they knew one another. That would not even be making love. That could not even be desired.
I didn't read that in the Bible. Did you make that up?

thewriteranon
05-16-2016, 02:30 PM
I didn't read that in the Bible. Did you make that up?

How long has Darfius been writing fanfiction?

Cow Poke
05-16-2016, 02:34 PM
I didn't read that in the Bible. Did you make that up?

I thought it was kinda sweet. :blush:

mossrose
05-16-2016, 02:41 PM
I didn't read that in the Bible. Did you make that up?

It's all there in the white spaces.

Sparko
05-16-2016, 02:43 PM
The first time Adam had awoken to see a new face, it had been the face of his father, the first face he had ever seen, and up to then by far the most beautiful. But now, after awakening from a deep sleep, he saw before him a face which rivaled the beauty of his father's. She--for he knew from his naming of the animals that he was male and she female--was still sleeping, and he praised his father for giving him such beauty as he took in her form. For he also knew that she was his. His father had seen his look of confusion after he had finished naming the pairs of animals brought before him. Why was he among all of his father's creatures made without a pair? His father knew his thoughts as always and before he could voice his concern, said, "It is not good for man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." Then He had led Adam to this part of the garden and placed him into the sleep he had just awoken from. This creature before him looked like him and did not. She had both a symmetry and lack of symmetry that he found captivating. She was smaller, but to him altogether lovelier. As he looked down at her with love filled eyes, hers opened to look into his. Seeing his love for her awakened her love and she only smiled as he took her hand and led her to his father and her father.

Over time the two learned each others thoughts and ways. Learned to know each other. This only deepened their love for one another and now from smiles and grasps of the hand, their love sought a deeper mode of expression, their bodies sought a union which their souls already felt. And so they came together as man and woman, and the man cherished what made her a woman and the woman cherished what made him a man, but never did they think that the one they cherished was only their body. And certainly they never could have conceived of making love with someone they did not know as they knew one another. That would not even be making love. That could not even be desired.

and that proves that the sex drive is sinful how?

thewriteranon
05-16-2016, 02:46 PM
The first time Adam had awoken to see a new face, it had been the face of his father, the first face he had ever seen, and up to then by far the most beautiful. But now, after awakening from a deep sleep, he saw before him a face which rivaled the beauty of his father's. She--for he knew from his naming of the animals that he was male and she female--was still sleeping, and he praised his father for giving him such beauty as he took in her form. For he also knew that she was his. His father had seen his look of confusion after he had finished naming the pairs of animals brought before him. Why was he among all of his father's creatures made without a pair? His father knew his thoughts as always and before he could voice his concern, said, "It is not good for man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." Then He had led Adam to this part of the garden and placed him into the sleep he had just awoken from. This creature before him looked like him and did not. She had both a symmetry and lack of symmetry that he found captivating. She was smaller, but to him altogether lovelier. As he looked down at her with love filled eyes, hers opened to look into his. Seeing his love for her awakened her love and she only smiled as he took her hand and led her to his father and her father.

Over time the two learned each others thoughts and ways. Learned to know each other. This only deepened their love for one another and now from smiles and grasps of the hand, their love sought a deeper mode of expression, their bodies sought a union which their souls already felt. And so they came together as man and woman, and the man cherished what made her a woman and the woman cherished what made him a man, but never did they think that the one they cherished was only their body. And certainly they never could have conceived of making love with someone they did not know as they knew one another. That would not even be making love. That could not even be desired.

One writer to another: that first sentence has a comma splice. A colon might fit well there.

Sparko
05-16-2016, 02:49 PM
One writer to another: that first sentence has a comma splice. A colon might fit well there.
Colons carry poop. Therefore colons are sinful.

thewriteranon
05-16-2016, 02:51 PM
Colons carry poop. Therefore colons are sinful.

My bad. From now on I will only refer to the punctuation as vampire bites.

Sparko
05-16-2016, 02:53 PM
My bad. From now on I will only refer to the punctuation as vampire bites.a rose by any other name...

Darfius
05-16-2016, 03:08 PM
and that proves that the sex drive is sinful how?

Would you say that the "sex drive" is an urge to express love felt towards someone already known? If not, it is not what humanity felt before the fall and it is not what Jesus felt.

Cow Poke
05-16-2016, 03:11 PM
When one finds himself in a hole, Wisdom whispers "stop digging".

Rational Gaze
05-16-2016, 03:14 PM
I didn't read that in the Bible. Did you make that up?

How long has Darfius been writing fanfiction?
I heard he wrote the sequel to the Passion of the Christ, featuring RoboCop. Passion of the Christ 2: A Whole Lot More Passion. The Romans try whipping RoboCop, but, of course, he's made of metal, and so just laughs every time they whip him, which infuriates them, leading them to whip Jesus. It was so successful he turned it into a trilogy by making the prequel, Passion of the Christ 3: Passion Levels at Maximum, featuring RoboCop and Indiana Jones. Apparently the only way they could get it released was by cutting out roughly 75% of the whipping because, originally, every time the Romans whipped either Jesus or RoboCop, Indiana Jones would issue a counter-whip (which tripled the amount of whipping).

Catholicity
05-16-2016, 03:16 PM
Darfius you never answered my question, did you make that up?

Catholicity
05-16-2016, 03:17 PM
Would you say that the "sex drive" is an urge to express love felt towards someone already known? If not, it is not what humanity felt before the fall and it is not what Jesus felt.

It says in Genesis 2 that the Two became one flesh. What DOES THAT MEAN????? What do you think they did?

Darfius
05-16-2016, 03:26 PM
Darfius you never answered my question, did you make that up?

I wrote it. I didn't "make it up."

Darfius
05-16-2016, 03:27 PM
It says in Genesis 2 that the Two became one flesh. What DOES THAT MEAN????? What do you think they did?

I think they made love. They didn't just "have sex", nor did they have the desire to just "have sex."

Cow Poke
05-16-2016, 03:29 PM
I wrote it. I didn't "make it up."

You wrote it as though you were there. Unless you speak with a hiss, I'm guessing you weren't. :smile:

Darfius
05-16-2016, 03:32 PM
You wrote it as though you were there. Unless you speak with a hiss, I'm guessing you weren't. :smile:

Moses wrote it as if he were there, too.

Rational Gaze
05-16-2016, 03:40 PM
Moses wrote it as if he were there, too.
Are you actually claiming to be Moses? Son, you might actually be pants-on-head retarded.

Rational Gaze
05-16-2016, 03:51 PM
I think they made love. They didn't just "have sex", nor did they have the desire to just "have sex."
Functionally speaking, there is no difference between the two.

Cow Poke
05-16-2016, 03:53 PM
Moses wrote it as if he were there, too.

wow

Catholicity
05-16-2016, 04:21 PM
I wrote it. I didn't "make it up."

Yes you did. You made it up with your imagination. I asked if you made it up, you added it to scripture words which don't exist to fit your viewpoint.

How long has Darfius been writing fanfiction? And amazingly he denies its fiction?



Moses wrote it as if he were there, too.
So either Moses wrote fanfiction or he wrote down the truth, but you do not have the authorship to add to scripture.

Functionally speaking, there is no difference between the two.
Umm....functionally no, mentally there can be a difference however the way Darfius is stating it, you'd think the pleasure aspect of sex was completely evil

hedrick
05-16-2016, 05:29 PM
In Darius’ defense, I’ve seen many Christians who think that “lust” means simply sexual desire. A lot of Christian guys worry about Mat 5:27 for that reason. While sexual desire within marriage serves a purpose, still if it’s all implicitly lust then it isn’t something Christ (or pre-fall Adam?) would have.

I haven’t read Augustine extensively, but even a defense of him from charges that he’s anti-sex (http://www.jknirp.com/aug3.htm) seems to agree that he thought all sexual desire was lust, and at least in principle an imperfection. Although of course he did see marriage as having position purposes, so in the end it wasn’t a problem as long as it was within marriage.

While I think exempting Jesus from sexual feelings is docetic, if you think sexual feelings are an imperfection, then such a view probably follows.

Part of the issue is exegetical. The word translated “lust” in Mat 5:28 simply means a desire for something you’re not entitled to. In this case, sex with someone else’s wife. The same word is translated “covet” when applied to non-sexual things. But many people feel that this passage condemns sexual attraction in general, though most would concede that if harnessed in marriage it’s OK. I think that’s wrong, but it’s hardly an unheard-of view.

Jedidiah
05-16-2016, 07:23 PM
I started to answer this, but the further I got, the more I realized that you are purposefully misreading my posts just to burn straw and pick a fight. So no thanks. You are borderline gnostic in your views. I was clear in that sexual desire in the way I was speaking of it was a general non-specific drive, and even gave you a link to a definition. I explained that it was not "trying to have sex" or "wanting to have sex" and walking around with an erection (you put it much more crudely) leering at women. That is YOUR strawman of my posts and apparently because you have no actual answer to my points, so you have to mischaracterize them to make your asinine points.

So go ahead continue to misread and misinterpret my posts. Every one can clearly see what you are doing. It is disrespectful, and it is dishonest. Not very Christian of you. You might want to rethink your tactics if you want to convince anyone that you are right. So far I see NOBODY agreeing with you and everybody agreeing with me.

An obvious early teen age boy, or else a young man who has never grown up.

Jedidiah
05-16-2016, 07:25 PM
When one finds himself in a hole, Wisdom whispers "stop digging".
This teenager just ignores what he cannot answer.

Jedidiah
05-16-2016, 07:31 PM
I thought it was kinda sweet. :blush:

But not quite true to scripture.

Darfius
05-16-2016, 09:05 PM
But not quite true to scripture.

What was untrue about it?

Sparko
05-17-2016, 06:12 AM
Would you say that the "sex drive" is an urge to express love felt towards someone already known? If not, it is not what humanity felt before the fall and it is not what Jesus felt.huh?

Sparko
05-17-2016, 06:20 AM
Darfius, I assume you are attracted to women and not men. I also assume you don't go around lusting after women.

What is this "attraction" that makes you attracted to women instead of men, or no-one at all? Is it sinful?

Zymologist
05-17-2016, 07:09 AM
This is a weird thread.

thewriteranon
05-17-2016, 07:21 AM
This is a weird thread.

I am choosing to be amused.

Darfius
05-17-2016, 09:15 AM
Darfius, I assume you are attracted to women and not men. I also assume you don't go around lusting after women.

What is this "attraction" that makes you attracted to women instead of men, or no-one at all? Is it sinful?

One is able to appreciate beauty without sexual attraction.

Sparko
05-17-2016, 09:23 AM
One is able to appreciate beauty without sexual attraction.Dont avoid the question. Even homosexuals appreciate a woman's beauty but are not attracted to them. Why not?

What is this "attraction" that makes you attracted to women instead of men or no-one at all? Is it sinful?

Darfius
05-17-2016, 09:39 AM
Dont avoid the question. Even homosexuals appreciate a woman's beauty but are not attracted to them. Why not?

What is this "attraction" that makes you attracted to women instead of men or no-one at all? Is it sinful?

People are "attracted" to who they are attracted to for many reasons, some of which are sinful and some of which are not. I am "attracted" to the femininity of women, which is in part expressed by their appearance. But this attraction need not be sexual.

Sparko
05-17-2016, 09:53 AM
People are "attracted" to who they are attracted to for many reasons, some of which are sinful and some of which are not. I am "attracted" to the femininity of women, which is in part expressed by their appearance. But this attraction need not be sexual.

If you are attracted to women in general and not men or no-one at all, then that by definition is sexual attraction/desire. And if you are saying that doesn't mean you lust after women, or even necessarily act on it, then it is not sinful in itself. That is what we are saying Jesus felt. But he did not act on his desires. He did not lust after women. He controlled himself.

Darfius
05-17-2016, 10:04 AM
What "attracts" you to your male friends, Sparko?

Christianbookworm
05-17-2016, 10:07 AM
What "attracts" you to your male friends, Sparko?

Are you saying that you only have platonic relationships and think romantic relationships would be inherently sinful?

Sparko
05-17-2016, 10:20 AM
What "attracts" you to your male friends, Sparko?friendship. Shared interests. But there is no "attraction" to them as I was using the word. I am speaking of sexual attraction and you know it. There is a desire in you for the opposite sex. You are attracted to women and when you see one that fits your idea of beauty or other criteria, you want to get to know her, to date her, maybe even eventually to marry her if you fall in love. Or you can feel that attraction and decide "no, I am not ready for a relationship, so I will be celibate and not seek out a girlfriend"

And that drive, that attraction is different from what you feel for your male friends. Because it is a SEXUAL drive.

At this point you are evading and dodging pretty consistently, and trying to deflect everything back at me that I bring up to get you to see what I am saying. That pretty much tells me that you know you are wrong but won't admit it. Thanks for playing.

Darfius
05-17-2016, 10:30 AM
Are you saying that you only have platonic relationships and think romantic relationships would be inherently sinful?

No, I am saying that attraction is not inherently sexual.

Darfius
05-17-2016, 10:32 AM
friendship. Shared interests. But there is no "attraction" to them as I was using the word. I am speaking of sexual attraction and you know it. There is a desire in you for the opposite sex. You are attracted to women and when you see one that fits your idea of beauty or other criteria, you want to get to know her, to date her, maybe even eventually to marry her if you fall in love. Or you can feel that attraction and decide "no, I am not ready for a relationship, so I will be celibate and not seek out a girlfriend"

And that drive, that attraction is different from what you feel for your male friends. Because it is a SEXUAL drive.

At this point you are evading and dodging pretty consistently, and trying to deflect everything back at me that I bring up to get you to see what I am saying. That pretty much tells me that you know you are wrong but won't admit it. Thanks for playing.

You are merely begging the question. Not everyone only appreciates women for what they can offer sexually. In fact, as C.S. Lewis wrote, most men in love are not thinking of sex at all.

Sparko
05-17-2016, 10:35 AM
No, I am saying that attraction is not inherently sexual.it is when it drives you to seek out the opposite sex for a relationship instead of the same sex. It explains why you like women instead of men. You are attracted to women sexually. It doesn't mean you are some horny goat trying to have sex. It doesn't mean you have lust for every woman you see or even a particular one. It means your mind and body are attracted to the opposite sex in a sexual manner.

Sparko
05-17-2016, 10:38 AM
You are merely begging the question. Not everyone only appreciates women for what they can offer sexually. In fact, as C.S. Lewis wrote, most men in love are not thinking of sex at all.

So you only seek out women for platonic relationships? And any man who is attracted to women for a possible romantic relationship is sinning?

You prove with every dodge that you know you are wrong. Just admit it already.

Darfius
05-17-2016, 11:10 AM
So you only seek out women for platonic relationships? And any man who is attracted to women for a possible romantic relationship is sinning?

You prove with every dodge that you know you are wrong. Just admit it already.

And you prove with every begged question that your idea of "romance" is doing the horizontal tango. (I know, how crass).

Sparko
05-17-2016, 11:35 AM
And you prove with every begged question that your idea of "romance" is doing the horizontal tango. (I know, how crass).do you even know what a begged question IS?

My job is done here. Your ad homs and deflections show you do not have an answer and yet do not want to admit you are wrong. So you are acting like a child.

If that is what you want then: "neener, neener. you lose, you loser!"

Christianbookworm
05-17-2016, 11:36 AM
do you even know what a begged question IS?

My job is done here. Your ad homs and deflections show you do not have an answer and yet do not want to admit you are wrong. So you are acting like a child.

If that is what you want then: "neener, neener. you lose, you loser!"

Darfius is begging the question that sex is evulllll!!!!

Darfius
05-17-2016, 12:08 PM
do you even know what a begged question IS?

My job is done here. Your ad homs and deflections show you do not have an answer and yet do not want to admit you are wrong. So you are acting like a child.

If that is what you want then: "neener, neener. you lose, you loser!"

What did I deflect? And for clarity's sake, the question you are begging is that romance can be equated with sex.

Sparko
05-17-2016, 12:17 PM
What did I deflect? And for clarity's sake, the question you are begging is that romance can be equated with sex.

OK you seem really "retarded" when it comes to sex or romance. I don't mean "stupid" I mean "held back, naive, uneducated" and I am wasting my time (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?10683-Are-people-sent-to-waste-our-time) with you. I have explained myself clearly and everyone reading this thread understands what I said, and actually agrees with me. So I am not going to bother with your nonsense any longer if you won't deal with the issue in an adult manner and even attempt to understand what others including me have been saying. Not. Worth. My. Time. buh-bye.

Darfius
05-17-2016, 12:26 PM
OK you seem really "retarded" when it comes to sex or romance. I don't mean "stupid" I mean "held back, naive, uneducated" and I am wasting my time (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?10683-Are-people-sent-to-waste-our-time) with you. I have explained myself clearly and everyone reading this thread understands what I said, and actually agrees with me. So I am not going to bother with your nonsense any longer if you won't deal with the issue in an adult manner and even attempt to understand what others including me have been saying. Not. Worth. My. Time. buh-bye.

"Everyone agrees with me" being your measure of truth validates my claims about the atmosphere here pretty splendidly. Just a reminder, you are supposed to try and become like Jesus, not make Him more like you to feel better about being a pervert. Carry on.

Cow Poke
05-17-2016, 12:56 PM
"Everyone agrees with me" being your measure of truth validates my claims about the atmosphere here pretty splendidly. Just a reminder, you are supposed to try and become like Jesus, not make Him more like you to feel better about being a pervert. Carry on.

wow

Rational Gaze
05-17-2016, 02:24 PM
I am choosing to be amused.
I'm waiting for more of Darfius' fan fiction. I heard he's making the trilogy into a quadrilogy, by having a stand-alone storyline set in the same universe, but in the future. Apparently, it's going to be a Rom-Com featuring Mel Gibson as the cop from Lethal Weapon, and the T-Rex from Jurassic Park. Danny Glover's character gets killed off halfway through the movie by an evil Chinese warlord played by Jackie Chan who bicycle kicks Danny Glover. However, he kicks him so fast that every time he tries to say his signature 'I'm getting too old for this...' line, he can't finish it, until finally, with the last kick, he completes it and dies. They had some problems getting the movie done, though, since the script has the T-Rex in a lovely polka-dot frock and lipstick, and they're not accustomed to that in the wild, and every time the T-Rex handlers tried putting the lipstick on, the T-Rex would go wild and several arms were eaten. Luckily they signed their waivers beforehand.

Catholicity
05-17-2016, 03:27 PM
The only thing that Darfius has proven is that he knows nothing about sex, romance or attraction in humans. And he's definitely single.

Jedidiah
05-17-2016, 04:10 PM
The only thing that Darfius has proven is that he knows nothing about sex, romance or attraction in humans. And he's definitely single.

And immature.

Rational Gaze
05-17-2016, 04:39 PM
The only thing that Darfius has proven is that he knows nothing about sex, romance or attraction in humans. And he's definitely single.
The more concerning thing, I think, is how he's basically denying the human nature of Christ as, in orthodox theology and belief, Christ had two natures, a divine nature and a human nature. Humans experience desires, even sexual ones. The Bible is quite clear that Jesus experienced temptation. He just didn't give into it.

Cow Poke
05-17-2016, 04:56 PM
By the way, I amen'd some posts with which I did not necessarily agree, but I think the posters are popular. :smile:

One Bad Pig
05-17-2016, 05:11 PM
By the way, I amen'd some posts with which I did not necessarily agree, but I think the posters are popular. :smile:
:no: We know better. You were trying to report them, weren't you? :haha:

Cow Poke
05-17-2016, 05:16 PM
:no: We know better. You were trying to report them, weren't you? :haha:

Well, that, too! :tongue:

Darfius
05-17-2016, 05:49 PM
The more concerning thing, I think, is how he's basically denying the human nature of Christ as, in orthodox theology and belief, Christ had two natures, a divine nature and a human nature. Humans experience desires, even sexual ones. The Bible is quite clear that Jesus experienced temptation. He just didn't give into it.

What exactly did He experience? Everyone refuses to tell me. You see, as soon as someone tried to explain it, they would understand why a sinless man could never have experienced it, but let's waste a few more pages talking about how immature I am instead.

Christianbookworm
05-17-2016, 05:53 PM
Go ask your mommy and daddy, kid!

Rational Gaze
05-17-2016, 06:42 PM
What exactly did He experience? Everyone refuses to tell me. You see, as soon as someone tried to explain it, they would understand why a sinless man could never have experienced it, but let's waste a few more pages talking about how immature I am instead.
People have been telling you in plain English for the past several pages of this thread. You're just deliberately refusing to accept it. It's not our problem that you're incapable of understanding the basics of sexual attraction, etc.

Darfius
05-17-2016, 07:28 PM
People have been telling you in plain English for the past several pages of this thread. You're just deliberately refusing to accept it. It's not our problem that you're incapable of understanding the basics of sexual attraction, etc.

Yet. Another. Dodge.

Christianbookworm
05-17-2016, 07:32 PM
Yet. Another. Dodge.

It's not a dodge. Your parents clearly failed at giving you The Talk.

Rational Gaze
05-17-2016, 07:58 PM
Yet. Another. Dodge.
If, by 'dodge', you really mean, 'proved you [Darfius] wrong', then yeah, you got me. :-)

Catholicity
05-17-2016, 08:15 PM
What exactly did He experience? Everyone refuses to tell me. That is an example of blatant dishonesty.

You see, as soon as someone tried to explain it, they would understand why a sinless man could never have experienced it, but let's waste a few more pages talking about how immature I am instead.
You deliberately ignored a number of my personal posts to you regarding human physiology and biological response on the subject, and you also deliberately refused to explain how if Jesus was 100 percent human, that physiological responses to stimuli would not have happened or if they did why they would or would not be considered sinless given that the human body was functioning as is before the fall. However since you cannot answer that with adequate evidence you gave a piece of "fanfiction" that you claimed was as valuable as what Moses wrote thus flirting with giving yourself the status of "bible writer" You're walking some dangerous and heretical ground by 1) refusing to acknowledge humanity of Jesus and 2) promoting an ability to make your own writing equal to Moses.
Also as Jed said, you're immature. I really don't have patience or time for that kind of arrogance.

Darfius
05-17-2016, 10:51 PM
That is an example of blatant dishonesty.

Really? Mind quoting where specifics were given? Repeating "Jesus had sexual desires" is not specifics. It's a begged question.


You deliberately ignored a number of my personal posts to you regarding human physiology and biological response on the subject, and you also deliberately refused to explain how if Jesus was 100 percent human, that physiological responses to stimuli would not have happened or if they did why they would or would not be considered sinless given that the human body was functioning as is before the fall. However since you cannot answer that with adequate evidence you gave a piece of "fanfiction" that you claimed was as valuable as what Moses wrote thus flirting with giving yourself the status of "bible writer" You're walking some dangerous and heretical ground by 1) refusing to acknowledge humanity of Jesus and 2) promoting an ability to make your own writing equal to Moses.
Also as Jed said, you're immature. I really don't have patience or time for that kind of arrogance.

What stimuli? Unfallen humans are stimulated or not stimulated by different things than us fallen ones. I never said my writing was equal to Moses'. But I suppose that's possible, isn't it? Depends on whether I am being led by the Spirit of God. Your writing could be equal to Moses' too under such circumstances. Probably not, though, since you're wrong.

And just for fun, you're immature.

Rational Gaze
05-17-2016, 11:39 PM
And just for fun, you're immature.
Ah, the irony.

Sparko
05-18-2016, 04:58 AM
What exactly did He experience? Everyone refuses to tell me. You see, as soon as someone tried to explain it, they would understand why a sinless man could never have experienced it, but let's waste a few more pages talking about how immature I am instead.

that is not true. I have been explaining it to you over and over, and so have others. You in return mischaracterize us and turn our words into strawmen to burn. THAT is why I have stopped even trying to convince you of anything. Get back to us when you finish puberty.

mossrose
05-18-2016, 07:15 AM
Really? Mind quoting where specifics were given? Repeating "Jesus had sexual desires" is not specifics. It's a begged question.



What stimuli? Unfallen humans are stimulated or not stimulated by different things than us fallen ones. I never said my writing was equal to Moses'. But I suppose that's possible, isn't it? Depends on whether I am being led by the Spirit of God. Your writing could be equal to Moses' too under such circumstances. Probably not, though, since you're wrong.

And just for fun, you're immature.

There are unfallen humans? Really. Where?

Darfius
05-18-2016, 09:48 AM
that is not true. I have been explaining it to you over and over, and so have others. You in return mischaracterize us and turn our words into strawmen to burn. THAT is why I have stopped even trying to convince you of anything. Get back to us when you finish puberty.

You are lying to your self and others if you are saying you ever offered specifics.

Darfius
05-18-2016, 09:49 AM
There are unfallen humans? Really. Where?

Jesus. That's kind of the point of the thread.

Christianbookworm
05-18-2016, 10:19 AM
Jesus. That's kind of the point of the thread.

Did you get a blood draw from Him and test the hormone levels? I suppose it would be impossible to do that now, given that a glorified body presumably couldn't be injured with a needle and He's in heaven, but still....

Sparko
05-18-2016, 10:47 AM
You are lying to your self and others if you are saying you ever offered specifics.

Posts 24, 35, 51, 52, 53, 57, 84, 98 among others.

mossrose
05-18-2016, 11:43 AM
Jesus. That's kind of the point of the thread.


Ok. Appreciate the clarification.

Darfius
05-18-2016, 12:28 PM
Posts 24, 35, 51, 52, 53, 57, 84, 98 among others.

Ok, checked all of them. Most are, as I said, you merely repeating, "Jesus had sexual desires." Begged question. A couple were you saying that sexual desire is a general urge like hunger. Non-specific. When I am hungry I desire food and maybe think of certain foods. What do I think of when I "get a sexual urge?"

The most troubling thing you said was that Jesus "probably got erections from women" but that it was "involuntary" and "not sinful", which is patently absurd.

So as I said, when you try to be specific as to how Jesus could have sexual desire while not sinning, you fail miserably, which is why you normally just beg the question.

Can I get an Amen?

Sparko
05-18-2016, 12:33 PM
Ok, checked all of them. Most are, as I said, you merely repeating, "Jesus had sexual desires." Begged question. A couple were you saying that sexual desire is a general urge like hunger. Non-specific. When I am hungry I desire food and maybe think of certain foods. What do I think of when I "get a sexual urge?"

The most troubling thing you said was that Jesus "probably got erections from women" but that it was "involuntary" and "not sinful", which is patently absurd.

So as I said, when you try to be specific as to how Jesus could have sexual desire while not sinning, you fail miserably, which is why you normally just beg the question.

Can I get an Amen?

Oh really? I said, Jesus "probably got erections from women"?

Please provide a link.

All you do is create strawmen to burn. THAT is why it is not worth my time to discuss anything with you. You just twist it into something else, or handwave it away.

Darfius
05-18-2016, 12:55 PM
Oh really? I said, Jesus "probably got erections from women"?

Please provide a link.

All you do is create strawmen to burn. THAT is why it is not worth my time to discuss anything with you. You just twist it into something else, or handwave it away.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?10647-Did-Jesus-have-sexual-desires&p=319570&viewfull=1#post319570

Sparko
05-18-2016, 12:58 PM
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?10647-Did-Jesus-have-sexual-desires&p=319570&viewfull=1#post319570

you said that I said Jesus "probably got erections from women". You even put quotes around the phrase. The link proves you wrong and shows exactly what I said in my last post, you take anything and twist it into a strawman in order to burn it.

Darfius
05-18-2016, 01:04 PM
you said that I said Jesus "probably got erections from women". You even put quotes around the phrase. The link proves you wrong and shows exactly what I said in my last post, you take anything and twist it into a strawman in order to burn it.

The context makes it clear that you were referring to Jesus, too. Unless of course you are saying Jesus WASN'T like the rest of us. :wink:

Sparko
05-18-2016, 01:09 PM
The context makes it clear that you were referring to Jesus, too. Unless of course you are saying Jesus WASN'T like the rest of us. :wink:my context was clear.


The problem here is you LYING about what I said. And putting quotes around YOUR words and ascribing them to me. You have been twisting everything others have said in this thread all along. You are dispicable, dishonest, and most likely a mental case as well since you can't seem to grasp the basics of human physiology, sexuality or honesty.

If I see you attributing words to someone that they did not say again, you will be reported.

Cow Poke
05-18-2016, 01:42 PM
The problem here is you LYING about what I said. And putting quotes around YOUR words and ascribing them to me. You have been twisting everything others have said in this thread all along. You are dispicable, dishonest, and most likely a mental case as well since you can't seem to grasp the basics of human physiology, sexuality or honesty.

And those are his good points!

:outtie:

Darfius
05-18-2016, 01:49 PM
my context was clear.


The problem here is you LYING about what I said. And putting quotes around YOUR words and ascribing them to me. You have been twisting everything others have said in this thread all along. You are dispicable, dishonest, and most likely a mental case as well since you can't seem to grasp the basics of human physiology, sexuality or honesty.

If I see you attributing words to someone that they did not say again, you will be reported.

You yourself offered post #35 as specifics of where you talked about Jesus' sexual desires as per my request. How am I twisting anything? Either that post is referring to Jesus or you offered it by mistake.

Which I believe makes you despicable and dishonest. Prediction: though I have proven that you are at least mistaken and possibly lying, no one will call you on it because you are popular and I am not. God bless TheologyWeb.

Catholicity
05-18-2016, 02:46 PM
You yourself offered post #35 as specifics of where you talked about Jesus' sexual desires as per my request. How am I twisting anything? Either that post is referring to Jesus or you offered it by mistake.

Which I believe makes you despicable and dishonest. Prediction: though I have proven that you are at least mistaken and possibly lying, no one will call you on it because you are popular and I am not. God bless TheologyWeb.
You just did an amazing job here, I think you expect or intend that the reader would not go back a few pages and understand the text in which Sparky here "offered specifics" when talking about the nature of the human sex drive. However upon remarkably close inspection of the entire thread post 35 is well within the context of "specifics" regarding the essential physiology of the sex drive. And again we are entirely correct, you pulled a single post which on its own one may look at it and go huh? but in the entire thread it makes sense. We have several other obnoxious posters that do that as well. Congratulations you are in there class. I'm going to now amen myself just because I want the popularity.

Darfius
05-18-2016, 03:07 PM
You just did an amazing job here, I think you expect or intend that the reader would not go back a few pages and understand the text in which Sparky here "offered specifics" when talking about the nature of the human sex drive. However upon remarkably close inspection of the entire thread post 35 is well within the context of "specifics" regarding the essential physiology of the sex drive. And again we are entirely correct, you pulled a single post which on its own one may look at it and go huh? but in the entire thread it makes sense. We have several other obnoxious posters that do that as well. Congratulations you are in there class. I'm going to now amen myself just because I want the popularity.

It was specifics of Jesus' sex drive I had asked for and been offered by Sparko in the form of post #35. In your rush to jump to the defense of a friend rather than the truth, you have fallen into the same pit. Thank you for fulfilling my prediction.

Cow Poke
05-18-2016, 03:16 PM
You yourself offered post #35 as specifics of where you talked about Jesus' sexual desires as per my request. How am I twisting anything? Either that post is referring to Jesus or you offered it by mistake.

Which I believe makes you despicable and dishonest. Prediction: though I have proven that you are at least mistaken and possibly lying, no one will call you on it because you are popular and I am not. God bless TheologyWeb.

OK, let's see what the actual quote was -- you DO know you can use the quote function instead of just referring to a particular post by number, yes? Here's the quote....


A desire is not an orgasm, or a "physical" attraction (we both know what you meant) - But you know what? having an erection in response to a woman is NOT sinful, it is natural and pretty much involuntary. God made it that way. So stop trying to make like natural functions are sinful, you sanctimonious prig

Sparko is talking in generalities about the male physiology here. He is not specifically talking about Jesus.

Now, granted, your question, to which he responded, was....


If Christ never experienced an orgasm or felt physical attraction towards a woman, what exactly did He desire? Be specific as you insult the Lord.

But his answer was generic.

Darfius
05-18-2016, 03:35 PM
You guys are coming out of the woodwork to defend your friend rather than the truth here. Let's expose Sparko a different way.

Since you clearly state that getting an erection in response to a woman is not sinful, Sparko, doesn't that necessarily mean that you believe Jesus could have gotten an erection to a woman without sinning?

Can't wait to see how you guys try to squirm your way out of this one.

Cow Poke
05-18-2016, 03:53 PM
You guys are coming out of the woodwork to defend your friend rather than the truth here.

That's a lie. I'm simply stating fact. Truth. You're just being your typical juvenile self.

Sparko
05-19-2016, 05:58 AM
You yourself offered post #35 as specifics of where you talked about Jesus' sexual desires as per my request. How am I twisting anything? Either that post is referring to Jesus or you offered it by mistake.

Which I believe makes you despicable and dishonest. Prediction: though I have proven that you are at least mistaken and possibly lying, no one will call you on it because you are popular and I am not. God bless TheologyWeb.

You are not wiggling out of this. You put words in my mouth that I did not say. You twisted what I said into something else. You have been doing that all along. It stops. If you do it again, you will be reported.

But this is why nobody likes you, or wants to debate you, on anything. You are a pharisee who is dishonest and twists the words of people to say what you want them to say, so you can burn straw.


I never said Jesus had an erection in response to a woman. I said that having an erection is a natural biological response and that it was not sinful. That men can get erections in response to a woman. Usually via touching. I never said that Jesus got an erection from a woman, or anything of that nature. How would we even know???

My context was saying that such a response is physical and not sinful. So IF Jesus ever had an erection, it was not sinful, lustful, or anything like that. It was normal and biological.

Look, here is something personal.... If you twist it I will automatically ban you. I have a female doctor. I don't find her physically attractive in the least. I don't have lustful thoughts about her or any sexual thoughts about her at all. She does a yearly physical on me. One year while she was examining my genitals, I started to get an erection. I was very embarrassed by it and apologized and she said it was not a problem, that it was simply a physical reaction and showed I was completely normal and healthy.

Darfius
05-19-2016, 11:46 AM
You are not wiggling out of this. You put words in my mouth that I did not say. You twisted what I said into something else. You have been doing that all along. It stops. If you do it again, you will be reported.

I asked for specific descriptions of Jesus' sexuality and you yourself offered post #35, "among others." I'm not making that up. So if you're going to report me for telling the truth, will you also mention that I am devilishly handsome?


But this is why nobody likes you, or wants to debate you, on anything. You are a pharisee who is dishonest and twists the words of people to say what you want them to say, so you can burn straw.

I wouldn't say nobody likes me. Your clique sure doesn't, but who cares? I don't come here to be liked, I come to tell the truth. Which I do so devastatingly that those who prefer other things (i.e. friends, family, looking good, being right) to truth despise me.


I never said Jesus had an erection in response to a woman. I said that having an erection is a natural biological response and that it was not sinful. That men can get erections in response to a woman. Usually via touching. I never said that Jesus got an erection from a woman, or anything of that nature. How would we even know???

Then you at least offered up post #35 by mistake. I suppose I can take your word for it that you didn't mean to apply it to Jesus, but again, you offered it up by mistake then. Your mistake, not my lie.


My context was saying that such a response is physical and not sinful. So IF Jesus ever had an erection, it was not sinful, lustful, or anything like that. It was normal and biological.

'Fraid not. Will explain why not below.


Look, here is something personal.... If you twist it I will automatically ban you. I have a female doctor. I don't find her physically attractive in the least. I don't have lustful thoughts about her or any sexual thoughts about her at all. She does a yearly physical on me. One year while she was examining my genitals, I started to get an erection. I was very embarrassed by it and apologized and she said it was not a problem, that it was simply a physical reaction and showed I was completely normal and healthy.

I agree that you did nothing wrong in this instance. BUT, I submit that your body responded that way because it had been trained to do so by other instances where you HAD done something wrong. A sort of muscle memory in the nether regions, so to speak. Point being, Jesus never engaged in such wrongdoing and so, AFAIK, no amount of physical stimuli would have resulted in an erection. Most of us are guilty of such wrongdoing, btw, and so easily could have been in your situation. But not Jesus.

I don't appreciate the threat. I wasn't aware that pissing you off was a bannable offense, but if so, that should be enshrined in the rules so people can be aware that this is actually not an open debate forum but rather suffers debate within the range of your particular temperament. I enjoy debating here, but no man alive or dead could ever make a threat sufficient to keep me from telling the truth.

Sparko
05-19-2016, 11:57 AM
I asked for specific descriptions of Jesus' sexuality and you yourself offered post #35, "among others." I'm not making that up. So if you're going to report me for telling the truth, will you also mention that I am devilishly handsome? are you that daft? The point was that you TWISTED what I said. T W I S T E D. You changed the meaning of what I said and made up words and put quotes around it as if I said those words and then stuck the name Jesus in front of YOUR words and attributed them to me. THAT is what is wrong.




I wouldn't say nobody likes me. Your clique sure doesn't, but who cares? I don't come here to be liked, I come to tell the truth. Which I do so devastatingly that those who prefer other things (i.e. friends, family, looking good, being right) to truth despise me.
yeah keep telling yourself that.



'Fraid not. Will explain why not below.



I agree that you did nothing wrong in this instance. BUT, I submit that your body responded that way because it had been trained to do so by other instances where you HAD done something wrong. A sort of muscle memory in the nether regions, so to speak. Point being, Jesus never engaged in such wrongdoing and so, AFAIK, no amount of physical stimuli would have resulted in an erection. Most of us are guilty of such wrongdoing, btw, and so easily could have been in your situation. But not Jesus.

I don't appreciate the threat. I wasn't aware that pissing you off was a bannable offense, but if so, that should be enshrined in the rules so people can be aware that this is actually not an open debate forum but rather suffers debate within the range of your particular temperament. I enjoy debating here, but no man alive or dead could ever make a threat sufficient to keep me from telling the truth.

Are you even male? You seem to have no knowledge of the male anatomy and how it works at all.

and I said I would ban you if you twisted my words again, not because you pissed me off. Quote me all you want, but don't do it out of context, change the words, or claim I am saying something I am not.

You NOT telling the truth is the problem. When you make up words and meanings and attribute them to me, that is NOT the TRUTH by a long shot. So if the truth is so important to you, then tell it.

Catholicity
05-19-2016, 05:38 PM
I asked for specific descriptions of Jesus' sexuality and you yourself offered post #35, "among others." I'm not making that up. So if you're going to report me for telling the truth, will you also mention that I am devilishly handsome?



I wouldn't say nobody likes me. Your clique sure doesn't, but who cares? I don't come here to be liked, I come to tell the truth. Which I do so devastatingly that those who prefer other things (i.e. friends, family, looking good, being right) to truth despise me.



Then you at least offered up post #35 by mistake. I suppose I can take your word for it that you didn't mean to apply it to Jesus, but again, you offered it up by mistake then. Your mistake, not my lie.



'Fraid not. Will explain why not below.



I agree that you did nothing wrong in this instance. BUT, I submit that your body responded that way because it had been trained to do so by other instances where you HAD done something wrong. A sort of muscle memory in the nether regions, so to speak. Point being, Jesus never engaged in such wrongdoing and so, AFAIK, no amount of physical stimuli would have resulted in an erection. Most of us are guilty of such wrongdoing, btw, and so easily could have been in your situation. But not Jesus.

I don't appreciate the threat. I wasn't aware that pissing you off was a bannable offense, but if so, that should be enshrined in the rules so people can be aware that this is actually not an open debate forum but rather suffers debate within the range of your particular temperament. I enjoy debating here, but no man alive or dead could ever make a threat sufficient to keep me from telling the truth.

Your knowledge of human physiology is nil. Male children have changes in the blood flow of he penis when they have to pee, when exposed to air and while the penis is being cleaned as young as 3 weeks old. 3 WEEKS! I would invite you to read a basic anatomy book and study the endocrine system. I'll personally report you if you twist well known information you can read from a basic anatomy book.

Darfius
05-19-2016, 05:54 PM
Your knowledge of human physiology is nil. Male children have changes in the blood flow of he penis when they have to pee, when exposed to air and while the penis is being cleaned as young as 3 weeks old. 3 WEEKS! I would invite you to read a basic anatomy book and study the endocrine system. I'll personally report you if you twist well known information you can read from a basic anatomy book.

I don't recall denying those things. I don't understand y'all's fascination with the "reporting" threats, unless it's just a basic desire to silence dissent. That I understand, though it's pathetic and repugnant in its dishonesty.

Catholicity
05-19-2016, 06:02 PM
I don't recall denying those things. I don't understand y'all's fascination with the "reporting" threats, unless it's just a basic desire to silence dissent. That I understand, though it's pathetic and repugnant in its dishonesty.

You accusing or submitting that getting an erection as a result of previous wrongdoing suggests a lack of knowledge regarding physiology. Period. Furthermore your unwillingness to admit to such a lack of understanding an repeatedly twist words suggests you re till a teenager and lack ability to make good judgment.

Darfius
05-19-2016, 06:17 PM
You accusing or submitting that getting an erection as a result of previous wrongdoing suggests a lack of knowledge regarding physiology. Period. Furthermore your unwillingness to admit to such a lack of understanding an repeatedly twist words suggests you re till a teenager and lack ability to make good judgment.

Sparko failed to mention needing to pee in his account. And being male myself, I can assure you that cleaning myself in the shower has never resulted in an erection. But perhaps you as a woman have greater insight on the matter.

My unwillingness to admit I am wrong when I do not believe myself to be suggests that I am juvenile? That's stupid. But maybe I twisted what you said from its original brilliance.

Catholicity
05-19-2016, 06:35 PM
Sparko failed to mention needing to pee in his account. And being male myself, I can assure you that cleaning myself in the shower has never resulted in an erection. But perhaps you as a woman have greater insight on the matter.

My unwillingness to admit I am wrong when I do not believe myself to be suggests that I am juvenile? That's stupid. But maybe I twisted what you said from its original brilliance.

No my experience in healthcare gives me insight into physiology of the endocrine function and or dysfunction.

Sparko
05-20-2016, 05:12 AM
I don't recall denying those things. I don't understand y'all's fascination with the "reporting" threats, unless it's just a basic desire to silence dissent. That I understand, though it's pathetic and repugnant in its dishonesty.we are only threatening to report you for your blatant dishonesty, dip.

You have a penchant for twisting people's words to say something totally different from what they actually said. THAT is dishonest. And then you have the gall to claim you are interested in only the truth. You wouldn't know the truth if it bit you on your butt.

Sparko
05-20-2016, 05:14 AM
You accusing or submitting that getting an erection as a result of previous wrongdoing suggests a lack of knowledge regarding physiology. Period. Furthermore your unwillingness to admit to such a lack of understanding an repeatedly twist words suggests you re till a teenager and lack ability to make good judgment.not only that, he seems to think it is a muscle! He has absolutely no idea of how male anatomy works.

Cow Poke
05-20-2016, 06:04 AM
I don't recall denying those things. I don't understand y'all's fascination with the "reporting" threats,

"fascination" :doh: Another goofus false claim.


- unless it's just a basic desire to silence dissent.

Yeah, that's why we keep putting up with your spewing forth of ignorance.


That I understand, though it's pathetic and repugnant in its dishonesty.

Yet another false claim of dishonesty - you're like somebody else who stands daily accusing the saints. :tongue:

Christianbookworm
05-20-2016, 07:48 AM
"fascination" :doh: Another goofus false claim.



Yeah, that's why we keep putting up with your spewing forth of ignorance.



Yet another false claim of dishonesty - you're like somebody else who stands daily accusing the saints. :tongue:

Except, I'd think that guy wouldn't be so ignorant about human physiology. And that character isn't even a human!

Jedidiah
05-20-2016, 09:08 AM
That I understand, though it's pathetic and repugnant in its dishonesty.

Ever hear the pot calling the kettle black idiom?

Sparko
05-20-2016, 09:11 AM
Ever hear the pot calling the kettle black idiom?

That's racist!!! Nobody, not even a kettle should be called a black idiom!

Jaxb
05-26-2016, 10:04 AM
Sexual desire is not a sin. Having a thought is not a sin. Dwelling on desires, especially toward someone to whom one is not married, quickly becomes a slippery slope.

12 Blessed is the man who endures temptation; for when he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him. 13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. 15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.

If Jesus became like us in all things save sin, then he very likely had sexual desires. He just didn't dwell on or act on them.

I agree that having sexual desires is not a sin. He was in control of His desires so He never lusted after women.

Jaxb
05-26-2016, 01:06 PM
It might come as a shock, but he got hungry, thirsty, tired.... I'm betting he even sweat and "had to go bathroom". :shocked:

He was fully human so He had sexual desires. He controlled them perfectly.

KingsGambit
05-26-2016, 01:09 PM
Honest question: What was the point in posting this thread in the first place?

Jaxb
05-26-2016, 01:09 PM
They believe that anyone even remotely human can't possibly be God. from a very strict monotheism this makes sense. The Trinity is a bit more complicated than that.

Jesus had both human and divine attributes. Jesus with respect to His divinity was omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. Jesus with respect to His humanity got tired, was hungry, and so on. This is no contradiction.

Jaxb
05-26-2016, 01:12 PM
While you are doublespeaking, please explain how a man can feel sexual desire without lusting. Was it a particularly well carved chair that turned Him on?

There is a distinction between having sexual desires and having the desire to fornicate or to commit adultery.

Cerebrum123
05-26-2016, 03:08 PM
Jesus had both human and divine attributes. Jesus with respect to His divinity was omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. Jesus with respect to His humanity got tired, was hungry, and so on. This is no contradiction.

Yeah, I was just pointing out what others believe.

Jaxb
05-27-2016, 09:35 AM
Honest question: What was the point in posting this thread in the first place?

I was curious about how Jesus would have manifested His sexual desires.

Ubergenius
06-01-2016, 10:36 AM
Sexual desire is not a sin. Having a thought is not a sin. Dwelling on desires, especially toward someone to whom one is not married, quickly becomes a slippery slope.

Sexual orientation is not a sin. But thinking about someone with lust is.

"27You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matt. 5:27, 28)

I don't know how this description of "looks" is not thinking.

So the bar is high. Jesus being sinless most likely saw woman he thought were attractive and didn't allow himself to think about having sex with them. Something I take to be easier without them setback of a sin nature that the rest of us heterosexual men have.

Lest someone suggest this passage is not talking about sin, the next verse reads,

"If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell."

So it seems looking (with the eye), enable thinking about sex with someone not your spouse, which is sin. According to this passage in Matthew.

One Bad Pig
06-01-2016, 11:04 AM
Sexual orientation is not a sin. But thinking about someone with lust is.

"27You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matt. 5:27, 28)

I don't know how this description of "looks" is not thinking.

So the bar is high. Jesus being sinless most likely saw woman he thought were attractive and didn't allow himself to think about having sex with them. Something I take to be easier without them setback of a sin nature that the rest of us heterosexual men have.

Lest someone suggest this passage is not talking about sin, the next verse reads,

"If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell."

So it seems looking (with the eye), enable thinking about sex with someone not your spouse, which is sin. According to this passage in Matthew.
I think you're blurring where I'm trying to make a distinction. I would equate "looking to lust after" with "dwelling on desires" - which, yes, is "thinking." A thought can come into my head from anywhere - but if I reject it, how is it a sin?

Cow Poke
06-01-2016, 01:44 PM
Sexual orientation is not a sin. But thinking about someone with lust is.

"27You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matt. 5:27, 28)

I don't know how this description of "looks" is not thinking.

Young's Literal Translation says "but I -- I say to you, that every one who is looking on a woman to desire her, did already commit adultery with her in his heart."

You look out your back door, and your neighbor woman has decided to go for a swim in the nude. You see her, then you look away, knowing you don't really need to see that. As opposed to continuing to watch, and allowing your imagination to run.

Sometimes, you can't help "seeing something", but you don't have to continue looking.

Sparko
06-01-2016, 05:26 PM
Young's Literal Translation says "but I -- I say to you, that every one who is looking on a woman to desire her, did already commit adultery with her in his heart."

You look out your back door, and your neighbor woman has decided to go for a swim in the nude. You see her, then you look away, knowing you don't really need to see that. As opposed to continuing to watch, and allowing your imagination to run.

Sometimes, you can't help "seeing something", but you don't have to continue looking.Advice David should have taken :yes: