Was Jesus Married?

[Boerseun]

Jesus was not married. He was said to be a wise man, after all.

[LayDominican]

I was going to answer Turtle and others with a rage in my heart and soul. But then I calmed down and decided to write this little note. When it comes to my Faith I will rise to protect it. When it comes to looking at different faiths and the style and beliefs that they have, I am very open minded.

 

You claim that you do not like those who believe trying to stuff what they believe down your thoat, where here you are doing the very same thing to us. Jesus was married, Jesus was a magician, Jesus was bi-sexual and a host of other things that a believer would find disgraceful to say the least.So don't on here and write about what the believers do

[Buffy]

Jesus was married, Jesus was a magician, Jesus was bi-sexual and a host of other things that a believer would find disgraceful to say the least.So don't on here and write about what the believers do

Be careful here, *all* of you: this actually is a fair question. If one is Catholic and has concerns about the doctrine of abstinence among the clergy, whether Jesus was married is relevant. Ditto if one is gay and looking for acceptance within the church. These are things that--while tone sometimes betraying open hostility--are not without at least circumstantial evidence (for some its uncomfortable to admit it, but we all know what we *assume* about that old "confirmed bachelor" at the office), and if true, would give people reason to believe that a "correct" interpretation of the scriptures would include them rather than rejecting them.

 

It should also be recognized though that a "science forum" is predominantly targeted at being about science, and it is indeed true that many people believing that science is hostile toward religion come here *solely* to engage in a sort of "Daniel in the Lion's Den" statement of defiance, rather than actually having any interest in science. I think anyone trying to claim that we "get what we deserve" because we have a Theology forum is being disingenuous, basically offending both the intelligence of the non-believers as well as calling the believers apostate for having an interest in science. Yes, probably the majority of members here are "non-belivers" or at least "non-traditional believers," but before you go accusing them of unjustified persecution, remember where you are, and realize that this group has known nothing but persecution up until very recent times.

 

Baiting is not attractive on either side, but the inherent hostility is ages old and I assume is with us for some time. Tolerance *is* the key. Proselytizing has its place, but its not here. Reason and open discussion does, and that sort of discourse *can* include religion. This place is about debate, and one should not enter at all without considering the baggage that comes along with it, and because of this, offense taken easily is most likely considered to be a debating tactic rather than sincere.

 

For your safety, spectators are requested to stay off the racetrack,

Buffy

[LayDominican]

Buffy,

 

Meaning no disrespect for your opinions, I do vehemently disagree. As a Roman Catholic, there are certain things we believe that are very much dear to the heart and soul of what we believe. Jesus being gay, the 2nd person of the Most Holy Trinity, God, would not be gay. He would not be married, would not have brothers and sisters, etc etc etc. For those who have read the Gnostic gospels and so forth accept a different Christ, a different style of living, well, that is on them. As I believe, I know that someone will read this , call me closed mind, and some other names, and then what? I will answer that message, and so the debate is on. I do not preach here as it is against the rules.However, I will speak out loudly against those who will disgrace, will smear my beliefs.

[Cedars]

Big Dog, when I first read your post I thought, OK someone hit the rum and coke a bit hard at the merry xmas party. Seeing as you have continued after sobriety returned, I feel a need to respond.

 

How does religion impact society?

 

Was Jesus married? Who gives a f*ck!? Could there be a less relavant topic? Why try and invalidate it by arguing meaningless historical mumbo jumbo? All of it is just conjecture anyway.

 

 

Yes, all of religion is just conjecture. But as far as whether Jesus was married bring us into portions of the question of how religion impacts society. A valid topic for the theology thread as I understand its goal. How can you even wonder if Jesus being married is a debatable issue within these forums especially when more and more old documents are being found lending credience to the potential that the teaching of the church and its position on who Jesus was is at least incomplete and possibly false? These very doctrines have affected a multitude of people (women the most) and have been used by society to dictate roles thru the ages.

 

Debate on the sexuality of Jesus and some of his disciples has been ongoing as far back as I can remember. Debate on the sexuality of many prominant members of the church hierarchy is just as lengthy. Hell, my mom was kicked out of a math class for making a comment about Thomas Aquinas sexuality when she went to Holy Rosary catholic school. Being as she graduated in the 50s gives perspective on the history of the debate. Its certainly not new just because its being seen in hypography.

 

A thread like this one has the purpose of deconstruction of religion. So it is posted up and acts as bait for outraged believers to come and argue.

 

So what Big Dog? Why should religion be held to a lower standard than any other topic addressed in hypography? Nothing like outraged muslims and cartoons eh? No one makes any believer come here and debate theology. Believers who venture into other aspects of the forum are not jumped on for wondering about QM, space, and a host of other ideas; they are treated exactly the same as any other enquiring mind, and I think the participants in the forums do a good job of seperating the issues. But if a believer wants to joust over the issues of theology, then they best be thick skinned enough to take what is offered even if it offends their faithfully held ideas, regardless of whether those ideas were presented to them via church, parents, temporal lobe seizures, head tramas, oxygen depravation or whatever method resulted in their coming to the faith they currently cling to as reasonable.

 

But why is it acceptable to allow the systematic deconstruction of religion and the agenda of elimination of religion? Conversion is conversion, be it to or from.

 

How exactly is debating whether jesus was married, homo/bi sexual a systematic deconstruction of religion or a conversion process? Are you saying if Jesus is a homo, your going atheist? If thats all it takes to destroy a religion, how strong was the faith/belief in god to begin with?

[coldcreation]

snip...

Post Script:

To put this in the historical perspective of Hypography, I point out that we only have a theology section because of the onslaught of believers attacking science that we sustained when the 'teaching creationism' issue arose a few months back. The decision was made in order to offer some flexibility and lighten the load on the staff, who continually had to intercept these non-scientific diatribes. I don't go out to religious forums and jam science down their throats, and I will vigorously challenge those coming here to jam their superstitious beliefs down ours.

 

Aside from Boerseun's genial "Jesus was not married. He was said to be a wise man, after all." the above post by Turtle (and I just spent about an hour reading this thread) sheds the most light on the very topic under review.

 

I've actually thought (and even perhaps written somewhere in this theology section) a text very much in line with Her Turtles position. I have never written one post, or visited for that matter, a theological forum to push Jesus down the gaping mouth of a rotating Kerr blackhole.

 

I dont think anyone even cares to try. Yet plenty of religious minded individuals and groups have attempted in futile desperation the bashing Einstein and his general postulate of relativity, Darwin and his theory of natural selection.

 

Note that both of these theories are fundamentally important: one determines the evolution of the universe (its origin if any, its current geometric shape or topological structure and its future developement), the other, the evolution of life in general, respectively.

 

Both are in strict contradiction with the word of god (you choose which one, with a beard or without, the iDesigner, or the all-mighty ubiquitous force (did I leave anyone out?)). It is for this reason that science fora are attacked, often with brutal persistence.

 

Don't fight the chill.

[Buffy]

As a Roman Catholic, there are certain things we believe that are very much dear to the heart and soul of what we believe.....However, I will speak out loudly against those who will disgrace, will smear my beliefs.

And this is what you (and the rest of you too!) need to understand: The whole point of this particular forum at Hypography is in fact to discuss, and analyze the phenomenon of religion. *Because* faiths believe things that are in opposition to or even are considered *offensive* by other faiths, it is *necessary* to discuss those things.

 

What you are basically saying here is that anytime that a belief is expressed that is in opposition to your own, you will claim "offense" even if your statement has nothing to contribute to the discussion at hand (again note, that "you" here is many more people than just Lay or "the believers" in general!) *That* is proselytizing. If you want to participate here, you need to realize that the scope of discussions will indeed include topics that you find "offensive", but the fact of the matter is that they *must* be discussed in order to analyze the beliefs being discussed. If you need to say "that offends my beliefs" whenever an "offensive" topic is rasied OR you must say "religion is inherently evil" whenever a religious belief is mentioned, my advice is to bite your tongue, listen first, and you MIGHT LEARN SOMETHING.

 

Cast iron,

Buffy

[Southtown]

"If you are going to pray do it so secretly that your left hand doesn't know what your right hand is doing. Don't be like the people who stand up in the aisle and shout their prayers. It is the thoughts in your heart that God hears and answers." - Something like that was someplace in Mathew.

[succumbs to nervous twitch]

"

(1) Take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them. Otherwise you have no reward from your Father in heaven. (2) Therefore, when you do a charitable deed, do not sound a trumpet before you as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory from men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. (3) But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, (4) that your charitable deed may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward you openly.

" --

Matthew 6:1-4 nkjv

Well, here's my thought officer. I am equally nauseated by the cruelty, narrow-mindedness, and other applicable derogatives that believers have foisted on humanity for as long as we have records for, up to and including the very latest we have recorded here and in the world at large. To be labled intolerant of it is a badge I will gladly wear; in fact, give me the biggest one they have.

It's bigotry to lump all 'believers' together and charge them with the past crimes of individuals who championed similar causes in dispicable ways. That's like taxing white people more than blacks because of slaves/owners more than a century dead.

 

The approach taken by most others was to poke fun at the very nature of religious belief. While this may be fun sport when bantering with some of the short timers who took the bait, it does nothing for the members of this forum who do practice religious faith to have those beliefs openly mocked with arguments that if made on behalf of religion would get them keel hauled.

Yeah, I desperately crave serious, thought-provoking critiques of religion rather than the tired sarcasm. That's why I hang around in a science forum more than religious, because they're supposed to be more factual than factional.

 

Yes, all of religion is just conjecture.

Not totally accurate. Consider it a liberal interpretation of various ancient manuscripts.

[Turtle]

Well, here's my thought officer. I am equally nauseated by the cruelty, narrow-mindedness, and other applicable derogatives that believers have foisted on humanity for as long as we have records for, up to and including the very latest we have recorded here and in the world at large. To be labled intolerant of it is a badge I will gladly wear; in fact, give me the biggest one they have.

...It's bigotry to lump all 'believers' together and charge them with the past crimes of individuals who championed similar causes in dispicable ways. That's like taxing white people more than blacks because of slaves/owners more than a century dead....

 

I have re-read your quote of me and its context, as well as your comment, several times in consideration of whether I ought to amend it. I think none is required, however a claifying comment may suffice.

 

If I had qualified 'believers' in the sentence with 'all' or some such adjective then your point would be well taken, but as I did not, the use of it is simply a denominator no less than 'red' or 'blue' as I intended. Clearly I have a bias, but I have no interest in debating here whether or not I am a bigot as that is a subjective determination everyone can make for themselves.

 

As for yourself Southy, you are in my opinion an exemplary model believer at this science forum. You quote scripture when it is appropriate and that alone is testament to your knowledge and understanding of it and its application.

 

Well, rather than run on, I'm off to make popcorn before the Jesus show starts. :cup: :)

[Pyrotex]

...Hezekiah...

Wow. I'm an idiot. Then again, you have to stop railing against me. If you go and look up these bible texts, I suggest that you get a life.

I'm sorry Catholiboy, but you are not an idiot. I was making a joke and apparently it went right over several heads, bounced off the wall and smacked a few butts. Mea Culpa.

 

When I grew up, every kid in church had to memorize the books of the Bible. The class teacher would test us by asking which Testament was "Ruth" in? Which was "Acts" in? Which was "Hezekiah" in? Of course, it is in neither one. But if you guessed one or the other, you were busted!

 

And so, over the years, "Hezekiah" became this fictional book in the Bible where I could quote fictitious verses. Like:

 

Hez. 19:19 "Live ye it up."

 

I just assume that EVERYBODY knows there is NO Hezekiah, so any quote I make from there HAS to be a joke. See?

 

Take look at this and enjoy a laugh: Hezekiah, Chapter 7

[Southtown]

Well, rather than run on, I'm off to make popcorn before the Jesus show starts. :bouquet:

Lemme know how it ends. =P And point taken.

 

Hey, you mentioned that you don't push science in the religious forums. I would recommend that you visit and maybe even antagonize a little. It would be fun of course, and also they may surprize you. Not that you would be converted or anything, but that your perspective would include the 99% of believers that aren't on tv begging for money or votes.

 

I frequent a 'right-division' forum even though I don't agree with their beliefs. They tolerate me with glee and also give me challenging discussions.

[Turtle]

Lemme know how it ends. =P And point taken.

 

Hey, you mentioned that you don't push science in the religious forums. I would recommend that you visit and maybe even antagonize a little. It would be fun of course, and also they may surprize you. Not that you would be converted or anything, but that your perspective would include the 99% of believers that aren't on tv begging for money or votes.

 

I frequent a 'right-division' forum even though I don't agree with their beliefs. They tolerate me with glee and also give me challenging discussions.

 

Alas, from all indications it doesn't end. :bouquet: I'll have a look at the site, but no promises.

[LayDominican]

I am waiting for any remarks at all about NG tv specials about Jesus and Judas

[InfiniteNow]

I am waiting for any remarks at all about NG tv specials about Jesus and Judas

 

I enjoyed them.

 

 

I find such specials fascinating, because I always appreciate more scientific and history based topics, hence, religion doesn't usually capture my interest. The fact that they discussed very significant parts of (well catholic) religion in the tone of history and science kept me glued to my chair. I must state however that I approached the specials just as cynically as I would an engineering show on the Science channel.

[LayDominican]

Infinite,

 

I was more interested in what you thought about the specials. I came away from the specials with what I thought they would be. Some of the historians said that the Gnostics and others wrote these new gospels to expound the "truth" as they saw it. Like yourself, I like the program too.

[InfiniteNow]

I was more interested in what you thought about the specials.

The parts that stood out to me were that John had been ostracized and wrote in metaphor whereby the beast actually represented Rome and the number of the beast was a numerology transposition of Nero, John's nemesis. Much of the other information I'd seen before, so won't mention that here, but I also liked the portayal of Mary Magnellen in a positive light, not just as a "whore" or some sort of lesser being. I think that is not only true, but important.

 

I came away from the specials with what I thought they would be.

Be sure to check out the concept of a self-fulfilling prophecy sometime, or refresh yourself if you have previously. :phones:

 

 

Cheers.

[Cedars]

I dont have cable/dish so I didnt get to see it. Any posts regarding shows content are all I am gonna be able to view.