The Jesus taboo: Sex.

Originally posted by Elvis Hendrix
I remember reading somewhere that he liked to jam his dick in the door while watching emmerdale.

If it's the one where he comes down from heaven on a Yamaha, I think it was a dustbin lid, not a door...whatever it takes, I suppose, to make Emmerdale entertaining.

reply to post by Biliverdin


yay dude i like your style.

Originally posted by RicoMarston
So, let's get this straight;

Body tells you it needs water, you drink = A-OK, God's Plan.

I don't know what god may or may not have to do with it. Very few humans can live more than a few days without water, given intelligence, we know this, don't even have to listen to our 'drive', it is a proven fact. Water is essential to life.

Originally posted by RicoMarston
Body tells you it needs to reproduce with a suitable mate, you mate = Giving in to temptation, God's Pissed.

I think that you will find that the majority of the belief systems consider it okay to have sexual intercourse for reproduction purposes, it is sex for purposes other than reproduction that they seem to have a difficulty with.

Originally posted by RicoMarston
That makes no sense. Why would we be designed to have sex, produce offspring and care for those offspring deeply if it's wrong and unnecessary? So the "drive" or the "need" for water is ok, but the "drive" or the "need" for sex is wrong? By that logic, one person's sinner's scorecard is more important than the longevity of our entire species. That's insane.

Again, to clarify, no-one is going to die as a direct result of not having sex, they will die as a direct result of not having water. Wrong and right do not, to my mind, even come into the equation. End of that particular story.

I don't think that sex is wrong, I personally believe that sex is a very healthy and enjoyable way in which to express love and intimacy, and to strengthen bonds. However, it can be argued that under some circumstances and in certain ways in which sex can be expressed can be 'wrong' both to the individuals concerned and to the collective group. For example, under most tribalistic laws, divorce is easy, while adultery is very heavily punished, often by death of one or both parties. Therefore, according to the collective, it is not wrong to break from a relationship that is not working, it is wrong to decieve in order to have something to which you are not entitled, or to have more than your share, etc. But either way, the 'wrong' is set by the rules of that society, and those that are part of that society agree to those rules. They are not set by god. The structure of sexual interaction amongst human groups is entirely dependent on the system of hierarchy, just as it is within any animal group. In most mammalian groups, reproduction is dependent upon status within those groups, not everyone has reproductive rights. Adultery (as in sex that occurs outside the norms set by the group, particularly sex that occurs through subterfuge or in secrecy, or even force) is usually for the purpose of by-passing those rules, and will always incur severe punishment if discovered.

Originally posted by RicoMarston
I think the reason for the long gap in jesus' bio is glaringly obvious; he was a normal young man. They had to invent this crazy birth in a manger story to give their superhero an epic origin story. Then they just skipped to whenever he was already this traveling preacher figure rather than tell about his pubescent adventures in dating and smashing mailboxes with baseball bats or whatever he and his buds were up to. You can't preach the kind of deep, brotherly love wisdom that jesus did without living a life of wide and varying experiences. I think jesus probably tried quite a few different lifestyles out in order to help him better understand the human condition.

He came from, by most accounts, a very religious family, and we know that at age 12 he was capable of asking very deep and probing questions of those considered elders of his tradition. So perhaps not. It is just as possible that he was committed to a monastic lifestyle, as an ascetic, a Nazarite or Essene, from an early age, but for one reason or another, felt that he had a different purpose once he had achieved both physical and emotional maturity. In his dealings with his cousin, John the Baptist, and the limited information that we have of that relationship, it is clear that at sometime he rejected ascetism, and therefore self-denial. And his teachings themselves, talk of enjoying the bountiful abundance of life, and to give of oneself freely. If at some point he enjoyed a sexual relationship, then I would have thought, that given the message of conscious love that he preached, that it would have been for him, and her, of a tranformative nature, and in that context, most definately not 'wrong'. He doesn't strike me, if one is to take the writings about him even at slightly face value, as being of a hypocritical nature, so why would he be in this aspect of his self?

And, while experience can be helpful, it is not essential to understanding, one can learn from observation alone, and especially, by the mistakes of others.

Jesus was still human. Jesus understood pain, happiness, temptation and other experiences just as any other person would. The Bible doesn't waste much time on his sexuality, but rather focuses mostly on his teachings and leadership. However it is reasonable to conclude that Jesus would have had sexual desire and attraction to women just like any other ordinary male. Does that change who he was or his key teachings? Certainly not.
John 14:6 "Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life."

reply to post by ShadowAngel85


that is precisely why religious dogmas suffer breakdowns of logic , under the mass of thier own adjenda :

We could make him bisexual.

when you start making " facts " up , post facto - any truth the tail ever had is lost

followed up this this amazing fabrication - dressed up as a statement of fact :

He was into girls and guys

cite ?

I think Jesus's opinion on sex would be reflected in the Law. Meaning no fornication, no homosexuality. Sex is considered "good" but only in the proper context; ie. marriage.

My reasoning behind this is simple. STD's. They are the natural consequences that follow within the physical design. Even with condoms and other contraceptives, abstinence - or a monogamous relationship - is still the only surefire way to prevent them.

If Jesus had married and slept with his wife, it really wouldn't matter because he would have still fulfilled the Law. Personally I think he overcame all carnal desires during his time in the desert. Jesus proved that sex was not the be-all, end-all of human intimacy - even though today's media would suggest otherwise.

reply to post by chr0naut

Firstly, sex is not an essential of life. Some people go without their whole lives.

And many of those find themselves profoundly depressed, or homicidal, or neurotic, or perverse.....or with high blood pressure, anti-social tendencies, and all manner of compensation for it.

It may not be as crucial as breathing or eating, but it is certainly conducive to happiness, health, and learning. It's a biological urge. An instinct. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with it. Only religion and contrived shame makes it so.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by chr0naut

 

Firstly, sex is not an essential of life. Some people go without their whole lives.

And many of those find themselves profoundly depressed, or homicidal, or neurotic, or perverse.....or with high blood pressure, anti-social tendencies, and all manner of compensation for it.

It may not be as crucial as breathing or eating, but it is certainly conducive to happiness, health, and learning. It's a biological urge. An instinct. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with it. Only religion and contrived shame makes it so.

Sorry, but I know of people who have lived celibate lives, that are not neurotic, depressed, and live very fulfilled happy lives, and help those who are depressed, and homicidal, often from the results of sexual acts that they have partaken in that have left them feeling suicidal.

Some of the most happy joyful people I know live celibate lives.

Religion doesn't make a sex a "shame". What it does is give it the respect and dignity it deserves, considering it creates life, and should be an act of love not "lust".

It is considered a gift from God to be shared in a loving committed relationship. If more people respected that, there might not be so many children born to single parents, children who are aborted, etc.

What child doesn't want to have two parents that are totally committed to loving each other, as well as their children?

reply to post by WhisperingWinds


I agree with you, Winds.....
I said "many", not "all." It is entirely dependent on the temperament of the individual, and their motives for choosing celibacy. For the right and noble reasons of not procreating in a messed up world, and in helping others without the distraction of sexual urges nagging at them, it's perfectly fine and healthy. Even so, someone who chooses to become a clergy member or for other "religous" self-deprivation reasons --- thinking they are glorified by doing so, or equating it to self-mortification and asceticism -- can be messed up by it. It's obvious how some clergy are affected very perversely by the conflict.

Have you ever read the classic "The Monk", by Matthew G Lewis (in the 1790s)? en.wikipedia.org...

I'm referring more to those people who avoid sex or are celibate out of "fear" and "shame" associated with it, or do so simply because they are "ordered to"...that fear and shame and imposed suppression leaks out in other ways. It's all about the balance of their mind.....

and help those who are depressed, and homicidal, often from the results of sexual acts that they have partaken in that have left them feeling suicidal.

Perfect example. Sex and it's attendant "taboos" or "outlets" is a powerful force.....too little, or too much, with the wrong partner, for the wrong reasons, and well.....it can mess people up.
hope that makes sense and clarifies my point.

reply to post by wildtimes

Perfect example. Sex and it's attendant "taboos" or "outlets" is a powerful force.....too little, or too much, with the wrong partner, for the wrong reasons, and well.....it can mess people up. hope that makes sense and clarifies my point.

It helps

Your original post sounded more like a total misrepresentation of celibate life, and if someone wasn't engaging in sexuality, they would most likely be depressed, and neurotic, which is hardly the case.

I think Jesus knew he was going to be put to death, and had much higher goals of teaching ,and serving others, in the short years he had to do so.

He knew he wasn't brought to earth to procreate, and have family, but for a higher calling.

reply to post by WhisperingWinds

I think Jesus knew he was going to be put to death, and had much higher goals of teaching ,and serving others, in the short years he had to do so.

He knew he wasn't brought to earth to procreate, and have family, but for a higher calling.

Well, that may be true...but it may also be a myth. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that he and Mary were lovers, and even married...and possibly had children of their own.

But thanks for your response. I'm looking at it from a mental health angle (my chosen career field)....

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by WhisperingWinds

 

I think Jesus knew he was going to be put to death, and had much higher goals of teaching ,and serving others, in the short years he had to do so.

He knew he wasn't brought to earth to procreate, and have family, but for a higher calling.

Well, that may be true...but it may also be a myth. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that he and Mary were lovers, and even married...and possibly had children of their own.

But thanks for your response. I'm looking at it from a mental health angle (my chosen career field)....

Is this evidence valid, or another attempt at discrediting the most Holy man to have walked the earth.

If you're looking at sexuality form a mental health angle, you must see clearly how sexuality has played a huge part in depression, and psychosis of different levels. Many who look for "love" through sex end up getting very disappointed.

I think it's fair to say that it has messed up more people than celibacy has.

reply to post by WhisperingWinds

Is this evidence valid, or another attempt at discrediting the most Holy man to have walked the earth.

Everything about Jesus is conjecture and hearsay. There are lots of sources that are equally as valid as the idea that he remained celibate....
I'm not championing either point of view.

I think he was a most Holy man, that he had the Divine Spirit in all aspects, and that he was teaching people to love one another (care for one another). I agree with his teachings regarding turning away from politics and "religion" in its perverse and corrupted form....his socialism and egalitarianism...

I think it matters NOT whether he was married with children, or a celibate monk-type person. The fact is that we don't really know. Either way, it does not discredit his teachings. It's entirely beside the point -- just as (in my view), whether he died on the cross or not. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. His message was the same.

I think people get too wrapped up in the "resurrection" (unproven), and its supposed significiance, and stray away from the nitty-gritty of what he taught. Even if he had NOT died on the cross, or did and was simply buried....
the message was still the same!!.

Nowhere is it reported that he said, "Oh yeah? You need proof? Watch this -- if you don't believe me, check this out....and if I'm not resurrected you can disregard everything I said."

....Nope, that did not happen. That was not part of his message. His message stands regardless.

I think it's fair to say that it has messed up more people than celibacy has.

Uh, erm, nope, not "fair to say that." Sex is a normal biological drive. It is the taboos and rules and expectations and expLOITation of it, its social acceptance or rejection ... that causes people to be unbalanced by their sexual activity. By itself, it is an instinct, a biological drive, that is purely human, and not "bad". Again, the person's temperament and motives for engaging in, abusing, or avoiding sexuality is what determines whether for that person it is healthful or destructive.

It has MUCH more to do with indoctrination of social morays than it does with sexual urges per se. There are plenty of cultures around the world that do not consider it "taboo" or "dirty" or insist that "children are unaware of it."

Peace

reply to post by Biliverdin


I've mentioned it before, but the book "The Problem Of The Soul" by Dr. Owen Flanagan pretty much kills the argument that we are anything but smart animals. I can only highly recommend the book to you. It actually shook me to the core. A lot of mental, cognitive phenomena, that I assumed cannot be explained by science, can be explained.

The complexity and elasticity of the brain is still not fully understood, but neuroscience has made great advances. They tend to be overlooked because we were brought up in a Cartesian paradigm that no longer holds true.

I venture to say that you would probably reconsider your thoughts about "sentient" and "sapience" after reading the book. And sorry, don't mean to educate you ...

Originally posted by followtheevidence

Originally posted by AllIsOne
reply to post by Biliverdin

 

Understanding the individual components, biological and chemical that go into our construction do not, and currently cannot, explain the whole.

Are you a creationist? If so there is nothing I can do to educate you, if not, you must have a different understanding of evolution than any scientist.

Reductionism is a presupposed axiom of science; it is not a proven case.

"A theory that is the product of a mind cannot explain the mind that produced the theory"

Regards.

Your quote sounds great. It made me think for a second. Then I realized that your and my understanding of "mind" is not the same. All I have to say is that neuroscience has advanced a great deal. The unlocking of the mystery of the brain has given us clear indicators that the "mind" is a neurological phenomenon, produced by synapses and neurons.

Originally posted by wildtimes
By itself, it is an instinct, a biological drive, that is purely human, and not "bad". Again, the person's temperament and motives for engaging in, abusing, or avoiding sexuality is what determines whether for that person it is healthful or destructive.

Sex of course isn't an instinct, as I am sure you know, it is learned behaviour. Much of our problems, stem from us as a species living away from nature and what is 'natural' and are responsible for the misuse of sex and sexuality. Just as pandas in captivity need to be shown films of other pandas having sex to understand the mechanic, so do we much of the time. Chimps on the otherhand engage in it openly, in front of their offspring and other group members, and then the adolescents try it out and get in some practice. We on the otherhand shun such learning and practice, thereby leaving our off-spring to be educated by playground gossip or by internet porn. Neither of which provide an adequate training ground. Now we find ourselves labelling childhood sexual exploration as crimes, playing doctors and nurses is now as likely to get you questioned for sexual harassment or even assault, where we used to play 'I'll show you mine, if you show me yours', such game playing will likely end up with someone on the sex offenders register.

We are creating a world where people are afraid to touch each other at all, and it is this, a lack of sensual expression, rather than sexual, that is responsible for much depression and social isolation, not to mention violent expression. Studies have repeatedly shown that touching, hugging, stroking and other none-sexual forms of physical expression are what makes for happy mammals, including us at the top of the scale. A monkey kept in a cage and deprived of joining the group in social grooming, will hugs itself and start rocking, humans similarly deprived of such contact will do pretty much the same. Physical intimacy, sensual much more so than sexual, is what makes us happy, secure and healthy. However, fear of being misconstrued as sexual, seems to prevent us from being sensual with those around us.

reply to post by AllIsOne


Perhaps then you could explain it to me...since you have read the book, I don't have time to, but if you could summarise as succinctly as possible, I am happy to be educated.

reply to post by iESOTERICuEXOTERIC


Agree with you 100%, but ...

It would be enlightening to see how Jesus dealt with family and relationship issues. Something "real", just sayin' ...

reply to post by Biliverdin


No, you should really read it. It would clear up some of your misconceptions about the cognitive mind. Some things cannot be summarized, they need to be read AND understood.

reply to post by Biliverdin

Sex of course isn't an instinct,

Wait...what? Your entire post makes great sense....except for this statement at the opening.
"Sex of course isn't an instinct"??

I don't think we disagree, here Bliverdin....just wondered whether the first declaration here was what you wanted to say...
the remainder of it was right in line with what I was pointing out.

Just wondering.

No hard feelings either way.