Was Jesus gay?

[wigginhall]

or we can ponder the providence of your yuletide ''fuck off''......By the way ''Hard fucking luck'' is more philosophical than ''fuck off'' don't you think?

Troll, troll, little troll.  Lie, lie, little liar.

[Hope]

Nope. I've never done that.

Well, you've never corrected Floo when she has made reference to events that took place in 1st Century Palestine - such as the marriage of young people - but assumed that third millennium thinking applied back then, regarding, for instance, the age they could get married or the nature of Jewish marriage; if anything you have agreed with her way of thinkin, thus making you complicit in her misinformation.

You need to attend to the inconsistencies in your own arguments first.

And those would be ...?  I've heard a lot about them, but whenever anyone produces examples, they include inconsistencies which invalidate them as examples.

[Material that nobody else remembers you posting and that you seem to be reluctant to repost.

I think the technical terminology for that is 'selective memory loss'.

Well you don't display them in respect of Christianity.

That's your opinion, but in view of your own critical thinking lacking cohesiveness, then I'm not sure that you've got a leg to stand on.

[Shaker]

Well, you've never corrected Floo

Oh dear, that pathetic already? I don't know if Jezza has a Mrs Jezza and at least one or possibly assorted Jezzettes but I'm fairly sure he has other things to do than correct your endless parade of logical fallacies.

And those would be ...?

The really quite staggering parade of one logical fallacy after another after another without which you can scarcely put finger to keyboard.

I've heard a lot about them, but whenever anyone produces examples, they include inconsistencies which invalidate them as examples.

I've unfortunately had cause to point out your cognitive cock-ups more times than I wish were the case. Please do provide examples of these invalidating examples.

Not that you will, obviously.

[jeremyp]

Well, you've never corrected Floo when she has made reference to events that took place in 1st Century Palestine - such as the marriage of young people - but assumed that third millennium thinking applied back then, regarding, for instance, the age they could get married or the nature of Jewish marriage; if anything you have agreed with her way of thinkin, thus making you complicit in her misinformation.

Nonsense.

And those would be ...?  I've heard a lot about them, but whenever anyone produces examples, they include inconsistencies which invalidate them as examples.

Bullshit.

If you want an example, there's your stupid insistence that the early Christians must have accurately transmitted the story of Jesus' life in the face of all the evidence against.

I think the technical terminology for that is 'selective memory loss'.

On your part maybe.

That's your opinion, but in view of your own critical thinking lacking cohesiveness, then I'm not sure that you've got a leg to stand on.

I have demonstrated errors in your thinking. You have done no such thing with mine.

[Brownie]

Admittedly I don't know many gay people in person, but I have met quite a number on line and I believe that to be a CRAZY bigoted statement!

I am sure you would not think I was bigoted or homophobic in any way Floo but years ago I did know, personally, a few gay men, from work and other things and have to say that they all said at one time or another that some non-gay men were closet gays.  I don't know whether or not they meant it and I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be said nowadays, people think differently and most of us don't care about the sexual orientation of others, but in the past it wasn't uncommon to hear that said.

[Aruntraveller]

I am sure you would not think I was bigoted or homophobic in any way Floo but years ago I did know, personally, a few gay men, from work and other things and have to say that they all said at one time or another that some non-gay men were closet gays.  I don't know whether or not they meant it and I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be said nowadays, people think differently and most of us don't care about the sexual orientation of others, but in the past it wasn't uncommon to hear that said.

Yes but you do know that heterosexual people do that as well. Very often (in the past) suggestions were made by my father whilst watching TV that certain entertainers were "puffs". They weren't. But everyone seemed to do it back in the day. As you say, not now.

Maybe Sririam has found some kind of time portal and he has slipped through to the present day with attitudes from the 60's and 70's.

[Brownie]

Oh yes Trentvoyager, heterosexual people often call other people, "Gay" (can't say I ever had but I've often heard it), and young people bandy the word about  casually.  However the people I was talking about in my previous post (and it is a long time ago), at least appeared to mean it.  I haven't thought about it for years but it struck me when the subject came up. The fact that someone has observed the fact doesn't make them bigoted, it is merely an observation, albeit a pointless one. Doesn't really matter.

[Hope]

Oh dear, that pathetic already? I don't know if Jezza has a Mrs Jezza and at least one or possibly assorted Jezzettes but I'm fairly sure he has other things to do than correct your endless parade of logical fallacies.

Sorry, Shaker, if someone fails to correct someone's incorrect assumptions - as you and Jeremy often fail to do in regard to the assumptions that Floo bases many of her threads on - they effectively serve as a supporter of the misinformation.  That is a logical, and even a legal (in some cases), fact.  The fallacy is yours in thinking that my position is a fallacy. 

The really quite staggering parade of one logical fallacy after another after another without which you can scarcely put finger to keyboard.

So, I'm learning from you, but fairly slowly.

I've unfortunately had cause to point out your cognitive cock-ups more times than I wish were the case. Please do provide examples of these invalidating examples.

OK, Floo has suggested on several threads over the years that a 12 or 13 year old girl becoming pregnant must necessarily be the result of child abuse.  In the 20th and 21st century here in the West, this would generally be the case (but not inevitably). 

However, if we go to Nepal or India - as examples - it is not unusual for children to be married off in the early years of their lives - as young as 5 or 6 in some cases - and for that marriage to be consummated and children born 4 or 5 years later.  The situation is often compared by healthcare and social welfare professionals to that which existed in the 1st Century in Palestine and some other parts of the Roman Empire.

Why?  Well, folk like jeremy, Anchor, Gordon (I seem to remember) and myself have highlighted the fact that the life expectancy of such areas were between 40 and 50 (during the 1990s, the WHO issued a document that suggested that until life expectancy reaches 50 in any given area of the world, contraception is generally ignored by the population, especially those in the rural areas).  If life expectancy is below 40+, adulthood starts much earlier than it does for us, and - as I've pointed out recently - even today a Jewish lad (and I think the same applies to girls) becomes an adult at 13. 

The reference to Jesus debating with the Temple authorities when he was 12 suggests that that age was that much lower in 1st Century Palestine.

When all this kind of detail is taken into account, detail that is in the public domain for all to check, it quickly becomes clear that the very bases of many of Floo's arguments are invalidate.  When you and others fail to correct her, you become guilty of such misinformation by association.

[Hope]

If you want an example, there's your stupid insistence that the early Christians must have accurately transmitted the story of Jesus' life in the face of all the evidence against.

Of which there is remarkably little, by the way, jeremy.  What evidence there is 'against' is regularly based on the experiences of literate people trying to record events in an oral manner.  Ong and others have shown that speakers of languages that are predominantly oral have techniques for passing on information in easily digested chunks.  Such techniques include(d) rhyme, songs (and starting each line of the song with successive letters of the alphabet or syllabary), internal repetition and recitation.  The result would be that it wouldn't the job of a single person to remember the material but the community, thus countering the danger of incorrect transmission - something that is often laid at the feet of the NT documents.

I have demonstrated errors in your thinking. You have done no such thing with mine.

Sometimes you have suggested that there have been errors in my thinking and sometimes you have been told - not necessarily by me - that you are wrong.  Occasionally I have been in error and have accepted that.  In view of the huge breadth of subjects we debate here - it isn't surprising that people sometimes get things wrong and incorrect.

[Shaker]

So, I'm learning from you, but fairly slowly.

You've asserted in the past that I have not only used your favourite negative proof fallacy but have done so more than you. And yet despite being asked numerous times to provide a single example of this, you've never once done so, ever. So, since you assert again that I've employed a fallacy of some sort, here's another chance for you to stump up with some evidence.

Although you and I both know, everybody here knows, that in actual fact it'll be another chance for you to fail to do so.

[Hope]

You've asserted in the past that I have not only used your favourite negative proof fallacy but have done so more than you. And yet despite being asked numerous times to provide a single example of this, you've never once done so, ever. So, since you assert again that I've employed a fallacy of some sort, here's another chance for you to stump up with some evidence.

Although you and I both know, everybody here knows, that in actual fact it'll be another chance for you to fail to do so.

AS you know, Shakes, I've listed a number in recent posts on a number of threads - and if you haven't seen them, you are clearly struggling since you have responded to a couple already!!

[Shaker]

AS you know, Shakes, I've listed a number in recent posts on a number of threads - and if you haven't seen them, you are clearly struggling since you have responded to a couple already!!

So no evidence of my having used the negative proof fallacy at all let alone more than you, as per your claim.

Quelle surprise.

[Dicky Underpants]

Jeremy are you even aware of what critical thinking is.

Yes, he is. In fact he is one of the best informed on the board in that respect, and has been for a long time.
Apart from that, he's probably a complete arse

[jeremyp]

Sorry, Shaker, if someone fails to correct someone's incorrect assumptions - as you and Jeremy often fail to do in regard to the assumptions that Floo bases many of her threads on - they effectively serve as a supporter of the misinformation.  That is a logical, and even a legal (in some cases), fact.  The fallacy is yours in thinking that my position is a fallacy. 

This is the fallacy of Tu Quoque. Our failure or otherwise to pick up on other people's errors has no bearing on our refutation of your arguments.

OK, Floo has suggested on several threads over the years that a 12 or 13 year old girl becoming pregnant must necessarily be the result of child abuse.  In the 20th and 21st century here in the West, this would generally be the case (but not inevitably). 

I thought you Christians were the ones who insisted on absolute morality. If morality comes from God and God is unchanging, either it was wrong then for a twelve year old girl to be married off or it would be right now if it happened.

However, if we go to Nepal or India - as examples - it is not unusual for children to be married off in the early years of their lives - as young as 5 or 6 in some cases - and for that marriage to be consummated and children born 4 or 5 years later.  The situation is often compared by healthcare and social welfare professionals to that which existed in the 1st Century in Palestine and some other parts of the Roman Empire.

You're claiming that children as young as ten were getting pregnant. Do you think that's safe?

The reference to Jesus debating with the Temple authorities when he was 12 suggests that that age was that much lower in 1st Century Palestine.

You assume much. Even as a child it didn't make much sense to me and the questions it raised really irritated me. Jesus' parents could only have behaved as they did if they had completely forgotten about the miraculous events surrounding Jesus' birth. As it happens the story is most likely completely fabricated. It's not mentioned anywhere outside of Luke.

[OH MY WORLD!]

"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel."   Isaiah 7:14

[jeremyp]

Of which there is remarkably little, by the way, jeremy.

You count the gospels and Paul's own assertions as "remarkably little".

Anyway, there is some evidence that Christians were not concerned with accurate oral transmission of Jesus' life story even if you count it as "remarkably little" but there is no evidence at all of the negation of the hypothesis.

What evidence there is 'against' is regularly based on the experiences of literate people trying to record events in an oral manner.

Oh for fucks sake Hope! Stop denying the evidence. Read what I write.

I've told you what my evidence is, it is the written words of Paul and what is in the gospels. My evidence is solid documentary evidence, not a vague assumption of Chinese whispers. Your evidence, on the other hand is a vague assumption of not Chinese whispers.

Ong and others have shown that speakers of languages that are predominantly oral have techniques for passing on information in easily digested chunks.  Such techniques include(d) rhyme, songs (and starting each line of the song with successive letters of the alphabet or syllabary), internal repetition and recitation.  The result would be that it wouldn't the job of a single person to remember the material but the community, thus countering the danger of incorrect transmission - something that is often laid at the feet of the NT documents.

Try reading up about the Epic of Sundiata.

[jeremyp]

AS you know, Shakes, I've listed a number in recent posts on a number of threads - and if you haven't seen them, you are clearly struggling since you have responded to a couple already!!

Fail!

[Dicky Underpants]

You assume much. Even as a child it didn't make much sense to me and the questions it raised really irritated me. Jesus' parents could only have behaved as they did if they had completely forgotten about the miraculous events surrounding Jesus' birth. As it happens the story is most likely completely fabricated. It's not mentioned anywhere outside of Luke.

Strangely enough, I was talking about this very matter with two friends yesterday. I also mentioned the fact that his family later thought he was insane. Now if an archangel pops out of the blue and tells you you're pregnant by the Holy Spirit, then one would have thought the mother would expect her child to behave in a rather unusual manner later in life.

[Hope]

This is the fallacy of Tu Quoque. Our failure or otherwise to pick up on other people's errors has no bearing on our refutation of your arguments.

Actually it does, jeremy; especially when you actually argue for said person's assertions.

I thought you Christians were the ones who insisted on absolute morality. If morality comes from God and God is unchanging, either it was wrong then for a twelve year old girl to be married off or it would be right now if it happened.
You're claiming that children as young as ten were getting pregnant. Do you think that's safe?

Why would it have been wrong for a 12-year-old to have been married off.  The age of puberty has changed many times over the centuries (http://bit.ly/1SbT6n6), and it is that which society uses for deciding the marriagable age. 

You assume much. Even as a child it didn't make much sense to me and the questions it raised really irritated me. Jesus' parents could only have behaved as they did if they had completely forgotten about the miraculous events surrounding Jesus' birth. As it happens the story is most likely completely fabricated. It's not mentioned anywhere outside of Luke.

To respond backwards.  There are many stories and events that are only mentioned in one or two of the 4 Gospels.  That doesn't mean that they didn't happen - often it will depend on the point that the author was trying to make and the audience.

Regarding the forgetting of miraculous events, I can think of parents who have had children in very unexpected circumstances - yet who blow their tops when that child does something foolish or 'irresponsible'.  After all, that is a fairly typical parental response.

[Shaker]

Why would it have been wrong for a 12-year-old to have been married off.  The age of puberty has changed many times over the centuries (http://bit.ly/1SbT6n6), and it is that which society uses for deciding the marriagable age.

A legal age of consent has been all over the shop for centuries - now this, now that, now this again, now that again, here, there, everywhere. However, since I don't regard what the law says as synonymous with what's moral, the question then becomes: were thirteen year old girls so incredibly different physically and emotionally a few thousand miles away two thousand years ago that having sex with one and their bearing a child didn't constitute a act of child rape? Yes or no? That's the question you don't seem to want to touch.

To respond backwards.

You say that as though you do it any other way.

[OH MY WORLD!]

Shaker's arrogance forces him to pass judgment and impose HIS moral values on people of an earlier time who had different moral standards. That's a big fail for a historian and the end result is always a book, with pages that should not be read but should be torn out and used as toilet paper.

[Shaker]

Shaker's arrogance forces him to pass judgment and impose HIS moral values on people of an earlier time who had different moral standards.

And there was me thinking (as per JeremyP's #88) that god-believers think their god's values are absolute and immutable, and don't change, mutate and evolve over time exactly as you'd expect purely-human-non-god values to given a sufficient length of time.

Guess not.

Or do they?

Search me.

They don't seem to be tremendously clear so how the hell can anybody else be?

[Gordon]

Makes you wonder why a God that, according to some Christians anyway, is inherently good and apparently is the source of moral prescriptions (including on sexual matters) would choose to patronise a relatively primitive (in moral terms) middle-eastern society without doing something about its young girls becoming sexually active at such young ages.

It's almost as if there were no God at all!

[OH MY WORLD!]

"...would choose to patronize a relatively primitive (in moral terms) middle-eastern society..."

There's another fail. Thank God you're no historian Gordon. But thanks for sharing your arrogance and atheism. Merry CHRISTmas or whatever it is you godless are up to this time of year.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TA87aGEXNTk

[Hope]

Makes you wonder why a God that, according to some Christians anyway, is inherently good and apparently is the source of moral prescriptions (including on sexual matters) would choose to patronise a relatively primitive (in moral terms) middle-eastern society without doing something about its young girls becoming sexually active at such young ages.

The sexually-active bit has to do with the biology of human beings, Gordon.

It's almost as if there were no God at all!

Your comment suggests that you have limited knowledge of historical human biological detail.