Was Jesus gay?

[Shaker]

There's another fail. Thank God you're no historian Gordon. But thanks for sharing your arrogance and atheism.

Gordon is about as far from arrogant as anybody I know. We're all aware that he's an atheist, but his atheism is not something that he feels a need to "advertise" unless simply saying so is what you regard as "advertising."

Merry CHRISTmas or whatever it is you godless are up to this time of year.

This one will be eating and drinking even more enormously than usual in celebration of a north-western European midwinter festival of light, colour and feasting.

[Hope]

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

Odd that you should bring in the issue of consent, Shaker.  I was referring to well-known biological information (see the Guardian article in a previous post, that noted that here in the UK the age of puberty (the age a child is capable of mothering/fathering a child) has changed by 5 years in the past 100.  If it can change that much within a century, how much more can it change over a period of 20 centuries.

As I understand it, this age is closely linked to the quality of a child's diet and a society's life expectancy, and so regular fresh food and reasonable quantities of it - as would likely have been the case in 1st Century Palestine (as opposed, for instance, to a 17th/18th century British industrial context) would have allowed their bodies to better suit the biological need for earlier childbearing because of the lower life expectancy.

[Shaker]

Odd that you should bring in the issue of consent, Shaker.

No, not odd at all since unlike you I'm not interested in (to me) wholly uninteresting minutiae about ages of puberty onset but issues of informed consdnt by a competent individual.

I was referring to well-known biological information (see the Guardian article in a previous post, that noted that here in the UK the age of puberty (the age a child is capable of mothering/fathering a child) has changed by 5 years in the past 100.  If it can change that much within a century, how much more can it change over a period of 20 centuries.

As I understand it, this age is closely linked to the quality of a child's diet and a society's life expectancy, and so regular fresh food and reasonable quantities of it - as would likely have been the case in 1st Century Palestine (as opposed, for instance, to a 17th/18th century British industrial context) would have allowed their bodies to better suit the biological need for earlier childbearing because of the lower life expectancy.

Just as incredibly boring, pompous and irrelevant as usual.

What does this pedantic waste of keystrokes have to do with informed consent to sexual activity by a competent individual and is this different today than two thousand years ago?

[Hope]

Gordon is about as far from arrogant as anybody I know. We're all aware that he's an atheist, but his atheism is not something that he feels a need to "advertise" unless simply saying so is what you regard as "advertising."

I'd agree, Shakes, but as has been highighted by several posts recently regarding the age of puberty and other biological material, he and others have  rather superciliously ignored biological facts giving a flavour of arrogance.

[Hope]

Incredibly boring, pompous and irrelevant as usual.

What does this pedantic waste of keystrokes have to do with informed consent?

What does inforemed consent have to do with the age of puberty, Shakes?  That is why I queried why you had even introduced the topic.

As for boring, I happen to find the way in which the age of puberty has fluctuated over the centuries - and the reasons for this - both interesting and socially/scientifically informative.  'Pompous' is hardly an appropriate word for material that I learnt in secondary school biology.  Finally, 'irrelevant' is about as inappropriate a word to use when the discussion is on the topic of the age at which a girl can scientifically bear a child.

[jeremyp]

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

Not saying anything at all is not arguing for somebody else's assumptions.

Why would it have been wrong for a 12-year-old to have been married off.

You tell me, you are the one who thinks God's morality is unchanging.

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. 

That article is another example of your poor critical thinking skills. All it argues is that the age of puberty has been dropping over recent history. It does not say anything which allows you to infer the age of puberty was 10 or even 12 in the first century.

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

But it does mean the evidence in their favour is extremely weak and if it was an event that is important in the life of Jesus that all four gospels would be expected to mention and they don't, it counts against, not for its veracity.

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.

Bullshit. We are not talking about an unruly child, we are talking about a child that Mary should have known was a god.

The story does not hang together. It was fabricated.

[Shaker]

What does inforemed consent have to do with the age of puberty, Shakes?

Very little bordering on absolutely nothing - you seem to be fixated on puberty whereas all I'm concerned about is competent informed consent, because the two things are different and only the latter is important.

As for boring, I happen to find the way in which the age of puberty has fluctuated over the centuries - and the reasons for this - both interesting and socially/scientifically informative

What you find interesting is your own affair.

Very much your own, in my experience.

'Pompous' is hardly an appropriate word for material that I learnt in secondary school biology.

It was the appropriate word to me which is precisely the reason I used it. It's a rule I try to keep to.

Finally, 'irrelevant' is about as inappropriate a word to use when the discussion is on the topic of the age at which a girl can scientifically bear a child.

You seem to have an obsession with female adolescent biology rather than informed consent by a competent individual. I don't.

I notice (yet again) that you're doing everything to avoid the question as to whether sexual activity with a 13 year old is sufficiently different in some way as to make it apparently acceptable in your eyes two thousand years ago and apparently (I'm guessing - I don't know) unacceptable in 2015. For me to think there's a cogent difference I would need to be furnished with some sound, compelling reasons as to why. You're not providing them.

[Red Giant]

Bullshit. We are not talking about an unruly child, we are talking about a child that Mary should have known was a god.

The story does not hang together. It was fabricated.

It was fine to start with, because the first version of Luke didn't have a Nativity.

Luke's Jesus does a lot of debating with rabbis.  I think the writer was a rabbi and much of the Gospel is the writer having his own debate through Jesus's words.  I figure it was Luke himself who went to sabbath supper at the chief rabbi's house and didn't approve of the seating arrangements, though I expect he said nothing at the time.  It was probably Luke who got lost and turned up at the Temple, or more likely the synagogue in Cyrene or Antioch or somewhere.  Details are easily switched.

[jeremyp]

It was fine to start with, because the first version of Luke didn't have a Nativity.

That's a minority view, unless you count Mark as the first version of Luke.

I figure it was Luke himself who went to sabbath supper at the chief rabbi's house and didn't approve of the seating arrangements,

I'd like to see your evidence for any of this.

[Bubbles]

Bah! humbug!

Cheer up you miserable lot!

Strewth! Some of the posts.......


Here is a Christmas interlude

🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄

Merry Christmas!
[/color][/size]
🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄

[bluehillside Retd.]

Just to note that the best response I've heard to the "are you gay" question came from Johnny Galecki (Leonard Hofstadter in "The Big Bang Theory"). An interviewer asked him whether he wanted to defend himself against rumours that he was gay, and he replied, "why would I want to defend myself against something that isn't offensive?"

And with that, I wish one and all here a very pleasant Christmas and a relaxing New Year.

X

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just to note that the best response I've heard to the "are you gay" question came from Johnny Galecki (Leonard Hofstadter in "The Big Bang Theory"). An interviewer asked him whether he wanted to defend himself against rumours that he was gay, and he replied, "why would I want to defend myself against something that isn't offensive?"

And with that, I wish one and all here a very pleasant Christmas and a relaxing New Year.

X

Yes it's the same with people who automatically refer to religion as if it was something bad.

[Hope]

Very little bordering on absolutely nothing - you seem to be fixated on puberty whereas all I'm concerned about is competent informed consent, because the two things are different and only the latter is important.

Good to see you placing not only 20th century thinking on 1st century Palestine, how do you know that Mary (and many other young women of the time) didn't agree to the matches that their parents arranged.

What you find interesting is your own affair.

Except for when it is also apropos the subject of the discussion here.

It was the appropriate word to me which is precisely the reason I used it. It's a rule I try to keep to.

If you find straight-forward scientific references to be pompous, I find it odd that you spend so much of your time trying to use them.

You seem to have an obsession with female adolescent biology rather than informed consent by a competent individual. I don't.

Oddly enough, the one is related to the other. Remember that not only sexual maturity but mental maturity differs over the centuries.

I notice (yet again) that you're doing everything to avoid the question as to whether sexual activity with a 13 year old is sufficiently different in some way as to make it apparently acceptable in your eyes two thousand years ago and apparently (I'm guessing - I don't know) unacceptable in 2015. For me to think there's a cogent difference I would need to be furnished with some sound, compelling reasons as to why. You're not providing them.

Well, you clearly don't read my posts - but then, that doesn't surprise me.  As I've already mentioned, when life expectancy is low, the need to have children and create the next generation has to start earlier than when life expectancy is high.  As such, sexual activity with a 13-year old in 1st Century Palestine would be the equivalent to sexual activity with a 21-year old back in the 1950s, with an 18-year old back in the '80s and with a 16-year old in more recent years.

I realise that this biological and sociological detail doesn't suit your rather unscientific biases against other cultures, but that's for you to deal with.

[Aruntraveller]

Well, you clearly don't read my posts - but then, that doesn't surprise me.  As I've already mentioned, when life expectancy is low, the need to have children and create the next generation has to start earlier than when life expectancy is high.  As such, sexual activity with a 13-year old in 1st Century Palestine would be the equivalent to sexual activity with a 21-year old back in the 1950s, with an 18-year old back in the '80s and with a 16-year old in more recent years.

So are you saying that life expectancy has gone down since the 50's?

[Red Giant]

That's a minority view, unless you count Mark as the first version of Luke.

I think it's widely recognised that the start of Chapter 3 was the original beginning of the book.

I'd like to see your evidence for any of this.

I don't think anybody would have made it up who didn't have experience of what happens on these occasions.

[Hope]

Not saying anything at all is not arguing for somebody else's assumptions.

Not that I said that it was; rather I said that when one argues in support of what they have assumed or - in Floo's case - claimed, you are party to the misinformation.

You tell me, you are the one who thinks God's morality is unchanging.

Why would God's morality preclude someone from getting married at 12 or 13, 20 centuries ago, when that is the 20th/21st century equivalent - in terms of maturity and life expectancy of 19 or 20?  You and Shakes seem to want to use modern conditions of life and life expectancy to judge a society that had very different maturity and life expectancy ages.

That article is another example of your poor critical thinking skills. All it argues is that the age of puberty has been dropping over recent history. It does not say anything which allows you to infer the age of puberty was 10 or even 12 in the first century.

Again, you show your own lack of critical thinking.  I was challenged as to my claim that the age of puberty differs markedly over time - full stop.  There was no immediate reference to the circumstances 20 centuries ago, though obviously that had been mentioned on a number of occasions in a wider context.  I appreciate, as I have said to Shakes, that the staright-forward scientific, historical and sociological detail does suit your argue - but that is your look-out.

But it does mean the evidence in their favour is extremely weak and if it was an event that is important in the life of Jesus that all four gospels would be expected to mention and they don't, it counts against, not for its veracity.

Not really, I can think of lots of reports of the same event, but from different forms of the media, that have elements missing depending on the audience.

Bullshit. We are not talking about an unruly child, we are talking about a child that Mary should have known was a god.

Except that, rather than merely being divine, he was human as well. 

The story does not hang together. It was fabricated.

The problem is that, when one uses lit.crit. techniques on the Synoptic Gospels, they hang together surprisingly well, both individually and as a trio.

[Hope]

I think it's widely recognised that the start of Chapter 3 was the original beginning of the book.

If it's widely recognised, you'll be able to produce some references to such works?

[Shaker]

Good to see you placing not only 20th century thinking on 1st century Palestine

Some of us live in the 21st century but I'm pleased to see you're catching up.

how do you know that Mary (and many other young women of the time) didn't agree to the matches that their parents arranged.

The law sets a limit upon when it's reasonable to accept that a person is competent to give informed consent to things such as marriage and sexual activity. It's never anything less than fairly arbitrary and a one-size-fits-all approach that admits of exceptions either before and after the limit, but at no time would it deem a 13 or 14 year old sufficiently intellectually and emotionally mature to be able to consent to marriage and, presumably, sex and childbearing. I'm asking you why the brains of 13/14 year olds would be so different in the space of 2000 years that that which is unacceptable now would be acceptable then. All we're getting in return as a pseudo-answer is a lot of your usual hand-waving waffle about life expectancy.

If you find straight-forward scientific references to be pompous, I find it odd that you spend so much of your time trying to use them.

I don't. I feel the same way about using the correct terminology to identify your numerous and repeated logical fallacies - something that you whined about not so long ago, I recall.

Oddly enough, the one is related to the other. Remember that not only sexual maturity but mental maturity differs over the centuries.

Now we might be getting to the nub of it. Where is the evidence for this assertion?

Well, you clearly don't read my posts - but then, that doesn't surprise me.  As I've already mentioned, when life expectancy is low, the need to have children and create the next generation has to start earlier than when life expectancy is high.  As such, sexual activity with a 13-year old in 1st Century Palestine would be the equivalent to sexual activity with a 21-year old back in the 1950s, with an 18-year old back in the '80s and with a 16-year old in more recent years.

Who came up with these figures?

[Gordon]

  As I've already mentioned, when life expectancy is low, the need to have children and create the next generation has to start earlier than when life expectancy is high.  As such, sexual activity with a 13-year old in 1st Century Palestine would be the equivalent to sexual activity with a 21-year old back in the 1950s, with an 18-year old back in the '80s and with a 16-year old in more recent years.

I realise that this biological and sociological detail doesn't suit your rather unscientific biases against other cultures, but that's for you to deal with.

Bearing in mind, and I'm paraphrasing here, in the thread about SSM when the legislation was going through, I recall Christians here were opposed to this on the basis that it didn't fit with 'God's plan for humanity' (or some similar sentiment), so I'd imagine that if there was an attempt today to reduce the age of consent to, say, 14, they would express a similar concern - and on this subject I'd agree with their sentiment (apart from the God bit).

So, and if morality is objective as has been claimed by some Christians here, and if we take into account Hope's view about there being a different morality in antiquity and the dangers of comparing then with now, then this surely means that: a) morality based can't be objective, if what was morally acceptable in the time and culture of Jesus (which Hope seems to be defending) isn't morally acceptable today, and b) therefore what the Bible allegedly 'teaches' about morality is grounded in that time and culture so it isn't necessarily relevant to today.

If puberty changes over time, which Hope suggests we take account of in making judgments about starting sexual activity, then we must also assume that the related morality must vary in line with puberty - so bang goes objective morality (which we knew to be nonsense anyway).     
 

[Nearly Sane]

Objective and absolute morality are not the same thing. It is possible to have a differing age of consent that would be objective either for the time and culture or for individual circumstances. This merely means that any such objective morality would be incredibly difficult to determine.

[Bubbles]

Just to note that the best response I've heard to the "are you gay" question came from Johnny Galecki (Leonard Hofstadter in "The Big Bang Theory"). An interviewer asked him whether he wanted to defend himself against rumours that he was gay, and he replied, "why would I want to defend myself against something that isn't offensive?"

And with that, I wish one and all here a very pleasant Christmas and a relaxing New Year.

X

Men arn't offensive either, but I wouldn't want to be mistaken for one 

I'd suggest people don't like being labelled what they're not

If you're not gay, then it's upsetting if people mislabel you.

Presumably gay people get upset if the only label going,is heterosexual and macho


Happy Christmas and new Year:)

[Aruntraveller]

Men arn't offensive either, but I wouldn't want to be mistaken for one 

I'd suggest people don't like being labelled what they're not

If you're not gay, then it's upsetting if people mislabel you.

Presumably gay people get upset if the only label going is heterosexual and macho

I can only speak for myself Rose - but I am (don't any of you dare say 'surprisingly') mistaken for heterosexual to this day - this is despite my best efforts to appear as a flaming queen - however I do not get upset by this.

When I lived in Poland I was frequently mistaked for a Pole - that didn't upset me either.

[Bubbles]

Some of us live in the 21st century but I'm pleased to see you're catching up.The law sets a limit upon when it's reasonable to accept that a person is competent to give informed consent to things such as marriage and sexual activity. It's never anything less than fairly arbitrary and a one-size-fits-all approach that admits of exceptions either before and after the limit, but at no time would it deem a 13 or 14 year old sufficiently intellectually and emotionally mature to be able to consent to marriage and, presumably, sex and childbearing. I'm asking you why the brains of 13/14 year olds would be so different in the space of 2000 years that that which is unacceptable now would be acceptable then. All we're getting in return as a pseudo-answer is a lot of your usual hand-waving waffle about life expectancy.
I don't. I feel the same way about using the correct terminology to identify your numerous and repeated logical fallacies - something that you whined about not so long ago, I recall.Now we might be getting to the nub of it. Where is the evidence for this assertion?Who came up with these figures?

Mentally they were more adult, had seen more death than many of us have seen now
They were expected to be more adult most were doing full time work by 14

[Gordon]

Objective and absolute morality are not the same thing. It is possible to have a differing age of consent that would be objective either for the time and culture or for individual circumstances. This merely means that any such objective morality would be incredibly difficult to determine.

Yes, you're right - objective and absolute morality aren't the same.

It does make it difficult, as you say, since to follow the line Hope has advanced then moral changes presumably correspond to other changes, such as variations over time in the onset of puberty or changes in social attitudes (such as to homosexuality/SSM). So there is the problem of both mapping morality to some other factor, such as the onset of puberty, requires that variations is these factors are known and understood, and also that the start-point moral position is justified in relation to the place/time.

I've no idea if Hope's thesis that mixes the onset or puberty and lifespans in antiquity is sound but if moral positions are linked to factors like this being properly assessed, since if they are improperly assessed this raises other problems, this doesn't confirm that the moral position in antiquity, that it was acceptable for girls to be sexually active and risk pregnancy at 12 or 13, is justified. 

[Enki]

Objective and absolute morality are not the same thing. It is possible to have a differing age of consent that would be objective either for the time and culture or for individual circumstances. This merely means that any such objective morality would be incredibly difficult to determine.

An interesting point, NS.

However if objective morality can change according to time and culture, as you suggest, I would have great difficulty in distinguishing this from relative morality which is also dependent on time and culture(amongst other things). As you say, this would be incredibly difficult to determine, unless one had access and validation as to the source of this objectivity.