Was Jesus gay?

[OH MY WORLD!]

Duh! Of course more have said Hope is wrong around here. Most of ya are godless atheists! Too funny

[jeremyp]

The problem is that you have no idea what a deity is plausibly able to do, jeremy.

Neither do you.

All you have is your undertanding of the physical world which may well lack the breadth and reality of the divine.

I least I do have an understanding of the physical world. You seem to have no understanding of it or this mythical divine realm that you cannot even define, never mind understand.

[jeremyp]

Whilst I appreciate that a lot of what she says is related to her youthful experiences, not everything is.  There are times - such as the idea that a 1st Century AD child of 13 becoming pregnant must require sexual abuse of that child,

In our society, we would assume that sexual abuse was highly probable in this instance. If morality comes from God and God is unchanging, is it us that are wrong or the people of the 1st century?

[floo]

In our society, we would assume that sexual abuse was highly probable in this instance. If morality comes from God and God is unchanging, is it us that are wrong or the people of the 1st century?

Sexual abuse was rife in the not so good book, and people seeking to pretend that it was ok, and for a young girl to get pregnant, are making excuses for despicable deeds!   

[Shaker]

In our society, we would assume that sexual abuse was highly probable in this instance. If morality comes from God and God is unchanging, is it us that are wrong or the people of the 1st century?

Do you mind ever so much if I add a second question that he'll also ignore?

Is the human organism so evolutionarily different physically and psychologically/emotionally/intellectually in the space of two thousand years that what is the physical, sexual and emotional abuse of an incompetent subject incapable of informed consent today was perfectly acceptable then?

[jeremyp]

Well, there are posts of mine on this and other boards that my peers have stated are correct.

Who are your "peers". Do they exhibit the same level of intellectual rigour as you do? If so, I think I can see the flaw in your point.

Having said that, your statement is strictly true in the sense that you do sometimes make posts that are correct, usually on secular topics.

[jeremyp]

Sexual abuse was rife in the not so good book, and people seeking to pretend that it was ok, and for a young girl to get pregnant, are making excuses for despicable deeds!   

People like Hope argue that we should not judge these people by our standards. That is an argument I can understand but the problem is that he subscribes to an absolute morality that he says comes from his unchanging god. If so, either we can judge these people by our standards, or their standards are still OK.

[jeremyp]

Do you mind ever so much if I add a second question that he'll also ignore?

Of course not.

Is the human organism so evolutionarily different physically and psychologically/emotionally/intellectually in the space of two thousand years that what is the physical, sexual and emotional abuse of an incompetent subject incapable of informed consent today was perfectly acceptable then?

Well clearly it was acceptable in the first century because they did it. In fact, I think informed consent was often irrelevant in terms of marriage no matter what age the bride. If you were a girl, you often married the person your family told you to. This is a practice that has continued until fairly recently and still does in some cultures and social groups.

Obviously, we now know it to be wrong since it reduces half the population to the status of possession. The difficulty arises for Christians because their alleged morality is supposed to come from ever lasting unchanging God and here we have prima facie evidence that morality has improved over the last two millennia.

[Shaker]

Of course not.
Well clearly it was acceptable in the first century because they did it. In fact, I think informed consent was often irrelevant in terms of marriage no matter what age the bride. If you were a girl, you often married the person your family told you to. This is a practice that has continued until fairly recently and still does in some cultures and social groups.

Obviously, we now know it to be wrong since it reduces half the population to the status of possession.

I wouldn't consider that to be the reason it's regarded as wrong, myself ...

[OH MY WORLD!]

"not so good book" Right, that book she claims to read every day.

[floo]

On another forum an extremist fundie cretin is claiming that the deity deemed that women should be subservient to men, who are their lords and masters, YEH RIGHT! I would love to hang the idiot by his dangly bits from the church steeple!

The Bible's treatment of women is despicable, and it can rightly be regarded as the not so good book, just for that, let alone all the other nasty things its states, which override the sensible suggestions!   

[Rhiannon]

It's interestimg how Christians maintain that God is beyond human understanding and then proceed to tell us what he thinks and wants.

[trippymonkey]

Why can't Jesus HIMSELF tell us this. 
And where is he anyway ?!?!?!?!

[floo]

It's interestimg how Christians maintain that God is beyond human understanding and then proceed to tell us what he thinks and wants.

Too right! As I have mentioned before, my later mother-in-law knew exactly what the deity thought on every topic, including the clothes and TV programmes it liked!

[ippy]

Duh! Of course more have said Hope is wrong around here. Most of ya are godless atheists! Too funny

You forget Woody, you're godless too, we all are.

ippy

[Sassy]

How does anyone insult something that's so very unlikely to be there in the first place, there's no supporting evidence Sass.

Ever tried to insult a brick Sass?

I'll give that a 1 Sass, only one assertion, I'm feeling generous.

ippy

I guess you can say you are the brick.
If God can turn stones into the descendants of Abraham and Christ is the important stone/brick the builders rejected.
Then perhaps some people are just as thick as bricks but not able to make use of them as God can.

[Sassy]

Some of the comments made relating to contents of believers posts seem rather moot. Especially, when the comments are made by people who do not have a clear command of knowledge and facts when it comes to the religious beliefs held by the poster.
Who wud ave thunk it....

[ippy]

Some of the comments made relating to contents of believers posts seem rather moot. Especially, when the comments are made by people who do not have a clear command of knowledge and facts when it comes to the religious beliefs held by the poster.
Who wud ave thunk it....

A bit heavy there Sass, almost an assertion there, I did notice the "if".

When I'm  as certain as poss that there is no such thing as a unicorn, why would I need to be encyclopaedic about every aspect of unicorns there is to know, when there's no evidence that would support the idea in the first place, what's to know about something that's far more likely to be just another one of those silly man made ideas, than anything else?

Now what was that other crazy idea I could say the same thing about Sass?

ippy

[OH MY WORLD!]

What I find crazy is atheists who insist God does not exist due to lack of evidence. And then they quickly put on their tin foil hats and tell us that aliens from outer space do, or probably do exist, no evidence required.

[Shaker]

What I find crazy is atheists who insist God does not exist due to lack of evidence. And then they quickly put on their tin foil hats and tell us that aliens from outer space do, or probably do exist, no evidence required.

That will be because you don't understand and can't see the difference between the probability of flesh-and-blood, material organisms (might be carbon-based, might not be), something at least partially like humans whose existence is in principle detectable, and non-material, supernatural, paranormal alleged so-called entities like gods whose existence isn't even in principle detectable by any scientific means and for whose existence nobody can provide any methodology at all.

I can't say that I believe in alien life as I have no evidence to do so. I can say that I know exactly what it would take for me to be presented with evidence for extra-terrestrial life, which is vastly more than you can ever say for any 'god.'

As with all theists, your parochial village mentality is showing.

[ippy]

What I find crazy is atheists who insist God does not exist due to lack of evidence. And then they quickly put on their tin foil hats and tell us that aliens from outer space do, or probably do exist, no evidence required.

The clue's in your post Woody, "probably do exist", oh yes, and life forming elswere in the universe, there is evdience that makes it very likely, such as life forming precursers found within meterorites that have landed here on the Earth, having said that, the "probably" still applies of course.

ippy

[floo]

It is much more likely there is intelligent life on other planets in this vast universe of ours than the existence of a deity, particularly the Biblical one

[OH MY WORLD!]

Sorry ippy but that is no evidence that aliens exist or probably exist.

Really floo? You think it's likely this chance accident repeated itself? What are the Odds? Nope, I'll stick with the Creator.

[Shaker]

Sorry ippy but that is no evidence that aliens exist

Nobody's saying that, however.

or probably exist.

That's more like it.

Really floo? You think it's likely this chance accident repeated itself? What are the Odds?

It's impossible to work out the odds precisely because we don't know the exact number of planets (i.e. possible venues for the emergence of life) in the universe. What we do know is that just that bit of the universe we can observe is colossal beyond human comprehension and that sheer size shortens the odds because sheer size (and age) offers a bigger stage for life to emerge onto.
 

Nope, I'll stick with the Creator.

Yeah, it'll be easier for you

[ippy]

Nobody's saying that, however.
 
That's more like it.
It's impossible to work out the odds precisely because we don't know the exact number of planets (i.e. possible venues for the emergence of life) in the universe. What we do know is that just that bit of the universe we can observe is colossal beyond human comprehension and that sheer size shortens the odds because sheer size (and age) offers a bigger stage for life to emerge onto.
 Yeah, it'll be easier for you

Nice one Shakes, the godidit, the unthinking way of getting out of jail free trump card.

ippy