Was Jesus Married?

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

I think you missed my point, Turtle.

I am all for the defense of science within these hallowed threads. And I think I do my share of that defense.

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.

And now for a musical number...

Bill

Bill, I luv ya dude! I am immortalized in a song! I love it when you get the creative juices flowing.

BOT Going back to the first post of this thread, I think we see that this was no bait, but a serious question prompted by the material in the Gnostic gospels. In reading many of HBonds posts, I have the sense he is more to the theist side than not (correct me if I misrepresent HBond). While some of what I have said is in the 'defensive' stance, I have made it clear that I think the Bible (and other 'sacred' texts) contain valid historical records.

I didn't just make up the claim that Jesus was married, or gay, or bi, rather these ideas come from the ancient scrolls and writings that have surfaced in relatively recent times and even more recently been popularized in books and TV programs such as the one I hope we all will try to watch this evening.

Inasmuch as I have read the Gnostic gospels and the Dead Sea Scrolls, (and a number of different flavors of Bibles) I have more of an opinion on them than what folks say they say. I think you will concede that I have some little ability in figuring things out for myself, and from what I read in these works there is evidence that Jesus had an intimate association with Mary Magdelene and she was not a whore or anything of the kind. I note with interest I have started and engaged in some serious threads on Biblical archaeology in the theology section, but the theists (and non-theists for that matter) seem to have little interest in the science of that.

Here is an online source for the Gospel of Mary:
The Gospel of Mary Magdalene

[Buffy]

Dear kindly Sergeant Big Dog, you gotta understand,
It's just our bringin' up-ke that gets us out of hand.
Our mothers all are junkies, our fathers all are drunks.
Golly Moses, natcherly we're punks!

Gee, Officer Big Dog, we're very upset;
We never had the love that ev'ry child oughta get.
We ain't no delinquents, we're misunderstood.
Deep down inside us there is good!

There's something to be said for tolerance of other beliefs. Not all mind you: delivery and intent is everything. Debate is fine, but it has to be in context. "Taking every opportunity to fight evil" is an extremists view and extremism knows all faiths and lack thereof.

Hold my hand and we're halfway there,
Buffy

[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]

Originally Posted by LayDominican

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.

Originally Posted by Theology Rules

How does religion impact society?

Originally Posted by TBD

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.

Originally Posted by TBD

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.

Originally Posted by TBD

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]

Originally Posted by Turtle

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]

Originally Posted by LayDominican

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]

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

"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

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

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.

Originally Posted by Cedars

Yes, all of religion is just conjecture.

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