Did Jesus live a sinless life?

[notachance]

Let me paint a scenario for you.

You are a full grown man, and, along with a dozen other dudes, you're invited to a dinner party.

In the middle of dinner the host takes off his clothes, wraps a towel around his groin, gets on his hands and knees, and starts crawling towards you.

He grabs your feet, takes off your shoes, and starts massaging and washing your feet. When he's done, he uses the towel around his groin (which was the only thing covering his privates) to dry off your feet - meaning that he can only do this either by completely exposing himself, or by rubbing your feet against his crotch area.

Once he's done servicing you, he moves on to the other dozen full grown male guests and performs for them the same homoerotic favor.

Now, I have nothing against homoerotic foot fetishes. To each his own. As long as nobody gets hurt, I don't care how kinky you get.

But I do have a few questions for you clean and moral Christians.

1) If you were invited to a dinner party by the same guy the next week, would you go?

2) If the foot fetish guy was a summer camp counselor, would you take your children to his camp?

3) If he was a politician, would the foot fetish instance make you more likely or less likely to vote for him?

4) Would one of the thoughts in your head after he had finished rubbing your feet against his crotch be "Wow, what a great guy! What an inspirational guy! What a flawless guy, perfect in every way! If only every person in the world was like him, all problems would be solved! I'm going to devote my entire life to trying to emulate his values and his lifestyle"

If you're not well versed enough in the Bible to figure out what I'm getting at, please read the first few lines of John 13

"Jesus got up from supper, and laid aside His garments; and taking a towel, He girded Himself. Then He poured water into the basin, and began to wash the disciples' feet and to wipe them with the towel with which He was girded"

Obviously to me "sin" is a meaningless concept, but dear Christians, wouldn't you think that that's a sin?

If you spent an evening rubbing men's feet against your crotch while practically naked, wouldn't you feel the urge to beg forgiveness for your dirty little SIN the next day?

According to you, isn't a homoerotic footfetish sinful?

Did Jesus live a sinless life?

[catalyst]

Notachance, even taking the above out of the equation (however I DO wonder about the whole story when as to the jesus character doing (at least) an "overnighter" with a supple , semi clad young chappy - I am referring to the secret gospel of Mark here - *nudge nudge, wink wink*) the biblical jesus character did NOT live a sinless life. Any person who would suggest friends (in his case, disciples) to steal others property for his own purposes, makes him just as guilty of theft as those stealing on his behalf.

Catalyst.

Heya Catalyst, I am not familiar with the passage about Jesus telling his disciples to steal. I'd LOVE to hear about that. You talking bout the donkey?

What about the secret gospel of Mark. I know nothing about that...

Thanks for any info you might be able to share.

Hi Notachance,

Yes I am referring to the infamous donkey/colt situation. Now as a supposed "skeptic" as to it all, I don't give a tosser about the discrepancies as to conflicting "accounts" in different gospels. All of them however show clearly that whether it was one donkey or a colt or both, THEFT was the premise. Jesus allegedly instructed them to go to "X" and you will see "Y"(donkey/colt/either/or/and)... YOINK them/it and THEN if anyone asks "WTF are you doing", just tell them I (jesus) need them.

To take something without prior permission (which is not indicated was had in ANY prior scripture) means that it was stealing of someone else's property, pure and simple.

As to the secret Gospels of Mark, it was additional information added when he purportedly moved to Alexandria. You do get whiffs of it in Mark Mark 10:46, then..."void" and then more as to the events continue 14:51-52.

Biblical scholars for over centuries have had furrowed brows over the lack of sequential information or a disjointed perspective, especially in works attributed to some fellow assumed to be "Mark".

Suggested reading for you notachance are:

Morton Smith, "The letter of Clement of Alexandria to Theodore; Transcription of the Greek text," at: http://alf.zfn.uni-bremen.de/ This includes the Greek text and Smith's photos of the letter.

W. Barnstone, Ed., "The Other Bible", Harper Collins, San Francisco, CA, (1984)

Bart Ehrman, "Lost Christianities: The battles for Scripture and the faiths we never knew," Oxford (2003).

Sorry, the last two I cannot provide links for as, after reading info as to the "secret" scripture of Mark (and that of Thomas as well) I went and borrowed them from the local library at the time. That said, rather than you forking out $$ to purchase copies, I am sure in the Theology section of your local library will have them.

If you too can get your mitts on the Gospel of Thomas, that too will be an eye opener for you.

Cat.

[Goat]

.

We can’t judge the customs of one culture by the expectations of a different culture (particularly if the two cultures are half a world and a couple thousand years apart).

I agree. Therefore, I question why anyone would attempt to apply the "rules" from "long ago and far away" as though they pertained to modern times.

Because right and wrong don’t change. While the customs change, the underlying truth does not.

While I think that right and wrong don’t change, values and customs do change.

What and who determines the "right and wrong" that do not change?

For Christians: we look to God.

For atheists: I have no idea.

Are you tiring about misrepresenting what many atheists say ,and by painting with too broad a brush? Is that HONEST?

Morality (i.e. right and wrong) is a culturally conditioned response. The desire for an ethical/moral structure is hard wired into us by evolution, just like language. What are someones ethics is largely defined by the culture, just like what language you speak is defined by culture.

[micatala]

Moderator Comment

2. Nothing "R" rated is allowed (this includes profanity, obscenity, and anything of a graphic sexual nature).

Just a gentle reminder that the moderators have consistently ruled that even "euphemistic" or "abbreviated" profanity is against the rules.

Jesus allegedly instructed them to go to "X" and you will see "Y"(donkey/colt/either/or/and)... YOINK them/it and THEN if anyone asks "WTF are you doing", just tell them I (jesus) need them.

Ok, then couldn't Jesus NOT GET NAKED, keep his friggin clothes on,

So are graphic or crude remarks like the following, especially when they are gratuitous.

Your post reminds me of something Borat would say (I'm paraphrasing) "We wrestled without clothes on, he gave me hand relief, and he cleaned my anus, but not in a gay way".

*************

"Sorry, I don't want to rub your feet against my balls, but that's where the towel happens to be even though it doesn't need to be".

So are unproductive one-liners or "cheerleading" like the following.

ZZY, thanks for acting like the Cavalry, and swooping in and saving the day on many of my posts. Kudos to you for your razor sharp acumen.

The moderators have decided to allow the thread to proceed, for now. However, let's not get carried away by the satire, sarcasm, and references to body parts etc. If one wants to make the case that Jesus was gay, or had homoerotic feelings, that is fine, but let's argue on the basis of the evidence and logic without getting into rhetoric that might fit better on Comedy Central or Saturday Night Live.






Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster.

[notachance]

Moderator Comment

2. Nothing "R" rated is allowed (this includes profanity, obscenity, and anything of a graphic sexual nature).

Just a gentle reminder that the moderators have consistently ruled that even "euphemistic" or "abbreviated" profanity is against the rules.

Jesus allegedly instructed them to go to "X" and you will see "Y"(donkey/colt/either/or/and)... YOINK them/it and THEN if anyone asks "WTF are you doing", just tell them I (jesus) need them.

Ok, then couldn't Jesus NOT GET NAKED, keep his friggin clothes on,

So are graphic or crude remarks like the following, especially when they are gratuitous.

Your post reminds me of something Borat would say (I'm paraphrasing) "We wrestled without clothes on, he gave me hand relief, and he cleaned my anus, but not in a gay way".

*************

"Sorry, I don't want to rub your feet against my balls, but that's where the towel happens to be even though it doesn't need to be".

So are unproductive one-liners or "cheerleading" like the following.

ZZY, thanks for acting like the Cavalry, and swooping in and saving the day on many of my posts. Kudos to you for your razor sharp acumen.

The moderators have decided to allow the thread to proceed, for now. However, let's not get carried away by the satire, sarcasm, and references to body parts etc. If one wants to make the case that Jesus was gay, or had homoerotic feelings, that is fine, but let's argue on the basis of the evidence and logic without getting into rhetoric that might fit better on Comedy Central or Saturday Night Live.






Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster.

ok, sorry bout that

[bjs]

.

We can’t judge the customs of one culture by the expectations of a different culture (particularly if the two cultures are half a world and a couple thousand years apart).

I agree. Therefore, I question why anyone would attempt to apply the "rules" from "long ago and far away" as though they pertained to modern times.

Because right and wrong don’t change. While the customs change, the underlying truth does not.

I did not ask about "right and wrong" but about RULES -- the multiple rules contained in the bible. Those rules have evidently changed quite a bit. How do you account for direct reversals?

If it was "right" a few thousand years ago to kill adulteresses and unruly children, is it still "right" to do so now? If not, how did "right" change to "wrong" if the underlying truth does not change?

This is still focusing standards of a specific society. The sanctions against adultery (both legal and non-legal) have changed countless times over the ages. The underlying truth in the Bible is about marital faithfulness.

.

While I think that right and wrong don’t change, values and customs do change.

What and who determines the "right and wrong" that do not change?

For Christians: we look to God.

How, exactly, does "god" communicate what is right and wrong? Do Christians just "know what god thinks", do they receive messages, do they simply read what human bible writers claimed that "god" said?

Historically Christian have four ways of seeking God’s will: Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience.

.

For atheists: I have no idea.

Non-Theists typically accept the mores and morals of their society -- just as Christians typically do -- (and change through time as Christians do). However, Non-Theists do not attempt to claim that their "right and wrong" come from a deity.

You are free to make whatever statements you wish about how non-theists determine right and wrong, just don’t lump Christians in with you.

What about people who worship different "gods" and have different rules. Are those rules "right" because they come from a "god"?

What business is that of mine?

[bjs]

.

We can’t judge the customs of one culture by the expectations of a different culture (particularly if the two cultures are half a world and a couple thousand years apart).

I agree. Therefore, I question why anyone would attempt to apply the "rules" from "long ago and far away" as though they pertained to modern times.

Because right and wrong don’t change. While the customs change, the underlying truth does not.

While I think that right and wrong don’t change, values and customs do change.

What and who determines the "right and wrong" that do not change?

For Christians: we look to God.

For atheists: I have no idea.

Are you tiring about misrepresenting what many atheists say ,and by painting with too broad a brush? Is that HONEST?

Morality (i.e. right and wrong) is a culturally conditioned response. The desire for an ethical/moral structure is hard wired into us by evolution, just like language. What are someones ethics is largely defined by the culture, just like what language you speak is defined by culture.

Whom have I misrepresented? I admit that I remain a little fuzzy on non-theist ethics. I’m not saying that atheists are all immoral people, I just I don’t understand atheistic ethics.

For instance, I was commenting on unchanging ethics. You words suggest that ethics are culturally determined, which would mean that there is nothing which is unchangingly right or always wrong – a given action or attitude can only be consider right or wrong within a specific society.

So what is your complaint against me? We were talking about universal ethics and you have said that for atheists there are none. That goes much farther than anything I have said.

[Woland]

Would using another towel be beneficial, or not a waste of resources

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't literalist Christians tend to believe that God created the entire universe to place Earth, a planet habitable on some of its surface some of the time, in a remote part of the cosmos?

If you belong to the group of people who believe this, you have to appreciate the irony here.

Or would conserving the towels they did have be the more logical solution?

I suppose that this would depend on his mana level.
Does Jesus have a limit on his mana?

Did he have to save it for other magic tricks like walking on water (while people worldwide starved and died in abject suffering and utter ignorance) or something?

Is God omnipotent as Jesus or not?

-Woland

[JayDeist]

I've never understood the Jesus did not sin thing. To me, it is very contradictory. Jeus was supposed to be 'tempted' by sin, but able to resist. But then the trinity says that God and Jesus are the same, and since God cannot be tempted, that would mean that Jesus cannot be tempted, which also means that his sacrifice would mean nothing if he was not a mere man without sin. Being a mere man without sin would mean more for atonement, than Jesus being God, and being perfect like God is supposed to be, and merely not sinning because he is God. How does that atone for anything?

God coming down to earth and saying "let me show you how God does it", doesn't make it any easier for us mere humans to not sin.

So if Jesus didn't sin, so what? I mean come on, he is God right?

[Zzyzx]

.

This is still focusing standards of a specific society. The sanctions against adultery (both legal and non-legal) have changed countless times over the ages. The underlying truth in the Bible is about marital faithfulness.

Since Christians claim to follow the bible (or at least some make that), and the bible is supposedly about marital faithfulness, AND Christians divorce one another at the same rate as others, who is fooling whom and why?

Are Christians fooled into thinking or claiming that they have some advantage in "marital faithfulness"? Are people fooled into thinking that they are Christians?

Non-Theists typically accept the mores and morals of their society -- just as Christians typically do -- (and change through time as Christians do). However, Non-Theists do not attempt to claim that their "right and wrong" come from a deity.

You are free to make whatever statements you wish about how non-theists determine right and wrong, just don’t lump Christians in with you.

Do you propose that Christians ACT any differently than others (or do they just TALK as though they were different)?

If there is a difference in actions, why are Christian divorce and incarceration rates no lower than those of others?

What about people who worship different "gods" and have different rules. Are those rules "right" because they come from a "god"?

What business is that of mine?

Nice dodge.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 21:

Yes I am referring to the infamous donkey/colt situation. Now as a supposed "skeptic" as to it all, I don't give a tosser about the discrepancies as to conflicting "accounts" in different gospels. All of them however show clearly that whether it was one donkey or a colt or both, THEFT was the premise. Jesus allegedly instructed them to go to "X" and you will see "Y"(donkey/colt/either/or/and)... YOINK them/it and THEN if anyone asks "Winning The Future are you doing", just tell them I (jesus) need them.

I emboldenized my edit to explain a pop culture reference

It amuses me a bit more than saddens me that folks have to have theft explained to 'em.

To take something without prior permission (which is not indicated was had in ANY prior scripture) means that it was stealing of someone else's property, pure and simple.

I propose it's not so simple when it's your Lord and Savior(tm) doing the stealing. Then it gets as complicated as trying to date three women all at once and they're all sisters living in the same boarding house.