The_Sage wrote:

Reply to article by: "The Rock Is Peter"
<TheRockIsPeter@jesusanswers.com>
Date written: 2 Nov 2005 20:56:30 -0800
MsgID:<1130993790.458842.24890@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>

Modern psychology and the Catholic Church know this to be the most sure
fire way
to turn oneself into a child molestor.

Lovely. Name just one credible psychological source that states sexual
abstinence creates a pedophile.

Kennedy, E. (2003). "The Celibacy Requirement for Priests Contributes to
Child
Sexual Abuse." Pp. 28-30 in L. Gerdes (Ed.) Child Sexual Abuse in the
Catholic
Church. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven.

Again, Lovely. But what about a source that states sexual abstinence
creates a pediphile?

Reply to article by: "The Rock Is Peter" <TheRockIsPeter@jesusanswers.com>
Date written: 6 Nov 2005 14:42:05 -0800
MsgID:<1131316924.995688.128870@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>

Modern psychology and the Catholic Church know this to be the most sure fire way
to turn oneself into a child molestor.

Lovely. Name just one credible psychological source that states sexual
abstinence creates a pedophile.

Kennedy, E. (2003). "The Celibacy Requirement for Priests Contributes to Child
Sexual Abuse." Pp. 28-30 in L. Gerdes (Ed.) Child Sexual Abuse in the Catholic
Church. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven.

Again, Lovely. But what about a source that states sexual abstinence
creates a pediphile?
You gave a nice diversion but it mainly doesn't work for 2 reasons:

Tabu to strong a word Hugh?

No, it's an inaccurate word, walksalone. 'Taboo' (WTF is 'tabu'?) implies

Variant of Tabu Hiugh.

something that is true and relevant, but uncomfortable to speak about,

You have a different verion of tabu than I do then. Tabu, whether true or
not, is forbidden where I come from.

I see. But, nothing is forbidden nowadays (except maybe public expression
of religious faith, but that's a different issue) and everything is
thrown under the light of scrutiny. It's best for us not to to continue
ignoring things, but face them head on, because guaranteed, someone else
is going to.

and therefore generally avoided. The 'Jesus was married' nonsense is not
true, and therefore pointless to keep bringing up, not to mention rather

& you know this how, after all, a single male that was thirty years old
was the exception & not at all normal for that era & region. It was a
duty for males to be married around the age of twenty. Part of the
religious law as they saw it.

Jesus was far from your average 'Joe' now, wasn't He?

insulting to Christians in general. Similar to B.S. like the complicity

Insulting to xianity, how can a myth be insulted? Come to that, how can
tghe truth be insulting? That does not make sense.

Certain fundemental elements of our faith and our Church hinge on Him
being who and what He said He was, that's all.

of the Church in the Nazi holocaust or the 'black legend' of the medieval
Inquisition. Stuff that has been proven untrue, but just keeps popping
up.

The guilt or innocence of the church has nothing to do with the marital
status of its missing messiah.

Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why? Because most Christians regard
it as an impious suggestion mainly because marriage implies sexuality.
The New Testament "appears" to be silent on the subject, it was not
until late in the 2nd Century, that any Christian leader denied that
Jesus was married.

The early Church fathers do not deny it because it is a ludicrous
assertation, and it did not occur to them TO deny it. Jesus declared

Watch it, if he was not married, then he was not a rabbi. Not that it
matters, after all, he was not anointed either, or at least, not in a
manner approved of by customn & law from that era.

He was called 'rabbi' by His apostles becasue of His role a a teacher. He

Special pleading Hugh, why should he be called a rabbi by Jewish men who
knew what a rabbi was when in fact he was not one as they understood the
term. Now Greeks OTOH, yes, they could make that mistake. Especially
Greeks not from the region & trying to impart an air of authority to their
claims.

did not claim to be a rabbi, and was not recognized by the local
religious authorities as a rabbi. His purpose was not to be a rabbi, so

Again, special pleading. You are not making any sense here unless you
expect others to take your claims for the weird exceptions as being the
norm. I for one won't..

it's kind of silly to try and impose the rules for rabbis upon Him.

I agree, so why do it? Especially when they do not apply for as in the
case of calling him a messiah, he failed to meet the definitions & job
requirements.

He 'failed to meet the definitions & job requirements'? Oh dear! Maybe;
a) God is under no obligation to conform to OUR rules and expectations.
b) The Jews weren't sure what to expect, being rather er...
'ethnocentric' in their outlook were not prepared for their Saviour to be
everybody's Saviour.

voluntary abstention from marriage to be the highest form of consecration
(Matt. 19:12) Since He was the spiritual leader of this new movement, it
would be hypocritical for Him to hold up such a standard and not meet it
Himself.

That the reference, mayhap you will point out where he said he would
not/could not marry. Never saw that myself.

Are you missing the point? He said that celibacy 'for the sake of the
kingdom of heaven' was an ideal.

No, I am not missing the point, the point is he said nothing about
himself. But then, he would have to existed to do that now wouldn't he
Hugh?

Then I repeat my earlier assertaion, that He lived up to His own stated
standards. Funny how some things are 'true' because they are written in
Scripture, and other things are still true despite NOT being written in
Scripture. Talk about special pleading. Sheesh.

Others thought that if Christ were married and had
children that they would be a divine race, so therefore, He could not
have been married.

Actually, my own theory, is that the Gnostics (who started this 'Jesus

Why should it be the gnostics, when by Jewish mythological law & custom a
rabbi had to be married & at least thirty years of age? [hint, ask a rabbi
that has done the history]

He was NOT a rabbi!

Agreed, but he is called one by your myth. That was an error on the part
of the people who wrote the myth, an error even Hellenized Jews would not
have been likely to make.

"And Jesus turned and saw them following, and said to them, 'What do you
seek?' They said to Him, 'Rabbi (which translated means Teacher), where
are You staying?'" (John 1:38) That's pretty clear, maybe this whole
'Rabbi' issue is one thing, like a lot of things, that got lost in
translation.

was married' nonsense) wanted to subvert the Church's lawful Apostolic
authority. By inserting Mary Magdalene into the mix as Jesus' wife they

If he was to be a rabbi, he needed a wife. It was custom as well as
mythological law. Next hint, you do realise that you missing messiah was a
pharisee, don't you? Or did you miss that in sunday school. Hint,
theologically, xianity & paharisees' were identical in basic claims.
Resurrection, etc.

<snip irrelevant irrelevancies>

What, you aren't going to post the evidence that he was not married.
Claims don't cut it you know, & as to irrelevant, well, the whole myth is
but that does n ot remove it from humaity's back now does it.

Tell you what, I''l cut n' paste the Gospels, then the balance of the New
Testament, then I'll go find the Didache and the works of the early
Church Fathers; Irenaeus, Polycarp, Clement, Ignatious and Justin Martyr,
then the historians Origen, Papias, and Eusebius; I'll stick it all in a
posting and you can go through it and tell me that dispite the fact that
NOWHERE is it said that Jesus was married, and EVERYTHING points to the
CONTRARY he MUST have been married because of some special pleading you
cooked up involving Pharisees and Rabbis.... Arrgh!

Do you see any references to what the pharisees actually believed? I
don't. But that information is somewhere in my notes, & surprise, it is
early xianity.

There may have been disagreements early on over wether His purpose was to
reform Judaism, or to create a whole new movement, but as St. Paul
explains (Gal. 3:28) it was the latter.

Another slippery one to find in history, seems your whole myth is based on
the works of missing people. As to any claims made on behalf of the
claimed author of the unauthorised edition of the grimorie, you need to
first show that it is not a figment of Greek imagination like the missing
messiah. Remember, your myth & its claims are not above examination in
today's society, as uncomfortable as that may make you & other xians.

All of what we know of ancient history from Xerxes to Caesar to
Charlemagne is based on hearsay attributed to people that we can't be
100% sure ever really existed. The New Testament is probably the most
reliable hearsay that we've come across.

attempted to do just that. Nowadays, it's all about sex. Celibacy is a
dirty word, and wouldn't it be great if Jesus 'sanctified' sex by doing
it Himself... then we could all do it more often, and not feel guilty.
Right?

Maybe in your case, I always figured if the woman was worth the effort,
sex would arrive in its due time.

Have you considered the possibilty of a relationship with a woman beyond
that? Is their sole purpose to be sexual objects?

Tried it, it did not work & we parted friends. Oddly enough, the mothers
of my children I never married, but they are still important to me.

I don't want to get personal, but the ones with which 'it did not work'
(ie. no sex) are now friends, and the ones with which it did work (ie.
sex) are 'still important'... is there a significant difference (other
than the children, obviously) between the two? Was it just about sex all
along?

Okay, well, I've had greater success with keeping it in my pants than you
have. Maybe you don't consider that 'success'. Oh well.

Maybe I value the woman & her gifts instead of putting her where she does
not belong?

Yep, that's a good point. "Barefoot and pregnant" that's what me Pa
always said.

Now
surprise, it is not a requirement for those of us that accept that even
though the world would be a quieter & less strident place without women,
it would be awfully lonely, & soon, empty of human life.

You're really making rash assumptions, there.

Not at all, but you are free tol feel so. The above is a combination of at
least two quotes I agree with, one By Admiral Byrd[sp] & one by Mark
Twainb.

By your statement I thought that you were making the assumption that
Christians had no use for sex and therefore no use for women.

So as to your sex
phobias, keep it to yourself,

Would it be fair to ask secular society to keep it's 'sex obsessions' to
itself as well? No? Oh well.

for though it does help the world go round,
it is not the only thing.

Try explaining that to a lot of people nowadays.

No gods required there either.

walksalone who could never understand the attraction of using basic human
emotions to place guilt trips on people, & is thankful for that.

H.
--
"Sin is not hurtful because it is forbidden, but it is forbidden because
it is hurtful."
-Benjamin Franklin

Hot damn, quoting a deitist I see. Have a cite for that, so much has been
blamed on Ben who did exist, that I like to know those things.
When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it
does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that
its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a
sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.
Benjamin Franklin, letter to Richard Price, October 9, 1780

'Ol Ben was a wise man... and a Deist? Sure, makes sense... one thing is
certain, though, he was NOT an atheist.

walksalone who finds that Hugh apparently still does not understand that
his missing messiah is not exempt from Jewish custom & law, even though
the rest of the world
seems to be catching on.

Sorry, but I still stick to my assertation that God is exempt from Jewish
custom & law.
H.
--
"This only is certain, there is nothing certain; and nothing more
miserable and yet more arrogant than man."
-Pliny

You have a different verion of tabu than I do then. Tabu, whether true or
not, is forbidden where I come from.

I see. But, nothing is forbidden nowadays (except maybe public expression

of religious faith, but that's a different issue) and everything is

thrown under the light of scrutiny. It's best for us not to to continue
ignoring things, but face them head on, because guaranteed, someone else
is going to.

and therefore generally avoided. The 'Jesus was married' nonsense is not
true, and the