One of your brethren just claimed that jesus never lusted. A common rebuttal of evolution is "No one was there/how can we know what happened?" So how is it that you know for a fact that jesus never lusted?
2006-10-04 06:31:18 · 30 answers · asked by mutterhals 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
According to your religion, jesus was also a man. Men lust...how can you know for sure that jesus did not?
2006-10-04 06:34:11 · update #1
maybe he did, maybe he didn't. why do you care so much? why do you take it upon yourself to be so against one particular religion. i read your questions and (sometimes) your answers, and i wonder what pisses you off so much. excuse me for saying-but you must have a very small, closed up mind to think that all christians are the same, or that any person of any religion is the same for that matter. all of your questions are the same-putting people down, putting down christianity, causing drama on the net, and starting "discussions" that are weak with no intellectual backing. i can only imagine what your "real" life is like, away from your computer.
maybe one day you will find peace. i personally don't care if you "find jesus" or not, but maybe you'll at least find something else to do besides be a judgmental self righteous internet drama queen.
btw, even though i have different beliefs than most atheists on this site, i have never seen of them be as disrespectful and immature as you. most of them are quite nice and very smart, in fact. maybe you should learn from one of your "brethren."
peace-
2006-10-04 08:12:05 · answer #1 · answered by thisisawasteoftime 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
We don't know and, what, exactly, is lust. To say Jesus not got aroused over the nearness of a woman is probably a false conclusion. God made us that way on purpose.
Jesus was a human male as well as the son of the spirit, God. He has attributes of both, least how could one kill him on the cross! If Jesus was that Godly then it would be impossible to kill him.
How, if THAT had happened, Pilate and the Pharasees would have had a major conflict to overcome and the people would have rallied for Jesus.
That's more of an issue. If God wanted to show man proof and the way, Jesus should have been eternal and un-killable.
So, if Jesus was mortal, he is prone to the same automatic things.
And he seemed to enjoy the ointments Mary rubbed on his feet. So he was capable of taking pleasure.
Lust is a nominal aspect of human life. Man does not lust after every woman, only a select few. That is his indiator that she would make a good choice for wife.
It is about lusting all the time and with intent that is goes wrong.
I doubt Jesus lusted and thought of women in terms of T and A. That is a different story.
Not to be touched by a woman's presecence is to be unhuman.
To keep one's desires undercontrol is to be unanimal.
2006-10-04 06:39:49 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I hope Storm B was only joking, because if she weren't, that would be really scary.
Now, of course the carpenter was a male human, and you know what that means, he will most likely have had sexual relationships with some people.
Some people say he was gay, but that is pure speculation and not proven at all. I most likely think he was married to Maria from Magdala (maybe not legally married, so no hair-splitting please).
Her evangelium was a part of the Bible until about 1100, when some supreme monks decided it was not a good thing to have females give their testimony. So (with many others) he story was eliminated, just like other chapters have been removed before.
Around 1200 they stopped changing the scripture (until Martin Luther came in 1517 who translated badly from latin into german). So what you nowadays have in your Bible is basically what was "frozen in time" at a certain point in history, decided by some monks, maybe a cardinal (dunno exactly who) or a pope.
I came off the topic a bit, sorry. I mentioned that because it is important to know that the Bible you see today is only a contemporary version of Europe's medieval times, and it has very little to do with the earlier testimonies given by real witnesses of the time.
Actually, Saulus had dysfunctional genetalia, therefore no sexdrive at all, and thus he decided all women were evil and useless. He killed many of them, interestingly this is never seen badly by christians. I guess all you have to say is "sorry" after cutting someone into pieces, and all is fine again...
Now, since he had no libido, he found it completely normal to have no sex, and there is where the zoelibat came from (sorry, no english word at hand.) Just because that evil person was not having any lust for anybody, he demanded all other clergy people to be "pure" as well.
You know where that leads to: normal heterosexual guys become protestants or leave the church, and only the pedophiles and disturbed stay. They were molesting children everywhere over centuries, but since they represented the church (and for simple people even: their God), no victim or victim's family would ever speak up. It was all god's will, they would say, and even though we don't understand, the Lord will know what it was good for, blablabla (I want to throw up right now!)
2006-10-04 06:52:51 · answer #3 · answered by albgardis T 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The bible is very clear... Hebrews 4:15 states..15)For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin. He Jesus was tempted in every way common to man...that means he had to be tempted in the area of sex. if not he could not have atoned for the sexual sins of man...remember that temptation is not a sin but acting on the temptation is...I do not believe however that Jesus mulled over in his mind any temptation he spoke against it and was finished..canceling the fact that he would "lust" which is constantly thinking of and running through ones minds the object of whatever one is lusting over..be it sex, food, drugs etc...you all need to understand the difference between temptation and lust..they are not the same thing.
2006-10-04 07:30:40 · answer #4 · answered by candi_k7 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Ooohhh, you've done it now. The whole "lust is a sin" sermons will come pouring out. Yet, I can bet that any of these married Christians Lusted after their partners. And I'm pretty secure that I would win that bet. And they don't know... the Bible only shows us 1 1/2 - 2 yrs of Jesus' "ministry".
Challenges to their faith will only earn you boring sermons and bible quotes. There will be no reasonable answers, or even an attempt at one. Not from these people anyway.
2006-10-04 06:49:15 · answer #5 · answered by Kithy 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Jesus was a man, and He had the same temptations as any other man. The difference is, Jesus did not sin. If lust is a sin, then we know that Jesus never lusted.
2006-10-04 06:36:09 · answer #6 · answered by Char 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
We know that the Bible is true. It's been proven from century to century throughout the ages to be true. That said, the Bible says that to lust is a sin, and that Jesus had no sin in Him. If He had sinned, He wouldn't have been qualified to take on the sins of the whole world. He would have died on the cross with everyone's sin - including His own. And if His own sins had been included, then it would not have been possible for Him to be raised from death to life.
But He was raised from death to life and the penalty for the sin of all mankind was justly paid by the spotless and blameless Lamb of God, Jesus Christ our Lord.
So, there ya have it.
2006-10-04 06:49:32 · answer #7 · answered by Carol L 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Further for you to ponder: as you are often so swift to flail offenses and hatred around toward Christ and His followers. For it is not for us to take offense, as we are merely the messengers of God's word, whom is the Author of what you seem to detest. Just know this as you spew your bitterness and your disdain:
Matthew 18:6 "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."
Now as for the idea that Christ has sinned the sin of Lust, this is nonsense as Christ is sinless in spite of having been fully man and having endured the same temptations as man.
"There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: And God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it."
—1 Corinthians 10:13
Jesus is our perfect example of the above passage as He was tempted as we are, yet always denied sin in His life that we might be assured that He understands our struggles as well.
Hebrews 4:14-16
14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; BUT WAS IN ALL POINTS TEMPTED LIKE AS WE ARE, YET WITHOUT SIN.
16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.
2006-10-04 06:35:47 · answer #8 · answered by NONAME 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Seeing, therefore, that we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold onto our confessing of him. For we have as high priest, not one who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has been tested in all respects like ourselves, but without sin.
Lust is sin.
Therefore, Jesus did not lust.
2006-10-04 06:36:47 · answer #9 · answered by Abdijah 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Hey, I was wondering about you last night. Haven't seen you on here in awhile!
Well, the Bible teaches us that Jesus is God. I had a discussion with someone last night, because I didn't fully understand the virgin birth. I was told that the reason Jesus had to be born of a virgin was because He couldn't be fully human, since He was God. Humans have a sinful nature, and God is without sin. So, Jesus came as a man, but also as God, so He was without sin.
I don't know if my explanation makes sense to you. I don't claim to fully understand the whole thing, but the way it was explained to me made sense.
2006-10-04 06:36:21 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋