Did Jesus have sexual desires?

[Darfius]

You guys are coming out of the woodwork to defend your friend rather than the truth here. Let's expose Sparko a different way.

Since you clearly state that getting an erection in response to a woman is not sinful, Sparko, doesn't that necessarily mean that you believe Jesus could have gotten an erection to a woman without sinning?

Can't wait to see how you guys try to squirm your way out of this one.

[Cow Poke]

You guys are coming out of the woodwork to defend your friend rather than the truth here.

That's a lie. I'm simply stating fact. Truth. You're just being your typical juvenile self.

[Sparko]

You yourself offered post #35 as specifics of where you talked about Jesus' sexual desires as per my request. How am I twisting anything? Either that post is referring to Jesus or you offered it by mistake.

Which I believe makes you despicable and dishonest. Prediction: though I have proven that you are at least mistaken and possibly lying, no one will call you on it because you are popular and I am not. God bless TheologyWeb.

You are not wiggling out of this. You put words in my mouth that I did not say. You twisted what I said into something else. You have been doing that all along. It stops. If you do it again, you will be reported.

But this is why nobody likes you, or wants to debate you, on anything. You are a pharisee who is dishonest and twists the words of people to say what you want them to say, so you can burn straw.


I never said Jesus had an erection in response to a woman. I said that having an erection is a natural biological response and that it was not sinful. That men can get erections in response to a woman. Usually via touching. I never said that Jesus got an erection from a woman, or anything of that nature. How would we even know???

My context was saying that such a response is physical and not sinful. So IF Jesus ever had an erection, it was not sinful, lustful, or anything like that. It was normal and biological.

Look, here is something personal.... If you twist it I will automatically ban you. I have a female doctor. I don't find her physically attractive in the least. I don't have lustful thoughts about her or any sexual thoughts about her at all. She does a yearly physical on me. One year while she was examining my genitals, I started to get an erection. I was very embarrassed by it and apologized and she said it was not a problem, that it was simply a physical reaction and showed I was completely normal and healthy.

[Darfius]

You are not wiggling out of this. You put words in my mouth that I did not say. You twisted what I said into something else. You have been doing that all along. It stops. If you do it again, you will be reported.

I asked for specific descriptions of Jesus' sexuality and you yourself offered post #35, "among others." I'm not making that up. So if you're going to report me for telling the truth, will you also mention that I am devilishly handsome?

But this is why nobody likes you, or wants to debate you, on anything. You are a pharisee who is dishonest and twists the words of people to say what you want them to say, so you can burn straw.

I wouldn't say nobody likes me. Your clique sure doesn't, but who cares? I don't come here to be liked, I come to tell the truth. Which I do so devastatingly that those who prefer other things (i.e. friends, family, looking good, being right) to truth despise me.

I never said Jesus had an erection in response to a woman. I said that having an erection is a natural biological response and that it was not sinful. That men can get erections in response to a woman. Usually via touching. I never said that Jesus got an erection from a woman, or anything of that nature. How would we even know???

Then you at least offered up post #35 by mistake. I suppose I can take your word for it that you didn't mean to apply it to Jesus, but again, you offered it up by mistake then. Your mistake, not my lie.

My context was saying that such a response is physical and not sinful. So IF Jesus ever had an erection, it was not sinful, lustful, or anything like that. It was normal and biological.

'Fraid not. Will explain why not below.

Look, here is something personal.... If you twist it I will automatically ban you. I have a female doctor. I don't find her physically attractive in the least. I don't have lustful thoughts about her or any sexual thoughts about her at all. She does a yearly physical on me. One year while she was examining my genitals, I started to get an erection. I was very embarrassed by it and apologized and she said it was not a problem, that it was simply a physical reaction and showed I was completely normal and healthy.

I agree that you did nothing wrong in this instance. BUT, I submit that your body responded that way because it had been trained to do so by other instances where you HAD done something wrong. A sort of muscle memory in the nether regions, so to speak. Point being, Jesus never engaged in such wrongdoing and so, AFAIK, no amount of physical stimuli would have resulted in an erection. Most of us are guilty of such wrongdoing, btw, and so easily could have been in your situation. But not Jesus.

I don't appreciate the threat. I wasn't aware that pissing you off was a bannable offense, but if so, that should be enshrined in the rules so people can be aware that this is actually not an open debate forum but rather suffers debate within the range of your particular temperament. I enjoy debating here, but no man alive or dead could ever make a threat sufficient to keep me from telling the truth.

[Sparko]

I asked for specific descriptions of Jesus' sexuality and you yourself offered post #35, "among others." I'm not making that up. So if you're going to report me for telling the truth, will you also mention that I am devilishly handsome?

are you that daft? The point was that you TWISTED what I said. T W I S T E D. You changed the meaning of what I said and made up words and put quotes around it as if I said those words and then stuck the name Jesus in front of YOUR words and attributed them to me. THAT is what is wrong.

I wouldn't say nobody likes me. Your clique sure doesn't, but who cares? I don't come here to be liked, I come to tell the truth. Which I do so devastatingly that those who prefer other things (i.e. friends, family, looking good, being right) to truth despise me.

yeah keep telling yourself that.

'Fraid not. Will explain why not below.



I agree that you did nothing wrong in this instance. BUT, I submit that your body responded that way because it had been trained to do so by other instances where you HAD done something wrong. A sort of muscle memory in the nether regions, so to speak. Point being, Jesus never engaged in such wrongdoing and so, AFAIK, no amount of physical stimuli would have resulted in an erection. Most of us are guilty of such wrongdoing, btw, and so easily could have been in your situation. But not Jesus.

I don't appreciate the threat. I wasn't aware that pissing you off was a bannable offense, but if so, that should be enshrined in the rules so people can be aware that this is actually not an open debate forum but rather suffers debate within the range of your particular temperament. I enjoy debating here, but no man alive or dead could ever make a threat sufficient to keep me from telling the truth.

Are you even male? You seem to have no knowledge of the male anatomy and how it works at all.

and I said I would ban you if you twisted my words again, not because you pissed me off. Quote me all you want, but don't do it out of context, change the words, or claim I am saying something I am not.

You NOT telling the truth is the problem. When you make up words and meanings and attribute them to me, that is NOT the TRUTH by a long shot. So if the truth is so important to you, then tell it.

[Catholicity]

I asked for specific descriptions of Jesus' sexuality and you yourself offered post #35, "among others." I'm not making that up. So if you're going to report me for telling the truth, will you also mention that I am devilishly handsome?



I wouldn't say nobody likes me. Your clique sure doesn't, but who cares? I don't come here to be liked, I come to tell the truth. Which I do so devastatingly that those who prefer other things (i.e. friends, family, looking good, being right) to truth despise me.



Then you at least offered up post #35 by mistake. I suppose I can take your word for it that you didn't mean to apply it to Jesus, but again, you offered it up by mistake then. Your mistake, not my lie.



'Fraid not. Will explain why not below.



I agree that you did nothing wrong in this instance. BUT, I submit that your body responded that way because it had been trained to do so by other instances where you HAD done something wrong. A sort of muscle memory in the nether regions, so to speak. Point being, Jesus never engaged in such wrongdoing and so, AFAIK, no amount of physical stimuli would have resulted in an erection. Most of us are guilty of such wrongdoing, btw, and so easily could have been in your situation. But not Jesus.

I don't appreciate the threat. I wasn't aware that pissing you off was a bannable offense, but if so, that should be enshrined in the rules so people can be aware that this is actually not an open debate forum but rather suffers debate within the range of your particular temperament. I enjoy debating here, but no man alive or dead could ever make a threat sufficient to keep me from telling the truth.

Your knowledge of human physiology is nil. Male children have changes in the blood flow of he penis when they have to pee, when exposed to air and while the penis is being cleaned as young as 3 weeks old. 3 WEEKS! I would invite you to read a basic anatomy book and study the endocrine system. I'll personally report you if you twist well known information you can read from a basic anatomy book.

[Darfius]

Your knowledge of human physiology is nil. Male children have changes in the blood flow of he penis when they have to pee, when exposed to air and while the penis is being cleaned as young as 3 weeks old. 3 WEEKS! I would invite you to read a basic anatomy book and study the endocrine system. I'll personally report you if you twist well known information you can read from a basic anatomy book.

I don't recall denying those things. I don't understand y'all's fascination with the "reporting" threats, unless it's just a basic desire to silence dissent. That I understand, though it's pathetic and repugnant in its dishonesty.

[Catholicity]

I don't recall denying those things. I don't understand y'all's fascination with the "reporting" threats, unless it's just a basic desire to silence dissent. That I understand, though it's pathetic and repugnant in its dishonesty.

You accusing or submitting that getting an erection as a result of previous wrongdoing suggests a lack of knowledge regarding physiology. Period. Furthermore your unwillingness to admit to such a lack of understanding an repeatedly twist words suggests you re till a teenager and lack ability to make good judgment.

[Darfius]

You accusing or submitting that getting an erection as a result of previous wrongdoing suggests a lack of knowledge regarding physiology. Period. Furthermore your unwillingness to admit to such a lack of understanding an repeatedly twist words suggests you re till a teenager and lack ability to make good judgment.

Sparko failed to mention needing to pee in his account. And being male myself, I can assure you that cleaning myself in the shower has never resulted in an erection. But perhaps you as a woman have greater insight on the matter.

My unwillingness to admit I am wrong when I do not believe myself to be suggests that I am juvenile? That's stupid. But maybe I twisted what you said from its original brilliance.

[Catholicity]

Sparko failed to mention needing to pee in his account. And being male myself, I can assure you that cleaning myself in the shower has never resulted in an erection. But perhaps you as a woman have greater insight on the matter.

My unwillingness to admit I am wrong when I do not believe myself to be suggests that I am juvenile? That's stupid. But maybe I twisted what you said from its original brilliance.

No my experience in healthcare gives me insight into physiology of the endocrine function and or dysfunction.

[Sparko]

I don't recall denying those things. I don't understand y'all's fascination with the "reporting" threats, unless it's just a basic desire to silence dissent. That I understand, though it's pathetic and repugnant in its dishonesty.

we are only threatening to report you for your blatant dishonesty, dip.

You have a penchant for twisting people's words to say something totally different from what they actually said. THAT is dishonest. And then you have the gall to claim you are interested in only the truth. You wouldn't know the truth if it bit you on your butt.

[Sparko]

You accusing or submitting that getting an erection as a result of previous wrongdoing suggests a lack of knowledge regarding physiology. Period. Furthermore your unwillingness to admit to such a lack of understanding an repeatedly twist words suggests you re till a teenager and lack ability to make good judgment.

not only that, he seems to think it is a muscle! He has absolutely no idea of how male anatomy works.

[Cow Poke]

I don't recall denying those things. I don't understand y'all's fascination with the "reporting" threats,

"fascination" Another goofus false claim.

- unless it's just a basic desire to silence dissent.

Yeah, that's why we keep putting up with your spewing forth of ignorance.

That I understand, though it's pathetic and repugnant in its dishonesty.

Yet another false claim of dishonesty - you're like somebody else who stands daily accusing the saints.

[Christianbookworm]

"fascination" Another goofus false claim.



Yeah, that's why we keep putting up with your spewing forth of ignorance.



Yet another false claim of dishonesty - you're like somebody else who stands daily accusing the saints.

Except, I'd think that guy wouldn't be so ignorant about human physiology. And that character isn't even a human!

[Jedidiah]

That I understand, though it's pathetic and repugnant in its dishonesty.

Ever hear the pot calling the kettle black idiom?