Did Jesus ever have unintentional boners and wet drems etc., or were his genitals pretty much non-functional?

[loinburger]

Presumably he pissed and crapped like everybody else or people might have gotten suspicious ("hey Jesus, how come you never piss and crap like the rest of us" "I'm supernatural" "Oh okay that makes sense"), so obviously not all bodily functions are sinful - the question is whether unintentional boners and wet dreams are sufficiently sinful that Jesus would have been incapable of having them ("hey Jesus, how come you never get boners?" "Why are you looking at my junk?" "Ummm..." [gets damned to hell for looking at Jesus's junk])

[giblets]

If Mary reproduced asexually how could she have had a biologically male child? I think the most logical assumption is that Jesus had female genitalia and lived as a man.

[Dinner]

I have always been suspicious about what they meant when they said Jesus was "spreading the good news". That sounds messy to me and it is not like dry cleaners were easy to find in 1st century Israel.

[Jon Miller]

I think so. He was tempted like we are.

I don't think he was a 'horn dog' like I was as a teenager though. There are choices and I knew people who made different ones than I did, ones which did not involve as much giving into temptation as mine did (I know others who gave into temptation more than I did).

I don't think that he was tempted as much as we are on sex though. We are really surrounded and bombarded by it unlike most cultures in earth's history. Of course, it seems that regardless of how much temptation you face, people end up giving into sexual temptation at times in their life.

JM

[Dinner]

He did keep a whore with him in his travels. Just saying...

[loinburger]

"Spreading the good news" would take on an entirely different meaning if he was a woman

[Proteus_MST]

If Mary reproduced asexually how could she have had a biologically male child? I think the most logical assumption is that Jesus had female genitalia and lived as a man.

Maybe gods sperm has 2 Y-Chromosomes, so it would produce male offspring in 100% of the time (as I am sure that a daughter of god wouldn´t have been accepted in the patriarchalic antique world ... so god could take no risks of getting a female offspring)

[Aeson]

I've removed the [Civil] tag from this thread. This is an obvious troll thread. Please do not misuse the tag.

[loinburger]

I've removed the [Civil] tag from this thread. This is an obvious troll thread. Please do not misuse the tag.

Could you please clarify what this means, i.e. does this mean that people are now allowed to post personal insults? My intention in adding the tag was to prevent this. I obviously don't care if people don't take this thread seriously, but I am ****ing sick to death of insulting ****posts.

[Aeson]

If the [civil] tag is going to work it can't be associated with obvious trolls. For now the [civil] tag is the only new rule in effect in regards to poster conduct, so this thread will be treated the same as it would have been last week, last month, last year. I don't expect it will go well.

[giblets]

Maybe gods sperm has 2 Y-Chromosomes, so it would produce male offspring in 100% of the time (as I am sure that a daughter of god wouldn´t have been accepted in the patriarchalic antique world ... so god could take no risks of getting a female offspring)

So God impregnated her with his sperm in an asexual way? Like he masturbated into a cup and then used a turkey baster to transfer it to her vagina? And this happened while she was asleep so an angel had to inform her that God would make her pregnant without her consent.

[loinburger]

If the [civil] tag is going to work it can't be associated with obvious trolls. For now the [civil] tag is the only new rule in effect in regards to poster conduct, so this thread will be treated the same as it would have been last week, last month, last year. I don't expect it will go well.

Fair enough, if personal insults are still permitted/encouraged then I'm going to have to jump ship. It's been a fun almost-16-years, good luck. If I get a decent response to the "how do I sandbox javascript" question in the computer security thread then I'll PM you.

[Proteus_MST]

So God impregnated her with his sperm in an asexual way? Like he masturbated into a cup and then used a turkey baster to transfer it to her vagina? And this happened while she was asleep so an angel had to inform her that God would make her pregnant without her consent.

While being asleep probably is the best time ... after all you don´t need any anaesthetic this way.

Perhaps it worked like this:
God removed an oocyte from Maria
Impregnated it with his sperm
and then implanted it back again into Marias womb
Which would make Jesus the first baby fathered by in-vitro fertilization

[Aeson]

I'm sorry you feel that way loin, you've been a valuable contributor to the site over the years. The discussion on the rules is still open. No decision has been made so far on the personal attacks issue outside of [civil]. I was hoping [civil] could show that the majority of the site wants to participate in discussions in that spirit. But if [civil] threads are going to be allowed to be used to needle other posters it's already missed the mark.

[Jon Miller]

Fair enough, if personal insults are still permitted/encouraged then I'm going to have to jump ship. It's been a fun almost-16-years, good luck. If I get a decent response to the "how do I sandbox javascript" question in the computer security thread then I'll PM you.

Some people, and I don't mean just Ben, would consider most of the activity on this thread to be a personal attack.

JM