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

[Kidlicious]

I would expect almost every thread starter expects that protection. You shouldn't have to ask for it.

I just look at it as a way of keeping people out of your thread that you don't like. Unfortunately that's the reality that we are facing. Everyone should also be grown up enough to deal with people being here that they don't like, but that's obviously not the case. This seems like a solution to that. I for one will not be posting in any threads that have the tag.

[Dinner]

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)

Maybe he just aborted the girls.

[Dinner]

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.

God is clearly a rapist.

Either that or the whole "Honest dad! I didn't have sex with anyone so GOD must have done it!" excuse was a load of horse poopie.

[Dinner]

If somebody can't respond to a non-personal troll without resorting to personal insults then in my opinion they shouldn't be responding - but that's my opinion and this isn't my site. I'm hearing you say that personal insults are still acceptable in "non-civil" threads, which I find unacceptable, but I don't pretend that I'm the majority opinion on that - I honestly don't know what the majority opinion is, or if the majority opinion really matters. I've definitely been guilty of resorting to personal insults in the past, but I regret this and have concluded that this has merely contributed to what has become a very toxic environment that I no longer want any part of. So, I'll check back in a few weeks when hopefully everything's been ironed out regarding site conduct rules (Laissez-faire, Nazism, or somewhere in between), and at that time I'll decide if this is the sort of place where I want to participate.

Technically, he said personal insults were not allowed in civil threads but that troll threads could not be tagged as civil threads.

It seems pretty straight forward.

[loinburger]

"Personal insults are not allowed in civil threads" implies "personal insults are allowed in uncivil threads," otherwise why add the qualifier. And if that's the case then I completely understand, and I'll also be leaving forever because I don't want to participate in a forum like that. To be clear, this isn't intended to be any kind of ultimatum as that would imply that I have some sort of leverage here - it's just a statement of fact.

[ZEE]

the internet is serious business, you guise.

[Kidlicious]

"Personal insults are not allowed in civil threads" implies "personal insults are allowed in uncivil threads," otherwise why add the qualifier. And if that's the case then I completely understand, and I'll also be leaving forever because I don't want to participate in a forum like that. To be clear, this isn't intended to be any kind of ultimatum as that would imply that I have some sort of leverage here - it's just a statement of fact.

What if I promise not to attack you for one week? Will you stay for one week?

[ZEE]

Oh the irony of a guy making a thrade about "Jesus' genitles" complaining about the website's slack moderation!


FWIW this is why I think you are trolling, Loin. You should take clues from Gribbler. He is at least TRYING to act like the victim.

[loinburger]

Oh the irony of a guy making a thrade about "Jesus' genitles" complaining about the website's slack moderation!

FWIW this is why I think you are trolling, Loin. You should take clues from Gribbler. He is at least TRYING to act like the victim.

Because talking about Jesus's genitals is equivalent to personally insulting somebody? I certainly don't think that's the case, but what do I know.

I believe that this should be a forum where somebody can post a thread about Jesus's genitals without somebody else having to resort to personal attacks in defense of Jesus's genitals. I mean, if somebody started talking about Richard Dawkins's genitals in retaliation then I'd call that tit for tat, but somebody doing something like insulting my mother for my posting a thread about Jesus's genitals has crossed the line.

[Jon Miller]

Because talking about Jesus's genitals is equivalent to personally insulting somebody? I certainly don't think that's the case, but what do I know.

I believe that this should be a forum where somebody can post a thread about Jesus's genitals without somebody else having to resort to personal attacks in defense of Jesus's genitals. I mean, if somebody started talking about Richard Dawkins's genitals in retaliation then I'd call that tit for tat, but somebody doing something like insulting my mother for my posting a thread about Jesus's genitals has crossed the line.

Jesus is closer and more important to Christians than their mother or father. At least, that is how many feel or think they ought to feel.

Dawkins is similar to CS Lewis, not Jesus.

I am not bothered by attacks so much, but I felt attacked in this thread.

JM

[loinburger]

You feel attacked by the notion that Jesus, in a human body, may have had to put up with the same nonsense that other humans in human bodies had to put up with? I'm not saying that you're wrong for feeling that way, but I certainly don't understand it. If you were to say "I don't like the idea of Jesus boners" then we could discuss the issue of the sanctity or lack thereof of Jesus boners like adults; if instead you were to say something like "you're talking about Jesus boners, I'll bet your mother was a whore" then you'd be an awful person.

[Jon Miller]

Did you read my responses to you?

I didn't feel attacked by the legit question of 'what was it like for Jesus to live on earth', which is an interesting question. And that is how I initially interpreted your post (I give the benefit of the doubt).

But that is not how you expressed yourself.

I did feel attacked (But not enough to mention it, except when you repeatedly wonder how anyone could feel attacked by your post... many of my Christian relatives would be incensed by your OP and would, if this was the thread they first opened on Apolyton, never return ) by how you asked your question.

I know that you didn't respond to my post despite the fact that I was the one who treated your post as an honest desire for discussion and inquiry rather than an attempt to insult and belittle someone close to me.

To me that suggests that your post was meant to insult/belittle and not meant to start an open and honest discussion.

JM

[loinburger]

I appreciated your response, I apologize for not responding but I didn't see anything to respond to other than to say "thank you for the good post." And I continue to not understand how discussion of Jesus boners could be considered an attack - it's an irreverent line of inquiry, certainly, but not everybody is required to nor expected to revere the same things. Now if I were to say without any sort of supporting argument whatsoever that Jesus was a murderer or rapist or whatever, then yeah, I'd completely agree that would be a dick move. But Jesus presumably had a penis, it most likely functioned like anybody else's penis, what the hell?

The three responses I expected from this were: a. yeah, Jesus probably had boners, whatever, b. Jesus couldn't possibly have had boners because boners are sinful, or c. your mother is a whore. Your response was of type (a), which I agree with, and so there wasn't much to discuss about it. I'm interested in the reasoning behind (b), and it sounds like you may be sort of in this camp if you consider discussion of Jesus boners to be an attack on Jesus / Christians / Christianity. As for (c), I was hoping to resolve the question of whether personal attacks are permitted outside of [Civil] threads.

[The Mad Monk]

I think he probably did have spontaneous erections, but without the accompanying wet dreams. Why? Because he said, "27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[a] 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Now it depends on whether or not the shenanigans involving the unconscious mind count; if they do, and I believe they do, then you must either accept that Jesus' discipline extended to his unconscious mind, or that he was not, in fact, sinless.

[Aeson]

I'm more judgemental than Jon. My thoughts:

a) The flippant dichotomy seems to be unnecessarily needling posters to whom Jesus is a very important topic.
b) The timing seems to be a test of whether [civil] can be used as a shield.
c) I suspected (and reading your last post it seems you admit to something like it) the thread title was intentionally aimed at specific posters to try to get them into a conflict with [civil].

There's going to be a lot of grey area with [civil]. A line has to be drawn somewhere. Given I'm not willing to enforce [civil] on "[civil] Is Abortion African American Genocide or just Black Moms Murdering Their Kids?" or force everything to be "[civil] A Bland Thread About Topic No Really One Cares About" ... that line is going to be arbitrary at some point in the grey area. I think there is room for a [civil] abortion debate or a [civil] discussion about Jesus' sexuality, though in both cases the OP and title would have to be something non-inflammatory to really have a chance.

The comic thread has some potential to become uncivil, as there's plenty of comics for trolling. But it also doesn't have anything inherent in it that makes it trolling. So I'm willing to moderate it if necessary to remove specific posts that aren't living up to the [civil].