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

[loinburger]

That makes sense, he may have had morning wood for example

[The Mad Monk]

He had to experience life in a fully human way, and deal with the temptations therein, or his sinless nature would have been meaningless.

[loinburger]

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 still suspect) 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, though it would be hard and probably not last too long. But the OP and title would have to be something non-inflammatory to even 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].

I was legitimately unclear on the purpose of [Civil] - I thought that it was a "no personal attacks" notice, as I believed that this thread could and should be addressed without resorting to personal attacks - if somebody could not accomplish that then they shouldn't post. My present understanding is that [Civil] is a "no personal attacks" notice, but that all uncivil threads are fair game for e.g. accusing another poster's mother of being a prostitute. I don't think that personal attacks should ever be permitted assuming that the poster under attack asks that they cease (so if two posters mutually agree to a flame war, then more power to them) - if a poster is doing something that "warrants" a personal attack, like saying that it's okay to hate black people or irreverently discussing Jesus boners or whatever, then the moderators should instead close / prune the offending thread and issue a warning / ban as appropriate. The hate here is infectious, and that's why for my own sake I'm going to have to leave if the current state of affairs continues - it used to be enjoyable to post here, lately it's just been (at best) tiring.

[Proteus_MST]

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.

According to Jesus own words about amputations of organs that make you commit sins,
I guess he would have been forced to amputate his Penis in case of an Erection as a result of adulterous thoughts.
(which brings me to the interesting question why you never ever hear about amputations among fundamental christians ... one would think that they should be widespread, considering how clear the bible is about amputations of offending organs )

[giblets]

He had to experience life in a fully human way, and deal with the temptations therein, or his sinless nature would have been meaningless.

Did he experience sexual arousal? What's the difference between sexual arousal and lust?

[loinburger]

You can get sexually aroused by wearing pants that are too tight (or a robe that's too tight in Jesus's case)

[The Mad Monk]

According to Jesus own words about amputations of organs that make you commit sins,
I guess he would have been forced to amputate his Penis in case of an Erection as a result of adulterous thoughts.
(which brings me to the interesting question why you never ever hear about amputations among fundamental christians ... one would think that they should be widespread, considering how clear the bible is about amputations of offending organs )

"If your hand offends, it is better to cast off the hand then to have the whole body cast into Hell", or somesuch? Indeed, it is better, but if you are already covered by the Blood of the Lamb, you need not worry about that. Similar logic applies to "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter The Kingdom of Heaven". With God, all things are possible.

[Aeson]

I was legitimately unclear on the purpose of [Civil] - I thought that it was a "no personal attacks" notice, as I believed that this thread could and should be addressed without resorting to personal attacks - if somebody could not accomplish that then they shouldn't post. My present understanding is that [Civil] is a "no personal attacks" notice, but that all uncivil threads are fair game for e.g. accusing another poster's mother of being a prostitute. I don't think that personal attacks should ever be permitted assuming that the poster under attack asks that they cease (so if two posters mutually agree to a flame war, then more power to them) - if a poster is doing something that "warrants" a personal attack, like saying that it's okay to hate black people or irreverently discussing Jesus boners or whatever, then the moderators should instead close / prune the offending thread and issue a warning / ban as appropriate. The hate here is infectious, and that's why for my own sake I'm going to have to leave if the current state of affairs continues - it used to be enjoyable to post here, lately it's just been (at best) tiring.

Yah, it is easy to get carried away in the trolling/flaming, or just have it ruin your fun while reading something interesting/humorous.

The request for ceasing personal attacks is something not yet decided on, but I think a good idea. It would be important that the request be done in a respectful way.

[Uncle Sparky]

People call out his name during sex, so I would think he was a stud.

According to the Nazarene Church, he married Magdalene. The descendants of Jesus became the Merovingian kings of France.

[Bereta_Eder]

I still think he was a commie hippy.
He had the chance to finish his studies and be a productive member of his society but he opted to go all weird and hang out with prostitutes etc
But ok, in the end it all worked out.

[Kidlicious]

According to Jesus own words about amputations of organs that make you commit sins,
I guess he would have been forced to amputate his Penis in case of an Erection as a result of adulterous thoughts.
(which brings me to the interesting question why you never ever hear about amputations among fundamental christians ... one would think that they should be widespread, considering how clear the bible is about amputations of offending organs )

You can always just start thinking about the good.

[Kidlicious]

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.

Very simple. Boners aren't sinful. And you seem to be purposefully trying to offend people. I wouldn't call it trolling because you're trying to make a point. But boners aren't sinful.

[The Mad Monk]

Did he experience sexual arousal? What's the difference between sexual arousal and lust?

Lust is what happens when you dwell on arousal, I suppose. The point, I believe, is that sin is unavoidable in the normal human condition. You cannot work your way out of Hell.

[Alexander's Horse]

From what I see in statuary Jesus is usually portrayed as not having genitals at all, rather like Barbie's Ken. Does that answer your questions?

It's certainly on about the same level of reasoning.

[The Mad Monk]

All that says is that the statuary were commissioned by the same kind of people who would put a kilt on David.