Was the Lord Fertile?

[3DOP]

14 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I can see how this view is a reasonable assumption.  But I disagree with it for other contextual reasons. 

And in either case (that it was a "distress" because of the immanent second coming of Christ, or a "necessity is our pilgrim journey" for preaching the gospel), it was a temporary and special circumstance, and not a long term council that celibacy is to be preferred.

I presume you have read the sources from Ignatius of Antioch and Clement of Alexandria (and there's a source from Eusebius, but he is just quoting Clement of Alexandria)?  And Origen also mentions Paul's married state, but treats the information as tentative (i.e. "Paul, then, if certain traditions are true, was called while in possession of a wife, concerning whom he speaks when writing to the Philippians, 'I ask you also, my loyal mate, help these women.'" - referring to Philippians 4:3). Can you explain why you don't find them convincing?  I'm not trying to argue the point, I just want to understand your point of view.

I can understand this view as well.

Hi InCognitus.

What if St. Paul's advice IS for a short-term and special circumstance? One might reasonably infer that he is referring to this mortal life. If so, the "present distress" in the context of eternity is truly short, and it lasts until the Second Coming of Christ.

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Hi InCognitus.

What if St. Paul's advice IS for a short-term and special circumstance? One might reasonably infer that he is referring to this mortal life. If so, the "present distress" in the context of eternity is truly short, and it lasts until the Second Coming of Christ.

That makes no sense to me.  Does that mean if we don't do marriage in this life, it is only for the eternities in the after life?

Also, I don't think Paul considered this life to be a "present distress", and his teaching in verse 5 to husbands and wives, where he says:  "Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control” (NKJV, emphasis added), would be in contradiction to what he says in verses 29-30:  "But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none; And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not”.  

It is clearly for a temporary purpose, which has to be for the preaching of the gospel (in my mind).  I don't think it even makes sense for Paul to give the council he gives above to prepare for the second coming. How would that make sense?

ETA:  I'm trying to understand what you are saying, and maybe I'm misunderstanding you?

Edited November 17, 2025 by InCognitus

[teddyaware]

7 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

That makes no sense to me.  Does that mean if we don't do marriage in this life, it is only for the eternities in the after life?

Also, I don't think Paul considered this life to be a "present distress", and his teaching in verse 5 to husbands and wives, where he says:  "Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control” (NKJV, emphasis added), would be in contradiction to what he says in verses 29-30:  "But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none; And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not”.  

It is clearly for a temporary purpose, which has to be for the preaching of the gospel (in my mind).  I don't think it even makes sense for Paul to give the council he gives above to prepare for the second coming. How would that make sense?

One of the things I find most interesting in this particular controversy is that if the Catholics and Protesters have it right — that there is no continuance of heterosexual sexual marriage and family life after the resurrection due to the fact that heaven is a unisex neuter world where gender is rendered obsolete and meaningless — it can only mean that the anti-traditional family LGBTQ advocates are going to win in the end and that they’re correct in their belief that the concept of gender is nothing more than a human construct. In other words, the LGBTQ activists are simply ahead of their time.

[3DOP]

42 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

That makes no sense to me.  Does that mean if we don't do marriage in this life, it is only for the eternities in the after life?

Also, I don't think Paul considered this life to be a "present distress", and his teaching in verse 5 to husbands and wives, where he says:  "Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control” (NKJV, emphasis added), would be in contradiction to what he says in verses 29-30:  "But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none; And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not”.  

It is clearly for a temporary purpose, which has to be for the preaching of the gospel (in my mind).  I don't think it even makes sense for Paul to give the council he gives above to prepare for the second coming. How would that make sense?

Heh, InCog. to your question

Well that's great. Neither of us make sense to each other! Heh. I appreciate your patience in answering! 

I believe "the present distress" refers to our times, a time of trial and travail, not intermingled hopefully with some joys and consolations, but never without sorrows and anxieties. It is not normal. We aren't made for death, and are surrounded by it here, including the knowledge that we ourselves have to go that way. Anyway, if my belief doesn't work for you, it doesn't change my esteem for you. No worries there.

Words are great. I love them. But alas, it seems like this world is the Tower of Babel. I have to get some things done and have already spent 40 minutes replying. It is so hard not to give wrong impressions.

God bless, Rory

[Calm]

10 hours ago, teddyaware said:

that there is no continuance of heterosexual sexual marriage and family life after the resurrection due to the fact that heaven is a unisex neuter world where gender is rendered obsolete and meaningless

Where did you get this idea?

Catholic belief is like the typical LDS belief, we are resurrected with the same body, perfected. (I believe, Catholics here can correct me if I have interpreted the CCC incorrectly).

https://www.catholiccrossreference.online/catechism/#!/search/997-1001

Quote

999

 

How? Christ is raised with his own body: "See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself";⁵⁵³ but he did not return to an earthly life. So, in him, "all of them will rise again with their own bodies which they now bear," but Christ "will change our lowly body to be like his glorious body," into a "spiritual body":⁵⁵⁴

Were you not a male when you were a child when you didn’t think about sex (assuming there was a time in your life before you understood and desired sex)?  Were you not a male as a teen and possibly as an adult (don’t know how old you were when you got married, but assume you went on a mission, so at least early 20s) before you started having sex?  If you lost the ability to procreate or never had it, would you be any less male than you are now (assuming you are still fertile)?  Was all this nonsexual maleness meaningless?

Edited November 18, 2025 by Calm

[3DOP]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Where did you get this idea?

Catholic belief is like the typical LDS belief, we are resurrected with the same body, perfected. (I believe, Catholics here can correct me if I have interpreted the CCC incorrectly).

https://www.catholiccrossreference.online/catechism/#!/search/997-1001

Were you not a male when you were a child when you didn’t think about sex (assuming there was a time in your life before you understood and desired sex)?  Were you not a male as a teen and possibly as an adult (don’t know how old you were when you got married, but assume you went on a mission, so at least early 20s) before you started having sex?  If you lost the ability to procreate or never had it, would you be any less male than you are now (assuming you are still fertile)?  Was all this nonsexual maleness meaningless?

Hi Teddy. Hi calm, and thanks for checking with the Catechism. 

Pope St. John Paul II did a long series of public conferences which touch on the subject under discussion. The teachings he made during his weekly Wednesday audiences later came to called The Theology of the Body. They have been transcribed and made in to book form. In his General Audience for December 2, 1981 he begins with a quotation from the Gospel of St. Mark, which has been titled The Resurrection and Theological Anthropology:

"When they rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage" (Mk 12:25). These words have a key meaning for the theology of the body. Christ uttered them after having affirmed, in the conversation with the Sadducees, that the resurrection is in conformity with the power of the living God. All three Synoptic Gospels report the same statement...Essential for them all is the fact that, in the future resurrection, human beings, after having reacquired their bodies in the fullness of the perfection characteristic of the image and likeness of God--after having reacquired them in their masculinity and femininity--"neither marry nor are given in marriage".

---Pope John Paul II, The Theology of the Body, (1997), Daughters of St. Paul, Boston, MA, p. 238

Teddy, you wrote of the belief of Catholics: "...that there is no continuance of heterosexual sexual marriage and family life after the resurrection due to the fact that heaven is a unisex neuter world where gender is rendered obsolete and meaningless — it can only mean that the anti-traditional family LGBTQ advocates are going to win in the end and that they’re correct in their belief that the concept of gender is nothing more than a human construct. In other words, the LGBTQ activists are simply ahead of their time." 

This is not true as can be seen from what I bolded in the quote given above. A unisex and neuter world is not the reason why there is no continuance of "heterosexual sexual marriage". God created man male and female from the beginning and that distinction will last forever.

One reason why Catholics and lots of Protestants would deny a continuance of the marriage state in eternity would be our interpretation of the Scriptures on the subject. The Saduccees thought they had a clever way of disproving the Resurrection from Scripture, and going back to the Mosaic law, noted the obligation of brothers marrying the wives of deceased brothers. The hypothetical illustration they gave is a little extreme, but it still illustrates a difficulty, if indeed there was marriage and procreation for eternity. Our Lord told them that they were ignorant of the Scriptures and the power of God, if they deny the Resurrection because of this apparent difficulty. Most Christians think that Christ neatly side stepped the entire "problem" by teaching them and us that there is nobody married in the next age.

That is how we see it. Presumably, you explain these passages in a way that satisfy your beliefs as well.     

    

Edited November 17, 2025 by 3DOP

[Calm]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

thanks for checking with the Catechism. 

My go to for most things Catholic 

[3DOP]

On 11/1/2025 at 6:00 PM, teddyaware said:

One aspect of this subject that I find particularly intriguing is if the Lord was indeed fertile while living on earth, this means that unlike every other member of the human family he experienced fertility while inhabiting a body that was able to live forever. To my mind, this increases the likelihood that the resurrected celestial bodies of both men and women may continue to be fertile and able to produce offspring while in the eternal world, and this due to the fact that the Lord’s earthly experience with being a fertile sexual being suggests the ability to produce reproductive male seed isn’t a biological function that’s strictly limited to mortal bodies. 

I just saw this. Christ's "humanity" consists of "inhabiting a body that lives forever"? Was He superhuman or was He human like us?

This is important. It is why I mentioned a week or two ago that when Jesus skinned his knee, His blood would undergo the same clotting process that leaves a scar. He had anti-bodies like us to ward off illness and disease. Why? Because He was like us. His humanity was subject to the same infirmities and defects that afflict those for whom He died. Are you saying that Christ wouldn't have suffered from the ordinary aging processes leading to a certain death that we all eventually experience?  

There have been many historical attacks on the idea that the Son of God was truly human in all things except sin. Catholics have always denied all attempts to make the humanity of Christ in to something like a superhuman. We need to identify with One who bears our pains and knows our sorrows. Our humanity is His humanity. St. Thomas Aquinas addresses objections to the idea that Christ's humanity was ordinary. He has four articles devoted to objections to the Catholic teaching followed by reasons for the Catholic teaching. Here is part of one article.

I answer that, It was fitting for the body assumed by the Son of God to be subject to human infirmities and defects; and especially for three reasons. First, because it was in order to satisfy for the sin of the human race that the Son of God, having taken flesh, came into the world. Now one satisfies for another's sin by taking on himself the punishment due to the sin of the other. But these bodily defects, to wit, death, hunger, thirst, and the like, are the punishment of sin, which was brought into the world by Adam, according to Romans 5:12: "By one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death." Hence it was useful for the end of Incarnation that He should assume these penalties in our flesh and in our stead, according to Isaiah 53:4, "Surely He hath borne our infirmities." Secondly, in order to cause belief in Incarnation. For since human nature is known to men only as it is subject to these defects, if the Son of God had assumed human nature without these defects, He would not have seemed to be true man, nor to have true, but imaginary, flesh, as the Manicheans held. And so, as is said, Philippians 2:7: "He . . . emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man." Hence, Thomas, by the sight of His wounds, was recalled to the faith, as related John 20:26. Thirdly, in order to show us an example of patience by valiantly bearing up against human passibility and defects. Hence it is said (Hebrews 12:3) that He "endured such opposition from sinners against Himself, that you be not wearied. fainting in your minds."

---Summa Theologica, Third Part, Q. 14, art. 1, Whether the Son of God in Human Nature ought to have assumed defects of body? https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4014.htm

Is this belief in a superhuman, as I call it, the common or even necessary belief among the Latter-day Saints? Obviously, Catholic teaching has no weight of authority with LDS. But we also agree on some important matters. I have been here for 21 years this month and cannot recall anyone ever suggesting this.  

[Calm]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

Is this belief in a superhuman, as I call it, the common or even necessary belief among the Latter-day Saints? Obviously, Catholic teaching has no weight of authority with LDS. But we also agree on some important matters. I have been here for 21 years this month and cannot recall anyone ever suggesting this.  

I think Teddy gets the idea from the doctrine Jesus intentionally laid down his life for us.  Jesus had power over life and death even before he died (Lazarus).  Some people infer in my experience that meant that Jesus wouldn’t die if he didn’t want.  He could have kept his spirit in his mortal body forever if he so chose.

John 10:17-19

Quote

“I lay down my life, that I may take it up again.  No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord.  I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again.” 

Also the wording of “gave up the spirit”.

I can see how someone might assume that meant he was not subjected to the aging process. But he naturally aged to adulthood and it’s also say there was nothing in his appearance that men would marvel at, so the implication imo is he kept aging and would have if he hadn’t been killed.  I don’t believe though I have ever heard anyone take it that far before, but the other option is Tithonus, so my guess is a lot might go there if they assumed Jesus’ body didn’t suffer from infirmities.  I do remember someone saying Jesus wouldn’t have been able to get sick because his body was perfect when I was a kid, but don’t believe that’s doctrinal at all.  Not exactly a human mortal experience, if so.

I see Teddy’s overall comment as reasonable if you do assume some superhuman qualities about it, such as no aging, which is why I gave him a point, but I disagree with his premise that Jesus was immortal.

Apparently there are some early Church fathers that believed Jesus was not subject to aging unless he willed it, so Teddy is not alone.p in this.

My mind went to Highlander with Teddy’s comment and how all those immortals were unable to have biological children for some reason, I was thinking of making a comment, but clamped down on the impulse and pushed it out of my brain.  I meant to ask for clarification on this, how teddy envisioned this happening and why it wasn’t mentioned Jesus wasn’t getting wrinkles or laugh lines.  He was out in the sun a lot and even at early thirties, he would either lack the dewy*** face of teens and twenties because of aging or he would have been unusual in appearance, imo.

***younger skin is naturally more hydrated and more elastic, starts losing elasticity in mid 20s as collagen and elastin production starts to slow down.  Cells start a slower turnover in the 20s, male hormones start declining early 30s, bodily functions overall start to slow down beginning early 20s.  Rib cage muscles start to shrink around 20 years, etc.  It’s all downhill after the 20s.  

https://functionwellsalem.com/timeline-of-aging

Edited November 18, 2025 by Calm

[The Nehor]

18 hours ago, teddyaware said:

One of the things I find most interesting in this particular controversy is that if the Catholics and Protesters have it right — that there is no continuance of heterosexual sexual marriage and family life after the resurrection due to the fact that heaven is a unisex neuter world where gender is rendered obsolete and meaningless — it can only mean that the anti-traditional family LGBTQ advocates are going to win in the end and that they’re correct in their belief that the concept of gender is nothing more than a human construct. In other words, the LGBTQ activists are simply ahead of their time.

That is a twisted and ignorant misrepresentation of the stance of Catholics and Protestants and LGBTQ “DEATH TO THE FAMILY” advocates.

It is nice to see you admit that the whole thing to you is just about physical sex and reproduction because without that gender is inherently meaningless. Of course again you confuse biological sex and gender.

It is profoundly weird that you think LGBTQ people just sit around all day plotting how to destroy the family. I think you might be projecting your own eagerness to see everyone you disagree with destroyed onto everyone else.

[teddyaware]

42 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

That is a twisted and ignorant misrepresentation of the stance of Catholics and Protestants and LGBTQ “DEATH TO THE FAMILY” advocates.

It is nice to see you admit that the whole thing to you is just about physical sex and reproduction because without that gender is inherently meaningless. Of course again you confuse biological sex and gender.

It is profoundly weird that you think LGBTQ people just sit around all day plotting how to destroy the family. I think you might be projecting your own eagerness to see everyone you disagree with destroyed onto everyone else.

I believe you’re projecting your own well known and amply demonstrated penchant for advocating physical violence against those with whom you disagree onto me. A classic case of the pot calling the kettle black…

Edited November 18, 2025 by teddyaware

[Calm]

23 hours ago, Calm said:

 

Were you not a male when you were a child when you didn’t think about sex (assuming there was a time in your life before you understood and desired sex)?  Were you not a male as a teen and possibly as an adult (don’t know how old you were when you got married, but assume you went on a mission, so at least early 20s) before you started having sex?  If you lost the ability to procreate or never had it, would you be any less male than you are now (assuming you are still fertile)?  Was all this nonsexual maleness meaningless?

Teddy…

Regardless of what Nehor said, I still would like to read your response to this because it does seem that the only meaning you attached to gender (whether assumed as interchangeable with biological sex or not) is procreation.  Perhaps you could clarify your understanding as I would like to understand your POV on this.

—

It would also be good to see a public recognition that  you unintentionally misrepresented Catholic thought given 3DOP’s clarification and the CCC quote showing you were wrong.  It’s likely the same for Protestants, though I suppose there might be a Protestant denomination out there who sees heaven in a unisex neuter way (I believe one Evangelical who used to post here expressed the belief we do not have physical bodies in the resurrection, only spirits, but I don’t believe he identified his denomination so I don’t know if it was a personal interpretation or a doctrine of his faith community and I don’t know if that meant he also saw no gender or biological sex in those spirits or if they continued to have a gender).  It would be charitable for the Catholics here to be reassured you will not continue to spread false claims about their beliefs just as I assume you would prefer they don’t spread anti-Mormon lies among their community (and for those who have posted here quite some time, I don’t see them doing that; in fact, I see them working at not doing it).

Edited November 18, 2025 by Calm

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, teddyaware said:

I believe you’re projecting your own well known and amply demonstrated penchant for advocating physical violence against those with whom you disagree onto me. A classic case of the pot calling the kettle black…

You just made up what you assume Catholic and Protestant beliefs are. No need to check them against reality. Not getting basic Catholic and Protestant thought right is just lazy. Be better.

Me? Violent? No. I only advocate punching fascists. A lot of people around seem deeply worried about the safety of the poor fascists. Lots of volunteer fascist safety advocates around for some reason. Weird, isn’t it? I’m old enough to remember when punching fascists was an uncontroversial take.

[3DOP]

21 hours ago, Calm said:

I think Teddy gets the idea from the doctrine Jesus intentionally laid down his life for us.  Jesus had power over life and death even before he died (Lazarus).  Some people infer in my experience that meant that Jesus wouldn’t die if he didn’t want.  He could have kept his spirit in his mortal body forever if he so chose.

John 10:17-19

Also the wording of “gave up the spirit”.

I can see how someone might assume that meant he was not subjected to the aging process. But he naturally aged to adulthood and it’s also say there was nothing in his appearance that men would marvel at, so the implication imo is he kept aging and would have if he hadn’t been killed.  I don’t believe though I have ever heard anyone take it that far before, but the other option is Tithonus, so my guess is a lot might go there if they assumed Jesus’ body didn’t suffer from infirmities.  I do remember someone saying Jesus wouldn’t have been able to get sick because his body was perfect when I was a kid, but don’t believe that’s doctrinal at all.  Not exactly a human mortal experience, if so.

I see Teddy’s overall comment as reasonable if you do assume some superhuman qualities about it, such as no aging, which is why I gave him a point, but I disagree with his premise that Jesus was immortal.

Apparently there are some early Church fathers that believed Jesus was not subject to aging unless he willed it, so Teddy is not alone.p in this.

My mind went to Highlander with Teddy’s comment and how all those immortals were unable to have biological children for some reason, I was thinking of making a comment, but clamped down on the impulse and pushed it out of my brain.  I meant to ask for clarification on this, how teddy envisioned this happening and why it wasn’t mentioned Jesus wasn’t getting wrinkles or laugh lines.  He was out in the sun a lot and even at early thirties, he would either lack the dewy*** face of teens and twenties because of aging or he would have been unusual in appearance, imo.

***younger skin is naturally more hydrated and more elastic, starts losing elasticity in mid 20s as collagen and elastin production starts to slow down.  Cells start a slower turnover in the 20s, male hormones start declining early 30s, bodily functions overall start to slow down beginning early 20s.  Rib cage muscles start to shrink around 20 years, etc.  It’s all downhill after the 20s.  

https://functionwellsalem.com/timeline-of-aging

Christ died, I would say, because of uninterrupted natural human processes. He could have come down from the Cross, transfigured if He wanted to exercise His divine power as God. As God He could have healed His own body, if He had chosen. As God, He could have called on legions of angels to save Him, or performed some other miracle. But He could not have saved Himself except by interrupting natural human processes. Jesus certainly had power over life and death...as God. His miracles prove that Jesus Christ was God. His hunger, weariness, suffering, and death prove that He was man. He died as an ordinary man would die, voluntarily refraining from using divine prerogatives.

In saying that He "gave up the spirit", does it mean that He used a natural human capacity of making Himself die? Or did He refrain from using a superhuman capacity to make Himself live? I think the latter, but regardless of how everybody else views the humanity of Jesus, it has been enlightening to ponder the question raised in the opening post. This has made me do some study and some thinking that has been truly edifying. I hope some of you have had the same experience. 

If there is a next time, I should probably expand on the subject we barely touched on about celibacy and matrimony now and the "present distress", and gender without procreation later. I wouldn't have noticed the "present distress" from the same chapter of Theology of the Body which is mostly about gender in the next age without my earlier slightly frustrating interaction with InCog. In my opinion, the two ideas are tied together beautifully by JPII. The discussion here has made the book seem very important and even ground breaking as it discusses the purpose of gender and why it continues forever. At this time, I would call it speculative, meaning that Catholics would be allowed to have misgivings about some details. But I think it answers a lot of questions that I might never have asked without my LDS counterparts.  

If we don't say anymore, it has been great. Thanks to all, including and maybe even especially to those with whom I have disagreed the most!

Rory

Edited November 19, 2025 by 3DOP

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

If there is a next time, I should probably expand on the subject we barely touched on about celibacy and matrimony now and the "present distress", and gender without procreation later. I wouldn't have noticed the "present distress" from the same chapter of Theology of the Body which is mostly about gender in the next age without my earlier slightly frustrating interaction with InCog.

It stresses me that I have made your experience here frustrating, and I truly apologize for that.  I really welcome your input and am sincerely trying to understand your point of view.  You are such a welcome voice on this board!

In all my interactions with people of other faiths I try very hard to sincerely understand and be fair about seeing the other person's point of view.  I was being honest about not grasping your viewpoint, and I hope I didn't sound like I was making light of it, as that was far from my intentions.  I hope you get a chance to expound on it, as you are hinting at above.  My method of making sense of another view or interpretation often involves me "proving contraries" (to use a Joseph Smith phrase) and working out the position in my head, and sometimes that comes across as criticism, which is not my intent.

My apologies!

[teddyaware]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You just made up what you assume Catholic and Protestant beliefs are. No need to check them against reality. Not getting basic Catholic and Protestant thought right is just lazy. Be better.

Me? Violent? No. I only advocate punching fascists. A lot of people around seem deeply worried about the safety of the poor fascists. Lots of volunteer fascist safety advocates around for some reason. Weird, isn’t it? I’m old enough to remember when punching fascists was an uncontroversial take.

The problem is that people who believe in traditional Judeo-Christian marriage and family values, the sanctity of human life, the divine inspiration of the Founding Fathers and the sure hope that the American promised land is prophesied to govern the world in righteousness during Millennium are now considered to be Fascists by angry people who reject traditional Judeo-Christian family values, reject the sanctity of human life, believe the Founding Fathers were evil, and rejoice in the hope that the United States will one day become a brutal communist dictatorship are the clueless hypocrites who want to do the punching. Weird, isn’t it?

Edited November 19, 2025 by teddyaware

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

angry people who reject traditional Judeo-Christian family values, reject the sanctity of human life, believe the Founding Fathers were evil, and rejoice in the hope that the United States will one day become a brutal communist dictatorship

Can you point out someone who actually believes and feels this way because I have never come across someone like this?

[Benjamin McGuire]

5 hours ago, teddyaware said:

The problem is that people who believe in traditional Judeo-Christian marriage and family values, the sanctity of human life, the divine inspiration of the Founding Fathers and the sure hope that the American promised land is prophesied to govern the world in righteousness during Millennium are now considered to be Fascists by angry people who reject traditional Judeo-Christian family values, reject the sanctity of human life, believe the Founding Fathers were evil, and rejoice in the hope that the United States will one day become a brutal communist dictatorship are the clueless hypocrites who want to do the punching. Weird, isn’t it?

There is another problem. We have those who think that there is some wonderful 'traditional' Judeo-Christian marriage and family values. Most of them (from my experience) have never taken an academic sociology class on the history of marriage. We have this idea of the traditional sanctity of human life? What does traditional mean? The problem for most of these is that they associate this strictly with abortion We don't see anything of the sort from some of these same individuals when discussing the death penalty, or measures to reduce the number of guns in our society. Even our administration's attacks on fishing boats under the claims of killing drug smugglers. Or Israel's killing of roughly 50,000 women and children in Gaza in the last couple of years. Apparently, respecting the sanctity of life is really a designation for a very narrow limitation on the right to kill (and Mormons of course, don't even believe that life begins at conception). There is an effort to claim that we should respect the founding fathers - and yet none of you (that I am aware of) have really actually read the Federalist Papers or are concerned about how our present government is abusing political power by doing so many of the things that our founding fathers warned us to avoid. So strange isn't it, to live in a world where language of this sort is appropriated and used for so much self-righteousness. Clearly we have those in power who do not want the US to become a communist dictatorship. Their interest is in a dictatorship of an entirely different sort, right? It's weird, isn't it, to have so many laying claim to language to try and frame their beliefs and actions in a way that makes it moral and ethical ...

[Teancum]

On 11/1/2025 at 1:07 PM, teddyaware said:

At the outset, I must say I fully realize this thread’s topic could turn out to be very controversial and contentious, to say the least, although stirring up heated debate and Ill will is not at all my intention. Rather, what I’m submitting here are two very simple questions that I’m hoping can thoughtfully considered and addressed in a dispassionate, level headed manner. Here’s are the questions:

1) If the Lord was both fully divine and fully human while he sojourned in this mortal realm, do you believe it’s possible that he carried within his holy body living seed (spermatozoa), and if he did what are your thoughts about the reasonable probability that the Father of Heaven and Earth — God the Son — had a sexual nature?

2) Are there any inferences or implications that might be drawn, or interesting speculations that might be entertained, while focusing on this apparently very rarely considered possibility that God the Son had a fully functioning reproductive system, with living seed that might very well have been able to produce human offspring?

Well if you go by the book The DaVinci Code that plot has Jesus producing and, spoiler alert, one of the main characters is a descendent.

[Teancum]

On 11/1/2025 at 2:02 PM, ZealouslyStriving said:

I believe Jesus fulfilled every obligation as a husband.

If he had children would his children not have the power of a god?

[3DOP]

14 hours ago, InCognitus said:

It stresses me that I have made your experience here frustrating, and I truly apologize for that.  I really welcome your input and am sincerely trying to understand your point of view.  You are such a welcome voice on this board!

In all my interactions with people of other faiths I try very hard to sincerely understand and be fair about seeing the other person's point of view.  I was being honest about not grasping your viewpoint, and I hope I didn't sound like I was making light of it, as that was far from my intentions.  I hope you get a chance to expound on it, as you are hinting at above.  My method of making sense of another view or interpretation often involves me "proving contraries" (to use a Joseph Smith phrase) and working out the position in my head, and sometimes that comes across as criticism, which is not my intent.

My apologies!

But Incog, I used the expression "slightly frustrating" and then credited you for helping me to read a particular document with a keener eye.

Your apology is neither needed nor accepted! The writer needs to write in a way that is intelligible to the reader. The slight frustration I experienced was due to the knowledge that I had failed to explain my position properly to the kind of reader I hoped to reach.

Regards, 3DOP 

[JVW]

I missed a lot of threads because I was out of town for a few weeks, but wanted to throw in my two cents here.

I don't believe that Jesus ever had children because He is God's "only begotten son" (which I assume applies to both genders, b/c the Bible is like that) and if he had kid then they would be one of "God's sons" and then Jesus wouldn't be the only begotten anymore.

As far as I'm aware according to the conspiracy community the Great Families of the world (Rothschilds, etc.) believe that they are directly related to Jesus through blood and that makes them special and worthy of seeking to rule the world.

[3DOP]

CALM

Apparently there are some early Church fathers that believed Jesus was not subject to aging unless he willed it, so Teddy is not alone.p in this.

ME

Yes! That is what I believe too. Jesus willed, and the Father willed, that He should be subject to aging and death so He could be like us. He could do whatever He wanted as God while He was also a man. But to save us He wanted to be a man like us. 

 

[3DOP]

All interested parties and especially InCognitus because of our discussions of "the present distress", hi.

I have been discussing a book consisting of weekly Wednesday audiences by Pope John Paul II. He is methodically detailed, analyzing and revisiting important passages from Genesis, the Gospels, and Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians to explain what he calls "the theology of the body". I am only on p.252 of 423 pages of these audiences which begin on September 5, 1979, and finish on November 28, 1984. 

A recurring theme which permeates everything I have read so far is "the nuptial meaning of the body". While he discusses the original nakedness of our first parents and the shame experienced after their fall, there is no graphic discussion of individual differences between man and woman. Rather, it is an emphasis on our need for each other and the beauty of our mutual compatibility. There is discussion about the difficulties that followed the fall which caused the shame, which eventually leads to Christ warning us that whoever lusts in his heart has already committed adultery. Following that is an examination about the disorder in our souls and bodies in the present age. Still, we have hope that when our bodies are resurrected in the next age, this disorder will be removed and our bodies will be perfectly subservient to our spirits.

Unhappy marriages, divorce, adultery, pornography, and disrespectful sexual innuendos are only some of many other difficulties that plague us so long as we "see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind" (Rom. 7:23). Very briefly, this is why I propose that when St. Paul discusses celibacy and marriage in "the present distress", he means the age where we have the frustration of finding it difficult to do what we ought because of the conflict between the flesh and the spirit. While Christians can experience victories through faith and grace during this age, it is a battle for those who, like St. Paul, lament that they don't always do what they should do. We look forward to that age of perfect peace when the battle is over.

I need to clean up the leaves, before trying to give a treatment of the "nuptial meaning of the body". The pope's teaching means that Mormons and all other Christians do very well to disdain a genderless eternity. I understand why the cessation of marriage in eternity might seem to imply this. One aim in any further attempt to explain my position will be to show that the nuptial meaning of our bodies, male and female, will be more perfectly expressed in eternity than in this age, if the pope is correct. I also want to assure my LDS friends that a Catholic idea of heaven would necessarily be more satisfying to the nuptial meaning of the body than that which we can enjoy in the present age. 

Thanks for your consideration now and hopefully in a future post,

3DOP  

Edited November 19, 2025 by 3DOP

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

But Incog, I used the expression "slightly frustrating" and then credited you for helping me to read a particular document with a keener eye.

Your apology is neither needed nor accepted! The writer needs to write in a way that is intelligible to the reader. The slight frustration I experienced was due to the knowledge that I had failed to explain my position properly to the kind of reader I hoped to reach.

Regards, 3DOP 

Thanks, I feel better.  I respect your views, and now I apologize for apologizing  

I have a meeting in 3 minutes, so I can't comment more now.  I hope I get more time to review your post a little later.