The real question, was Jesus married and if not was he by the standards of his time or today considered to be homosexual?
He spend awful lot of time with men and of course with some women too so maybe he was bi-sexual?
Now, is this trolling or am I just playing devil's advocate?
The motive of this post and this thread is suspicious one. Since the questions don't lead into any other conclusion but that the morals change over time and the sources are so-so reliable.
There is certainly a theme in all religions that say that the text is uncontestable. The Koran the Torah and The New testament are all subject to this rather tortuous logic of absolute correctness,at least under the fundementalist exponenets of the faith; frankly though I don't buy it; the only books in history to never have been changed manipulated,misrepresented or poorly remembered, when written a deal of time after the supposed authors deaths? Seems unlikely, and although many theologians have contested doctrines throughout history and thereby decided or rejected what was recognisably correct, not one of them was ever subject to human error, not one of them was falsely representing stories knowingly or otherwise, even those handed down by word of mouth? I think that's stretching credability personally.
For example the oldest texts(verified by dating) Recorded about Christianity: The Gospel of the Twelve has pretty much the same messages as those in the New testament, written in the language of Christ it is considered to be unreliable: why? So satan travelled back in time to record things that we're later recorded in the New testament, but it is not a credible source? This is not logical.
Again the Sheites don't recognise most of the hadiths and claim it was rife with corruption by the Caliphs, what is credible here? And who decides?
Religion is based on alot of interpritation, to believe that all interpritation is correct because a group of people x thousand years ago say it is so is pretty far fretched. I believe most texts are correct or hold most of the truth, but as to holding all of it? I find it unlikely. And frankly so have many theologians and historians, some of which were killed for saying so.
It took nearly a hundred years for the Nicene council to decide on a version of the Christian faith and it really could have gone either way with many beliefs, of course the easy answer is that the right text was chosen by men who had a direct link with God, Allah or Yehewa, it's an easy answer but I don't buy that either.
Was Muhammed a paedophile: maybe, was he unusual for a Muslim of the times: no, did such marriages happen outside of mohammeds household? yep. Whilst we find it reprehensible in a modern context, it all comes to down historical context. Doesn't make it right, no, but it's hard to judge the morality of the times based on the morality of our times.
And Besides Aneeshm, there's an odd belief followed by some that sleeping with virgins will cure you of AIDS in India, child prostitution is not unusual, your culture is hardly one to judge the past so unequivocally anyway.
.
Let me put it to you this way: Lets say you go to a seminar about eating raw foods, being a Vegan or whatever its called. The speaker is very knowledgeable, enthusiastic and you learn alot from him. You think he's great so after, you go backstage to thank him and you see him wearing diapers and being spanked by a midget dominitrix. Or you overhear him on the phone threatening an old lady with eviction if she doesnt come across with the rent. Or you read in the newspaper the next day that he's a child molesting murderer and rapist. Are you going to quite eating raw food and go buy some steaks?
.
