F
followingtheway
Guest
An asexual is someone with no sexual attractions. Would this describe Jesus? How about the angles and even demons?
- Status
S
silicasandra
Guest
Just because Jesus never married doesn’t mean he was necessarily asexual. He never engaged in any sexual activity, but that doesn’t mean a lack of attraction. I think it’s the kind of thing we simply can’t know. 
But most people experience sexual attraction, and Jesus was fully human so he very well could have, and that’s my idea. I guess it doesn’t matter to me one way or the other.
But most people experience sexual attraction, and Jesus was fully human so he very well could have, and that’s my idea. I guess it doesn’t matter to me one way or the other.
C
Corki
Guest
No, Jesus was a man in all things except sin. That includes his sexuality.
R
revert_jen
Guest
Actually, no. In general, the word “asexual” indicates the absense of reproductive organs in a biological entity, or reproduction without those organs. Your definition is one that shows up as a third definition in some dictionaries and not at all in others. In any case it is an adjective, not a noun. So technically, an asexual person is a person without sex organs. Jesus was not an asexual person.
The question you seem to have meant was, “Did Jesus experience sexual attraction?” In the sense of lust, the answer would have to be “no.” However, Jesus is fully man as well as fully God, so my guess would be that He experienced non-lustful attraction to some women at some point. I do not believe that there is an official Church teaching on the matter.
Angels and demons are creatures of spirit, and therefore sex (including attraction) really doesn’t apply to them.
–Jen
mathematoons
New member
If Jesus was sinless and celibate, how could He have felt sexual attraction? He said that’s committing adultery in one’s heart!
M
midori
Guest
Do you honestly think that someone who, even though he was all man, was also all God, would be attracted to a mere creature? 
E
EricFilmer
Guest
I am uncomfortable with using the term “attraction” in the context of this discussion because that can mean and imply different things. Suffice to say that I think that Jesus appreciated the human form and the concept of human sexuality in a way that properly gave glory to the Creator (and not in a way corrupted by sin and lust).
S
silicasandra
Guest
This may be leading us to Eric’s point that the term “attraction” may not be appropriate, but I do think there is an important distinction between “attraction” and “lust” (this comes up all the time on the moral theology forum!) Did Jesus lust? No, that would have been impossible. But since he was human, in all likelihood he was a sexual being. Priests are called to celibacy but we have nothing wrong with acknowledging that they have sexual orientations even if they never act on them (though, because they are human, they can and do sin like the rest of us.)
I could be wrong about this, but did Jesus not experience temptation during his life?
M
Mintaka
Guest
Jesus was “a man like us in all ways but sin.” Naturally He was attracted to women.
But He was already the Bridegroom, engaged to His Bride, the Church – so naturally He didn’t let attraction to individual women cloud His relationship with His true love and Bride.
Anybody can look. Just don’t look so much that they think you came to buy.
But He was already the Bridegroom, engaged to His Bride, the Church – so naturally He didn’t let attraction to individual women cloud His relationship with His true love and Bride.
Anybody can look. Just don’t look so much that they think you came to buy.
O
Oldtimer_7
Guest
This is in answer to Silicasandra. There is one pericope in the New Testament that does show Jesus in a sexually charged situation. In Luke 7:38-40, a woman who is looking on at a banquet lets down her hair and wipes her tears off Jesus’ feet. Just the act of letting her hair down was enough for a charge of adultery. The Pharisee’s rhetorical question about did Jesus know who was touching his feet is a sexual double entrendre in Greek. The touching of feet is euphemistic in Hebrew for touching genitals. Though the speaker is a Pharisee and is supposed to be purer than other Jews, he is still thinking like a man. Jesus does none of this and comes out the winner in this encounter. He not only bests the Pharisees as a group in rabbinical argument, but he also puts them in a situation where they have to accept the woman back into the community.
Thus we see that Jesus is well aware of what is in men’s and women’s hearts. He can see the Pharisee is thinking sexually, but the woman is doing an act of devotion. Their backgrounds, exalted or debased, are not the source of His recognition of their states.
Thus we see that Jesus is well aware of what is in men’s and women’s hearts. He can see the Pharisee is thinking sexually, but the woman is doing an act of devotion. Their backgrounds, exalted or debased, are not the source of His recognition of their states.
S
silicasandra
Guest
Thanks for the info!
R
RosaryFan
Guest
Why not? We are His creation, after all. He must have seen the beauty in us to create us out of love. He would not have created us if we were repulsive to Him.Do you honestly think that someone who, even though he was all man, was also all God, would be attracted to a mere creature?
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
Jesus never sinned and He was heterosexual which is what God wants all men and women to be.
His perfect heterosexuality should be emulated by those who claim to follow Him!
His perfect heterosexuality should be emulated by those who claim to follow Him!
H
Hakathriel
Guest
I do not believe Jesus Christ was “asexual” in our *modern * sense, with overtones of emotional coldness and schizoid aloofness, at all.
I believe Jesus was a heterosexual male celibate virgin, whose deific pattern is desirable and worthy of imitation for those inclined to such a high vocation.
I believe Jesus was supra-sexual – if we have to use a word.
Jesus showed us the most perfect sublimation of sexuality, a way carrying no psychological damage if integrally pursued as an individual path of transcendence self-given, as an “oblation” to God, and productive of good fruits.
Jesus showed forth in His own life non-romantic spiritual friendships with both genders, unmarried and married, characterized by platonic intimacy and empathetic nearness. Such distinctively Christian relationality is possible and worthwhile in His “New Creation”, without fear of scandal.
Jesus sublimated His sexuality into Agapic transcendent Love, and proved the power of Agape-based friendships to exist and spiritually uplift as sacred and passionate relationships without involving the crudely physical element.
Celibacy represents not Gnostic, nihilistic obliteration of sexuality but the *transfiguration * and reintegration of sexuality within oneself.
The very first thing Jesus Christ did at the beginning of the “new creation” was greet an unmarried, female friend alone in a garden–Mary Magdalene. The notion of “occasion of sin” is simply idiotic here.
The distinctively Christian spirituality of “supra-sexual” yet intimate friendship, and/or “cross-sex” agapic, empathic friendship of sacred passion embedded in chastity, is here unfolded with Jesus and Mary Magdalene in the garden.
It is no coincidence within Catholicism there is a tradition of beautiful spiritual friendships, whether “homosocial” or “cross-sex”. One only has to think of the soulful and holy spiritual deep friendship between St. Francis de Sales and St. Jane Frances de Chantal, among innumerable other examples…
Protestantism has no such venerable, noble tradition, bogged down in its distorting view of sexuality…
I believe Jesus was a heterosexual male celibate virgin, whose deific pattern is desirable and worthy of imitation for those inclined to such a high vocation.
I believe Jesus was supra-sexual – if we have to use a word.
Jesus showed us the most perfect sublimation of sexuality, a way carrying no psychological damage if integrally pursued as an individual path of transcendence self-given, as an “oblation” to God, and productive of good fruits.
Jesus showed forth in His own life non-romantic spiritual friendships with both genders, unmarried and married, characterized by platonic intimacy and empathetic nearness. Such distinctively Christian relationality is possible and worthwhile in His “New Creation”, without fear of scandal.
Jesus sublimated His sexuality into Agapic transcendent Love, and proved the power of Agape-based friendships to exist and spiritually uplift as sacred and passionate relationships without involving the crudely physical element.
Celibacy represents not Gnostic, nihilistic obliteration of sexuality but the *transfiguration * and reintegration of sexuality within oneself.
The very first thing Jesus Christ did at the beginning of the “new creation” was greet an unmarried, female friend alone in a garden–Mary Magdalene. The notion of “occasion of sin” is simply idiotic here.
The distinctively Christian spirituality of “supra-sexual” yet intimate friendship, and/or “cross-sex” agapic, empathic friendship of sacred passion embedded in chastity, is here unfolded with Jesus and Mary Magdalene in the garden.
It is no coincidence within Catholicism there is a tradition of beautiful spiritual friendships, whether “homosocial” or “cross-sex”. One only has to think of the soulful and holy spiritual deep friendship between St. Francis de Sales and St. Jane Frances de Chantal, among innumerable other examples…
Protestantism has no such venerable, noble tradition, bogged down in its distorting view of sexuality…
H
Hakathriel
Guest
Sexuality is not exclusively expressed in brute acts of generative intercourse, but is also a matter of the personal soul, temperament and degree of interior maturity. That is why celibacy is not “asexual”–only the upward transmutation of sexuality. Only Gnostic heretics can really be designated as “asexual.”
Agape means unconditional love, distinctively Christian love of the highest grade. Jesus embodied it for us, as an example.
Jesus rebelled against the legalistic Judaic norms of social interaction relating to the genders, socializing with both sexes of whatever marital status communally and privately, and treating “fallen women” not with customary dehumanizing contempt, but with (then) unheard-of love and compassion. The story of the reformed prostitute crying at the feet of Jesus in a way the Pharisaical mind perceived as inevitably scandalous and “sensual” indicates the type of sexual personality Jesus incarnated–Agapic. Physical, social and legalitarian boundaries meant nothing to Jesus, because he saw the inward significance of the outer act–“her great love” and how authentic (penitential) love exists as a redemptive power.
Jesus further opened up the way for women to ascend in social dignity beyond the constrictive role-expectations of the Greco-Roman world, as the only axis of value in Christianity is “nobility of virtue”, an axial morality transcendent to gender and sexual stereotypes. Through Jesus and Christianity, “Eve” was restored in dignity and woman could assume positions of leadership and influence within the ecclesiastical structure, as mystic, prophetess, abbess, etc.
I believe Jesus set before us the example of an ennobled and healthy sexuality capable of creating holy and good friendships beyond simplistic gender and social rule-sets, rooted in Agapic chastity of the spirit–the greatest species of human intimacy whose grossest manifestation is animal coupling–and the direct opposite of the sexual paranoia and neurotic scrupulosity commonly practiced, accepted and taught today by mainstream Catholics and Protestants.
The type of agapic sexuality Jesus incarnated is found archetypally in the intimate yet utterly holy friendship of St. Francis of Assisi and St. Clare, as related in The Little Flowers:
"When St. Francis was staying in Assisi, he often visited St. Clare and provided spiritual direction. She desired to eat a meal together, but St. Francis always refused this request. The friars persuaded Francis to eat a meal with Clare and to honor her request. Francis, wanting to make the occasion special, chose St. Mary of the Angels for the meal. Clare was cloistered at San Damiano. She would enjoy visiting the place where she became a spouse of the Lord Jesus. Clare came to St. Mary of the Angels accompanied by one sister companion. The meal was simple, served on the ground in picnic form. As the party sat down to a humble meal, they entered an exalted state while speaking about God. For many miles around people observed a bright, fiery glow.
The men of Assisi believed the entire district that the church of St. Mary of the Angels and the whole Palace was aflame. The men of Assisi ran in great hast to save the Palace and put out the fire. When they reached the Place, they saw that nothing was on fire. They found St. Francis with St. Clare and all the companions sitting around that humble table, rapt in God by contemplation. It was a heavenly not a material fire that God had shown them to symbolize the fire of divine love; love that was burning in the souls of the holy friars and nuns…"
Agape means unconditional love, distinctively Christian love of the highest grade. Jesus embodied it for us, as an example.
Jesus rebelled against the legalistic Judaic norms of social interaction relating to the genders, socializing with both sexes of whatever marital status communally and privately, and treating “fallen women” not with customary dehumanizing contempt, but with (then) unheard-of love and compassion. The story of the reformed prostitute crying at the feet of Jesus in a way the Pharisaical mind perceived as inevitably scandalous and “sensual” indicates the type of sexual personality Jesus incarnated–Agapic. Physical, social and legalitarian boundaries meant nothing to Jesus, because he saw the inward significance of the outer act–“her great love” and how authentic (penitential) love exists as a redemptive power.
Jesus further opened up the way for women to ascend in social dignity beyond the constrictive role-expectations of the Greco-Roman world, as the only axis of value in Christianity is “nobility of virtue”, an axial morality transcendent to gender and sexual stereotypes. Through Jesus and Christianity, “Eve” was restored in dignity and woman could assume positions of leadership and influence within the ecclesiastical structure, as mystic, prophetess, abbess, etc.
I believe Jesus set before us the example of an ennobled and healthy sexuality capable of creating holy and good friendships beyond simplistic gender and social rule-sets, rooted in Agapic chastity of the spirit–the greatest species of human intimacy whose grossest manifestation is animal coupling–and the direct opposite of the sexual paranoia and neurotic scrupulosity commonly practiced, accepted and taught today by mainstream Catholics and Protestants.
The type of agapic sexuality Jesus incarnated is found archetypally in the intimate yet utterly holy friendship of St. Francis of Assisi and St. Clare, as related in The Little Flowers:
"When St. Francis was staying in Assisi, he often visited St. Clare and provided spiritual direction. She desired to eat a meal together, but St. Francis always refused this request. The friars persuaded Francis to eat a meal with Clare and to honor her request. Francis, wanting to make the occasion special, chose St. Mary of the Angels for the meal. Clare was cloistered at San Damiano. She would enjoy visiting the place where she became a spouse of the Lord Jesus. Clare came to St. Mary of the Angels accompanied by one sister companion. The meal was simple, served on the ground in picnic form. As the party sat down to a humble meal, they entered an exalted state while speaking about God. For many miles around people observed a bright, fiery glow.
The men of Assisi believed the entire district that the church of St. Mary of the Angels and the whole Palace was aflame. The men of Assisi ran in great hast to save the Palace and put out the fire. When they reached the Place, they saw that nothing was on fire. They found St. Francis with St. Clare and all the companions sitting around that humble table, rapt in God by contemplation. It was a heavenly not a material fire that God had shown them to symbolize the fire of divine love; love that was burning in the souls of the holy friars and nuns…"
B
BrunoMaria
Guest
I’m a foreigner, loving the American character and language (well the UK-English-language rather, as I’m unable to pronounce it the American way).
But such question as in this topic, I wouldn’t even allow myself to briefly imagine or swipe. I simply would fear to assault God - which would be deadly.
Sexuality is an additive present God gave us. Such as taste - giving us the enjoyment of certain some kinds of food.
Now still; hardly any one of us would dare to put a question like; “what’s the favorite dish God prefers?” Most would simply deny such question as plain daft.
But how on earth could anyone connect God to sex in what so ever form???
I recently saw stickers on atheist cars, taking fun of our talk “GOOD GOD”
So they got stickers saying “good goddess”. That’s a first step towards associations “God and Sex” in which so ever assonant form.
There are side-thoughts we really should naturally forbid our brains to go or take or even swipe.
Yours
Bruno
But such question as in this topic, I wouldn’t even allow myself to briefly imagine or swipe. I simply would fear to assault God - which would be deadly.
Sexuality is an additive present God gave us. Such as taste - giving us the enjoyment of certain some kinds of food.
Now still; hardly any one of us would dare to put a question like; “what’s the favorite dish God prefers?” Most would simply deny such question as plain daft.
But how on earth could anyone connect God to sex in what so ever form???
I recently saw stickers on atheist cars, taking fun of our talk “GOOD GOD”
So they got stickers saying “good goddess”. That’s a first step towards associations “God and Sex” in which so ever assonant form.
There are side-thoughts we really should naturally forbid our brains to go or take or even swipe.
Yours
Bruno
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
Sexual attraction is lust (and visa versa).
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
Good point.
From what I have seen and heard, the unspoken assumption among most Protestants is that Jesus was basically a non-sexual being. So of course he did not experience sexual desire.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
Supposedly.
Satan himself tempted Jesus according to the Bible.
On a related note, I don’t believe that there are any accounts of the Virgin Mary ever being tempted:shrug:
D
Dale_M
Guest
I think you are referring to Matthew 5:27-28
usccb.org/bible/scripture.cfm?bk=Matthew&ch=5
I think there is a big difference between lust and sexual attraction. I can see a woman in the supermarket and think she is cute, but without feeling lust for her. I suspect that is true for most men, and similarly for women seeing a cute guy.
As for the question in the first post, I agree with the point already made that we simply don’t have information about Jesus’ sexual attraction. The topic was not addressed by the writers of the Gospels… perhaps because it is irrelevant to the Good News?
- Status