Jesus = an asexual/non-sexual?

  • Thread starter Thread starter followingtheway
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jesus never willed to make use of His bodies sexual capacity. In effect this made Him non-sexual as that term relates to the earthly purpose of reproduction.

As a spiritual term of reproduction one can say that Jesus is sexual. He is a sower of seed. The serpent is a sower of seed. I find it difficult to call this spiritual reproduction of kind asexual because it requires a generative and a passive force.
 
Benadam said:
Jesus is straight. It’s just that His purposes weren’t earthly. None of those anoying urges to reproduce and such. The natural powers were at His service externally and internally. His body didn’t move involuntarily like ours. He wouldn’t have to cover Himself like Adam because His body would never shame Him.

So He never had a desire to give Himself in marriage mostly because He wasn’t bound by death. The profoundly sublime need to survive wasn’t in Him because He wasn’t destined to die like we are , He chose it. **Without this need that drives fallen man there is no involuntary urge to reproduce. **Jesus didn’t have to subject His body to dicipline because it had never rebelled.

If it had been good for Jesus to give Himself in that kind of earthly way, if Jesus ’ purposes were earthly, He could have.
Click to expand...
Those ‘annoying urges’ are what makes you straight (or not 🤷).
Without them you would have no sexuality at all.

And are you suggesting that if someone conquers their fear of death they automatically lose their sex drive:confused:
 
Jerry-Jet said:
Why are people afraid of Jesus being a perfectly chaste and celibate heterosexual?

Isn’t this what God created Adam to be before the fall and before the creation of Eve? Isn’t Christ supposed to be like that in His humanity?

And do people think that the attraction that Adam had for Eve BEFORE the fall was bad? At that time they did not suffer from the concupiscence that we do now after the fall.

Shouldn’t Jesus’ humanity be like Adam and Eve’s before the fall–in other words shouldn’t that humanity be able to VALUE the attractiveness of the opposite sex but be able to do that WITHOUT sin?!

Shouldn’t Jesus be capable of having that type humanity?

I’ll tell you why people don’t really want to explore this. If they admit that Jesus was heterosexual and was able to VALUE the attractiveness of the opposite sex WITHOUT sin then they would also have to conclude that His followers should EMULATE His sexuality in that regard.

And if they do that then you wouldn’t just have some chaste Catholic Christians who suffer from same sex attraction–you SHOULD have some chaste Catholic Christians who suffer from same sex attraction who WOLUD ALSO try to LEARN the language of heterosexuality and BE that way as He was that way!

That is perfectly ORDERED by God and homosexuality IS DISORDERED!

And YES–heterosexuality CAN be learned just like another language can be learned!

People are called not to USE the language of homosexuality EVEN if that is the sexual language they first learned–but they should use the language of heterosexuality EVEN if they have to learn it.

And YES the language of heterosexuality can be used in dealing with the opposite sex in a CHASTE non sinful way. That’s what Jesus did. That’s the way that Adam and Eve related to one another before the fall–and that is what all of us are called to–some to marriage–others to chastity–and others to celibacy!

Now I’ll sit back and hear those who are apologists for Catholics who suffer from same sex attraction say that they are only called to chastity and that chaste heterosexuality cannot be learned or that Jesus’ heterosxuality should not be emulated. They are WRONG!!!

John Paul II wrote Theology of the Body. What would John Paul II say about Jesus’ sexuality in regards to His humanity? Would John Paul II say that Jesus’ perfect sexuality be emulated or not? would Jon Payul II say that Jesus was a heterosxual or not?

What would Benedict XVI say?

I ask because I could be wrong and if I am I humbly bow to the teaching of the Catholic Church though I suspect that some of these questions might not or maybe cannot be definitively answered and it may be possible to have differing theological opinions where the Catholic Church has not spoken.

In any even we should all pray for those with same sex attraction–it is a Cross they bear–and hopefully they can chastely bear it and enter into heaven one day.

We aren’t all called to be celibate–but we are all called to be chaste.
Click to expand...
There are so many things wrong with this post I’m not sure how to respond.
But that might be because I am hungover.
 
TimothyH said:
Jesus did more than just “Resist” temptation or “Choose not to act on his desires.” You guys aren’t thinking like Catholics. You guys aren’t thinking Eucharistically.

Jesus’ view of each of us was fundamentally and radically different from the way in which most of us are able to view each other here, in this life. Jesus, as the divine second person of the trinity, saw each person as they really were. He saw each person with the divine eyes of God, who knows every detail of our life and our physical bodies. As God, he himself designed every one of those details both on purpose, and with a specific purpose. As the second person of the Trinity, we were in fact, created through him. He could percieve thoughts. He could see our hearts. He created our souls. He sees us exactly as we are. And if Jesus saw each person perfectly, he also loved each person perfectly.

Eros is love that takes and does not give. Erotic love is one way. Erotic love is lust. Lust appropriates the “Other” in order to satisfy the desires of “Self”. This is not the love of Jesus. Agape love however, is selfless. Agape love is self-sacrificing love. Agape love gives and does not expect or desire to receive. Agape love is willing to give up life for the other person. This is the love of Christ on the cross. This is the love of the Second Person of the Trinity for each of us. This is the love of Jesus, who sees us perfectly and loves us perfectly - a comple gift of self, even to the point of death…

Who, though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God something to be grasped.
Rather, he emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave,
coming in human likeness;
and found human in appearance,
he humbled himself,
becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross.
(Phuillipians 2:6-8)

When Jesus looked at a beautiful woman, he did not lust. Eros - love which desires to satisfy itself - was not part of his nature. Jesus wanted more than sex. Jesus, who sees each of us perfectly - as we are and as we were meant to be - wants Koinonia.

And whoever loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and reveal myself to him. … Jesus answered and said to him, “Whoever loves me will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our dwelling with him. (John 14:21,23)

Jesus,wants something far more intimate than sex. Jesus wants something infinitely more fulfilling than sex. Jesus wants communion. He wants to make a gift of himself and give himself - all of himself - to us. And if God gives himself to us, what more could we want?

I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world. (John 6:51)

Lust is something we, as ordinary humans experience. But the agape love of Jesus is different. It’s God’s complete gift of himself to us. It’s the whole reason behind the Eucharist. Jesus was not asexual or non-sexual. He was above-sexual. He was beyond-sexual. He was God, and he gave us all of himself. He did not experience erotic love, but agape love. And agape love is Eucharistic love. Its koinonia. Its communion.

-Tim-
Click to expand...
Tim did a much better job responding to the bad post than I could (at least from a Catholic perspective).

Basically, Catholics and other Christians have defined Jesus as so perfect and so unlike us, that according to that definition, he more or less can’t have a human sex drive.
 
Hey AngryAtheist, in your modernist, materialistic world-view, I know you must know about Freudianism and the concept of Freudian “sublimation.” Maybe trying to understand Jesus in such fashion as a conceptual stepping-stone to greater comprehension of His Personality might help, for a start…

BTW, the less loutish, insulting and emotionally bullying you act the more I might try to communicate and “translate” for your understanding Theological and Metaphysical truths in a mode of rational scientific empirical logic suited to the cognitive limitations of modernism you are enshackled to in your intellect… Your choice…
 
Adam before the fall had heterosexual attraction for Eve that was part of the perfect humanity that God created him with that was not based on concupiscence and WAS NOT sinful or lustful.

Can anybody tell me why Jesus wouldn’t have that same type of humanity and sexuality since he is the second Adam and is like us in all respects except sin?
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
Those ‘annoying urges’ are what makes you straight (or not 🤷).
Without them you would have no sexuality at all.

And are you suggesting that if someone conquers their fear of death they automatically lose their sex drive:confused:
Click to expand...
Imagine what it means to not be subject to the powers of nature. Those urges aren’t annoying when called into service. They’re annoying when the body moves of it’s own volition. What we Christians often express as rebellion of the flesh.
 
Hakathriel said:
Hey AngryAtheist, in your modernist, materialistic world-view, I know you must know about Freudianism and the concept of Freudian “sublimation.” Maybe trying to understand Jesus in such fashion as a conceptual stepping-stone to greater comprehension of His Personality might help, for a start…

BTW, the less loutish, insulting and emotionally bullying you act the more I might try to communicate and “translate” for your understanding Theological and Metaphysical truths in a mode of rational scientific empirical logic suited to the cognitive limitations of modernism you are enshackled to in your intellect… Your choice…
Click to expand...
Hooray, I was hoping someone would bring up sublimation. Without it, there would be no great men. Great artists, great leaders, great spirtual men, etc. These are the men who put their sexual energies into a different form of energy. This is also the reason that great men are usually greater than great women, because their sex drives are higher and outward, and also because women do their creating inside, traditionally in the womb.

In any case, men and women who waste their sexual energies, through masturbation and the like, are wasting their creative energies.
 
Don’t be deceived by the oh-so-clever statements made by any of the posters here.

It’s not a sin to do many things. That doesn’t mean Jesus did it. Playing water-polo is not a sin. Did Jesus play water-polo? Probably not.

Is it a sin to be attracted to women? No. But remember that sexual attraction is a means to an end, namely, marriage and procreation. Marriage was not Jesus’ vocation. Even though Jesus suffered temptations like us, remember that he did NOT suffer from concupiscence, that means, unlike us, his will was completely detached from earthly things. That there is no marriage in heaven, as stated by Jesus, gives us a clear idea of his eternal will.

Jesus was completely asexual, it’s a matter of faith. It can’t be proved or disproved with our limited knowledge. But even so, our whole religion is based on FAITH. 🙂
 
Attraction to the oppoposite sex is not evil–it’s how we respond to that attraction that makes it evil or not.

Jesus perfectly in every instance dealt with that attraction in the way that God willed.

Sex is not bad.

Heterosexual attraction is not bad.

I think that many people think it is bad.

That’s the way that Satan wants them to think.

If they think that way strongly enough they will either deny Jesus’ perfection or they will deny His humanity.
 
EricFilmer said:
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).
Click to expand...
AMEN!

Hence, Genesis 1:28 (KJV) And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply…
 
Hi, AngryAtheist,

I think one of the things that we must recall is that Jesus was not ‘just a man’ - but, He was a perfect man. He did not come in to the world with Original Sin or its effects on human nature. All of Christ’s emotions were perfectly balanced and in total control. Christ’s response to whatever is presented is always perfect from His standpoint.

The idea that as Perfect Man - He was indeed like us in all things, except sin… must be kept in mind at all times. This is where we all have problems - just imagining how this was is relly out of grasp. We all have the effects of Original Sin - our ability to chose is hampered by a nature inclined to do evil.

The Mission of Christ was to redeem humanity from the consequences of sin and to found His Chruch on Peter so that all souls may be brought to Heaven." . To accomplish this Mission, He interacted with all that would listen to him. But He did not sin in any respect - so the feeling He demonstrated to the Pharisees was totally balanced and appropriate. His weeping over the city of Jerusalem and His beating the money changers out of the Temple were all perfect expressions of His Humanity.

The Scriptures do not provide us with any evidence of ‘romantic encounters’ but the fact is that Jesus approached everything with the focus on giving glory to God. He was quite aware of the power of lust over men - and warned them that even entertaining such thoughts were sins (Matt 5:28). The OP may have seen this as ‘asexual’ but, this is far from the reality of the matter - Jesus was fully and perfectly human. He was always in control of his emotions and His actions.

God bless
AngryAtheist8 said:
Tim did a much better job responding to the bad post than I could (at least from a Catholic perspective).

Basically, Catholics and other Christians have defined Jesus as so perfect and so unlike us, that according to that definition, he more or less can’t have a human sex drive.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top