• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Was Jesus a sexual being?

viole

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
KenS said:
Any law produces violators of a law... but to say that sexuality produces sin would be wrong. My 3 children and their spouses are sexuality beings but it never created them sinners.
Click to expand...
Well, since sexuality has an undeniable reproductive purpose, in general, and according to Christianity everyone is a sinner at birth, I think the conclusion is inescapable.

Exception is homosexuality, or sex with birth control. In. that case, the total amount of sin generated is surely much lower, on average.

Ciao

- viole
 
viole

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Eddi said:
It produces lust, which is a sin

And yes, not all sexuality is sinful

However, some is
Click to expand...

My thesis is that reproductive sexuality generates much more sin, than not reproductive one. A bit like CO2 emissions, a human being living several decades for sure is not very planet friendly, especially when you have billions instances thereof. So, imagine several decades multiplied by several billions of sin too.
What do you think of my theory?

Ciao

- viole
 
Kenny

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
viole said:
Well, since sexuality has an undeniable reproductive purpose, in general, and according to Christianity everyone is a sinner at birth, I think the conclusion is inescapable.

Exception is homosexuality, or sex with birth control. In. that case, the total amount of sin generated is surely much lower, on average.

Ciao

- viole
Click to expand...
I don't agree.... first you said that sexuality causes sin and now you say it is birth that causes it. Moving goal posts.

Apples, oranges and eggs.

Could you please present a cogent response about my three children and their spouses in context of what we are talking about.

Adios

Ken
 
Kenny

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Eddi said:
It produces lust, which is a sin

And yes, not all sexuality is sinful

However, some is
Click to expand...
Yes. Not so much as it produces lust but rather it presents the possibility to yield to it.

When a sign goes on the highway saying 65 miles an hour, there are many who go 50, 55, 60 and 65. They don't yield to the temptation. Many also yield to the temptation and go 70+. - a choice.

So, Jesus being a sexual being doesn't mean that he therefore yielded to lust. It is a choice. When Satan tempted him and say "Worship me and you can have all the kingdoms of the world (which Jesus came to get)" however, Jesus didn't sin and responded, "Man shall worship God and God alone" - or, in other words, I am going to get the kingdoms of this world the right was.

Likewise sex, which God created, can be a wonderful thing when done within the guidelines provided and it not being sinful.
 
viole

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
KenS said:
I don't agree.... first you said that sexuality causes sin and now you say it is birth that causes it. Moving goal posts.

Apples, oranges and eggs.

Could you please present a cogent response about my three children and their spouses in context of what we are talking about.

Adios

Ken
Click to expand...

Do you think that sexuality is unrelated to reproduction? If not, do you agree that producing sinners, indirectly produces sin, too? Well, if you believe that sin stuff, at least.

Ciao

- viole
 
MonkeyFire

MonkeyFire

Well-Known Member
Sex is an occurance. Jesus has non-stop "sexuality," or what we perceive as sex, but really its an absolute.
 
Last edited:
Onoma

Onoma

Active Member
Going by the Bible, he was a priest-king ( Common to ancient Mesopotamia, they served as a mediator between god/s and man ), but in his case, without having been produced like a normal person, ( Intercourse )

If we were claiming that somehow all the other priest-kings before him were also magically produced with a virgin birth ( No such thing has ever been found in text ), it would sound a little silly

Whether or not he had sex, or had children is a matter of speculation, but, that said..

The lineage of deified kings ( Starting with Naram-Sin ) really seemed to die out right around the period of Chaldean captivity, 400-500 BC, (About the same time Syriac Christianity took over ) yet the sacerdotal duties of the earlier priest-kings ( Mathematical astronomy ) continued in the lineage of Sin-Leqi-Unninni ( The scribe of Gilgamesh ) and his descendants until roughly 100 AD, at least as far as cuneiform records indicate

That same lineage, afaik, didn't reappear in text until the myth of the Quinotaur ( Which from sprang the lineage of Merovingian kings )
 
Kenny

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
viole said:
Do you think that sexuality is unrelated to reproduction? If not, do you agree that producing sinners, indirectly produces sin, too? Well, if you believe that sin stuff, at least.

Ciao

- viole
Click to expand...

If you look at the original post, you will find that you are stretching what was asked,

Work is necessary to live. Some people within the workplace decide to rob its employers but to say that the workplace produces sinners is a BIIIIIIIIIIG stretch

My children reproduced 11 children but it the sexuality of their relationship didn't produce sexual sins.

Adios

Ken
 
EsonauticSage

EsonauticSage

Between extremes
Eddi said:
Earlier today I was thinking to myself: Does God have a sexual orientation?

My first thoughts: I don’t think he does as he is incorporeal

He is only a “he” by convention. Forget it and move on.

However - what if we accept Jesus is God? Did (indeed, “does”) Jesus have a sexual orientation?

He’d have had to, even if his orientation was “asexual”

I think he was asexual in the sense that he was not a sexual being - with urges, desires, drives

First of all, he was free from sin - sexuality produces sin

Secondly, there is no evidence he was married (which was the only legit way of being sexual in that time and place)

Also, there is no evidence he ever had sexual/romantic feelings towards anyone

So no, I don’t think Jesus was a sexual being

Indeed I think if he was a sexual being that would have seriously undermined his ministry

I think he went to the cross as a virgin and was never in love or in a relationship
Click to expand...

Yes he likely did but it didn't play much of a role in his overall life, so there are no references to it. A Jewish man in the 1st century unmarried at 30 is rather anathema.
 
GameChanger

GameChanger

Member
sojourner said:
If Jesus was fully human, then Jesus, when in corporeal form, was a sexual being.
Click to expand...

I think the more pertinent and interesting question was what kind of sexuality did Jesus practice.

I would have to imagine that the King James Bible did a diligent job of sanitizing Jesus from head to toe meaning that the point will forever be mute unless some remarkable archeological discovery comes to light.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top