Was Jesus a sexual being?

[Rival]

Lol, I know the feeling.

When I was a Christian I wanted a Bible with only the 'OT' part. I figured since you can buy the 'NT' on its own, why not the other way? Turns out that's not a thing. Now I'm a Noahide, I obviously use the Jewish Bible in English, which is exactly what I was looking for. Lol.

 

[viole]

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

I have kids too, but I do not believe in that sin stuff, so I don't care. You should try that feeling, too. Close to the feeling of being free, from what some overrated clueless goat herders made up a few centuries ago.

But I am not differentiating here between sexual sin, or not sexual sin. Sin is sin. And if it is true that everyone is a sinner, then producing sinners produces, indirectly, sin, too. And the longer the sinner lives, the more sin is produced. Vanilla Christian theology, plus some basic math.

I wonder why you find that odd. My impression, is that you really never thought of that.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Kenny]

I have kids too, but I do not believe in that sin stuff, so I don't care. You should try that feeling, too. Close to the feeling of being free, from what some overrated clueless goat herders made up a few centuries ago.

But I am not differentiating here between sexual sin, or not sexual sin. Sin is sin. And if it is true that everyone is a sinner, then producing sinners produces, indirectly, sin, too. I wonder why you find that odd. My impression, is that you really never thought of that.

Ciao

- viole

No... I just don't believe in changing the goal posts. If you want to deal with a different subject, you ever thought of opening another thread?

 

[viole]

No... I just don't believe in changing the goal posts. If you want to deal with a different subject, you ever thought of opening another thread?

What goal post? Now you are panicking.

Someone said on this very thread that sexuality can produce sin. Did not say it is sinful. It said, it produces sin. So, my claim stands. If sexuality is intended to produce humans, and humans produce sin, then, by transitivity, sexuality produces sin. What is so difficult about it?

And if sexuality is not reproductive, like homosexuality, or sexuality under birth control, then it is plausible to infer that the total amount of sin generated will be much lower.

Ciao

- viole

 

[EsonauticSage]

What goal post? Now you are panicking.

Someone said that sexuality can produce sin. Did not say it is sinful. It said, it produces sin. So, my claim stands. If sexuality is intended to produce humans, and humans produce sin, then, by transitivity, sexuality produces sin. What is so difficult about it?

And if sexuality is not reproductive, like homosexuality, or sexuality under birth control, then it is plausible to infer that the total amount of sin generated will be much lower.

Ciao

- viole

I do think you have a point there, it's similar to my view.

 

[viole]

I do think you have a point there, it's similar to my view.

Well, it is simple logic, really. What is mind boggling is that others do not see it.

Ciao

- viole

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

I'd love to take a crack at this!

First off - I'd just like to mention - that I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

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.

I believe that God is corporeal and that He is a "he" because He is a male.

It is the doctrine of the Church that God the Father "has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s" (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22).

We also believe that Mankind was made in His image - or rather in the images of the Gods (plurality) - male and female.

Basically - since we have...um...junk down there - that means those who created us also have that...stuff...down there.

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

I believe that He did because it was His mission to come into the world and live as mortals do.

He had every weakness of the flesh that we currently experience.

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

I disagree.

I believe He would have needed to have those urges, desires and drives or else there was no purpose for Him being born as a mortal man.

He needed to be inflicted with these things in order to prove to us that they can be overcome.

Simply put - how could He claim to rise above anything if nothing was ever in His way to begin with?

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

I disagree.

It is our choices that produce sin.

Our sexuality can motivate us to make sinful choices - but sexuality - in of of itself - is not sinful if it is expressed within the bounds the Lord has set.

A person who practices chastity outside of marriage and fidelity within marriage is an example of a person whose sexuality did not cause them to commit sin.

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

There is also no evidence that He wasn't married either.

I'm honestly 50/50 on this topic. The Church has no official stance on it either.

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

Well - considering that we have nothing written by Him directly - how could we ever know?

Even if His disciples were privy to His romantic feelings towards someone - what is the likelihood that they would consider that important enough to write about?

I mean - the New Testament doesn't really mention the romantic feelings of the Apostles towards anyone either.

Should we assume that they were asexual too?

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

Agree to disagree.

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

I don't see how that could be considering all the holy men who came before Him and who had sexual relationships - many of which were at the command of God Himself.

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

Again - I'm on the fence - and I don't see any evidence leaning one way or the other.

However - I am inclined to believe that if He was not a virgin at the time of His death and if He held a romantic interest in His heart - that wouldn't have changed anything.

He is still who He is and He still did what He did and the world still relies on Him for its salvation.

 

[viole]

He is still who He is and He still did what He did and the world still relies on Him for its salvation.

Mmh. the world minus one, at least.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Trailblazer]

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

I do not believe that Jesus was God. I believe that He was a Manifestation of God, which means He has a twofold nature; the physical, pertaining to the world of matter, and the spiritual, which is born of the substance of God Himself. So since Jesus had a physical body we can assume He had the same urges as any other man.

I do not believe there is an entity called Satan. Baha'is believe that Satan is in reference to the lower selfish nature of man, what we call the Satanic Self. I believe that in these verses below Jesus was talking to Himself -- Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men -- and He may well have been referring to sexual desires. The reason I think that is because of what Jesus said after that -- If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

Matthew 16:23-26 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

I do not think Jesus' injunction worked very well, because most people care more about the world than they care about the eternal destination of their soul, and most people do not deny self, but at least Jesus gave it a go. Nobody can blame Jesus when they lose their soul to hell because the instructions are very clear -- If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

 

[Kenny]

What goal post? Now you are panicking.

Someone said on this very thread that sexuality can produce sin. Did not say it is sinful. It said, it produces sin. So, my claim stands. If sexuality is intended to produce humans, and humans produce sin, then, by transitivity, sexuality produces sin. What is so difficult about it?

And if sexuality is not reproductive, like homosexuality, or sexuality under birth control, then it is plausible to infer that the total amount of sin generated will be much lower.

Ciao

- viole

circular.

Adios

Ken

PS - start a thread on sinners if you so choose

hasta luego

Ken

 

[sojourner]

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.

We just don't know. He could have been an ascetic; he spent time with the Essenes. he may have been married, or he may not.

 

[viole]

circular.

Adios

Ken

PS - start a thread on sinners if you so choose

hasta luego

Ken

Circular what? You smiley? Yes, I guess.

Giving up? Wise decision.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Bear Wild]

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

He was human therefor he was sexual.

 

[shunyadragon]

He was basically a celibate itinerant ascetic, so I view thinking about it too much as irrelevant.

. . . with brothers and sisters, and possibly married.

 

[Trailblazer]

He was human therefor he was sexual.

I do not believe that God created humans as sexual beings. I believe we are spiritual beings who can choose to have sex if we want children or for other reasons.

I do not believe humans are mere animals so they were not designed to have sex like animals do. God is calling us to struggle against our animal nature and to become who we truly are: not sexual beings, but spiritual beings who are in control of the physical side of our nature and who can thus find true happiness living in conformity with God’s will.

The purpose for which we were created is not to have sex; it is to know and love God. There will come a time in everyone's life when they cannot have sex anymore or they grow out of the need for it. Then when we die there will be no bodies for sex in the spiritual world.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

. . . with brothers and sisters, and possibly married.

Yeah, no. Don't believe that.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yeah, no. Don't believe that.

These are simple facts in Hebrew tradition. If he was any kind of Rabbi he had an obligation to marry, and yes by the testimonies of the Gospels Jesus had brothers and sisters,

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Mmh. the world minus one, at least.

Ciao

- viole

Is the "one" Himself?

 

[stvdv]

Jesus could have been gay, straight, bisexual, asexual, etc. No one knows. His behaviors are besides the point.

This all leads to the age old Quest "Who Am I"
Am I straight? ...."neti"
Am I gay? ........ "neti"
Am i bisexual? ... "neti"
Am I asexual? .... "neti"

IF...I am none of the above
THEN.I guess Jesus is none of the above

To me it makes not even sense to ask the question "Who was Jesus?". It's impossible to exactly find out now, after 2000 years
Much smarter to find the answer to the question "Who Am I?" IMO. Solving this, solves all the questions the Wise say

 

[Kenny]

Circular what? You smiley? Yes, I guess.

Giving up? Wise decision.

Ciao

- viole

You went back to what you said posts ago. It is already been addressed.

Adios

Ken