lol. Clever all around.This is actually a somewhat tricky topic that unless everyone wants to sit through 46 posts of dry theology on religion I will I’m up imperfectly. Technically in Christianity God “hates” no one. God loves all regardless of what they have done, and all- theoretically even Satan, could truly and honestly repent and be forgiven (however Christian scripture tells us Satan doesn’t repent before the end of days as that aspect of the future is prophesied along with his downfall.)
But several places in the Bible have hate. God straight up says he loves Jacob but hates his brother. Jesus literally says that if you don’t hate your brothers or your parents you can’t join his crew. WHAT?’ Well... a few things are going on. The first is that there are almost ALWAYS issue with translations due to how language works- and many times due to repeat translation and dead languages and changes to grammar and so forth- sometimes the exact words in the Bible don’t mean to us what they are supposed to, or they are literally just wrong- incorrect.
But the other very important concept is something called “divine electing love.” Like I said- I’m not getting into it. Research it if you like. Divine electing love is a controversial and complex topic in Christian theology and biblical study, with many interpretations by various churches etc. the short version is that these uses of “hate” in biblical terms are hyperbole. Not that God ACTUALLY hates Jacobs brother- he rejects him for some reason. Not that Jesse said hate your parents- but that the use of hate shows a contrast to the love he’s saying you should have for god. Like saying you love God so much, more than anyone or anything else, that compared to that love and other love you feel would seem tiny. But again- it’s more complex than that.
So while I agree that I don’t believe churches or religions should use the word “hate” or go around saying what god “hates,” the use of “hate” in such contexts can be an example of divine elected love and not actually mean “hate” in the modern and commonly understood way. Sadly however... many supposedly religious people do not actually understand this themselves.
If you're being serious, though, the bible doesn't say anything about asexuality specifically that I can think of. That would likely have just been considered celibacy, which was generally not considered a bad thing - particularly when you used your... freed up time... to help others and worship God.
.
Some people theorize Jesus was asexual, though I'm hesitant to put any labels (gay/straight/bi/asexual/etc) of that kind on him. But felt worth mentioning
Jesus goes into length about how swell it is to be a Eunuch (matt 19:9:12 if your interested) but doesn’t mention asexuals specifically... BUT... it’s complicated. Language and concepts change over time and translation errors occur- so Jesus could be be using the phrasing of “those who... a eunuch...” to reffed to the voluntarily celibate without a requirement that one mitigate their genitals to make that ok. Of course... he also says basically that it’s ok for those who do it for religious reasons- so... that doesn’t necessarily mean the Bible endorses it- kinda like many places say you smoke a joint for cancer but not for fun- same behavior and effect- but the motivates are what makes it a crime or not.
Personally- one could argue and pontificate on what the bible says you can do with your junk for centuries. I’m gonna say Asexuality is A-Ok if we use a modern interpretation of the Bible. Just the same as homosexuality. Ask oneself- if these things were SOOOO bad- we’d know- I’d assume by sheer volume and openness that we’d be due for a smiting. “You’ll see... those who sin like this... their countries will fall and...” bitch, please. Go look up a list of countries where homosexuality is illegal, then look up ones it isn’t. Tell me if you had the choice to be born into the lower or middle class of a random country but you got to pick which list- tell me you wouldn’t choose the list where it’s legal. Evidence suggests that more progressive countries are doing quite well despite cries of doom- so you do as you like with your genitals so long as you maintain informed consent, I’ll clear you on biblical grounds.
It wasn’t directed at you or anyone else on the board. It was hypothetical sass towards the hypothetical person that snippet was a hypothetical response to. Just to be clear.
I know that. It was more YOU using it. I'm not sure that's allowed. Normally we like to leave the swearing to people like me. And @mrscollector , of course, the reigning champion
just gonna say, since the reason that homosexuality was considered bad in ancient times was a general air of waste being considered bad and that homosexuality was a waste of "seed and egg" in males and females respectively (which is the same reason that moneylending was considered evil, they considered it making nothing out of nothing and a huge waste of time, not to mention the whole debt thing)
id say chances are they would look at asexuality in a bad light, celibacy is good in that belief set but by the same belief set you are meant to get married and have children by the will of god so an asexual individual such as myself that would prefer to not do the whole sex thing (and even if i did id be dating a girl anyways which is a whole nother can of worms) would probably be considered a problem.
“Celibacy” for non spiritual reasons would probably have been seen in a poor light back then. But... they didn’t have 7 billion people either. Funny enough- many religions have all sorts of clever work arounds- hard core Orthodox Judaism is like this- special tools and devices are sold to allow basic functioning in a modern world while respecting what can’t be done on the sabbath- you can’t create a spark or fire- which many electrical switches spark when used- technically you ant push buttons at all on the sabbath. It’s work.
But all this is just so nit picky- not to hate on anyone’s beliefs- do what works for you- but we each must decide for ourselves- and well... so much in the Bible doesn’t work anymore. Is god a fan of semantics? Would Jesus have not flipped on the money changers had they been operating a non profit lending service from the church under the same terms? Hmmm....
The fact is that we don’t live in that culture, we have technology and other things the Bible just doesn’t talk about directly. Most people do not live orthodox lives or take fundamentalist views- so anyone following the Bible or using it to say what is and isn’t right- is following just the stuff they care to follow in the way they take it to mean from modern sentiment. The churches tend to be less progressive than society- but funny how the views on women and race and money and such... change in the church over time even though the Bible itself hasn’t changed? Why aren’t Christians today living and worshiping as the ones in the time of Christ, or in 1000ad?
Tl:dr and in conclusion- everyone is just doing their best interpretation- and if we keep in mind the INTENTIONS of such ancient judgments and not their literal words- and we adjust the applications of these intentions to suit the times... as 99.89% of religious people already DO- then in 2020 there is no indication to believe that sexualities other than Hetero would be frowned upon in the eyes of a god, even if yeah- PEOPLE thousands of years ago may not have liked it.
the only further thing i have to say about that is the thing about money lenders, jesus would likely have still not liked them moneylending, even in the name of the church, because they saw any kind of moneylending, even no interest pay exactly back what you got given, as a waste and bad for society and humanity.
Yes. Very true. So it didn’t matter what name was used- the primary theological arguments behind the act (asides a complicated concept of action of prophecy) are that they were perpetuating a system by which those with wealth colluded to maximize their profits exploiting those without wealth, and that they profaned a temple by using it for commerce instead of worship- and that the act of making money without producing anything was seen as wrong.
But pretty much the entire world works off of 2/3 if those principals, and it would be rather uncommon to find people with no loans (home, car, credit) no investments, who never take appreciation or market demand value in the sale of items.
Also to the point- we have to remember the REASON for the ruling- if the reason doesn’t apply or isn’t valid- the ruling doesn’t apply either. So a ruling meant to preserve or increase population- only is valid if those issues face a society. It is unlikely that if all of humanity lived on an island the size of a football field in Jesus time, and had modern medicine and high survival rates- that Jesus would advocate mass multiplication.
It is also an established principal amongst almost all Christian- in fact most all abrahamic religions- that at the very least there is no sin in taking pleasure from otherwise allowed sex. It then is important to mention that most religions of the type in modern times- have gone further and said that sex between a husband and wife need not be for the purpose of procreation explicitly- and the allowance of birth control removes the need for the purpose of sex to be for procreation at ALL.
Therefore- modern religion largely lays these foundations for sex:
1. It is not REQUIRED that a person enjoy sex, or that a person engage in sex other than for procreation.
2. Most all modern religions do NOT require a person to have a child or to attempt to try until they are dead or physically unable to engage in the acts required to attempt to have a child.
- these two facts would make abstaining from sex an acceptable practice and not a sin.
3. A person may enjoy sex.
4. A person may participate in sexual acts not explicitly intended or even possible to end in a conception of life.
These additional exceptions to doctrine paint a pretty clear case that people of all consenting sexual orientations involving another human being may engage in sexual acts.
Well... some will say I missed one...
5. Marriage... now. More and more religions and followers aren’t adhering to sex only after marriage... and many are making it not a sin. This one gets complex. At the root of marriage- Christianity views marriage as a part of God’s will- that humans have a built in desire for companionship and intimacy, and that marriage is the mechanism for that.
Well... it gets shakey from there. Old Testament, new, and other holy books all have their own take and so do individual spiritual authorities. The Catholic Church officially holds two people once married are married forever in the yes of god. Surely Catholics never divorce or remarry? Well... some folks just go with it- others or the church have convoluted dogma and such to allow it or excuse it.
But... there is no sin to NOT marrying and NOT having sex- and the number of people who never had sex before marriage is pretty damn small, and few people picketed them. The Bible doesn’t get into race and marriage- by and large the Bible says little about race- but what it does said mostly says “it doesn’t matter.”
The Bible is quite clear however about marrying those who do not believe AND follow ones religion. Yet.. we hear little of that- of anything it may be held up as noble to Mary and convert a non believer- although “by the book” one would need to convert then marry if we want to get technical.
But we also have to remember the REASONS there. Christians were few and far between in the early days of the New Testament. Non existent in the Old Testament for all intents. So when we see that the REASONING at the time was to spread and preserve a fledgling religion- we can see that these such things would only logically apply when, where, and if Christianity was not a major religion with stable ground beneath it.
So we can see that these religions have largely moved past ancient decrees to marriage- child marriage, arranged marriage, the rites and duties of marriage- it is unlikely that even the most “by the book” marriage of modern believers would be recognized as valid in the time of Christ or before.
These religions have moved past antiquated and obsolete ideas on sex, gender- how a woman behaves and her subservient duties and such- women as property of fathers and husbands and so on. Most have moved past more obscure requirements like those revolving around dress or customs and so on- and of course we are pretty much off the books when it comes to divorce, or punishments for crimes.
But the one that seems to be the most held on to by those who have moved past almost any and all religious doctrine that would traditionally have impeded them or labeled them sinners- is sexuality. I dunnoh man. It’s been 2,000 years. You really think an all knowing being that could see the future would expect humans to not change at all in 2,000 years? Maybe- just like humans were smart (or self serving) enough to figure out the other stuff no longer applied- maybe the same is true if sexuality?
@creativedragonbaby
the tl:dr is basically "the culture in which christianity was formed would have found asexuality to be problematic if said asexuality extended past marriage, prevented marriage or prevented the sexing of their spouse for the purpose of baby making. but now its a very mixed bag"
Tl:dr- the culture that Christianity was formed in probably would have had issues with non religious celibacy- however, Christianity in most forms has wildly adapted over centuries to fit the time and place it is in- and so keeping in mind the REASON that certain things are forbidden in holy texts, there isn’t any indication that asexuality would or should be seen as a problem by modern Christianity any more than divorce or abolishing slave marriages and such.
Sin was not his creation but he allowed it to exist. without the existence of sin we would not need a savior. Furthermore we wouldn't have needed a perfect sacrifice for our imperfect world.
.
Some people theorize Jesus was asexual, though I'm hesitant to put any labels (gay/straight/bi/asexual/etc) of that kind on him. But felt worth mentioning
id say chances are they would look at asexuality in a bad light, celibacy is good in that belief set but by the same belief set you are meant to get married and have children by the will of god so an asexual individual such as myself that would prefer to not do the whole sex thing (and even if i did id be dating a girl anyways which is a whole nother can of worms) would probably be considered a problem.
1. It is not REQUIRED that a person enjoy sex, or that a person engage in sex other than for procreation.
2. Most all modern religions do NOT require a person to have a child or to attempt to try until they are dead or physically unable to engage in the acts required to attempt to have a child.
- these two facts would make abstaining from sex an acceptable practice and not a sin.
3. A person may enjoy sex.
4. A person may participate in sexual acts not explicitly intended or even possible to end in a conception of life.
These additional exceptions to doctrine paint a pretty clear case that people of all consenting sexual orientations involving another human being may engage in sexual acts.
Well... some will say I missed one...
the tl:dr is basically "the culture in which christianity was formed would have found asexuality to be problematic if said asexuality extended past marriage, prevented marriage or prevented the sexing of their spouse for the purpose of baby making. but now its a very mixed bag"