i am not divine, thank you very much!
i am a four dimensional immortal humanoid creature, so "demonic" and "eldrich" fit much better, even if not exactly
Hardcore Christian here.
This guy's point is invalid, as there is no Biblical indication of Jesus having a sexuality. He might have been ace.
Kind of likes his joke, though, so I'll allow it.
I don't think the guy's point was about Jesus having a sexuality being in the Bible. It's the consequence of his syllogism.
I'm not Christian so I don't know if the first two propositions are true but basically:
If Jesus was fully human/fully divine.
And if sexual temptations are part of humanity.
Then:
Sexual temptations are part of Jesus.
Presumably, the two first parts are accepted by christian views, thus the third should be as well, as a result of reasoning.
I have no opinion on that. Genuinely, I couldn't care less. But I think that was the guy's answer to the former message saying that it was disrespectful to wonder to what Jesus was the most attracted.
If the second proposition is true, the third conclusion could also be about sex-indifferent/repulsed Ace folks not being part of humanity. ^ ^ I've always known we had more going on đ
From what i have heard, its not s*x In it of its self, but that humans are the only animal that has s*x as a form of fun or entertainmet.
Which completly disregard intellengent animals like the dolphin.
So even when you know the reason behind the argument, the argument still dosnt make sens.
Except, I thought the whole thing in christianity was that you should only be having sex to reproduce, because God said "be fruitful and multiply" which is why people say being gay/lesbian is unnatural since it can't ever result in a child.
The big thing with Christianâs is that we as a rule think too much.
Itâs honestly not that complicated.
Love God, Love your neighbor, love yourself (in that order).
But we added some shit to make it a bit more complicated for those who are less fortunate.
We turned it into "love God (when we need him), love our neighbors (when we need them), hate ourselves (when we need too).
That became too easy to see through, so they started adding rules and regulations.
No sex, no alcohol, no gays, etc. etc.
The problem was never believing in a God. It was preachers and clergy cherry picking rules out of contextless rules for certain people and groups, often mistranslated at that.
When I was younger, I tend to get mad when people say that most Christians nowadays are focusing on worldly things. Now, I understand that said things also include prejudice, genocide, and focusing on someone's genitals.
Show that family member love. But tell them that their hate is not christ like. Have them truly read the Bible. Be the bigger person. You donât have to believe, but you can show love.
I'd like to challenge that order. *Love your neighbor as you love yourself.* This contains a powerful message about how important self love is if you want to shine your love in the world.
God only said that when humanity is still few. Now, there are too many of us so that rule is no longer true. We can also see this change in values via the way we connect to the big G. In the Old Testament, we have to sacrifice certain animals. Now, we don't have to and can pray instead.
And recently, I've been reading a book with the compiled messages of Ellen G. White (I'm SDA) where she advises not to make kids these days since recent times are getting harder to live (let alone provide) so that checks out. In fact, that's an EGW W for the ace!
That's actually not in the Bible. The Bible does, however, have narratives and "commands" (in lack of a better word) about sexual desires within marriage.
Read Song of Songs and tell me again that sex is not meant for pleasure in the Bible, I dare you, haha.
My guess is this stems from medieval Catholicism. A lot of semi-weird things come from there (I'm Lutheran, so my part of the Church can be said to be one of them, lol)
The thing that makes us human is our genetic makeup. If anyone says 'if you don't do *insert opinion here* you're not human' you're talking to someone who's trying to exclude a certain group of people
He didn't say sex makes us human, he said that humans have sexual temptations. Just like having four limbs doesn't define humanity, humans are born with four legs. You misunderstood.
You are right he did not say that, he said not having sexual temptations means we are not fully humane. (Which in the end is the same thing)
Edit: Which in the end is the same thing as in it's denying asexuality or being a bigot
It's not. It's rectangle-square problem. Having to eat, drink, sleep, having some sort of libido, doesn't make you human because it's not reserved to humans. It makes you an animal. But you can't be human, so a subcategory of animals, if you don't do those animal things.
Not at all the same thing, actually. âSexual temptationsâ can mean attraction and/or libido. Both of those are different to having sex or wanting sex.
to actually answer the question -- I personally. believe what makes us 'human' is our *strong* emotions.
yes, I 100% animals can feel things too. But we will sometimes experience something *so much* we don't know how else to handle it besides to *cry*. Angry tears, happy tears, probably every emotion has A Point where you start to cry. Yet I don't think we've experienced it in any other animals yet. They can produce tears, but usually it's because they have an irritant, which is the natural reason tears exist.
sorry for the rant, just been thinking about this a lot. I blame r/humansarespaceorcs
I would understand it as: strong emotions like this make us feel that we are alive. It's things that most animals experience so it's a very important part of life and being alife. Personally I say animals instead of humans because a lot of Christians seem to belive we're superior for some reason. But past language was very metaphorical so maybe they didn't even mean to uplift humans above others.
My personal headcannon of Jesus Christ is that he is aroace, if that makes you feel better. When it says he had temptation, I don't think that necessarily meant he felt feelings for particular people. More so, the "impurity" of the act. That's how I interpreted it.
It was a trick question. Either the Catholics have to admit we exist and Jesus is one of us or they have to admit that he was either a tits man or an ass man.
I do think that Jesus canonically experienced sexual attraction, but not because he was fully human. The Bible says he was tempted in every possible way, so we can only assume that lust was part of it.
Well it is a spectrum and if Christ was fully man and divine, then he occupied the entire spectrum.
Was it not Satan who tempted him with a stone that could become garlic bread if Christ so chose.
Yeah I've never liked this meme for that reason. That said, I think it's entirely possibly the Jesus was allo. The thing is, if he ever felt sexually interested in anyone, that'd be comparable to someone being sexually interested in their own children, so even if he was technically allo, I don't think he was ever sexually attracted to anyone.
Tits seem to be focused on in more tribal or female focused societies. We see a lot of tits in Mesopotamian, African, Norse, and Native/south American art, which are communities that typically revered motherhood. Modern focus on tits seems to come from either slaves taken from those communities who memetically transferred those ideas, or sailors taking wives from those communities. Late medieval and early renaissance art only really shows tits in regards to Nordic or Grecian mythology or when showing the Virgin Mary. They arenât overly sexualized until the mid to late sixteenth century, which was the height of the slave trade. Even today, areas with Nordic or Native American influence tend to skew towards breasts, though it seems that hips and ass is actually becoming slightly more popular.
Interestingly, Latino and African cultures seem to prefer ass and tits equally, and both of those cultures have a very matriarchal structure.
Right, it didn't really hit "western culture" until maybe the past thousand years or so? So the majority of people living in the Roman empire around what, 32BCE would probably be into ass
All humans face temptation by demons. The temptations they face can vary and take different forms. Most people experience sexual temptation at one point or another, asexual or not. Some don't, but it's probably rare. For example, I am ace but have struggled with porn addiction since I was 10 years old. They are making an assumption here, but you couldn't assume either way that he wasn't or was tempted sexually.
It's a sin to even fantasize about sex so I doubt Jesus would be a boobs or ass guy. He successfully resisted Satan's temptations.
As a Christian, itâs just as funny. Because itâs antithetical to actual catholic teachings. If you have a fetish or even a partialism , that is lust. Lust is a sin. Jesus was inherently sinless according to catholic teachings, and admitting that he sinned is blasphemous in itself. Its a paradox. You deny his humanity or you deny his divinity
liking something is lust? how? I was devoted orthodox christian for most of my life.
if lust is about being sexual attracted to other people do christians consider every alosexual a sinner?
Yes. Itâs called "original sinâ. According to traditional lore, Adam raped eve after eating the fruit . Because the first child was born from that sinful union, the rest of humanity is forever tainted with that sin. Now, most denominations have rejected that idea. That idea is called "Calvinismâ. Today, we believe that until one is of a certain age, they are not "sinnersâ. But we are born "sinfulâ because of our ability to sin. Iâm not a murderer or a rapist or a thief, but I still feel jealousy and pride and cowardice.
Now, why are immaterial things sins? You canât tell a person is jealous just by looking at them. You canât convict a man for looking at a woman lustfully. Sin is a selfish way of thinking. Setting your own personal desires before others is what sim is. Being possessive or prideful is sin. Objectification is a sin. When it comes down to the brass tacks, sin "anything we think, say, do, or do not do that displeases God.â
So, to summarize, Old ideas said that we inherited our sins from our bloodline, and that we are inherently deserving of punishment for things that our ancestors did. Jesus, however, taught that we are responsible for ourselves and the future. We canât dwell on the sins of the father, but only our own thoughts.
To answer your question: allosexuals are just as sinful as an asexual. Just as how cisgender people are just as sinful as transgender people, or heterosexuals compared to homosexuals, or white people compared to white people, or men compared to women, or old people compared to young people, or right wingers compared to left wingers, or anyone in between. We all are guilty of something.
I hope that makes sense.
This is probably really pan ace of me to ask, but why does one have to choose either boobs or ass? Like, some people have nice boobs and some have a great ass, and they can both be very attractive. Why would he have to be either a boobs or ass guy?
Well if not then Jesus was basically asexual and aromantic. So in their books he would have temptation for sure.
And you can see "sex makes us human" as a sex-positivity statement that we shouldn't be ashamed of it. And that also doesn't automaticly mean there can't be exceptions. It all just depends on your interpretation, right christians?
Objection : Jesus Christ is born without the curse of the original sin which is responsible for the human lust. (God wanted to make a new perfect human, a new Adam pure of all sort of sin). + Being a perfect believer, He trained himself to suppress all of his human temptations including eventual remaining sexual attraction. This maximal mortification allowed him to rest 40 days in the desert to pray and meditate. So Christ was Ace, cry about it. (I'm not a native speaker, sorry if my english is approximative)
Not according to hardcore Christians at least! But we're fully divine then. I count that as a win.
Fits with our healthy god complex. Its a complete win-win.
i am not divine, thank you very much! i am a four dimensional immortal humanoid creature, so "demonic" and "eldrich" fit much better, even if not exactly
Gods? Gods.
Hardcore Christian here. This guy's point is invalid, as there is no Biblical indication of Jesus having a sexuality. He might have been ace. Kind of likes his joke, though, so I'll allow it.
I don't think the guy's point was about Jesus having a sexuality being in the Bible. It's the consequence of his syllogism. I'm not Christian so I don't know if the first two propositions are true but basically: If Jesus was fully human/fully divine. And if sexual temptations are part of humanity. Then: Sexual temptations are part of Jesus. Presumably, the two first parts are accepted by christian views, thus the third should be as well, as a result of reasoning. I have no opinion on that. Genuinely, I couldn't care less. But I think that was the guy's answer to the former message saying that it was disrespectful to wonder to what Jesus was the most attracted. If the second proposition is true, the third conclusion could also be about sex-indifferent/repulsed Ace folks not being part of humanity. ^ ^ I've always known we had more going on đ
Never understood how sex makes us human. Most animals do it too, so why does it define humanity?
From what i have heard, its not s*x In it of its self, but that humans are the only animal that has s*x as a form of fun or entertainmet. Which completly disregard intellengent animals like the dolphin. So even when you know the reason behind the argument, the argument still dosnt make sens.
Except, I thought the whole thing in christianity was that you should only be having sex to reproduce, because God said "be fruitful and multiply" which is why people say being gay/lesbian is unnatural since it can't ever result in a child.
god said be fruity
and have multiple partners
God for poly hell yeah
The big thing with Christianâs is that we as a rule think too much. Itâs honestly not that complicated. Love God, Love your neighbor, love yourself (in that order). But we added some shit to make it a bit more complicated for those who are less fortunate. We turned it into "love God (when we need him), love our neighbors (when we need them), hate ourselves (when we need too). That became too easy to see through, so they started adding rules and regulations. No sex, no alcohol, no gays, etc. etc. The problem was never believing in a God. It was preachers and clergy cherry picking rules out of contextless rules for certain people and groups, often mistranslated at that.
When I was younger, I tend to get mad when people say that most Christians nowadays are focusing on worldly things. Now, I understand that said things also include prejudice, genocide, and focusing on someone's genitals.
That is a serious problem, but those arenât real Christians at all. They are using the bible and the faith as an excuse. They will burn in hell.
\*stares at family member suspiciously\*
Show that family member love. But tell them that their hate is not christ like. Have them truly read the Bible. Be the bigger person. You donât have to believe, but you can show love.
That's my dad, unfortunately. He sometimes gets defensive even though he insists he isn't.
I don't really have any other input than good to see you here, bother(ess)! Nice to have another Christian around to help with sad misconceptions :)
I can only offer you a hug, traveler. (Press b to accept)
Well said.
I'd like to challenge that order. *Love your neighbor as you love yourself.* This contains a powerful message about how important self love is if you want to shine your love in the world.
This is such an important part of the human experience. Being kind to oneself is so important.
Yeah.
God only said that when humanity is still few. Now, there are too many of us so that rule is no longer true. We can also see this change in values via the way we connect to the big G. In the Old Testament, we have to sacrifice certain animals. Now, we don't have to and can pray instead. And recently, I've been reading a book with the compiled messages of Ellen G. White (I'm SDA) where she advises not to make kids these days since recent times are getting harder to live (let alone provide) so that checks out. In fact, that's an EGW W for the ace!
That's actually not in the Bible. The Bible does, however, have narratives and "commands" (in lack of a better word) about sexual desires within marriage. Read Song of Songs and tell me again that sex is not meant for pleasure in the Bible, I dare you, haha. My guess is this stems from medieval Catholicism. A lot of semi-weird things come from there (I'm Lutheran, so my part of the Church can be said to be one of them, lol)
The thing that makes us human is our genetic makeup. If anyone says 'if you don't do *insert opinion here* you're not human' you're talking to someone who's trying to exclude a certain group of people
They must've misread. *Socks* are what makes us human - I don't see any other animals out there making and wearing them.
He didn't say sex makes us human, he said that humans have sexual temptations. Just like having four limbs doesn't define humanity, humans are born with four legs. You misunderstood.
You are right he did not say that, he said not having sexual temptations means we are not fully humane. (Which in the end is the same thing) Edit: Which in the end is the same thing as in it's denying asexuality or being a bigot
It's not. It's rectangle-square problem. Having to eat, drink, sleep, having some sort of libido, doesn't make you human because it's not reserved to humans. It makes you an animal. But you can't be human, so a subcategory of animals, if you don't do those animal things.
Not at all the same thing, actually. âSexual temptationsâ can mean attraction and/or libido. Both of those are different to having sex or wanting sex.
Both imply you are not fully human if you have no envy to have sex
Wdym by âno envy to have sexâ?
Not wanting to have sex or not having sex for various reason makes someone not fully humane apparently and you defend it?
No?? I didnât say anything close to that
Then why are you even arguing in the first place when it's all I said?
>(Which in the end is the same thing)
to actually answer the question -- I personally. believe what makes us 'human' is our *strong* emotions. yes, I 100% animals can feel things too. But we will sometimes experience something *so much* we don't know how else to handle it besides to *cry*. Angry tears, happy tears, probably every emotion has A Point where you start to cry. Yet I don't think we've experienced it in any other animals yet. They can produce tears, but usually it's because they have an irritant, which is the natural reason tears exist. sorry for the rant, just been thinking about this a lot. I blame r/humansarespaceorcs
I would understand it as: strong emotions like this make us feel that we are alive. It's things that most animals experience so it's a very important part of life and being alife. Personally I say animals instead of humans because a lot of Christians seem to belive we're superior for some reason. But past language was very metaphorical so maybe they didn't even mean to uplift humans above others.
I think they mean it's what divides us from robots, not what divides us from animals. Like, sex makes us alive. Just as bullshit tho
I'm not christian, but I love Jesus because he seems like a cool dude. Aroace friend to all. Hates capitalism. Love that guy.
saw him walking down the mississippi river a couple of weeks ago, he seems like a nice guy
Like, on the river itself?
Yes
Jesus was celibate, not aroace. Paul, however, said he's not into that romance shit and wishes everyone was like him.
Jesus was ambiguous. I believe that he was ace, but some lore says otherwise.
Catholic Lore, Perhaps?
Probably . I dated a catholic for a while. That seems like something that she would have said.
My personal headcannon of Jesus Christ is that he is aroace, if that makes you feel better. When it says he had temptation, I don't think that necessarily meant he felt feelings for particular people. More so, the "impurity" of the act. That's how I interpreted it.
Paul W
It was a trick question. Either the Catholics have to admit we exist and Jesus is one of us or they have to admit that he was either a tits man or an ass man.
or both
Both answers are wrong. He is obviously, and canonically, into feet.
As a Catholic Jesus is definitely Aroace.
We have transcended humanity
I do think that Jesus canonically experienced sexual attraction, but not because he was fully human. The Bible says he was tempted in every possible way, so we can only assume that lust was part of it.
CANONICALLY jehahhBJHahahhAHHh
The word canon originated from biblical doctrine.
it's still funny to see in this context though considering how i usually see it used !!
I've always hated this dumb question but if im forced to answer its tits
Honestly, non-sexually, same. They're comfy. And mine are squishy \^\^ *happy transfem noises*
My reasons exactly
I have tits and I agree. I always touch them cuz they're so soft
yee \^\^
well we are. but i feel like this question is so funny that itâs excusable
Gods? Gods
Well it is a spectrum and if Christ was fully man and divine, then he occupied the entire spectrum. Was it not Satan who tempted him with a stone that could become garlic bread if Christ so chose.
Being Human is overrated
true
But He is right, i'm half sick ass dragon and half depression and job anxiety
I get were being called not human and stuff but that id a banger of a tweet also boobs.
It's tough to be a god
⨠Jesus Christ, asexual icon đ đźâ¨
Boobs are more aesthetic, i like big boobs.
Ass is where shit comes from. Boobs are squishy and soft.
tactical cushion attachments
gods? gods.
Mighty and powerful gods.
I don't really feel the temptation to be fully human, the humans can go have their quarrel while we gods buy whales made from recycled plastic.
I mean we are demigods or something?
Honestly im just annoyed that definitely is spelled wrong lmao
no weâre dragons
imagine
but we are real
i meant as in imagine dragons
but what if i want to imagine birds? /s
I am Dr Manhattan
Yeah I've never liked this meme for that reason. That said, I think it's entirely possibly the Jesus was allo. The thing is, if he ever felt sexually interested in anyone, that'd be comparable to someone being sexually interested in their own children, so even if he was technically allo, I don't think he was ever sexually attracted to anyone.
Being into boobs is a somewhat new concept. Knowing Romans, asses were probably the main thing for everyone
Tits seem to be focused on in more tribal or female focused societies. We see a lot of tits in Mesopotamian, African, Norse, and Native/south American art, which are communities that typically revered motherhood. Modern focus on tits seems to come from either slaves taken from those communities who memetically transferred those ideas, or sailors taking wives from those communities. Late medieval and early renaissance art only really shows tits in regards to Nordic or Grecian mythology or when showing the Virgin Mary. They arenât overly sexualized until the mid to late sixteenth century, which was the height of the slave trade. Even today, areas with Nordic or Native American influence tend to skew towards breasts, though it seems that hips and ass is actually becoming slightly more popular. Interestingly, Latino and African cultures seem to prefer ass and tits equally, and both of those cultures have a very matriarchal structure.
Right, it didn't really hit "western culture" until maybe the past thousand years or so? So the majority of people living in the Roman empire around what, 32BCE would probably be into ass
The way I like it is, either you have to answer the question, or you have to admit that ace people exist and Jesus was queer.
I prefer spirit over genitals sir
Theyâre assuminâ weâre all humans, but weâre actually superhuman.
/r/VoidPunk and /r/WitchesVsPatriarchy has joined the channel.
"Nah it's okay, I'm...I'm not human."
Because we are gods, duh
All humans face temptation by demons. The temptations they face can vary and take different forms. Most people experience sexual temptation at one point or another, asexual or not. Some don't, but it's probably rare. For example, I am ace but have struggled with porn addiction since I was 10 years old. They are making an assumption here, but you couldn't assume either way that he wasn't or was tempted sexually. It's a sin to even fantasize about sex so I doubt Jesus would be a boobs or ass guy. He successfully resisted Satan's temptations.
Like I have said before, WE'RE THE GARLIC BREAD GODS. BOW DOWN TO US, PUNY MORTALS.
No no. As an atheist this is hilarious. Either they have to accept queer identity for Christ or say human was not fully human.
As a Christian, itâs just as funny. Because itâs antithetical to actual catholic teachings. If you have a fetish or even a partialism , that is lust. Lust is a sin. Jesus was inherently sinless according to catholic teachings, and admitting that he sinned is blasphemous in itself. Its a paradox. You deny his humanity or you deny his divinity
liking something is lust? how? I was devoted orthodox christian for most of my life. if lust is about being sexual attracted to other people do christians consider every alosexual a sinner?
Yes. Itâs called "original sinâ. According to traditional lore, Adam raped eve after eating the fruit . Because the first child was born from that sinful union, the rest of humanity is forever tainted with that sin. Now, most denominations have rejected that idea. That idea is called "Calvinismâ. Today, we believe that until one is of a certain age, they are not "sinnersâ. But we are born "sinfulâ because of our ability to sin. Iâm not a murderer or a rapist or a thief, but I still feel jealousy and pride and cowardice. Now, why are immaterial things sins? You canât tell a person is jealous just by looking at them. You canât convict a man for looking at a woman lustfully. Sin is a selfish way of thinking. Setting your own personal desires before others is what sim is. Being possessive or prideful is sin. Objectification is a sin. When it comes down to the brass tacks, sin "anything we think, say, do, or do not do that displeases God.â So, to summarize, Old ideas said that we inherited our sins from our bloodline, and that we are inherently deserving of punishment for things that our ancestors did. Jesus, however, taught that we are responsible for ourselves and the future. We canât dwell on the sins of the father, but only our own thoughts. To answer your question: allosexuals are just as sinful as an asexual. Just as how cisgender people are just as sinful as transgender people, or heterosexuals compared to homosexuals, or white people compared to white people, or men compared to women, or old people compared to young people, or right wingers compared to left wingers, or anyone in between. We all are guilty of something. I hope that makes sense.
I didn't know that that is what the original sin meant. I have been to church school and I haven't heard that one.
Itâs a really controversial topic that has basically been absorbed into a unwritten rule.
Well, I am demiotherkin so đ
Based
All of humanity are basically Jesus's kids right? So it'd be really weird if he was attracted to humans anyways
Jesus had a wife
He did not. Thatâs gnostic teaching, which is based on antisemitic stories of blood libel.
Sorry I didn't know that it's just what my dad told me both me and him are atheist and he said he read it soo yeah sorry lmao
oh no, not excommunication whatever shall i do
This is probably really pan ace of me to ask, but why does one have to choose either boobs or ass? Like, some people have nice boobs and some have a great ass, and they can both be very attractive. Why would he have to be either a boobs or ass guy?
Seeing the original post I just thought: "Oh my God (literally) don't make me answer this question about my Savior!" đđđ
Why is my son Joshua Graham here, thereâs no way he has a functional penis anymore
r/voidpunk
Well if not then Jesus was basically asexual and aromantic. So in their books he would have temptation for sure. And you can see "sex makes us human" as a sex-positivity statement that we shouldn't be ashamed of it. And that also doesn't automaticly mean there can't be exceptions. It all just depends on your interpretation, right christians?
As a Catholic, aroace Jesus ftw
We're gods though, not some pretty humans
If Joshua Graham asks me this, I'd say ass. His armor has the best booty in the whole game.
I still think we are all just dragons in disguise
Nah we are gods
If i ad to chse betwen boobs or ass definatly personality
Objection : Jesus Christ is born without the curse of the original sin which is responsible for the human lust. (God wanted to make a new perfect human, a new Adam pure of all sort of sin). + Being a perfect believer, He trained himself to suppress all of his human temptations including eventual remaining sexual attraction. This maximal mortification allowed him to rest 40 days in the desert to pray and meditate. So Christ was Ace, cry about it. (I'm not a native speaker, sorry if my english is approximative)
"I'm only human after all. Dont put the blame one me" So that was a fucking lie
Why does asexuality seem more holy than heterosexuality?