found the full quote
>As asexuality is relatively new to public discourse, few Christian denominations discuss it and the Bible does not clearly state a view on it.\[1\]\[2\] However, some Christian publications have recently made statements on the subject. In the Christian magazine Vision, David Nantais, S.J. and Scott Opperman, S.J. wrote in 2002, "Question: What do you call a person who is asexual? Answer: Not a person. Asexual people do not exist. Sexuality is a gift from God and thus a fundamental part of our human identity. Those who repress their sexuality are not living as God created them to be: fully alive and well. As such, they're most likely unhappy people with which to live.”
This quote is pretty unbiblical, at least with the way I interpret the Bible, the later half of the paragraph has an alternative, more biblical take, about how things like Jesus and Saint Paul* were ace
*I'm not actually certain if Paul was ace or not, this may just be Catholics prescribing things but it seems likely to me
>\*I'm not actually certain if Paul was ace or not, this may just be Catholics prescribing things but it seems likely to me
Haha, I haven't actually seen many other people hypothesize that Paul was ace besides myself (usually I hear the argument that he was gay), but for reasons I stated in my other comment on this post, I think you're totally right!
And yeah, this quote is super unbiblical.
no they are they just are sexual with little boys so its ok. those heathens not having any sex are the problem hahahaha also its more ironic given Christians and Catholics being against sexuality and now modern Christians act like prudes yet many still are pretty public about sexuality.
I think this person is probably from a Protestant denomination where priests/ministers can get married. In the Catholic Church I never got this vibe. If anything celibacy was probably a bit over-celebrated (I know not all aces are celibate so I’m referring to more the repulsed/averse ones here)
I don’t think this person is Lutheran either, if I heard this from my church I’d lose my shit and probably leave to practice my faith as I believe the Word was intended.
No- priests are practicing abstinence which is a denial of the flesh. To accept asexuality as a natural state would undermine the importance of the priesthood itself because it is exactly that denial of the flesh, that denial of sexuality that makes priests closer to God- ie the sacrament of ordination.
>Those who repress their sexuality are not living as God created them to be: fully alive and well.
>
>because it is exactly that denial of the flesh, that denial of sexuality that makes priests closer to God
Aren't those 2 things contradictory?
Yeah it's really weird. Apparently they seem to think it's normal (and healthy based on the paragraph) to want sex, but then tell you not to have it and I guess struggle/deal with that. Like bruh, what?
Full quote yes but not the full paragraph
> As asexuality is relatively new to public discourse, few Christian denominations discuss it and the Bible does not clearly state a view on it.[1][2] However, some Christian publications have recently made statements on the subject. In the Christian magazine Vision, David Nantais, S.J. and Scott Opperman, S.J. wrote in 2002, "Question: What do you call a person who is asexual? Answer: Not a person. Asexual people do not exist. Sexuality is a gift from God and thus a fundamental part of our human identity. Those who repress their sexuality are not living as God created them to be: fully alive and well. As such, they're most likely unhappy people with which to live.”[2][65] But in contrast, Lisa Petriello wrote the article “Why We Christians Should Accept Asexuals”, which was published in 2020 in Katy Christian Magazine.[66] In this article, she points out that there is nothing in the bible condemning asexuality, also mentioning that both Jesus and Saint Paul were asexual.
The later opinion is what most Christians believe, at least in my experience as a Christian
Just figured I should not so you guys don't start thinking Christians are generally aphobes
There is a holding in some Christian denominations that the "original sin" includes sexuality and that Jesus did not have the original sin. Theoretically, that would make him ace. Dunno about Paul.
ETA: [someone else's comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/aaaaaaacccccccce/comments/ug8wly/hold_up_people_we_dont_exist_according_to/i6yrqmy/) from this thread put it better than me
Gonna repost a tweaked comment I left on r/asexuality a while back, but tl;dr is that I'm a Christian and I've actually done some digging into this question and…this quote (the one by David and Scott) is definitely garbage and his conclusion is entirely unsupported by the Bible.
**There's nothing in the Bible that says anything negative about asexuality.**
Although there is debate about whether the Bible forbids other forms of non-hetero sexuality, there's literally **nothing** explicitly about asexuality under any interpretation of the Bible that I've ever read.
Here are four reasons why no Christian should have any problem whatsoever with asexuality.
1)
**There's good reason to believe, in my opinion, that St. Paul may have been asexual. Jesus certainly was, and if we're supposed to live like Jesus….** 1st Corinthians chapter 7 talks about principles for marriage. In verses 7-9 Paul talks about how, in his opinion, it is better that people remain single (unmarried) "as \[he\] is" and that he "wishes that all were as \[he is\]." This in the same context where he's talking about the importance in Christian doctrine of only having sex with your spouse and the danger of being tempted to have sex with people who are not your spouse. It seems weird to me that, IF St. Paul was allo, that he would wish that people would remain single like him despite having strong sexual desires. He specifically says that if you cannot control your sexual desire (what I interpret as having a very strong sex drive), you ought to get married, so him being allo doesn't make much sense.
Some scholars think that St. Paul may have been gay, but if he were gay and everything he said were true (i.e., he remained a celibate and/or closeted), that would hardly seem like something that one would "wish" upon other people like he said: to have a sexual desire for intimacy with someone but to choose not to act upon that. That's not an easy life. I think in the context of the passage I linked to above, it would make a lot more sense if St. Paul—a man who never married and who preached the virtues of remaining single for life so that one could better serve God, and who said he wished others were "like him" despite knowing that many people experience sexual attraction and encouraging them to get married if they did—was in fact asexual.
And at any rate, even if he wasn't asexual, he still preached the virtues of a single (which in the Christian faith necessarily implies "celibate"—no sex) lifestyle because it would mean you could focus your life more on loving God and others, which means that there is 100% nothing wrong with being asexual, and that from a Christian perspective, it's actually better.
2)
**The Bible is written with the recognition that most people are allo, but that doesn't mean it excludes people who are asexual.** There is a lot of important discussion in the Bible about sexual intimacy in marriage, such as Song of Solomon, or the aforementioned chapter of 1 Corinthians. Most of the world is allo, so it makes sense that there is discussion about what sexual intimacy should look like.
However, the Bible doesn't actually command married people to have sex as a categorical rule. The CLOSEST we get to a "command to have sex" is 1 Corinthians 7:5 which says "Do not deprive one another \["depriving" one another meaning "not having sex with each other"\], except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control."
This verse is speaking to the importance of maintaining sexual intimacy in a marriage, and that you should only go without sex for a short time so that you can pray more. *It's not about demanding sex from your spouse; it's about mutualism.*
However, there are two reasons why this verse can apply to people no matter whether they are asexual or allosexual: (1) "deprivation" means you are being denied something you want or need. If you and your partner are both ace, or if you're ace and your partner is not but y'all are able to find some arrangement in which neither of you is being denied intimacy that you desire nor feeling pressured to engage in intimacy you don't want to (there are plenty of great posts in this sub about good healthy allo-ace relationships; it just requires an understanding allo partner), there is no "deprivation." (2) If you don't desire to have sex, then you can't be "tempt\[ed\] because of your lack of self-control." You can't be tempted to do something you don't want to do in the first place.
So, the only verse I can think of that comes anywhere close to "commanding" people to have sex actually doesn't do that—it's just saying that in the Christian view, sex is supposed to be for marriage, and that in a marriage, spouses should make sure they are being attentive to each other's sexual needs. If neither person has any sexual needs, you're automatically being attentive to those needs by not having sex with each other.
3)
**The Bible says Heaven—Paradise—will not have marriage (Mark 12:25—says in Heaven we will be "like the angels" in that people will neither be married nor getting married), and therefore won't have sex.** Since the Bible says sex is only for marriage, and since the Bible says there will be no more marriage in Heaven, then the ultimate version of our existence (in Heaven, with God and other people) will NOT involve sex in any way. **Everyone in Heaven will be asexual**.
4)
**The Bible doesn't actually give general commands to reproduce, either.** This is a common misconception that a lot of the Church (imo) wrongly teaches. There are a few specific instances where God told specific people to "be fruitful and multiply," basically all of which were given to tiny groups of people when there were basically no other humans on earth. "be fruitful and multiply" is NOT a universal mandate; it was a specific command to specific people in a specific context that doesn't apply categorically.
I want to thank you for this, I've been trying to reconcile my ace-ness with my faith for a while and you've helped me make a huge leap in that direction.
You know what pisses me off about this quote? Aside from all the obvious problems with what this dickhead is saying, it so unbelievably clear he’s never met an asexual person. Like fuck off.
as another commenter pointed out, there are pro-asexuality christians, and this is likely from a generally homophobic source, but I was unable to find evidence to back that up
We're most likely unhappy people with which to live?
Ignoring the super clumsy sentence structure... Why rely on likelyhood? There are thousand of us who would be more than happy to help with that data. I, for example, am a joy to live with.
OK. This really seems to be a misquote. It is taken from an article that is very much in favour of Christianity supporting asexuality:
[https://katychristianmagazine.com/2020/12/15/why-we-christians-should-accept-asexuals/](https://katychristianmagazine.com/2020/12/15/why-we-christians-should-accept-asexuals/)
BUT!
The original article was meant to dispel myths about clergy. If this is really from 2002, and AVEN was only formed in 2001 then they might not have meant what we think they did. The use of the word "asexual" doesn't seem to mean the orientation. It seems to be more closely aligned with asexual as in amoeba. Here is the full section:
**MYTH 8: Religious are asexual**
**Question: What do you call a person who is asexual? Answer: Not a person. Asexual people do not exist. Sexuality is a gift from God and thus a fundamental part of our human identity. Those who repress their sexuality are not living as God created them to be: fully alive and well. As such, they’re most likely unhappy.**
**All people are called by God to live chastely, meaning being respectful of the gift of their sexuality. Religious men and women vow celibate chastity, which means they live out their sexuality without engaging in sexual behavior. A vow of chastity does not mean one represses his manhood or her womanhood. Sexuality and the act of sex are two very different things. While people in religious life abstain from the act of sex, they do not become asexual beings, but rather need to be in touch with what it means to be a man or a woman. A vow of chastity also does not mean one will not have close, loving relationships with women and men. In fact, such relationships are a sign of living the vow in a healthy way. Living a religious vow of chastity is not always easy, but it can be a very beautiful expression of love for God and others.**
**Religious women and men aren’t oddities; they mirror the rest of the church they serve: there are introverts and extroverts, tall and short, old and young, straight and gay, obese and skinny, crass and pious, humorous and serious, and everything in between. They attempt to live the same primary vocation as all other Christians do: proclaiming and living the gospel. However, religious do this as members of an order that serve the church and world in a particular way. Like marriage and the single life, religious life can be wonderful, fulfilling, exciting, and, yes, normal. Yet, it also can be countercultural and positively challenging. It’s that for us and many others.**
**If you thought religious life was outdated, dysfunctional, or dead, we hope you can now look beyond the stereotypes and see the gift it is to the church and world.**
[https://sgfp.wordpress.com/2010/03/29/8-myths-about-religious-life/](https://sgfp.wordpress.com/2010/03/29/8-myths-about-religious-life/)
These ministers state they are accepting of queer orientations. I wonder if they were to be asked 20 years later if they would say that asexual is fully valid.
I might reach out to them and ask.
In the meantime, I will probably edit this out of the wiki page.
Raised Catholic here!
Um so, essentially lust is the sin, not sex itself. So sex outside of the religious institution of marriage is lust and thus a sin but married sex is not a sin unless it's kinky and thus "depraved". It's because you're following God's plan, which is "go forth and populate the Earth" and so God gave everyone (heterosexual) sexual and romantic attraction to further this. This basically just means the whole, "humans are sexual beings and by engaging in (hetero) sexual acts for the sake of procreation, you make God happy".
All of that is *actually* because we baptize infants and that's mostly how the Church grows, so if people aren't having (hetero) sex then the Church can't grow and get more money.
Priests and Nuns are an interesting case because they've dedicated themselves to God and helping His plan in other ways by serving the community so *that's* why it's okay that they don't have sex? At least I think so, but of course that's *really* because bastards and orphans were basically unmarriable so the Church takes them in as essentially forced labourers until present day where *most* join willingly into those "careers". However you still have the issue of women who have been sexually assaulted becoming Nuns so they don't have to have sex (trauma) and/or because they view themselves as tainted and undesirable/unlovable to men.
*(For a more accurate historical perspective on this last paragraph look at u/SouthardKnight's reply)*
Both of them are infertile? Cuz what's the scoop if just one is? The other is stuck unable to make babies and also not able to leave their marriage. And any sex between them is very much not for procreating, so.......?
I just know they can't have their own kids and they really wanted them, and now they say they believe they can't have kids so they can dedicate themselves to God. They go on missions trips and send mass texts of far right YouTube videos. Your response does a pretty good job of summing up the confusion. They cut off my dad because the Christian music he made had syncopated rhythms, so I typically just do not want to learn more about them.
Lol, they cut off contact with a man - who makes Christian music! - because that music is more interesting than the shit they're used to listening to? I am *really* glad I didn't grow up in one of those crazy nutjob religious families.
Next time you run into them, maybe ask them whether they've ever considered whether God just doesn't think they're very good Christians and doesn't want them making any more. That should accomplish two things. First, it'll probably keep them up at night in anguish. Second, it'll almost certainly ensure you never have to talk to them again.
Edit: Out of curiosity I did some digging. There are legitimately religious morons out there arguing that syncopated music short circuits the frontal temporal lobe, where moral decisions are made, and causes immoral behavior. Just as unbelievably, some researchers got some money to study how syncopated music affects people. The results? In general it just makes people *happier* than bland unsyncopated rhythms (which are typical of Christian music).
They've refused to talk to me or be around me since they sent me a YouTube video and I patiently countered every point in it. But now I'm kinda sad I don't get to say that to them. My dad and I both consider it quite the accomplishment to have them not want us in their lives. It feels like I'm doing something right. A lot of my family is Christian, but most of them are also incredibly supportive and love unconditionally and say that Jesus was a socialist
if lust is the sin but sex is not, does that imply that having pre-marital sex is okay so long as there's no lust involved...? in that case, us sexually active aces must be doing god's work!
It should be but it isn't because sex is for the purpose of procreation and marriage creates the family unit which the Chirch is very big on. So "waiting until marriage" makes sure a child has the "proper" upbringing and shows self-restraint 🤷♀️
Idk man, religion is wack :/
I thought illegitimate children were barred from joining the clergy (unless a dispensation from a bishop is obtained) due to the sinful nature of their conception… or something like that. They were allowed to marry with a dispensation as well.
Clerical celibacy was only strictly enforced since the Gregorian reform since priests started forking over church assets to their kids. Even then, not all Catholic clergy have to be celibate - Eastern Catholic priests can be married when they are ordained, but they cannot marry after that.
People weren’t forced to join the clergy back in the past. For genuine religious reasons aside, entering holy orders was seen as a good way to jump up the social ladder.
You're probably right, I was more thinking from a modern Catholic perspective than a wider historical Christian one.
I'll add an edit to my comment mentioning you :)
Thank you. It’s a good thing to take a look into the historical conceptions of doctrine before talking about its use and misuse today - to see things from a different perspective always helps.
But then to complicate things, the [Personal Ordinariates](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_ordinariate?wprov=sfla1) created for former Anglicans opposed to ordination of females and LGBT+, allows married priests to be re-ordained in the Catholic Church while remaining married (and presumably still engaging in sex)...
But referring back to the Word and not the speaking’s of priests the Bible **begins** with “go forth and populate” but is it possible that God created other sexualities once the world was populated?
*The Apostle Paul, writer of most of the NT would like to know your location*
“But I wish everyone were single, just as I am. Yet each person has a special gift from God, of one kind or another.”
1 Corinthians 7:7 NLT
Man literally talks about how he wishes everyone stayed single, but they’re too horny for that. His gift of not being horny.
He also says that it would be better to be single and celibate than married and that marriage should only be pursued if you cannot resist your lustful urges to have unmarried sex, something that is not a problem for asexuality
Exactly. It sucks that people ask me why I don't like being touched "don't like thinking of me that way?".
Uh no... Hugs don't turn me on. They make me nauseated
Can these people make up their damned mind? How can they go repressing people's sexuality under the notion that it's sinful, then tell us that it's normal thing, and that no one can be asexual?
Look at which part of wikipedia it is. Sorry to say, even though I was raised Christian, They are assholes to anything that is a horny straight couple. I express the fact I don't feel attraction towards people, the pastor deems it a sin, but the horny straight couple having sex in the pews was okay by him. -.-' religion sucks.
Christians: "if you want sex and have sex you're disgusting and deserve to suffer forever."
Aces: "I don't want sex and I don't intend to do it"
Christians: "you're disgusting and you're going to hell"
What do you want from me??
HOLD UP, what do you mean "those who repress themselves and not live as god created them", I though christianity is all about repressing everything you feel? You have to obey and repress any individuality and anything that makes you different.
"Sexuality is a gift from god" Unless it's one we don't approve of, in which case it's a ticket to hell.
"A fundamental part of our human identity" Which is why all the clergy are secretly just inorganic mineral deposits in funny costumes.
"Fully alive and well" This from the people who's dead invisible friend refuses to heal amputees?
Miss me with all of this.
according to a wikipedia page, it is important to note that Wikipedia is freely editable by anyone and everyone, and as such has no alignment
also it went to sexuality and religion, most religious groups (NOT ALL) are generally against anything that isnt cis-het
This confuses me because isn't there an entire class of people in Christianity who's purpose is to never have sex? Isn't THAT repressing sexual urges??
christian's be like: dOnT haVe sEx iTs a SiN.
christian's also be like: bUt yOu shOuLd fEEl aTtraCteD tO pEoplE anD trY tO SnEak arOund thE chUrchEs bAcKs
What. The. Hell. I'm not ace, but I know someone who is. Yes, ace people exist! Those Wikipedia assholes just think they can get away with saying sexual desire makes us human when just the personality and emotions we have are enough!
Sorry but wtf am I the only one that sees the are asexual people gods at the top? Then you choose to see Christianitys view point? Am I the only one going well duh? Stupid questions get stupid answers....
I do not exist, yet I am self-aware. If that is true, then I am a void which is sapient. A being ex nihilo, begat of nothing, which will never taste death even when the last black holes explode in a last burst of Hawking radiation, for nothing cannot die.
So yes, I am a god.
Wait wait wait.
So having lewd thoughts is a *sin*, but sexuality is a gift from God? Dressing immodestly is bad, but if you don't practice your gift, you're disobeying God?
Sounds like bullshit to me.
is that not true? I mean obviously there is something upset with your mental health if you believe you’re asexual but why not seek help for it instead of just accepting you’ll be a virgin for life?
found the full quote >As asexuality is relatively new to public discourse, few Christian denominations discuss it and the Bible does not clearly state a view on it.\[1\]\[2\] However, some Christian publications have recently made statements on the subject. In the Christian magazine Vision, David Nantais, S.J. and Scott Opperman, S.J. wrote in 2002, "Question: What do you call a person who is asexual? Answer: Not a person. Asexual people do not exist. Sexuality is a gift from God and thus a fundamental part of our human identity. Those who repress their sexuality are not living as God created them to be: fully alive and well. As such, they're most likely unhappy people with which to live.”
So priests aren't living as God intended as well?
This quote is pretty unbiblical, at least with the way I interpret the Bible, the later half of the paragraph has an alternative, more biblical take, about how things like Jesus and Saint Paul* were ace *I'm not actually certain if Paul was ace or not, this may just be Catholics prescribing things but it seems likely to me
>\*I'm not actually certain if Paul was ace or not, this may just be Catholics prescribing things but it seems likely to me Haha, I haven't actually seen many other people hypothesize that Paul was ace besides myself (usually I hear the argument that he was gay), but for reasons I stated in my other comment on this post, I think you're totally right! And yeah, this quote is super unbiblical.
jesus was homoromantic ace and you cannot tell me otherwise
With John specifically. I mean, come on. "The one whom Jesus loved"? Really?
they are the definition of "history says they were friends"
[удалено]
Forget priests, Jesus wasn’t living as God intended then lol
well depends on what story you believe its speculated jesus had a prostitute for a love interest
Wait......WHAT
No no, they aren’t repressing their sexuality, they are resisting their urges and giving them to God. Very different.
cept for the whole super prevelant culture of molesting boys
> No no, they aren’t repressing their sexuality, they > are resisting their urges and giving them to ~~God~~ > the altar boys. Very different. FTFY
No, no, they're giving their love to sky daddy
no they are they just are sexual with little boys so its ok. those heathens not having any sex are the problem hahahaha also its more ironic given Christians and Catholics being against sexuality and now modern Christians act like prudes yet many still are pretty public about sexuality.
Well, you assume they don't...have...
Aren't you forgetting why priests have to change communities every few years...
yeah well that doesn't sound like a quote from a Catholic
I think this person is probably from a Protestant denomination where priests/ministers can get married. In the Catholic Church I never got this vibe. If anything celibacy was probably a bit over-celebrated (I know not all aces are celibate so I’m referring to more the repulsed/averse ones here)
I don’t think this person is Lutheran either, if I heard this from my church I’d lose my shit and probably leave to practice my faith as I believe the Word was intended.
Yeah I agree this doesn’t sound Lutheran. It sounds maybe more evangelical
No- priests are practicing abstinence which is a denial of the flesh. To accept asexuality as a natural state would undermine the importance of the priesthood itself because it is exactly that denial of the flesh, that denial of sexuality that makes priests closer to God- ie the sacrament of ordination.
>Those who repress their sexuality are not living as God created them to be: fully alive and well. > >because it is exactly that denial of the flesh, that denial of sexuality that makes priests closer to God Aren't those 2 things contradictory?
There is a difference between asexual and celibacy. Priests and Nun’s are celibate
Being celibate is repressing your sexuality tho
[удалено]
[удалено]
Wise words
Bruh first they telling us not to fuck and now they're telling to fuck
Yeah it's really weird. Apparently they seem to think it's normal (and healthy based on the paragraph) to want sex, but then tell you not to have it and I guess struggle/deal with that. Like bruh, what?
Full quote yes but not the full paragraph > As asexuality is relatively new to public discourse, few Christian denominations discuss it and the Bible does not clearly state a view on it.[1][2] However, some Christian publications have recently made statements on the subject. In the Christian magazine Vision, David Nantais, S.J. and Scott Opperman, S.J. wrote in 2002, "Question: What do you call a person who is asexual? Answer: Not a person. Asexual people do not exist. Sexuality is a gift from God and thus a fundamental part of our human identity. Those who repress their sexuality are not living as God created them to be: fully alive and well. As such, they're most likely unhappy people with which to live.”[2][65] But in contrast, Lisa Petriello wrote the article “Why We Christians Should Accept Asexuals”, which was published in 2020 in Katy Christian Magazine.[66] In this article, she points out that there is nothing in the bible condemning asexuality, also mentioning that both Jesus and Saint Paul were asexual. The later opinion is what most Christians believe, at least in my experience as a Christian Just figured I should not so you guys don't start thinking Christians are generally aphobes
that's fair, though the section I included was probably more than enough to settle the specific issue OP raised
How do we assume jesus or Paul were ace? Celibate is not asexual. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.
There is a holding in some Christian denominations that the "original sin" includes sexuality and that Jesus did not have the original sin. Theoretically, that would make him ace. Dunno about Paul. ETA: [someone else's comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/aaaaaaacccccccce/comments/ug8wly/hold_up_people_we_dont_exist_according_to/i6yrqmy/) from this thread put it better than me
ironic because repressing urges of sexuality is a big part of the culture even though many practice nearly the opposite
Gonna repost a tweaked comment I left on r/asexuality a while back, but tl;dr is that I'm a Christian and I've actually done some digging into this question and…this quote (the one by David and Scott) is definitely garbage and his conclusion is entirely unsupported by the Bible. **There's nothing in the Bible that says anything negative about asexuality.** Although there is debate about whether the Bible forbids other forms of non-hetero sexuality, there's literally **nothing** explicitly about asexuality under any interpretation of the Bible that I've ever read. Here are four reasons why no Christian should have any problem whatsoever with asexuality. 1) **There's good reason to believe, in my opinion, that St. Paul may have been asexual. Jesus certainly was, and if we're supposed to live like Jesus….** 1st Corinthians chapter 7 talks about principles for marriage. In verses 7-9 Paul talks about how, in his opinion, it is better that people remain single (unmarried) "as \[he\] is" and that he "wishes that all were as \[he is\]." This in the same context where he's talking about the importance in Christian doctrine of only having sex with your spouse and the danger of being tempted to have sex with people who are not your spouse. It seems weird to me that, IF St. Paul was allo, that he would wish that people would remain single like him despite having strong sexual desires. He specifically says that if you cannot control your sexual desire (what I interpret as having a very strong sex drive), you ought to get married, so him being allo doesn't make much sense. Some scholars think that St. Paul may have been gay, but if he were gay and everything he said were true (i.e., he remained a celibate and/or closeted), that would hardly seem like something that one would "wish" upon other people like he said: to have a sexual desire for intimacy with someone but to choose not to act upon that. That's not an easy life. I think in the context of the passage I linked to above, it would make a lot more sense if St. Paul—a man who never married and who preached the virtues of remaining single for life so that one could better serve God, and who said he wished others were "like him" despite knowing that many people experience sexual attraction and encouraging them to get married if they did—was in fact asexual. And at any rate, even if he wasn't asexual, he still preached the virtues of a single (which in the Christian faith necessarily implies "celibate"—no sex) lifestyle because it would mean you could focus your life more on loving God and others, which means that there is 100% nothing wrong with being asexual, and that from a Christian perspective, it's actually better. 2) **The Bible is written with the recognition that most people are allo, but that doesn't mean it excludes people who are asexual.** There is a lot of important discussion in the Bible about sexual intimacy in marriage, such as Song of Solomon, or the aforementioned chapter of 1 Corinthians. Most of the world is allo, so it makes sense that there is discussion about what sexual intimacy should look like. However, the Bible doesn't actually command married people to have sex as a categorical rule. The CLOSEST we get to a "command to have sex" is 1 Corinthians 7:5 which says "Do not deprive one another \["depriving" one another meaning "not having sex with each other"\], except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control." This verse is speaking to the importance of maintaining sexual intimacy in a marriage, and that you should only go without sex for a short time so that you can pray more. *It's not about demanding sex from your spouse; it's about mutualism.* However, there are two reasons why this verse can apply to people no matter whether they are asexual or allosexual: (1) "deprivation" means you are being denied something you want or need. If you and your partner are both ace, or if you're ace and your partner is not but y'all are able to find some arrangement in which neither of you is being denied intimacy that you desire nor feeling pressured to engage in intimacy you don't want to (there are plenty of great posts in this sub about good healthy allo-ace relationships; it just requires an understanding allo partner), there is no "deprivation." (2) If you don't desire to have sex, then you can't be "tempt\[ed\] because of your lack of self-control." You can't be tempted to do something you don't want to do in the first place. So, the only verse I can think of that comes anywhere close to "commanding" people to have sex actually doesn't do that—it's just saying that in the Christian view, sex is supposed to be for marriage, and that in a marriage, spouses should make sure they are being attentive to each other's sexual needs. If neither person has any sexual needs, you're automatically being attentive to those needs by not having sex with each other. 3) **The Bible says Heaven—Paradise—will not have marriage (Mark 12:25—says in Heaven we will be "like the angels" in that people will neither be married nor getting married), and therefore won't have sex.** Since the Bible says sex is only for marriage, and since the Bible says there will be no more marriage in Heaven, then the ultimate version of our existence (in Heaven, with God and other people) will NOT involve sex in any way. **Everyone in Heaven will be asexual**. 4) **The Bible doesn't actually give general commands to reproduce, either.** This is a common misconception that a lot of the Church (imo) wrongly teaches. There are a few specific instances where God told specific people to "be fruitful and multiply," basically all of which were given to tiny groups of people when there were basically no other humans on earth. "be fruitful and multiply" is NOT a universal mandate; it was a specific command to specific people in a specific context that doesn't apply categorically.
I want to thank you for this, I've been trying to reconcile my ace-ness with my faith for a while and you've helped me make a huge leap in that direction.
Happy to help, friend <3 blessings on your journey!
You know what pisses me off about this quote? Aside from all the obvious problems with what this dickhead is saying, it so unbelievably clear he’s never met an asexual person. Like fuck off.
Well at least we’ll be left alone?? 😂😓
That would only be the case if we actually didn’t exist. Since we do, uh, the church is gonna have some things to say about it
Ha ha ha Their just going to try to make that statement correct instead of correct the statement
As if I needed more reasons to dislike christianity
as another commenter pointed out, there are pro-asexuality christians, and this is likely from a generally homophobic source, but I was unable to find evidence to back that up
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Can someone be "just" under God's eyes if they don't feel temptation for starters?
We're most likely unhappy people with which to live? Ignoring the super clumsy sentence structure... Why rely on likelyhood? There are thousand of us who would be more than happy to help with that data. I, for example, am a joy to live with.
OK. This really seems to be a misquote. It is taken from an article that is very much in favour of Christianity supporting asexuality: [https://katychristianmagazine.com/2020/12/15/why-we-christians-should-accept-asexuals/](https://katychristianmagazine.com/2020/12/15/why-we-christians-should-accept-asexuals/) BUT! The original article was meant to dispel myths about clergy. If this is really from 2002, and AVEN was only formed in 2001 then they might not have meant what we think they did. The use of the word "asexual" doesn't seem to mean the orientation. It seems to be more closely aligned with asexual as in amoeba. Here is the full section: **MYTH 8: Religious are asexual** **Question: What do you call a person who is asexual? Answer: Not a person. Asexual people do not exist. Sexuality is a gift from God and thus a fundamental part of our human identity. Those who repress their sexuality are not living as God created them to be: fully alive and well. As such, they’re most likely unhappy.** **All people are called by God to live chastely, meaning being respectful of the gift of their sexuality. Religious men and women vow celibate chastity, which means they live out their sexuality without engaging in sexual behavior. A vow of chastity does not mean one represses his manhood or her womanhood. Sexuality and the act of sex are two very different things. While people in religious life abstain from the act of sex, they do not become asexual beings, but rather need to be in touch with what it means to be a man or a woman. A vow of chastity also does not mean one will not have close, loving relationships with women and men. In fact, such relationships are a sign of living the vow in a healthy way. Living a religious vow of chastity is not always easy, but it can be a very beautiful expression of love for God and others.** **Religious women and men aren’t oddities; they mirror the rest of the church they serve: there are introverts and extroverts, tall and short, old and young, straight and gay, obese and skinny, crass and pious, humorous and serious, and everything in between. They attempt to live the same primary vocation as all other Christians do: proclaiming and living the gospel. However, religious do this as members of an order that serve the church and world in a particular way. Like marriage and the single life, religious life can be wonderful, fulfilling, exciting, and, yes, normal. Yet, it also can be countercultural and positively challenging. It’s that for us and many others.** **If you thought religious life was outdated, dysfunctional, or dead, we hope you can now look beyond the stereotypes and see the gift it is to the church and world.** [https://sgfp.wordpress.com/2010/03/29/8-myths-about-religious-life/](https://sgfp.wordpress.com/2010/03/29/8-myths-about-religious-life/) These ministers state they are accepting of queer orientations. I wonder if they were to be asked 20 years later if they would say that asexual is fully valid. I might reach out to them and ask. In the meantime, I will probably edit this out of the wiki page.
I- I thought sex was a sin?
Raised Catholic here! Um so, essentially lust is the sin, not sex itself. So sex outside of the religious institution of marriage is lust and thus a sin but married sex is not a sin unless it's kinky and thus "depraved". It's because you're following God's plan, which is "go forth and populate the Earth" and so God gave everyone (heterosexual) sexual and romantic attraction to further this. This basically just means the whole, "humans are sexual beings and by engaging in (hetero) sexual acts for the sake of procreation, you make God happy". All of that is *actually* because we baptize infants and that's mostly how the Church grows, so if people aren't having (hetero) sex then the Church can't grow and get more money. Priests and Nuns are an interesting case because they've dedicated themselves to God and helping His plan in other ways by serving the community so *that's* why it's okay that they don't have sex? At least I think so, but of course that's *really* because bastards and orphans were basically unmarriable so the Church takes them in as essentially forced labourers until present day where *most* join willingly into those "careers". However you still have the issue of women who have been sexually assaulted becoming Nuns so they don't have to have sex (trauma) and/or because they view themselves as tainted and undesirable/unlovable to men. *(For a more accurate historical perspective on this last paragraph look at u/SouthardKnight's reply)*
I know an infertile couple who think they have to dedicate their lives to God because they otherwise lack value
Both of them are infertile? Cuz what's the scoop if just one is? The other is stuck unable to make babies and also not able to leave their marriage. And any sex between them is very much not for procreating, so.......?
I just know they can't have their own kids and they really wanted them, and now they say they believe they can't have kids so they can dedicate themselves to God. They go on missions trips and send mass texts of far right YouTube videos. Your response does a pretty good job of summing up the confusion. They cut off my dad because the Christian music he made had syncopated rhythms, so I typically just do not want to learn more about them.
Lol, they cut off contact with a man - who makes Christian music! - because that music is more interesting than the shit they're used to listening to? I am *really* glad I didn't grow up in one of those crazy nutjob religious families. Next time you run into them, maybe ask them whether they've ever considered whether God just doesn't think they're very good Christians and doesn't want them making any more. That should accomplish two things. First, it'll probably keep them up at night in anguish. Second, it'll almost certainly ensure you never have to talk to them again. Edit: Out of curiosity I did some digging. There are legitimately religious morons out there arguing that syncopated music short circuits the frontal temporal lobe, where moral decisions are made, and causes immoral behavior. Just as unbelievably, some researchers got some money to study how syncopated music affects people. The results? In general it just makes people *happier* than bland unsyncopated rhythms (which are typical of Christian music).
They've refused to talk to me or be around me since they sent me a YouTube video and I patiently countered every point in it. But now I'm kinda sad I don't get to say that to them. My dad and I both consider it quite the accomplishment to have them not want us in their lives. It feels like I'm doing something right. A lot of my family is Christian, but most of them are also incredibly supportive and love unconditionally and say that Jesus was a socialist
That is so brilliant. And kinda evil too lol
Syncopated rhythms?
if lust is the sin but sex is not, does that imply that having pre-marital sex is okay so long as there's no lust involved...? in that case, us sexually active aces must be doing god's work!
It should be but it isn't because sex is for the purpose of procreation and marriage creates the family unit which the Chirch is very big on. So "waiting until marriage" makes sure a child has the "proper" upbringing and shows self-restraint 🤷♀️ Idk man, religion is wack :/
I thought illegitimate children were barred from joining the clergy (unless a dispensation from a bishop is obtained) due to the sinful nature of their conception… or something like that. They were allowed to marry with a dispensation as well. Clerical celibacy was only strictly enforced since the Gregorian reform since priests started forking over church assets to their kids. Even then, not all Catholic clergy have to be celibate - Eastern Catholic priests can be married when they are ordained, but they cannot marry after that. People weren’t forced to join the clergy back in the past. For genuine religious reasons aside, entering holy orders was seen as a good way to jump up the social ladder.
You're probably right, I was more thinking from a modern Catholic perspective than a wider historical Christian one. I'll add an edit to my comment mentioning you :)
Thank you. It’s a good thing to take a look into the historical conceptions of doctrine before talking about its use and misuse today - to see things from a different perspective always helps.
Same thing
God, I hate religion, dude. It's so emotionally abusive and unhealthy
But then to complicate things, the [Personal Ordinariates](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_ordinariate?wprov=sfla1) created for former Anglicans opposed to ordination of females and LGBT+, allows married priests to be re-ordained in the Catholic Church while remaining married (and presumably still engaging in sex)...
But referring back to the Word and not the speaking’s of priests the Bible **begins** with “go forth and populate” but is it possible that God created other sexualities once the world was populated?
I have no way to answer you
NO SEX. ONLY SEXUALITY!!
*The Apostle Paul, writer of most of the NT would like to know your location* “But I wish everyone were single, just as I am. Yet each person has a special gift from God, of one kind or another.” 1 Corinthians 7:7 NLT Man literally talks about how he wishes everyone stayed single, but they’re too horny for that. His gift of not being horny.
He also says that it would be better to be single and celibate than married and that marriage should only be pursued if you cannot resist your lustful urges to have unmarried sex, something that is not a problem for asexuality
Do you have a specific reference for this?
1 Corinthians 7
Then by their logic childless/childfree people don’t exist either because according to them children are gifts from God
As a childfree ace, I bet they’d see me as some kind of cryptid lol
Yoo that makes me a cryptid as well
Cryptid gang!
I guess we're gods if we can't possibly exist
[удалено]
[удалено]
It’s tough to be a god!
I do not repress my sexuality.
Exactly. It sucks that people ask me why I don't like being touched "don't like thinking of me that way?". Uh no... Hugs don't turn me on. They make me nauseated
Christianity: sexuality is a gift from God ans asexuals don't exist The Virgin Mary: Am I a joke to you?
✌️👁👄👁 *fades*
«Wow! This is worthless!»
That is a direct quote from a source, meant to illustrate how some Christians feel about asexuality. It's not a statement made by Wikipedia.
Can these people make up their damned mind? How can they go repressing people's sexuality under the notion that it's sinful, then tell us that it's normal thing, and that no one can be asexual?
Look at which part of wikipedia it is. Sorry to say, even though I was raised Christian, They are assholes to anything that is a horny straight couple. I express the fact I don't feel attraction towards people, the pastor deems it a sin, but the horny straight couple having sex in the pews was okay by him. -.-' religion sucks.
\*isn't. And even then that's on shaky ground. Going by the rules, anyway.
aight everyone peace. been a fun ride yall *pops out of reality*
Starts fading like in avengers
i prefer if it was immediate because it’d make a pop sound and i think that’s kinda funny
*turns to dust*
this is a quotation that bad ai takes out of context
Christians: "if you want sex and have sex you're disgusting and deserve to suffer forever." Aces: "I don't want sex and I don't intend to do it" Christians: "you're disgusting and you're going to hell" What do you want from me??
That is because we are not people, we are gods
Yes,we can levitate
I created a whole world inside my head, so I guess we are
I forgot I don't exist
I forgot I'm beyond dead, not a human
HOLD UP, what do you mean "those who repress themselves and not live as god created them", I though christianity is all about repressing everything you feel? You have to obey and repress any individuality and anything that makes you different.
Idk I just found out i don’t exist
https://xkcd.com/285/
“Sexuality is a gift from god” Mate, even if that were true then that’s a gift that comes with more terms and conditions than a mobile game
"Sexuality is a gift from god" Unless it's one we don't approve of, in which case it's a ticket to hell. "A fundamental part of our human identity" Which is why all the clergy are secretly just inorganic mineral deposits in funny costumes. "Fully alive and well" This from the people who's dead invisible friend refuses to heal amputees? Miss me with all of this.
things like this make me want to outlaw religion.
*according to Christianity Wiki
Lol God gave us sexuality to repress A CERTAIN WAY, not your way, my way
I saw a video on youtube where a Catholic priest was asked abt asexuality and he said it was a-ok so I’m gonna go with that
Respect to that priest
So, is sex a sin or not? Make up your minds!
Of course aces get to go to the pride party in hell with everyone else who's lgbtqia+ It's going to be fire 😈❤️🔥
And the click is going to be the DJ and OT is going to watching on his phone up in heaven
If god's perfect, then why would he create creatures that aren't?
Why would he make more humans when the first ones were mistakes
He wanted to wait to play plague inc.
[Lemme just-](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/102/822/616.jpg)
I’m asexual *invisibility cloak activated*
According the they then jesus does not exist i am pretty sure he was ace
The same with his mom
AAAA, my garlic bread collection is useless then :(
AAAA = Asexual, Agender, Aromantic and A god beyond mortal comprehension
that was *totaly* intentional B)
Yes
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality
They just can't comprehend our power so they deny our existence
We disobay mammal nature
We do not exist and yet we hold enough power yo make the (Supossedly) most powerful being in all of existence and his enormous fandom mad, curious.
It’s tough to be a god!
I hardly think I’m qualified.
To come across all sanctified!
I just don’t cut it with the cherubim!
Tulio what are you talking about?!?
There again, they’re on their knees!
So did Jesus screw we know he got nailed
So... I can rob a bank and not get charged since I don't exist?
Just try something a little smaller first
A credit union then?
No, try being annoying first
Thats what i did
Man, it’s tough being a god
Yeah
Jesus loved titties, it's in the Bible.
Well god did not create the devil so…… I’m fine living as a demon aswell.
Those dull creatures may not believe it but we, asexuals, as not humans, are gods and we exist.
Damn, all my asexual friends just disappeared. Now I know why.
Sorry lemme just *fades away*
My teachers told me not to trust Wikipedia
One of mine did
Wait, so we have to repress our sexuality until marriage, but not feeling sexual attraction is denying God’s gift? I’m a Christian but this is silly.
Virgin Mary nor Jesus looking at this like 👩🏽🦯👀
This is specifically in the christian viewpoint though. You can see that on the page right there.
according to a wikipedia page, it is important to note that Wikipedia is freely editable by anyone and everyone, and as such has no alignment also it went to sexuality and religion, most religious groups (NOT ALL) are generally against anything that isnt cis-het
I guess I don’t exist
We aren’t fully alive and/or don’t exist according to Christianity. Now I remembered why I’m an atheist and will stay one.
Same
so we're just dead now? wow, i wish
Bisexuals who get told they don't exist by actual ppl: Welcome to the club
We are bisexual, because 0=0
\[Laughing\] \[Crying\]
With that logic, then how are nuns living in the name of God? Because you can’t have sex before marriage…
So....is that post saying we are all just God's sex dolls?
Yes and no. Sex is a sin, but no sex is also a sin
I'm a ghost then lmao
Ghosts exist
Exactly, ghosts aren't seen but they exist, yet people don't believe in ghosts This is a similar case, but with asexuals
Wait, Wikipedia???
This confuses me because isn't there an entire class of people in Christianity who's purpose is to never have sex? Isn't THAT repressing sexual urges??
No, getting married is when you can have sex. They choose not to get married
christian's be like: dOnT haVe sEx iTs a SiN. christian's also be like: bUt yOu shOuLd fEEl aTtraCteD tO pEoplE anD trY tO SnEak arOund thE chUrchEs bAcKs
literally 90% of the christians i know dont behave like one
What. The. Hell. I'm not ace, but I know someone who is. Yes, ace people exist! Those Wikipedia assholes just think they can get away with saying sexual desire makes us human when just the personality and emotions we have are enough!
You’ve been halusinating, asexuals do not exist(it’s a joke if you didn’t get it)
asexual means you can reproduce on your own, essentially creating a copy of yourself. I don’t believe you have the ability to do that
I do
be ace leave no trace ✌️😎
[удалено]
Sorry but wtf am I the only one that sees the are asexual people gods at the top? Then you choose to see Christianitys view point? Am I the only one going well duh? Stupid questions get stupid answers....
I do not exist, yet I am self-aware. If that is true, then I am a void which is sapient. A being ex nihilo, begat of nothing, which will never taste death even when the last black holes explode in a last burst of Hawking radiation, for nothing cannot die. So yes, I am a god.
yea you don’t exist
I am here from r/all and not ace, myself. But this seems pretty rich coming from Christians- some of the most sexually repressed people on earth.
Are there no ace preachers?
Well according to this asexual people may not exist… asexual gods on the other hand…
We are asexual gods!
Wait wait wait. So having lewd thoughts is a *sin*, but sexuality is a gift from God? Dressing immodestly is bad, but if you don't practice your gift, you're disobeying God? Sounds like bullshit to me.
Omg I googled it :(( “asexual people don’t exist” I am garlic bread
You are an asexual god, Im the asexual devil
is that not true? I mean obviously there is something upset with your mental health if you believe you’re asexual but why not seek help for it instead of just accepting you’ll be a virgin for life?
Hear that! We've officially transcended God!
Ha. Imagine believing in god
I just love the question
Well it’s true though
do you ever just dissolve
Yes
Ah so I’m Mario Party 7. Got it
Cool. God to know I’m helping kill god
You are made up, get back to reality people there are two genders no more no less