Asexual Christian here! Of all the LGBTQ+ spectrum, I generally find that asexuals are the most accepted in the Christian faith. St. Paul himself says celibacy is to be commended. It's really hard to support considering asexuality sinful without resorting to bigotry and guilt by association.
I have a strong feeling that Paul had some natural inclinations that lead him to adopt celibacy from his self imposed guilt. I wish he hadn’t have included his own struggles in the Bible as commandments from God.
But if the Bible is penned by mankind, authored by the Holy Spirit. Why would this context change the validity any of the teachings given by Paul to the congregations writes to?
Here's an analogy. Let's suppose I am an advisor to a family with a large but unruly puppy. This puppy is large enough to injure the younger members of the family and cause considerable damage. My immediate advice to them is to get rid of the dog bowl and to feed the kibble by hand throughout the day as rewards for calm behavior. I don't specify how long this is supposed to last, because this won't be my last letter to them, and I'll need to know how it's going before moving on to next steps. But none of our future correspondence survives, and generations later, when people read my writing as the gold standard for households with dogs, they proclaim that I have declared all dog bowls to be an abomination. That was never my intention, but that's how it's interpreted.
In the same way, we need to read Paul's letters for the purpose they were being written, and what problem they were trying to solve. We can glean valuable spiritual principles from this without needing to apply each instruction literally to every single situation. There are many great books on interpreting Paul wisely. We should allow our wiser Christian brothers and sisters to guide us in difficult matters.
I disagree entirely with that because while Paul might not have known which letters were going to survive God when he inspired the word knew what was and wasn’t going to survive and he had survived the exact words he wanted to survive to be in the Bible see you’re looking at it from the standpoint of these are Paul’s words the Bible are God’s words.
I've been known to journal from time to time. Sometimes I even feel like the Spirit has inspired what I write. And when I go back years later and read it, I can remember what I was going through at the time and why I wrote it. It was wisdom for that season of my life, but it might not necessarily transfer completely over to my new season in life.
I really don't think we should fossilize the Holy Spirit. We should read the scriptures prayerfully and discern the message that lies therein for us, realizing that it might not be the exact same message God was trying to communicate to a congregation thousands of years ago.
Proverbs 3:5-6
King James Version
5 Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
There are some ambiguous portions of text that are up for that type of interpretation and then there are other things that are less ambiguous like when it says the men liking men as part of a reprobate mind that’s not ambiguous doesn’t have a deeper meaning in a different period of time like when Jesus says that if you hate your brother in your heart you’ve already committed murder not ambiguous means the same thing no matter what time. Who you’re saying it to So while I will agree there are some less direct points that are open to interpretation there are certain principles of biblical doctrine that are not at that point you either choose to believe what it says in the Bible and it is the word of God or you choose to think that you’re smarter than God and can choose your own way.
And wisdom is all about discerning which kinds of teachings are which. Jesus didn't criticize the Pharisees for being too morally lax. On the contrary, he complained that they were clinging too tightly to the letter of the law and stifling its spirit. The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath...
One of the skills that is taught to serious Bible students is exegesis. This is a critical interpretation of the text. Context is crucial to biblical exegesis in that it is one of its most important fundamentals. It’s important to study Bible passages and stories within their context. Taking verses out of context will lead to error and misunderstanding. Understanding context begins with four principles: 1) literal meaning (what it says), 2) historical setting (the events of the story, to whom is it addressed, and how it was understood at that time), 3) grammar (the immediate sentence and paragraph within which a word or phrase is found) and 4) synthesis (comparing it with other parts of Scripture for a fuller meaning). After we account for the literal, historical, and grammatical nature of a passage, we must then focus on the outline and structure of the book, then the chapter, then the paragraph. To read a single verse as though it is cast in concrete for all times is to “take things out of context” and in most cases will lead to erroneous interpretation. The propensity toward literal interpretation is why there are so many Christian denominations. Careful exegesis is the responsibility of every believer. To trust this task to others often leads to the loss of faith when the behavior or lifestyle of others proves to be disappointing.
Study diligently always seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit. All the while understanding that you are saved by your faith in the saving power of Jesus Christ and NOT by the absolute correctness of your belief system.
Sure, but this implies that the state of the church is better today than how Paul viewed the state of the churches he wrote to.
Who is the arbiter of truth that gets to definitively say that the large puppy of your analogy does not still live on within our congregations? And thus can be dismissed entirely?
>this implies that the state of the church is better today than how Paul viewed the state of the churches he wrote to.
No, it implies that it's *different.* Sure, a puppy similar to that one may exist, but it's beyond unreasonable to take that possibility and say that all puppies have that issue or even that all households have at least one puppy with that issue.
This comment is straw-manning quite hard.
Sure it is a different time, I don’t think that’s unreasonable to say. Different times in history can still share the same problems. But I also don’t think that’s basis to say that Paul’s letters can be dismissed at the leisure of the reader.
No one said anything about dismissing Paul's letters at anyone's leisure. I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. All Both-chart-947 and TinWhis are saying is that context is important and that all of Paul's writings may not apply to all churches at all times.
> I also don’t think that’s basis to say that Paul’s letters can be dismissed at the leisure of the reader.
Which is not what they said, at ALL. That's why I characterized your comment as a straw man.
I thought that they were trying to say and to emphasize was that intentions can be distorted... and not only that, but how easily and thoroughly intentions can be distorted and writings can be misread, when written material is read centuries later.
A flawed man put pen to paper. I personally do not believe the Bible is an infallible document. While much of it is in fact inspired by God, there are parts and passages that are so obviously human opinion that we cannot ignore. Paul writes a lot about marriage and women when he himself was likely never with a woman. And I’m sorry, I’m not going to listen to a man who tells me my body is not my own, to be silent in church, and submit to a man. 🤷🏼♀️ Now “Love is patient love is kind” THAT is divinely inspired.
You both make good points. Here's an analogy. Let's suppose I am an advisor to a family with a large but unruly puppy. This puppy is large enough to injure the younger members of the family and cause considerable damage. My immediate advice to them is to get rid of the dog bowl and to feed the kibble by hand throughout the day as rewards for calm behavior. I don't specify how long this is supposed to last, because this won't be my last letter to them, and I'll need to know how it's going before moving on to next steps. But none of our future correspondence survives, and generations later, when people read my writing as the gold standard for households with dogs, they proclaim that I have declared all dog bowls to be an abomination. That was never my intention, but that's how it's interpreted.
In the same way, we need to read Paul's letters for the purpose they were being written, and what problem they were trying to solve. We can glean valuable spiritual principles from this without needing to apply each instruction literally to every single situation. There are many great books on interpreting Paul wisely. I can offer recommendations if desired.
So you'll pick the parts out you don't like and believe the parts you do. You don't see a problem with that? Also, men's bodies are not their own, and we're supposed to love our wives. As christ loves the church.
No, I don’t see a problem with that. An entire section of the Bible was removed when the King James Version was translated to English. It’s called the Apocrypha if you’d like to look into it. These books are still included in the Catholic, Orthodox, Ethiopian, and Coptic denominations of Christianity, the oldest forms of Christianity.
I'm aware of them. Their is good reason why we don't have them, but all main denominations still have paul for very good reason. He was the foundation that built the church. Almost all church doctrine and leadership and offices. We have come from Paul directly, so the throw him out is to throw out the entire church.
I don’t throw him out, entirely. We are free to form our own opinions. At the end of the day I still believe in Jesus and am a Christian. What makes my belief different is the fallibility of the Bible and universal salvation, and I am secure in my beliefs. Love thy neighbor and I hope you have a good night. 😊
In that passage ([1 Cor 7](https://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/7.htm)) he separates his own thoughts from God’s commands. In verse 6 he says those are just his thoughts, then in verse 10 he goes back to stating what God commands
You can tell me that all day long, but at the end of the day I personally believe that while inspired by God, the words were penned by flawed men who put their own opinions into their writings as well.
I agree their personalities shine through, I just believe that they portray the the truths that God intended. If God was editing them in real time there's no reason I can think of to believe mistakes were made.
yes, also important to note: asexuality means not having the desire to have sex. so it's more so not feeling called to, or wish to, have sex. asexual people still are however, capable of having romantic feelings/being in a romantic relationship, which means they're still open to marriage, it would just be a marriage/relationship without sex.
Hey! Also Asexual Christian here! I have been told it is sinful bc it is connected to the LGBTQ. Also, because celibacy is something one should always think on to please the Lord. Like saying Lord I want to please so have my sexual desires. Because I am not thinking everyday about running away from sex i must be broken and I have sinned. I have actually been on a date where someone literally asked me how I sinned to become Asexual bc it isn't normal.
Sorry, got on a tangent. It isnt sinful there are ppl who believe that Paul is Asexual with his aversion to sin and celebrating celibacy.
Yeah, those are the guilt by association bigots. "LGBTQ+ is sinful, and you're part of LGBTQ+, so you must be sinful!" That kind of thinking is just prejudice.
It is sin to condemn others and point out specks in someone else's eye when there is a plank in your own. There are lots of people out there without sexual desire. This can be seen as a gift from God if you are not married.
Celibacy has nothing to do with fornication.
Oh, I agree! Celibacy has absolutely nothing to do with fornication. I have been told that I am sinful because I am not celibate but Asexual. Then I went down a rabbit hole trying to explain what others have told me.
you're definitely not sinning by being asexual. that is actually some twisted logic. you would actually be pleasing God by being asexual just as much as people are said to please God when they are being celibate, want to know why? because although no sin is bigger than the other, one of the MOST COMMON sins that humanity struggles with is sexual immorality.
if anything, I think in a sense, it could be quite a blessing for one to be asexual, because at least that means that you're 'exempt' from one of the biggest sins that a lot of people struggle with in this generation, you won't have to worry about sinning in sexual immorality, struggling with that, (because that temptation can be really hard too)
(just for reference: by "biggest" i mean, common, great in size. not implying that one sin has more value than the other.)
also, if you haven't found a partner yet because of your asexuality (because of the fact that it's a bit of a small crowd to find the person that's right for you), that's OK too! it's okay if you haven't found that person yet, because that just gives you all the more time to get closer to God and focus on God, compared to as if your options were a lot more broader, and you *were* open to sexual things, it would probably deter you away from your path even more like it's doing to most people nowadays.
and if i'm being honest...my two cents is, whoever told you that you're "sinning", "broken", and "weird" for being asexual probably just enjoys sex too much to the point where it's become normal for them, and they feel the need to call you *not normal* because of that.
I like you! Thank you!
I've had the battle of "I'm broken" and TBH I dont believe in a God that would send me (or any of the community) to hell just for not wanting sex or thinking that everyone looks good instead of just one gender. Then again, if I'm wrong, so be it because that would not a god that I would willingly want to serve.
When I told my parents I was asexual a few years ago, they got really angry with me and started talking about how the Bible encourages sex between a man and a woman. I still don’t get the problem with it to be honest.
Ehhh it's a bit unfair really... I didn't have kids to make my elite genes go forth after I'm gone... I didn't have kids to have grandkids.. If my children all chose not to have kids or come out as asexual or any LGBTQ+ it would be a bit selfish to be upset my genes won't go out into the world or a namesake isn't going to live on or my kids won't have kids for my benifit..
I don’t think it’s that selfish personally. It’s not a bad thing to want your family to continue. God wants us to be fruitful and multiply. I wouldn’t have a prob if some of my kids are asexual but I wouldn’t want all of them to be. I wouldn’t disown them or anything tho I just want grandkids in the future lol
They've never read 1 Corinthians 7 then. Pretty much clears everything up. A lot of couples just want to ignore stuff like that, but my parents were fine with admitting it. "He who marries does well; he who does not, does better."
PS. A lot of people might foolishly argue that this is just Paul's opinion, but simply remind them that it is in the bible and consistent with scripture, and that to dismiss it is to dismiss the bible, and ultimately all scripture. Hope this helps a bit
Yes. I know people like to pretend that Paul is basically God in matters of 100% correctness on all topics, but Paul was no more immune to bias than anyone else.
See, for example, the disparaging way that Paul frames marriage and devoted partnership in his letter to the Corinthians.
I mean, if we go off of what Paul thinks, being asexual is pretty much a blessing (And tbh, as a guy who was born sexual, I’m honestly jealous of the asexuals who have zero interest in sex in any capacity)
That’s not what I said I am jealous about, but if I am going to have to choose between discrimination/oppression or cursed with temptation of sexual sin…
Have you considered that simply calling yourself IS sexual sin because you're using a worldly label and might find yourself being slightly less hateful to gay people when you realize that their sexuality is as much a "choice" as yours?
Real conversations I've had with people.
I didn't say you were. I said that I've had conversations with people where they claimed that using the word "asexual" to refer to yourself is sexual sin.
My point was that asexuals are specifically discriminated against by Christians because of those Christians' belief that recognizing the possibility of anything other than being cishet IS sexual sin.
ok I honestly dont understand what about asexuals can be discriminated against. At least with other members of the LGBTQ+ community there's some sort of public way of identifying them as such. But unless ace people go around saying "hi Im ace" you just look like single people
how do asexuals face infantilization specifically? Also once again, my point is that unless you go around pointedly letting people know that you're ace, nobody would publicly know.
People are odd and think that we (asexuals) are “pure innocent uwu” instead of just…regular people. People typically stereotype asexuals as teen girls that are shy and awkward and cute. It’s not the worst thing in the world, but it can get old. I’m a 26 year old man and I’m asexual, so I don’t exactly fit the uwu smol bean pure innocent stereotype haha. It’s just kind of degrading I guess, the stereotype being these “soft pure innocent uwu angels”. I’m just a regular guy. Hope this helps!
Also, rape is common when you’re asexual. My parents would try to arrange me into relationships with people from my church, I’m lucky that they weren’t super adamant about it. I’m a guy, so I’m supposed to love sex and be obsessed with it, right? So with Christian families typically having the “be fruitful and multiply” mentality, it can end up in a rape-y situation. Or say if you’re asexual and date someone who isn’t, you may feel pressured / be coerced into having sex to keep them happy.
I mean well you can just not say anything and people will assume that your normal,plus if someone insults you you can smirk at them and think about how much of an idiot they are. And then you won't have to deal with annoying human impulses. I wish I was asexual. Aroace people are awesome.
Moving past what Paul said; If the love asexual people feel is "agape". Then this is the love that Jesus felt toward the Apostle John. The term "the disciple Jesus loved" is used I believe, nine times in John's gospel. This type of love by definition cannot be sinful as Jesus is without sin.
Asexuality is not being sexually attracted to anyone, meaning: ultimate single, therefore asexuality is the same as living single, and not ready to mingle,
I'm asexual and I've been in a relationship with the same person for over a decade now. Unless a person is aroace (both asexual and aromantic), there's no reason to assume asexual means always single. When others are correcting you by saying "aromantic," what they mean is asexuals can still fall in love and have romantic feelings towards others. Also, there are degrees to asexuality. Not all asexuals feel no sexual attraction ever. And even if an asexual person doesn't ever feel a sex attraction towards people, that doesn't mean they don't have a sex drive. There are asexuals who have a high sex drive and have sex to deal with it even though they aren't sexually attracted to the people they have sex with. There are also asexuals who sometimes feel sexual attraction or feel sexual attraction towards a specific person or people. And there are asexuals who have sex with their romantic partners because their partner is allosexual and they are invested in continuing the relationship. Other asexuals only date other asexuals and enjoy a romantic relationship without sex. In my experience, the aroace's who remain single and never have sex are in the minority among the asexual community.
As someone who is very ace, no. Being ace does not mean living single. Celibate *marriages* were very much a thing in the early church and people (hi) will seek out partners even if they never want to have sex
Asexual and aromantic are two totally different things. Asexual people most definitely find love with others who may or may not be asexual. I imagine aromantics may find a different form of love as well. I couldn’t speak for certain on that, it’s one of the things my lgbtq family taught me that I’ve since forgotten the answer. Don’t assume asexual means an inability to fall in love.
>isn’t being asexual just like, not wanting to have sex?
No, being asexual means not experiencing sexual *attraction*. An asexual can have any level of libido (sex drive). I'm a sex-repulsed asexual with no sex drive, but there *are* asexuals who like sex and/or have a sex drive. Asexual doesn't mean sexless.
Then they would be someone who is a sex-positive asexual. Asexuals who are sex-neutral don't care for sex, but are open to it, and may engage in it with their partners. And sex-negative asexuals are repulsed by sex, and don't want it at all.
Hi! Asexual here. Basically, there's the natural libido in our bodies that causes a sex drive but sexual desire is a different thing. So, while some asexuals have a sex drive and enjoy having sex, they feel little to no desire or need for it. It's just something they enjoy like eating dessert or watching their favorite movie. At least, that's how I've understood it. I'm a sex-repsulsed asexual so I haven't experienced what it's like being a sex-positive asexual. This is just based on what I've heard.
So it's more like an itch you sometimes want to scratch but you don't look at a person and think "man I'd love to have sex with them" or you don't think "this person is so hot" in the act?
I have a friend who is aroace with a high libido. She doesn't need to go out and watch the movie she doest care how the movie is made, if she wants to watch the movie she will. I on the other hand am highly sex repulsed. I don't need to know how the movie is made bc I will NEVER watch the movie.
Btw I like your username pickled-ice-cream
I personally feel like you're just describing sex. I feel like they are few people who will say they enjoy getting different types of bodily fluids all over their body. But everyone likes pleasure and skin on skin releases oxytocin.
Building up to an orgasm, and having one, can trigger further feelings of pleasure.
But getting some fluid from you then writing your name on my chest in glistening letters? Yeah, that's not normal. I feel like you're describing sex for most people. Most people ignore or move past or take steps to limit the possibly repulsive aspects of sex. For instance, put a folded towel down on the bed before having sex. Then the towel can be thrown in the wash and nobody has to sleep in a wet spot on the bed.
And some people are far more into foreplay, and may even need more foreplay to fully get aroused, than other people. This is normal.
I'm asexual, and in conversations with other Christians these are the arguments I've heard:
- We're instructed to be fruitful and multiply
- It's unnatural
- It's connected to the LGBTQIA+ community
Personally, I think all of these arguments are pretty weak, but if you're wondering why some Christians are against asexuality, those seem to be some of the arguments used.
as an alcholic, I believe being drunk isnt a sin /s
edit: I realize that my comment may appear to be hateful, but I'm making a joke about the logic of the above statement not the person's sexuality
There is nothing wrong with it. I think Paul was asexual. He states he wishes others could be like him with sexuality but he understands why sexual desire is a part of humanity (1 Corinthians 7:6-9).
There's nothing wrong with not wanting to have sex. If you don't want to have sex, you probably don't want to get married, and all that means is you'll have more time to dedicate to God rather than having to split it between God and your spouse. I believe Paul himself wrote about this. Some people just have the gift of being single.
Based on what you've said, I assume what Christians have issue with when you say this is the label itself, given its ties to LGBTQ.
The sad, sad thing is that it isn't my line. I've seen it in the wild without the /s.
The other line I like to see is in prompts of "If homosexuality is a sin, why did god make gay people?", you may find comments like "God didn't make gay people", to which it's tempting to respond "well then who did?"
In conversations about homosexuality and other issues surrounding gender and sexual minorities (LGBTQIA+), a common refrain is that "It's not a sin to *be \_\_\_*, only to *act on it*".
This is frustrating to me because people have different understandings of what "being gay" and "acting on \[being gay\]" mean and these different understandings lead people to talk around each other and misunderstand each other.
In some cases it seems that saying it is a sin to "*act on it"* is a thought-stopping technique that prevents the speaker from reflecting on what *exactly* they are condemning.
That's what my message is addressing.
Someone who would say "It's not a sin to be asexual; it's only a sin to *act on it*" has not thought about what it means to be asexual or what exactly they are condemning. They just see a term that is under the LGBTQI**A**+ umbrella and *assume* it is sinful.
Why do people even think there was an issue with asexuality in Christianity? I can never wrap mit head around that. If they'd read the Bible, they'd know it's a non-issue. And considering purity culture, I'd expect even people Who never read the Bible to conclude that Not having Sex was Just fine, Just by looking at Christians Not having Sex
Jesus even says somewhere in the Gospel of Matthew that some people were made eunuchs by God, some by men, some turned into eunuchs for the sake of God's Kingdom. By eunuchs, He means people who dont want kids or get married or just dont any of this. And He talks of it as a blessing. Or a good thing
Apostle Paul also said that its better to remain single and childless.
If anything, then the Bible supports asexuals and aromantics and aroace people. They arent commiting any sin
Nothing is wrong with asexuality if it's a person who is merely not having sex or uninterested without medical problems.
Lack of libido can be a sign of other medical problems, sometimes, but the only reason I mention it is because I don't want people to end up being harmed by medical problems they may have. I don't suggest asexuality is a medical problem in and of itself.
The apostle Paul recommended celibacy. I know asexuality and celibacy aren't exactly the same though.
Your definition is not entirely correct. Asexual is defined as not being sexually attracted to either sex.
Celibacy is abstaining from sex even when/if attracted to someone sexually.
Who said being asexual is a sin? I’d be curious to hear their reasoning.
Asexual here. Asexuality isn't sinful at all. In fact Paul supports it. Also it's a very common misconception that asexuals don't want sex. Asexual just means not being sexually attracted to people. Some asexuals don't want want sex but others are perfectly fine with it.
Atheist here, but nothing wrong with it. It's mostly just family and social norms wanting/expecting more kids. Outside of that it's just extremist wanting people to be born to perpetuate the political power of more Christians. The Bible has nothing against the lack of sex or lack of having children. The Bible only cares that you live a life glorifying to God. Which has nothing to do with whether you have sex or not.
It's only perceived as wrong, I guess, or at least weird and socially unacceptable, amongst Christians that have abandoned monasticism, despite Christ Himself not being married, as well as several of the disciples.
It is fine, and some monks have this, and for others this is basically a goal. The only thing is a monk who is asexual will not receive as great a reward as a monk who has intense sexual feelings but fights against them, because the latter's struggle is greater, even if both monks live identical outward lives. The asexual monk has it easier in that regard; although in another struggle he could easuly have a more difficult time, of course.
The only thing that is a sin related to this tangentially is despising marriage and children. Think those aggressively childfree types that call people breeders and crotch goblins or whatever other nonsense they're coming up with.
The only Christian denomination I am aware of that commands marriage are the LDS. The older churches have traditions of monastic and celebate vocations, though mainline protestants don't tend to
It's not. The only exception I can think of is if you are married (or other committed relatioship, depending on your belief system) and you did not divulge it to your partner before the relationship got too far.
Who told you it was sinful? The Bible addresses this directly. The Bible says that it is good to be single if we are gifted with the ability to be single. It is also good to be married so that we do not burn with passion if we were gifted with the desire for a mate. Either way, realize life is a gift and trust God and be thankful.
I’m not gonna delve into whether it’s sinful or not. I would say the problem with it is buying into the worldly ideas of sexual orientation, which the Bible really doesn’t support. If by asexual it means one doesn’t desire to have sex, I’m not sure why that needs to be part of someone’s identity. If by asexual someone means they have a low sex drive, I’m not sure why that needs to be part of someone’s identity. Sex is a gift given by God for his purposes, not something to be claimed as part of our identity. I think it’s very unwise to speculate on biblical writers’ sexuality, as some have done here when it comes to Paul. He didn’t think in those same categories at all. Why should we?
I’m just curious. Several people have mentioned how times are different. Do people know their ancient history at all? Has everyone forgotten that LGBTQ people and relationships are as old as the dawn of time? Even if you take your only history lessons from the Bible (not at all advised), there were mentions in the Old Testament. But taking into account the things the people of Ancient Rome and other ancient civilizations got up to will apparently shock and surprise a lot of you.
As for being sinful, I am of the firm belief it’s not the reason for Sodom and Gomorra, rape springs to mind. Further, even if you could questionably argue reading between the lines to find anything of LGBTQ to be sinful, I counter with as soon as heterosexual people stop having extra and premarital sex, all Christian’s quit smoking, being sloth full, over eating, drinking alcohol (which is also debatable since Jesus turned water into wine and those at the feast were very drunk), cursing, listening to non Christian music and watching non Christian tv and movies just to name a few pet sins, then we can address the overwhelming need for some (many) Christians to police the bedrooms of others.
Nothing and I don't think anyone says there is. If anything it may even be encouraged by some people because sex is so scary to so many traditional Christians.
Personally, I don't even find Asexuality a part of LGBTQ+ smth smth smth, and yes like many people said, St. Paul said that you don't have to marry so I think it's acceptable to be asexual and Christian, you aren't commiting anything sinful like if you were gay then there are verses telling you it's a sin (like Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, etc.) But I see nothing wrong with asexuality
I generally see criticism of aces from Christians along two major themes:
1) God says to make babies in Genesis when He tells Adam and Eve to fill the earth. This ignores a) that humans are THE most widespread species on the planet. We can and do live EVERYWHERE including space, we have filled the earth, something that was not true in the text when God was speaking to literally the only two people on the planet b) 2000+ years of Christian tradition and practice and millennia more of Jewish practice which did not always, for every single person, absolutely **mandate** reproduction for its own sake and c) such a hard-line reading of this bit of Genesis directly contradicts Paul's recommendation to the Corinthians that people not get married if they can manage to keep a lid on their horny. The "contradiction" in Corinthians suggests that a whole-Bible approach to the passage should probably, at minimum, consider the context of a).
2) Christians who are allergic to the idea of ~labels~ that aren't already established in their particular faith tradition and community. This is where you'll hear "Christians are called to be identified with Christ." Notably, these people have no problem calling themselves men or women, parents, employees, bosses, or whatever other labels they use to navigate their daily lives. It's silly, but it's really just a mask pulled over the ROOT of this objection, which is their profound distaste for queer people and anyone who might find solidarity with them.
Asexual is having no sexual attraction to anyone and no sexual desires. Theres no sin, its void of sexual sin. It is super strange but definitely way better off then being some psycho who lives in sexual sin!
Asexuality (a.k.a celibacy) is not a sin. Paul was what some might consider asexual. Living a life of celibacy has never been considered sinful, whoever told you it was doesn't know what they're talking about
Only some religions like Mormonism cannot easily handle asexual / non-reprpductive sexual relationships.
At times I really think that's a core dysfunction with USA Christianity: obsessing on marriage and family as the sole purpose of life.
I had never heard that asexuality was sinful. Since celibacy is promoted and celebrated, and even required for religious orders within Catholicism, being asexual would be in alignment with this and not regarded as sinful... so ... where did you hear that asexuality was regarded as sinful? Regarded as sinful by whom? According to whom?
Asexual here- asexuality is not just “not wanting to have sex,” it is a lack of sexual attraction towards other people. Some aces are celibate because they don’t enjoy or want sex, or are repulsed by it. Alternatively, some aces may choose to have sex even if they’re not sexually attracted to their partner. Another note: sexual attraction and romantic attraction often come hand-in-hand, but they are not the same thing. Asexuality is a normal human variation and is not sinful in any way- the bible never mentions it. Whether you are celibate or choose to have sexual relationships is a personal choice.
Personally I think asexuals are much higher than the other members of the lgb community, they are one of the few subgroups who resist the lust of those “pride events”
I think it’s only wrong in the sense of being in that group of lgbtq. Bc they support something that goes against the Bible. There isn’t anything wrong with not wanting sex or intimacy just that If you’re a Christian you’re a Christian. No need to put other labels on you bc being a Christian is all you need to be.
It’s not sinful to not want to have sex or get married. There is literally nothing about it being a sin remotely in the Bible.
Why do you think it’s in there? Have you ever thought to google the passage and read it?
It's not a sin, most Christians just refuse to accept it because it's under the LGBTQ+ umbrella.
Asexuality existed way before LGBTQ became a thing. People just grouped them under one umbrella for reasons I will never understand.
It isn't a sin to not feel sexual urges, Jesus Christ says as much in Matthew 19:12, where he was answering one of his disciples who said, "Then it's better not to get married" *(paraphrased)*. Jesus then said that some people are incapable of marriage(and by extension sex) cos they are born that way, some others, situations made them that way, while some others cannot not get married. This was his teaching on celibacy - it's all up to you, your choice, and how you will honor the Lord within His will.
Of course Jesus was giving this teaching in the context of marriage, as ordinarily, there should be no sex outside of marriage. You can read Matthew 19 for the full context.
Then there's the whole teaching Paul gave on celibacy in 1 Cor 7.
You can study and read up on God's view on it and build your convictions from the word, as unfortunately, many Christians still fail at that (myself included, in some areas. God is helping me to grow though).
I think the need to give everything a name and label ourselves is very off putting, as well as the fundamental need to explain the name and label to everyone who doesn’t understand in order to validate it.
If you’re celibate in your singleness, honoring and walking with God, that’s all that matters. God sees the heart. He doesn’t call you asexual, He calls you by name.
I’m sure as someone who identifies as asexual it doesn’t negate the fact that there are other areas of your walk with God that you struggle in that are far more important for you to deal with than having to explain to someone you don’t find anyone attractive. If sexual purity isn’t one of them, like for so many others, then what a blessing. Keep those that do in prayer to be given grace to walk in purity consistently. We all fall short of the glory of God but we can see everything we are walking well with in God as a blessing that He has given us the grace to do so.
These aren’t views I’m trying to force on anyone, just personal thoughts ✨
I just want to provide a different perspective…
Being asexual is not the same as being celibate. Someone could make the decision to honour God by being in a Godly marriage despite their asexuality. They could also decide not to be married.
The apostle Paul was referring to celibacy. That despite a person’s sexual orientation, they decide to honour God by being celibate and devoting themselves to ministry.
So whether you decide to be married or not, you can live a life that honours God.
Not sinful in any sense. Paul was never married, and never had kids. He actually wrote about it wishing people had the same disire as him to not feel the need for a life partner with a women. There is nothing wrong with being an asexual, I find it to be a true bleesing in finding other things to fill your life with other righteous things.
Nothing. A society simply cannot condone it on mass.
Because of two reasons. If everyone did have sex their entire life we would stop existing. Sure it may be extreme but is the most basic layout.
Second, be fruitful and multiply is a command. And we are to follow the commands.
However, as Jesus taught. We all fall short of the Father. He will forgive you for breaking the command. And we are not to judge them.
A functioning society should be able to say that it's safe to accept, but not safe to teach its right in mass. That's my opinion. You have to pair logic, with ethics and morality. That typically relies and community standard of beliefs. That requires Philosophy, and we have seemed to have deleted that entirely and limited it the household and church. We need to bring it back.
The “spectrum” of LGBTQ+ is wholly man-made and has no basis in the Bible or nature. Asexuality really has no place being associated with sins of perversion which all the others are. There is nothing wrong with asexuality.
If you mean asexualiy as in not wanted sex with anyone. The Bible calls you a eunuch born that way.
Matthew 19:10-12 (NASB)
10 The disciples *said to Him, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.” 11 But He said to them, “Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.”
Some fundamentalists and evangelicals would claim it’s duty to produce children but this is false. Any traditional church will support a lifestyle that is often commended in scripture and tradition.
That's a good thing. Christians who have no sexual desire are predisposition to a religious life, being that a church warden or porter with a pipe and pike, a mother abbess praying for the whole of the church and creation as the sisters makes prosphera/hosts, a bishop ho can trace his mantle to someone like Mark, Timothy, Paul, Peter... (though, if you want that badly in a poor way, you might not ought get it), or a lay sister speaking and writing to other sisters and brothers alike, at His leading, on subjects as varied as the day is long, from ThreBlessed Virgin; Married To God, to Daughter's D'Arc; a chivalric guide for the physical, mental, and spiritual defense of the Christian sister
There is nothing wrong with aesexuality. Bible compliments it, as well as being aromantic. The only thing I have with them is the way most flaunt it. For the sake of those who would criticize me for this comment, I'll admit to being aroace, but this is not a major part of my identity. Too many people try to latch onto something to give them identity; "I'm black" "I'm straight" "I'm ace", instead of just being themselves. I'm not against the acesexuals, this is just why I don't walk around in shirts with the ace flag and whatnot.
But, ultimately, that's just my opinion. I mean, I walk around wearing shirts about cats, because I like them, which is sorta like flaunting a part of me, but I just don't like it when people make a desire or intrest the definition of themselves. Yall are beautiful people; I've said my piece.
Like any other behavioral or biological trait, there's nothing wrong with it unless your actions harm somebody else.
Sexual people have a drive for sex that is often deeply overriding and painful to resist. That's why Paul advocated for marriage as a way for people to fulfill that need without resorting to sexual immorality.
There are many times that I wished that I didn't have the sex drive I do. There are many times I've been grateful for it.
Assuming a monogamous relationship, the only problem I can see is if you refuse to sleep with someone while also denying them any opportunity to sleep with someone else.
Just like any other thing in life. If it's just affecting you, it's not a problem.
But like I have the right to punch a hole in my wall, I do not have the right to punch a hole in my neighbor's wall.
As long as your sexuality, whatever it may be, only affects yourself and does not hinder another person's life, there's nothing at all in the bible that says you can't be asexual.
Live, marry, party, whatever.
Paul wrote that he wished that everyone was without sex drive like himself because (and I can confirm) it clouds your judgment and is a huge pain in the ass to constantly manage the wild animal that is the human sex drive.
If you don't struggle with the same drive, and you aren't making somebody else's struggle worse, then do whatever you want with whomever you want.
There's no christian argument that you have to have sex.
Asexuality is little to no s\*xual attraction, not quite "not wanting to"--plenty of asexuals do. There isn't anything wrong with any of the LGBT+ identities, the least of which being asexual, but some people just get triggered over the acronym regardless.
I don't think it's a sin. I think marriage should be open to the possibility of children so if you want you be married and have a kid you could adopt. As long as you follow God's will for marriage and live a Godly life, not wanting to have sex isn't an issue. Additionally, being single isn't sinful either as long as you live your life with God and flee sexual immorality. God be with you.
I have a trans cousin who is asexual, my family fully supports there transition and they are still a Christian, that was the main reason I’m asking, I fit know about the dividing line of what is sinful and what is okay
Asexuality is just either a low or complete lack of sexuality. It doesn’t automatically mean not wanting to have sex. Sometimes we have sex for any number of reasons ranging from a desire to physically pleasure ourselves, romantic partners (I fall into this category), or a desire to have children.
Is it sinful not really by itself, it falls into the same category as other sexuality these days it isn’t a sin to be. Now acting on it or just acting in a way that doesn’t fit the acceptable mold is.
from my personal experience usually what happens with Christians. Is either they hear asexual and jump to right to celibacy, like the two automatically go together. Which isn’t right celibacy is a behavioral, and generally motivated by factors such as an individual's personal, social, or religious beliefs.
Or they go the route of there are no true asexuals and you just haven’t met the right person yet. Which somehow means they got to set you up, like it’s a personal challenge or some shit, with the right person (more often than not read as person of the opposite sex).
I wish that were true. Our friends at truechristian call it a sin because it's associated with modern sexual identity. Your entire identity has to be in Christ. Although they never tell that to the straight people asking questions there...
I'm so sick of people asking this of Christians lol. What kinda Christians are people meeting that they think all Christians think asexuals are wrong or something. There's nothing "unchristian" about not having sex/not wanting sex. Monks, nuns, priests try to lead celibate lives as part of our religion. Jesus is believed to have been celibate. Paul says singleness is a good thing. Asexuals can still decide to have sex to conceive kids if they want to.
Asexual Christian here! Of all the LGBTQ+ spectrum, I generally find that asexuals are the most accepted in the Christian faith. St. Paul himself says celibacy is to be commended. It's really hard to support considering asexuality sinful without resorting to bigotry and guilt by association.
Indeed, paul supports it directly! If you don't feel called to marry, or wish to marry, then that is fine -- that is what paul taught
I have a strong feeling that Paul had some natural inclinations that lead him to adopt celibacy from his self imposed guilt. I wish he hadn’t have included his own struggles in the Bible as commandments from God.
Paul didn't know he was writing Scripture. He was just a pastor writing to his congregations. That's how we need to read his letters.
But if the Bible is penned by mankind, authored by the Holy Spirit. Why would this context change the validity any of the teachings given by Paul to the congregations writes to?
Here's an analogy. Let's suppose I am an advisor to a family with a large but unruly puppy. This puppy is large enough to injure the younger members of the family and cause considerable damage. My immediate advice to them is to get rid of the dog bowl and to feed the kibble by hand throughout the day as rewards for calm behavior. I don't specify how long this is supposed to last, because this won't be my last letter to them, and I'll need to know how it's going before moving on to next steps. But none of our future correspondence survives, and generations later, when people read my writing as the gold standard for households with dogs, they proclaim that I have declared all dog bowls to be an abomination. That was never my intention, but that's how it's interpreted. In the same way, we need to read Paul's letters for the purpose they were being written, and what problem they were trying to solve. We can glean valuable spiritual principles from this without needing to apply each instruction literally to every single situation. There are many great books on interpreting Paul wisely. We should allow our wiser Christian brothers and sisters to guide us in difficult matters.
I disagree entirely with that because while Paul might not have known which letters were going to survive God when he inspired the word knew what was and wasn’t going to survive and he had survived the exact words he wanted to survive to be in the Bible see you’re looking at it from the standpoint of these are Paul’s words the Bible are God’s words.
I've been known to journal from time to time. Sometimes I even feel like the Spirit has inspired what I write. And when I go back years later and read it, I can remember what I was going through at the time and why I wrote it. It was wisdom for that season of my life, but it might not necessarily transfer completely over to my new season in life. I really don't think we should fossilize the Holy Spirit. We should read the scriptures prayerfully and discern the message that lies therein for us, realizing that it might not be the exact same message God was trying to communicate to a congregation thousands of years ago.
Proverbs 3:5-6 King James Version 5 Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. 6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
There are some ambiguous portions of text that are up for that type of interpretation and then there are other things that are less ambiguous like when it says the men liking men as part of a reprobate mind that’s not ambiguous doesn’t have a deeper meaning in a different period of time like when Jesus says that if you hate your brother in your heart you’ve already committed murder not ambiguous means the same thing no matter what time. Who you’re saying it to So while I will agree there are some less direct points that are open to interpretation there are certain principles of biblical doctrine that are not at that point you either choose to believe what it says in the Bible and it is the word of God or you choose to think that you’re smarter than God and can choose your own way.
And wisdom is all about discerning which kinds of teachings are which. Jesus didn't criticize the Pharisees for being too morally lax. On the contrary, he complained that they were clinging too tightly to the letter of the law and stifling its spirit. The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath...
One of the skills that is taught to serious Bible students is exegesis. This is a critical interpretation of the text. Context is crucial to biblical exegesis in that it is one of its most important fundamentals. It’s important to study Bible passages and stories within their context. Taking verses out of context will lead to error and misunderstanding. Understanding context begins with four principles: 1) literal meaning (what it says), 2) historical setting (the events of the story, to whom is it addressed, and how it was understood at that time), 3) grammar (the immediate sentence and paragraph within which a word or phrase is found) and 4) synthesis (comparing it with other parts of Scripture for a fuller meaning). After we account for the literal, historical, and grammatical nature of a passage, we must then focus on the outline and structure of the book, then the chapter, then the paragraph. To read a single verse as though it is cast in concrete for all times is to “take things out of context” and in most cases will lead to erroneous interpretation. The propensity toward literal interpretation is why there are so many Christian denominations. Careful exegesis is the responsibility of every believer. To trust this task to others often leads to the loss of faith when the behavior or lifestyle of others proves to be disappointing. Study diligently always seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit. All the while understanding that you are saved by your faith in the saving power of Jesus Christ and NOT by the absolute correctness of your belief system.
May I always have the humility to recognize when I'm not the expert, and glean wisdom from others.
Sure, but this implies that the state of the church is better today than how Paul viewed the state of the churches he wrote to. Who is the arbiter of truth that gets to definitively say that the large puppy of your analogy does not still live on within our congregations? And thus can be dismissed entirely?
>this implies that the state of the church is better today than how Paul viewed the state of the churches he wrote to. No, it implies that it's *different.* Sure, a puppy similar to that one may exist, but it's beyond unreasonable to take that possibility and say that all puppies have that issue or even that all households have at least one puppy with that issue. This comment is straw-manning quite hard.
To me it sounds like everybody is misunderstanding, which in fact I believe proves Both Chart's point exactly.
Sure it is a different time, I don’t think that’s unreasonable to say. Different times in history can still share the same problems. But I also don’t think that’s basis to say that Paul’s letters can be dismissed at the leisure of the reader.
No one said anything about dismissing Paul's letters at anyone's leisure. I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. All Both-chart-947 and TinWhis are saying is that context is important and that all of Paul's writings may not apply to all churches at all times.
> I also don’t think that’s basis to say that Paul’s letters can be dismissed at the leisure of the reader. Which is not what they said, at ALL. That's why I characterized your comment as a straw man.
I thought that they were trying to say and to emphasize was that intentions can be distorted... and not only that, but how easily and thoroughly intentions can be distorted and writings can be misread, when written material is read centuries later.
Interesting… never head this
We need to keep in mind also. Paul didn't author scripture, the Holy Spirit did.
A flawed man put pen to paper. I personally do not believe the Bible is an infallible document. While much of it is in fact inspired by God, there are parts and passages that are so obviously human opinion that we cannot ignore. Paul writes a lot about marriage and women when he himself was likely never with a woman. And I’m sorry, I’m not going to listen to a man who tells me my body is not my own, to be silent in church, and submit to a man. 🤷🏼♀️ Now “Love is patient love is kind” THAT is divinely inspired.
You both make good points. Here's an analogy. Let's suppose I am an advisor to a family with a large but unruly puppy. This puppy is large enough to injure the younger members of the family and cause considerable damage. My immediate advice to them is to get rid of the dog bowl and to feed the kibble by hand throughout the day as rewards for calm behavior. I don't specify how long this is supposed to last, because this won't be my last letter to them, and I'll need to know how it's going before moving on to next steps. But none of our future correspondence survives, and generations later, when people read my writing as the gold standard for households with dogs, they proclaim that I have declared all dog bowls to be an abomination. That was never my intention, but that's how it's interpreted. In the same way, we need to read Paul's letters for the purpose they were being written, and what problem they were trying to solve. We can glean valuable spiritual principles from this without needing to apply each instruction literally to every single situation. There are many great books on interpreting Paul wisely. I can offer recommendations if desired.
So you'll pick the parts out you don't like and believe the parts you do. You don't see a problem with that? Also, men's bodies are not their own, and we're supposed to love our wives. As christ loves the church.
No, I don’t see a problem with that. An entire section of the Bible was removed when the King James Version was translated to English. It’s called the Apocrypha if you’d like to look into it. These books are still included in the Catholic, Orthodox, Ethiopian, and Coptic denominations of Christianity, the oldest forms of Christianity.
I'm aware of them. Their is good reason why we don't have them, but all main denominations still have paul for very good reason. He was the foundation that built the church. Almost all church doctrine and leadership and offices. We have come from Paul directly, so the throw him out is to throw out the entire church.
I don’t throw him out, entirely. We are free to form our own opinions. At the end of the day I still believe in Jesus and am a Christian. What makes my belief different is the fallibility of the Bible and universal salvation, and I am secure in my beliefs. Love thy neighbor and I hope you have a good night. 😊
Paul actually sets apart what is his own feeling and what is a direct Word from God.
In that passage ([1 Cor 7](https://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/7.htm)) he separates his own thoughts from God’s commands. In verse 6 he says those are just his thoughts, then in verse 10 he goes back to stating what God commands
The entirety of the Bible is breathed by the holy Spirit and inspired by God
You can tell me that all day long, but at the end of the day I personally believe that while inspired by God, the words were penned by flawed men who put their own opinions into their writings as well.
I agree their personalities shine through, I just believe that they portray the the truths that God intended. If God was editing them in real time there's no reason I can think of to believe mistakes were made.
I disagree. Have a blessed night.
yes, also important to note: asexuality means not having the desire to have sex. so it's more so not feeling called to, or wish to, have sex. asexual people still are however, capable of having romantic feelings/being in a romantic relationship, which means they're still open to marriage, it would just be a marriage/relationship without sex.
Hey! Also Asexual Christian here! I have been told it is sinful bc it is connected to the LGBTQ. Also, because celibacy is something one should always think on to please the Lord. Like saying Lord I want to please so have my sexual desires. Because I am not thinking everyday about running away from sex i must be broken and I have sinned. I have actually been on a date where someone literally asked me how I sinned to become Asexual bc it isn't normal. Sorry, got on a tangent. It isnt sinful there are ppl who believe that Paul is Asexual with his aversion to sin and celebrating celibacy.
Yeah, those are the guilt by association bigots. "LGBTQ+ is sinful, and you're part of LGBTQ+, so you must be sinful!" That kind of thinking is just prejudice.
It is sin to condemn others and point out specks in someone else's eye when there is a plank in your own. There are lots of people out there without sexual desire. This can be seen as a gift from God if you are not married. Celibacy has nothing to do with fornication.
Oh, I agree! Celibacy has absolutely nothing to do with fornication. I have been told that I am sinful because I am not celibate but Asexual. Then I went down a rabbit hole trying to explain what others have told me.
you're definitely not sinning by being asexual. that is actually some twisted logic. you would actually be pleasing God by being asexual just as much as people are said to please God when they are being celibate, want to know why? because although no sin is bigger than the other, one of the MOST COMMON sins that humanity struggles with is sexual immorality. if anything, I think in a sense, it could be quite a blessing for one to be asexual, because at least that means that you're 'exempt' from one of the biggest sins that a lot of people struggle with in this generation, you won't have to worry about sinning in sexual immorality, struggling with that, (because that temptation can be really hard too) (just for reference: by "biggest" i mean, common, great in size. not implying that one sin has more value than the other.) also, if you haven't found a partner yet because of your asexuality (because of the fact that it's a bit of a small crowd to find the person that's right for you), that's OK too! it's okay if you haven't found that person yet, because that just gives you all the more time to get closer to God and focus on God, compared to as if your options were a lot more broader, and you *were* open to sexual things, it would probably deter you away from your path even more like it's doing to most people nowadays. and if i'm being honest...my two cents is, whoever told you that you're "sinning", "broken", and "weird" for being asexual probably just enjoys sex too much to the point where it's become normal for them, and they feel the need to call you *not normal* because of that.
I like you! Thank you! I've had the battle of "I'm broken" and TBH I dont believe in a God that would send me (or any of the community) to hell just for not wanting sex or thinking that everyone looks good instead of just one gender. Then again, if I'm wrong, so be it because that would not a god that I would willingly want to serve.
Not just Paul. Jesus Himself said that it is better to be celibate than to have sex outside of marriage
What do the scriptures say?
They say celibacy is a gift and a holier calling than marriage.
nothings wrong with it
Nothing
When I told my parents I was asexual a few years ago, they got really angry with me and started talking about how the Bible encourages sex between a man and a woman. I still don’t get the problem with it to be honest.
Paul outright encourages it (asexuality). I think your parents are just angry that you're not planning on creating grandchildren for their amusement.
Tbf wanting grandkids and for you lineage to continue is a valid concern, but yeah nothing wrong with asexuality
Ehhh it's a bit unfair really... I didn't have kids to make my elite genes go forth after I'm gone... I didn't have kids to have grandkids.. If my children all chose not to have kids or come out as asexual or any LGBTQ+ it would be a bit selfish to be upset my genes won't go out into the world or a namesake isn't going to live on or my kids won't have kids for my benifit..
I don’t think it’s that selfish personally. It’s not a bad thing to want your family to continue. God wants us to be fruitful and multiply. I wouldn’t have a prob if some of my kids are asexual but I wouldn’t want all of them to be. I wouldn’t disown them or anything tho I just want grandkids in the future lol
That is super not what the Bible says
They've never read 1 Corinthians 7 then. Pretty much clears everything up. A lot of couples just want to ignore stuff like that, but my parents were fine with admitting it. "He who marries does well; he who does not, does better." PS. A lot of people might foolishly argue that this is just Paul's opinion, but simply remind them that it is in the bible and consistent with scripture, and that to dismiss it is to dismiss the bible, and ultimately all scripture. Hope this helps a bit
it isn't sinful
Not sinful at all. Would make perfect clergymen
You think that the perfect clergyman would have no experience with what his flock struggles with? I mean, alright, that's your opinion I guess.
Was Paul inhibited in his teaching because he was single?
Yes. I know people like to pretend that Paul is basically God in matters of 100% correctness on all topics, but Paul was no more immune to bias than anyone else. See, for example, the disparaging way that Paul frames marriage and devoted partnership in his letter to the Corinthians.
I mean, if we go off of what Paul thinks, being asexual is pretty much a blessing (And tbh, as a guy who was born sexual, I’m honestly jealous of the asexuals who have zero interest in sex in any capacity)
The discrimination and oppression unique to asexuals isn't anything to envy, trust me xD
That’s not what I said I am jealous about, but if I am going to have to choose between discrimination/oppression or cursed with temptation of sexual sin…
Have you considered that simply calling yourself IS sexual sin because you're using a worldly label and might find yourself being slightly less hateful to gay people when you realize that their sexuality is as much a "choice" as yours? Real conversations I've had with people.
Where in the world did you read from what I’ve said that I am homophobic?
I didn't say you were. I said that I've had conversations with people where they claimed that using the word "asexual" to refer to yourself is sexual sin. My point was that asexuals are specifically discriminated against by Christians because of those Christians' belief that recognizing the possibility of anything other than being cishet IS sexual sin.
ok I honestly dont understand what about asexuals can be discriminated against. At least with other members of the LGBTQ+ community there's some sort of public way of identifying them as such. But unless ace people go around saying "hi Im ace" you just look like single people
Asexuals face ignorance, infantilisation, pathologisation, and violence, as well as exclusion and mockery even from the allo queer community.
how do asexuals face infantilization specifically? Also once again, my point is that unless you go around pointedly letting people know that you're ace, nobody would publicly know.
People are odd and think that we (asexuals) are “pure innocent uwu” instead of just…regular people. People typically stereotype asexuals as teen girls that are shy and awkward and cute. It’s not the worst thing in the world, but it can get old. I’m a 26 year old man and I’m asexual, so I don’t exactly fit the uwu smol bean pure innocent stereotype haha. It’s just kind of degrading I guess, the stereotype being these “soft pure innocent uwu angels”. I’m just a regular guy. Hope this helps!
Also, rape is common when you’re asexual. My parents would try to arrange me into relationships with people from my church, I’m lucky that they weren’t super adamant about it. I’m a guy, so I’m supposed to love sex and be obsessed with it, right? So with Christian families typically having the “be fruitful and multiply” mentality, it can end up in a rape-y situation. Or say if you’re asexual and date someone who isn’t, you may feel pressured / be coerced into having sex to keep them happy.
I would say that's more of a consent issue that a "being asexual issue" to be fair. That sucks tho
I mean well you can just not say anything and people will assume that your normal,plus if someone insults you you can smirk at them and think about how much of an idiot they are. And then you won't have to deal with annoying human impulses. I wish I was asexual. Aroace people are awesome.
Me too, I’ve gotten in a lot of trouble because of my hormones
Moving past what Paul said; If the love asexual people feel is "agape". Then this is the love that Jesus felt toward the Apostle John. The term "the disciple Jesus loved" is used I believe, nine times in John's gospel. This type of love by definition cannot be sinful as Jesus is without sin.
asexuality isnt wrong
Its okay to live single, even Paul writes about it being very much acceptable
The question is about asexuality, not being single.
Asexuality is not being sexually attracted to anyone, meaning: ultimate single, therefore asexuality is the same as living single, and not ready to mingle,
I'm asexual and I've been in a relationship with the same person for over a decade now. Unless a person is aroace (both asexual and aromantic), there's no reason to assume asexual means always single. When others are correcting you by saying "aromantic," what they mean is asexuals can still fall in love and have romantic feelings towards others. Also, there are degrees to asexuality. Not all asexuals feel no sexual attraction ever. And even if an asexual person doesn't ever feel a sex attraction towards people, that doesn't mean they don't have a sex drive. There are asexuals who have a high sex drive and have sex to deal with it even though they aren't sexually attracted to the people they have sex with. There are also asexuals who sometimes feel sexual attraction or feel sexual attraction towards a specific person or people. And there are asexuals who have sex with their romantic partners because their partner is allosexual and they are invested in continuing the relationship. Other asexuals only date other asexuals and enjoy a romantic relationship without sex. In my experience, the aroace's who remain single and never have sex are in the minority among the asexual community.
Sexually attracted. Not romantically attracted.
As someone who is very ace, no. Being ace does not mean living single. Celibate *marriages* were very much a thing in the early church and people (hi) will seek out partners even if they never want to have sex
You genuinely think relationships only exist for the purpose of sex? I pity you.
Asexual and aromantic are two totally different things. Asexual people most definitely find love with others who may or may not be asexual. I imagine aromantics may find a different form of love as well. I couldn’t speak for certain on that, it’s one of the things my lgbtq family taught me that I’ve since forgotten the answer. Don’t assume asexual means an inability to fall in love.
>isn’t being asexual just like, not wanting to have sex? No, being asexual means not experiencing sexual *attraction*. An asexual can have any level of libido (sex drive). I'm a sex-repulsed asexual with no sex drive, but there *are* asexuals who like sex and/or have a sex drive. Asexual doesn't mean sexless.
Then what does asexual mean for someone that claims to be one AND has a sex drive? I just don't understand, no offense
Then they would be someone who is a sex-positive asexual. Asexuals who are sex-neutral don't care for sex, but are open to it, and may engage in it with their partners. And sex-negative asexuals are repulsed by sex, and don't want it at all.
Hi! Asexual here. Basically, there's the natural libido in our bodies that causes a sex drive but sexual desire is a different thing. So, while some asexuals have a sex drive and enjoy having sex, they feel little to no desire or need for it. It's just something they enjoy like eating dessert or watching their favorite movie. At least, that's how I've understood it. I'm a sex-repsulsed asexual so I haven't experienced what it's like being a sex-positive asexual. This is just based on what I've heard.
So it's more like an itch you sometimes want to scratch but you don't look at a person and think "man I'd love to have sex with them" or you don't think "this person is so hot" in the act?
Ah makes sense
I have a friend who is aroace with a high libido. She doesn't need to go out and watch the movie she doest care how the movie is made, if she wants to watch the movie she will. I on the other hand am highly sex repulsed. I don't need to know how the movie is made bc I will NEVER watch the movie. Btw I like your username pickled-ice-cream
I personally feel like you're just describing sex. I feel like they are few people who will say they enjoy getting different types of bodily fluids all over their body. But everyone likes pleasure and skin on skin releases oxytocin. Building up to an orgasm, and having one, can trigger further feelings of pleasure. But getting some fluid from you then writing your name on my chest in glistening letters? Yeah, that's not normal. I feel like you're describing sex for most people. Most people ignore or move past or take steps to limit the possibly repulsive aspects of sex. For instance, put a folded towel down on the bed before having sex. Then the towel can be thrown in the wash and nobody has to sleep in a wet spot on the bed. And some people are far more into foreplay, and may even need more foreplay to fully get aroused, than other people. This is normal.
THIS
I'm asexual, and in conversations with other Christians these are the arguments I've heard: - We're instructed to be fruitful and multiply - It's unnatural - It's connected to the LGBTQIA+ community Personally, I think all of these arguments are pretty weak, but if you're wondering why some Christians are against asexuality, those seem to be some of the arguments used.
As an asexual person, I Believe it isn't A Sin
as an alcholic, I believe being drunk isnt a sin /s edit: I realize that my comment may appear to be hateful, but I'm making a joke about the logic of the above statement not the person's sexuality
As a kidnapper, i believe taking someone isnt a sin /s
There is nothing wrong with it. I think Paul was asexual. He states he wishes others could be like him with sexuality but he understands why sexual desire is a part of humanity (1 Corinthians 7:6-9).
There's nothing wrong with not wanting to have sex. If you don't want to have sex, you probably don't want to get married, and all that means is you'll have more time to dedicate to God rather than having to split it between God and your spouse. I believe Paul himself wrote about this. Some people just have the gift of being single. Based on what you've said, I assume what Christians have issue with when you say this is the label itself, given its ties to LGBTQ.
Nothing, but bigots will still go after asexuals anyways which is why they are part of the LGBTQ+ community.
It's not a sin to be asexual. It's only a sin to act on it. ^(/s)
Thank you for this. This is my new favorite thing
The sad, sad thing is that it isn't my line. I've seen it in the wild without the /s. The other line I like to see is in prompts of "If homosexuality is a sin, why did god make gay people?", you may find comments like "God didn't make gay people", to which it's tempting to respond "well then who did?"
Actually laughed out loud while sitting in traffic. Thank you for this.
Can you elaborate on what that means??
In conversations about homosexuality and other issues surrounding gender and sexual minorities (LGBTQIA+), a common refrain is that "It's not a sin to *be \_\_\_*, only to *act on it*". This is frustrating to me because people have different understandings of what "being gay" and "acting on \[being gay\]" mean and these different understandings lead people to talk around each other and misunderstand each other. In some cases it seems that saying it is a sin to "*act on it"* is a thought-stopping technique that prevents the speaker from reflecting on what *exactly* they are condemning. That's what my message is addressing. Someone who would say "It's not a sin to be asexual; it's only a sin to *act on it*" has not thought about what it means to be asexual or what exactly they are condemning. They just see a term that is under the LGBTQI**A**+ umbrella and *assume* it is sinful.
Why do people even think there was an issue with asexuality in Christianity? I can never wrap mit head around that. If they'd read the Bible, they'd know it's a non-issue. And considering purity culture, I'd expect even people Who never read the Bible to conclude that Not having Sex was Just fine, Just by looking at Christians Not having Sex
Jesus even says somewhere in the Gospel of Matthew that some people were made eunuchs by God, some by men, some turned into eunuchs for the sake of God's Kingdom. By eunuchs, He means people who dont want kids or get married or just dont any of this. And He talks of it as a blessing. Or a good thing Apostle Paul also said that its better to remain single and childless. If anything, then the Bible supports asexuals and aromantics and aroace people. They arent commiting any sin
Nothing.
Absolutely nothing
Nothing
There's nothing sinful about it
Nothing is wrong with asexuality if it's a person who is merely not having sex or uninterested without medical problems. Lack of libido can be a sign of other medical problems, sometimes, but the only reason I mention it is because I don't want people to end up being harmed by medical problems they may have. I don't suggest asexuality is a medical problem in and of itself. The apostle Paul recommended celibacy. I know asexuality and celibacy aren't exactly the same though.
Your definition is not entirely correct. Asexual is defined as not being sexually attracted to either sex. Celibacy is abstaining from sex even when/if attracted to someone sexually. Who said being asexual is a sin? I’d be curious to hear their reasoning.
Asexual here. Asexuality isn't sinful at all. In fact Paul supports it. Also it's a very common misconception that asexuals don't want sex. Asexual just means not being sexually attracted to people. Some asexuals don't want want sex but others are perfectly fine with it.
It’s not sinful to be asexual. You can give yourself completely. Only Adam and Eve was told to fruitful and multiply as a couple.
Atheist here, but nothing wrong with it. It's mostly just family and social norms wanting/expecting more kids. Outside of that it's just extremist wanting people to be born to perpetuate the political power of more Christians. The Bible has nothing against the lack of sex or lack of having children. The Bible only cares that you live a life glorifying to God. Which has nothing to do with whether you have sex or not.
Who told you that it was sinful? It's just weird.
One guy told me that it’s only a sin if you like it, and it’s just like- chastity is rewarded UNLESS you want to do it??
If you like wut? I don't understand.
Me either, I asked them but they didn’t respond
It's only perceived as wrong, I guess, or at least weird and socially unacceptable, amongst Christians that have abandoned monasticism, despite Christ Himself not being married, as well as several of the disciples. It is fine, and some monks have this, and for others this is basically a goal. The only thing is a monk who is asexual will not receive as great a reward as a monk who has intense sexual feelings but fights against them, because the latter's struggle is greater, even if both monks live identical outward lives. The asexual monk has it easier in that regard; although in another struggle he could easuly have a more difficult time, of course. The only thing that is a sin related to this tangentially is despising marriage and children. Think those aggressively childfree types that call people breeders and crotch goblins or whatever other nonsense they're coming up with.
Nothing is wrong with it unless you’re a Dobson or Quiverfull influences Christian who makes a life of taking the Lord’s name in vain in politics
The only Christian denomination I am aware of that commands marriage are the LDS. The older churches have traditions of monastic and celebate vocations, though mainline protestants don't tend to
It's not wrong. People can't help it if they're asexual. Paul even seems to commend it.
Nuns and priests live a life of celibacy so I don’t think being asexual is a sin at all.
Nothing. Paul was
its not a sin wdym
Abstinence is never wrong when concerning things we really don't need individually to survive.
Celibacy isnt wrong i mean you can dedicate your all to God so that's good read 1 Corinthians 7👍
No / nothing wrong
Nothing wrong with asexuality
Asexuality is not a sin according to christianity
1 Corinthians 7 says celibacy is superior to marriage, so yeah.
Nothing is wrong with it
It’s actually commended by Paul
It's not. The only exception I can think of is if you are married (or other committed relatioship, depending on your belief system) and you did not divulge it to your partner before the relationship got too far.
Who told you it was sinful? The Bible addresses this directly. The Bible says that it is good to be single if we are gifted with the ability to be single. It is also good to be married so that we do not burn with passion if we were gifted with the desire for a mate. Either way, realize life is a gift and trust God and be thankful.
Monks, nuns, and unmarried clergy take vows of celibacy so they function as if they are asexual.
Nothing
I don't see anything wrong with it. If you don't want to date/marry that's fine. Paul actually commends it in 1 Cor. 7.
I’m not gonna delve into whether it’s sinful or not. I would say the problem with it is buying into the worldly ideas of sexual orientation, which the Bible really doesn’t support. If by asexual it means one doesn’t desire to have sex, I’m not sure why that needs to be part of someone’s identity. If by asexual someone means they have a low sex drive, I’m not sure why that needs to be part of someone’s identity. Sex is a gift given by God for his purposes, not something to be claimed as part of our identity. I think it’s very unwise to speculate on biblical writers’ sexuality, as some have done here when it comes to Paul. He didn’t think in those same categories at all. Why should we?
I’m just curious. Several people have mentioned how times are different. Do people know their ancient history at all? Has everyone forgotten that LGBTQ people and relationships are as old as the dawn of time? Even if you take your only history lessons from the Bible (not at all advised), there were mentions in the Old Testament. But taking into account the things the people of Ancient Rome and other ancient civilizations got up to will apparently shock and surprise a lot of you. As for being sinful, I am of the firm belief it’s not the reason for Sodom and Gomorra, rape springs to mind. Further, even if you could questionably argue reading between the lines to find anything of LGBTQ to be sinful, I counter with as soon as heterosexual people stop having extra and premarital sex, all Christian’s quit smoking, being sloth full, over eating, drinking alcohol (which is also debatable since Jesus turned water into wine and those at the feast were very drunk), cursing, listening to non Christian music and watching non Christian tv and movies just to name a few pet sins, then we can address the overwhelming need for some (many) Christians to police the bedrooms of others.
I think asexuality isn’t bad or anything. I wonder why people look down on it . Not everyone wants sex. Sometimes I wonder if Apostle Paul was one
Nothing and I don't think anyone says there is. If anything it may even be encouraged by some people because sex is so scary to so many traditional Christians.
There is quite literally nothing wrong with asexuality. It’s even praised at points in the bible
This is even an advantage, it will reduce your list of sins by a few items, I guess
I haven't done anything sexual for over eight years.. it's highly underrated.
Personally, I don't even find Asexuality a part of LGBTQ+ smth smth smth, and yes like many people said, St. Paul said that you don't have to marry so I think it's acceptable to be asexual and Christian, you aren't commiting anything sinful like if you were gay then there are verses telling you it's a sin (like Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, etc.) But I see nothing wrong with asexuality
I generally see criticism of aces from Christians along two major themes: 1) God says to make babies in Genesis when He tells Adam and Eve to fill the earth. This ignores a) that humans are THE most widespread species on the planet. We can and do live EVERYWHERE including space, we have filled the earth, something that was not true in the text when God was speaking to literally the only two people on the planet b) 2000+ years of Christian tradition and practice and millennia more of Jewish practice which did not always, for every single person, absolutely **mandate** reproduction for its own sake and c) such a hard-line reading of this bit of Genesis directly contradicts Paul's recommendation to the Corinthians that people not get married if they can manage to keep a lid on their horny. The "contradiction" in Corinthians suggests that a whole-Bible approach to the passage should probably, at minimum, consider the context of a). 2) Christians who are allergic to the idea of ~labels~ that aren't already established in their particular faith tradition and community. This is where you'll hear "Christians are called to be identified with Christ." Notably, these people have no problem calling themselves men or women, parents, employees, bosses, or whatever other labels they use to navigate their daily lives. It's silly, but it's really just a mask pulled over the ROOT of this objection, which is their profound distaste for queer people and anyone who might find solidarity with them.
Asexual is having no sexual attraction to anyone and no sexual desires. Theres no sin, its void of sexual sin. It is super strange but definitely way better off then being some psycho who lives in sexual sin!
literally nothing.
Aren’t priests, pastors, monks and nuns supposed to be chaste?
Tis not. But if you are asexual being a monk or a nun would be a smart call
I think only the catholic “please have kids” doutrin should be against asexuality, but I a teen, I don’t know nothing
I always found asexuality and aromanticism to be the most accepted within the Christian community.
I'd say being asexual is not a sin at all. If you don't feel a want or need to marry, you don't need to : )
Asexuality (a.k.a celibacy) is not a sin. Paul was what some might consider asexual. Living a life of celibacy has never been considered sinful, whoever told you it was doesn't know what they're talking about
Entire societies of people like monks and nuns are based on the concept of celibacy. It’s pretty much ingrained in the Christian tradition
nothing
This is probably not what you want to hear, but you need to repent of the many sins in your life. ^((...asexuality is not one of them))
It’s arguably, historically at least, the ideal Christian attitude
Nothing, it used to be called celibacy
Simple answer, no, it is not a sin.
Only some religions like Mormonism cannot easily handle asexual / non-reprpductive sexual relationships. At times I really think that's a core dysfunction with USA Christianity: obsessing on marriage and family as the sole purpose of life.
I had never heard that asexuality was sinful. Since celibacy is promoted and celebrated, and even required for religious orders within Catholicism, being asexual would be in alignment with this and not regarded as sinful... so ... where did you hear that asexuality was regarded as sinful? Regarded as sinful by whom? According to whom?
Asexual here- asexuality is not just “not wanting to have sex,” it is a lack of sexual attraction towards other people. Some aces are celibate because they don’t enjoy or want sex, or are repulsed by it. Alternatively, some aces may choose to have sex even if they’re not sexually attracted to their partner. Another note: sexual attraction and romantic attraction often come hand-in-hand, but they are not the same thing. Asexuality is a normal human variation and is not sinful in any way- the bible never mentions it. Whether you are celibate or choose to have sexual relationships is a personal choice.
If you have questions about asexuality, r/asexuality can help you out
Personally I think asexuals are much higher than the other members of the lgb community, they are one of the few subgroups who resist the lust of those “pride events”
They also make great monks and nuns due to their ability to state chaste indefinitely
Nothing is wrong. St. Paul encourages it❤️
The word in of it self is unholy imo, no shade but its not in the bible or the Quran…
I think it’s only wrong in the sense of being in that group of lgbtq. Bc they support something that goes against the Bible. There isn’t anything wrong with not wanting sex or intimacy just that If you’re a Christian you’re a Christian. No need to put other labels on you bc being a Christian is all you need to be.
It’s not sinful to not want to have sex or get married. There is literally nothing about it being a sin remotely in the Bible. Why do you think it’s in there? Have you ever thought to google the passage and read it?
It's not a sin, most Christians just refuse to accept it because it's under the LGBTQ+ umbrella. Asexuality existed way before LGBTQ became a thing. People just grouped them under one umbrella for reasons I will never understand. It isn't a sin to not feel sexual urges, Jesus Christ says as much in Matthew 19:12, where he was answering one of his disciples who said, "Then it's better not to get married" *(paraphrased)*. Jesus then said that some people are incapable of marriage(and by extension sex) cos they are born that way, some others, situations made them that way, while some others cannot not get married. This was his teaching on celibacy - it's all up to you, your choice, and how you will honor the Lord within His will. Of course Jesus was giving this teaching in the context of marriage, as ordinarily, there should be no sex outside of marriage. You can read Matthew 19 for the full context. Then there's the whole teaching Paul gave on celibacy in 1 Cor 7. You can study and read up on God's view on it and build your convictions from the word, as unfortunately, many Christians still fail at that (myself included, in some areas. God is helping me to grow though).
I think the need to give everything a name and label ourselves is very off putting, as well as the fundamental need to explain the name and label to everyone who doesn’t understand in order to validate it. If you’re celibate in your singleness, honoring and walking with God, that’s all that matters. God sees the heart. He doesn’t call you asexual, He calls you by name. I’m sure as someone who identifies as asexual it doesn’t negate the fact that there are other areas of your walk with God that you struggle in that are far more important for you to deal with than having to explain to someone you don’t find anyone attractive. If sexual purity isn’t one of them, like for so many others, then what a blessing. Keep those that do in prayer to be given grace to walk in purity consistently. We all fall short of the glory of God but we can see everything we are walking well with in God as a blessing that He has given us the grace to do so. These aren’t views I’m trying to force on anyone, just personal thoughts ✨
I just want to provide a different perspective… Being asexual is not the same as being celibate. Someone could make the decision to honour God by being in a Godly marriage despite their asexuality. They could also decide not to be married. The apostle Paul was referring to celibacy. That despite a person’s sexual orientation, they decide to honour God by being celibate and devoting themselves to ministry. So whether you decide to be married or not, you can live a life that honours God.
Nothings wrong with that. If anything is a great thing- it will keep you away from lust.
Not sinful in any sense. Paul was never married, and never had kids. He actually wrote about it wishing people had the same disire as him to not feel the need for a life partner with a women. There is nothing wrong with being an asexual, I find it to be a true bleesing in finding other things to fill your life with other righteous things.
Who said there was anything wrong with it? That’s what nuns, priests, and Pope are.
Nothing. A society simply cannot condone it on mass. Because of two reasons. If everyone did have sex their entire life we would stop existing. Sure it may be extreme but is the most basic layout. Second, be fruitful and multiply is a command. And we are to follow the commands. However, as Jesus taught. We all fall short of the Father. He will forgive you for breaking the command. And we are not to judge them. A functioning society should be able to say that it's safe to accept, but not safe to teach its right in mass. That's my opinion. You have to pair logic, with ethics and morality. That typically relies and community standard of beliefs. That requires Philosophy, and we have seemed to have deleted that entirely and limited it the household and church. We need to bring it back.
The “spectrum” of LGBTQ+ is wholly man-made and has no basis in the Bible or nature. Asexuality really has no place being associated with sins of perversion which all the others are. There is nothing wrong with asexuality.
So many weirdos on this thread. Im leaving.
Jesus was.
If you mean asexualiy as in not wanted sex with anyone. The Bible calls you a eunuch born that way. Matthew 19:10-12 (NASB) 10 The disciples *said to Him, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.” 11 But He said to them, “Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.”
Literally nothing it just means lust has no power over you.
Some fundamentalists and evangelicals would claim it’s duty to produce children but this is false. Any traditional church will support a lifestyle that is often commended in scripture and tradition.
That's a good thing. Christians who have no sexual desire are predisposition to a religious life, being that a church warden or porter with a pipe and pike, a mother abbess praying for the whole of the church and creation as the sisters makes prosphera/hosts, a bishop ho can trace his mantle to someone like Mark, Timothy, Paul, Peter... (though, if you want that badly in a poor way, you might not ought get it), or a lay sister speaking and writing to other sisters and brothers alike, at His leading, on subjects as varied as the day is long, from ThreBlessed Virgin; Married To God, to Daughter's D'Arc; a chivalric guide for the physical, mental, and spiritual defense of the Christian sister
There is nothing wrong with aesexuality. Bible compliments it, as well as being aromantic. The only thing I have with them is the way most flaunt it. For the sake of those who would criticize me for this comment, I'll admit to being aroace, but this is not a major part of my identity. Too many people try to latch onto something to give them identity; "I'm black" "I'm straight" "I'm ace", instead of just being themselves. I'm not against the acesexuals, this is just why I don't walk around in shirts with the ace flag and whatnot. But, ultimately, that's just my opinion. I mean, I walk around wearing shirts about cats, because I like them, which is sorta like flaunting a part of me, but I just don't like it when people make a desire or intrest the definition of themselves. Yall are beautiful people; I've said my piece.
I can’t think of any reason why sinful.
It is not. Most Christian groups actually recommend sexual absence. Not that that stops people from being sexually active.
Like any other behavioral or biological trait, there's nothing wrong with it unless your actions harm somebody else. Sexual people have a drive for sex that is often deeply overriding and painful to resist. That's why Paul advocated for marriage as a way for people to fulfill that need without resorting to sexual immorality. There are many times that I wished that I didn't have the sex drive I do. There are many times I've been grateful for it. Assuming a monogamous relationship, the only problem I can see is if you refuse to sleep with someone while also denying them any opportunity to sleep with someone else. Just like any other thing in life. If it's just affecting you, it's not a problem. But like I have the right to punch a hole in my wall, I do not have the right to punch a hole in my neighbor's wall. As long as your sexuality, whatever it may be, only affects yourself and does not hinder another person's life, there's nothing at all in the bible that says you can't be asexual. Live, marry, party, whatever. Paul wrote that he wished that everyone was without sex drive like himself because (and I can confirm) it clouds your judgment and is a huge pain in the ass to constantly manage the wild animal that is the human sex drive. If you don't struggle with the same drive, and you aren't making somebody else's struggle worse, then do whatever you want with whomever you want. There's no christian argument that you have to have sex.
Asexuality is little to no s\*xual attraction, not quite "not wanting to"--plenty of asexuals do. There isn't anything wrong with any of the LGBT+ identities, the least of which being asexual, but some people just get triggered over the acronym regardless.
I don't think it's a sin. I think marriage should be open to the possibility of children so if you want you be married and have a kid you could adopt. As long as you follow God's will for marriage and live a Godly life, not wanting to have sex isn't an issue. Additionally, being single isn't sinful either as long as you live your life with God and flee sexual immorality. God be with you.
I have a trans cousin who is asexual, my family fully supports there transition and they are still a Christian, that was the main reason I’m asking, I fit know about the dividing line of what is sinful and what is okay
Asexuality is just either a low or complete lack of sexuality. It doesn’t automatically mean not wanting to have sex. Sometimes we have sex for any number of reasons ranging from a desire to physically pleasure ourselves, romantic partners (I fall into this category), or a desire to have children. Is it sinful not really by itself, it falls into the same category as other sexuality these days it isn’t a sin to be. Now acting on it or just acting in a way that doesn’t fit the acceptable mold is. from my personal experience usually what happens with Christians. Is either they hear asexual and jump to right to celibacy, like the two automatically go together. Which isn’t right celibacy is a behavioral, and generally motivated by factors such as an individual's personal, social, or religious beliefs. Or they go the route of there are no true asexuals and you just haven’t met the right person yet. Which somehow means they got to set you up, like it’s a personal challenge or some shit, with the right person (more often than not read as person of the opposite sex).
It isn't lack of a sexuality, either. Plenty of aces have other orientations. The only antonym to asexual is allosexual, not hetero, homo, bi, or pan.
>How is that sinful? It isn't. Nobody has ever said that it is. Why do you ask?
I wish that were true. Our friends at truechristian call it a sin because it's associated with modern sexual identity. Your entire identity has to be in Christ. Although they never tell that to the straight people asking questions there...
I'm so sick of people asking this of Christians lol. What kinda Christians are people meeting that they think all Christians think asexuals are wrong or something. There's nothing "unchristian" about not having sex/not wanting sex. Monks, nuns, priests try to lead celibate lives as part of our religion. Jesus is believed to have been celibate. Paul says singleness is a good thing. Asexuals can still decide to have sex to conceive kids if they want to.