petitedrag Posted July 1, 2003 Share Posted July 1, 2003 I believe apostle Paul was asexual, i got this idea from reading his writing in 1 Corinthians 7: 1-9 Link to post Share on other sites
VivreEstEsperer Posted July 1, 2003 Share Posted July 1, 2003 hmm..I wouldn't know! Link to post Share on other sites
cronos Posted July 1, 2003 Share Posted July 1, 2003 I believe apostle Paul was asexual, i got this idea from reading his writing in 1 Corinthians 7: 1-9 For those who are wondering what it says: Now to deal with the matters you wrote about. A man does well not to marry. But because there is so much immorality, every man should have his own wife, and every woman should have her own husband. A man should fulfill his duty as a husband, and a woman should fulfill her duty as a wife, and each should satisfy the other's needs. A wife is not the master of her own body, but her husband is; in the same way a husband is not the master of his own body, but his wife is. Do not deny yourselves to each other, unless you first agree to do so for a while in order to spend your time in prayer; but then resume normal marital relations. In this way you will be kept from giving in to Satan's temptation because of your lack of self-control.I tell you this not as an order, but simply as a permission. Actually I would prefer that all of you were as I am; but each one has a special gift from God, one person this gift, another one that gift. Now, to the unmarried and to the widows I say that it would be better for you to continue to live alone as I do. But if you cannot restrain your desires, go ahead and marry - it is better to marry than to burn with passion. Please excuse for any slight variences to other translations/edits/versions of the Bible. Link to post Share on other sites
petitedrag Posted July 1, 2003 Author Share Posted July 1, 2003 cronos, thanx for the bible quote "Actually I would prefer that all of you were as I am; but each one has a special gift from God, one person this gift, another one that gift. " my own interpretation from above quote is that Paul thinks that being asexual is a gift. i could be wrong Link to post Share on other sites
bard of aven Posted July 1, 2003 Share Posted July 1, 2003 Keep the flames to a minimum, alright, I can do that, but I was getting ready for that roar Aury asked for in another thread. It seems more likely that Paul is advocating celibacy for those that can do it and marriage for those who cannot. It is a confusing passage at best. He starts by saying that all should marry, ends by saying that he wishes none had to marry in order to control their lust. (As a side note, notice the complete absence of love or rpmantic attraction as a reason for Christian marriage. It's sole purpose, in this quote, is to avoid a life of promiscuity.) The final paragraph of the quote openly states that those who can control their desires should, and those who cannot should marry. I see nothing here about an abscence of desires, and so, nothing about asexuality. There. That wasn't a flame, was it? boa Link to post Share on other sites
petitedrag Posted July 1, 2003 Author Share Posted July 1, 2003 oops sorry did i just posted something off topic, or am i just really bad in getting my point across? sorry english is not my first language Link to post Share on other sites
bard of aven Posted July 1, 2003 Share Posted July 1, 2003 oops sorry did i just posted something off topic, or am i just really bad in getting my point across? sorry english is not my first language Hi, petitedrag. And btw, welcome. You started the topic. You can post whatever you want. It is certainly an appropriate topic. And it seems to fit in The Library. I think I understood your point. I am only trying to politely (difficult for me at times) disagree, and present another possible interpretation. Please feel free to post anything you want. That's how we get to now each other. Sorry if I sounded heavy-handed. Your English looks pretty good to me. Hope to hear more of you soon. boa Link to post Share on other sites
cronos Posted July 2, 2003 Share Posted July 2, 2003 oops sorrydid i just posted something off topic, or am i just really bad in getting my point across? sorry english is not my first language Sorry about that. I'm just so used to topics that have any religious connotation on other boards degenerating into flame-fests. I do apologize if that put you at any discomfort. I've removed the remark for my post to avoid any future confusion. Anyway, I don't consider it off topic. I'm not entirely sure whether Paul is referring to asexuality or celibacy. The main problem is that the concept of asexuality back then likely didn't exist. It does provoke some thought on the subject, though. Link to post Share on other sites
orderinchaos Posted July 5, 2003 Share Posted July 5, 2003 it's entirely possible that he was celibate and asexual/hyposexual as well. Link to post Share on other sites
Legolas Posted July 5, 2003 Share Posted July 5, 2003 Don't many very religious people such as nuns and some priests never marry and have sex? Alex Link to post Share on other sites
12321 Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 yes, you're right. priest, nuns, monks, etc. do not marry and lead a life of celibacy. Link to post Share on other sites
Moose-Alini Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 Well, idealy. BTW welcome 12321 Link to post Share on other sites
skatepixie Posted September 24, 2003 Share Posted September 24, 2003 i wonder how many ppl ecome nuns because they are asexual, or at least dont rule it out..... I know I couldnt because I want kids so bad. I think its likely that he was asexual. Perhaps it had a double meaning. Link to post Share on other sites
Orpheus Posted September 24, 2003 Share Posted September 24, 2003 Orthadox priest can be married, but only if they were married before becoming a priest. Catholics are not at all, same with their nuns and monks. Buddist monks never marry, if they do they leave the life of a monk. Taoist, we can marry, there's a good explanation for that one. Link to post Share on other sites
bard of aven Posted September 24, 2003 Share Posted September 24, 2003 Interestingly, tho, as far as I know, the orthodox, as well as the nonRoman catholics (Roman is one of 18 or so rites that follow the pope) that allow married priests do not allow them to become bishops (whereas Protestants generally do). Bishops in these groups must be in monastic vows, including celibacy. I had a friend years back who went through orthodox seminary, tho, and became a deacon, and stayed a deacon until he fell in love and got married, and then became got ordained a priest. It si a commoon practice with them boa Link to post Share on other sites
Wild Seven Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 Smiles, but I feel that rantings we have now weren't an issue at the time when Paul lived. Back then it seems that people looked only on a way how someone relates to someone else, in the early 20th century (this is unresearched guess and my memory doesn't serve me well when it comes to exactly guessing history issues) they started to look a bit more on what's what and giving terms to it in Europe, otherwise some terms were being used as a part of common language among some Native American tribes or for example in India (speaking mostly about trans-gender issues here, but other "anomaly" like asexuality may be good ilustration to the whole picture about labels and times).. To Europe's population it doesn't seem that they were calling it. Just wanted to add a mention about mentioning And even nations that gave names to sexuality-related issues didn't use it in a sense we use it now. I feel that in the 21st century we take it more sophistically and more theoretically, we use more rhetoric around that with abstraction. I don't tell it doesn't deserve our attention, I just wanted to remind of historical asynchrony between today's perception and perception back in time, that has something to do with labeling and stuff. Link to post Share on other sites
Dargon Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 Paul seems, as many have said, to be promoting marrage to those who cannot control their desires and promoting celibacy to those who can. The thing is, Paul's mention of it as a "gift" makes it sound to me that he has his own desire well under control, perhaps it is easy for him to supress it, perhaps he had no desire at all, and thus was asexual. The term "gift" is often used to speak of a unique skill, and the ability to supress one's sexual desire (or not experience it altogether) is quite unique. I guess what I am saying is that from this passage, Paul at least did not have trouble supressing his desire, but the passage is too unclear to say for certain that he lacked desire alltogether. Link to post Share on other sites
Mallard Posted March 25, 2005 Share Posted March 25, 2005 I guess what I am saying is that from this passage, Paul at least did not have trouble supressing his desire, but the passage is too unclear to say for certain that he lacked desire alltogether. That is my impression, too. Link to post Share on other sites
Frigid Pink Posted March 26, 2005 Share Posted March 26, 2005 I believe Paul was speaking of celibacy. Also, Saint Augustine can be included in this discussion. Saint Augustine believed that sexual pleasure was sin---so marriages were based solely on the need for procreation. Saint Augustine would rather have people be celibate, but if they must have sex then do so in marriage and do it for the purpose of procreation. I would not say that sexual pleasure is a sin, but I would go as far to say that sexual pleasure is inherently sinful because it leads to sin (aldultery, rape, etc.). However, that is very debatable. Actually, I am in a Hebrew Bible class and we just recently addressed the topic of homosexuality and its relation to the Bible (though the word homosexual is never mentioned in the Bible). Based on the views of Saint Augustine, one would say homosexuality as well as masturbation or any type of sexual thing solely done for sexual pleasure is not good. However, that is Saint Augustine and not the Bible. Just thought I'd add some info., especially since this is relevant to the class I'm taking. Asexuals are pretty much favored in the Bible. Link to post Share on other sites
lovebug Posted April 9, 2005 Share Posted April 9, 2005 calling it a 'gift' is very important. especially in this day an age where christians think youre weird becuase your not doing. Catholics *growing up catholic* can be so damn horny..always enforcing the notion to their children to..make more babies!! I disagree that Paul surpressed his desire. If anything, Christ took away his desire to do his work. Horny Apostles would lose the time they needed to pray, learn and perform miracles :lol: i dont think people had the concept of asexuality then, nor was there a need to have one. i think what would have been more strange than being asexual in biblical times would have been..not having kids! Gods will! Having kids was so important, marriages were very forced, sometimes literally forced. There are other verses in the bible, i cant remember if Jesus said them or Paul. How when we die we become like angels in heaven, and we do not marry. I remember reading how there was a controversy during Jesus' and Pauls time. Many youngsters refrained from marraige, saying it was the heavenly way of life and that the end was coming soon anyways. Which upset their parents and was just one of the reasons why people wanted him ....dead..... **************** anyhoot, the verse isnt really about asexuality..if anything its about how its GOOD to not get married. How marraige is only one way to live, but not the only way to live. How being celibant..and asexual is also GOOD in Gods eyes. Think of the times they live in, what type of marraiges do you see anyways? Ones of pure love, or ones more based off of property and sex? this and other verses freed many people in biblical times to live a better life. a life that was meant for them and is actually a gift from God. A life that actually made people more loving, such as Paul. No doubt some poor girl some where was being forced to wed and was practically raped by her new husband while this was being taught.........What Paul taught was practically an attack on the 'sacred' foundation of marraige and popping kids! A much needed attack since marriage for most of humanitys existance really did..lack alot of love anyways thats what I think of the verse, dont forget the times they lived in! Link to post Share on other sites
Hexpiral Posted April 9, 2005 Share Posted April 9, 2005 Catholics *growing up catholic* can be so damn horny..always enforcing the notion to their children to..make more babies!! That REALLY doesn't sound like the Catholic Church I know. Maybe I'm Buddhist and never realised it? Seriously speaking, I was unaware of that stereotype. I think that would apply only to very conservative organisations like Opus Dei. Link to post Share on other sites
Ack42 Posted April 10, 2005 Share Posted April 10, 2005 Paul seems, as many have said, to be promoting marrage to those who cannot control their desires and promoting celibacy to those who can. The thing is, Paul's mention of it as a "gift" makes it sound to me that he has his own desire well under control, perhaps it is easy for him to supress it, perhaps he had no desire at all, and thus was asexual. The term "gift" is often used to speak of a unique skill, and the ability to supress one's sexual desire (or not experience it altogether) is quite unique. I guess what I am saying is that from this passage, Paul at least did not have trouble supressing his desire, but the passage is too unclear to say for certain that he lacked desire alltogether. I agree, though I think it means Paul is at least somewhat toward the category of asexual (or at least reduced sex drive). Link to post Share on other sites
Silly Green Monkey Posted April 10, 2005 Share Posted April 10, 2005 Or maybe, it's part of his fight against the "thorn in his side" which could be lust? It's all speculation. Why bother? Link to post Share on other sites
Ack42 Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 I figure sexualism is range (see triangle diagram of sexuality), so some sexuals CAN abstain while other’s can’t (all those priests who take a vow of chastity and end up having sex with boys... Link to post Share on other sites
Rev. Joshua Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 my own interpretation from above quote is that Paul thinks that being asexual is a gift. i could be wrong From Paul's perspective, I'm sure it is a gift. If it was Paul's goal to live a life of devotion and study, then asexuality would be a blessing, for it is one less thing to distract you in life. Much as non-smokers consider freedom from nicotine a gift in comparison to the alternative. I know I prefer asexuality personally. less to be frustrated about. :D Link to post Share on other sites
myra Posted June 15, 2005 Share Posted June 15, 2005 mmm...seems more like celibacy to me. Catholic priests are still obliged to have a life without sex, which doesn't mean they really ARE asexual....Seems more like a pledge to me. a pity we can't ask Paul what he meant :lol: Link to post Share on other sites
synx13 Posted June 25, 2005 Share Posted June 25, 2005 I dunno if you could call Paul asexual. :shock: He sure seemed to care a lot about when other people were having sex! 7:8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. 7:9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. 7:10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: 7:11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. I guess I'd just call him unimaginably anal, before suggesting he might just be expressing his asexual lifestyle. Anyone that passionate about sex would have to be celibate, big time. Link to post Share on other sites
Rabger Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 (As a side note, notice the complete absence of love or rpmantic attraction as a reason for Christian marriage. It's sole purpose, in this quote, is to avoid a life of promiscuity.) I noticed that too. The sole purpose of Christian marriage is sex, and perhaps using that sex to have children. What I find so amusing with this is that the ultra christians don't want gays to marry, even though marriage is supposed to avoid promiscuity, and one of the reasons they say they dont want gays to marry is because they claim gays are too promiscus. Then they talk about kids and being able to have them with said married partner. But, love is a rather new concept, one that, at the present time, is usually seen as the main point of marriage. And yet with those old fashioned ultra christian types completely ignoring love and focusing on sex. Sex sex sex. Why are they so focused on sex, exactly? Could it be because they're so into repressing themselves? I don't agree with promiscuity either, but I also don't agree with severe repression. Its probably why all those priests go after kids. But hey, if you want to do that to yourself, that's youre choice, but you also don't need to try and force shit on other people. Religion, to me, is largely about control. I don't know about the original question, all I know is that he sounds completely full of himself. And on a related note, what about all those religious type people that claim asexuality doesn't exist, and that it's actually people sinning by refusing god's "gift" of sexuality? :roll: Link to post Share on other sites
hilbertastronaut Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 calling it a 'gift' is very important. especially in this day an age where christians think youre weird becuase your not doing. Catholics *growing up catholic* can be so damn horny..always enforcing the notion to their children to..make more babies!! Eh, that seems to be more of a cultural thing. My parents are good Catholics, but they didn't pressure us offspring to have lots of babies. In fact they are supportive of my choice to stay unmarried (and i'm a practicing Catholic too). Link to post Share on other sites
Orbit Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 What I find so amusing with this is that the ultra christians don't want gays to marry, even though marriage is supposed to avoid promiscuity, and one of the reasons they say they dont want gays to marry is because they claim gays are too promiscus. That is an argument I have used more than once when discussing reasons for supporting civil unions. I'm not sure there is any case in history where gays have been legally married - or recognized. Do you know what the instances are of societies where two equal same gendered partners were in a life long committed relationship? I did some mild research on it a while ago but couldn't find too much. Mostly it seemed gay relationships were just about sex, or they were between two very unequal partners... usually an older man/scholar/warrior and a young man or boy/student/page. I didn't find much on lesbians in history though... In any case, the cause to prohibit such unions seems rather ridiculous to me... Then they talk about kids and being able to have them with said married partner. But, love is a rather new concept, one that, at the present time, is usually seen as the main point of marriage. And yet with those old fashioned ultra christian types completely ignoring love and focusing on sex. Sex sex sex. I'm not sure it was just Christians - it was sort of traditional in most cultures to marry for all sorts of reasons not related to love. From what I know of history (which might be off as I'm no buff) love was more of a luxury compared to family connections ie 'good matches' and this was not exclusive to Christians by any means. It's only recently that love is idealized as more important over a marriage as a family function to raise children in a stable home - which is better for society. And on a related note, what about all those religious type people that claim asexuality doesn't exist, and that it's actually people sinning by refusing god's "gift" of sexuality? :roll: My asexual friend - a single member of my church and in her 40's - came over tonight and we were discussing her situation. It is extremely hard for a single woman in a religious community where marriage is so expected. She joked about wondering why Paul's passages on how great it is to be single are never used as a basis for a sermon. :P It's a great point though... She looks at her asexuality as a gift from God and is perfectly happy - aside from wondering what it might be like to have someone you know will be there. Really - I consider her part of our family, as do my parents... we don't live together, but she's always expected to holiday functions. Anyway... I'm rambling. hawke Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.