Did Jesus have sexual desires?

[Jedidiah]

What I want is for alleged Christians to show respect to Jesus Christ.

I respect Christ as the Bible describes him, not as you try to distort that image.

[Catholicity]

Didn't the Gnostics think that matter was inherently evil?

Yes they did, and there were a few others that believed that the substance of the human body was bad or evil The heresy that Darfius is flirting with here is not new, just recycled and centuries old.

[Christianbookworm]

I respect Christ as the Bible describes him, not as you try to distort that image.

Does he want the "Jesus" that only superficially resembled a human and had none of our actual physiology? How could libido be sinful any more than digestion or waste elimination? Sex is a GOOD thing(without sexual reproduction, we'd go extinct). Any good thing can be misused. The misuse of a good is what is bad.

[Cow Poke]

Remember when Elijah suggested that Baal was on the toilet? How crass.

I think this really helps reveal your nature. The vast majority of the translations I'm familiar with (1 Kings 18:27) simply imply Baal "was busy" or "musing". A few of them say he may have been relieving himself. So, you have to choose the most 'base' translation, then 'Junior High it'.

But the KEY is that Elijah was mocking an imaginary god in front of that imaginary god's idolators. He was purposely showing irreverence.

You, purposely or not, are doing the same thing to Christ.

[Darfius]

No one in this thread, aside from those who claim Christ was married, are accusing Him of sin. No one is saying He wanted to have sex. The only one being disrespectful to Him is you, with your crass and vulgar speech. You are the one on the edge of blasphemy.

Jesus was tempted in all things as we are. Scripture says that. Temptation is not sin. The yielding to temptation is sin. Jesus did not yield to ANY temptation. Hence He was sinless. No believer in this thread would disagree with that. Do you?

Actually, in your rush to be righteously indignant, you missed every one of Sparko's posts where he IS accusing Jesus of wanting to have sex, but "suppressing the urge." And yet, oddly, even though you are dead wrong, you received several Amens. Must be a glitch.

[Cow Poke]

Actually, in your rush to be righteously indignant, you missed every one of Sparko's posts where he IS accusing Jesus of wanting to have sex, but "suppressing the urge." And yet, oddly, even though you are dead wrong, you received several Amens. Must be a glitch.

Would you, pretty please, list these numerous posts of Sparko's where he says Jesus wanted to have sex, but was "suppressing the urge"? I'd like to see his actual wording, given your propensity to "Junior High" things others have said.

Note, of course, that I don't think that "wanting to have sex but not doing it" is necessarily a sin.

[Darfius]

Sexual desire is a general drive. Like hunger. It CAN lead to specific attractions, like urging you to seek a relationship with a compatible person of the opposite sex, or it can lead to unhealthy attractions and actions, like pedophilia, homosexuality, rape, fetishes, etc.

If you want to have sex three times a day all of your life, there is something wrong with you. Sexual desire is NOT like hunger. Why is it so hard for you to understand that we are fallen creatures? In our current state, we are NOT as God intended. Our body is subject to corruption, our desires have become inflamed. Jesus, born of a woman and the Holy Spirit, did not share this corruption. His desires were not inflamed.

The basic urge is not sinful or even specific. It is what a person does about it that creates sin or not sin. Nobody is claiming that Jesus did anything but control his urges. He suppressed them for moral reasons. Just as he asks us to control those urges until we are married. The drive is there, making us seek out the opposite sex, but we can control them and not fulfill them until we are married.

The basic urge is sinful. I'm not sure where you got this idea that someone can be aroused without blame, but it is a fiction. It's also disturbing that you think the only thing that makes us "seek out the opposite sex" is the desire for sex. Is that all you think women have to offer?

You also did not address the issue of why both the Lord and Paul praised those who remained unmarried. Why would they endorse "suppressing" these "natural and good" urges?

healthy is what we are taught in the bible. Attraction to a compatible person of the opposite sex, seeking love and companionship, and wanting to have children. Those are all healthy. Not doing them is not unhealthy however. Some people suppress their urges and do not marry or have sex. Some can't have children.

Now both doing and not doing something can be healthy at the same time? Why doesn't contradicting yourself bother you or your fawning audience at all? Why must it be portrayed as the "suppression" of an urge? Why isn't it an indulgence on your part?

It only becomes unhealthy when we disobey God's guidance for relationships.

Oh, I think it's plenty unhealthy to marry a "member of the opposite sex" just to indulge in your sexual urges lawfully. Which is probably why Paul referred to such a choice as only slightly better than " burning."

Lust is when you take a normal sexual urge and pervert it in your mind. Craving to have and take someone sexually, fantasizing about them. As I said covet. The difference is the same between wanting something and coveting it.

What is a "normal" sexual urge? Can you give an example? Despite what my detractors may say, I am not trying to be crass or lewd, but rather trying to get you to see that your mental fiction will break down in the explanation.

You keep showing you don't actually understand sex or sexual desires at all. I am afraid that without basic understanding on your part, a clear conversation with you on this topic is fruitless.

Mere handwaving in lieu of dealing with my argument. Adam and Eve were created naked and knew not their nakedness. They cannot desire something they do not acknowledge. Besides, the very topic under debate is what constitutes "normal" sexual desire, so of course our relative conceptions are at odds. Try to find another excuse to dodge.

[Sparko]

Would you, pretty please, list these numerous posts of Sparko's where he says Jesus wanted to have sex, but was "suppressing the urge"? I'd like to see his actual wording, given your propensity to "Junior High" things others have said.

Note, of course, that I don't think that "wanting to have sex but not doing it" is necessarily a sin.

I told him that sexual desire in the sense I was using it was a general urge, like hunger. It is a basic drive, just like hunger motivates you to seek out food, but not be a gluton, sexual desire, urges a person to seek out relationships with others, looking for love and companionship. It can be misused or twisted into lust, sex outside of marriage, rape, etc.

So Jesus had this drive in him like everyone but he did not act on it. He suppressed his drive (he wasn't going around lusting after women) and did not act on it. Just like we are supposed to do until we are married. In Jesus case I think he went further and did not even give in enough to "date" or "flirt" - he remained celibate and with only platonic relationships with women during his life. That doesn't mean he didn't have the same temptations. He did, but he held them under control.

[Christianbookworm]

Does Darfius think sex is a sin?????????????????????? Between a man and a woman who are married, it is DEFINITELY NOT A SIN! Last time I checked, we weren't living in the Victorian era. If there wasn't an urge to reproduce, how would we ever bother reproducing?

[Sparko]

If you want to have sex three times a day all of your life, there is something wrong with you. Sexual desire is NOT like hunger. Why is it so hard for you to understand that we are fallen creatures? In our current state, we are NOT as God intended. Our body is subject to corruption, our desires have become inflamed. Jesus, born of a woman and the Holy Spirit, did not share this corruption. His desires were not inflamed.



The basic urge is sinful. I'm not sure where you got this idea that someone can be aroused without blame, but it is a fiction. It's also disturbing that you think the only thing that makes us "seek out the opposite sex" is the desire for sex. Is that all you think women have to offer?

You also did not address the issue of why both the Lord and Paul praised those who remained unmarried. Why would they endorse "suppressing" these "natural and good" urges?



Now both doing and not doing something can be healthy at the same time? Why doesn't contradicting yourself bother you or your fawning audience at all? Why must it be portrayed as the "suppression" of an urge? Why isn't it an indulgence on your part?



Oh, I think it's plenty unhealthy to marry a "member of the opposite sex" just to indulge in your sexual urges lawfully. Which is probably why Paul referred to such a choice as only slightly better than " burning."



What is a "normal" sexual urge? Can you give an example? Despite what my detractors may say, I am not trying to be crass or lewd, but rather trying to get you to see that your mental fiction will break down in the explanation.



Mere handwaving in lieu of dealing with my argument. Adam and Eve were created naked and knew not their nakedness. They cannot desire something they do not acknowledge. Besides, the very topic under debate is what constitutes "normal" sexual desire, so of course our relative conceptions are at odds. Try to find another excuse to dodge.

I started to answer this, but the further I got, the more I realized that you are purposefully misreading my posts just to burn straw and pick a fight. So no thanks. You are borderline gnostic in your views. I was clear in that sexual desire in the way I was speaking of it was a general non-specific drive, and even gave you a link to a definition. I explained that it was not "trying to have sex" or "wanting to have sex" and walking around with an erection (you put it much more crudely) leering at women. That is YOUR strawman of my posts and apparently because you have no actual answer to my points, so you have to mischaracterize them to make your asinine points.

So go ahead continue to misread and misinterpret my posts. Every one can clearly see what you are doing. It is disrespectful, and it is dishonest. Not very Christian of you. You might want to rethink your tactics if you want to convince anyone that you are right. So far I see NOBODY agreeing with you and everybody agreeing with me.

[Sparko]

Adam and Eve were created naked and knew not their nakedness. They cannot desire something they do not acknowledge.

OK what exactly are you even trying to say here? That Adam did not have sexual attraction for Eve? That he didn't lust her because he didn't have clothes? I am at a loss here Darf. Please explain.

[thewriteranon]

This thread was wild from start to finish.

[Christianbookworm]

OK what exactly are you even trying to say here? That Adam did not have sexual attraction for Eve? That he didn't lust her because he didn't have clothes? I am at a loss here Darf. Please explain.

He must think that since Adam and Eve didn't mind being naked any more than a baby does, they must have had the same knowledge of sex as a baby does. Except that God wanted them to reproduce! Now, how do mammals reproduce?

[Cow Poke]

I told him that sexual desire in the sense I was using it was a general urge, like hunger. It is a basic drive, just like hunger motivates you to seek out food, but not be a gluton, sexual desire, urges a person to seek out relationships with others, looking for love and companionship. It can be misused or twisted into lust, sex outside of marriage, rape, etc.

So Jesus had this drive in him like everyone but he did not act on it. He suppressed his drive (he wasn't going around lusting after women) and did not act on it. Just like we are supposed to do until we are married. In Jesus case I think he went further and did not even give in enough to "date" or "flirt" - he remained celibate and with only platonic relationships with women during his life. That doesn't mean he didn't have the same temptations. He did, but he held them under control.

That's exactly how I understood what you've been saying all along. I suppose somebody who had a perverted mind or only prurient interests could see otherwise.

[Sparko]

That's exactly how I understood what you've been saying all along. I suppose somebody who had a perverted mind or only prurient interests could see otherwise.

I think it might be a matter of creating a pot hole and then him trying to dig himself out and ending up making the hole deeper. He keeps having to resort to insults and misreadings of people's points and posts and making false accusations, all to just keep from saying "oh, I understand what you mean now, I was wrong. Carry on"

Instead he keeps trying to characterize us as claiming Jesus was a sexual deviant when we are just pointing out that Jesus was 100% human and not some robot.