Asexual? (was Question about New Testament)

[Grey Wolf]

> > David wrote:
> > > God is asexual?  How do you know?  Is that Catholic doctrine?
> 
> Grey Wolf replied:
> > Sort of. God hasn't got a body to be male or female with (that's 
> > Catholic doctrine, I think - God is spiritual, not physical). 

David again:
> Lots of avenues of discussion here:

Note: I'm quickly approaching the end of my limited knowledge of 
Catholic doctrine here, David. Sorry I cannot be of further help
 
> - does sexuality require a body?

Yes. 'Male' and 'female' are defined as those able to produce 
spermatozoids and ovules, respectively, by Science. To be precise, male 
is the XY cromosome combination and female the XX combination. Bible 
definition is less direct, I think, speaking of ability to bear 
children for females. We could discuss the other half-dozen or so sexes 
found in human race (XXX, XXY, XXXXY etc), but since I remember 
basically nothing of them, I won't.

> - in Christian doctrine Jesus still has 'his' body post the 
> Ascension - how does that affect the above view?

In no way - I was speaking of God Father, not of Jesus or the Holy 
Spirit.
 
> - does 'spiritual' entail 'not physical'?

Yes, according to Catholic doctrine. Physical means "of this world" - 
something you can touch or feel or measure in this reality. God is 
nothing of that. By denomination his existance Spiritual, the Catholic 
Church is making the point that he is *not* part of this reality, where 
"physical" makes sense.
 
David again:
> Again, you raise more questions than you answer:

That is normally the case in religious debates, yes. I repeat, I'm no 
student of Catholic beliefs. I'm sorry I cannot be clearer.

> - is it possible for *any* creative being to create something not 
> latent in themself - IOW, if God is asexual, how could 'he' arrive 
> at sexuality?

There is nothing "wheel-like" in human nature. And yet we create 
wheels. And fire. And microchips. And...

Just because you don't have it in yourself it doesn't mean you cannot 
come up with it.
 
> - specifically, in Christian doctrine, man is supposed to be the 
> image of God.  What aspect of God is human sexuality the image of?  
> (that Adam was lonely shows IMO that the image of God was incomplete 
> without Eve (and, BTW, that the capacity for loneliness is divine))

That "image of God" phrase is very easily misused. Humans are 
imperfect. They sin, and disobey and so on. How is *that* image of God? 
It is not. Neither is their physical body. The "image of God" applies 
only to our thoughts - to our ability to know God, IIRC. You'll have to 
excuse me, I was explained exactly what "Image of God" meant (and 
particularly, what it did *not* mean, for example, our physical bodies 
are no reflection of God's) some 12+ years ago, and I've since 
forgotten the reasoning behind it. I can promise there *was* a 
reasoning, though.
 
> - what does it mean for the church to be the 'Bride of Christ' if 
> sexuality is not involved?
> 
> David

Never heard the phrase, sorry. The Church ('church' is a building that 
has been consacrated to the Christian God, so I doubt it can be bride 
to anything) is *sons* of God, in the sense He created us, according to 
Catholic doctrine. No sexuality is involved.

Hope that helps, although I doubt it,

Grey Wolf