post rapture/ressurection/new bodies queastions

[Thrillobyte]

I'd be surprised if the "sons of God = angels" position is the majority opinion among Christians. (At least it's not my opinion or the opinion of many of the folks I've studied.) An alternate position (and one that I think is more likely) is that the "sons of God" are referring to the godly line of Seth, whereas the "daughters of men" are referring to the ungodly line of Cain.

But I do agree with you that angels sometimes *appear* with gender (but read on). It's interesting, though, how all of the references to angels are either unspecified or are male. No mention of a female angel. (Then again, why would there need to be female angels?) Let's not forget, though, that angels are *spirits* (Heb. 1:14), so it seems more likely that the angels in their natural state are genderless, but they've taken on male-like bodies when they need to interact with man.

Sons of God had to be angels. If they were ordinary humans, regardless of their godly or ungodly behaviors, it would not have been necessary for God to dictate to Moses to write, "They went in to the "daughters of men". This wording clearly sets the sons of God apart from human beings. Otherwise God would have wrote, "the Godly men of Seth went in to the ungodly daughters of Cain". Then you have a point.

Zechariah 5:9
Then lifted I up mine eyes, and looked, and, behold, there came out two women, and the wind was in their wings; for they had wings like the wings of a stork: and they lifted up the ephah between the earth and the heaven.

Angels are often seen having wings, and these angels were definitely female so yes, there ARE female angels, but they are not allowed to procreate with the male angels.

 

[Thrillobyte]

Despite all of the conjecture you put forth, your post still seems off. First, to have one "significant other" for the rest of eternity doesn't sound right. Second, to have sexual relations in our new bodies doesn't sound right. Third, to have such relations without being married sounds outright wrong. And there won't be aging on the New Earth, so I think having children is out of the picture.

This "doesn't sound right" is purely your biased opinion, no offense. With regard to all this, the Bible is silent specifically except for the "they neither marry nor are given in marriage" and there are points to be made that Jesus was referring to the tradition prevalent in those days of "arranged marriages" (giving in marriage) which doesn't happen today in our modern society. But putting aside these subtle details, let's say that marriage will not happen after the resurrection. That still doesn't preclude God restoring the new earth exactly to the state it was prior to the fall which nearly every theologian agrees will happen. That means

1 men and women (not genderless beings) will inhabit the new earth not as husband and wife, since there is no marriage
2 they will likely be paired as Adam and Eve were; at the very least God will offer His children the choice to be paired or be "singles"
3 being gendered they will retain their sexual organs to be used for "coming together and knowing each other"
4 there is a good case to be made for God wanting to populate the entire universe with its quadrillions of galaxies, otherwise what was the point of God creating all the galaxies---just to leave them to rot and burn out? God doesn't waste a thing in His creation.

I don't know about you but being with a soulmate for all eternity, someone who is your perfect counterpart, who thinks and feels the same as you and who understands your innermost feelings and emotions sounds like the most wonderful thing in the universe, next to being with God for all eternity. Strange, I just described Adam and Eve right before the fall.

 

[Thrillobyte]

Where do you get the "no blood" thing?

A “spiritual body” must be defined by the ONLY example we have of one, the first fruits from the dead, the body of Jesus. He described his body as one of flesh and bone, (possibly bloodless) (Lk.24:39). The resurrection body has no need of blood as its life because its nature will not be the same. Presently the blood nourishes the cells that are in need of constant repair but food and water to supply nourishment will no longer be needed. No cells will be in need of repair in our glorified bodies so we will no longer need blood. As it states in Revelation we will neither hunger or thirst. We can eat but not from necessity. We will still have our body and its functions but obviously some things will change.

This info is readily available in hundreds of websites on the Internet.

 

[ebia]

I'm not asking you to attempt to convince me of your opinion. I'm just saying you lack scriptural support for what you are saying. So we'll see.

If you reverse my negatives you get the scriptural support: gender is an integral part of God's good creation, and Jesus is still gendered after his resurrection.

 

[revrobor]

If you reverse my negatives you get the scriptural support: gender is an integral part of God's good creation, and Jesus is still gendered after his resurrection.

Where will I find the Scripture that says anything about Jesus' gender after His resurrection?

 

[jasonsloss]

Sons of God had to be angels. If they were ordinary humans, regardless of their godly or ungodly behaviors, it would not have been necessary for God to dictate to Moses to write, "They went in to the "daughters of men". This wording clearly sets the sons of God apart from human beings. Otherwise God would have wrote, "the Godly men of Seth went in to the ungodly daughters of Cain". Then you have a point.

Zechariah 5:9
Then lifted I up mine eyes, and looked, and, behold, there came out two women, and the wind was in their wings; for they had wings like the wings of a stork: and they lifted up the ephah between the earth and the heaven.

Angels are often seen having wings, and these angels were definitely female so yes, there ARE female angels, but they are not allowed to procreate with the male angels.

this passage you are referring to is not about angelic beings but is about the high priest of those times... they were not looked at as ordinary men... they are identified in this fashion because they were set apart for the work of God, but as you can see they fell into perverse sin... this why God sent the flood...

owe yeah and by the way angels are not identified by gender, only everything God created on this earth has a gender...

 

[ebia]

Where will I find the Scripture that says anything about Jesus' gender after His resurrection?

Where will you find his gender explicitly spelled out for Thursday afternoons?

 

[Thrillobyte]

this passage you are referring to is not about angelic beings but is about the high priest of those times... they were not looked at as ordinary men... they are identified in this fashion because they were set apart for the work of God, but as you can see they fell into perverse sin... this why God sent the flood...

owe yeah and by the way angels are not identified by gender, only everything God created on this earth has a gender...

There's nothing in the scriptures that says angels are "genderless". But there is plenty of evidence to assume the ones recorded in the scriptures are male. The preponderance of evidence is on them having gender.

There's NOTHING in the scriptures to indicate the sons of God were high priests. But there is plenty of evidence to say they were supernatural.

1. scriptures distinguishes them from ordinary humans.
2 they created the Nephilim, described as "giants". Israelites compared themselves to them as "grasshoppers" to ordinary men.

 

[revrobor]

Where will you find his gender explicitly spelled out for Thursday afternoons?

Your response makes no sense. Is English your first language?

 

[ebia]

Your response makes no sense. Is English your first language?

It's a question, and a perfectly well formed one. Yes, English is my first language. In fact I'm British.

 

[jasonsloss]

There's nothing in the scriptures that says angels are "genderless". But there is plenty of evidence to assume the ones recorded in the scriptures are male. The preponderance of evidence is on them having gender.

There's NOTHING in the scriptures to indicate the sons of God were high priests. But there is plenty of evidence to say they were supernatural.

1. scriptures distinguishes them from ordinary humans.
2 they created the Nephilim, described as "giants". Israelites compared themselves to them as "grasshoppers" to ordinary men.

here I will give you a study that is more likely the truth even though I do not agree with the studies out come, so we will have to agree to disagree...

 

[jasonsloss]

Question: "Are angels male or female?"

Answer: There is no doubt that every reference to angels in Scripture refers to them in the masculine gender. The Greek word for “angel” in the New Testament, angelos, is in the masculine form. In fact, the feminine form of angelos does not exist. There are three genders in grammar—masculine (he, him, his), feminine (she, her, hers), and neuter (it, its). Angels are never referred to in any gender other than masculine. In the many appearances of angels in the Bible, never is an angel referred to as “she” or “it.” Furthermore, when angels did appear, they always appeared dressed as human males (Genesis 18:2, 16; Ezekiel 9:2). No angel ever appeared in Scripture dressed as a female.

The only named angels in the Bible—Michael, Gabriel, Lucifer—had male names and all were referred to in the masculine. Revelation 12:7 – “…Michael and his angels.”; Luke 1:29 – “Mary was greatly troubled at his (Gabriel’s) words.”; Isaiah 14:12 – “Oh, Lucifer, son of the morning.” Other references to angels are always in the masculine gender. In Judges 6:21, the angel held the staff in his hand. Zechariah asked an angel a question and reports that he answered (Zechariah 1:19). The angels in Revelation are all spoken of as “he” and “his” (Revelation 7:1; 10:1, 5; 14:19; 16:2, 4, 17; 19:17; 20:1).

The confusion about genderless angels comes from a misreading of Matthew 22:30, which states that there will be no marriage in heaven because we “will be like the angels in heaven.” The statement that there will be no marriage has led some to believe that angels are “sexless” or genderless because (the thinking goes) the purpose of gender is procreation and, if there is to be no marriage and no procreation, there is no need for gender. But this is a leap that cannot be proven from the text. The fact that there is no marriage does not necessarily mean there is no gender. The many references to angels as males contradict the idea of genderless angels. But we must not confuse gender with sexuality. Clearly, there is no sexual activity in heaven, which we can safely derive from the statement about no marriage. But we can’t make the same leap from “no marriage” to “no gender.”

Gender, then, is not to be understood strictly in terms of sexuality. Rather, the use of the masculine gender pronouns throughout Scripture is more a reference to authority than to sex. God always refers to Himself in the masculine. The blurring of the distinction between male and female can lead to heresies such as “mother/father God” and the Holy Spirit as an “it,” ignoring the references to Him in Scripture (John 14:17; 15:16; 16:8, 13-14). The Holy Spirit is never described as an “it” or an inanimate force. God’s perfect plan for the order and structure of authority, both in the church and the home, imbues men with authority to rule in love and righteousness, just as God rules. It would simply be inappropriate to refer to heavenly beings as anything other than masculine because of the authority God has granted to them to wield His power (2 Kings 19:35), carry His messages (Luke 2:10), and represent Him on earth.

 

[jasonsloss]

Question: "Who were the sons of God and daughters of men in Genesis 6:1-4?"

Answer: Genesis 6:1-4 refers to the sons of God and the daughters of men. There have been several suggestions as to who the sons of God were and why the children they had with daughters of men grew into a race of giants (that is what the word Nephilim seems to indicate).

The three primary views on the identity of the sons of God are 1) they were fallen angels, 2) they were powerful human rulers, or 3) they were godly descendants of Seth intermarrying with wicked descendants of Cain. Giving weight to the first theory is the fact that in the Old Testament the phrase “sons of God” always refers to angels (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7). A potential problem with this is in Matthew 22:30, which indicates that angels do not marry. The Bible gives us no reason to believe that angels have a gender or are able to reproduce. The other two views do not present this problem.

The weakness of views 2) and 3) is that ordinary human males marrying ordinary human females does not account for why the offspring were “giants” or “heroes of old, men of renown.” Further, why would God decide to bring the flood on the earth (Genesis 6:5-7) when God had never forbade powerful human males or descendants of Seth to marry ordinary human females or descendants of Cain? The oncoming judgment of Genesis 6:5-7 is linked to what took place in Genesis 6:1-4. Only the obscene, perverse marriage of fallen angels with human females would seem to justify such a harsh judgment.

As previously noted, the weakness of the first view is that Matthew 22:30 declares, “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.” However, the text does not say “angels are not able to marry.” Rather, it indicates only that angels do not marry. Second, Matthew 22:30 is referring to the “angels in heaven.” It is not referring to fallen angels, who do not care about God’s created order and actively seek ways to disrupt God’s plan. The fact that God’s holy angels do not marry or engage in sexual relations does not mean the same is true of Satan and his demons.

View 1) is the most likely position. Yes, it is an interesting “contradiction” to say that angels are sexless and then to say that the “sons of God” were fallen angels who procreated with human females. However, while angels are spiritual beings (Hebrews 1:14), they can appear in human, physical form (Mark 16:5). The men of Sodom and Gomorrah wanted to have sex with the two angels who were with Lot (Genesis 19:1-5). It is plausible that angels are capable of taking on human form, even to the point of replicating human sexuality and possibly even reproduction. Why do the fallen angels not do this more often? It seems that God imprisoned the fallen angels who committed this evil sin, so that the other fallen angels would not do the same (as described in Jude 6). Earlier Hebrew interpreters and apocryphal and pseudopigraphal writings are unanimous in holding to the view that fallen angels are the “sons of God” mentioned in Genesis 6:1-4. This by no means closes the debate. However, the view that Genesis 6:1-4 involves fallen angels mating with human females has a strong contextual, grammatical, and historical basis.

 

[Thrillobyte]

Question: "Who were the sons of God and daughters of men in Genesis 6:1-4?"

Answer: Genesis 6:1-4 refers to the sons of God and the daughters of men. There have been several suggestions as to who the sons of God were and why the children they had with daughters of men grew into a race of giants (that is what the word Nephilim seems to indicate).

The three primary views on the identity of the sons of God are 1) they were fallen angels, 2) they were powerful human rulers, or 3) they were godly descendants of Seth intermarrying with wicked descendants of Cain. Giving weight to the first theory is the fact that in the Old Testament the phrase “sons of God” always refers to angels (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7). A potential problem with this is in Matthew 22:30, which indicates that angels do not marry. The Bible gives us no reason to believe that angels have a gender or are able to reproduce. The other two views do not present this problem.

The weakness of views 2) and 3) is that ordinary human males marrying ordinary human females does not account for why the offspring were “giants” or “heroes of old, men of renown.” Further, why would God decide to bring the flood on the earth (Genesis 6:5-7) when God had never forbade powerful human males or descendants of Seth to marry ordinary human females or descendants of Cain? The oncoming judgment of Genesis 6:5-7 is linked to what took place in Genesis 6:1-4. Only the obscene, perverse marriage of fallen angels with human females would seem to justify such a harsh judgment.

As previously noted, the weakness of the first view is that Matthew 22:30 declares, “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.” However, the text does not say “angels are not able to marry.” Rather, it indicates only that angels do not marry. Second, Matthew 22:30 is referring to the “angels in heaven.” It is not referring to fallen angels, who do not care about God’s created order and actively seek ways to disrupt God’s plan. The fact that God’s holy angels do not marry or engage in sexual relations does not mean the same is true of Satan and his demons.

View 1) is the most likely position. Yes, it is an interesting “contradiction” to say that angels are sexless and then to say that the “sons of God” were fallen angels who procreated with human females. However, while angels are spiritual beings (Hebrews 1:14), they can appear in human, physical form (Mark 16:5). The men of Sodom and Gomorrah wanted to have sex with the two angels who were with Lot (Genesis 19:1-5). It is plausible that angels are capable of taking on human form, even to the point of replicating human sexuality and possibly even reproduction. Why do the fallen angels not do this more often? It seems that God imprisoned the fallen angels who committed this evil sin, so that the other fallen angels would not do the same (as described in Jude 6). Earlier Hebrew interpreters and apocryphal and pseudopigraphal writings are unanimous in holding to the view that fallen angels are the “sons of God” mentioned in Genesis 6:1-4. This by no means closes the debate. However, the view that Genesis 6:1-4 involves fallen angels mating with human females has a strong contextual, grammatical, and historical basis.

This conclusion would lend credence to the conclusion that while angels are capable of having sex they restrain themselves from doing so in order to keep themselves holy and blameless before God.

I have read that there is reason to believe from ancient writings that once this age is finished and we enter into eternity and God is all in all, then God will free angels from their restriction and allow them to intermarry with resurrected humans since, in Christ's words, we are like the angels and therefore not separate species like we are now. So when a man says "My wife is an angel" he won't be joking.

Seriously though, once eternity begins in the new heavens and new earth marriage will be an archaic institution no longer needed because in our sinless state there will be no need to worry about adultery (the ONLY reason God instituted marriage). As we've surmised that angels do have the capacity to engage in sex but choose not to, it is unreasonable to conclude that present laws designed for this age will be in effect in the age to come. "Behold I make ALL things new". This would include the laws under which we live, actually in our perfected state there will be no need for laws and restrictions as we will be in perfect harmony with God, who does not function under any laws. Jesus' "no marriage and being like the angels" statement does not in any way, based on the above study, preclude the ability or God allowing us to have mates, to copulate and even to procreate. Again, nothing in scripture suggests God will forbid these things in the resurrection, just that we won't marry.

 

[jasonsloss]

This conclusion would lend credence to the conclusion that while angels are capable of having sex they restrain themselves from doing so in order to keep themselves holy and blameless before God.

I have read that there is reason to believe from ancient writings that once this age is finished and we enter into eternity and God is all in all, then God will free angels from their restriction and allow them to intermarry with resurrected humans since, in Christ's words, we are like the angels and therefore not separate species like we are now. So when a man says "My wife is an angel" he won't be joking.

Seriously though, once eternity begins in the new heavens and new earth marriage will be an archaic institution no longer needed because in our sinless state there will be no need to worry about adultery (the ONLY reason God instituted marriage). As we've surmised that angels do have the capacity to engage in sex but choose not to, it is unreasonable to conclude that present laws designed for this age will be in effect in the age to come. "Behold I make ALL things new". This would include the laws under which we live, actually in our perfected state there will be no need for laws and restrictions as we will be in perfect harmony with God, who does not function under any laws. Jesus' "no marriage and being like the angels" statement does not in any way, based on the above study, preclude the ability or God allowing us to have mates, to copulate and even to procreate. Again, nothing in scripture suggests God will forbid these things in the resurrection, just that we won't marry.

these studies I shared are to make points that even though angels are identifies as masculine in grammar this does not prove they actually have a gender for the fact that there is never an incident that an angel is referred in the feminine grammar of scripture...
as for the sons of God I still am not convinced that these are fallen angels...

 

[MacFall]

I get onflited cause I thought we go to Heaven.

The belief in the resurrection of the body was an essential difference between Christianity and all the other religions that existed in the time of the early Church. And Paul even says that without bodily resurrection, our belief would be worthless. Much of Christian doctrine that is almost universally accepted depends on a bodily resurrection.

We are created to be spacial-temporal beings. But Heaven is eternal; that is, it exists outside of space and time. It is not really a place to which we "go"; we just use the concepts of place and direction because human speech cannot properly convey the mystery of spiritual concepts.

Heaven is communion with the Father. We have that now, through Christ—but in a limited sense, because we have not suffered and been resurrected from the physical death of the flesh yet. After our bodies pass away we will have communion with the Father in a pure, uninhibited way, as Jesus did. But also, as Jesus was given a glorified body, we will be given glorified bodies. We will "be in Heaven", but we will dwell in a new Creation, with glorified bodies that are not only uncorrupted, but incorruptible, because mankind will have been purified through Christ against all corruption.

 

[MacFall]

Where will I find the Scripture that says anything about Jesus' gender after His resurrection?

Anywhere that the Resurrected Christ is referred to as "he" and not "it".

But gender is not the same thing as sex.

As for sex, those who think that they would be missing out on something if we don't have a sexuality after the Resurrection are like carefree children who recoil in horror at the idea that one day they won't be able to watch cartoons all day. The child should, if he matures properly, one day discover much greater pleasures than cartoons (such as the companionship of good friends, intellectual pursuits, and yes, sex). Likewise, the greatest pleasures this world and our bodies have to offer us will seem trite and even silly compared to "what God has prepared for those who love Him", which "no eye has seen, no ear has heard, and no mind can conceive."

 

[Thrillobyte]

Anywhere that the Resurrected Christ is referred to as "he" and not "it".

But gender is not the same thing as sex.

As for sex, those who think that they would be missing out on something if we don't have a sexuality after the Resurrection are like carefree children who recoil in horror at the idea that one day they won't be able to watch cartoons all day. The child should, if he matures properly, one day discover much greater pleasures than cartoons (such as the companionship of good friends, intellectual pursuits, and yes, sex). Likewise, the greatest pleasures this world and our bodies have to offer us will seem trite and even silly compared to "what God has prepared for those who love Him", which "no eye has seen, no ear has heard, and no mind can conceive."

I have spent thousands of hours studying universalism vs eternal torment vs annihilationism, but I've also spent hundreds studying the issue of romantic love in the afterlife and what I've discovered is that Acts 3:21 is far more important in determining yea or nay than Jesus' words to the Sadducees:

He must remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets.

Mention "no sex or conjugal love" to most Christians who have entered the bliss of marriage and they will groan at the thought. The question is will God really take away something so fundamentally a part of our identity and enjoyed by the average person? If so, why? When I ask people this question, of course they go straight to Matthew 22:30. That's all they have to stand on. But they rarely stop to contemplate what comes before that

Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.

Someone please tell me where in the Old Testament God gives any hint that those in the resurrection do not marry. Quite the opposite, Isaiah in 65-66 gives a beautiful picture of life in the resurrection here on a new earth with husbands and wives raising children, tending gardens and enjoying a blissful life in communion with each other and with God . So if there's nothing there pertaining to the opposite of this picture, then why did Jesus berate them for not understanding something they had no possible way of understanding from having studied the scriptures?

Many scholars believe that Jesus was berating them for
1. their hypocrisy because they didn't even believe in the resurrection
2. their silly example regarding Levirate Law

They say that what Jesus was actually saying to the Sadducees (to paraphrase) was "For in the resurrection they neither marry [in the ridiculous way you have portrayed it] nor are given in marriage [with women being handed off as chattel] but are as the angels in heaven [living immortally and serving the Father]."

I've reads hundreds of comments from people who swoop in to post responses to this innocent question from somebody asking if they will be reunited with their departed spouse or, if they're single, if they'll ever experience the joys of companionship with a special someone in the afterlife and you wouldn't believe how vehemently they try to kill any hope the person has. "Nope. Sorry, Fred. In the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage. So you won't be with Ethel in that way. You two will just be brothers and sisters in Christ." They seem to take a devilish delight in crashing peoples' expectations for being given something so meaningful after we die and go to heaven. In the 60's we would have called these people "hung up" ---serious psychological issues that have warped their sense of how God made sex and romance and partnership and called it "very good" when He was finished with creation and how He plans to restore everything that was "very good" in the apokatastasis, including romantic love, sex and procreation just as Adam and Eve were doing before the fall. Almost to a tee these people are Fundamentalist and also believe in eternal torment. In a nutshell they are "cosmic killjoys" trying to rob as many people as they can of any hope for doing something really significant and--dare I say it--fun. They portraying God in as bad a light as they possibly can in the process: "Oh, don't worry. You won't miss sex and marriage and having someone special in your afterlife. We'll all be married to Jesus and spend our time sitting around His throne giving thanks and praises to Him 24/7 for alllllllllll eternity." Then they smile when the person's face drops to the floor.

 

[MacFall]

To be clear, I am not taking a position against post-Resurrection sexuality. I'm not a Fundie, a Puritan, a neo-Platonist, or any other sort of Christian/Gnostic hybrid. I believe that God intentionally created us with our physical (and specifically sexual) natures, and that those natures are intended for good (though they may be used for evil). I am only saying that sexuality is not a necessary aspect of the physical Eschaton, and I think that those who can't imagine a happy afterlife without it are missing the point. I suppose it matters that I am a virgin who has learned to take greater pleasure in other things than I ever expected to derive from sex, but I really just don't think it's important. I have wonderful friendships with women that do not depend on physical intimacy, and I expect to continue those friendships in the hereafter. That they will be different than my friendships with men (as they are now) has implications about gender, but not sex or sexuality. Important difference.

 

[Thrillobyte]

To be clear, I am not taking a position against post-Resurrection sexuality. I'm not a Fundie, a Puritan, a neo-Platonist, or any other sort of Christian/Gnostic hybrid. I believe that God intentionally created us with our physical (and specifically sexual) natures, and that those natures are intended for good (though they may be used for evil). I am only saying that sexuality is not a necessary aspect of the physical Eschaton, and I think that those who can't imagine a happy afterlife without it are missing the point. I suppose it matters that I am a virgin who has learned to take greater pleasure in other things than I ever expected to derive from sex, but I really just don't think it's important. I have wonderful friendships with women that do not depend on physical intimacy, and I expect to continue those friendships in the hereafter. That they will be different than my friendships with men (as they are now) has implications about gender, but not sex or sexuality. Important difference.

Yes, your attitude is one of the healthier ones I've seen. My point was that there is nothing in all of scripture outside of one badly misunderstood and badly misinterpreted sentence by Jesus that precludes those who want 'it' from having 'it'. But most people here on earth who don't have 'it' or have been hurt by 'it' invariably try to burden the naive with their own issues and hang-ups. It's like they are saying, "I never got it and I feel like I've grown beyond a need for it in the afterlife so I don't want you to have it either."

All I ask is that they simply acknowledge there is a good possibility that those who want 'it' will be given 'it' by God in our next life because the scriptural evidence is more heavily for it than against it, instead of being so adamantly opposed to any suggestion that it's possible and hauling out that old worn out "in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage."

"Well, Adam and Eve weren't married, they were paired...."
"Nope. Sorry. No marriage or sex in the afterlife"
"But God said He would restore everything..."
"Don't you understand Ingels? Jesus said no marriage in the afterlife."
"But..."
"We'll be like the angels. They don't have sex. Don't you get it?"
"Well...."
"Well then, what? No sex, no romance, no children in the afterlife. Get over it."

No kidding. That's how a lot of the conversations go.