Do we lose our sexuality in heaven?

[Dave-W]

Obviously I was talking about after he was resurrected.

No, that was not obvious at all.

 

[Sammy-San]

Because that is what Gen 1.27 says. Male and female are BOTH parts of HIS image. That fact is more clear in the Hebrew (and actually all thru the OT scriptures) than it is in English.


That is the type of internet site I told you to stay away from.
One false teacher trying to expose another false teacher.

Was the author right about God not being feminine? It would seem obscene to call God, Mother.

 

[ImAllLikeOkWaitWat]

No, that was not obvious at all.

This thread is about the next life. Not the current life. So if I said jesus ate food for fun not necessity why would I talk about his earthly life, when this is about the next life, so it would follow I'm talking about Jesus in the form of the next life which is resurrected.

 

[Dave-W]

Was the author right about God not being feminine?

No.

God is described as Father which is masculine but frequently His traits are feminine. One of His names is El Shaddai.

El = God Shad- = breast -ai = my/mine. Breasts are feminine.

What is correct is that God includes BOTH male and female attributes.

 

[Sammy-San]

No.

God is desribed as Father which is masculine but frequently His traits are feminine. One of His names is El Shaddai.

El = God Shad- = breast -ai = my/mine. Breasts are feminine.

Are you saying masculinity and femininity are manifestations of God's image in us?

 

[Dave-W]

Are you saying masculinity and femininity are manifestations of God's image in us?

YES!!!!!

 

[Sammy-San]

Because that is what Gen 1.27 says. Male and female are BOTH parts of HIS image. That fact is more clear in the Hebrew (and actually all thru the OT scriptures) than it is in English.


That is the type of internet site I told you to stay away from.
One false teacher trying to expose another false teacher.

Is this another false teacher?

Was there Sex Before the Fall? A Biblical Analysis.

This is why God commands before His descent at Sinai that none of the men “go near a woman.” Approaching the Presence of God is always referred to as “coming near” the Tabernacle. One must not have sexual relations when God comes to dwell with His People.

What we find, then, is that while impurity is not sinful, it is associated with things that were instituted after the Fall. That causes us to ask why sex is impure. I believe the natural answer is that sexual relations as we know them were instituted after the Fall- so that the first sex mentioned comes immediately after the fall, when Adam knows his wife in Genesis 4:1. This brings focus on St. Paul’s teaching that a man and his wife should agree to abstain from sexual relations for a short period of time in order to intensify prayer. As in Leviticus and Numbers, elevated states of holiness require abstention from sex.

Worship time is time for God. There is a time and a place when sexual activity is appropriate for husband and wife. Worship time is not that time.

The fact doesn't mean sex is a post-eden invention.

 

[Sammy-San]

YES!!!!!

So you agree calling God Mother is obscene?

http://creation.com/whats-in-a-pronoun-the-divine-gender-controversy

The issue is: who defines how we relate to God: us or God? If we refer to humans by the names, and even with the pronouns, that they wish to be known by, it seems to be common courtesy to do the same for God. If God reveals Himself as Father, King, Lord, etc, it seems obscene to insist on calling Him Mother, Goddess, etc. As Michael Bott argued, ‘respecting the requested manner of address is good manners at least. So we call God our “Father” because to do otherwise is simply rude.’8 Furthermore, in the Bible naming someone or something symbolized authority over that person. As Roland Mushat Frye put it:

 

[Dave-W]

Is this another false teacher?

He shows some correctness but misses it on several points.

Worship time is time for God. There is a time and a place when sexual activity is appropriate for husband and wife. Worship time is not that time.

Actually, that time should be as much worship to God as it is to each other.

The fact doesn't mean sex is a post-eden invention.

It absolutely was NOT invented after the fall.

 

[Dave-W]

So you agree calling God Mother is obscene?

I am not sure it would be obscene, just rather distorted, but not without precedent:

Deuteronomy 32:18 You neglected the Rock who begot you, And forgot the God who gave you birth.

 

[Sammy-San]

He shows some correctness but misses it on several points.


Actually, that time should be as much worship to God as it is to each other.

It absolutely was NOT invented after the fall.

Sacred prostitution - Wikipedia

Celia Brewer Sinclair has written that "the ethical demands of the covenant preclude worshiping Yahweh in licentious sexual rites (sacred sexual rites )".

 

[Sammy-San]

I am not sure it would be obscene, just rather distorted.

Would you agree with this statement about blasphemy?
Jesus Christ's Middle Name is Not FU_KING!!

It makes me angry when I hear people curse in my Lord's name. SHUT UP!!! Jesus does NOT have a middle name. And if Jesus did, it certainly would not be a slang street curse word for sexual intercourse. There is no evil on this earth that is any more abominable to God the Father in Heaven than to desecrate His dear Son by referring to Him in such a derogatory, filthy and sexually-degenerate manner.

 

[Sammy-San]

YES!!!!!

Bible view women - creation.com

God could have revealed Himself in female terms if it were an accurate portrayal of His nature, and He could have prepared the culture for a female Messiah.

 

[Sammy-San]

I think gender is a better term there. Sexuality doesn't require male and female.
I know guys who are sexually attractive, though I don't wish to mate with them.

What do you mean sexuality doesn't require male and female?

 

[bbbbbbb]

One of the key questions in the matter is whether or not Jesus Christ retained his sexuality after His resurrection. That, of course, is a matter of pure speculation, as is this entire question. I don't worry about the question at all and I disdain those who present their opinions as the sure revelation of God.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Disdain or not it doesn't matter to me. I know myself that there are so called prophets and those who claim to have had a revelation. I don't expect everyone to believe in me. If I wasn't sure whether God revealed something to me then I wouldn't post it. Second the reason I posted this is because I know the battle that is being waged against the christian community. God just wants to give his children some hope. And what's wrong with that?

Too many people in this world have their hope based in falsehoods. Just go to India and see the really joyous people at the Hindu temples. A hope that is not based upon truth is no hope at all, but a deceitful lie and a deception.

Jeremiah was right.

Jeremiah 17:9 “The heart is more deceitful than all else
And is desperately sick;
Who can understand it?

 

[Sammy-San]

No.

God is described as Father which is masculine but frequently His traits are feminine. One of His names is El Shaddai.

El = God Shad- = breast -ai = my/mine. Breasts are feminine.

What is correct is that God includes BOTH male and female attributes.

Isn't that androgynous or different?

 

[Dru-Zod]

It’s difficult to imagine gender in heaven without some form of attraction between male and female and yes, even some form of “union” even without procreation/marriage.

Nothing in Scripture leads us to believe that special relationships between spouses will be eliminated. God joins Man & Woman in the Holy Sacrament of Marriage for eternity. Not a fling for a moment in time. In a perfect world, when God did the pairing, no law was needed. I think Adam and Eve were made to be man and wife while they were in an immortal state intended to be forever without death. God intended will be restored in the resurrection. This will include marriage returning to what He intended, not a return to a situation He already judged as “not good.”

Even without procreation I think genital intercourse is unitive. I once read that even though the resurrected body did not need food to survive, there would be food as a means of fellowship and of experiencing the universe via our taste buds. Similarly, even though there's no need for reproduction, maybe there would be sexual intercourse for intimacy, bonding and mutual delight. Sex, after all, is not just reproductive capacity. Our sex organs and secondary sexual characteristics have functions other than procreation.

 

[bbbbbbb]

It’s difficult to imagine gender in heaven without some form of attraction between male and female and yes, even some form of “union” even without procreation/marriage.

Nothing in Scripture leads us to believe that special relationships between spouses will be eliminated. God joins Man & Woman in the Holy Sacrament of Marriage for eternity. Not a fling for a moment in time. In a perfect world, when God did the pairing, no law was needed. I think Adam and Eve were made to be man and wife while they were in an immortal state intended to be forever without death. God intended will be restored in the resurrection. This will include marriage returning to what He intended, not a return to a situation He already judged as “not good.”

Even without procreation I think genital intercourse is unitive. I once read that even though the resurrected body did not need food to survive, there would be food as a means of fellowship and of experiencing the universe via our taste buds. Similarly, even though there's no need for reproduction, maybe there would be sexual intercourse for intimacy, bonding and mutual delight. Sex, after all, is not just reproductive capacity. Our sex organs and secondary sexual characteristics have functions other than procreation.

Who knows? It does make things problematic, however, which led to the question from the Saduccees regarding the woman who had been married to the seven brothers, lawfully. I agree with Jesus that there is no marriage in heaven and that we become like the angels, which are genderless.

 

[Dru-Zod]

Who knows? It does make things problematic, however, which led to the question from the Saduccees regarding the woman who had been married to the seven brothers, lawfully. I agree with Jesus that there is no marriage in heaven and that we become like the angels, which are genderless.

Jesus’ answer to the Sadducees that, “at the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage” seems not to apply to marriage in general, but specifically to the subject of Levirate marriage. If we unpack this statement in a Levitcal context, Our Lord is saying no bridal price will be issued as no one will be given in marriage.

Might not a part of the reason for Jesus’ response be the way that the woman was being treated like a possession, passed around from man to man as an inheritance (albeit potentially a rather burdensome one)? We need to be careful, I think, about projecting too much of our understanding of how marriage works back onto a very different time and culture. Jesus’ response could have simply been about marriage as a contract, a contract which terminates on death. Relationships are a different matter, whether sexual or otherwise.