Do we lose our sexuality in heaven?

[Inkfingers]

I highly suspect you don't know what you're talking about.

It's also poor reasoning:
1) Sex is for procreation
2) No other meaning can be derived
3) Therefore, without procreation sex is meaningless

The problem with your argument is in the second premise, since many have found meaning in sex outside of procreation. Hence why I have a vasectomy, but still love having sex. lol

I think you're conflating human sexuality, physiological sex, sex, and sexual reproduction.

I DID NOT SAY SEX

I SAID SEXUALITY - you don't need SEXUALITY for pleasure. The only thing you need it for is procreation.

Please read what is written, and ponder the words, rather than speeding through and seeing your own version.

 

[OcifferPls]

Note the title of the thread mentions "sexuality," not "sex."

So, you're saying that "sexuality" is only needed for "sex," but that's not how it's typically defined. The ones I have read define sexuality as an aspect of our beings, and not only related to the ability to procreate.

If someone were to ask you who you are, it's quite normal to respond as "I am a man who..." or "I am a woman that..." Granted, some people believe that gender is a cultural construct, and I agree to an extent, just not that gender is a cultural fiction -- our concepts of gender evolved to help us make sense of what is really there, sexuality being a part of whatever that reality is.

In my mind, that all brings up the question for those who believe sexuality is eliminated upon death, resurrection or salvation: how much of our beings, exactly, will be eliminated, and why?

 

[OcifferPls]

When interpreting "there is ... neither male nor female ... in Christ Jesus" there are a few possibilities here:

• Paul could have been implying that sex is eliminated upon transformation, whatever that is, such that both males and females lose their identity to some degree to become the same kind of thing, whatever that is (something androgynous presumably), as individuals.
  
• He could have been speaking in legal terms only, as in males/females/Greeks/Jews in God's kingdom are all the same in the eyes of God.
• He could have been speaking in a more mystical sense, as in both male and female become one, but without individuality being obliterated.

There could be more reasonable takes on that verse, and it's interesting to me that the majority of posters here predominantly seem to be taking the first option. It seems rather strange to me to be honest. Trinitarian theology even appears to me to point to the latter option, or something like it, as in the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Father, although they are and were united and are one God.

 

[Tetra]

I DID NOT SAY SEX

I SAID SEXUALITY - you don't need SEXUALITY for pleasure. The only thing you need it for is procreation.

I know what you said... and once again, you're completely wrong.

Human sexuality by definition isn't necessarily about procreation, you don't know what you're talking about:
"Human sexuality is the capacity of humans to have erotic experiences and responses. ... Sexuality may be experienced and expressed in a variety of ways; including thoughts, fantasies, desires, beliefs, attitudes, values, behaviors, practices, roles, and relationships.[2] These may manifest themselves in biological, physical, emotional, social, or spiritual aspects."

Human sexuality - Wikipedia
​

Sexual reproduction is about procreation:
Sexual reproduction - Wikipedia

Sexuality and sexual reproduction are different things, yet you keep conflating them.

 

[Inkfingers]

I know what you said... and once again, you're completely wrong.

Human sexuality by definition isn't necessarily about procreation

Of course it is.

Why on earth would the sexes come about if not as different roles in reproduction.

It's their raison d'etre.

 

[Tetra]

Of course it is.

Why on earth would the sexes come about if not as different roles in reproduction.

It's their raison d'etre.

What you're talking about here is physiological sex and sexual reproduction. Not sexuality.

Physiological sex:
Sex - Wikipedia
Sexual reproduction:
Sexual reproduction - Wikipedia
Sexuality:
Human sexuality - Wikipedia

These are all different topics you keep conflating, which was my original point.

 

[Inkfingers]

What you're talking about here is physiological sex and sexual reproduction. Not sexuality.

Physiological sex:
Sex - Wikipedia
Sexual reproduction:
Sexual reproduction - Wikipedia
Sexuality:
Human sexuality - Wikipedia

These are all different topics you keep conflating, which was my original point.

Without the sexes sexuality is a meaningless concept.
The raison d'etre of the sexes is procreation.

 

[Tetra]

Without the sexes sexuality is a meaningless concept.
The raison d'etre of the sexes is procreation.

Incorrect, without philological sex, procreation is meaningless... not sexuality. I feel like we're going in circles, do more research.

 

[Inkfingers]

Incorrect, without philological sex, procreation is meaningless... not sexuality. I feel like we're going in circles, do more research.

Sexuality is based in the sexes.

Hence SEXuality.

Just read the words I write, not what you think I have written, and take time to ponder what they mean instead of running back at me with your dogma.

 

[OcifferPls]

"Sex" (an action) is not the same as "sex" (a form of individual).

 

[Tetra]

"Sex" (an action) is not the same as "sex" (a form of individual).

Have fun trying to convince him otherwise. lol

 

[Inkfingers]

"Sex" (an action) is not the same as "sex" (a form of individual).

Use the words I use and there will be no confusion.

SEXUALITY (longer word) is meaningless without the SEXES (still longer word)

The Raison d'etre of the SEXES (again, longer word) is procreation.

/out

 

[DennisTate]

The reason, I ask because it said we are no longer given in marriage and we are like angels. So are just stop being sexual brings? Sex is big part of being human after all. Your input brothers and Sister in Christ.

Danny

Christian near death experiencer Dr. Richard Eby
reports being shown a neuter body. I believe that
what he reports fits with II Corinthians 12:2-4.

4. A Detailed Description of Dr. Eby's Spirit Body
.......
"Lord Jesus, why am I now a neuter? I was a man."

Jesus replied:

"Yes, Dick, you were always a man, a child of God who returned our love by telling others of the good news about me. Remember? You read in my book the very first order I gave to Adam and Eve? 'Be fruitful and multiply!' I told them to replenish the Earth, not heaven. Again I told the Sadducees (who did not believe in a resurrection) that they 'knew not the scriptures' when they speculated about wives in heaven. I explained that after the resurrection all would be like angels who do not marry nor raise families. Everything in heaven is created or re-created into perfection! It is all in my book. None other is truth!" (Dr. Richard Eby, near-death
.com/science/articles/richard-eby-and-secomd-coming-of-christ.html#a04

 

[ImAllLikeOkWaitWat]

Gender is a part of our identity. Theres no reason to believe it won't carry over to the next life. To think God will strip us of our genitals, of our identity and make us like the angels is absurd. He wants a family of sons and daughters not another set of angels.

 

[Tetra]

Sexuality is based in the sexes.

Hence SEXuality.

Just read the words I write, not what you think I have written, and take time to ponder what they mean instead of running back at me with your dogma.

All I can do at this point, is encourage you to do more research.

 

[DennisTate]

Gender is a part of our identity. Theres no reason to believe it won't carry over to the next life. To think God will strip us of our genitals, of our identity and make us like the angels is absurd. He wants a family of sons and daughters not another set of angels.

On the other hand Adam and Eve had to repopulate the earth......
not heaven.

 

[OcifferPls]

Gender is a part of our identity. Theres no reason to believe it won't carry over to the next life. To think God will strip us of our genitals, of our identity and make us like the angels is absurd. He wants a family of sons and daughters not another set of angels.

The problem here is that people assume that angels are androgynous, in part because of that verse. The rest of scripture points to the contrary.

 

[OcifferPls]

On the other hand Adam and Eve had to repopulate the earth......
not heaven.

What did they fall from then?

 

[ImAllLikeOkWaitWat]

Found this interesting tidbit which i dont disagree with at all.

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 fact 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. Angels do not marry, but we can’t make the leap from “no marriage” to “no gender.”-Dr Michael H Yeager

 

[timewerx]

Why would God make sex pleasurable... what you're saying isn't logical.

Sexual pleasure and other feelings like hunger is made so we procreate and eat, otherwise we will become extinct.

We also have the emotion of fear and then pain for self preservation.

We won't be needing such things in immortality (indestructibility).

If you're actually suggesting that Christianity teaches married couples can't take pleasure in sex, I think that would be the last straw for me... I mean, that really takes the cake

In this world of the perishable, we do need it, otherwise, we will go extinct.