~ Sex in Heaven? ~

[Hidden In Him]

Wonder how that worked... welcome to heaven, let me show you something!

Right, and glorified bodies have no needs.

Forgive me...

I forgive you, LoL. Don't have time to explain it all atm, but I'll try and respond later.

 

[GUANO]

I hope you aren't learning these Luciferian ideologies in church.

 

[CoolDude68]

...Have you ever watched rabbits have sex? Yeah, they really seem to enjoy it, like it blows their minds...

No, I haven't and I don't plan to. lol How do we know they enjoy it? Perhaps in built in to their DNA as instinct to reproduce like crazy. That may explain the term, "breeding like rabbits". lol

 

[Hidden In Him]

Wonder how that worked... welcome to heaven, let me show you something!

Well, it's an interesting question with Pittman, because he was an observer. Eby was actually taken in spirit to be there, and attested that his body was perfect, almost weightless, and sexless.

Right, and glorified bodies have no needs.

Actually, they do still have needs. The tree of life is still there, and it still bears fruit (Revelation 22:1-2), which implies that we will still eat. And if we eat, the suggestion is that it will continue to give us a type of spiritual strength just like material food gives us strength in this life. As the first verse states, there is also still water, with the suggestion being that we will still drink. No one will do these things in eternity without there being a need.

Was I understanding your question correctly? It kinda confused me.

I hope you aren't learning these Luciferian ideologies in church.

I get the impression you're opposed to the things I am saying. I'm guessing you believe them to be Luciferian because they espouse a restoration of fleshly-oriented pleasures, correct? You have to remember that Lucifer never created physical pleasure, the Living God did. Satan just perverts it and draws men to live for it instead of serving and worshipping the Lord.

But maybe you have a source stating that such a teaching would be (or is) Luciferian. Please post it. I'd like to read it (Note: If it's too long, maybe highlight the sections that are pertinent so we don't have to read a novel). But I might find it interesting, and a good conversation piece.

 

[friend of]

Galatians 3:28

 

[GirdYourLoins]

Psalm 16:11
You make known to me the path of life; you will fill me with joy in your presence, with eternal pleasures at your right hand.

I suspect that God will give his people "pleasures" that make even the best sex pale in comparison. I love C.S.Lewis description of paradise in "The Great Divorce." The colours of the sky (sunset?) are so real that they hurt the eyes, the grass had a substance so real it hurt naked feet, and even the water in the bubbling brook felt solid to the non-believer. Today our perception of reality is like looking through windows that have been sandblasted, in heaven we will experience actual reality. So the pleasures will be beyond anything we can imagine now. Nobody will be longing to return to the days of sexual [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] - they will seem to have been so bland, so passé, so "yesterday."

At least someone understands. When we are in Heaven we wil be in the presence of the Lord and the full love of God. If you can imagine the best experience of Gods presence and love you have ever experienced and then multiply it infinitely that is what I expect Heaven and worshipping in the throne room of God to be like. It will make the fleshly pleasure of sex pail into such insignificance that any thoughts of marriage and heaven are completely overwhelmed by the Love of God.

When Jesus was asked about the 7 brothers marrying the same women he said there is no marriage in the resurrection. So that part is beyond doubt.

 

[Vicomte13]

Greetings!

Human Beings to my knowledge are the only creation that actually enjoy sex. God gave us certain body parts that produce arousal, where as other species don't have "sex" for pleasure, they just mate by instinct. .

Dolphins have been known to sexually assault other creatures, including humans (!). Dogs will hump your leg, and apes touch. So at least some of the animals clearly enjoy sex.

 

[Monna]

Dolphins have been known to sexually assault other creatures, including humans (!). Dogs will hump your leg, and apes touch. So at least some of the animals clearly enjoy sex.

Many animals experience pleasure in sex. I have not read it, but the title of Balcombe, Jonathan Peter (2011). The Exultant Ark: A Pictorial Tour of Animal Pleasure. University of California Press. p. 88. ISBN 978-0-520-26024-5 strongly suggests that this is true. Look at Wikipedia's piece on the Bonobo chimpanzee (Bonobo - Wikipedia).

 

[Sammy-San]

I hope you aren't learning these Luciferian ideologies in church.

what luciferian idealogies?

 

[Sammy-San]

Dolphins have been known to sexually assault other creatures, including humans (!). Dogs will hump your leg, and apes touch. So at least some of the animals clearly enjoy sex.

is it unscientific to say the definition sex is reproductive functions?

animals don't have anything off limits, so that isn't the definition.

 

[AlexDTX]

Greetings!

Human Beings to my knowledge are the only creation that actually enjoy sex. God gave us certain body parts that produce arousal, where as other species don't have "sex" for pleasure, they just mate by instinct. I'm no geologist, so I'm not 100% sure though.

When we reach Heaven, what will be the deal with sex? Will those certain body parts we have now be pointless?

I tell you one thing, if I never have to use the toilet ever again in Heaven that will be amazing!! lol All that time shaving, using the toilet, bathing....ugh. Complete waste of human time in my opinion. Don't worry, I do bathe.

I hope not. From the age of 12 to 58 my libido created a form of insanity in me. I am enjoying my senior years without that awful distraction.

 

[Shimshon]

Everyone here keeps focusing on animals, pleasure and marriage but nobody seems to remember Genesis 6:4 that indicate the angels from heaven are able to have sex with humans. Angels in heaven having the ability to have sex.... That would indicate to me that when Yeshua says the angels don't marry he was not referring to them not able to have sex.

One has to wonder, if angels can mate with humans, why do angels have this ability, even though they don't 'marry'? And, if we will be like them, would we not also have the ability to procreate yet not marry? I mean, why were angels able to have children with humans (Gen 6:4)? They obviously had the means to 'have sex'. And they were angels in heaven, fallen though they were. It's one thing to say it was their fallen state that caused them to have children with humans, but one can't deny that they were able to do this in the first place. Heavenly angels (all be it fallen) having sex with women. No sex in heaven? Why were these angles able to do such? On earth as it is in heaven. Where angels can choose to mate with mankind. If there is no male nor female in heaven how did angels have children from women? And on that note, why didn't any women angels have sex with men? It seems only the 'sons' of God came to earthly women. Are angels only male? Are there any daughters of God that found the men of earth so desirous that they wanted to have our babies? Seems like scripture implies there are no female angels, or at least fallen ones.

 

[Monna]

nobody seems to remember Genesis 6:4 that indicate the angels from heaven are able to have sex with humans.

"Angels?" Even the Complete Jewish Bible says "sons of Elohim." Is "bnei" translated anywhere else in the scriptures as "angels?" That's a question for the Hebrew scholars among us.

And when Jesus talks about there being no marriages in heaven he says it is because we will be like the angels - which all of us have assumed are without gender. Perhaps we're wrong?

 

[ImAllLikeOkWaitWat]

For those that say there will not be sex in the next life(notice I say next life not heaven for our next life will be on the new earth) will we also not eat food? Why assume there no longer being marriage in the next life immediately rules out sex? Marriage is necessary in this life, but it isn't necessary in the next life. That doesn't mean without marriage there can be no sex. Likewise with us no longer requiring food that does not mean there will no longer be feasts.

Also the people who use mark 12:25 to rule out sex are making an assumption here that isn't what Jesus is even talking about. Why did Jesus say there will be no marriage? Because he was asked who will be married to a woman with 7 husbands. His answer was no one will be married to her and there will be no marriage at all. This says nothing about sex and there should be no assumption made about sex from marriage no longer existing. Jesus answer was pertaining to marriage only not sex. You can't rule out or even use that verse to rule sex out when it has nothing to do with sex at all.

If Jesus said there will no longer be hunger in the next life would you all assume there will no longer be food?

 

[AlexDTX]

Everyone here keeps focusing on animals, pleasure and marriage but nobody seems to remember Genesis 6:4 that indicate the angels from heaven are able to have sex with humans. Angels in heaven having the ability to have sex.... That would indicate to me that when Yeshua says the angels don't marry he was not referring to them not able to have sex.

That is a popular assumption which is not stated in the text. They are called the sons of God, not angels. You assume that means angels when that could simply mean the sons of the righteous line of Seth. Nor were giants conceived by the union. It simply says that there giants at that time. The kings and mighty men of renown are the implied offspring of those unions.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

For those of you young enough to have sex on the brain... I assure you, it will not always be there. And you'll be more at peace.

Forgive me...

 

[Shimshon]

"Angels?" Even the Complete Jewish Bible says "sons of Elohim." Is "bnei" translated anywhere else in the scriptures as "angels?" That's a question for the Hebrew scholars among us.

Job 1:6
Job 2:1
Job 38:7
Psalms 89:6
Daniel 3:25

Scholars who reject this view readily acknowledge the fact that the precise term is clearly defined in Scripture.

W. H. Griffith Thomas, who holds the Cainite/Sethite view, says:

“Verse 2 speaks of the union of the two lines by inter-marriage. Some writers regard the phrase ‘sons of God’ as referring to the angels, and it is urged that in other passages--e.g. Job i. 6; Ps. xxix. 1; Dan. iii. 25--and, indeed, always elsewhere in Scripture, the phrase invariably means angels.” Genesis: A Devotional Commentary (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1946), p. 65.

That is a popular assumption which is not stated in the text. They are called the sons of God, not angels. You assume that means angels when that could simply mean the sons of the righteous line of Seth. Nor were giants conceived by the union. It simply says that there giants at that time. The kings and mighty men of renown are the implied offspring of those unions.

First and foremost this interpretation does not provide definitions that arise from within the passage or which even adapt well to the text. Nowhere are the Sethites called the ‘the sons of God.’

The contrast between the godly line of Seth and the ungodly line of Cain may well be overemphasized. I am not at all certain that the line of Seth, as a whole, was godly. While all of the Cainite line appears to be godless, only a handful of the Sethites are said to be godly. The point which Moses makes in chapter 5 is that God has preserved a righteous remnant through whom His promises to Adam and Eve will be accomplished. One has the distinct impression that few were godly in these days (cf. 6:5-7, 12). It seems that only Noah and his family could be called righteous at the time of the flood. Would God have failed to deliver any who were righteous?

Also, the ‘daughters of men’ can hardly be restricted to only the daughters of the Cainites. In verse 1 Moses wrote, “Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them” (Genesis 6:1).

It is difficult to conclude that the ‘men’ here are not men in general or mankind. It would follow that the reference to their ‘daughters’ would be equally general. To conclude that the ‘daughters of men’ in verse two is some different, more restrictive group is to ignore the context of the passage.

 

[CoolDude68]

We were created to inhabitant Earth and instructed to be fruitful and multiply. One would think in Heaven this won't be necessary, so neither will certain body parts. What would be the point? But the question still remains...will we experience similar pleasures some other way? Time will tell and it may be amplified to a degree we can't even comprehend.

 

[AlexDTX]

Job 1:6
Job 2:1
Job 38:7
Psalms 89:6
Daniel 3:25

Scholars who reject this view readily acknowledge the fact that the precise term is clearly defined in Scripture.

W. H. Griffith Thomas, who holds the Cainite/Sethite view, says:

“Verse 2 speaks of the union of the two lines by inter-marriage. Some writers regard the phrase ‘sons of God’ as referring to the angels, and it is urged that in other passages--e.g. Job i. 6; Ps. xxix. 1; Dan. iii. 25--and, indeed, always elsewhere in Scripture, the phrase invariably means angels.” Genesis: A Devotional Commentary (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1946), p. 65.


First and foremost this interpretation does not provide definitions that arise from within the passage or which even adapt well to the text. Nowhere are the Sethites called the ‘the sons of God.’

The contrast between the godly line of Seth and the ungodly line of Cain may well be overemphasized. I am not at all certain that the line of Seth, as a whole, was godly. While all of the Cainite line appears to be godless, only a handful of the Sethites are said to be godly. The point which Moses makes in chapter 5 is that God has preserved a righteous remnant through whom His promises to Adam and Eve will be accomplished. One has the distinct impression that few were godly in these days (cf. 6:5-7, 12). It seems that only Noah and his family could be called righteous at the time of the flood. Would God have failed to deliver any who were righteous?

Also, the ‘daughters of men’ can hardly be restricted to only the daughters of the Cainites. In verse 1 Moses wrote, “Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them” (Genesis 6:1).

It is difficult to conclude that the ‘men’ here are not men in general or mankind. It would follow that the reference to their ‘daughters’ would be equally general. To conclude that the ‘daughters of men’ in verse two is some different, more restrictive group is to ignore the context of the passage.

It is a stupid doctrine not worth arguing over. The only concern I have is that it raised fear in a woman I knew years ago that she might be raped by a demon.
You can create all your arguments you want but it does not witness in my spirit. Angels, as far as we know, do not reproduce which is the implication of Jesus in saying that in heaven we will be like the angels in neither marrying nor being given in marriage. The same theologians you cite say that angels are called the sons of God because they were all uniquely created, so they also assume that they do not reproduce.

Further we know that it is a biological impossibility to cross breed different species. What logic says that a different entity called a ministering spirit, which is not a physical entity could cross breed with humans? As I said, the doctrine is just down right stupid.

However, it has nothing to do with faith in Christ and is a totally pointless doctrine to argue or defend. What benefit is there in believing and promoting such a doctrine? As I said it created fear in a female friend. Fear is not of God. How does this teaching edify the body of Christ? It doesn't. It is absolute stupidity.

 

[Shimshon]

We also know that Messiah asked for food and ate it after his resurrection. They thought he was a ghost so he told them to touch him saying a ghost (spirit) has no flesh and bone. Then he asked for some food to eat and he ate it. With is resurrected body. Luke 24:36-43