~ Sex in Heaven? ~

[Vicomte13]

If you love the world, the love of the Father is not in you.

That's too bad. The world is an awesome place.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I've always wondered about that because of this:

Matthew 22:30
At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

Genesis 6
4The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

Interjecting just for this one post: someone can search and search and research and research for decades, especially the last 4 decades as it so happens, but not restricted to recent times,
and they will find a super-abundance of totally fabricated lies and deception about nephilim.
The Truth of Scripture never contradicts Truth, nor does Scripture ever contradict any other Scripture.
Thus, for the time being, if someone loves the Truth, Jesus, Scripture, YHWH,
accept that most all the information published about [so-called] nephilim is , like most all information on earth about everything,
false.
The Truth is not hard to find, but it is hard to accept and to stick with, because most all people reject the Truth.
Thanks be to YHWH by grace in Jesus the Messiah Savior King Redeemer Comforter Encourager Healer,
YHWH reveals the Truth , from heaven, as He pleases, to little children. (about everything concerning Salvation in this life, and in the life to come).

So , trust YHWH, and believe Him. Trust His Word, and Believe His Word.
Not man's.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

That's too bad. The world is an awesome place.

The world , referring to all society/ mankind,
is not the world, referring to earth [waterfalls, oceans, leaves, grass, fish, butterflies... ].
The world, referring to society/ mankind, is beyond incredibly evil and wicked entirely, except for the remnant called and chosen and set apart.
Obviously, if anyone loves that evil, or is spoken well of by that evil,
they have no part in Christ Jesus.

The world, referring to earth, as long as someone does not start to worship the creation, to serve creation, replacing the CREATOR,
can be tilled, harvested, observed, enjoyed, in line with Scripture.
If anything (including anyone) that/who is created takes the place of the CREATOR, or the SAVIOR MESSIAH JESUS,
then it is , according to Scripture, idolatry and condemned.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

The Screwtape Letters X V I I I - Sex

My dear Wormwood,

Even under Slubgob you must have learned at college the routine technique of sexual temptation, and since, for us spirits, this whole subject is one of considerable tedium (though necessary as part of our training) I will pass it over. But on the larger issues involved I think you have a good deal to learn. The Enemy’s demand on humans takes the form of a dilemma; either complete abstinence or unmitigated monogamy. Ever since our Father’s first great victory, we have rendered the former very difficult to them. The latter, for the last few centuries, we have been closing up as a way of escape. We have done this through the poets and novelists by persuading the humans that a curious, and usually short-lived, experience which they call “being in love” is the only respectable ground for marriage; that marriage can, and ought to, render this excitement permanent; and that a marriage which does not do so is no longer binding. This idea is our parody of an idea that came from the Enemy. The whole philosophy of Hell rests on recognition of the axiom that one thing is not another thing, and, specially, that one self is not another self. My good is my good and your good is yours. What one gains another loses. Even an inanimate object is what it is by excluding all other objects from the space it occupies; if it expands, it does so by thrusting other objects aside or by absorbing them. A self does the same. With beasts the absorption takes the form of eating; for us, it means the sucking of will and freedom out of a weaker self into a stronger. “To be” means “to be in competition”. Now the Enemy’s philosophy is nothing more nor less than one continued attempt to evade this very obvious truth. He aims at a contradiction. Things are to be many, yet somehow also one. The good of one self is to be the good of another. This impossibility He calls love, and this same monotonous panacea can be detected under all He does and even all He is — or claims to be. Thus He is not content, even Himself, to be a sheer arithmetical unity; He claims to be three as well as one, in order that this nonsense about Love may find a foothold in His own nature. At the other end of the scale, He introduces into matter that obscene invention the organism, in which the parts are perverted from their natural destiny of competition and made to co-operate. His real motive for fixing on sex as the method of reproduction among humans is only too apparent from the use He has made of it. Sex might have been, from our point of view, quite innocent. It might have been merely one more mode in which a stronger self preyed upon a weaker — as it is, indeed, among the spiders where the bride concludes her nuptials by eating her groom. But in the humans the Enemy has gratuitously associated affection between the parties with sexual desire. He has also made the offspring dependent on the parents and given the parents an impulse to support it — thus producing the Family, which is like the organism, only worse; for the members are more distinct, yet also united in a more conscious and responsible way. The whole thing, in fact, turns out to be simply one more device for dragging in Love. Now comes the joke. The Enemy described a married couple as “one flesh”. He did not say “a happily married couple” or “a couple who married because they were in love”, but you can make the humans ignore that. You can also make them forget that the man they call Paul did not confine it to married couples. Mere copulation, for him, makes “one flesh”. You can thus get the humans to accept as rhetorical eulogies of “being in love” what were in fact plain descriptions of the real significance of sexual intercourse. The truth is that wherever a man lies with a woman, there, whether they like it or not, a transcendental relation is set up between them which must be eternally enjoyed or eternally endured. From the true statement that this transcendental relation was intended to produce, and, if obediently entered into, too often will produce, affection and the family, humans can be made to infer the false belief that the blend of affection, fear, and desire which they call “being in love” is the only thing that makes marriage either happy or holy. The error is easy to produce because “being in love” does very often, in Western Europe, precede marriages which are made in obedience to the Enemy’s designs, that is, with the intention of fidelity, fertility and good will; just as religious emotion very often, but not always, attends conversion. In other words, the humans are to be encouraged to regard as the basis for marriage a highly-coloured and distorted version of something the Enemy really promises as its result. Two advantages follow. In the first place, humans who have not the gift of continence can be deterred from seeking marriage as a solution because they do not find themselves “in love”, and, thanks to us, the idea of marrying with any other motive seems to them low and cynical. Yes, they think that. They regard the intention of loyalty to a partnership for mutual help, for the preservation of chastity, and for the transmission of life, as something lower than a storm of emotion. (Don’t neglect to make your man think the marriage-service very offensive.) In the second place any sexual infatuation whatever, so long as it intends marriage, will be regarded as “love”, and “love” will be held to excuse a man from all the guilt, and to protect him from all the consequences, of marrying a heathen, a fool, or a wanton. But more of this in my next,

Your affectionate uncle

Screwtape

Forgive me...

 

[MonstersvsMartyrs]

The Screwtape Letters X V I I I - Sex

My dear Wormwood,

Even under Slubgob you must have learned at college the routine technique of sexual temptation, and since, for us spirits, this whole subject is one of considerable tedium (though necessary as part of our training) I will pass it over. But on the larger issues involved I think you have a good deal to learn. The Enemy’s demand on humans takes the form of a dilemma; either complete abstinence or unmitigated monogamy. Ever since our Father’s first great victory, we have rendered the former very difficult to them. The latter, for the last few centuries, we have been closing up as a way of escape. We have done this through the poets and novelists by persuading the humans that a curious, and usually short-lived, experience which they call “being in love” is the only respectable ground for marriage; that marriage can, and ought to, render this excitement permanent; and that a marriage which does not do so is no longer binding. This idea is our parody of an idea that came from the Enemy. The whole philosophy of Hell rests on recognition of the axiom that one thing is not another thing, and, specially, that one self is not another self. My good is my good and your good is yours. What one gains another loses. Even an inanimate object is what it is by excluding all other objects from the space it occupies; if it expands, it does so by thrusting other objects aside or by absorbing them. A self does the same. With beasts the absorption takes the form of eating; for us, it means the sucking of will and freedom out of a weaker self into a stronger. “To be” means “to be in competition”. Now the Enemy’s philosophy is nothing more nor less than one continued attempt to evade this very obvious truth. He aims at a contradiction. Things are to be many, yet somehow also one. The good of one self is to be the good of another. This impossibility He calls love, and this same monotonous panacea can be detected under all He does and even all He is — or claims to be. Thus He is not content, even Himself, to be a sheer arithmetical unity; He claims to be three as well as one, in order that this nonsense about Love may find a foothold in His own nature. At the other end of the scale, He introduces into matter that obscene invention the organism, in which the parts are perverted from their natural destiny of competition and made to co-operate. His real motive for fixing on sex as the method of reproduction among humans is only too apparent from the use He has made of it. Sex might have been, from our point of view, quite innocent. It might have been merely one more mode in which a 36 T h e S c r e w t a p e L e tt e r s stronger self preyed upon a weaker — as it is, indeed, among the spiders where the bride concludes her nuptials by eating her groom. But in the humans the Enemy has gratuitously associated affection between the parties with sexual desire. He has also made the offspring dependent on the parents and given the parents an impulse to support it — thus producing the Family, which is like the organism, only worse; for the members are more distinct, yet also united in a more conscious and responsible way. The whole thing, in fact, turns out to be simply one more device for dragging in Love. Now comes the joke. The Enemy described a married couple as “one flesh”. He did not say “a happily married couple” or “a couple who married because they were in love”, but you can make the humans ignore that. You can also make them forget that the man they call Paul did not confine it to married couples. Mere copulation, for him, makes “one flesh”. You can thus get the humans to accept as rhetorical eulogies of “being in love” what were in fact plain descriptions of the real significance of sexual intercourse. The truth is that wherever a man lies with a woman, there, whether they like it or not, a transcendental relation is set up between them which must be eternally enjoyed or eternally endured. From the true statement that this transcendental relation was intended to produce, and, if obediently entered into, too often will produce, affection and the family, humans can be made to infer the false belief that the blend of affection, fear, and desire which they call “being in love” is the only thing that makes marriage either happy or holy. The error is easy to produce because “being in love” does very often, in Western Europe, precede marriages which are made in obedience to the Enemy’s designs, that is, with the intention of fidelity, fertility and good will; just as religious emotion very often, but not always, attends conversion. In other words, the humans are to be encouraged to regard as the basis for marriage a highly-coloured and distorted version of something the Enemy really promises as its result. Two advantages follow. In the first place, humans who have not the gift of continence can be deterred from seeking marriage as a solution because they do not find themselves “in love”, and, thanks to us, the idea of marrying with any other motive seems to them low and cynical. Yes, they think that. They regard the intention of loyalty to a partnership for mutual help, for the preservation of chastity, and for the transmission of life, as something lower than a storm of emotion. (Don’t neglect to make your man think the marriage-service very offensive.) In the second place any sexual infatuation whatever, so long as it intends marriage, will be regarded as “love”, and “love” will be held to excuse a man from all the guilt, and to protect him from all the consequences, of marrying a heathen, a fool, or a wanton. But more of this in my next,

Your affectionate uncle

Screwtape

Forgive me...

I love the Screwtape Letters.

 

[AntiVillain]

"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." -- Genesis 1:28 (KJV)

That was before Adam and Eve first sinned.

And before someone responds with something like, "Oh, well, He knew they would eventually sin, so He made that provision in advance"...

"And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day." -- Genesis 1:31 (KJV)

Doesn't sound like a post-sin "consolation prize" to me; sounds a lot like perfection, actually.

However, what did He actually say was a result of their sin?

"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." -- Genesis 3:16 (KJV)

Sexuality-related complications, not sexuality itself, are what resulted from sin.

Personally, I believe that after the Resurrection, we'll finally get to see the non-complicated version.

 

[Cement]

Maybe there will be things far greater then just lousy Sex . Its true that God saved the better things of creation for his own in heaven. In this life there are few things as good and beautiful as the marriage consummation and the deep emotion bonding that unfolds between two people would not be necessary in a place like heaven where will will exist in our permanent glorified state and those things would seem antiquated in retrospect. Paul was told to be quite and not speak when he heard the indescribable things. I dont know what awaits us but many things will replaced or no longer needed. In heaven there might not be a need for it as there may be things far greater in reward.

 

[friend of]

There is no sex in heaven.

 

[ImAllLikeOkWaitWat]

There is no sex in heaven.

That settles it.

 

[Jonathan Dahlin]

The Screwtape Letters X V I I I - Sex

My dear Wormwood,

Even under Slubgob you must have learned at college the routine technique of sexual temptation, and since, for us spirits, this whole subject is one of considerable tedium (though necessary as part of our training) I will pass it over. But on the larger issues involved I think you have a good deal to learn. The Enemy’s demand on humans takes the form of a dilemma; either complete abstinence or unmitigated monogamy. Ever since our Father’s first great victory, we have rendered the former very difficult to them. The latter, for the last few centuries, we have been closing up as a way of escape. We have done this through the poets and novelists by persuading the humans that a curious, and usually short-lived, experience which they call “being in love” is the only respectable ground for marriage; that marriage can, and ought to, render this excitement permanent; and that a marriage which does not do so is no longer binding. This idea is our parody of an idea that came from the Enemy. The whole philosophy of Hell rests on recognition of the axiom that one thing is not another thing, and, specially, that one self is not another self. My good is my good and your good is yours. What one gains another loses. Even an inanimate object is what it is by excluding all other objects from the space it occupies; if it expands, it does so by thrusting other objects aside or by absorbing them. A self does the same. With beasts the absorption takes the form of eating; for us, it means the sucking of will and freedom out of a weaker self into a stronger. “To be” means “to be in competition”. Now the Enemy’s philosophy is nothing more nor less than one continued attempt to evade this very obvious truth. He aims at a contradiction. Things are to be many, yet somehow also one. The good of one self is to be the good of another. This impossibility He calls love, and this same monotonous panacea can be detected under all He does and even all He is — or claims to be. Thus He is not content, even Himself, to be a sheer arithmetical unity; He claims to be three as well as one, in order that this nonsense about Love may find a foothold in His own nature. At the other end of the scale, He introduces into matter that obscene invention the organism, in which the parts are perverted from their natural destiny of competition and made to co-operate. His real motive for fixing on sex as the method of reproduction among humans is only too apparent from the use He has made of it. Sex might have been, from our point of view, quite innocent. It might have been merely one more mode in which a stronger self preyed upon a weaker — as it is, indeed, among the spiders where the bride concludes her nuptials by eating her groom. But in the humans the Enemy has gratuitously associated affection between the parties with sexual desire. He has also made the offspring dependent on the parents and given the parents an impulse to support it — thus producing the Family, which is like the organism, only worse; for the members are more distinct, yet also united in a more conscious and responsible way. The whole thing, in fact, turns out to be simply one more device for dragging in Love. Now comes the joke. The Enemy described a married couple as “one flesh”. He did not say “a happily married couple” or “a couple who married because they were in love”, but you can make the humans ignore that. You can also make them forget that the man they call Paul did not confine it to married couples. Mere copulation, for him, makes “one flesh”. You can thus get the humans to accept as rhetorical eulogies of “being in love” what were in fact plain descriptions of the real significance of sexual intercourse. The truth is that wherever a man lies with a woman, there, whether they like it or not, a transcendental relation is set up between them which must be eternally enjoyed or eternally endured. From the true statement that this transcendental relation was intended to produce, and, if obediently entered into, too often will produce, affection and the family, humans can be made to infer the false belief that the blend of affection, fear, and desire which they call “being in love” is the only thing that makes marriage either happy or holy. The error is easy to produce because “being in love” does very often, in Western Europe, precede marriages which are made in obedience to the Enemy’s designs, that is, with the intention of fidelity, fertility and good will; just as religious emotion very often, but not always, attends conversion. In other words, the humans are to be encouraged to regard as the basis for marriage a highly-coloured and distorted version of something the Enemy really promises as its result. Two advantages follow. In the first place, humans who have not the gift of continence can be deterred from seeking marriage as a solution because they do not find themselves “in love”, and, thanks to us, the idea of marrying with any other motive seems to them low and cynical. Yes, they think that. They regard the intention of loyalty to a partnership for mutual help, for the preservation of chastity, and for the transmission of life, as something lower than a storm of emotion. (Don’t neglect to make your man think the marriage-service very offensive.) In the second place any sexual infatuation whatever, so long as it intends marriage, will be regarded as “love”, and “love” will be held to excuse a man from all the guilt, and to protect him from all the consequences, of marrying a heathen, a fool, or a wanton. But more of this in my next,

Your affectionate uncle

Screwtape

Forgive me...

Why can't we "be in love" forever? Wouldn't it be nice if a man and woman were mutually in love (eros) forever? What about erotagape (or agaperos or eragape) and philostorge?

 

[Jonathan Dahlin]

That was before Adam and Eve first sinned.

And before someone responds with something like, "Oh, well, He knew they would eventually sin, so He made that provision in advance"...



Doesn't sound like a post-sin "consolation prize" to me; sounds a lot like perfection, actually.

However, what did He actually say was a result of their sin?



Sexuality-related complications, not sexuality itself, are what resulted from sin.

Personally, I believe that after the Resurrection, we'll finally get to see the non-complicated version.

See My thoughts about sexuality and marriage in heaven
I don't plan to post that link on this site again for at least a few days.

 

[fhansen]

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.

FWIW, and to be a little indelicate perhaps, I believe it's unknown if non-human females experience [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]. If so, it would need to happen very quickly since most animal sex is pretty much slam-bam.

But if there's sex in heaven it will be even much better than sex on earth-JMO. And, if not, there will be something much better yet anyway. If God could come up with the first, then I think we can trust Him to trump it...

 

[TheWhat?]

Why worry about it? Whether the answer is yes or no, what's anyone going to do about it? Opt to not enter heaven? We should all be seeking God's righteousness, not our own, regardless.

• Loyalty above all except conscience
• In a crisis of conscience, examine your loyalties

 

[zoidar]

I think we will have a gender in heaven, or is Jesus the only person with a gender? The whole body of Jesus was resurrected. How it all works out we will have to see, it's a mystery, I'll leave it with that.

 

[Jonathan Dahlin]

Why worry about it? Whether the answer is yes or no, what's anyone going to do about it? Opt to not enter heaven? We should all be seeking God's righteousness, not our own, regardless.

I would choose a lifeboat over a sinking ship. Heaven is a lifeboat, hell is a sinking ship. How could anyone choose a sinking ship over a lifeboat?
Couldn't guys kiss girls and vice versa just for pleasure? It wouldn't have to be to prepare for sex.
Couldn't guys have special relationships with girls? It wouldn't have to be marriage. It could be... just family? Not as in kindship and blood but as in closeness.