why I beleive there will be sexaulity in heaven

[Apollo Celestio]

How is it wrong? Objectively.

 

[IreneAdler]

If that were the primary focus, the reason.... then someone who cannot procreate would have no business being married, and in fact, it would just be a distraction from God and worship (isn't that what Paul says? his opinion of course, but he says it anyway). So the logic just doesn't work. That's all I'm sayin. (plus again, there's the song of solomon that makes it perfectly clear it's not just about babies)

 

[Apollo Celestio]

Song of Solomon is like a love poem, not saying "LIKE SEX NAO K?" The love and the marriage stuff is important, but the reproductive system is for making babies. It's not ALL about babies, but I don't see it as just as a side effect. It's not exactly about marriage, but about sex. I'll concede that it's not ALL of marriage but it is a very large part of it.

 

[Tamara224]

Not to mention the emotional and spiritual aspects of sex. One of the biggest problems, IMHO, with our culture's views of sex is that people think that it is all about 1) procreation and 2) momentary physical pleasure. In reality, it has far-reaching emotional and spiritual aspects as well.

 

[Apollo Celestio]

Spiritual? I know the romantic lovey-dovey connection stuff. But you mean like "two become one"?

 

[IreneAdler]

I agree Tamara.
(part of my perspective may also be because I'm done having children so sex for me will never again be about children)

 

[Tamara224]

Spiritual?

Yep. Read 1 Corinthians 6:12-20.

 

[Windmill]

Just because something is in the the Bible doesn't mean that the Bible is advocating it.

This is true, however, when you look at the Bible and look at how it treats polygamy, it really supports. The authors clearly intended when writing about polygamy in the OT, that it is OK. This can be seen in the literary ways in which the authors write. Polygamy is only ever somewhat implied to be wrong in the NT, when Paul demands that only men with one wife can be a decon.

Using Adam and Eve is pretty tenuous. God ordained polygamy in the OT, it was hardly a sin;

2 Samuel 12:8

I gave your master's house to you, and your master's wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more.​

So the Lord would have given him more.

The Lord not only ordained it, but gave him these wives, and if he thought it too little, he would have given him even more.

Why do you think there was a test to make sure the wife was not comitting adultery, but not the man?

Numbers 5:11-31

11 Then the LORD said to Moses, 12 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'If a man's wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 by sleeping with another man, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure- 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah [a] of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder offering to draw attention to guilt. 16 " 'The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the LORD. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the LORD, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, "If no other man has slept with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have defiled yourself by sleeping with a man other than your husband"- 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse of the oath-"may the LORD cause your people to curse and denounce you when he causes your thigh to waste away and your abdomen to swell. [b] 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells and your thigh wastes away. [c] "
" 'Then the woman is to say, "Amen. So be it."
23 " 'The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall have the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water will enter her and cause bitter suffering. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the LORD and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has defiled herself and been unfaithful to her husband, then when she is made to drink the water that brings a curse, it will go into her and cause bitter suffering; her abdomen will swell and her thigh waste away, [d] and she will become accursed among her people. 28 If, however, the woman has not defiled herself and is free from impurity, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.
29 " 'This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray and defiles herself while married to her husband, 30 or when feelings of jealousy come over a man because he suspects his wife. The priest is to have her stand before the LORD and is to apply this entire law to her. 31 The husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing, but the woman will bear the consequences of her sin.' "​

Polygamy by the authors of the OT is not treated as bad or a sin. Marriage was not thus considered to be between only a man or a women. It was about what women get married to what man, and keeping the bloodline pure, so a bastard child was not born.

So to place the modern idea of a happy-relationship-between-two-people being what the Genesis writers were getting at, thats pretty ignorant IMHO. Quite seriously, do you think the writers were somehow different from the people of their time? Happiness between two couples, a happy fulfilling relationship, wasn't their concern at all, that was never what marriage was at that time. The last thing on their minds was, "And God wanted us to have a relationship where we would be with one person for all time. And so in heaven, we will have that, but there will be no marriage, so we will all just be magically comitted to one person forever."

Since our previous partners are discarded, how do we find this one person then? Do we date to find them? Will there be rejection in heaven? Blind dates? Can we break up with them? So will we be dating, except with sex, in heaven? Maybe God will say when we all enter heaven: OK, so you can have this person, and you can have this person.

If you actually go back to the early church, they would have scoffed at this idea. Sex was seen as almost a weakness in humanity. We got married to qwell it, but without it, then people could stay unmarried and devote their full time to God, as per the attitude displayed by Paul;

1 Corinthians 7:5-7

5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.​

If Paul thought of marriage to qwell sexual desire as a concession, then I highly doubt he thought that in heaven, with marriage being abolished, that sexual desire would still exist, and get in the way of full devotion to God;

1 Corinthians 7:32-35

32I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.​

Considering that we are instead replacing marriage with a common-law marriage (i.e. we have one sexual partner and one partner but we don't require a legal document to stay loyal to them) the same thing still applies. You're still married essentially, just without a legal document, right? And if we switch partners, the same thing still applies. You could essentially just rewrite it as this;

32I would like you to be free from concern. A man not in a relationship is concerned about the Lord's affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33But a man in a relationship is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his partner— 34and his interests are divided. A single woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a woman in a relationship is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her partner. 35I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

Replace the words, it still fits. This idea is so out of character with what the Bible teaches. In the OT, it heavily conflicts with their clinical use of marriage and their use of polygamy. In the NT, it conflicts with the fact that marriage/relationships are seen as a block in the way of being fully committed to God. Again, this idea is seen in the writings of the early church, not just the Bible. Heaven would surely then, with us all being perfect, have us all comitted to God fully, without stumbling blocks in the way??? Or is it like this world, only a bit nicer???

 

[Apollo Celestio]

I think polygamy was regarded the same way divorce was, maybe divorce was a bit worse. (lolNi)

 

[Windmill]

I think polygamy was regarded the same way divorce was, maybe divorce was a bit worse. (lolNi)

What on earth makes you think in the OT polygamy was viewed in the same way as divorce?

 

[Tamara224]

This is true, however, when you look at the Bible and look at how it treats polygamy, it really supports. The authors clearly intended when writing about polygamy in the OT, that it is OK.

This can be seen in the literary ways in which the authors write.

I disagree. I think you're taking a big leap from pure narrative to advocacy that isn't indicated in the text.

They wrote about it. They didn't say "and God liked it this way."

Divorce was also allowed and not condemned in the OT, but what did Jesus say about that? He said Moses allowed it because of the hardness of men's hearts. IOW, it wasn't the ideal.

Polygamy is only ever somewhat implied to be wrong in the NT, when Paul demands that only men with one wife can be a decon.

IMHO, that's quite enough to know that it was not the ideal for a Christian man to have more than one wife.

Using Adam and Eve is pretty tenuous.

How is using the God-created model as a model "tenuous"?

Honestly, if God wanted men to take multiple wives, He would have created multiple wives for Adam. He did not.

God ordained polygamy in the OT, it was hardly a sin;

2 Samuel 12:8

I gave your master's house to you, and your master's wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more.​

So the Lord would have given him more.

The Lord not only ordained it, but gave him these wives, and if he thought it too little, he would have given him even more.

Are you suggesting that God meant "more wives"? That's not what it says.

But in any event.... God giving a person something that fits into the culture of that person's time as a blessing for that person does not equal God "ordaining" polygamy for everyone.

God ordained that a man should leave his mother and father and become "one flesh" with his wife (singular).

Why do you think there was a test to make sure the wife was not comitting adultery, but not the man?

Because that culture allowed multiple wives. So the marital status of the woman was the only thing considered when determining adultery.

It does not necessarily follow that it was ideal.

This is, IMHO, just an example of God working within the cultural context and setting up laws that were relevant to those people.

And, again, the law is for the purpose of keeping sin in check. In a perfect world, none of that would have been necessary.

So to suggest that the law (which only exists because of sin) somehow sets out God's perfect intent for marriage is... well.... tenuous.

Polygamy by the authors of the OT is not treated as bad or a sin.

Neither is it treated as good or ideal. It is simply stated as a fact of life.

Marriage was not thus considered to be between only a man or a women. It was about what women get married to what man, and keeping the bloodline pure, so a bastard child was not born.

So to place the modern idea of a happy-relationship-between-two-people being what the Genesis writers were getting at, thats pretty ignorant IMHO.

Adam and Eve
Abraham and Sarah
Isaac and Rebecca
Jacob and Rachel

Examples of married couples who loved one another. Did some of them have multiple wives? Yes. But in neither case was it really what the man wanted, either. Jacob didn't ask for Leah. Abraham only took Hagar because he and Sarah lacked faith.

Going beyond Genesis, we can see at least one instance where having multiple wives was "condemned". Solomon.

And yet, the Song of Songs gives us an example of the FACT that love between and man and a woman has always been celebrated.

To suggest that marriage has only ever been about procreation and genetic purity is not taking into account all of Scripture.

Quite seriously, do you think the writers were somehow different from the people of their time? Happiness between two couples, a happy fulfilling relationship, wasn't their concern at all, that was never what marriage was at that time.

The Bible says that Isaac loved Rebecca. Now why would a person not at all concerned with two couples having a happy, fulfilling relationship add that little tidbit?

The last thing on their minds was, "And God wanted us to have a relationship where we would be with one person for all time. And so in heaven, we will have that, but there will be no marriage, so we will all just be magically comitted to one person forever."

I'm sorry but anyone who presumes to know every thought ever had by people who lived 4000 years ago is being silly.

You couldn't possibly know that.

All you've done is begin with a presumption of what you think marital relationships were like in ancient times and then gone looking for proof texts to try and support your supposition.

Since our previous partners are discarded,

On what do you base this assumption?

how do we find this one person then? Do we date to find them? Will there be rejection in heaven? Blind dates? Can we break up with them? So will we be dating, except with sex, in heaven? Maybe God will say when we all enter heaven: OK, so you can have this person, and you can have this person.

*shrug* I'm sure if you really tried you could imagine a bunch of different scenarios.

Positing the most ridiculous ones and offering them as proof your proposition doesn't say much for your argument.

If you actually go back to the early church, they would have scoffed at this idea.

Again, presuming that you know the mindset of the early church with 100% accuracy is absurd.

Sex was seen as almost a weakness in humanity.

Only amongst the gnostic heretics.

We got married to qwell it, but without it, then people could stay unmarried and devote their full time to God, as per the attitude displayed by Paul;

Paul made it quite clear that he was stating his opinion only and not an edict from God.

If Paul thought of marriage to qwell sexual desire as a concession, then I highly doubt he thought that in heaven, with marriage being abolished, that sexual desire would still exist, and get in the way of full devotion to God;

Yes, well, Paul's opinion about marriage was from the perspective of someone who clearly was called to celibacy.

And even so, he told husbands to love their wives. If he viewed marriage as only having to do with procreation and for the sake of controlling lust, one wonders why he thought that husbands and wives should love one another.

Not only that, but many have pointed out that Paul's injunction about marriage (that is - 'don't do it if you can manage it') seems to contradict God's instructions to men to leave their father and mother and be joined with a wife. Another good reason why it might be best to take Paul's instructions there with a grain of salt.

It has been suggested that he was speaking specifically to the Corinthians about that due to some cultural situation they were dealing with. I, personally, don't know if I buy that explanation.

Rather, I think Paul was just stating his opinion. And he clearly cannot be said to be speaking for anyone but himself when he does that.

To imagine that there was not just as much diversity of thought and opinion amongst men during Paul's time as there is now would be, IMHO, silly. Especially considering that most of the other Apostles were married (e.g. Peter).

And one should ask the Shakers what happens when celibacy for all is preached as a standard.

God clearly intended for people to get married and procreate. Paul's opinion that people should remain unmarried cannot possibly be extended to a blanket injunction for everyone and still be considered "God's will."

So, it does not follow that no one is able to be fully devoted to God and be married. Not fully devoted to the type of ministry that Paul devoted himself to - sure. But that is not the only type of ministry.

Replace the words, it still fits. This idea is so out of character with what the Bible teaches. In the OT, it heavily conflicts with their clinical use of marriage and their use of polygamy. In the NT, it conflicts with the fact that marriage/relationships are seen as a block in the way of being fully committed to God. Again, this idea is seen in the writings of the early church, not just the Bible. Heaven would surely then, with us all being perfect, have us all comitted to God fully, without stumbling blocks in the way??? Or is it like this world, only a bit nicer???

First of all, like I said before - I don't think this will be happening in heaven. Please see my first post.

Secondly, IMHO you're reading attitudes into the text that aren't clearly displayed.

Third, IMHO, it's a faulty presumption that "in heaven" and/or in the resurrection our being "committed to God fully" will not necessarily mean that we do no other activity but prostrate ourselves before God.

I am not sure what type of service you envision we will be doing in the New Earth, but I personally doubt that it will be sitting on clouds playing harps for all eternity.

 

[Windmill]

I disagree. I think you're taking a big leap from pure narrative to advocacy that isn't indicated in the text.

They wrote about it. They didn't say "and God liked it this way."

No, not really. The authors intentions are not very difficult to pick from texts with enough gleaning. Structionalist techniques show through a lot. The way in which the author's of the biblical texts so blase mention polygamy off-hand and blame the problems of polygamy on the wives is very telling. This also makes cultural sense, given how negatively and poorely women were viewed, it would be presumptious to think the writers of the Bible somehow disagreed with everyone else and thought of women as equals.

Take the story of Hagar. This story is a great example of where women have been blamed for the pain and suffering caused by polygamy. In Genesis chapter 16, Hagar becomes Abraham's concubine and conceives Ishmael. However, there is of course resulting jealousy on the half of Sarah, and she turns very cruel towards Hagar.

The writer clearly shows a patriarchial bias. Scholars note that great emphasis is placed upon Sarah's harshness towards Ishmael. On the other hand, Abraham is seen to be kind and compassionate. It takes God's intervention for him to cast her out.

This makes Sarah look like a horrible person, and Abraham a kind person. This is how the text used to be interpreted. The story is condemned by both early Jewish scholars and modern scholars, but the shift of blame is key. Early (and modern) midrash perspectives placed blame on Sarah. This is because the text reads this way. It is written to make the reader sympathetic towards Abraham, and to dislike Sarah for her cruelty. Never once is the issue addressed that polygamouse relationships would naturally result in this. The writer places emphasis on Sarah being cruel, and Abraham being kind. This then is written to make us believe that it is Sarah's personality causing the cruelty, and Abraham is innocent, as he didn't want to engage in it. Only in modern times has Sarah been given a break on this issue, as people have begun to see the story from Sarah's point of view, rather than the biased viewpoint of the author.

Divorce was also allowed and not condemned in the OT, but what did Jesus say about that? He said Moses allowed it because of the hardness of men's hearts. IOW, it wasn't the ideal.

Ideal shmeal. You'll cherry pick whats "ideal" won't you? Paul says marriage isn't ideal but allowed because of sexual fornication. But marriage is GOOD and SPIRITUAL isn't it! But divorce? Divorce is also allowed but isn't ideal but no thats bad!

So there will not be divorce in heaven, because it is not the ideal, even if it is allowed here. And there will not be polygamous relationships, because while allowed, it was not the ideal. So relationships, though not ideal, will also take place?

IMHO, that's quite enough to know that it was not the ideal for a Christian man to have more than one wife.

Yep, for a Christian, it is.

However. That is the New Testament. The OP tries to draw out authority for his opinions from the OT. He quotes an OT Text to support his claims. However, as the OT does not support the idea that marriage is only between one man and one woman, then his point is made moot. Why then, when polygamy was allowed, and multiple wives were treated as prizes and gifts from God, would the OT writers believe that relationships are ideally between one man and one woman, and it will be this way in heaven?

How is using the God-created model as a model "tenuous"?

Honestly, if God wanted men to take multiple wives, He would have created multiple wives for Adam. He did not.

According to what he said to David, if David had asked for more, he would have given him more. If Adam was still lonely, I'm sure the writers of the OT would have written in another wife for him. Perhaps God did not give Adam another wife because Adam was pleased with only one wife. Why then can there not be variation on this model? Why is this the single model couple? Clearly they are not a model couple anyway, given the fact they sinned and caused mass pain for all of humanity anyway.

Are you suggesting that God meant "more wives"? That's not what it says.

Oh yes I am suggesting God meant "more wives" because thats directly what is says.

I gave your master's house to you, and your master's wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more.​

How is it not saying this? How is it not saying, that God would give David more if he wanted it? Why is it that more wives would not be one of the things David could get? Stop thinking of women as people. Women were property. Being given more women was perfectly acceptable. So then Tamara, what was David to be given more of? It doesn't actually matter, because the point was, he gave David wives. Plural.

But in any event.... God giving a person something that fits into the culture of that person's time as a blessing for that person does not equal God "ordaining" polygamy for everyone.

God ordained that a man should leave his mother and father and become "one flesh" with his wife (singular).

Polygamy is not OK for a Christian, as per Paul in the NT. However, again, the reason I am arguing for polygamy in the OT is not to ordain it now, but to point out the flaw's in the OP's post. It draws upon Genesis to support its claims, yet in Gensis we see instances of polygamy, and the authors do not even condemn it. Through instances like Hagar we actually see problems caused by polygamy being brushed over by the author. Instead, polygamy is given a break and the man is sympathised with, but it is the women the cause the problems. We then later in the OT see even more direct support for polygamy, with instances such as these.

So given these, to draw upon the OT to support a one-man-one-woman relationship is on extremely shaky ground.

Because that culture allowed multiple wives. So the marital status of the woman was the only thing considered when determining adultery.

It does not necessarily follow that it was ideal.

I will point out again that your nonsense about it not being ideal is irrelevant, given you'll clearly ignore marriage not being ideal but you choose to think it actually matters here.

Disregarding that, I'd argue that the OT actually does not say that at all. A gift is a nice thing to receive. If God gives you a gift of grain, that is God giving you a nice thing. God giving you a gift of a wife is a nice thing. When things are concessions, they are flat-out made clear to be concessions. "Divorce is a concession." "Marriage is a concession." They are not treated as gifts. It is ideal to be given a gift. It is therefore an ideal to be blessed with lots of wives. If you want to argue a gift is not ideal, really, good luck. All of the men would have been envious of David and Solomon with all of their sexual partners to pick from. God does not call concessions because of the time period gifts. The writer did not intend for you to think that all of his gifts were merely things given because of the cultural period. The writer meant for you to think he was blessed. With lots of property.

This is, IMHO, just an example of God working within the cultural context and setting up laws that were relevant to those people.

This is God giving David an unnecessary amount of women. God clearly wasn't thinking about the women when he gave them to David. He was thinking of David, considering he said he was willing to give him more.

And, again, the law is for the purpose of keeping sin in check. In a perfect world, none of that would have been necessary.

Why not? In a perfect world, aren't we blessed? So then, in the OT, a perfect world would be men being blessed with lots of wives.

So to suggest that the law (which only exists because of sin) somehow sets out God's perfect intent for marriage is... well.... tenuous.

No but what is a blessing shows an ideal.

Neither is it treated as good or ideal. It is simply stated as a fact of life.

I do not see how you can uphold it not being treated as good. Considering that God refers to himself being married to two women as a metaphor I don't see God thinking that polygamy as bad. Why would he encourage such activity if he didn't want it to happen, by using polygamy as a metaphor for his own activities (Jeremiah 3:6-10)?

It is never condemned. So many men of God had multiple wives. This was, by the people, considered perfectly moral. Not quasi-moral. If you read the readings at the time written by Jewish scholars, they saw polygamy as OK. The OT supports it, even though the NT does not. Thus, going after Genesis to support the one-man-one-woman claim is not smart.

Adam and Eve
Abraham and Sarah
Isaac and Rebecca
Jacob and Rachel

Examples of married couples who loved one another. Did some of them have multiple wives? Yes. But in neither case was it really what the man wanted, either. Jacob didn't ask for Leah. Abraham only took Hagar because he and Sarah lacked faith.

Some of them? Ha. Jacob didn't ask for Leah, but he didn't divorce her. Abraham took Hagar and wanted to keep her when Sarah didn't want him too. Abraham also had many other concubines (Genesis 25:5). Love was hardly their only concern, as shown by the fact they had multiple partners. If they loved someone of course they went out after them: but they went out after multiple people, not just the ones they loved, and the women of course put up with it.

Going beyond Genesis, we can see at least one instance where having multiple wives was "condemned". Solomon.

No. He is condemned for picking wives who were not Israelites.

And yet, the Song of Songs gives us an example of the FACT that love between and man and a woman has always been celebrated.

Yes. With his 61st wife.

All of the concubines and laws written to wed people together because of death and rape and people marrying kids off to 40 year olds also show just how interested they were in love being a priority, doesn't it? You're completely ignoring the historical backdrop to put your own modern picture of marriage onto it. Marriage was NOTHING like how it is today. Nothing.

To suggest that marriage has only ever been about procreation and genetic purity is not taking into account all of Scripture.

I never suggested that at all, but rather, suggested that the OT authors would be hardly concerned with love. It was a nice idea, but even love then still resulted in the man having multiple loves. How nice of Solomon to lust after his 61st wife, I'm sure all of the others felt very special. Of course, his lust-story for his 61st wife managed to make it into the Bible too didn't it. I guess those that picked the biblical canon didn't think that him having a 61st wife was that big of a deal either. Rather, his wife was clearly a blessing.

The Bible says that Isaac loved Rebecca. Now why would a person not at all concerned with two couples having a happy, fulfilling relationship add that little tidbit?

Of course love was nice, I'm not daft.

But to suggest it was a priority is foolish. The writers of Genesis would hardly have in their minds of how nice it is that this couple is singular and love each other. They barely cared about the woman's happiness. Women were property. It was Adam's they would have been concerned with.

If polygamy was so quasi-bad as you're making it out to be, why do you think it was rampant amoung the men of God, and they're never once told, "maybe you should only have one wife". They're never once told this, are they? This is never addressed, is it? It just is in this apparent indirect way you say, yet so soon after polygamy follows. Adam could hardly take another wife when THERE WERE NO OTHERS TO TAKE. So how can you suggest there would be none more taken, and they also made into one flesh, if there are none to take? It would also be uber creepy for him to have taken a DAUGHTER for a wife, which is all he could have done. Sister? Creepy. But daughter? Sister/brother pairings are not condemned, but father/daughter ones are shown in a negative light in Genesis.

I'm sorry but anyone who presumes to know every thought ever had by people who lived 4000 years ago is being silly.

Why don't you read some books on this stuff at your local university? Why not read some papers? They make excellent arguments which show how different marriage is from today.

Of course, you're presuming that you know what the OT writers thought too, don't you.

Their culture was entirely different from ours. If you don't believe me, and still haven't figured it out based on the different sorts of marriages that took place in the Bible that were far from romantic, in many cases, forced affairs, even due to rape, go and read studies into other aspects of their culture which have been dug up. Marriage was not a romantic thing like it is today. Love has always been nice, but its never been the priority. Heck, it only became a priority in very modern times. Not that long ago, people still married out of conveniance, though not in the same manner, as women have over time gained more and more rights.

On what do you base this assumption?

NO YOU JUST DIDN'T YOU JUST DIDN'T you didn't actually just suggest this did you? No way!

I didn't even think I needed to back this up. Come on. The very story of the pharsies coming to Jesus and asking him, "who will we be married to in heaven?" Is them putting him onto the spot. Who will we be married too, when we take another wife after one dies? Then Jesus answers this by saying there will be no marriage in heaven. This was supposed to show how clever Jesus was. They come to trap him but he negates this by saying there is no marriage in heaven, thus partners lose their relationship when one dies, so in heaven they will no longer be married and partnered up.

If we remain married, and our partners are not discarded, your whole trumpet-blowing about polygamy being bad in the Bible is mooted, considering you'd be advocating for it then, or are only the second wives discarded?

*shrug* I'm sure if you really tried you could imagine a bunch of different scenarios.

Positing the most ridiculous ones and offering them as proof your proposition doesn't say much for your argument.

Oh so, oh so you think this? You think I just posted absurd ideas?

My point is completely relevant. Asking will there be rejection, or are we given partners, brings up an extremely good point that you felt the need to just discard, is it not conveniant for you?

The idea we will have partners in heaven creates all sorts of logistical problems. But no one has the answer, do they? Because sexuality is not even implied. In fact, it is heavily implied against by the abolishing of marriage. No one has the answers, because sexuality in heaven is never discussed, and never brought up, so why should people decide there will be sexuality in heaven, especially with the fact that marriage is abolished. The idea that we're sexual beings in no way supports this. I'm not sexual, and I'm fine. What is so wrong with that idea? You keep saying I make presumptions, but this whole idea is ridiculously presumptious.

Again, presuming that you know the mindset of the early church with 100% accuracy is absurd.

Uh, no, but I have their writings to point to, you have none. Go and read them at you university. You will find a universal distaste for marriage, as will you find a universal acceptance of complete pacifism, though no one wishes to acknowledge that elephant in the room do they.

Only amongst the gnostic heretics.

Oh now I'm the one whose being presumptious? No, it was a universal idea. Time was short, lets live for God, was the charge. Not that we have that mindset now, do we. Marriage is celebrated and pretty much worshipped. Not married? Woe to you.

Paul made it quite clear that he was stating his opinion only and not an edict from God.
Yes, well, Paul's opinion about marriage was from the perspective of someone who clearly was called to celibacy.

Yes and do you think Paul was wrong? Was Paul wrong? Do you think his command was not inspired by God? Is this passage not inspired by God?

And even so, he told husbands to love their wives. If he viewed marriage as only having to do with procreation and for the sake of controlling lust, one wonders why he thought that husbands and wives should love one another.

Hmmm, maybe because its a nice thing to love one another?

So lets be married, by hate one another? Why, thats a nice thing to do, isn't it. Pretty sure Paul advocated for being nice as well as controlling lust.

Not only that, but many have pointed out that Paul's injunction about marriage (that is - 'don't do it if you can manage it') seems to contradict God's instructions to men to leave their father and mother and be joined with a wife. Another good reason why it might be best to take Paul's instructions there with a grain of salt.

Oh I see. You think Paul was wrong, do you?

Gods command was in the OT to do this. But God also was OK with polygamy in the OT. However in the NT Paul says it is bad, so it is bad. But Paul says they should try and stay single, and this is not of God? Paul only says "I not the Lord" later on on another issue. So Paul thought what he was saying at this point was inspired by God. Funny, you will argue against polygamy with Paul, but not this...

Rather, I think Paul was just stating his opinion. And he clearly cannot be said to be speaking for anyone but himself when he does that.

Oh but he doesn't. He says that in regard to what he talks about later.

I'll respond to the rest later when I have time.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Heaven topics are so much fun! People can't really imagine a state of perfection and total happiness. So they have to imagine having sex, playing with their dead pets, or owning a mansion- all the things in life that never fully satisfied us.

The topics ultimately become a fascinating look into the psychology and interior person of those guessing about Heaven.

Heaven is a state of perfection, when we are with God and lacking nothing. So I don't really plan on doing anything or having anything.

 

[Markus6]

If you actually go back to the early church, they would have scoffed at this idea. Sex was seen as almost a weakness in humanity. We got married to qwell it, but without it, then people could stay unmarried and devote their full time to God, as per the attitude displayed by Paul;

Do you have any other sources beyond Paul? You have made quite a large unsupported leap in assuming that he's representative.

 

[dayhiker]

I agree that the much of the church in from the 3rd century on thought sex was part of the passion of the flesh. Gee, Origen even castrated himself. But I don't find the same attitude in the Bible about sex. Sex is part of God's creation. Now we know that sin is very evil and God didn't create evil. God did create us sexual beings and while a few have no interest in sex, most of us love that God created us sexual beings. Since I don't think God is going to change the essence of who we are in the resurrection, I think we will still be sexual beings in heaven.

dayhiker

 

[Apollo Celestio]

What on earth makes you think in the OT polygamy was viewed in the same way as divorce?

Common sense? Then again, polygamy DID fade away.. maybe it was a result of the times and was asked to look good to outsiders? Sex wasn't a weakness, maybe they thought of it that way, but I doubt it. It was too natural. But the "urgency" of the situation was like.. why get married? We have stuff to do and you're better off single. Rather than "Oh, you just have to find the right girl". As far as the "red" letters go, There is a lot on marriage.

 

[white dove]

I'm not condemning you for your views, but this is my opinion of it:

I'm a very sexually-aware person, but I have never even entertained this idea. I have never entertained the idea of mansions and crowns and things like that in heaven, either. For the longest time, I've been a spirit who only needs to be reunited with my Creator in heaven. That's all I, personally, need and to be quite honest, that's all I would really want.

 

[white dove]

Heaven topics are so much fun! People can't really imagine a state of perfection and total happiness. So they have to imagine having sex, playing with their dead pets, or owning a mansion- all the things in life that never fully satisfied us.

The topics ultimately become a fascinating look into the psychology and interior person of those guessing about Heaven.

Heaven is a state of perfection, when we are with God and lacking nothing. So I don't really plan on doing anything or having anything.

Bah. You said it.

 

[DanC922]

The most helpful approach to this is to know what the purpose for marriage and sex are and move forward from there. Biblically, God designed marriage and sex to not be exclusive of each other (barring physical problems in marriage). So when talking about one, the other should be included in it.

God's primary purpose through the entirety of history is to bring glory to Himself. As a perfectly good and righteous God, it would be sin for Him to not glorify that which is greatest, which is Himself. So everything that He's created, He's created with the ultimate purpose of glorifying (or showing what is of most value as it is) Himself. So when we look at the purpose of marriage, we have to keep that in mind.

In Ephesians 5, Paul refers to the ultimate purpose of becoming "one flesh." He says that marriage refers to Christ and the church. So God created marriage to be an image of the sacrificial love, leadership, sanctifying, nourishing of Christ in the man and the submissive, gentle, Gospel-adorned nature of the church in the woman. We have certainly messed this up in many ways after the fall. Men are chauvinistic, not loving their wives as Christ loves us, and women thwart and disrespect their husbands' attempts to lead and love like Christ loves us. We're mutually responsible for the perversion of marriage as it is in general now, though through the power of the Gospel with the Spirit's help, we can honor God with marriage.

Additionally, God has created us in His image. God is Father, Son, and Spirit, perfectly and intimately connected, distinct in roles, and lacking no amount of love, affection, fulfillment, or any other quality. So God created us to desire the same intimacy, and that's one reason why He gave us marriage; to become one flesh, intimately connected, full of love, affection, and fulfillment in our spouse. And He did this to point to His own character, so we praise Him with thankfulness and look forward to being united with Him.

In Matthew 22:29-30, Jesus is making two points. The first is that they "do not know the Scriptures." The second was that they didn't understand the power of God to create a much more wonderful world than we enjoy now.

Similarly, Hebrews 10:1 says the law is, "but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities." And John 5:30-40 says, "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life." The Jews Jesus was talking to believed that obeying the Scriptures were the key to life, but everything was pointing to Jesus. Marriage points to Jesus. It is merely an image of what is to come - perfect intimacy, love, union, and fulfillment in God when we are with Him.

So that's why marriage/sex is not a part of eternal life. It is an image and a shadow given ultimately for the purpose of our enjoyment of God's gift in this life (enjoying Him above all else glorifies Him most), and to point us to and build anticipation and longing for the coming oneness we have with God. Why long and drool over pictures of ice cream when the ice cream shop is down the street?