sex in heaven

[jmjtina]

[quote name='JP2Iloveyou' date='Nov 25 2004, 06:00 AM'] JMJ
11/25 - Thanksgiving Day

Delivery Boy,

Maybe this analogy will work.

When you're five years old, the best thing in the world that you can possibly think of is a candy bar. There's nothing more that a five year old could want - it tastes good, it's got chocolate, it's everything you could want.

When a boy ages a little more, though, he realizes that there's something in this world better than chocolate bars - it's called sex. Not only is sex better than candy, it has this strange ability to lift us up to the divine, if used correctly.

When we die, we enter a new stage and find there's something even better than sex - the vision of the Face of God. When sex is viewed as the best thing in the world, it doesn't make candy bars bad - it just makes them useless, to an extent. If I'm married, what am I going to want on my wedding night? Candy bars?

If I should be so blessed to enter Heaven and see the Face of God, what am I going to want - sex? It doesn't mean sex is bad; it's just that its worth becomes that of a candy bar to a married man. [/quote]
+JMJ
Pio Nono,

You ROCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't think Heaven will be like anything we ever imagined. God is so good, he'll give us more than we ever expected on a level we can't even begin to dream of now.

I just hope I get there.

pax.

[Dreamweaver]

[quote name='Delivery Boy' date='Nov 25 2004, 04:44 AM'] ok my thing is this
were gonna have bodies in heaven
beautiful bodies, im sure, correct ??
say you see your wife in heaven
she is gonna have a body, a beautiful body
i do not see how your still not gonna be attracted to this body
i dont see how you would not want to be intimate with this body
i dont see nothing sinister about that either
God gave us sex as a gift [/quote]
In Heaven, we won't have bodies, in the earthly sense. Our bodies remain on earth, and will be rejoined with our souls during the resurrection.

What kind of "nervous system" or set of emotions would a soul have? Could a soul experience physical pleasure through intercourse?

God gave us sex as a gift, to be used to show love for our spouse and for the creation of children within marriage. A very good gift, but not really necessary in heaven. I agree with the people who mentioned JP2's explanation of orgasm being a foretaste of the pleasure of heaven.

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='crusader1234' date='Nov 25 2004, 08:11 PM'] I know a lot of people that would still want a candy bar on their wedding night... food, sex, and TV, its a natural combination. Just ask George.

(Note: I don't really care about what happens in heaven, since we know we'll get everything we want, and I wouldn't be even a little surprised if we realise once we get there that there is something better than sex and candy bars... but for those of you who want sex in heaven, or sex with tv and food for that matter, don't worry about it. You'll be satisfied) [/quote]
They should be worried, since it is clearly a sign of attatchment to the world and the things of this world if they desire these worldly pleasures in Heaven.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Dreamweaver' date='Nov 25 2004, 10:33 PM'] In Heaven, we won't have bodies, in the earthly sense. Our bodies remain on earth, and will be rejoined with our souls during the resurrection.

What kind of "nervous system" or set of emotions would a soul have? Could a soul experience physical pleasure through intercourse?

God gave us sex as a gift, to be used to show love for our spouse and for the creation of children within marriage. A very good gift, but not really necessary in heaven. I agree with the people who mentioned JP2's explanation of orgasm being a foretaste of the pleasure of heaven. [/quote]
But we will get new glorified bodies at the end, and will be clothed in our righteous deeds. [ No more stretch marks]

[Guest]

so why will we be able to eat in heaven then ?

[amarkich]

This kind of stuff is nonsense (sex in Heaven, etc). I think it is offensive and vulgar to say "Heaven is like an orgasm". Someone attributed this to John Paul II. I can only pray he never said this. I am somewhat confident that he did not say it because he obviously would not be able to make that connection if he does not know what an orgasm is like. The whole concept is irksome and just completely vulgar.

[cmotherofpirl]

Eye has not seen, ear has not heard, what God has ready for those who love Him.

We really won't know unless we get there.

[Guest Aluigi]

he said that a marital orgasm is a foretaste of the ecstacy of heaven

[amarkich]

I was just skimming earlier, so I did not really catch the exact information on some of that. Where did he say this? On what authority did he say this? How could he say such a thing?

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='amarkich' date='Nov 26 2004, 12:46 AM'] This kind of stuff is nonsense (sex in Heaven, etc). I think it is offensive and vulgar to say "Heaven is like an orgasm". Someone attributed this to John Paul II. I can only pray he never said this. I am somewhat confident that he did not say it because he obviously would not be able to make that connection if he does not know what an orgasm is like. The whole concept is irksome and just completely vulgar. [/quote]
I take it you are not married.

[Guest]

[quote name='amarkich' date='Nov 25 2004, 10:46 PM'] This kind of stuff is nonsense (sex in Heaven, etc). I think it is offensive and vulgar to say "Heaven is like an orgasm". Someone attributed this to John Paul II. I can only pray he never said this. I am somewhat confident that he did not say it because he obviously would not be able to make that connection if he does not know what an orgasm is like. The whole concept is irksome and just completely vulgar. [/quote]
nonsence ???
not at all
no gift God gives is nonsence
this thread is not vulgar
it was a serious question
thanks for insulting me though
God bless ya

[Guest JeffCR07]

thanks Seminarian C, sometimes I think no one actually reads my posts...maybe they are too long...?

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Nov 26 2004, 03:25 AM'] thanks Seminarian C, sometimes I think no one actually reads my posts...maybe they are too long...? [/quote]
I always read your posts

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
11/26 - Thirty-fourth Friday

[quote]I was just skimming earlier, so I did not really catch the exact information on some of that. Where did he say this? On what authority did he say this? How could he say such a thing? [/quote]

Read his philosophical work [i]Love and Responsibility[/i], written while he was the archbishop of Krakow. He makes a well-reasoned case for the belief that there's something utterly divine about sexual intercourse. Later on, he made similar theological cases in his [i]Theology of the Body[/i]. These images are not vulgar, they're beautiful. It's difficult to summarize the Holy Father's thought in this forum, so I heartily encourage you to read those two works in order to get a handle on what he's trying to say.

[amarkich]

DeliveryBoy, don't get offended. First of all, you misunderstood what I said. Second of all, it is annoying when people get offended.

As for the fact that I said it was vulgar. I still think it is. This is apparently something that is unprecedented as far as theology is concerned, and I do not think it is a valid point simply because the Pope said it. This kind of stuff would be shunned during any time of the Church other than when the Modernist heresy is so widely believed (not that his comments are necessarily Modernism).

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Nov 24 2004, 02:10 PM'] We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep. God thus, in His most far-reaching foresight, decreed that this husband and wife should be the natural beginning of the human race, from whom it might be propagated and preserved by an unfailing fruitfulness throughout all futurity of time. And this union of man and woman, that it might answer more fittingly to the infinite wise counsels of God, even from the beginning manifested chiefly two most excellent properties—deeply sealed, as it were, and signed upon it—namely, unity and perpetuity.
Leo XIII [/quote]
Cmom, thanks for the wonderful quotation. Sadly some people identify the [i]unitive[/i] principle of the marriage act with physical pleasure alone, but the truth of the matter is quite different, for the [i]unitive[/i] principle is inherent within the conjugal act and is an expression of the communion of love existing between the spouses, and so it is not reducible merely to physical pleasure. Catholics, in opposition to the Manichaean dualists, hold that the [i]unitive[/i] principle is a spiritual reality expressed through the whole of the human person's hylomorphic being, in other words, it is an act of the whole person, both body and soul. Marriage is an icon of the love existing between Christ and the Church [cf. Eph. 5:21-33], and as such, it possesses, conveys, and images, both the fecundity of divine love and the communion ([i]koinonia[/i]) of nature within the tri-hypostatic Godhead.

God bless,
Todd

[jmjtina]

Adam, You state that it's annoying when people get offended.....and yet [i]your offended[/i].


I have to agree with Pio Nono, you need to read some of his works, such as [i]Theology of the Body and Love and Responsibility [/i]instead of isolated statements that obviously fuel your bias towards him. Read his stuff, then you'll be able to get a better grasp of what he is teaching and where many of us are coming from.

God Bless!

Todd! Peep the other thread about unitive and procreation.
hope it's warm in stubie!

Edited November 26, 2004 by jmjtina

[Guest Aluigi]

yeah, the physical pleasure is accidental
the unitive aspect is a purpose in itself
the procreative aspect is inseperable from the unitive aspect, but it can be considered the primary purpose while the unitive is secondary.

[popestpiusx]

The problem it seems to me, is when we use the language of ends. What is the end of marriage? If we say that there are two equal ends, this is problematic. It could have very bad consequences. So we have to say that one "end" is for the other, which makes it not really an end at all, but accidental to the end. I'll need more time to address what I am trying to say. Perhaps later.

[Guest Aluigi]

but even the 1917 Code and Pius XII call them both 'purposes' or 'ends'. there are two ends, they are not equal, but both are important and inseperable. the primary end is procreation, the secondary end is the unitive, and pleasure is accidental to the ends.