Sex In Heaven?

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='son_of_angels' date='Oct 6 2005, 11:47 PM']
In fact, one could say that "sex" while it is a representation of a spiritual reality, is not of itself a feeling outside of the mind and hormones.  These, likewise, will be rotting in the grave waiting for our eventual return.
[right][snapback]749190[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


You're talking zombie sex here, aren't you?

Man, this board is freakin' AWESOME.

[Snarf]

I just realized that I'm missing my copy of Foucault's [i]History of Sexuality[/i]. Oh well. It was a history inasmuch as you could say that about Java for Dummies, and for philosophy it would make just as much sense if you replaced every instance of the word "sex" with "baseball".

I find the idea of sex in heaven, except in JPII's words that the orgasm is a "foretaste" of pleasure in paradise. I have been in genuine love and I have fornicated, so I can extrapolate what marital sex would be like. I'm not making my personal sin and the blessedness of consummation by any means equal, I'm merely saying that they're part of the same orb. As a chronically depressed cynic, if that's all that heaven is like, then I hereby quit existence.

[hierochloe]

[quote name='Snarf' date='Oct 7 2005, 02:05 AM']I find the idea of sex in heaven, except in JPII's words that the orgasm is a "foretaste" of pleasure in paradise. .....  As a chronically depressed cynic, if that's all that heaven is like, then I hereby quit existence.
[right][snapback]749301[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Ha! I've been thinking pretty much exactly that ever since this thread started.

[Brother Adam]

I think Peter may have gone a little too 'far out' into 'space' for this one. While I do find the concept of sexuality extending beyond earth fascinating, and it does make sense because we do have bodies in heaven, and we will retain our sex (male and female), I'm not so sure on this article.

[philothea]

I'm not even going to comment on the original article, which I find ridiculous.

But you guys are hysterical! I love the responses. "Step away from the analogy..."

"zombie sex!"



I hope no one walks in now. I am NOT going to be able to explain why I'm laughing!

[son_of_angels]

[quote]I think Peter may have gone a little too 'far out' into 'space' for this one. While I do find the concept of sexuality extending beyond earth fascinating, and it does make sense because we do have bodies in heaven, and we will retain our sex (male and female), I'm not so sure on this article.[/quote]

What in the world would possibly make you think that we have bodies in heaven. First, what would be the point? We are in a state of union with God, which means that we are only using the faculties of our soul. Yet ideas, which are perceived by the senses, require only minds and bodies. Best I can tell, animals have as much consciousness as we do, but we are "animated" in nature only by our unique immortal souls. Second, what would be the point in a resurrection of the flesh? Why would God go to all the trouble of fashioning TWO immortal bodies, instead, as the Scripture and Tradition teaches, not simply glorify the flesh for the heavenly kingdom? Moreover, what would be the uniqueness of the glorified bodies of Christ and Mary, if we ourselves had bodies like them. We must bide our time after death, our time of resurrection will come soon enough.

[White Knight]

[quote name='Cow of Shame' date='Oct 6 2005, 02:45 PM']I think this has been covered in the 'sex during pregnancy' thread.  Go there & read it so you can educate yourself on why the statement "Sex is for Procreation" is misguided.
[right][snapback]748573[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Your kidding right? God said to be fruitful and and muiltply, long before the fall of Man, so techneically before the fall of man, Adam & Eve could have had children. However they did not have children until after the fall.

[Oik]

[quote]What in the world would possibly make you think that we have bodies in heaven. First, what would be the point? We are in a state of union with God, which means that we are only using the faculties of our soul. Yet ideas, which are perceived by the senses, require only minds and bodies. Best I can tell, animals have as much consciousness as we do, but we are "animated" in nature only by our unique immortal souls. Second, what would be the point in a resurrection of the flesh? Why would God go to all the trouble of fashioning TWO immortal bodies, instead, as the Scripture and Tradition teaches, not simply glorify the flesh for the heavenly kingdom? Moreover, what would be the uniqueness of the glorified bodies of Christ and Mary, if we ourselves had bodies like them. We must bide our time after death, our time of resurrection will come soon enough. [/quote]



I'm not quite sure I follow you here. I'm confused on your point. Are you saying we don't have glorified bodies?

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='White Knight' date='Oct 7 2005, 01:17 PM']Your kidding right? God said to be fruitful and and muiltply, long before the fall of Man, so techneically before the fall of man, Adam & Eve could have had children. However they did not have children until after the fall.
[right][snapback]749640[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I don't speak your crazy moon language!!

Sex is not for procreation [i]alone[/i]. Go check out that other thread.

[White Knight]

Yes Yes, I am aware of what 1st Corinthians chapter 7 mentions, that whole chapter talks about marriage, even says that a man or a woman sould not deprive each other of sex..

[Benedict]

Starting at this point, no one who could truthfully put "I have not read the article" should be posting here.

The whole point of a thread about an article is to read the article and then post. I die a little inside when I see "I have not read the article so I can only comment on what you have said here ..."

Where is the netiquette?

[ofpheritup]

[quote name='son_of_angels' date='Oct 6 2005, 11:47 PM']It doesn't really make sense that we would have sex in heaven, seeing as our genitals are rotting in a grave somewhere....
.
[right][snapback]749190[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Oh you sweet talker you.

In heaven like on earth (I guess) sex without being married is fornication.
Isn't God against fornication, no matter where it is?

I am going to be too busy for that when I get to heaven.
Ya' wanna' see my list?

Cooking and Baking ( eating) i won't have hips in Heaven because I will be a spirit. Is that right?
Hang gliding
Rollerblading
Sky Diving
Fishing

Pretty much everything I would like to do down here but I am not doing because I am afraid of getting myself killed. See in Heaven if I do these things and it kills me it won't matter because I will already be there.

Yeah, I just said what you thought I said.

THIS HAS GOT TO BE THE WEIRDEST THREAD EVER.

[ofpheritup]

[quote name='Benedict' date='Oct 7 2005, 04:11 PM']Starting at this point, no one who could truthfully put "I have not read the article" should be posting here.

The whole point of a thread about an article is to read the article and then post.  I die a little inside when I see "I have not read the article so I can only comment on what you have said here ..."

Where is the netiquette?
[right][snapback]749831[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Welcome to America, home of the free and land of the "I have a right to not read an article but comment anyway."

Why because I am grown, and the boss of me.
Who are you?

I am allergic to "should." I was bitten by a SHOULD as a child and now pretty much ignore them. But thanks for sharing.
Anyone else's country want to be heard from?

[son_of_angels]

I'm saying we WILL have glorified bodies, but not until the final resurrection of the dead. (CCC. 999-1001) In heaven there will be only soul, not body, and therefore not sex. (CCC 997) There will not even be marriage, for they become "one flesh" and not "one soul." Sex exists as a condition and the consumation of the Sacrament of Matrimony, created from the beginning of man, and therefore, without marriage, without a body, there will be no sex.

[ofpheritup]

[quote name='son_of_angels' date='Oct 7 2005, 04:47 PM']I'm saying we WILL have glorified bodies, but not until the final resurrection of the dead. (CCC. 999-1001) In heaven there will be only soul, not body, and therefore not sex. (CCC 997) There will not even be marriage, for they become "one flesh" and not "one soul." Sex exists as a condition and the consumation of the Sacrament of Matrimony, created from the beginning of man, and therefore, without marriage, without a body, there will be no sex.
[right][snapback]749856[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I'M COOL, WORKS FOR ME.
I'll be hanging out with Jesus anyway, busy talking.

[Benedict]

[quote name='ofpheritup' date='Oct 7 2005, 03:43 PM']Welcome to America, home of the
[/quote]
rude, who dream up a whole slew of "rights" that do not exist because they cannot stand to act in a civil manner.

Why? Because they somehow think they are subject to no one and no thing but themselves.

[White Knight]

Extactly, thats something I think everyone will do in heaven, make up lost time with Jesus our Lord and Savior the time we lost here on earth, think about how distracted we get on earth and think about Heaven, no distractions.

[son_of_angels]

By the way, I read the article and I think it is relevant on many points. However, I disagree with the notion that the relationship between the Father and Son is sexual. After all, is your relationship with your sons, those who have them, sexual, or something else?

Charity, in its best form, requires no sexual interplay between the two participants. It is only when one commands the other in a procreative relationship that something becomes sexual. I am willing to say that the relationship between God and nature, or even God and the church, or the Holy Spirit and Mary, is a spiritually sexual relationship, but these are different matters.

The relationship between the Father and Son is not procreative. It does take on a certain Personality, but this is not an accident or effect of their charity, but the actual Person of their charity itself. Hence he, the Holy Spirit, is not born from the Father and Son, but IS their relationship. There is no procreation here.

In the same way, love between two males is not intrinsically sexual but, rightly ordered, a working of the highest form of charity, as Plato imperfectly points out in his Symposium. Likewise, when we are reduced to soul, and thus incapable of procreation, our ego, removed from sexuality, is incapable of a sexual relationship except as a collective, the "Church" Obviously these are all my philosophies and not directly from Church teachings.

He is free to profess the truth of Christ in philosophy all he wants, I just hope he doesn't encourage a distortion of Christian theology through it.

[ofpheritup]

[quote name='Benedict' date='Oct 7 2005, 04:58 PM']rude, who dream up a whole slew of "rights" that do not exist because they cannot stand to act in a civil manner.

Why?  Because they somehow think they are subject to no one and no thing but themselves.
[right][snapback]749864[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[son_of_angels]

Of course, I don't want to imply that, in being the Charity between the Father and the Son, that there is any but One principium of divinity in the Trinity. There is only one, which proceeds from the Father.