It’s all a matter of perspective. It’s from where you perceive. The judger is the judged. The condemner is the condemned.
But! The includer is the included.
Adultery is a non-issue there, but is it here?
‘I don’t expect you guys to understand this, but where I come from acting upon our urges has consequences…for the individual and for society. That’s why men with women is optimal and ordained by God’.
Hey Steve! You should start your own cartoon series. Just take my drawings and totally turn around the words to your liking!
What is adultery Richard? And Steve…there you go trying to speak for God again.
Oh and by the way Steve…have you ever in your life had sex?
Of course I do not know if you are married or single, celibate of sexually active so let me put it in terms more relevant.
Have you ever eaten food in your life Steve? Because if the answer is yes then you too have “acted upon your urges”.
…and Mary pondered these things while appearing to grow a mustache…
Some will be sad to note that there won’t be any sex in heaven, as Jesus explained to the Pharisees trying to trap him.
“‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.” Ezekiel 16:49
Actually Brigitte…Jesus said no such thing. That is merely your interpretation of his statement regarding a lack of marriage in heaven. See how you did that there? Your bias is so strong that you actually believe Jesus said something He did not and presented it as a fact.
Nice Kris. One of several quotes concerning the sin of those cities and, like all the others, homosexuality is never mentioned.
Wait, Brigitte, didn’t Jesus say no “marriage” in heaven so there may be sex — or lots of consensual frolicking.
“30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as angels in heaven.”
Whether there is no marriage or sex in Heaven just shows Jesus’ possible celibate, end-time tendencies — he wanted everyone to give up money and family. Another good reason to ignore the fellow — or, do as progressive Christians do, pick and choose to make Jesus your spokesperson.
oooops, I see Gary already stepped in for the corrective Bible lesson. I’m a bit late. sorry
Oh, and concerning Jesus saying that what will happen to marriage, true humans lifted to heaven (sniff, I wish my dog could join me) will be as angels. Yet only Zechariah 5:9 hints that their maybe lady angels, but some think they are all guys. You you gals may have some changes to get use to.
The mystic and the atheist jump to explain the Bible. Great stuff. Let’s imagine for a moment a heaven without sexual intercourse, no however many perpetual virgins and no Kama Sutra. What would we have? The Bible speaks about marriage and intercourse as an image of the church’s relation to God–very intimate, deep and joyful, as well as truthful and faithful.
I once spoke with my Mormon neighbor about this and she could not wrap her mind around the concept: “Does it mean God has sex with all of us?” (Seeing that they will reproduce on some planet and the moon, etc. This all comes down from Swedenborg.)
This is really how her thinking went. Maybe we can get our mind out of the sex box for a while. What would we have in our orientation toward God if we leave sex out of it? It has seemed to me for a long time, that this is a difference between Christianity and other religions. While sex is good in its right context and has its loving purposes, it is not the meaning of life, nor the meaning of heaven. If we found our life on sex as meaning we will soon be distraught at the deterioration of age, the changes in relationships, times when it can’t be had, ect. There has to be more and something better, yet.
“The mystic” Brigitte? Oh you are truly a hoot.
How about simply admitting you fucked up Jesus words?
Your silly insinuation that we have our minds in “the sex box” is so delightfully revealing. If you don’t like a comment…then you simply make up a reality of your own choosing that is supposed to reflect our beliefs in some fashion and attack it.
Gary, if you read it once more, you will find that I am asking very general questions and making points about the human condition. As according to Naked Pastor, it’s ok to ask questions. For example, what happens when you can’t have sex any more? Viagra til the day we die… Or what about a friend of mine who has been sexually abused by her father and uncle beginning at age three, who only ever went from abuse to abuse and never had a loving sexual relationship. What about them, etc. Heaven and realtionships HAVE TO BE about something other than sex. What is it we will consummate? Maybe explore this for me, as I asked. Or maybe we will just dissolve into nothing, or the universe, which many seem to be advocating. No sex in nothing either.
I notice Brigitte…you will go to any length to avoid admitting you misspoke.
I am all for asking questions. In fact I asked you one if you care to read it again. How about simply admitting you fucked up Jesus words?
You see my point had nothing to do with the ramblings of what you want to “imagine” as a means of sidestepping the actual scripture. My point was very clear. You have a bias (box) so strong that you perceive only one possible intent in Jesus statement…so much so that you are willing to openly declare He said something which He did not.
Sorry, Gary, what is the alternative explanation of the verse? There will be lots of sex in heaven?
My point Brigitte, which I know you understand as I have made it multiple times, is that Jesus said nothing of sex to the Pharisees; only marriage.
Now, you are free to declare that you believe Jesus was speaking of sex by implication and we will understand you. For at least then you are honestly stating what you believe Jesus meant. But to declare that Jesus said something He did not is to present your belief as the very words of Christ Himself. Surely you can see why myself and others might reject your manipulation of the text in such a fashion.
If you are asking for my personal beliefs on the subject of sexuality in our eternal state…I honestly don’t know. I do not believe God is overly concerned with sex outside of when it is abusive or in violation of the principles of the law of love. In fact I find the sex negative hysteria promoted by the typical fundy believer to be totally unscriptural.
And frankly…I do not believe Jesus discussion with the Pharisees had anything to do with sex at all. Contrary to popular religious teaching, there is no sex only in marriage mandate given in the bible…only the protection of property and lineage rights of the man who OWNED his wife/wives. It was about thievery…not sex.
OK, it has to do with both thievery and sex. The ninth and tenth commandment have to do with coveting all sorts of things, including property and workers and wives.
Coveting is a state of the heart. So here, already we learn that our heart is the problem, not just the doing. We are getting pointed forward to the sermon on the mount, which teaches us to see ourselves in the right light. But the coveting also led to the absconding of property or the thing or person coveted, as naturally happens with us. So the coveting or “lusting” conceives the misdeed which may or may not be carried out in fact. In any case, where the heart is not right, there is already sin happening or crouching at the door.
One of the things Jesus was railing against was the keeping of the letter of the law while ignoring the spirit of the law. So that some of the Jewish people of his time, likely the very pious on the outside such as the Pharisees, would be able to interfere in an existing marriage, causing a divorce, which was legal, and then marrying the divorced woman, which was something Jesus specifically mentions and forbids.
So the entire thing had the “appearance” of being right but it was bad. So here we have the interface of sex, marriage, divorce and thievery.
So, along come the Pharisees again, and ask Jesus this other question about “whose wife will she be?”, only with this horsetrading the prior husband dies and does not have his wife turned against him. Which is more of the same kind of legal wrangling nonsense they engaged in. To which Jesus says basically, there is going to be none of this nonsense in heaven and no marrying either, what on earth do you think heaven is going to be like? You have no idea. In heaven there will be no marrying.
Yes, sex is always understood to be within marriage and no monkeying with making the law fit your whims or needs to look holy even though you’re not. And by the way, there is going to be no marriage in heaven, he says.
That’s the best I can do, Gary.
Oh, it was the Sadducees that time, who don’t believe in the resurrection. That throws in another aspect.
Brigitte I agree with much of what you have written here…right up till you declared that “sex is always understood to be within marriage”. This is simply not true in light of biblical example and God’s reaction to it. Many patriarchs had non marital sex often and were blessed by God. The notion that sex was “understood to be within marriage” simply does not stand up to an unbiased analysis of the text.
The patriarchs had sex outside marriage and were dorks. This is the beauty of the Old Testament. The believers’ warts are all shown; they are just like us.
It is not their choices that concern me…rather God’s choices. He not only allowed it…but in some case supported it and even provided for it. Many times He blessed it. As I said…God does not appear to have been or be concerned about our sexuality outside of when our hearts are wrong and we are violating the law of love. Just like with anything in our lives…the ONLY guiding principle is the law of love. It is only the religious who come along and try to place a bunch of rules on our lives which God never intended.
There are lots of rules in life, the law of the land, doctor’s orders, guidelines laid down by management at work, professional ethics, etc. Rules, rules, rules, everywhere.
Just because it happened in the Bible, does not mean that God wanted or designed it. All over the OT we have warnings, threatenings and punishments for immoral behavior. And beyond that the breaking of regulations related to government and priestly services. Over and over again, the appeal is for mercy because of God’s steadfast love and mercy, not for right behavior. If Israel was preserved it was because of this mercy, just as we are.
You really struggle with maintaining focus in a debate don’t you? Try at least attempting to understand my point before responding. Read my last comment again.
The only principle that is involved in sexual love is the “law of love”, says Gary. Fine. How does that play out in real life? It’s nice for putting on a placard. What if your law of love and my law of love clash. As soon as you have guidelines, you have “rules.”
I do have a point to give to you and Sabio, though. I was at college today and spoke to a hip but conservative theology professor mostly about post-modern religion, after chapel. He thought, too, that there might be sex in heaven. After that, husband and I went to see a retired and disabled old pastor and were introduced to his medical marijuana grow operation. He has a licence from the government to grow 15 plants. He smokes a quarter gram in the morning and this helps him a lot with his pain. He muses now that doctors don’t prescribe it more often. — It has been an enlightening day for me. Sorry, if I’m getting sidetracked.
If there is sex in heaven, I’m fine with that. I’m not made from stone and with the resurrection there are supposed to be bodies. Very important point and also the problem for the Sadducees. But note that we have no such declaration that there will be that.–If no sex, I will be just as content. I think what we really desire is something else. It is something beyond anything we have now, otherwise we would not keep desiring all the time. The Reformed call it “desiring God”. It’s not exactly my lingo, but I don’t think it means desiring sex. Because sex I have already and I need something more to give meaning to life here or beyond.
Brigitte Jesus did say if we have kept these commands of love we have kept the entire law. In fact He Himself broke the letter of the law, and defended others in doing so, on many occasions when keeping it violated the greater good of love. You can theorize all day long that we have other rules and laws…but for my moral guide in this life…Jesus principle of love will do just fine.
I find most of the things you say to me not lovingly put. Now what?
Oh the irony…LOL.
Not everything Jesus said was “lovingly put”. This is a forum for, at least in part, debate and challenge of our views and beliefs. My personal belief is that your views expressed are often of the type Jesus would challenge in less than “lovingly” terms.
All you need is to look at the many responses to your comment on the post of the son coming out to his mother about being gay and you will have your explanation.