Chick-fil-A Biblical Family of the Day

Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy: “We support biblical families.”

Today’s Chick-fil-A Biblical Family of the Day: Heavenly marriage (Mark 12:18-25).

Some Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him and asked him a question, saying, “Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies, leaving a wife but no child, the man shall marry the widow and raise up children for his brother. There were seven brothers; the first married and, when he died, left no children; and the second married her and died, leaving no children; and the third likewise; none of the seven left children. Last of all the woman herself died. In the resurrection whose wife will she be? For the seven had married her.”

Jesus said to them, “Is not this the reason you are wrong, that you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God? For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.”

  • The_L1985

    Quick warning:  At some point in the next 24 hours, this blog is going to go down for a while as Patheos updates itself.  (Which it chose to do with no warning whatsoever.  Thanks a lot, Patheos.)

    Love, Joy, Feminism and No Longer Quivering are also down, for those who follow those blogs.  If you search for them, it says “Under Construction.”  If you type the URL in directly, you get an ad for some stupid music site that you can’t click past.

  • Darakou

    My dad has a problem with me watching South Park. He asked “Will they be watching it in Heaven?” I wonder if the principle of this passage applies:

     ”Is not this the reason you are wrong, that you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God? For when they rise from the dead, they neither watch TV nor own TV sets, but are like angels in heaven.”

  • Fusina

    I confess, I really hope the angels in heaven are doin’ it like rabbits (err as to quantity, quality I hope is a lot better than rabbits). Umm…

  • MikeJ

     I already had it show a page for something else when I came to slacktivist.
    https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/hPXp-LxvDDq7Ru-xq4DvcbOqefhwpZHvLdfQqoGhedk?feat=directlink

  • http://www.facebook.com/bobby.herrington.1 Boze Herrington

    But there will be books!

  • LoneWolf343

     Whenever a bell rings, an angel came.

  • DorothyD

    Angels? I’m hoping the rabbits will be doing it like rabbits.

  • Hexep

    If there’s no warning whatsoever, how do you know about it?

  • aunursa

    For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

    “It’s bizarre,” Chloe told Cameron. “I still love and admire and respect you and want to be near you, but it’s as if I’ve been prescribed some medicine that has cured me of any other distracting feelings.”
    “And somehow that doesn’t insult me,” Cameron said. “Does my feeling the same offend you?”
    She shook her head. Her mind, like his, must have been on Jesus and whatever He had for them for the rest of time and eternity.

    The funny thing is that the characters in Book #16 continue to refer to their husbands and wives.  Readers never learn the name of Bruce’s wife, who is repeatedly referred to as “Bruce’s wife.”

    “Bruce,” his wife said. ”I’m just saying, you know where to reach me.”

    Kingdom Come, p 151.

  • aunursa

    Randy Alcorn, whose book Heaven is promoted on the Left Behind website, says there will be no bunny business in heaven.  The inhabitants will still have a male or female body with male or female sex organs.  But since there will be no marriage, and sex outside of marriage is a sin, those organs will not be used for intercourse (or presumably any sexual activity.)  Alcorn concludes that there will be no desire for sex in heaven — God will remove the desire from each person.

    This is a debatable issue among Evangelicals, some of whom argue that people in heaven will engage in sexual activity.

    “People say that the Bible teaches there’s no sex in Heaven. If sex is necessary for our happiness and fulfillment, it’ll be there.”

    Rev. Billy Graham

  • Foreigner

    If they read Left Behind in heaven I ain’t goin.

  • The_L1985

    Because when I went to the aforementioned Patheos blogs, they suddenly weren’t there. “This blog is down while we upgrade to Patheos 3.0″ implies that sooner or later this will be happening to ALL Patheos blogs.

  • Carstonio

    I would describe Alcorn’s conclusion as speculation, and would do the same for the opposite arguments by other evangelicals.

  • aunursa

    Of course it’s all speculation.

  • Carstonio

    Then I don’t see much point to it, other than as an intellectual exercise. From what you describe, Alcorn seems to actually believe his conclusion.

  • aunursa

    I regret that I don’t understand the point you are trying to make.  Of course Alcorn believes his conclusion.  He bases it on the Bible passage quoted above along with other passages that tell him that sex outside of marriage is a sin.

    This thread contains speculation on what happens in heaven.  There is a great interest in such speculation as demonstrated by not only the success of the Left Behind series, but also best-sellers like Heaven is for Real and 90 Minutes in Heaven.  My comments relate the Bible quote above to those affiliated with LB and other Evangelicals.

  • Worthless Beast

    I’m an asexual who takes psychiatric medication and that passage from KC… SCARES me!    So glad I stopped reading the LB series after only a few books…  That sounds less like a natural, spiritual “purity” thing and more like a LOBOTOMY. Congratulations, Ellenjay, you just managed to severely frighten someone who already has little-to-nil sex drive and knows how medications can positively balance moods.  (In fact, I’m sort of insulted by the comparison). 

    Maybe this debate is like the “pets in Heaven.”  Some people are so sure that Heaven is just for “spiritual beings” like humans and animals don’t apply, while the rest of us pout and go “If my cats ain’t there, I ain’t goin’.”    Then there’s that Twilight Zone episode that shows us that Heaven without your faithful dog is literally a trap set by Hell.

    Frankly, if Heaven is a personal paradise, if I die today, I might go to Hyrule instead (given my current obessions).  Maybe even to Middle Earth – the Shire…

    Anyway, the actual passage amuses me quite a bit.  I had a bit of a flashback to the novel “Snow Crash” in which a character is explaining to main character Hiro the diffrereces between the Pharasees, the Sadducees and the Essenes and says “The Sadducees were materialists” to which Hiro responds “They drove BMWs?”  as a joke.  People who don’t even believe in the stuff they’re asking the questions about just to trap and be obnoxious, I can just imagine these guys wearing troll-faces.  It’s like someone who doesn’t believe in ghosts asking someone who does if they think ghosts are total pervs who watch people in the shower or something…

    I also feel sorry for the hypothetical woman in all this.  It’s clear to me that the Sadducees are thinking “whose property shall she be?” when they ask about whose wife she will be.  And imagine, that poor woman living through seven deaths of people who were close to her.  Okay, so mabye if hubby number 5 was an abuser she was glad to bury… hubby number 3 and hubby number 7 might have actually been great guys, and in that society that kind of thing would have been hard for a woman to live through socially, I’d think.  

  • Carstonio

     My point was about the leap involved from speculation to conclusion. Most people can speculate about afterlives while recognizing that any idea that anyone comes up with cannot be proven or disproven. Alc0rn and the evangelicals who disagree with them are both planting their flags on conclusions, and these involve assumptions about scripture that aren’t even shared by all evangelicals, let alone all Christians. So it’s not obvious to me how someone like Alcorn can be certain that his conclusion is true and reject the possibility of his opponents’ conclusion being true, or vice versa.

  • ohiolibrarian

    Lack of humility? Like all their other conclusions.

  • aunursa

    I don’t know if Alcorn is certain.  And maybe he’s certain about some things and not about others.  Tom Gruber, who wrote What the Bible Really Says About Sex believes that there will be sex in heaven.  But he admits…

    One of my objectives in writing this book is to make the strongest case possible for the position that there is sex in Heaven… I want to make it clear that my opinion is simply that—my opinion. Nevertheless, I’m offering an educated opinion, one based upon a considerable amount of thought and research. Since I am neither infallible nor omniscient, I acknowledge that I might be wrong.

    Alcorn himself writes in his book that he bases all of his conclusions on his interpretation of the Bible. 

    I believe that most of my conclusions … will stand up to biblical scrutiny. Inevitably, however, some may not… I invite you to contact me if you believe you have biblical grounds for disagreeing with anything in this book. I am open to correction — in fact I seek it, and I will make any warranted changes in future editions.

  • Carstonio

     I use “opinion” to mean positions on questions of value only, such as whether Eric Clapton or Jimi Hendrix was the best rock guitarist ever, although positions of value can be informed or uninformed. I recognize that many people might have a different meaning of the word.

    While Alcorn does acknowledge that he may be wrong, it sounds like he doesn’t understand that Biblical scrutiny is valid only for people who share his specific assumptions about the Bible. That sounds like a closed system of thought to me. Many Christians don’t make those assumptions. Unless he’s discovered a way to interview people who have been to an afterlife and back, I’m not sure what he means by research. “Biblical grounds for disagreeing” rejects the possibility that the error may not be with his conclusions but with the Bible itself.

  • aunursa

    he doesn’t understand that Biblical scrutiny is valid only for people who share his specific assumptions about the Bible

    He wrote a book for Evangelical Christians who do share his assumptions about the Bible.  He bases his ideas on the premise that the Christian Bible is the authoritative word of God.  Obviously for those who don’t share that assumption, his arguments and conclusions will not be convincing.  But then again, he’s not writing to convince you or me.

  • Carstonio

     

    But then, he’s not seeking to convince you or me of his conclusions about heaven.

    While that may be true, what I pick up from his words is that people who disagree about biblical authority are objectively wrong. I admit I might be misreading him. Plus, his conclusions about heaven would apply to everyone, almost as if non-Christians are simply players in his theology.

  • aunursa

    I’m sure he believes that people who disagree about biblical authority are wrong.  But that’s a separate issue.  He’s not trying to convince those who disagree on Biblical authority.

    I’m thinking of other Christian articles I’ve read in which the author cites New Testament to support their conclusions.  As a Jew, I reject the authority of the New Testament.  If the author wanted to convince me of his conclusions, he would use passages from the Hebrew Bible.  But the author is not trying to convince me.  He’s writing for a readership comprised of those who already share his view of the New Testament.

    his conclusions about heaven would apply to everyone, almost as if non-Christians are simply players in his theology

    Many religions have a lot to say about the afterlife, including the eternal destinies of those who don’t subscribe to the particular theology.  If I don’t believe in Chrisitianity or Islam or Buddhism or Hinduism or Sikhism, what any of their adherents has to say about my eternal destiny may be mildly amusing, but ultimately of no importance to me.  Reminds me of some Jews who are wary of Evangelical support for Israel on the basis that these Christians believe that at the end of time, most of the Jewish people will be murdered and/or convert to Christianity.  I respond that since we Jews don’t believe that those events will happen, Evangelical beliefs about our ultimate destiny shouldn’t concern us.

  • Carstonio

     

    Reminds me of some Jews who are wary of Evangelical support for Israel
    on the basis that these Christians believe that at the end of time, most
    of the Jewish people will be murdered and/or convert to Christianity.  I
    respond that since we Jews don’t believe that those events will happen,
    Evangelical beliefs about our ultimate destiny shouldn’t concern us.

    Perhaps you just have more trust in people than I do. If I were Jewish, I might anticipate some sort of betrayal from those particular evangelicals, and not necessarily at an end of time.  Similar to how the NRA represents gun manufacturers who are more than capable of selling out gun owners to protect their own profits. I’m not even Jewish and the evangelical language you cite is reminiscent of Christian persecution of Jews in medieval Europe.

    So yes, what the actual theology of any particular religion says about members of other religions is not important in and of itself. If there’s a history of members of that particular religion mistreating or harassing non-members, the theological language simply sounds different because of the context.

  • auroramere

    Yes.  I don’t believe the ‘end of time’ part is going to happen. Jews being murdered or coerced into converting? Happened before, might not need to be the end of time for it to happen again.

    I’ve thought about this a bit, since I have near and dear ones who make the same argument.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ann-Unemori/100001112760232 Ann Unemori

    Took me a second, then I got this–that’s AWFUL! XD


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X