A Joke: On Their Way To Get Married, A Young Catholic Couple...

[Basilisa Marie]

Everyone in heaven is a Saint. 

[PhuturePriest]

Everyone in heaven is a Saint. 

 

Way to say the same thing I did. :P

[Lilllabettt]

"at least half the saints in heaven are male"

is equivalent to 

"at least half the people who make it into heaven are male."

 

 

that's a big assumption. and what do you mean "at least" ??? 

[PhuturePriest]

"at least half the saints in heaven are male"

is equivalent to 

"at least half the people who make it into heaven are male."

 

 

that's a big assumption. and what do you mean "at least" ??? 

 

Obviously, I meant that men are more prone towards salvation, as women, being inherently inferior, are less able in attaining spiritual perfection. :|
 

Or, I'm in fact just assuming the salvation line is 50/50, and "at least" is simply what we say in my area to mean "about", or "at". It doesn't imply or mean a bare minimum that is likely exceeded, as it does in other places. Kansas is crazy like that. It's kind of like when crazy people in Texas say "Coke", they may in fact be talking about any pop that exists. There are a lot of Kansasisms that are confusing to outsiders, really. For instance, "pretty sure" usually translates into "absolutely certain". Example: "I'm pretty sure this third analogy is unnecessary."
 

Besides, arguing otherwise means you think more women are in heaven than men, meaning in some way you think of women as more capable/prone to salvation, which is just as sexist as saying the same for men, so I'm not sure why anyone is arguing about it.

Edited December 20, 2014 by PhuturePriest

[Basilisa Marie]

Because it's fun to mess with you.  :saint2:

[Oremoose]

fact

[Oremus Pro Invicem]

I would say otherwise mary and joseph were married yet were both chaste. I don't think I they thought their marriage was pointless.

 

 

 

 

Disclaimer: I am fully a ware and accepting of the churches teaching. I just find it nice to discuss this type of stuff.

 

Yes, this is true.  Both Mary and Joseph were married and both were chaste and their marriage was not pointless.  Their marriage was to raise and take care of Jesus.  Marriage is essential to the existence of the family, which is why the breakdown in marriage can be seen as an attack on the family.   Something we're experiencing today.   The point being made is that God creates and institutes all things for a purpose.  We would need to ask ourselves, what would be the purpose of instituting marriage in Heaven?  Do we not have marriage on earth because we need it?  Will we be needing anything in Heaven?  If we do not need marriage after the resurrection, then why would we need it in Heaven?

 

 

Disclaimer: I enjoy discussing it as well. :)

Edited December 21, 2014 by Oremus Pro Invicem

[Gabriela]

You people do realize that the OP was just a joke, right?

 

Sheesh.

[Ash Wednesday]

[Oremoose]

You people do realize that the OP was just a joke, right?

 

Sheesh.

 

yes. I read it chuckled. left. returned read it again then pointed out my thought on the role of peter.

 

Yes, this is true.  Both Mary and Joseph were married and both were chaste and their marriage was not pointless.  Their marriage was to raise and take care of Jesus.  Marriage is essential to the existence of the family, which is why the breakdown in marriage can be seen as an attack on the family.   Something we're experiencing today.   The point being made is that God creates and institutes all things for a purpose.  We would need to ask ourselves, what would be the purpose of instituting marriage in Heaven?  Do we not have marriage on earth because we need it?  Will we be needing anything in Heaven?  If we do not need marriage after the resurrection, then why would we need it in Heaven?

 

 

Disclaimer: I enjoy discussing it as well. :)

ooo good points. This actually bring up a point I have trouble wrapping my head around but accept.  That is God is a creating God, he makes all things and they are good (Gen1-2). Yet we say that animals souls go out of existence, as with marriage. So I feel that saying that marriages are destroyed in heaven is counter to God's nature.

Now when the verse that came up is thrown at me I say that Jesus was asked about a sticky situation that happened in the old testament that we could easily say that it was more of a myth than fiction (the bible having many literary genres in it I feel supports me). 
 

Finally to get to your question of the purpose of marriage. I say (being a single man knowing nothing of being married aside from observing my parents) it is the same as the Goal of our faith. St. peter tells us that the goal of our faith is the salvation of souls (1Pt 1:9). Marriage is just that, by teaming up with a partner (for life) to help you save your soul and vice versa. (once kids are added to the mix you need to help them reach heaven as well)

 

once the race is over why break up the band? Life does not end in death yet this life long vow does? Now will marriage be the same in the afterlife? No; because salvation is ours (hopefully). However to say it is over and destroyed I say that is narrow minded and counter to a creating God So it would be easier to say we don't know than to say, it shall be this way.

[Not A Real Name]

yes. I read it chuckled. left. returned read it again then pointed out my thought on the role of peter.

 

ooo good points. This actually bring up a point I have trouble wrapping my head around but accept.  That is God is a creating God, he makes all things and they are good (Gen1-2). Yet we say that animals souls go out of existence, as with marriage. So I feel that saying that marriages are destroyed in heaven is counter to God's nature.
 

 

 

The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away. Blessed be the name of the Lord. 

[Oremoose]

The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away. Blessed be the name of the Lord. 

 

Not a sufficient answer. I see where you are coming at but "taking away" is not the same as removing from existence.

 

That verse (I am aware) applies to earthly things like money, power, health, etc. Those things can rise and lower but are never Gone Gone. Like some say happens to marriage and the souls of animals.

[Not A Real Name]

Not a sufficient answer. I see where you are coming at but "taking away" is not the same as removing from existence.

 

That verse (I am aware) applies to earthly things like money, power, health, etc. Those things can rise and lower but are never Gone Gone. Like some say happens to marriage and the souls of animals.

 

 I'm not following how you came up with your idea that "taking away" excludes the removal of somethings existence?   I think it's pretty clear that the verse is saying God has dominion over all things and that He can do with them as He sees fit; including removing them from existence. 

 

If marriage is not continued after the resurrection then it is not continued in Heaven.  If the marriage bond was not broken after death then a woman or man could not remarry when their spouse died.  If the bond did continue after death and a widow remarried then in heaven that person would be married to more than one person, which is polygamy.  Plus in the marriage vows it says "til death do us part" so it's clear the bond does not continue after death. 

Edited December 22, 2014 by Not A Real Name

[PhuturePriest]

Not a sufficient answer. I see where you are coming at but "taking away" is not the same as removing from existence.

 

That verse (I am aware) applies to earthly things like money, power, health, etc. Those things can rise and lower but are never Gone Gone. Like some say happens to marriage and the souls of animals.

 

Jesus himself answered the question of whether we are married in heaven, actually. When the Pharisees (Or Sadducees, I can't remember; I'm not a Baptist) asked him if a woman lawfully married several men in her lifetime and asked which one in heaven she would be married to, Jesus said none of them, because there is no marriage in heaven. Or something along those lines. Again, I'm not a Baptist.

[Not A Real Name]