Sex In Heaven?

[ofpheritup]

I haven't read the article YET. So my comments are coming off of what I have read from you.

I am not having sex in heaven, I wil be busy doing other things.
I am not having sex here. I am busy doing other things.

If there is a criteria that says I have to be willing to have sex to go to Heaven, I ain't going. I think the concept is ridiculous.

And what ARE WE GOING TO DO with all of our monks and nuns?
Has anyone told them yet? Boy are they in for a surprise.

[Socrates]

If there aren't ten nubile young virgins waiting for me in heaven, I'm going to be mighty disappointed.

(almost makes me want to go Muslim)

[onathing1]

i have not read the articel yet as well, and from just reading your comments. if this article is about us having sex when we get to heaven, as i have come to believe it is, does he tell you how that is going to be achieved, since our bodies don't go to heaven and only our souls?or did someone already ask/answer this question and i missed it?

[son_of_angels]

It doesn't really make sense that we would have sex in heaven, seeing as our genitals are rotting in a grave somewhere....

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.

Moreover we do not have consciousness, in the same sense as we have now, in heaven, because our consciousness on earth derives from the passions aroused by our senses, and, without our bodies, it makes no sense that these will be creating any similar particular ideas as our senses now do.

I only of two notions that seem to persist in heaven: 1. Life, we are alive in a very real and dynamic sense, i.e. we participate in the heavenly communion in an active way; 2. We are aware. Beyond these I know very little or nothing.

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Oct 6 2005, 10:15 PM']If there aren't ten nubile young virgins waiting for me in heaven, I'm going to be mighty disappointed.

[right][snapback]749084[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Oh, come ON! Everyone knows you'd never want [i]virgins[/i]. You want someone with [i]experience[/i]. And TEN? What would you do with TEN? You know you'd just get stuck in the corner punching the magic munchkin while they all talked about makeup and how cute Viggo Mortensen is...with Timberlake playing on the stereo. Ten virgins, indeed!

[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..