Announcement

Collapse

Theology 201 Guidelines

This is the forum to discuss the spectrum of views within Christianity on God's foreknowledge and election such as Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, Open Theism, Process Theism, Restrictivism, and Inclusivism, Christian Universalism and what these all are about anyway. Who is saved and when is/was their salvation certain? How does God exercise His sovereignty and how powerful is He? Is God timeless and immutable? Does a triune God help better understand God's love for mankind?

While this area is for the discussion of these doctrines within historic Christianity, all theists interested in discussing these areas within the presuppositions of and respect for the Christian framework are welcome to participate here. This is not the area for debate between nontheists and theists, additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream evangelical doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101 Nontheists seeking only theistic participation only in a manner that does not seek to undermine the faith of others are also welcome - but we ask that Moderator approval be obtained beforehand.

Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 or General Theistics 101 forum without such restrictions. Theists who wish to discuss these issues outside the parameters of orthodox Christian doctrine are invited to Unorthodox Theology 201.

Remember, our forum rules apply here as well. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Sex in New Creation

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by IamLives View Post
    I think that humans need pleasure just as God does. God's pleasure is in our acts of righteousness, when we glorify him (worship), basically in His children. But He created us to need pleasure as well, and although we can argue that our pleasure should come from fulfilling our covenant to God, and will most likely be incredibly enhanced in in the coming age, having a strong desire to glory God. I think that it is a well upheld argument to assert that the spirit is tied to the flesh, having fleshly desires because of the temple, but these desires are not necessarily sinful, because nothing is unclean in itself. If we get new bodies, that doesn't mean much changes, we will still be within flesh, our image, the image of God, it will be a glorified flesh. The desires of our flesh will be intact, other-wise God would be reshaping His creation to obey His will, not likely. Humans are wired with a desire for sex, it will most likely be apart of the coming age, humans will still be in need of each other, opposites of course, because they will be in flesh. Jesus said we are to become like angels, but they can still rebel against God, they still had fleshly desires toward the women on earth in Gen 6 (just wait til they see the glorified women). If we are to be like angels, we will have the same struggles they have.
    1) I wouldn't speak of God as "needing" anything, especially anything provided by humans or other elements of his creation. Don't confuse things that please God with things God needs, as if he would be diminished without them.

    2) Sexual desire is first and foremost an incentive for propagating the species. We don't know either way whether such an impulse will be relevant to a New Earth free from death.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by RBerman View Post
      In the OT, sexual intercourse was tantamount to marriage. If that is true in the New Earth, and if there's no marriage in the New Earth, then there's no sexual intercourse either. A lot of "ifs" there of course. This does not appear to be a topic that God cares for us to know much about.
      Again I ask, did Adam and Eve marry in the traditional sense we call marriage? Of course we don't know, which is an argument from silence because the bible is not specific about it. We also know that they engaged in polygamy which seems like it was acceptable, further indicative that the traditional intuition of marriage we're familiar with was not being practiced at that time. However, you are right in the sense that there are a lot of "ifs", which is what my point to Obsidian essentially was. Nothing is really that farfetched about the next life because everything is inconclusive.
      "I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole, it was like... we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment." - Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State (source).

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by seanD View Post
        Again I ask, did Adam and Eve marry in the traditional sense we call marriage?
        I think that's asking the wrong question. When the Pharisees asked Jesus about divorce under the Mosaic Law, Jesus based his case on the "one flesh" in Genesis. So we shouldn't say that Adam and Eve underwent some type of marriage, but that the first union is what we try to mimic as we work out as marriage in our various cultural contexts.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by RBerman View Post
          In the OT, sexual intercourse was tantamount to marriage. If that is true in the New Earth, and if there's no marriage in the New Earth, then there's no sexual intercourse either. A lot of "ifs" there of course. . . .
          For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by RBerman View Post
            In the OT, sexual intercourse was tantamount to marriage. If that is true in the New Earth, and if there's no marriage in the New Earth, then there's no sexual intercourse either. A lot of "ifs" there of course. This does not appear to be a topic that God cares for us to know much about.
            We do know that there's no marriage in the New Earth. So that makes only one "if"

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Paprika View Post
              We do know that there's no marriage in the New Earth. So that makes only one "if"


              For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                I think that's asking the wrong question. When the Pharisees asked Jesus about divorce under the Mosaic Law, Jesus based his case on the "one flesh" in Genesis. So we shouldn't say that Adam and Eve underwent some type of marriage, but that the first union is what we try to mimic as we work out as marriage in our various cultural contexts.
                True, but your point would have been a better response to RBerman's post#30 than mine.
                "I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole, it was like... we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment." - Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State (source).

                Comment


                • #38
                  If we could find what scripture Jesus was referring to, we could probably make sense of it.

                  Matthew 22
                  29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
                  30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
                  31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
                  32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

                  Most people interpret verses 31-32 as attacking the doctrine of soul sleep. Assuming this is correct, why does he bring it up, and how is it relevant to our issue?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
                    If we could find what scripture Jesus was referring to, we could probably make sense of it.

                    Matthew 22
                    29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
                    30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
                    31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
                    32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

                    Most people interpret verses 31-32 as attacking the doctrine of soul sleep. Assuming this is correct, why does he bring it up, and how is it relevant to our issue?
                    I actually don't think they are related. They were different topics based on the same subject -- the resurrection. He was just putting them in check (since they denied resurrection) with the second topic like they tried to put him in check with the first topic.
                    "I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole, it was like... we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment." - Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State (source).

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      I just wonder if they are even referring to the same thing as the "resurrection." Jesus seems to be referring to people being "resurrected" immediately after death -- which would imply the saints don't even have any bodies -- whereas the Sadducees are suggesting a single resurrection all at once.

                      Here are some parallel passages, but they don't provide much help. Arguably, "that world" could refer to the regenerated earth, but I don't know that it necessarily means that.

                      Luke 20
                      34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:
                      35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:
                      36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.
                      37 Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.

                      Mark 12
                      25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.
                      26 And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?
                      27 He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.

                      I still say that if we could find the old testament passage, we could probably solve the question.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
                        If we could find what scripture Jesus was referring to, we could probably make sense of it.

                        Matthew 22
                        29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
                        30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
                        31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
                        32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

                        Most people interpret verses 31-32 as attacking the doctrine of soul sleep. Assuming this is correct, why does he bring it up, and how is it relevant to our issue?
                        What seanD said. The context is, of course, the Sadducees' belief that there is no resurrection of the dead. The question about which man has the wife is an attempt by them to show that resurrection would result in a contradiction.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by seanD View Post
                          Again I ask, did Adam and Eve marry in the traditional sense we call marriage? Of course we don't know, which is an argument from silence because the bible is not specific about it. We also know that they engaged in polygamy which seems like it was acceptable, further indicative that the traditional intuition of marriage we're familiar with was not being practiced at that time. However, you are right in the sense that there are a lot of "ifs", which is what my point to Obsidian essentially was. Nothing is really that farfetched about the next life because everything is inconclusive.
                          Adam and Eve were untraditional in many aspects, being created as mature humans. They were mates, and marriage is the rite by which one becomes someone else's mate, so "did they marry" (i.e. undergo the rite) seems as inapplicable as asking whether they were born. They were not born, and yet they were alive. And while they did not "marry," they were nevertheless man and wife, instructed by God himself to reproduce together (Gen 1:28). So yes, they were in the state which the rest of us enter by marriage.
                          Last edited by RBerman; 03-29-2014, 09:17 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by RBerman View Post
                            Adam and Eve were untraditional in many aspects, being created as mature humans. They were mates, and marriage is the rite by which one becomes someone else's mate, so "did they marry" (i.e. undergo the rite) seems as inapplicable as asking whether they were born. They were not born, and yet they were alive. And while they did not "marry," they were nevertheless man and wife, instructed by God himself to reproduce together (Gen 1:28). So yes, they were in the state which the rest of us enter by marriage.
                            But that "state" of marriage or relationship between man and a woman didn't follow the same protocol of marriage later on, which deemed polygamy as unlawful. What we do know for sure is that marriage that was dictated by the Mosaic Law will not be instituted, but that seems irrelevant to me because it wasn't the marriage state being followed prior to the Mosaic law. Therefore we have absolutely nothing to support any belief that the marriage state that existed in the Garden will not be existent in the next world anymore than we have support that it will be existent.
                            Last edited by seanD; 03-29-2014, 10:21 AM.
                            "I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole, it was like... we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment." - Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State (source).

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by seanD View Post
                              But that "state" of marriage or relationship between man and a woman didn't follow the same protocol of marriage later on, which deemed polygamy as unlawful. What we do know for sure is that marriage that was dictated by the Mosaic Law will not be instituted, but that seems irrelevant to me because it wasn't the marriage state being followed prior to the Mosaic law. Therefore we have absolutely nothing to support any belief that the marriage state that existed in the Garden will not be existent in the next world anymore than we have support that it will be existent.
                              Certainly we don't know a lot about many of these patriarchal, pre-Mosaic mores. That's precisely why we can't draw good conclusions either way. Teleologically, one would expect that the command to fill the earth would rapidly be satisfied in a population that never died.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by RBerman View Post
                                Certainly we don't know a lot about many of these patriarchal, pre-Mosaic mores. That's precisely why we can't draw good conclusions either way. Teleologically, one would expect that the command to fill the earth would rapidly be satisfied in a population that never died.
                                We know there are apparently people not immortal in the new world outside of "the elect" because there is need for a Tree of Life. Speculative inferences can be countered by more speculative inferences night and day.
                                "I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole, it was like... we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment." - Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State (source).

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X