F
FossilResin
Guest
Everybody is together in heaven and there’s nothing to worry about because there isn’t any pain or sorrow
I wouldn’t worry about it.
- Status
I wouldn’t worry about it.Tis_Bearself
Patron
I’m muting this thread because the insensitivity of some of these comments just boggles my mind.
I realize people do not mean to be insensitive. . . .
For the record, I don’t worry about where my spouse is. I have great hope and I also believe I’ve heard from God via his saints on the matter, but there are people out there who struggle with hope.
I realize people do not mean to be insensitive. . . .
For the record, I don’t worry about where my spouse is. I have great hope and I also believe I’ve heard from God via his saints on the matter, but there are people out there who struggle with hope.
Last edited by a moderator:
B
BT3241
Guest
Until death do we part usually said in the wedding vows.
G
GLam1761
Guest
Married couples WILL meet in the “by and by” but sexual
intimacy will no longer be needed, b/c the command to
“propagate” will no longer be put into effect!! In fact, I think
that sexual pleasures will be REPLACED by more abundant
sensual pleasures not associated w/ procreation, i.e.seeing
hearing tasting, etc, etc…
intimacy will no longer be needed, b/c the command to
“propagate” will no longer be put into effect!! In fact, I think
that sexual pleasures will be REPLACED by more abundant
sensual pleasures not associated w/ procreation, i.e.seeing
hearing tasting, etc, etc…
Last edited:
J
JanetF
Guest
“Until death do us part”. There’s no need for marriage in heaven.
T
TK421
Guest
Nobody in Heaven ever loses their love for anybody. Love is strengthened and deepened in Heaven to an unimaginable degree, and it expands to the entire kingdom.
Marriage is a temporary earthly sacrament but you don’t need to be married to somebody to love them.
Last edited:
E
EndTimes
Guest
God’s Kingdom of Heaven shouldn’t and shan’t be of any concern
Accept it w/o getting hung up re: speculations such as: “Is Fido gonna make it?”
All who are there from throughout all History are in Communion…
God, angels and saints.
_
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
Does it really matter if someone is married in heaven or not? I don’t see how it would make a difference.
T
Tony
Guest
If God created paradise with humanity ordered in pairs, then paradise restored must also include this fundamental unit. I think we need to look carefully at what Christ said and what He did not say. What Jesus said is not that there won’t be marital life in Heaven. He said “They will neither marry nor be given in marriage.” …The text does not say ‘no families’ or 'no marriages.
The “marriage” that the Sadducees were talking about in their question, and that Jesus referred to in his reply, is not “marriage” as we understand that relationship today. Levirate marriage is unlike regular marriage, for it only exists because of death. It is not that sexual differentiation and and sexual intercourse do not exist in the world of God. If any individuals should mutually decide to pursue a partnership throughout eternity, I see no reason to think that this would not be allowed.
The “marriage” that the Sadducees were talking about in their question, and that Jesus referred to in his reply, is not “marriage” as we understand that relationship today. Levirate marriage is unlike regular marriage, for it only exists because of death. It is not that sexual differentiation and and sexual intercourse do not exist in the world of God. If any individuals should mutually decide to pursue a partnership throughout eternity, I see no reason to think that this would not be allowed.
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
Marriage in heaven is a tenant of non-Christian faiths, Mormonism comes to mind.
There will not be procreation in heaven, the purpose of marriage is for procreation of children and unity of the spouses. We will all have perfect unity. We shall be like the angels, who are not married.
And to cut out the part of Scripture to make it fit a personal belief is not how the Church teaches to read Scripture. Read it on context and in the light of Catholic teaching.
The entire passage is read here
Jesus said to them in reply, “You are misled because you do not know the scriptures or the power of God. At the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like the angels in heaven.
There will not be procreation in heaven, the purpose of marriage is for procreation of children and unity of the spouses. We will all have perfect unity. We shall be like the angels, who are not married.
And to cut out the part of Scripture to make it fit a personal belief is not how the Church teaches to read Scripture. Read it on context and in the light of Catholic teaching.
The entire passage is read here
Jesus said to them in reply, “You are misled because you do not know the scriptures or the power of God. At the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like the angels in heaven.
Last edited:
T
Tony
Guest
God says why He gave us marriage. He did it because it was not good for Adam to be alone. He said nothing about procreation being the purpose of it.
Yes, after He had brought the two together He told Adam and Eve to reproduce. But that was secondary to the fact that Adam needed a partner. He needed to not be alone. It was not good for him to be alone. That is why God gave him Eve. To say anything else is to contradict what God Himself said.
In regard to Jesus’ response about being “like the angels”…
"Being ‘like the angels’ does not mean being single or without gender. It means never dying.
He said they would neither marry nor be given in marriage for the purpose of carrying on a family lineage. He never said we won’t have partners.
Yes, after He had brought the two together He told Adam and Eve to reproduce. But that was secondary to the fact that Adam needed a partner. He needed to not be alone. It was not good for him to be alone. That is why God gave him Eve. To say anything else is to contradict what God Himself said.
In regard to Jesus’ response about being “like the angels”…
"Being ‘like the angels’ does not mean being single or without gender. It means never dying.
He said they would neither marry nor be given in marriage for the purpose of carrying on a family lineage. He never said we won’t have partners.
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
Christ never said we would not have cigarettes or treadmills in heaven either.
The Church defines the primary ends of marriage.
Children
Unity of the spouses
Cure for concuspence
The Church defines the primary ends of marriage.
Children
Unity of the spouses
Cure for concuspence
T
Tony
Guest
If you read through the Scripture, especially the Song of Songs, you get a lot that tells you that God made sex for our joy. The Song is a return to Eden. The by-product is to increase our desire for an Edenic sexuality that will only be fully possible in the new heavens and earth.
Isn’t the point of the Resurrection and the new creation to restore all that has been corrupted by sin and death? To restore man and woman back to the creation design which received such a postive affirmation from God?
Isn’t the point of the Resurrection and the new creation to restore all that has been corrupted by sin and death? To restore man and woman back to the creation design which received such a postive affirmation from God?
T
TK421
Guest
The reason there won’t be marriage in Heaven is because we don’t procreate in Heaven. God doesn’t give a person amnesia towards their earthly relationships.
Also, social boundaries exist on Earth because of human concupiscence and to keep order and peace, and that is part of the reason for marriage and nuclear families. In Heaven everybody will be exposed and pure and innocent and the very thought of boundaries will seem silly and ridiculous.
Also, social boundaries exist on Earth because of human concupiscence and to keep order and peace, and that is part of the reason for marriage and nuclear families. In Heaven everybody will be exposed and pure and innocent and the very thought of boundaries will seem silly and ridiculous.
Last edited:
D
Dan_Defender
Guest
I agree. On earth our bodies and senses can work against us, so the flesh is an enemy in that sense. But a glorified body will be fully subject to the soul such that no concupiscence may occur.
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
Not in Catholic teachings:
While the lovers in the Song are clearly human figures, both Jewish and Christian traditions across the centuries have adopted “allegorical” interpretations. The Song is seen as a beautiful picture of the ideal Israel, the chosen people whom the Lord leads by degrees to a greater understanding and closer union in the bond of perfect love. Such readings of the Song build on Israel’s covenant tradition. Isaiah (Is 5:1–7; 54:4–8; 62:5), Jeremiah (Jer 2:2, 3, 32), and Ezekiel (Ez 16; 23) all characterize the covenant between the Lord and Israel as a marriage. Hosea the prophet sees the idolatry of Israel in the adultery of Gomer (Hos 1–3). He also represents the Lord speaking to Israel’s heart (Hos 2:16) and changing her into a new spiritual people, purified by the Babylonian captivity and betrothed anew to her divine Lover “in justice and uprightness, in love and mercy” (Hos 2:21). Similar imagery has also been used frequently in Jewish mystical texts. The Song offers a welcome corrective to negative applications of the theological metaphor of the marriage/covenant in some prophetic texts. It frequently proclaims a joyous reciprocity between the lovers and highlights the active role of the female partner, now a pure figure to be cherished rather than an adulterous woman to be punished and abused. See also Is 62:3–5.
Christian tradition has followed Israel’s example in using marriage as an image for the relationship with God. This image is found extensively in the New Testament (Mt 9:15; 25:1–13; Jn 3:29; 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:23–32; Rev 19:7–9; 21:9–11). Thus the Song has been read as a sublime portrayal and praise of this mutual love of the Lord and his people. Christian writers have interpreted the Song in terms of the union between Christ and the Church and of the union between Christ and the individual soul, particularly in the writings of Origen and St. Bernard.
T
Tony
Guest
Christian allegorists was Influenced by the pagan Greek philosophies (i.e., Platonic dualism, stoicism, and the Hellenistic-Roman cults), they posited a dichotomy between things of the flesh and things of the spirit. Purity was associated with sexual renunciation, and all expressions of bodily pleasure–including sexual expression–were considered evil. In the Song of Songs all erotic imagery was allegorized as the yearning of the soul for union with God, or an expression of Christ’s love for his church. As by allegory the Greek philosophers had succeeded in transforming the sensuous gods of Homer and Hesiod into ethereal, spiritual ideals, so the celibate church theologians were “able by allegory to unsex the Sublime Song and make it a hymn of spiritual love without carnal taint.”
Those who have resorted to that allegorical interpretation to legitimize the existence of Song in Scripture have missed the crucial point-the Song of Songs in its plain and literal sense is not just a “secular” love song, but is fraught with deep spiritual, theological significance.
From the OT Hebrew perspective God is not absent from the Song, nor are his love and concern for his creatures lacking in it. Rather, they are clearly shown in the enjoyment and pleasure (given by God to man in the creation) which the lovers find in each other and in their surroundings. In harmony with the presentation of creation in Genesis, sexuality in the Song is part of God’s good creation; and since it is
St. John Paul II is one of the most well-known advocates of this book and gave his guide to reading it during a general audience in 1984. He explains how the Song of Songs can only be read, “along the lines of what is written in the first chapters of Genesis, as a testimony of the beginning.” John Paul II refers to the following verses in Genesis as the key to understanding the Song of Songs.
Then the man said,
“This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man.”
Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed. (Genesis 2:23-25)
This situates the Song of Songs as a primary expression of “true” love experienced between a man and a woman in the sacrament of marriage. It is a love unsullied by original sin, full of a passion that unites the lovers together as one. This love is not one of lust, but a pure love of desire.
Those who have resorted to that allegorical interpretation to legitimize the existence of Song in Scripture have missed the crucial point-the Song of Songs in its plain and literal sense is not just a “secular” love song, but is fraught with deep spiritual, theological significance.
From the OT Hebrew perspective God is not absent from the Song, nor are his love and concern for his creatures lacking in it. Rather, they are clearly shown in the enjoyment and pleasure (given by God to man in the creation) which the lovers find in each other and in their surroundings. In harmony with the presentation of creation in Genesis, sexuality in the Song is part of God’s good creation; and since it is
St. John Paul II is one of the most well-known advocates of this book and gave his guide to reading it during a general audience in 1984. He explains how the Song of Songs can only be read, “along the lines of what is written in the first chapters of Genesis, as a testimony of the beginning.” John Paul II refers to the following verses in Genesis as the key to understanding the Song of Songs.
Then the man said,
“This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man.”
Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed. (Genesis 2:23-25)
This situates the Song of Songs as a primary expression of “true” love experienced between a man and a woman in the sacrament of marriage. It is a love unsullied by original sin, full of a passion that unites the lovers together as one. This love is not one of lust, but a pure love of desire.
P
PetraG
Guest
I remember my son asking me why I loved him. I told my son I loved him because God had given me the special gift of seeing how special he is.
I think Purgatory is the stripping away of all the blindness that keeps us from seeing everyone like that. Heaven gives us the possibility to love everyone that radically. No, I don’t think you will be separated from your spouse when you die. I think we will all be joined to each other in the love of God in a way that we cannot even imagine now. There will nothing valuable burned away, nothing we could want if we know what to want, but only the dross.
Knowing that, I don’t need to know the particulars of how that could be. I only have to know that it will be.
I think Purgatory is the stripping away of all the blindness that keeps us from seeing everyone like that. Heaven gives us the possibility to love everyone that radically. No, I don’t think you will be separated from your spouse when you die. I think we will all be joined to each other in the love of God in a way that we cannot even imagine now. There will nothing valuable burned away, nothing we could want if we know what to want, but only the dross.
Knowing that, I don’t need to know the particulars of how that could be. I only have to know that it will be.
Last edited:
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
Your debate is with the USCCB, not with me.
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
It’s also an allegory which is imo better. Besides Heaven already has joy so it isn’t even necessary.
Last edited:
- Status