Originally posted by KellyJayI think in Mark's Gospel there's this bit where the Pharisees ask Jesus about someone who remarries a few times which wife he'll be married to in the afterlife and Jesus replies that in Heaven we would be like Angels so the question was irrelevant. I think that means the male/female identity thing gets transcended.
Yes to your question, but my answer to what Heaven is, is where God is.
No idea about male or female in Heaven, odds are yes, but not for
procreation, at least between humans.
Kelly
Originally posted by DeepThoughtSomething is definitely going to be different in that regard because the body of believers seems to be spoken of as the bride of Christ.
I think in Mark's Gospel there's this bit where the Pharisees ask Jesus about someone who remarries a few times which wife he'll be married to in the afterlife and Jesus replies that in Heaven we would be like Angels so the question was irrelevant. I think that means the male/female identity thing gets transcended.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI believe that is one we will see when we get there. The fact that God is
I think in Mark's Gospel there's this bit where the Pharisees ask Jesus about someone who remarries a few times which wife he'll be married to in the afterlife and Jesus replies that in Heaven we would be like Angels so the question was irrelevant. I think that means the male/female identity thing gets transcended.
a Spirit and we will be like him, it could very will be that the distinction
between male and female is gone. I'm sure whatever God has in mind will
be beyond our wildest dreams. If God could throw together this universe
in six days, I can only imagine what God can do in a few thousand years.
Kelly
Hi all,
From about two pages ago this thread seemed to unravel. So let's call it a day.
(Of course, I can't close down a thread, but I can give notice that i am abandoning it, because I feel it has had its run).
But before doing so, I want to thank those that have taken of their time to contribute and have asked me questions in the spirit of the OP. Specifically:
twhitehead
vivify
JS357
Wolfgang (Vielen Dank fuer deine freundlichen Worte!)
DeepThought
Paul Dirac II
Lemon Jello
Sonhouse
(Forgive me if I have missed someone)
My final question would be whether you have found this interaction to be interesting, and whether inter-species communication has been even marginally advanced?
I have certainly found some of your questions challenging. This has forced me to examine my own belief in several areas.
One aspect in particular i want to follow up further, and that is Rationality vs Subjectivity.
In this regard i found an interesting TED talk on this subject:
http://www.ted.com/talks/ruth_chang_how_to_make_hard_choices
The message here seems to be that sometimes plain Rationality is NOT the right way to chose between two equally attractive options! I would be interested in examining this further, maybe in another thread?
In peace
CJ
Originally posted by CalJustHey CalJust. Yes, thanks for the pleasant exchange. I think we probably disagree on some particulars, but I appreciate your promotion of tolerant attitudes.
Hi all,
From about two pages ago this thread seemed to unravel. So let's call it a day.
(Of course, I can't close down a thread, but I can give notice that i am abandoning it, because I feel it has had its run).
But before doing so, I want to thank those that have taken of their time to contribute and have asked me questions in the spirit of the OP. ...[text shortened]... ons! I would be interested in examining this further, maybe in another thread?
In peace
CJ
Concerning both the rationality issue and the issues of justifying conditions for theistic belief, I would also have some suggestions for follow-up discussion, largely related to the works of philosopher Alvin Plantinga. Regarding the issue of one's having rational arguments that one could offer to others as justification for belief, Plantinga attempts to provide a model of theistic belief that is rational and warranted even in the lack of one's having such arguments (and even in the lack of the existence of such arguments, period). I think I may start a thread that considers the merits of Plantinga's arguments on this topic. Could be interesting and highly relevant.
Originally posted by LemonJelloThanks LJ. I would welcome such a discussion, especially if there was a link to a worthwhile article.
Regarding the issue of one's having rational arguments that one could offer to others as justification for belief, Plantinga attempts to provide a model of theistic belief that is rational and warranted even in the lack of one's having such arguments (and even in the lack of the existence of such arguments, period). I think I may start a thread that co ...[text shortened]... rs the merits of Plantinga's arguments on this topic. Could be interesting and highly relevant.
I am very much aware of the fact that the "subjective" explanation is a great common denominator; any supporter of the craziest belief can claim that as justification. So there should be more than that...