".......... but are as angels in heaven"

by Ice Blue 45 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Ice Blue

  I have seen cocoon - no comment!

  The point was though NewWay, if one is resurrected, is one essentially not the same, as one was, when one died? That being the case, isn't it so that one isn't who one was, and therefore does that not make a mockery of the resurrection? You might just as well start all over, as a baby, but then you wouldn't grow to be the person you were - your experiences would be different. We are all the product of a combination of things, our genes, our experiences, - our whole life course helps to determine who we become. Are you with my drift?

  Edited by - Ice Blue on 30 July 2002 16:59:32
• 

  Stealth

  NewWay,

  You bring up some interesting points however I think you may be missing the point. The scripture says nothing about sex, it talks about Marriage. As you point out sex is only a part of what bonds a couple together and you admit an important part. It has been proven that relationships based on sex alone don't last, there is much more to human relationships than sex. You said:

  it may take a lot of faith to believe that God could well have something even more exciting than sex in the manner we know.

  I have no doubt that God could give us some new light that may bring us more pleasure than sex. Remove sex from the issue and this is where I have a problem. A world that is based on two classes of peoples, one who make it through the big A and get to remain married, or even get married if single at the time, have a close relationship with another, companionship, connecting one on one.

  Yet those who are resurected must remain unmarried and will be blessed with some new good thing that will replace the need for companionship and marriage. We now have two classes of people on earth. I wonder how the ones who will be allowed to marry will know not to get involved with the resurected ones who will not be allowed to have a marriage. Yes it takes quite a leep of faith for me to see how a god of love would set up this type of two class system.

  So it may be best to simply leave the matter 'on hold'

  definition = wait on Jehovah
• 

  NewWay

  blueice: I was talking sometime ago to a JW relative of mine who had been widowed for a few years. In the course of the conversation, I explained to her my understanding of what constitutes a person. Like you I believe that a person (as in who s/he is) is made up of a number of things. By the time we die we are a whole different 'person' from who we started out in life being. My belief is that when we die, whatever makes us 'us' according to the intangible, 'non-physical' is 'deep frozen' and put into a divine 'fridge' awaiting the resurrection - sorry for the crude illustration. Since it has been demonstrated by science that our physical bodies are essentially manifestations of our DNA, then whatever part of us has been 'put on ice' can at a later date be united with a physically DNA-compatible body that represents a 'snap-shot' of a perfect representation of the body we died in (minus disease, old age, physical defects, etc). Just my personal view though.
• 

  Ice Blue

  You read my mind Stealth......... and so eloquent with it!

  Edited by - Ice Blue on 30 July 2002 17:14:40
• 

  Stealth

  one other thought...

  but there it could be argued that the Sadducees, being Jews were talking about the expected resurrection in the flesh

  Just because the Sadducees did not beleive the the heavenly resurection, why would Jesus tailor his reply based on what they believed if that was not the truth? Maybe Jesus was trying to introduce "new light" to these men and tell them that the resurection would be heavenly, knowing that this was the plan and why he was sent to earth to die.

  I don't know, but it makes more sense to me than two classes of people on earth. Those who get to have marriage and those who don't. (with or without sex)
• 

  plmkrzy

  From what I can remember the logic went as follows from the WTS. Since when this was spoken by Jesus was done before any of his followers had or were introduced to the thought of having a heavenly hope then it must apply to those who would live on earth. Jehovah will see to it that these folks will have meaningfull lives without being married..... we will have to wait and see.

  
  

  So, 'filling the earth' does not have to mean the destruction of sexual relationships.

  We need to remember also that when scriptures and passages are being interpreted by men of their own period of time and frame of mind.
  It was considered to be extremely unacceptable in society in the US to openly discuss topics of a sexual nature under any circumstances long before the existence of the WTS. SO when the literature, any literature and attempted Bible understanding began to take place during the growth of the WTBTS it was done with a completely different state of mind then what we have now and also what many others countries may have had many years ago.
  The teachings and interpretations are based on the attitudes and the moral views of a few old prudish men of the late 1800's and early 1900's more so then on the attitudes of men and women that lived during the time and place the books were written.
  As far as one day losing our organs because we will no longer need to reproduce. Poppycock!
  That is something that comes from the mind of a sexually repressed human and not from the mind of the creator.

  People are the only creatures that (as far as we know anyway) fell "SHAME" about our bodies and sex.

  Sex is a constant in the human race. Not only is it necessary for the survival of the human race but also it offers great pleasure. It never was something that most people couldn't care less about one way or another. It would also (due to it's character) be the perfect thing guaranteed to last as long as needed, to sanction. Women were sanctioned worse then men sexually from the beginning when Eve made the first move toward disobedience. Adam only followed because (btw, there is no evidence that Adam new better either) he had a desire for eve that overshadowed his desire to be obedient to God. Those would have to be some pretty strong desires and thats the way he was created. But he was still also created to make choices with his head if he wanted to, and he didn't.

  It makes no sense to believe there is a God who has always been and will always be that created this universe we live in then created us just so we can fill up this little planet the size of a small pea, and then quit and do absolutely nothing forever.

  But those guys in Brooklyn 100 years ago probably couldn't imagine going 30 miles per hour in a vehicle either.

  Edited by - plmkrzy on 30 July 2002 17:56:8
• 

  Ice Blue

  But if I die married to someone I love dearly and have connected with that one and have been with that one for many years, but then am ressurected and denied the choice of being with that one and that one being with me......... surely we are then not the same person. Such a change in my emotional status, would change who I am. The person resurrected would not be the person 'deep frozen' - I would have freezer burns, effectively altering me.
• 

  NewWay

  Stealth: I agree that a relationship based on sex alone is not necessarily going to last, but in a marriage it is very important, even as the apostle says: "Do not be depriving each other of it." People's sex drive differs from person to person, so there may be problems within this area. It is not without good reason that we find in the Bible different types of 'love'. For instance, the love that parents have for their children is different from what they have for each other. The physical act between marriage mates can build up deep affection, simply because you are in a sense exposing your very soul. You can be at your most vulnerable, therefore if you truly have affection for your mate in the first place, you can achieve a greater depth of trust and 'integration' of the two souls.
  
  On the matter of having two 'classes', I see that there could be a problem based on our current frame of reference, but I am not shy of using the term 'wait on Jehovah', for what else can one do. Part of faith in God is 'trust'. In fact the very word faith is synonymous with trust. So a Christian does well not to worry about things like this, because they are beyond his/her control anyway. Just trying to be encouraging to anyone who is concerned about this. I left off worrying about this many years ago - and it did concern me very much I can assure you!
• 

  NewWay

  Stealth: Just saw your other post. I am not suggesting that the Sadducees definitely had an earthly resurrection in mind, or even that Jesus did. I was just pointing out that this is what some may say on the basis of the historically religious backdrop of the day. If it were not for this argument, then it would be easy and most logical to believe that Jesus was speaking about the heavenly resurrection. In fact he may well have been talking about the heavenly resurrection, for reasons not evidently apparent. But as you will notice from my comments above, trying to set a solution in 'concrete' to satisfy my previous concerns doesn't bother me. I am indeed content to leave the matter in the hands of the Almighty.
• 

  NewWay

  Sorry, another thought came to me. You mentioned the word 'marriage'. Now I know in our modern world we tend to think about a certificate, but what does the word marriage actually mean? It is a joining together, and more specifically sexual union. As far as I can remember, the Israelites judged whether or not two people were 'married' on the basis of physical evidence of the breaking of the woman's hymen (i.e. blood on cloth). An Israelite man would take the woman to his house and it would be expected that he had intercourse with her. When this had been done the physical evidence (as mentioned previously) was presented and it was then accepted that they were married. That is why it could be said that the first person (willingly of course) that a person has intercourse with constitutes their marriage mate, because they have 'joined together.' I do apologise to anyone viewing these posts who may find the discussion of these things a little offensive, but I am trying to be as 'clinical' and matter-of-fact as I can.