Is there gender in the afterlife? Absolutely. We don't lose our masculine or feminine identity once we die. Our identities are restored, redeemed and fully completed in Christ in the New Heaven and the New Earth.

I'm not quite sure what my belief is on this yet... I've always wondered what that scripture in Matthew meant when it said we "will be like the angels in heaven." Do angels have a gender? If not... I've always wondered if maybe that's what it was referring to.

~Riella

I've always wondered what that scripture in Matthew meant when it said we "will be like the angels in heaven."

There's a corresponding passage in Luke (20:34-36), referring to the same event, that goes as such:

34 And Jesus said to them, "The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, 35 but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection of the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, 36 for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.

So Jesus was referring primarily to how we basically will not die (makes sense, since death was brought upon by sin). I also got from this passage that the main reason marriage does not exist in heaven is that marriage is by definition something that lasts until death, at which point it is broken. Hence my above speculation.

And I suppose I have more than just pure speculation on this: in Genesis, God created man and woman and had them such that "the two shall become one", before the Fall which would introduce death. This tells me that God intended for His perfect creation to be male and female (so yes, I do believe there will be gender in Heaven) and for male and female to come together as one, and I don't see reason to believe that will change once we enter Heaven, where His creation is perfect.

I think it would be unfair for the afterlife to have a version of marriage - what about widows/widowers? Then they would have two spouses in the afterlife.

Regardless of the actual case, everyone will have zero spouses in Heaven, because marriage ends upon death. If there is a new type of union, I figure the slate would be wiped clean; everyone can choose to pursue someone who was their spouse on earth or someone completely different.

Cool idea! Could be true, as well. But is there gender in the afterlife?

I was also thinking that maybe everyone will be close to everyone in the afterlife -- even closer than marriage -- maybe even the same amount of closeness. Instead of being closer to some than others, if that makes sense. The ultimate fellowship?

My youth group leader had an interesting idea. He said that perhaps the level of closeness will correlate to your relationship on earth. Like husbands and wives will be closer friends in heaven and know each other mbetter than a random person would know them. If that makes sense. Or like my best friend and I would be closer in heaven than another friend and I are who I'm only casual acquaintances with. Similar to the way it is on earth except no one is married.

I think you basically make your own choices like on earth but you are immortal. You be friends with who you want and don't cause fights with those you don't know/ don't see eye to eye with.

Do you tend to go for people who are similar to yourself or different?

I tend to go for different and I don't know why that is since I think similar would be a bit more....logical?

OK, I'm resurrecting this thread.

To go back a few pages to some posts about dating, specifically about dating to "get to know someone".

I don't think you should date just to learn about someone. I believe you should know the person before you date. I began a great relationship with a guy a few weeks ago. And we were friends and were in InterVarsity together for a semester before that and we knew each other's friends. So we knew quite a bit about each other, our values, morals, etc before we started dating. I don't think you should date someone that you don't at least know a little bit about. That could be dangerous.

About dating having only one purpose, I definetly agree! The whole point of any romantic relationship (courting or dating), is to find the person you'll marry, in my opinion. That doesn't mean you have to get married just that if things progressed that far, you wouldn't be breaking it off because of some big issue that is big enough that you should be agreeing on it. If that makes sense. I decided long ago that I would not date anyone I couldn't see myself marrying. That meant the person had to be a Christian, his morals and values had to pretty much line up with mine, and he had to be outdoorsy. That last one really is a deal breaker. I couldn't marry someone who wasn't obsessed with the outdoors and doing outdoorsy stuff.

And a question to get this conversation going again!

Matchmaking? What's your opinion? Is it good? Bad? Does someone else like your parents or a pastor really know who would be best for you?

Do you tend to go for people who are similar to yourself or different?

I tend to go for different and I don't know why that is since I think similar would be a bit more....logical?

similar since people who have different views to me on subjects that are important annoy me since I can't see why they think that way.

*peers into the thread*

Matchmaking? What's your opinion?

I have a very low opinion of matchmaking. That may be because I have a sister who drives me nuts by doing it, but I personally don't see the value in it. It's not up to you (generic pronoun) to decide who marries whom, and more often not just makes things awkward. Please folks, leave us single folks alone; just because we're not in a relationship doesn't necessarily mean that we're available.

Is it good? Bad?

It may not be bad, but again, I think there is very little value in doing it.

Does someone else like your parents or a pastor really know who would be best for you?

Speaking for myself, I have great respect for my parents and my pastor (who is also my brother-in-law), and I will definitely seek their counsel and guidance before entering a relationship. However, that does not mean I want them telling me that I should marry so-and-so (and no, my parents would not do that either).

--- flambeau

Matchmaking? What's your opinion? Is it good? Bad? Does someone else like your parents or a pastor really know who would be best for you?

It depends on the sort of matchmaking. And the people involved. If it's the sort where parents do it for their children, and their children have to obey, then no.

If it's the sort where nosy people try to hook up two people who prefer being single or are unaware they are being matchmade then no.

But if someone is single and voluntarily tells their friends, "Hey, I'd like to start looking for my future spouse soon. If you know any good guys/girls, please introduce me." Then, that's fine. It's a good way to meet people you might not have met before.

~Riella

One of my friends is so annoying when she does stuff like that. she says why don't you ask this person to the ball and he was like the most annoying person in the year group. she has such bad suggestions and I wish she would just stop. Than she goes off an asks someone who i don't even really know to ask me. since when did I say i wanted to have a partner for the ball. she obviously doesn't get the meaning of the word no.

Originally posted by Ithilwen:
It depends on the sort of matchmaking. And the people involved. If it's the sort where parents do it for their children, and their children have to obey, then no.

If it's the sort where nosy people try to hook up two people who prefer being single or are unaware they are being matchmade then no.

But if someone is single and voluntarily tells their friends, "Hey, I'd like to start looking for my future spouse soon. If you know any good guys/girls, please introduce me." Then, that's fine. It's a good way to meet people you might not have met before.

Quoted for truth. Excellent way of phrasing it.

Motives are a major factor. An episode of Roseanne showed how people on both sides (dishing it out, and taking it) get into unproductive situations:

Jackie (in a therapist's office): "Even if it's a mistake to say no to a guy you try to set me up with, or even it's a mistake to move out of my apartment, it's my mistake. I'm not one of your children."

Roseanne: "Then you go make a mistake, and you come to me to clean it up."

Jackie: "Of course. You're my sister."

Roseanne: "Oh. Oh. So I see. I can't say anything to stop the mistake, but I mop it up after."

Jackie (whimpering): "If you loved me, I'd think you'd want to."

Roseanne (to the therapist): "You better call for backup. I mean, I know this Art guy isn't gorgeous or anything. But he'd be nice to her, and he'd protect her. It wouldn't be so awful to marry such a guy."

Therapist: "Do you want her married to such a guy, so he could take over for you? Then you wouldn't have to look out for Jackie anymore?"

Roseanne: "Are you kidding? What does she know about being married?"

Roseanne treats her sister like a child, because that was how they behaved when they were in fact children. Neither person outgrew this behavior.

To some extent I think plain and simple nosiness is a motivation for some amateur match-makers. Possessiveness is another motive. Still another is the know-it-all attitude, and it just comes out in that particular format. If you were married, they'd be telling you how to take care of your children instead. that sort of thing.

There once was a time when professional match-makers held a respected place in society, because they took it as seriously as any other full-time job. They did their research, talked to people, and kept in mind that marriage often involves the union of two families as well as two individuals. It's true that some of these match-makers worked for the parents (i.e., the money) rather than for the actual participants, which makes two reasons that modern believers feel uncomfortable with the concept. Nowadays we delegate that role to amateurs, with predictably amateurish you-get-what-you-pay-for results.

Alternately, we enter personal data into the algorithms in software programs, which is not the same as the human touch: a gut feeling, a series of interviews, the experience of having known the person for years, and the ability to pray about it. I'm not knocking people who found their spouse on e-Harmony, but I doubt the software prayed before it introduced them, or learned anything when confronted with dissatisfied customers that proved to be ill-matched.

Granted, as a called celibate I don't have a horse in this race ... but I'd recommend that a person who hopes to meet a mate through a website should have real-life humans meet the person as a check and balance; and people who hope to meet a mate through a well-intentioned friend should use the check and balance of doing their homework, doing some research about the person they've met.

I'm not knocking people who found their spouse on e-Harmony, but I doubt the software prayed before it introduced them, or learned anything when confronted with dissatisfied customers that proved to be ill-matched.

Wait. Sorry, that's just silly. Of course the software wouldn't pray, that's the responsibility of the participants. I know a number of people who were members on XYZ Christian forums and they participated for several years, got to know each other quite well and then eventually met up, dated for awhile and then got married. Some of those people have been married upwards of 10 years. Then there are some who do it via online dating. Obviously this decision should be prayerfully considered and not rushed into but it's a viable option for people and some people have experienced beautiful Christian marriages because there was something that just made that connection just a little easier.

In what way is it silly? The person who prays yet is mismatched is just as discouraged and disappointed regardless of whether the mismatch was made by an algorithm or by a third-party human.

The concept of match-making by software would be astonishing and possibly disturbing to people in generations past. Modern generations are more familiar with "there's an app for that" and they find the notion of hiring a human to identify a potential mate as astonishing and possibly disturbing. It's largely about what you are used to, what you grew up with.

Another factor is that we've seen the bigger picture with professional match-making: the failure rate as well as the success rate. Electronic match-making is still new enough that we hear more about the success rate than the failure rate. That may take time to come to light.

I do see e-match-making as more variable because, yes, the software isn't as adaptable as a person. But in no way would I disparage the effort or disagree with you that it's a viable way for people to meet in a relatively safe and open environment. I'm just suggesting not to elevate it to the level of a guarantee.