What?! Of course there is!
But it’s like the Shield of Mars – it’s mixed up with bunch of fake copies – you know there’s just the one real thing in there, but you have no way to tell which is which. 
Or, put another way: Of course there is and you won’t find it in the Book of Mormon, so there! 
Not if “boredom” turns out to be a fleshy thing unknown to disembodied souls. Which might be the case.
I got a fleshy thing unknown right here for ya.
And the more unknown it stays, the better I’ll like it. :eww:
There’s always Pastafarianism. Its Heaven has beer volcanoes and stripper factories.*
*Hell is the same, only the strippers have diseases and the beer is flat.
What about in-laws?
They can get their own beer and strippers.
It all goes back to who or what one believes,and it was said to be Jesus (who was called God) that said the things about Adultery, David, according to the writer of the OT showed David as a murderer and was punished by having his child born of the Adulterous action die. There is nothing in the Bible that was the’ Words of the Lord’ all are of humans, so if one choses not to accept that a God said anything, and can prove it was written and stated by a human it doesn’t necessarily apply.
Pauls words were supposed to have been inspired by the Holy Spirit just as all the other writings of the OT and the NT. So if one believes some are inspired then all that is written is either inspired( or not)!
Good thing that bears no resemblance to Jesus’ actual answer to the question.
Heaven stinks - Elysium is where it’s at.
Um no, The reason stated for taking the child was the murder of Uriah. Children are a blessing, proverbs state as such and that would always include children of adultery.
It was David’s attempt to manipulate the circumstances instead of depending on God that caused that blessing to be taken. After all God had to get David and Bathsheba together as through their union came Solomon and through that lineage came Jesus.
Also not that Uriah’s and Bathsheba’s marriage sounds horrible in scriptures, there were serious problems with it.
Yes, they are inspired, the Word states - these are NOT the word of the Lord when Paul mentions that one saved spouse would save another. It is inspired by directly saying in the passage ‘these are not the words of the Lord’ - we know that to be true.
In Esra 9-10 we can see the result of marriage to women who worship foreign gods, God says divorce them and leave them and their children if they want to enter the promised land (the Kingdom of God in the NT), one spouse can not save the other.
In truth, the words were written by humans and so in reality one is taking the word of another human. I could say the same thing,and it wouldn’t be the truth,but some may believe me. Muhammad also is believed to have direct contact with God (through an angel) but that is just taking Muhammads’s word. That is why it is called faith. Faith is not proof. Once proven(if it can be) then it is no longer faith! You believe it is the word of God and so I believe you have that right, but many do not, and they have the right as well
Your argument does point out to me the unfairness of your God, who favors one child over another,and That is not a very good father or a loving one. If a human made a monster and then let it devour it’s children he would not be called good, or loving, since we use human understanding to think of how, or what a god should be, we use the same reasoning in seeing what or how a supreme being would or should act.
The reason( the OT writes) David had Uraih murdered was because he wanted to marry Bethsheba and the child was a product of aduletry.
Our soused mackerel.
There was a joke once (that sort of) described Heaven:
A man died and met St. Peter at the gate, Peter told him there were two doors,one was Heaven and the other was Hell, since he was a fairly good person he was going to let the man choose what ever door he wanted and it would be his choice.
The man listened at the first door, and there was a lot of yelling and carrying on, so he thought ,‘That must be Hell’, he went to the second door and heard soft murmmering,so he thought,‘This must be Heaven’, so he jumped in, the murmmer was don’t make a wave,(repeaded over and over) and found himself up to his neck in s–t. He said,“Oh no, this is hell”, one of the other people said." if you think this is Hell, wait’ till Morning, the Devil goes by with a motor boat"!
This from a guy named after a newt.
He got better.
This is one of the many things about Christianity (or maybe just Christians) that confuses me.
The passage you cited is about as straightforward as anything in the Bible. And it’s in the Gospel of Mark, not hidden away in Philemon or some other infrequently read part of the NT.
And yet, it’s extremely common for Christians to console each other about how they will be reunited with their loved ones in heaven. I realize that there is no limit to the ingenuity of language twisters who want to avoid an outright contradiction, and Jesus didn’t say you’ll never see them again, but the implication is pretty clear — according to Jesus, you are not going to resume your relationship with your lost wife or husband after you die.
How can people just ignore this verse?
You might be right. I’d never thought of it that way.
Not true.
Jesus is descended from Solomon, yes, which would also mean he’s descended from David. However, it’s not like Solomon was David’s only shot at being in the genealogy of Jesus. He had other kids – and suppose Solomon had never been born — was God gonna go “oops, there goes my plan, no Messiah for them!”
So no, God didn’t “have” to get David and Bathsheba together. Nor was it even his will for them to get together considering he’s never ok with adultery.
I rarely ask for cites, but in this case, I’m gonna have to. I’ve never read anything in the Bible that talked about Uriah and Bathsheba’s marriage. There’s every indication in the Bible to believe, though, that Uriah was a righteous man.
David even tried to cover up what he’d done by ordering Uriah to go home to be with his wife, hoping they’d have sex and when she turned up pregnant it’d be assumed that the baby was Uriah’s. David even went so far as to get Uriah sloshed, hoping he’d stumble home and do the deed - but being a good soldier, Uriah wanted to stay and fulfill his duties. Only after Uriah repeatedly refused to go home did David plot to get him killed.
This seems to suggest that David really had no intention of marrying Bathsheba at first - he just wanted a roll in the hay. When he couldn’t cover it up, instead of owning up to what he’d done, he just removed the husband from the situation altogether.
For her part, I really can’t put much blame on Bathsheba – David was supposedly hot so chances are she didn’t mind TOO much, but hot or not, he was king - and when the king wants you in his bedchamber, to the bedchamber you shall go.
David had a hard, hard time staying away from women and his boy Solomon was the wisest man in the world and STILL couldn’t keep it zipped. David was also not a particularly good parent - he loved his kids but wouldn’t discipline them. David did love God and when he repented he TRULY repented, which was his saving grace. But in the matter of Bathsheba and Uriah, he absolutely did wrong and it can’t possibly be sugarcoated.
They’re not ignoring it, you’re misinterpreting what they’re saying.
The book says people won’t marry in Heaven. How does “not being married” somehow mean “not ever seeing each other again” or “having no relationship whatsoever?”
Considering the marital bond with the physical death of whoever dies first, you’re absolutely right. When I run into MrPanda in heaven someday, I might know him as the guy I was married to on earth, but we won’t be husband and wife anymore.