Physical intimacy before marriage

[GQ Chris]

Oh, please. Not you, too, Chris.

What did I say?

 

[GQ Chris]

The Bible does teach us to deal with our sins harshly. That is all I am saying.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Oh, dear. I'm the same way. I don't know what I'm going to do when I do have a relationship with someone.

You are going to like them so much that it doesn't bother you, just the opposite

 

[GQ Chris]

No matter if its drinking, or inappropriate content, or gambling.

 

[leothelioness]

um. I'm confused as well. As far as I'm aware, Leo has only talked about nonsexual signs of affection. where did she condone sin?

Thank you, LT.

I was discussing what this thread was specifically about which is, is non-sexual intimacy before marriage wrong? Apparently there are others here who feel that same as I do.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

I know that you are very very worldly in your every opinion. I have seen the way you prefer the wisdom of this age to the gospel in the case of every conflict, only acknowledging the gospel as a footnote, plausible only in lieu of a leading worldly authority on the subject.

That you find something absurd means nothing to me. Why not find some scripture? You may have already realized this, but you are going against scripture in this thread as in nearly every other one I've ever seen you post in.

You're not a dummy and you're not a worse more evil person than I am. But please turn from the worldly thinking which clouds your judgement and submit yourself to God.

Your opinions are based on culture, not the Gospel itself. I would certainly think the way you convey your words demonstrates that.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Admitting to struggling with different sins is not the same thing as agreeing with the worldly status quo of what our culture teaches.

Hypocrisy becomes a problem because it makes someone who struggles with sins that crusades against the sins of others a man (or woman) battling the supposed demons of others instead of facing their own demons and guilt.

 

[leothelioness]

What did I say?

The portion that I quoted. I seemed as if you were saying that kissing, hugging, cuddling etc. werer sins. If I read that wrong my apologies to you dear Chris.

 

[Fremdin]

Oh, please. Not you, too, Chris.

And no one has provided any scripture that specifically states that non-sexual intimacy is wrong. Maybe that's because THERE ARE NONE.

Just because something isn't biblically wrong doesn't mean it's a good idea. Being intimate with someone, even in a non-sexual way, is something that should be taken seriously.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Just because something isn't biblically wrong doesn't mean it's a good idea. Being intimate with someone, even in a non-sexual way, is something that should be taken seriously.

People shouldn't live in fear- they should be open to intimacy and getting hurt in the process.

 

[leothelioness]

You are going to like them so much that it doesn't bother you, just the opposite

Well let's hope so.

 

[leothelioness]

Just because something isn't biblically wrong doesn't mean it's a good idea. Being intimate with someone, even in a non-sexual way, is something that should be taken seriously.

I'm just saying it isn't a bad thing for me. I cannot, nor will I speak for others.

 

[leothelioness]

And where did Brad go? I hate it when people come in and then leave because they can't defend their positions.

 

[Fremdin]

I'm just saying it isn't a bad thing for me. I cannot, nor will I speak for others.

I can't either. But so many forget that intimacy isn't just about the physical.

 

[GQ Chris]

nevermind

 

[leothelioness]

That's true.

 

[leothelioness]

He probably needed to grab another beer to answer your question. (just kidding Brad)

Oh, Chris that's so wrong!!


I have nothing against Brad. I just think his hostility is a bit misguided.

 

[Brad2009]

What are you talking about? So, saying that non-sexual intimacy is okay is condoning sin? What about everyone else in this thread that has no problem with it or do you just have a personal vendetta?

And why not provide scripture since you're so intent on that?

Just picking up the end of the thread.

To be clear, in the above, you sound as though you were not promoting physical (if short of sexual) intimacy. To be clear, you were originally condoning physical intimacy so long as it wasn't sex (although, to be fair, I don't think you were trying to condone oral sex or any such thing). But, its also a bit disingenuous to act as though there is no sexual component to the physical intimacy which you were originally condoning.

Fine, though... I would think it would be obvious which scriptures are at issue (please feel free to provide counter-point scripture, if there are any):

Matthew 5:27-30
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

Commentary on above: Do you not see the extreme emphasis which Jesus places on keeping your mind pure? An extremely legalistic reading here would point out that canoodling is not explicitly mentioned, I suppose.

An interesting rendering from the NIV:

1 Corinthians 7:1-3
1 Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband.

Greek link for 1 Corinthians 7:1

And the NASB rendering of 1 Corinthians 7:1
1 Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman.

Link to Greek haptomai (rendered, "to touch" in above verse).

Commentary on verse - If you look at the concordance links under haptomai, you see that the word is not exclusively sexual. An 'altering touch' is what is spoken of, which I think fits with physical contact which falls short of sex.

------------

That's just two of the low-hanging instances. Any dissenting verses for your side?

 

[Brad2009]

Oh, Chris that's so wrong!!


I have nothing against Brad. I just think his hostility is a bit misguided.

I think that's actually fair. Sorry to single you out leo.

 

[leothelioness]

No, I wasn't condoning oral sex as that's still sex. Anal, too. I was just saying that I personally don't think kissing, hugging, cuddling, hand holding, etc, was wrong before marriage. People are physical and emotional creatures and for most that's what non-sexual affection appeals to. It's not wrong and it's perfectly normal. I could never be with someone who couldn't show me affection.