Dating is a sin- just be friends till your married, no need to complicate...

[createdtoworship]

No, you have taken them out of context. I and others have pointed that out. I used evidence to back what I posted, you provided nothing.



Now you are making stuff up. My girlfriend and I have visited topless and nude beaches; as I proved in another thread there is nothing wrong with nudity. Peter fished while naked, baptisms were performed in the nude in mixed company in the early church. However, I have never grabbed a woman's behind or felt a woman up. I said that before. Perhaps you did those things--after all, you engaged in premarital sex, something I have never done.



Burden of proof rests with the affirmative. In this thread that is you. Further I have offered evidence showing that you are taking that one verse out of context. You have provided nothing.



No, I have raised Jacob and Rachel several times. You have yet to address that. Jacob kissed Rachel when he first saw her because he was in love with her.



Then provide evidence that supports your understanding of 1 Timothy. Provide evidence regarding Jacob and Rachel. Burden of proof rests with you and you have utterly failed to meet your burden.

again sir I take the literal approach to the Bible. Meaning I believe what the words literally say. So the burden of proof lies on you to find sources that counter a literal approach and make the best case you can. Simply saying I am wrong is not good enough. yes others and you have pointed it out that you disagree with said interpretation, but that does not make it right. This is called the bandwagon fallacy. Which basically says, because the majority agree with something it's therefore correct. The majority may have believed the earth was flat a few hundred years ago, that did not make it the case, that is a bandwagon fallacy, also known as "appeal to the populus", or appeal to popular opinion.

 

[Archivist]

again sir I take the literal approach to the Bible. Meaning I believe what the words literally say.

Well you don’t take a very literal approach. If you did you would be reading this verse in context. Paul was writing to Timothy, a young pastor. Paul was explaining how pastors should deal with their congregation.

So the burden of proof lies on you to find sources that counter a literal approach and make the best case you can.

No, burden of proof rests with the affirmative. You made the claim that dating was a sin. It is up to you to prove it. Basic rule of debate.

Simply saying I am wrong is not good enough. yes others and you have pointed it out that you disagree with said interpretation, but that does not make it right. This is called the bandwagon fallacy. Which basically says, because the majority agree with something it's therefore correct.

Except I’ve provided evidence. You have provided nothing but your opinion, nor have you addressed the evidence I provided.

The majority may have believed the earth was flat a few hundred years ago, that did not make it the case, that is a bandwagon fallacy, also known as "appeal to the populus", or appeal to popular opinion.

But we aren’t discussing the Earth being flat, are we? We are discussing your claim that dating is a sin. It isn’t.

Oh, still waiting for you to address Jacob and Rachel. He kissed her when he first saw her, and loved her until they were married years later.

 

[Nig]

There has got to be a test of Christ likeness. I’ve often wondered how Jesus managed to be so close to women in His walk on earth and still remain dignified and honouring. Maybe something to do with the societal rules of the day that allowed Him to navigate those potential crushes that other women may have developed for Him as He would have behaved significantly different to other men in that society.

I have had a season of making right a few relationships; going to people to own my side of what I’ve done or failed to do. There was a lady that had a crush on me and I wrote to her apologising for the way I treated her when I discovered that she liked me. Prior to this revealing she was an outsider in youth group. I was “warned” about girls like her but my hearts desire was that she would find acceptance in that place and I acted towards her with that goal in mind.

I was neither kind nor did I give her the dignity and honour due her when I found out she liked me. It must have hurt her a lot.

So I apologised for my behaviour. Again weak immature character and faith at play here. This is still a difficult area to navigate and even more so as a married man.

I’ve learnt in life that we don’t exist with no impact on others around us. There’ll be an impact; good or bad.

The problem I see here in this debate is we’re mining the scriptures for principals when we should be mining the word to get to know the author; then we can live a life out of relationship rather than a principal.

 

[createdtoworship]

There has got to be a test of Christ likeness. I’ve often wondered how Jesus managed to be so close to women in His walk on earth and still remain dignified and honouring. Maybe something to do with the societal rules of the day that allowed Him to navigate those potential crushes that other women may have developed for Him as He would have behaved significantly different to other men in that society.

I have had a season of making right a few relationships; going to people to own my side of what I’ve done or failed to do. There was a lady that had a crush on me and I wrote to her apologising for the way I treated her when I discovered that she liked me. Prior to this revealing she was an outsider in youth group. I was “warned” about girls like her but my hearts desire was that she would find acceptance in that place and I acted towards her with that goal in mind.

I was neither kind nor did I give her the dignity and honour due her when I found out she liked me. It must have hurt her a lot.

So I apologised for my behaviour. Again weak immature character and faith at play here. This is still a difficult area to navigate and even more so as a married man.

I’ve learnt in life that we don’t exist with no impact on others around us. There’ll be an impact; good or bad.

The problem I see here in this debate is we’re mining the scriptures for principals when we should be mining the word to get to know the author; then we can live a life out of relationship rather than a principal.

it's so much easier to just shut someone down socially, ignore them. Be harsh to them. Because we don't want them to get the wrong idea. It's ok to not be interested in someone and not to lead them on. We simply need to display our lack of desire for them romantically in a loving and respectful way instead of just shutting them down rudely. no one wants that. If I liked a woman and she didn't like me in return, if I asked her out, I would love for her to just politely shut me down, not be rude about it. But now days I would just be friends, and pray that feelings materialized both ways. But if they didn't still it's important to trust in the greater good. God's perfect will for our lives.

 

[createdtoworship]

Well you don’t take a very literal approach. If you did you would be reading this verse in context. Paul was writing to Timothy, a young pastor. Paul was explaining how pastors should deal with their congregation.



No, burden of proof rests with the affirmative. You made the claim that dating was a sin. It is up to you to prove it. Basic rule of debate.



Except I’ve provided evidence. You have provided nothing but your opinion, nor have you addressed the evidence I provided.



But we aren’t discussing the Earth being flat, are we? We are discussing your claim that dating is a sin. It isn’t.

Oh, still waiting for you to address Jacob and Rachel. He kissed her when he first saw her, and loved her until they were married years later.

again sir I have heard this several times, and several times I have asked for commentaries that suggest that the verse in question is not to be taken literally and in general applicable to the church as a whole. All of the pastoral epistles were written to church leaders, to instruct them, but it was not for them only but for their congregations. So yes I do take the verse literally, very literal. And others are not doing that, so it ultimately boils down to believing the Bible is true, or not believing it's true.

 

[Archivist]

again sir I have heard this several times, and several times I have asked for commentaries that suggest that the verse in question is not to be taken literally and in general applicable to the church as a whole. All of the pastoral epistles were written to church leaders, to instruct them, but it was not for them only but for their congregations. So yes I do take the verse literally, very literal. And others are not doing that, so it ultimately boils down to believing the Bible is true, or not believing it's true.

And I provided proof from a respected source. You, as usual, have provided nothing but your opinion.

Still waiting for you to address Jacob and Rachel. It is safe to say that you are ignoring them because you have no answer.

Uou have lost this debate because you have failed to provide evidence to support your position

 

[createdtoworship]

And I provided proof from a respected source. You, as usual, have provided nothing but your opinion.

Still waiting for you to address Jacob and Rachel. It is safe to say that you are ignoring them because you have no answer.

Uou have lost this debate because you have failed to provide evidence to support your position

again sir nothing I have read to this date even remotely suggests that timothy for example is written solely to timothy and not to timothy's congregation. That would be like me writing a letter to a military general on how to order other privates to do warfare. Then someone saying....'oh the letter has the name of the general on it, and not the name of the privates on it, so it therefore does not apply to the military but only to the general.' Or another illustration, say for example I write a letter to a CEO of UPS and tell him that my mail was damaged when it was shipped and that he needs to talk to the workers in the mail room and/or delivery drivers and address this issue. Then some one saying, 'oh it was addressed to the CEO so it does not apply to the average worker." Again the logic of this idea simply doesn't follow. Just because the letter is adressed to timothy does not mean that timothy is not to in return relay that information to his congregation. That is why no commentators are saying what you claim. You did quote some commentaries but they never said that timothy is ONLY to timothy and not to his congregation as well. As far as rachel and jacob, I have not addressed those issues because I have not been reading your posts fully. I don't reply with bullet points to every post, as I typically use feature only with people who have a respectable debate position. I don't respect positions that don't take scripture literally. As that is self defeating to quote commentaries on a Bible that someone does not actually believe in. So in my view you don't believe what God is saying to the church timothy was in charge of. And that to me is not a respectable position, therefore I don't devote much time to it simply because it self defeats again to quote commentaries on the Bible if you do not actually believe what is said in the Bible.

 

[Archivist]

again sir nothing I have read to this date even remotely suggests that timothy for example is written solely to timothy and not to timothy's congregation.

First I didn't say that Paul was only writing to Timothy. In fact I specifically quoted Zondervan’s Bible Dictionary which states that the pastoral letters “furnish worthwhile directions to pastors,” specifically to “Paul’s special envoys sent by him on specific missions and entrusted with concrete assignments." In Paul's first letter to Timothy, Paul specifically wrote "Timothy, my son, I am giving you this command in keeping with the prophecies once made about you, so that by recalling them you may fight the battle well, holding on to faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and so have suffered shipwreck with regard to the faith."

I don’t see anything in there about the letter being directed towards anyone other than the pastor. Again, you are trying to take it well beyond what Paul was addressing.

That would be like me writing a letter to a military general on how to order other privates to do warfare. Then someone saying....'oh the letter has the name of the general on it, and not the name of the privates on it, so it therefore does not apply to the military but only to the general.' Or another illustration, say for example I write a letter to a CEO of UPS and tell him that my mail was damaged when it was shipped and that he needs to talk to the workers in the mail room and/or delivery drivers and address this issue. Then some one saying, 'oh it was addressed to the CEO so it does not apply to the average worker." Again the logic of this idea simply doesn't follow.

A letter addressed to a general or CEO is specifically for that person. It is up to them to choose what to share. Oh, and UPS does not deliver mail as you claimed, USPS does that.

Just because the letter is adressed to timothy does not mean that timothy is not to in return relay that information to his congregation.

Then provide proof of that. You continually provide nothing but opinion.

That is why no commentators are saying what you claim. You did quote some commentaries but they never said that timothy is ONLY to timothy and not to his congregation as well.

Wrong. What I quoted specifically says that the pastoral letters are to “furnish worthwhile directions to pastors.” If you have evidence to the contrary provide it. Again, al have offered in this thread is your opinion.

As far as rachel and jacob, I have not addressed those issues because I have not been reading your posts fully. I don't reply with bullet points to every post, as I typically use feature only with people who have a respectable debate position. I don't respect positions that don't take scripture literally. As that is self defeating to quote commentaries on a Bible that someone does not actually believe in. So in my view you don't believe what God is saying to the church timothy was in charge of. And that to me is not a respectable position, therefore I don't devote much time to it simply because it self defeats again to quote commentaries on the Bible if you do not actually believe what is said in the Bible.

More insults from you. Are you unable to engage in polite conversation? Earlier in the thread you said that I had "purity issues" which is interesting given that you were the one having sex outside of marriage, not me.

Exactly where did I say that I do not believe what is in the Bible? I have said no such thing. I specifically quoted the story of Rachel and Jacob to show that there is nothing wrong with being in love and kissing prior to marriage.

 

[createdtoworship]

First I didn't say that Paul was only writing to Timothy. In fact I specifically quoted Zondervan’s Bible Dictionary which states that the pastoral letters “furnish worthwhile directions to pastors,” specifically to “Paul’s special envoys sent by him on specific missions and entrusted with concrete assignments." In Paul's first letter to Timothy, Paul specifically wrote "Timothy, my son, I am giving you this command in keeping with the prophecies once made about you, so that by recalling them you may fight the battle well, holding on to faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and so have suffered shipwreck with regard to the faith."

I don’t see anything in there about the letter being directed towards anyone other than the pastor. Again, you are trying to take it well beyond what Paul was addressing.

sir you can believe the book was written to timothy alone and not anyone else, but that is a burden of proof you have not provided. I have already sufficiently refuted this idea and since you provide no further commentaries like I asked, I am closing this discussion. You can message me if you decide to further validate that timothy was written only to timothy and not for the sake of timothy's congregation. As I provided at least twice, most pastoral epistles are written to pastors of congregations to in turn be relayed to the church. Many examples of verses in those books are of issues in the churches themselves, not issues with the pastor. For instance in corinthians there was a son sleeping with his stepmother, I believe. That is not a pastoral issue, but a congregational issue. So again you MUST prove your assertions. And since you have not after several pages of debates on this issue, I am concluding it. Again message me if you find some sources that back up what you say. As it sets I will still believe that all scripture are applicable to all people in every age. As it should be. With the exception of some levitical and ceremonial laws in the old testament.

 

[Archivist]

sir you can believe the book was written to timothy alone and not anyone else, but that is a burden of proof you have not provided. I have already sufficiently refuted this idea and since you provide no further commentaries like I asked, I am closing this discussion.

Apparently you have not bothered reading my posts, because the source I quoted said that it was written to Timothy and all pastors. I never claimed that the letter was only to Timothy. It was a pastoral letter.

You can message me if you decide to further validate that timothy was written only to timothy and not for the sake of timothy's congregation.

I don’t need to message you, I can reply here. If you don’t want to reply to me that is your choice. The fact is that I have supplied evidence; you have not only offered nothing but opinion but you have ignored many of the things I have posted such as Jacob kissing Rachel years before they were married.

As I provided at least twice, most pastoral epistles are written to pastors of congregations to in turn be relayed to the church. Many examples of verses in those books are of issues in the churches themselves, not issues with the pastor.

What you provided was your opinion. You have provided no evidence to suppprt your claims. I have provided evidence.

For instance in corinthians there was a son sleeping with his stepmother, I believe. That is not a pastoral issue, but a congregational issue.

Apparently you are not aware the The Corinthian letters are not pastoral letters. The three pastoral letters in the Bible are Paul’s two letters to Timothy and his letter to Titus.

So again you MUST prove your assertions. And since you have not after several pages of debates on this issue, I am concluding it.

I have offered proof. You have offered nothing but your opinion throughout this thread. Burden of proof rests with the affirmative. You have failed to meet you burden and have lost the debate. If you don’t wish to reply that is your choice.

Again message me if you find some sources that back up what you say.

Again, I have provided evidence. You have not.

As it sets I will still believe that all scripture are applicable to all people in every age. As it should be. With the exception of some levitical and ceremonial laws in the old testament.

Again, you have failed to prove your claim that dating is a sin. Oh, I guess I will never get an answer from you regarding Rachel and Jacob. He was in love with he and was kissing her years before they were married.

 

[createdtoworship]

Apparently you have not bothered reading my posts, because the source I quoted said that it was written to Timothy and all pastors. I never claimed that the letter was only to Timothy. It was a pastoral letter.

if that is the case then it is ok to quote the verse to apply to congregations of the pastors involved. And we would not disagree. So posting this is arbitrary. And our conversation is done here. Thanks for the debate. As of now there is no refutation to the verse I posted. We are to treat all women as sisters, older women as mothers. With all purity as timothy suggests. "with all purity" means not grabbing behinds, and not sticking tongues down their throat. If you would not do that to your sister or mother, then you should not do it to another female you are allegedly dating. That is why dating as it is currently defined is a sin. Again you can redefine dating to not include the physical. But most if not everyone I talk to tend to like and appreciate the physical aspect of dating. But that is where it makes it sinful. As that is technically not your wife, that is a sister in the Lord. Then when you marry, this situation changes...."and you become one flesh."

 

[Archivist]

if that is the case then it is ok to quote the verse to apply to congregations of the pastors involved. And we would not disagree. So posting this is arbitrary.

Do you bother reading what others post? The pastoral letters were written to pastors to describe how they should relate to their congregations. 1 Timothy nowhere says that dating is a sin. Of course you don’t even know what the pastoral letters are since to earlier referenced the letters to the Corinthians as among them.

And our conversation is done here. Thanks for the debate.

This conversation is over anytime you provide evidence and prove that it is superior to the evidence I have offered. All you have done is provide opinion.

As of now there is no refutation to the verse I posted.

The verse upon which you have built you entire case applies to pastors.

We are to treat all women as sisters, older women as mothers.

Pastors are to treat women in their congregations in that way.

With all purity as timothy suggests. "with all purity" means not grabbing behinds, and not sticking tongues down their throat.

As I said before, perhaps you have grabbed the behinds of those women you have dated. I have not. I treat people, male and female, with respect. Of course, you also had sex outside of marriage, something I have never done.

If you would not do that to your sister or mother, then you should not do it to another female you are allegedly dating.

No, you shouldn’t do that because you should treat people with respect.

That is why dating as it is currently defined is a sin.

But it isn’t a sin.

Again you can redefine dating to not include the physical. But most if not everyone I talk to tend to like and appreciate the physical aspect of dating.

But dating can include the physical. Jacob and Rachel kissed before they were married. That was not a sin. You won’t address that, of course, because you case falls apart if you do.

But that is where it makes it sinful. As that is technically not your wife, that is a sister in the Lord. Then when you marry, this situation changes...."and you become one flesh."

Having premarital sex as you did is sinful. Kissing, holding hands, hugging is not. Dating is not a sin. You have lost this debate.

 

[createdtoworship]

Do you bother reading what others post? The pastoral letters were written to pastors to describe how they should relate to their congregations. 1 Timothy nowhere says that dating is a sin. Of course you don’t even know what the pastoral letters are since to earlier referenced the letters to the Corinthians as among them.



This conversation is over anytime you provide evidence and prove that it is superior to the evidence I have offered. All you have done is provide opinion.



The verse upon which you have built you entire case applies to pastors.



Pastors are to treat women in their congregations in that way.



As I said before, perhaps you have grabbed the behinds of those women you have dated. I have not. I treat people, male and female, with respect. Of course, you also had sex outside of marriage, something I have never done.



No, you shouldn’t do that because you should treat people with respect.



But it isn’t a sin.



But dating can include the physical. Jacob and Rachel kissed before they were married. That was not a sin. You won’t address that, of course, because you case falls apart if you do.



Having premarital sex as you did is sinful. Kissing, holding hands, hugging is not. Dating is not a sin. You have lost this debate.

Ok ok ok, Corinthians is not a pastoral epistle. So let's think logically here....the letter of Timothy is written to Timothy but is not applicable to Timothy or Titus church congregation. That is what I thought you meant then you said you denied that all of Timothy didn't apply but refused to specify which verses did or did not. So that theory is bunk, let's go to other ideas....say the book of Timothy was to train timothy in how to teach the church as you say but the scripture was not to the church directly bit to timothy. (If I am understanding you correctly). Then what is the point? I mean if it is to instruct Timothy how to teach a group, wouldn't he use the tips offered? For instance if Timothy was instructed that men were to treat other women as sisters, wouldn't he relay that to the congregation? So I am totally confused right now over your viewpoint. It seems very illogical. I have asked for sources to get you to see that this view of your is aberrant. But that did not work. I appreciate you pouring yourself into your posts like you do with bullet points every time. I however feel this discussion is so easily dismissed that I don't need bullets. So I hope you don't mind me only replying to your first few sentences.

 

[Archivist]

Ok ok ok, Corinthians is not a pastoral epistle. So let's think logically here....the letter of Timothy is written to Timothy but is not applicable to Timothy or Titus church congregation. That is what I thought you meant then you said you denied that all of Timothy didn't apply but refused to specify which verses did or did not. So that theory is bunk, let's go to other ideas....say the book of Timothy was to train timothy in how to teach the church as you say but the scripture was not to the church directly bit to timothy. (If I am understanding you correctly). Then what is the point? I mean if it is to instruct Timothy how to teach a group, wouldn't he use the tips offered? For instance if Timothy was instructed that men were to treat other women as sisters, wouldn't he relay that to the congregation? So I am totally confused right now over your viewpoint. It seems very illogical. I have asked for sources to get you to see that this view of your is aberrant. But that did not work. I appreciate you pouring yourself into your posts like you do with bullet points every time. I however feel this discussion is so easily dismissed that I don't need bullets. So I hope you don't mind me only replying to your first few sentences.

I have quoted material from a respected Bible dictionary. You have provided nothing other than your opinion. Don't tell me that I need to provide anything beyond what I have already provided. Burden of proof rests with the affirmative. That is you, and you have proven NOTHING.

Still waiting for a response regarding Jacob and Rachel. If he was kissing her before they were married, how is it wrong for me to kiss a woman prior to marriage. Having sex prior to marriage, as you did, is of course a sin. Dating is not.

 

[createdtoworship]

I have quoted material from a respected Bible dictionary. You have provided nothing other than your opinion. Don't tell me that I need to provide anything beyond what I have already provided. Burden of proof rests with the affirmative. That is you, and you have proven NOTHING.

Still waiting for a response regarding Jacob and Rachel. If he was kissing her before they were married, how is it wrong for me to kiss a woman prior to marriage. Having sex prior to marriage, as you did, is of course a sin. Dating is not.

Well I believe the Timothy stuff is properly refuted, since you have given up on that. Now lets go to your next idea. Jacob and Rachel, if they kissed before marriage there is two interpretations. It does not sound like proper jewish custom to do that. Ancient isreal I am not sure had marriage. I think marriage came with the laws of moses. They were committed but their was no marriage and divorce til later. That would be a second observation. When I am at a computer I will further look that up for you if you want.

 

[Archivist]

Well I believe the Timothy stuff is properly refuted, since you have given up on that. Now lets go to your next idea.

I haven’t given up on Timothy. YOU HAVE REFUTED NOTHING. All you have done in this thread is offer you opinion. Your opinion doesn’t count for much compared to a noted Bible dictionary.

Jacob and Rachel, if they kissed before marriage there is two interpretations. It does not sound like proper jewish custom to do that. Ancient isreal I am not sure had marriage. I think marriage came with the laws of moses. They were committed but their was no marriage and divorce til later. That would be a second observation. When I am at a computer I will further look that up for you if you want.

I thought you were a Bible literalist, at least that is what you claimed earlier. You are not. First you deny the intention of the two Timothy letters, then you deny the story of Jacob and Rachel. The Bible clearly states that he watered her flocks and kissed her when he first saw her. It also says that she later became his wife. I quoted the verses earlier.

You have lost this debate. Burden of proof rests with the affirmative. You have failed to prove anything. Opinion isn’t proof.

 

[createdtoworship]

I haven’t given up on Timothy. YOU HAVE REFUTED NOTHING. All you have done in this thread is offer you opinion. Your opinion doesn’t count for much compared to a noted Bible dictionary.



I thought you were a Bible literalist, at least that is what you claimed earlier. You are not. First you deny the intention of the two Timothy letters, then you deny the story of Jacob and Rachel. The Bible clearly states that he watered her flicks and kissed her when he first saw her. It also says that she later became his wife. I quoted the verses earlier.

You have lost this debate. Burden of proof rests with the affirmative. You have failed to prove anything. Opinion isn’t proof.

well that may have been the custom, to kiss someone when you married them. Do you think they had a 6 month engagement? No, they went and picked up a wife, I am not really sure she had a say in it. But I don't know. So I am not sure where you are going. But if you feel better thinking you won the debate, that's ok. I am not under the impression I need to hold any ground here. But again if you are done with this discussion then I assume you have nothing else to add. Again quoting a commentary saying the book was written to timothy, does not prove your point. You need to provide someone who agrees with your stance that the verse I quoted does not apply to average christians. And you have not done that. So I guess I don't see you being able to defend your position as you seem to think that one book proves your point. But that is in error.

 

[TheDag]

There has got to be a test of Christ likeness. I’ve often wondered how Jesus managed to be so close to women in His walk on earth and still remain dignified and honouring. Maybe something to do with the societal rules of the day that allowed Him to navigate those potential crushes that other women may have developed for Him as He would have behaved significantly different to other men in that society.

I do that every single day. You talk as if it is hard. It isn't hard to just treat people with respect and dignity.

 

[TheDag]

just read the thread, I have 20 pages of replies.

I have read the thread and it has been said by multiple people multiple times and several times by myself. That does not make it a sin. To be a sin the bible MUST be against it. So show your evidence that the bible is against it.
So far you have basically used one passage which talks about how you treat people generally speaking. It is not talking about within romantic relationships. So the passage is not speaking against dating. That means you have not provided any evidence.

You have done this in a number of threads. you have started with a view and then read things which means you subconsciously interpret it to suit your view rather than reading to find out what a passage says.

I appologize, I don't follow your logic, can you use bullet points on my post with the commentaries and greek dictionaries and use your own commentaries and greek dictionaries to refute it. We can always say my opinion is better than yours, but then you can come back and say the reverse. So it ultimately boils down to sources. If you agree with everything I posted, then I presume this debate is over.

While on the topic of greek dictionaries. When was the last time the greek dictionary you use updated in meaning of words? That is words in previous edition have different meaning in next edition. If your greek is two years old then it is questionable if not out of date.

well yes and no. Did I know much truth about life as a young man in my 20's? Not really, I sort of learned on the fly. But a 20 year old will tell you they know everything! But ask that same person at 40 if they learned anything in the last 20 years, and they will say yes! So I don't agree that revelation is instantaneous. God sometimes hides revelation from some, while giving it to others.

Wait a minute. Earlier you claimed it was plain as day now you are saying it isn't. You have contradicted yourself.

But the fact that you are resorting to appeals to emotion and arrogant character assassinations of my view means you are finding this topic insulting to you personally (and that is not my purpose), but seeing your posts are somewhat heated, and emotional... I will not reply further to your posts.

As a person who has studied communication I can assure you their post is not heated and emotional. in fact if we search threads you have started you use this as a default response when people make a point that you can't respond to.

Because according to 2 timothy 3:16, all things are either good or bad, biblical or unbiblical.

Umm no it does not say that. It says all scripture is useful for those purposes. it is stating what scripture is for not what can be found in scripture like you claim.

again sir I take the literal approach to the Bible. Meaning I believe what the words literally say. So the burden of proof lies on you to find sources that counter a literal approach and make the best case you can. Simply saying I am wrong is not good enough.

No you do not take scripture literally. You made that very clear in your thread about modesty. in one passage where it made no mention of clothes when talking about how women are to dress you decided it obviously assumed clothes. That is not literal interpretation.
Other problem with literal interpretation is that the bible was not written in english. So you can't quote a english translation and say this is fact. You have to understand the issues with translation. One of the languages is a dead language (NT) and more discoveries are being made all the time as to what words mean when they thought it meant something else. Hence why I said greek is out of date if it is more than 2 years old.

You say that people simply saying you are wrong is not good enough (although people have made excellent cases which you have not addressed) however you have decided what a passage means and you tell others they are wrong and expect them to accept it! That is double standards.
Scriptures have been given that would suggest your understanding of one single verse is wrong. you do indeed need to address that. Otherwise you are taking the extremely unorthodox christian view that the bible contradicts itself. Not a view I'm willing to agree with.

If you do take the bible literally may I ask how you are getting typed words onto screen. i have a blind friend and they have problems with voice to text. So what voice to text are you using. I'm assuming you are blind because the bible tells us to pluck our eyes out if they cause us to sin and you have admitted they do so you should have plucked your eyes out if you believe everything in the bible must be taken literally.

 

[TheDag]

As of now there is no refutation to the verse I posted.

Sorry but time to call you on this. That is an outright lie. It is outright dishonesty. I'd like to remind you that in the NT we can read that after the ressurection God struck two believers dead for telling a lie. God does not look upon lies lightly.
You have point blank refused to address evidence provided that kissing before marriage is not sinful. It has been mentioned over a dozen times to you and you have quoted those posts but never once addressed it.

You still do not get that a pastoral letter is written to pastors and are instructions for them and how they are to treat people. There are letters to church in general that talk about how we treat each other. There are parables like the good samaritan as well.

I have asked for sources to get you to see that this view of your is aberrant. But that did not work. I appreciate you pouring yourself into your posts like you do with bullet points every time. I however feel this discussion is so easily dismissed that I don't need bullets. So I hope you don't mind me only replying to your first few sentences.

It also lacks integrity to demand sources from others when you have faiuled to provide any yourself. When challenged to provide the sources you claim support your view you made excuses. You are demanding far more of others than you demand of yourself.