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

TheDag · Mar 24, 2020

createdtoworship said:
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.

Well actually that letter would be for the CEO and CEO only. What the CEO then does is for the workers however the letter still remains for the CEO only.

Once again in your response despite over 8 requests for you to provide an explanation you have totally ignored the request and declined to explain Jacob kissing Rachael. Why do you ignore that? That literally happened. It is not a metaphor which are also used in the bible.

You also make the classic mistake of confusing bible literally being word of God and being read literally. They are two very different things. Think of all the times in the gospels where Jesus said the kingdom of heaven is like... If we take literal by your definition then the kingdom of heaven is a mustard seed. It is also a feast. It is also a gem buried in a field. It is also a pearl out in the open. So not everything in the bible is meant to be taken literally. Of course every passage has something to teach us however.

TheDag · Mar 24, 2020

createdtoworship said:
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. I don't even feel threatened at this point. So 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.

Providing evidence that it was written to pastors and how they are to deal with people and situations is evidence enough.
In jewish times yes they did have betrothel period before marriage became official (consumated by sex) which happened one year later. The bible is clear Jacob did not marry Rachael straight away.
The one book they provided trumps the zero books you have provided.

Archivist · Mar 24, 2020

createdtoworship said:
well that may have been the custom, to kiss someone when you married them.

He kissed her when he first met her.

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.

Actually they had a seven year engagement, and he worked for her father for fourteen years to get her hand in marriage.

But I don't know.

You claim to be a Bible literalist, but apparently you have never read it.

So I am not sure where you are going.

If you had bothered reading what I have written you would know where I’m going because I’ve said it. They were kissing long before they were married. You say that shouldn’t happen; scripture says otherwise.

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.

You haven’t held any ground. You have offered no evidence. Affirmative has the burden of proof and you have offered none.

I don't even feel threatened at this point.

Why would loosing a debate make you feel threatened?

So again if you are done with this discussion then I assume you have nothing else to add.

No, I’ll keep replying to your posts.

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.

I have provided evidence. You have provided nothing but opinion.

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.

Then provide evidence that shows otherwise.

createdtoworship · Mar 24, 2020

TheDag said:
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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 said:
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.

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.

TheDag said:
Well actually that letter would be for the CEO and CEO only. What the CEO then does is for the workers however the letter still remains for the CEO only.

Once again in your response despite over 8 requests for you to provide an explanation you have totally ignored the request and declined to explain Jacob kissing Rachael. Why do you ignore that? That literally happened. It is not a metaphor which are also used in the bible.

You also make the classic mistake of confusing bible literally being word of God and being read literally. They are two very different things. Think of all the times in the gospels where Jesus said the kingdom of heaven is like... If we take literal by your definition then the kingdom of heaven is a mustard seed. It is also a feast. It is also a gem buried in a field. It is also a pearl out in the open. So not everything in the bible is meant to be taken literally. Of course every passage has something to teach us however.

TheDag said:
Providing evidence that it was written to pastors and how they are to deal with people and situations is evidence enough.
In jewish times yes they did have betrothel period before marriage became official (consumated by sex) which happened one year later. The bible is clear Jacob did not marry Rachael straight away.
The one book they provided trumps the zero books you have provided.

I wish I had time to reply to all of your allegations of what I said but I don't. for now I will address the very first premise you mention in your first reply.....

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.

The verse I mention is in timothy and it says to treat other women as sister and older women as mothers with all purity. Again if this was only how to treat women "in general" and not "in dating" why would the verse mention "purity?" Again when I walk up to a woman on the street that I am not interested in, there is no need to mention purity. However if I was single and I met a cute on fire christian woman who was single, I would need the exhortation to treat her with purity. Again you don't grab your sisters behind as she walks by, you don't french kiss you momma. That is just weird and disturbing. So I think the passage is very clear, the context perfectly matches that we are to treat one another with purity. (in particular the opposite sex in which we a attracted to).

Archivist · Mar 24, 2020

createdtoworship said:
The verse I mention is in timothy and it says to treat other women as sister and older women as mothers with all purity. Again if this was only how to treat women "in general" and not "in dating" why would the verse mention "purity?" Again when I walk up to a woman on the street that I am not interested in, there is no need to mention purity. However if I was single and I met a cute on fire christian woman who was single, I would need the exhortation to treat her with purity.

And, again, the two letters to Timothy were written to instruct pastors. If you have evidence that says otherwise please provide it.

Again you don't grab your sisters behind as she walks by,

Actually you shouldn’t grab any woman’s behind as she walks by. That would be rude.

you don't french kiss you momma. That is just weird and disturbing.

That would also be rude.

So I think the passage is very clear, the context perfectly matches that we are to treat one another with purity. (in particular the opposite sex in which we a attracted to).

Except the verse upon which you base your claim that dating is a sin was written for pastors. If you have evidence that says otherwise please provide it. All you have given throughout this thread is your opinion.

Nig · Mar 24, 2020

So has 1 Corinthians 36 been discussed
here?

But if any man thinks he is behaving improperly toward his virgin, if she is past the flower of youth, and thus it must be, let him do what he wishes. He does not sin; let them marry.

What do you think acting improperly towards his virgin is? Fair assumption that she’s still a virgin at this point.....

createdtoworship · Mar 24, 2020

Nig said:
So has 1 Corinthians 36 been discussed
here?

But if any man thinks he is behaving improperly toward his virgin, if she is past the flower of youth, and thus it must be, let him do what he wishes. He does not sin; let them marry.

What do you think acting improperly towards his virgin is? Fair assumption that she’s still a virgin at this point.....

very interesting observation, I will have to look into this.

createdtoworship · Mar 24, 2020

Archivist said:
And, again, the two letters to Timothy were written to instruct pastors. If you have evidence that says otherwise please provide it.

Actually you shouldn’t grab any woman’s behind as she walks by. That would be rude.

That would also be rude.

Except the verse upon which you base your claim that dating is a sin was written for pastors. If you have evidence that says otherwise please provide it. All you have given throughout this thread is your opinion.

we are starting to talk in circles now, I replied with a long post but I deleted it. If you desire answers, just go back to the last few posts. I feel I have given sufficient refutation to all of your bullets, probably four or five times. I know that you desire to label me as a pig (grabbing random women's behinds), but I said nothing of the sort. You know of what I was talking about, the context is dating. And speaking of the carnal things people do in dating, I personally have never done such acts, it was an illustration. But seeing that you would rather label me a pig, and are making a point of focusing your replies on this fact, means that we have come to a conclusion of our debate. But one more thing: I suggest praying over your viepoints. Ask God for example if french kissing someone not your spouse is ok, or if some of the views you express on other threads are good such as "christians going to nude beaches." Honestly listen to His reply. Take care now. Stay safe out in this pandemic.

Archivist · Mar 25, 2020

createdtoworship said:
I feel I have given sufficient refutation to all of your bullets, probably four or five times.

You keep referencing bullets witch is confusing because I haven’t written using bullets. (•). In any event, you haven’t refuted anything I have written “four or five times.” You haven’t refuted anything because you have provided no evidence, just opinion. I raised Jacob and Rachel, but You showed that you don’t even know what the story says.

I know that you desire to label me as a pig (grabbing random women's behinds), but I said nothing of the sort. You know of what I was talking about, the context is dating. And speaking of the carnal things people do in dating, I personally have never done such acts, it was an illustration. But seeing that you would rather label me a pig, and are making a point of focusing your replies on this fact, means that we have come to a conclusion of our debate.

Now you are making stuff up. I never said that you were a pig. I said that it would be rude for you to do that. I never said that you had done it, never referenced you using insulting terms.

But one more thing: I suggest praying over your viepoints. Ask God for example if french kissing someone not your spouse is ok, or if some of the views you express on other threads are good such as "christians going to nude beaches." Honestly listen to His reply.

And I would tell you the same thing. You are labeling something as a sin—dating—when the Bible doesn’t call it a sin. In fact scripture gives us the example of Jacob and Rachel who were kissing years before they were married. Likewise the Bible never says that topless or nude bathing is a sin. Premarital sex, on the other hand, is a sin. You have to go by what the Bible says.

Take care now. Stay safe out in this pandemic.

You too. I’ve been working from home, spending lots of time talking to my kitties. Thus far they haven’t talked back.

createdtoworship · Mar 25, 2020

Archivist said:
You keep referencing bullets witch is confusing because I haven’t written using bullets. (•). In any event, you haven’t refuted anything I have written “four or five times.” You haven’t refuted anything because you have provided no evidence, just opinion. I raised Jacob and Rachel, but You showed that you don’t even know what the story says.

on forums when someone says 'bullet points' I take that to mean, quoting small sections of their post and replying to individual sections, which is more work.

Now you are making stuff up. I never said that you were a pig. I said that it would be rude for you to do that. I never said that you had done it, never referenced you using insulting terms.

but why bring it up, it's part of your character assassination of my viewpoint. It's subtle but it's there for sure, that is how I can tell your getting heated.

And I would tell you the same thing.

I did pray about it, like I have said repeatedly, in fact I still pray about it at least once a week, sometimes 2. And I have done so for years now.

You are labeling something as a sin—dating—when the Bible doesn’t call it a sin.

I simply asked you to pray over it, and you won't do it. That to me reveals that you are afraid of what the answer might be.

In fact scripture gives us the example of Jacob and Rachel who were kissing years before they were married. Likewise the Bible never says that topless or nude bathing is a sin. Premarital sex, on the other hand, is a sin. You have to go by what the Bible says.

again I am not sure marriage was created until moses law. I am fairly sure you went up to someone, chose a wife and you were done. And so far you have not refuted that, or even questioned it for that matter. So I don't understand what you are saying quoting ancient hebrew traditions.

You too. I’ve been working from home, spending lots of time talking to my kitties. Thus far they haven’t talked back.

Well I can just see that we are going in circles, and usually when one person gets heated and starts belittling, I start to distance from the conversation.

Archivist · Mar 25, 2020

createdtoworship said:
on forums when someone says 'bullet points' I take that to mean, quoting small sections of their post and replying to individual sections, which is more work.

Technically not but OK.

but why bring it up, it's part of your character assassination of my viewpoint.

You are the one who brought up grabbing women’s behinds, not me. You raised it several times. I simply responded.

It's subtle but it's there for sure, that is how I can tell your getting heated.

I can assure you that I’m not getting heated.

I did pray about it, like I have said repeatedly, in fact I still pray about it at least once a week, sometimes 2. And I have done so for years now.

I don’t need to pray about it. Dating isn’t a sin.

I simply asked you to pray over it, and you won't do it. That to me reveals that you are afraid of what the answer might be.

But it isn’t a sin. If it were scripture would say so.

again I am not sure marriage was created until moses law. I am fairly sure you went up to someone, chose a wife and you were done. And so far you have not refuted that, or even questioned it for that matter. So I don't understand what you are saying quoting ancient hebrew traditions.

I have answered that. You just ignored it. You obviously don’t even know what the story says.

Well I can just see that we are going in circles, and usually when one person gets heated and starts belittling, I start to distance from the conversation.

Then provide evidence that supports your claims. You have offered nothing but opinion. And I haven’t belittled you. I never called you a “pig” as your said earlier. I said no such thing. If anything you are the one who has been belittling in this thread—read what you said about me on your post 371.

createdtoworship · Mar 25, 2020

Archivist said:
Technically not but OK.

You are the one who brought up grabbing women’s behinds, not me. You raised it several times. I simply responded.

I have answered that. You just ignored it. You obviously don’t even know what the story says.

Then provide evidence that supports your claims. You have offered nothing but opinion. And I haven’t belittled you. I never called you a “pig” as your said earlier. I said no such thing. If anything you are the one who has been belittling in this thread—read what you said about me on your post 371.

see what you are doing here: you said to me "you obviously don't even know what the story says." And you have said that repeatedly. Instead of saying, something nice like....."I don't think you understand the passage, here let me help you" If you were not rude about the way you talk to others your debates might go a lot farther. Lastly you provide no evidence of your accusation, just rudeness. I try to step away from a debate when I get heated, as to avoid these types of goads. But I can't make you do so. But I for one won't sit here and be berated by other posters in an immoral way.

Archivist · Mar 25, 2020

createdtoworship said:
see what you are doing here: you said to me "you obviously don't even know what the story says." And you have said that repeatedly. Instead of saying, something nice like....."I don't think you understand the passage, here let me help you" If you were not rude about the way you talk to others your debates might go a lot farther. Lastly you provide no evidence of your accusation, just rudeness. I try to step away from a debate when I get heated, as to avoid these types of goads. But I can't make you do so. But I for one won't sit here and be berated by other posters in an immoral way.

In your post 415 you wrote “Jacob and Rachel, if they kissed before marriage.” The Bible says that they kissed. There is no “if” about it. I wasn’t berating you —I was pointing out that you obviously don’t know the story. Otherwise you wouldn’t have said “if they kissed.” That isn’t goading on my part. I’m simply pointing out what you said. Remember I asked you about Jacob and Rachel at least six times before you finally bothered replying.

createdtoworship · Mar 25, 2020

Archivist said:
In your post 415 you wrote “Jacob and Rachel, if they kissed before marriage.” The Bible says that they kissed. There is no “if” about it. I wasn’t berating you —I was pointing out that you obviously don’t know the story. Otherwise you wouldn’t have said “if they kissed.” That isn’t goading on my part. I’m simply pointing out what you said. Remember I asked you about Jacob and Rachel at least six times before you finally bothered replying.

Oh I was thinking of isaac, my bad. By regardless when He kissed rachel that could have been customary for one to greet family and friends. We don't typically greet people with kisses now, a kiss is usually saved for someone we are in a committed relationship with, as the cultural norm. For more sources on the cultural aspect of kissing, it says in the new testament "greet one another with a holy kiss."

Archivist · Mar 25, 2020

createdtoworship said:
Oh I was thinking of isaac, my bad. By regardless when He kissed rachel that could have been customary for one to greet family and friends. We don't typically greet people with kisses now, a kiss is usually saved for someone we are in a committed relationship with, as the cultural norm. For more sources on the cultural aspect of kissing, it says in the new testament "greet one another with a holy kiss."

Except the Bible tells us that he was in love with her. This wasn’t a kiss between cousins or between friends. He wanted her as his wife.

Again, I’m still waiting for you to post evidence that supports your claim that dating is a sin. I’ve provided one piece of evidence that shows that the one verse you rely on was directed to pastors and you have said that I need more evidence, yet you have yet to provide any evidence. Since my one piece of evidence beats uour 0, I’m not providing any more until you provide some.

createdtoworship · Mar 25, 2020

Archivist said:
Except the Bible tells us that he was in love with her. This wasn’t a kiss between cousins or between friends. He wanted her as his wife.

they were actually cousins so he wept because he so quickly found his family, not because he found a wife.

Again, I’m still waiting for you to post evidence that supports your claim that dating is a sin. I’ve provided one piece of evidence that shows that the one verse you rely on was directed to pastors and you have said that I need more evidence, yet you have yet to provide any evidence. Since my one piece of evidence beats uour 0, I’m not providing any more until you provide some.

Biblical literalism via context trumps any commentary. I mean simply believing what is.said is more valid a form of evidence.

Archivist · Mar 25, 2020

createdtoworship said:
they were actually cousins so he wept because he so quickly found his family, not because he found a wife.

Except the Bible doesn’t say that is why he wept. Further I didn’t talk about him weeping, I specifically talk about him kissing her. The Bible said that she was very beautiful and he loved her.

Biblical literalism via context trumps any commentary. I mean simply believing what is.said is more valid a form of evidence.

No, because my evidence says that Paul’s letters to Timothy were specifically directed to Timothy and other pastors. Further you apparently don’t believe in Biblical literalism. The Bible tells us that Jacob kissed Rachel when he first saw her. Yet in your belated response to my posts regard Jacob and Rachel you said “if he kissed her.” The Bible said he kissed her, so by saying “if” you are doubting the Bible’s accuracy.

createdtoworship · Mar 25, 2020

Archivist said:
Except the Bible doesn’t say that is why he wept. Further I didn’t talk about him weeping, I specifically talk about him kissing her. The Bible said that she was very beautiful and he loved her.

yes I know but when the first thing he did was weep, I presume it is because he found his old family so soon.

No, because my evidence says that Paul’s letters to Timothy were specifically directed to Timothy and other pastors.

sir let me repeat. Just because a letter is to a leader, does not mean it does not trickle down to who that person is leading, especially if the letter regards teaching those whom the leader is to lead.

Further you apparently don’t believe in Biblical literalism. The Bible tells us that Jacob kissed Rachel when he first saw her. Yet in your belated response to my posts regard Jacob and Rachel you said “if he kissed her.” The Bible said he kissed her, so by saying “if” you are doubting the Bible’s accuracy.

yes I already confessed that i believed it was isaac you were referring to. I don't have a great memory, so I mixed up bible accounts. That is in no way a reflection on my view of biblical literacy. Now that I know he kissed her, I am saying that it was cultural to kiss family members especially if you never met them before or haven't seen them in a long time as the Bible says "greet one another with a holy kiss." In no way does that passage even remotely indicate that one is be physical with someone they are not married to.

Archivist · Mar 26, 2020

createdtoworship said:
yes I know but when the first thing he did was weep, I presume it is because he found his old family so soon.

And, again,that has nothing to do with my posts.

sir let me repeat. Just because a letter is to a leader, does not mean it does not trickle down to who that person is leading, especially if the letter regards teaching those whom the leader is to lead.

You keep offering your opinion. Evidence please. Why it it so difficult for you to do that? Perhaps because the evidence out there supports what I am saying.

yes I already confessed that i believed it was isaac you were referring to. I don't have a great memory, so I mixed up bible accounts. That is in no way a reflection on my view of biblical literacy. Now that I know he kissed her, I am saying that it was cultural to kiss family members especially if you never met them before or haven't seen them in a long time as the Bible says "greet one another with a holy kiss." In no way does that passage even remotely indicate that one is be physical with someone they are not married to.

Yet in your post 415, when you finally replied after ignoring nine posts about them, you said Jacob and Rachel. Only later did you say you thought I meant Issac. If that is so, why did you say Jacob in your earlier post?

“Greet one another with a holy kiss” is from the New Testament. Do you have evidence that it was on use as a greeting in Jacob’s time or are we just getting more opinion from you? Further, that ignores what the Bible tells us about Jacob and Rachel—she was very beautiful and he was in love with her.

createdtoworship · Mar 26, 2020

So let's bring some of the OP up at this time....

How far is too far? 1 Timothy 5:2 says to treat older women as mothers and younger women as sisters with absolute purity. I guess you don't french kiss your sister right? I guess you don't have grabby hands at your sisters behind right? No that is not absolute purity. Again friendship draws a perfect line for you. Dating as it is defined currently is a sin.

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

I don't like titles

I don't like titles

Senior Veteran

In the grip of grace

Senior Veteran

Newbie

In the grip of grace

In the grip of grace

Senior Veteran

In the grip of grace

Senior Veteran

In the grip of grace

Senior Veteran

In the grip of grace

Senior Veteran

In the grip of grace

Senior Veteran

In the grip of grace

Senior Veteran

In the grip of grace

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency