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

[createdtoworship]

Making out with girls/boys is a sin. When I was in my 20's I dated to have the novelty of saying I was dating, for the status. But I also liked the physical aspect, and so did them. At least for awhile. Then eventually, they would break up with me for being too physical. I never knew why. Because making out resembles being married to a woman. Eventually they will repent because they will want marriage instead of making out. They were in their young 20's so they had plenty of time to find a man that would marry them up. I could not afford to get married in my young 20's. Having 3 engagements broken off taught me "to go back to school." My construction job for 10 bucks an hour was not impressing the girls, but my point is this.... making out will catch up with you, because it's a sin. It's better to not be physical till "it pleases" song of Solomon says.

 

[Archivist]

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.

Please provide evidence that says that 1 Timothy applies. You have been told numerous times that 1 Timothy applies to pastors. I have provided evidence showing that. You have provided nothing. Does that mean it is alright to grab a woman’s butt? Of course not. That would be rude. You should keep your hands to yourself. Dating is not a sin.

Grabbing

 

[createdtoworship]

Please provide evidence that says that 1 Timothy applies. You have been told numerous times that 1 Timothy applies to pastors. I have provided evidence showing that. You have provided nothing. Does that mean it is alright to grab a woman’s butt? Of course not. That would be rude. You should keep your hands to yourself. Dating is not a sin.

Grabbing

sir again please quote the entire post and you will find that your "sources" are not actualy "sources"

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

 

[Archivist]

sir again please quote the entire post and you will find that your "sources" are not actualy "sources"

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

The link you provided doesn’t take me to the source I provided. How is a respected Bible dictionary not a source?

Worth noting yet again that you have provided no evidence that supports your claim that dating is a sin, only your opinion.

However, your link did take me to one of my many posts about Jacob and Rachel. They were kissing outside of marriage. Nothing in scripture says they were wrong for doing that. Scripture tells us that Rachel was very beautiful and Jacob was on love with her.

 

[createdtoworship]

The link you provided doesn’t take me to the source I provided. How is a respected Bible dictionary not a source?

Worth noting yet again that you have provided no evidence that supports your claim that dating is a sin, only your opinion.

this is the link that I put up there, that you have yet to refute. in this link, I refute your refutation. Thereby establishing my source verse as valid. If you wish to refute the timothy verse you will need to either provide another commentary that says what you say, or refute it logically or post a verse refuting it. The commentary DOES NOT SAY WHAT YOU SAY IT DOES PLEASE READ BELOW (sorry for the bold, but I wanted you to know I am addressing your commentary, and it's invalid for this discussion as it agrees with my stance not yours). But saying it's refuted over and over again does nothing for the conversation. I will do this a few more times with you, just to establish this line of thinking as invalid, then I will be done with the converstions, again I refute this idea a few posts ago:

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.

However, your link did take me to one of my many posts about Jacob and Rachel. They were kissing outside of marriage. Nothing in scripture says they were wrong for doing that. Scripture tells us that Rachel was very beautiful and Jacob was on love with her.

to further reveal that we are talking in circles, let me post my refutation a few posts ago on this line you just mentioned:

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]

this is the link that I put up there, that you have yet to refute. in this link, I refute your refutation. Thereby establishing my source verse as valid. If you wish to refute the timothy verse you will need to either provide another commentary that says what you say, or refute it logically or post a verse refuting it. The commentary DOES NOT SAY WHAT YOU SAY IT DOES PLEASE READ BELOW (sorry for the bold, but I wanted you to know I am addressing your commentary, and it's invalid for this discussion as it agrees with my stance not yours). But saying it's refuted over and over again does nothing for the conversation. I will do this a few more times with you, just to establish this line of thinking as invalid, then I will be done with the converstions, again I refute this idea a few posts ago:


to further reveal that we are talking in circles, let me post my refutation a few posts ago on this line you just mentioned:

Except this wasn’t the commentary I cited. This was a quote from the Bible itself, not a commentary.

I said this before, refuting your argument. Jacob was in love with Rachel. The Bible tells us that. That is why he kissed her. As usual, you just ignored the statements that I posted several times. This was a kiss of love, not just a kiss between cousins. Otherwise the Bible wouldn’t have made such a big deal of telling us how much Jacob lovedRachel. The Bible makes it clear that she was a very beautiful.

Now, anytime you want to provide evidence that refutes the commentary I cited regarding 1 Timothy you would be welcome to do so. I’m still waiting.

 

[createdtoworship]

Except this wasn’t the commentary I cited. This was a quote from the Bible itself, not a commentary.
I said this before, refuting your argument. Jacob was in love with Rachel. The Bible tells us that. That is why he kissed her.

laban also kissed him. Relatives kiss. It was just the thing to do in the culture. They traveled a long way and found a relative of his aunt rebekah. The Bible does not say "that is why he kissed her." You made that up. And so the point does not stand.

As usual, you just ignored the statements that I posted several times. This was a kiss of love, not just a kiss between cousins. Otherwise the Bible wouldn’t have made such a big deal of telling us how much Jacob lovedRachel. The Bible makes it clear that she was a very beautiful.

Now, anytime you want to provide evidence that refutes the commentary I cited regarding 1 Timothy you would be welcome to do so. I’m still waiting.[

so now that you know that laban also kissed him, you know it was purely platonic AT THAT POINT, and the fact he kissed laban her father in the next verse proves as such, what it does not say is that "jacob kissed her because he was in love." Again you are making this up. And it says that jacob knew rachel was his cousin in verse 6, way before saying he loved her in verse 18, which was a month later it says in verse 14. They were literally cousins, jacob was the son of labans sister it was a purely platonic kiss at the moment it happened, as was the custom, again it would be weird to give someone a romantic kiss on the very first meet and greet. That alone would cause her to run away. If a woman kissed me upon meeting me i would pull away and run, as she was way too desperate. I would be turned off because of the desperation and probably run away. In a day and age where women could be raped, a romantic kiss upon first meeting someone would be very rare. And in conclusion, this would be the first occurrence of someone kissing someone before marriage, or before committing for life. No where else in the Bible was this seen, so most likely even if it was true, it would be an aberration in light of the whole text. You can find some verses that mention suicide as well, that does not mean suicide is recommended or right, or should be considered doctrine in debate settings.

 

[Archivist]

laban also kissed him. Relatives kiss. It was just the thing to do in the culture. They traveled a long way and found a relative of his aunt rebekah. The Bible does not say "that is why he kissed her." You made that up. And so the point does not stand.

The Bible tells us that she was beautiful and that he was in love with her.

so now that you know that laban also kissed him, you know it was purely platonic AT THAT POINT, and the fact he kissed laban her father in the next verse proves as such, what it does not say is that "jacob kissed her because he was in love." Again you are making this up, the text does not state as such. The bible ONLY SAYS THAT HE WAS IN LOVE, not that he kissed her because of that love.

Except scripture never tells us the Jacob kissed Leah. Of the daughters it only says that he kissed Rachel, that she was beautiful and that he was in love with her. It is obvious that was the reason for the kiss.

 

[createdtoworship]

The Bible tells us that she was beautiful and that he was in love with her.



Except scripture never tells us the Jacob kissed Leah. Of the daughters it only says that he kissed Rachel, that she was beautiful and that he was in love with her. It is obvious that was the reason for the kiss.

but that was a month later it says he loved her, read verse 14. Way after kissing her in a platonic way as was the custom.

 

[Archivist]

but that was a month later it says he loved her, read verse 14. Way after kissing her in a platonic way as was the custom.

Proof of this please? Evidence that it was only a platonic kiss? You are very good at offering your opinion, very bad at backing it up with evidence.

Zondervan’s Bible Dictionary states that “upon his arrival, struck by Rachel’s beauty, Jacob immediately fell in love with her.” Note the word “immediately.” He didn’t fall in love with her a month later, he fell in love when he first saw her. As I said before, this was not just a kiss between cousins. If you have evidence that says otherwise, please provide it.

Oh, and I’m still waiting for you to provide evidence showing that the verse you have quoted from 1 Timothy applies to anyone other than pastors. We get lots of opinion from you but no facts.

 

[createdtoworship]

Proof of this please? Evidence that it was only a platonic kiss? You are very good at offering your opinion, very bad at backing it up with evidence.

Zondervan’s Bible Dictionary states that “upon his arrival, struck by Rachel’s beauty, Jacob immediately fell in love with her.” Note the word “immediately.” He didn’t fall in love with her a month later, he fell in love when he first saw her. As I said before, this was not just a kiss between cousins. If you have evidence that says otherwise, please provide it.

yes my proof it was platonic was that in the next verse he kissed his uncle in the exact same customary way. It was not until a month later (verse 14), that he said he loved her. (which makes sense but as I said, to go up and kiss someone and say you love them when you first meet them is sort of creepy). But if he was related to her (a cousin), it makes perfect sense. So anyway I feel I have sufficiently refuted this. so if you wish to use logical bullet points to refute my logic go ahead, or verses or commentaries. But if no further evidence is given of your viewpoint I will dismiss this whole argument and see that the plain ordinary and literal interpretation of the Bible is true, and that is that Bible verses apply to any christian that reads it unless context dictates otherwise, which it does not apparently as I will say again..

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.

 

[Archivist]

yes my proof it was platonic was that in the next verse he kissed his uncle in the exact same customary way. It was not until a month later (verse 14), that he said he loved her. (which makes sense but as I said, to go up and kiss someone and say you love them when you first meet them is sort of creepy). But if he was related to her (a cousin), it makes perfect sense. So anyway I feel I have sufficiently refuted this. so if you wish to use logical bullet points to refute my logic go ahead, or verses or commentaries. But if no further evidence is given of your viewpoint I will dismiss this whole argument and see that the plain ordinary and literal interpretation of the Bible is true, and that is that Bible verses apply to any christian that reads it unless context dictates otherwise, which it does not apparently as I will say again..

Again, all we are getting from you is your opinion which doesn’t count for much compared to the writings of experts in the field. You have refuted nothing. The points I have raised are based on the writings of experts. If you have evidence please provide it. Perhaps you haven’t offered any because all the experts agree with me.

Just out of curiosity, what advanced degrees do you have? Do you have a doctorate in Theology or Ancient History, particularly Jewish History? Are you fluent in Hebrew? I have a doctorate but it isn’t in any subject relevant to this conversation. Thats why I look things up in books and see how experts—those who know the language and the culture—interpret the verses. If you aren’t as educated as those who wrote what I have cited then your opinion doesn’t in any way best their interpretation.

You are the affirmative in this thread. Burden of proof rests with the affirmative. Thus far you have proven absolutely nothing. You have lost this debate

 

[createdtoworship]

Again, all we are getting from you is your opinion which doesn’t count for much compared to the writings of experts in the field. You have refuted nothing. The points I have raised are based on the writings of experts. If you have evidence please provide it. Perhaps you haven’t offered any because all the experts agree with me.

Just out of curiosity, what advanced degrees do you have? Do you have a doctorate in Theology or Ancient History, particularly Jewish History? Are you fluent in Hebrew? I have a doctorate but it isn’t in any subject relevant to this conversation. Thats why I look things up in books and see how experts—those who know the language and the culture—interpret the verses. If you aren’t as educated as those who wrote what I have cited then your opinion doesn’t in any way best their interpretation.

You are the affirmative in this thread. Burden of proof rests with the affirmative. Thus far you have proven absolutely nothing. You have lost this debate

sir I used logic itself to refute your arguments. See my posts. I don't need to talk about my qualifications, as that would be an appeal to authority. Just because someone has a doctorate does not mean they are right. And because some one does not have a doctorate does not mean they are wrong. I have shown how your commentaries have not supported your view, over and over. And I dont' think there is another person here that agrees with your view that timothy is written ONLY to the leading pastors, and not to the congregations that the pastor is leading (AS WELL). If this was true, timothy should not be in the Bible but in a separate pastoral book.

 

[Archivist]

sir I used logic itself to refute your arguments. See my posts. I don't need to talk about my qualifications, as that would be an appeal to authority. Just because someone has a doctorate does not mean they are right. And because some one does not have a doctorate does not mean they are wrong. I have shown how your commentaries have not supported your view, over and over. And I dont' think there is another person here that agrees with your view that timothy is written ONLY to the leading pastors, and not to the congregations that the pastor is leading (AS WELL). If this was true, timothy should not be in the Bible but in a separate pastoral book.

Actually you have not shown anything. All you have done is offer your opinion. You have refused to provide any qualifications. Therefore the sources I provided trump the opinion you have offered. You lose. Dating is not a sin.

 

[createdtoworship]

Actually you have not shown anything. All you have done is offer your opinion. You have refused to provide any qualifications. Therefore the sources I provided trump the opinion you have offered. You lose. Dating is not a sin.

Well we can agree to disagree, thanks for the debate. I don't know if I will have time later if I do I will provide some commentaries. I guess I was hoping you would see the logical errors yourself. If Timothy was ONLY to pastors as leaders and not to those he was to lead then why put it in a bible that your average layman would read? Why not put it in a separate pastoral volume?

 

[createdtoworship]

Actually you have not shown anything. All you have done is offer your opinion. You have refused to provide any qualifications. Therefore the sources I provided trump the opinion you have offered. You lose. Dating is not a sin.

First of all let me provide verses that prove the theory that timothy was only to the leader timothy and not to those with whom he would lead....

in first timothy three is a chapter on who would serve in the church. It talks about (bishops) deacons amd mentions a host of things, they should be the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, have a gift of teaching. Verse

This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
1Ti 3:2

A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1Ti 3:3

Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
1Ti 3:4

One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
1Ti 3:5

(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
1Ti 3:6

Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.

so my point is this. If this passage was only to the pastor and not to the bishop as well, it would not makes sense. For example if there was a deacon in the church that didn't fit the model, Timothy could disqualify him on this text. However if it was only to timothy then he could not. So again my viewpoint is the most common viewpoint, that yes the book is to timothy but the verses trickle down as well to those whom timothy would lead. Your view that the book is ONLY to timothy does not makes sense. So in conclusion the verse in timothy 5:1-2 is still valid for the average christian:

"Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren; The elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity."

again if this passage was for timothy only, that would indicate timothy had a purity problem and needed to be exhorted with verse 2.

 

[Archivist]

First of all let me provide verses that prove the theory that timothy was only to the leader timothy and not to those with whom he would lead....

in first timothy three is a chapter on who would serve in the church. It talks about (bishops) deacons amd mentions a host of things, they should be the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, have a gift of teaching. Verse

This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
1Ti 3:2

A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1Ti 3:3

Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
1Ti 3:4

One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
1Ti 3:5

(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
1Ti 3:6

Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.

yes, I’ve aleady said that the book is a pastoral letter.

so my point is this. If this passage was only to the pastor and not to the bishop as well, it would not makes sense. For example if there was a deacon in the church that didn't fit the model, Timothy could disqualify him on this text. However if it was only to timothy then he could not. So again my viewpoint is the most common viewpoint, that yes the book is to timothy but the verses trickle down as well to those whom timothy would lead. Your view that the book is ONLY to timothy does not makes sense.

Now you are making stuff up, because I NEVER said that the letter was only to Timothy. In fact, I specifically said on more than one occasion that it was written to Timothy but was to all the pastor. See my post 408. Stop making false accusations.

So in conclusion the verse in timothy 5:1-2 is still valid for the average christian:

"Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren; The elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity."

again if this passage was for timothy only, that would indicate timothy had a purity problem and needed to be exhorted with verse 2.

Except, as I have said multiple times, the letter wasn’t only to Timothy. It is a pastoral letter.

BTW, still waiting for any evidence from you in support of your claim that dating is a sin. All we keep getting is your opinion.

 

[createdtoworship]

yes, I’ve aleady said that the book is a pastoral letter.



Now you are making stuff up, because I NEVER said that the letter was only to Timothy. In fact, I specifically said on more than one occasion that it was written to Timothy but was to all the pastor. See my post 408. Stop making false accusations.



Except, as I have said multiple times, the letter wasn’t only to Timothy. It is a pastoral letter.

BTW, still waiting for any evidence from you. And in future posts, please be truthful and don’t put false words in my mouth.

so now you are saying it's not only to timothy but to all pastors. Ok that is different. Lets adress this new version of your story.

so if it is now referring to "all pastors' not just timothy, which pastors are you talking about?

and again in the passage, how would that apply, and which pastors were having purity problems according to 1 timothy 5:1-2?

 

[Archivist]

so now you are saying it's not only to timothy but to all pastors. Ok that is different. Lets adress this new version of your story.

so if it is now referring to "all pastors' not just timothy, which pastors are you talking about?

and again in the passage, how would that apply, and which pastors were having purity problems according to 1 timothy 5:1-2?

It isn’t anything new on my part. Now you are making stuff up. I have continually said that they are pastoral letters. Back in post 408 I specifically quoted a noted Bible dictionary that said that they were to Timothy and other pastors. I was adding that to my earlier post 457 when you posted this. Try being truthful. Again this isn’t anything new on my part.

Who said that any of the pastors were having purity issues? Paul was simply simply stating how a pastor should deal with his congregation.

Still awaiting evidence from you that supports your claim that dating is a sin.

 

[Isilwen]

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.

I haven't responded to this thread because I went ahead and did just this.

The answer I received is that dating is not a sin as it is not in the Bible as sin. Furthermore, it was a sin for you as it caused to have pre-marital sex, but it would be a sin for anyone that had pre-marital sex. For others who haven'y engaged in pre-marital sex, feeling up, etc... it is not a sin.

You cannot take what you did, which was s in, and make it a blanket ban on dating.

This is the answer I received while praying.