Highly controversial

[lovingboy]

How can you mutually touch if you're not lusting after her? Obviously a certain body function has to be put into effect...

Because I am not expecting anything except for her to be happy, and the thought of sex does not cross my mind. Even if you will most likeley debate that it (could) lead to sex.
To put it in a different perspective, if a woman could get an [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] from her bf kissing her (which i know of some women who's case this is) then would kissing that girl and thus causing her to [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] be considered lusting over the girl? If so, then my argument would be that kissing should effectively be no different from mutual masturbation, as it is not sex but it can be arousing.

 

[bella_song]

Alright, lets do something new, look at what the bible says reguarding these issues. True, the bible never says "Thou shalt not put your hand down your girlfriend's pants" (If your bible does, you might want a new translation ) but it does address the issue of boundaries.

In Song of Solomon, again it does not directly say what can and can't be done. It does say "I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem, by the gazelles or the wild does, do not stir up or awaken love until it is ready." (2:1-7)

The "love" in this verse is referring to physical love, i.e. physical arrousal. The time that it is "ready" is marriage. Therefore, before you are married, you should not do anything that "awakens" your body before you are married. Obviously kissing as the two of you were, awakened something in your girlfriend. It seems that the two of you need to take a BIG step back and reevaluate.

 

[Briseis]

In Song of Solomon, again it does not directly say what can and can't be done. It does say "I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem, by the gazelles or the wild does, do not stir up or awaken love until it is ready." (2:1-7)

The "love" in this verse is referring to physical love, i.e. physical arrousal. The time that it is "ready" is marriage. Therefore, before you are married, you should not do anything that "awakens" your body before you are married.

But the most subborn could still argue that if they wanted to.

 

[ByLoveAndGrace]

Look at it this way... lovingboy, if you consider masturbation to be sexual, then doesn't that fall under not having sex before marriage?? Regardless of whether or not it is lustful. And I think if someone is causing someone to lust by kissing them, then they need to back off... in answer to your question.

 

[Briseis]

I agree, ByLoveAndGrace, but lovingboy already said that he does not think that something sexual is as off limits as sex, because he considers even kissing sexual.

 

[SarcasmDispenser]

Because I am not expecting anything except for her to be happy, and the thought of sex does not cross my mind. Even if you will most likeley debate that it (could) lead to sex.
To put it in a different perspective, if a woman could get an [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] from her bf kissing her (which i know of some women who's case this is) then would kissing that girl and thus causing her to [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] be considered lusting over the girl? If so, then my argument would be that kissing should effectively be no different from mutual masturbation, as it is not sex but it can be arousing.

And you really don't see how much you're stretching to justify your actions?

 

[ByLoveAndGrace]

*Can see this is going nowhere... and no resolve will be seen, as well as not much knowledge to be gained, and very little open mindedness... so decides it's not worth the argument... because she's going to agree to disagree and leaves thread*

 

[lovingboy]

And you really don't see how much you're stretching to justify your actions?

Havce you ever taken a philosophy class and know how this kind of argumentation works? Or even debate? It is about looking at on emoral act as compared to a similar one and seeing the moralities of it.

 

[lovingboy]

In response to bella_song, the song of salomon (song of songs) is the story of how a love turns into a marriage, so it is vital to just not pull phrases and anyalize them out of context, as thye all relate to the story. The following is an interpretation done by Bible study group:

As the book begins, the young woman and young man have already met and "fallen in love." But at this point they are just boyfriend/girlfriend.

In verses 2-4a the girl voices her desire for her boyfriend's physical affection. "It is significant to this work that the girl speaks first. This young lady is not extremely diffident. She seems to see herself as of equal stature with the male. She longs to express her love to him, and she wants him to reciprocate. There is a sense in which she is the major character in this poem. This is one of the aspects of this work that makes it unique in its day. Much more of the text comes from her mouth and mind than from his. It is more her love story than it is his, though there is no failure on his part to declare his love and admiration for her."

1:2 The Hebrew word for "love" (dodim) in verse 2 refers to physical
expressions of love. The girl found her boyfriend's physical affection very stimulating.

1:3 His "oils" (v. 3) were the lotions he wore. Since the name of a person represented his character (cf. 2 Sam. 7:9), she meant his character, his whole person, was also as pleasing as oil to her and to other people. Her attraction was not due to physical factors alone.

1:4a We could translate the words, "The king has brought me into his chambers," (v. 4) as, "May the king bring me into his chambers." This is an expression of longing for intimacy. Such a desire is normal and healthy (cf. Prov. 5:18-19). The king was Solomon.

1:4b The last three lines of verse 4 were evidently the words of the daughters of Jerusalem (v. 5; cf. 2:7; 3:5, 10, 17; 5:8, 11, 16; 8:4). These may have been hometown friends of the woman,32 the female inhabitants of Jerusalem, women who display the characteristics of city girls, or the women of Solomon's harem (cf. 6:8-9). Their words here show that they approved of the romance.

1:9-10 Here Solomon reassured his love. Stallions, not mares, pulled chariots. A mare among the best of Pharaoh's stallions would have been desirable to every one of them.
"A passage from Egyptian literature demonstrates that mares were sometimes set loose in battle to allure and distract the pharaoh's chariot-harnessed stallions." Solomon meant his love was a woman whom all the best men of his court would have pursued. At this point they can now be considered engaged, as they have both expressed their love for each other.

The refrain 2:7 - This charge by Solomon occurs again later (3:5; 8:4) and serves as an indicator that one pericope has ended. The point of Solomon's words is that others desiring the kind of relationship he and his beloved enjoyed should be patient and "let love take its natural course the way they did." The gazelle is a member of the antelope family, and the hind is a female deer. Both animals are skittish, and anyone who wants to get close to them must wait patiently. One cannot approach them aggressively. Similarly a man cannot awaken a woman's love clumsily.

In the section (3:6—5:1), the writer mentioned the wedding procession (3:6-11) and the consummation (4:1—5:1).


According to this interpretation, either Salomon and his future wife commited a sin in verse 1:2 or the Bible is actually condoning sexual stimulation before marriage. What are your thoughts?

 

[Johnnz]

You are right. Christians have a wide range of beliefs usually based on their practises.

The desire to become more physically intimate is part of how God made us to function. It is perfectly healthy and normal. However, God intends marriage to be where we are fully sexual. The highest ideal for many Christians is to keep anything sexual until then. Its a tough call in many ways, but there are many who get there.

John
NZ

 

[bella_song]

In response to bella_song, the song of salomon (song of songs) is the story of how a love turns into a marriage, so it is vital to just not pull phrases and anyalize them out of context, as thye all relate to the story. The following is an interpretation done by Bible study group:

As the book begins, the young woman and young man have already met and "fallen in love." But at this point they are just boyfriend/girlfriend.

In verses 2-4a the girl voices her desire for her boyfriend's physical affection. "It is significant to this work that the girl speaks first. This young lady is not extremely diffident. She seems to see herself as of equal stature with the male. She longs to express her love to him, and she wants him to reciprocate. There is a sense in which she is the major character in this poem. This is one of the aspects of this work that makes it unique in its day. Much more of the text comes from her mouth and mind than from his. It is more her love story than it is his, though there is no failure on his part to declare his love and admiration for her."

1:2 The Hebrew word for "love" (dodim) in verse 2 refers to physical
expressions of love. The girl found her boyfriend's physical affection very stimulating.

1:3 His "oils" (v. 3) were the lotions he wore. Since the name of a person represented his character (cf. 2 Sam. 7:9), she meant his character, his whole person, was also as pleasing as oil to her and to other people. Her attraction was not due to physical factors alone.

1:4a We could translate the words, "The king has brought me into his chambers," (v. 4) as, "May the king bring me into his chambers." This is an expression of longing for intimacy. Such a desire is normal and healthy (cf. Prov. 5:18-19). The king was Solomon.

1:4b The last three lines of verse 4 were evidently the words of the daughters of Jerusalem (v. 5; cf. 2:7; 3:5, 10, 17; 5:8, 11, 16; 8:4). These may have been hometown friends of the woman,32 the female inhabitants of Jerusalem, women who display the characteristics of city girls, or the women of Solomon's harem (cf. 6:8-9). Their words here show that they approved of the romance.

1:9-10 Here Solomon reassured his love. Stallions, not mares, pulled chariots. A mare among the best of Pharaoh's stallions would have been desirable to every one of them.
"A passage from Egyptian literature demonstrates that mares were sometimes set loose in battle to allure and distract the pharaoh's chariot-harnessed stallions." Solomon meant his love was a woman whom all the best men of his court would have pursued. At this point they can now be considered engaged, as they have both expressed their love for each other.

The refrain 2:7 - This charge by Solomon occurs again later (3:5; 8:4) and serves as an indicator that one pericope has ended. The point of Solomon's words is that others desiring the kind of relationship he and his beloved enjoyed should be patient and "let love take its natural course the way they did." The gazelle is a member of the antelope family, and the hind is a female deer. Both animals are skittish, and anyone who wants to get close to them must wait patiently. One cannot approach them aggressively. Similarly a man cannot awaken a woman's love clumsily.

In the section (3:6—5:1), the writer mentioned the wedding procession (3:6-11) and the consummation (4:1—5:1).


According to this interpretation, either Salomon and his future wife commited a sin in verse 1:2 or the Bible is actually condoning sexual stimulation before marriage. What are your thoughts?

The biggest argument against what you have said is that this book is not actually written in chronological order. Because it is a poem, and as you can see in the book, many poetic liscences are taken, this idea is anything but far fetched.

They first talk about their love, and then reminisce about their wedding day, but throughout the entire thing, the woman (interestingly enough after each of the most intimate moments) warns us not to awaken love early.

 

[lin1235]

I've only skimmed through the first few pages of replies but it seems like the debate is still centered around whether or not the Bible says that mutual masturbation is wrong before marriage. Well there's a passage in Ezekiel that says:

1 The word of the LORD came again to me, saying:
2 “ Son of man, there were two women,
The daughters of one mother.
3 They committed harlotry in Egypt,
They committed harlotry in their youth;
Their breasts were there embraced,
Their virgin bosom was there pressed.

That's Ezekiel 23:1-3, by the way. The Bible describes a young virgin who allowed her breasts to be touched as a harlot, i.e. a prostitute. Now I can't say this equals your touching her in even more intimate places, but my common sense tells me if the Bible tells you to keep your hands off her breasts, it's likely NOT ok to touch her elsewhere.

Maybe someone else wants to offer a different interpretation of that scripture, but that's how I read it.

Hope you and your girl can keep your relationship pure... the world is full of Christians who regret having gone too far before marriage, including many (like me) who did NOT have sex before marriage but engaged in petting that should have been saved for marriage.

Remember, your desire for each other is a Godly thing. God has created us to desire the object of our love. To desire more intimacy with each other is natural, it's not something that happens a few seconds after you say "I do" on your wedding day. Unfortunately, our culture does not always lead us to get married once feelings have progressed to the point where desire flares up (and I'm trying to distinguish it from lust, I think in your earlier posts you were saying it wasn't lust but more a desire to give yourself to her). The struggle for you two will be to keep your relationship such that the desire does not lead you to stumble.

Do you have any idea yet of when you may get married?

 

[lovingboy]

The biggest argument against what you have said is that this book is not actually written in chronological order. Because it is a poem, and as you can see in the book, many poetic liscences are taken, this idea is anything but far fetched.

They first talk about their love, and then reminisce about their wedding day, but throughout the entire thing, the woman (interestingly enough after each of the most intimate moments) warns us not to awaken love early.

Actually, this interpretation is one of the most well accredited interpretations of this poem. The notes that I put out were snippets taken out from the notes distributed by Dr. Thomas L. Constable, Th.D., the Department Chairman and Senior Professor of Bible Exposition at Dallas Theological Seminary, who has written more than 7,000 pages of commentaries and study notes on the Bible over the past 20 years.

Here is some additional information (short bio) on Dr.Constable if you wish to know some more about him: http://www.dts.edu/about/faculty/tconstable/

 

[SarcasmDispenser]

Havce you ever taken a philosophy class and know how this kind of argumentation works?

This isn't a debate. The Bible has a strict code of purity. If you're trying to be a Bible literalist, having sex before marriage is wrong. Mutual masturbation is sex, because you are trying to bring her to [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], and you are feeling lust. (If you say you can really do this without lust, you need a new girlfriend.)


But I'm done in this thread... debating withs omeone who already has their mind figured out is worthless.

 

[lovingboy]

That's Ezekiel 23:1-3, by the way. The Bible describes a young virgin who allowed her breasts to be touched as a harlot, i.e. a prostitute.

The adopted girl who became a harlot (16:1-63).
a. God's concern for Israel: God had found in a field an abandoned, despised, and dying baby girl. Her name was Israel (16:1-5). This is a reference to Israel's bondage to the Egyptians in the first few chapters of Exodus (see especially Exod. 1:13-14; 2:23; 3:7). God graciously adopted this ragged little girl, and when she became of age, he entered into the sacred rite of marriage with her, and she legally became his elected wife (16:8). This, of course, all took place at Mount Sinai when God ratified his covenant with Israel. (See Exod. 19:5; also, compare Ezek. 16:9 with Exod. 19:14.) After the marriage, God dressed her in the most beautiful clothes, adorned her with the most costly jewels, and provided the finest food available for His beloved (16:10-14). This occurred in Israel's history during the reigns of David and Solomon (see 2 Sam. 8:11; 1 Kings 3:13;10:47).
b. Israel's contempt for God: But this little ex-orphan soon spurned all his love and faithfulness and became a common harlot of the streets (16:15-34). This intolerable action could not continue unpunished, for the beloved Husband was also the righteous Judge. He would, therefore, turn her over to her own murderous lovers to be abused and punished (16:36-41). Her wickedness by this time had even surpassed that of her older sister (Samaria, the capital of the northern kingdom) and that of her younger sister, Sodom (see Ezek.16:46-50). After he had chastened her, God would once again restore her to himself, because of his love for her and his promise to Abraham (16:53,60,63).

The two harlot sisters (23:1-49)
a. Their immorality: Two sisters begin their sad history of prostitution by engaging in immorality with the Egyptians (23:1-3).
b. Their identity: The names of these girls are Aholah and Aholiabah and are identified as Samaria and Jerusalem (23:4). The word Aholah means "her tent" and is a reference to the fact that God never approved of the false religion of Samaria (capital of the northern kingdom) as instituted by its first king, Jeroboam (see 1 Kings 12:25-33). Thus, "her tent" meant she had her own religion which did not include God. The word Aholibah means "my tent is in her," " indicating that God's presence still dwelt in the Jerusalem temple in spite of Judah's sin. It is said here, that both these girls became harlots because of their Egyptian immorality. This refers to the fact that both cities were impressed with the religious and political structures of Egypt. Aholah then began illicit relations with Assyria (23:5). This happened under northern king Menahem, who allied himself with Assyria (see 2 Kings 15:13-20). Aholibah did the same thing with Babylon (23:11). King Hezekiah treated the Babylonian representative almost as if they were gods (see 2 Kings 20:12-19; 2 Chron. 32:31). God, therefore, determined to turn both these sisters over to the full brutality of their respective lovers (23:9, 22, 24).

 

[faerieevaH]

The question is, do any of you know what the actual views of Christian values are concerning this matter? Any advice would be highly appreciated as well.


Thanks for helping out.

Lovingboy... you ask here if people know what the actual views of Christian values are concerning this matter. People give you their views, adding views of people who have thought about this matter in depth to their own point of view. The only thing you seem to do in this thread is refuting those points of view with people who support your own point of view. I'm quite sure you are very capable of finding a hundred ways to refute anything and a thousand ways to support your own viewpoint.
As a Catholic, I could refer you to the CCC: the catechism of the Catholic Church and it's paragraphs on masturbation:

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2352.htm
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2396.htm

I'm quite sure you can find a lot of people who disagree with these paragraphs and I'm quite sure you can refute me from here to China. What I wonder is ... why do you ask for the actual view of Christian values on the matter?

What happened is quite simple: you and your girlfriend started something. She decided she didn't want to go on with it (even though she may have initiated it, she clearly has second thoughts about it now) and she is embarrassed about what happens and feels it's wrong. There is no moral way you now can go about and convince her that something she feels as immoral against her faith is something that the two of you should be doing anyhow. So... a repeat is out of the question unless you truely want to convince someone to leave something they morally believe behind.
What matters then? Who was to blame? If it was wrong in the first place? Is that really what matters now? You're in a relationship with this woman... wether one of you thinks something is wrong or not doesn't matter much if the other thinks it is. You should always work with the most exacting moral standard in a relationship, otherwise one of two will have to compromise their values, and I'm certain you wouldn't wish to ask that.

This matter can't be solved by arguments for or against the morality of mutual masturbation before marriage. It can't be solved by exegesis of bible quotes which say or don't say anything about the subject. This can only be solved in your relationship by talking with the woman that matters to your heart, by accepting her decision and by resolving not do something anymore that, even though she may have initiated it in the fire of passion, goes against what she feels is right.

 

[Briseis]

The adopted girl who became a harlot (16:1-63).
a. God's concern for Israel: God had found in a field an abandoned, despised, and dying baby girl. Her name was Israel (16:1-5). This is a reference to Israel's bondage to the Egyptians in the first few chapters of Exodus (see especially Exod. 1:13-14; 2:23; 3:7). God graciously adopted this ragged little girl, and when she became of age, he entered into the sacred rite of marriage with her, and she legally became his elected wife (16:8). This, of course, all took place at Mount Sinai when God ratified his covenant with Israel. (See Exod. 19:5; also, compare Ezek. 16:9 with Exod. 19:14.) After the marriage, God dressed her in the most beautiful clothes, adorned her with the most costly jewels, and provided the finest food available for His beloved (16:10-14). This occurred in Israel's history during the reigns of David and Solomon (see 2 Sam. 8:11; 1 Kings 3:13;10:47).
b. Israel's contempt for God: But this little ex-orphan soon spurned all his love and faithfulness and became a common harlot of the streets (16:15-34). This intolerable action could not continue unpunished, for the beloved Husband was also the righteous Judge. He would, therefore, turn her over to her own murderous lovers to be abused and punished (16:36-41). Her wickedness by this time had even surpassed that of her older sister (Samaria, the capital of the northern kingdom) and that of her younger sister, Sodom (see Ezek.16:46-50). After he had chastened her, God would once again restore her to himself, because of his love for her and his promise to Abraham (16:53,60,63).

The two harlot sisters (23:1-49)
a. Their immorality: Two sisters begin their sad history of prostitution by engaging in immorality with the Egyptians (23:1-3).
b. Their identity: The names of these girls are Aholah and Aholiabah and are identified as Samaria and Jerusalem (23:4). The word Aholah means "her tent" and is a reference to the fact that God never approved of the false religion of Samaria (capital of the northern kingdom) as instituted by its first king, Jeroboam (see 1 Kings 12:25-33). Thus, "her tent" meant she had her own religion which did not include God. The word Aholibah means "my tent is in her," " indicating that God's presence still dwelt in the Jerusalem temple in spite of Judah's sin. It is said here, that both these girls became harlots because of their Egyptian immorality. This refers to the fact that both cities were impressed with the religious and political structures of Egypt. Aholah then began illicit relations with Assyria (23:5). This happened under northern king Menahem, who allied himself with Assyria (see 2 Kings 15:13-20). Aholibah did the same thing with Babylon (23:11). King Hezekiah treated the Babylonian representative almost as if they were gods (see 2 Kings 20:12-19; 2 Chron. 32:31). God, therefore, determined to turn both these sisters over to the full brutality of their respective lovers (23:9, 22, 24).

What is the point of posting all this? Are you denying the clear meaning of what lin1235 posted?

 

[lovingboy]

What happened is quite simple: you and your girlfriend started something. She decided she didn't want to go on with it (even though she may have initiated it, she clearly has second thoughts about it now) and she is embarrassed about what happens and feels it's wrong. There is no moral way you now can go about and convince her that something she feels as immoral against her faith is something that the two of you should be doing anyhow. So... a repeat is out of the question unless you truely want to convince someone to leave something they morally believe behind.
What matters then? Who was to blame? If it was wrong in the first place? Is that really what matters now? You're in a relationship with this woman... wether one of you thinks something is wrong or not doesn't matter much if the other thinks it is. You should always work with the most exacting moral standard in a relationship, otherwise one of two will have to compromise their values, and I'm certain you wouldn't wish to ask that.

This matter can't be solved by arguments for or against the morality of mutual masturbation before marriage. It can't be solved by exegesis of bible quotes which say or don't say anything about the subject. This can only be solved in your relationship by talking with the woman that matters to your heart, by accepting her decision and by resolving not do something anymore that, even though she may have initiated it in the fire of passion, goes against what she feels is right.

ok, for the 40th time, this post is not in any way intended to help me solve any problem. My actual views are established as that such actions should not be commited, I am just curious as far as Christianity goes what we belive, and even further than that, what do we base our beliefs on. I believe that questioning my own beliefs is an integral part of being a Cristian, as one should not just accept things just "because", but instead to come to a true understanding of the scriptures and not just try and find some random snippet of information on the bible and relate it to somehting completely different and just say "because I just decided that the Bible tells me so" even if the topic at hand is somethign completely different.

And I will once again repeat, I am debating (even against what I believe) in this forum because I want to make sure that I obtain a deep understanding of my own religion so that in the end I don't end up believing in my religion "juts because". And I feel that the best way is to talk to people who share similar beliefs and are under the same branch. If I wanted to just accredit an argument as being true and just follow up on such actions, I would not be here, but instead I would be taking the easy way around and just changing my religion to one that accepts that as being morally correct.

The views that i am postign through are just things that i have learned either through reading the Bible and studying it, through pastors, Bible studies groups, etc. They are not meant to insult anybody, and as I said before they are not even necessarily my beliefs, but are meant to be taken as thoughts to be considered when evaluating our own religion. I am by no menas trying to encourage this behavior, or encouranign couple to go and touch each other, all that I want is a deeper understanding of my own faith.

Sicne many of you keep asking for what I believe in, even after I have posted the intent of my discussion, here they are:
1)I believe that kissing and touching are permissible, so as long as there is no touching with either the intent of causing an [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], or when done lustfully.
2)Anythign that goes beyond the bounds of what would be "publicly accepted" should not be practiced amonst a couple until the binding of marriage has been established.
3)A relationship should be more than just a physical bind between two people, it should be a mental bind; after marriage it transcends into a complete spiritual bind between the couple through sex which allows the couple to be completly connected through God and the holy trinity.

Hope that this post clears up my intent for this information.

 

[faerieevaH]

Do you get a deeper understanding of the situation through this form of discussion?

 

[Briseis]

ok, for the 40th time, this post is not in any way intended to help me solve any problem. My actual views are established as that such actions should not be commited, I am just curious as far as Christianity goes what we belive, and even further than that, what do we base our beliefs on. I believe that questioning my own beliefs is an integral part of being a Cristian, as one should not just accept things just "because", but instead to come to a true understanding of the scriptures and not just try and find some random snippet of information on the bible and relate it to somehting completely different and just say "because I just decided that the Bible tells me so" even if the topic at hand is somethign completely different.

In that case... although it nowhere says, "Thou shalt not put your hand in your girlfriends pants," I think the accumulation of verses that have been mentioned that do refer to sexuality and purity still answer this question. Is it in the spirit of the Bible? No.