Intimacy

[Texas Lynn]

TL although the post wasn't to you I appreciate your response, and I believe it to be true that you do the best you can, as does probably the OP. But may I ask how do you determine spiritual or moral truth? (I am not implying that this cannot be done without Scripture I am only asking if not with Scripture and the Tradition of the church then what do you base knowledge of absolute truth on?)

It is my position the purpose of notions of "absolute truth" is to exercise power and control over others and I don't play that game.

 

[Texas Lynn]

There is only one God?

What, you don't think so? Are you a Pagan?

Who is that Lynn?

Who is who, "God"? I'm not capable of answering as one might describe an elephant. Neither is anyone else, but that's okay.

And you didn't answer my other question:

"What "god" (as you wrote it in your other post) did Jesus and the Apostles believe in?

I would imagine the only one there is. Why ask me? If you want to play "gotcha" go play with somebody who wants to.

 

[Tissue]

I think people did and didn't have more respect for women in centuries past. In some ways they did and in other cultures and other ways, women have been "meat" or something.

From my experience, it would be the rarest and most isolated instance in which women have been treated with proper respect in history. Even today, they are being denigrated. Some denominations will not recognize them in an official capacity has carriers of the truth of God. There are people still alive who remember when they could not vote in our 'enlightened' nation.

However, from my experience, many men of today want to be the first one to get a woman's virginity. It's like a medal prize or something in their mind when they don't really care about the woman, they just want to TAKE their virginity. And they want to keep score of how many virgins they can get. It's not out of love towards women that makes men's hearts and minds like this.

I would agree that that is not love, but I'm not sure how it's relevant to my post or point. There are in all cultures extreme examples on opposite ends of a spectrum.

Another thing, what we perceive at one time to be love in relationship really turned out to be lust not love.

This is a fair point, and something to be cautious about.

I wish more parents would tell their kids what they've learned about sex and why it is worth finding out if it's love or lust and how waiting and being cautious can help one figure this out (i.e, love or lust?). It takes time.

Another good idea. Unfortunately, the mention of sex is taboo in most standard parts of our society.

 

[Texas Lynn]

No, YOU don't know for sure - others DO know what & who is true.

Prove it.

I find this very common that people who deny scripture authenticity often apply 'not knowing' to everyone else; as if nobody CAN know something is true just becuz they cannot accept it themselves.

False. Nobody can know because that knowledge does not exist in this dimension.

& you're statement "we do the best we can".... that's been man's trouble, he cannot do well on his own.

There may be many ways to look at that. I reject the notion we must submit to the loud and assertive merely because they say we should. I spit at and defy all illegetimate usurpations of false authority between God and man. No one has any intermediate authority over another between God and the individual and the assertion otherwise must of necessity be rejected by all free people.

God didn't leave us to blindly meander thru life hoping we do ok -
we trust in Him & HIS wisdom/word/teaching & Spirit to lead & guide us... not "do the best we can" in our own strength & mentality.

Sorry but 'doing the best we can' is just not good enough and God
offers alot more than this.

Your opinion as to what "is just not good enough" is nothing anyone else is bound to accept. You have offered nothing whatsoever to support it and like all illegetimate usurpations of power and control over others it deserves the disdain it rightfully receives. In short, you possess no authority whatsoever that others are bound to accept. You do not speak for God, merely for yourself, and that is not good enough to get others to submit to you. Deal with it.

 

[Texas Lynn]

So you know because....you know. Sounds like emotion to me.

The spiritual is primarily an emotional experience rather than a cognitive one.

 

[Texas Lynn]

(pagans & Mormons feel it too)

so which God is it giving all these people these same
feelings?

There's only one God.

 

[david_x]

God is the ultimate authority and in his great wisdom he has given us a tool to judge the wolves in sheep's clothing.

 

[one11]

What, you don't think so? Are you a Pagan?



Who is who, "God"? I'm not capable of answering as one might describe an elephant. Neither is anyone else, but that's okay.



I would imagine the only one there is. Why ask me? If you want to play "gotcha" go play with somebody who wants to.

Oh brother, this quote was totally taken out of the context in which it was asked.

 

[one11]

From my experience, it would be the rarest and most isolated instance in which women have been treated with proper respect in history. Even today, they are being denigrated. Some denominations will not recognize them in an official capacity has carriers of the truth of God. There are people still alive who remember when they could not vote in our 'enlightened' nation.



I would agree that that is not love, but I'm not sure how it's relevant to my post or point. There are in all cultures extreme examples on opposite ends of a spectrum.



This is a fair point, and something to be cautious about.



Another good idea. Unfortunately, the mention of sex is taboo in most standard parts of our society.

Oh, I simply quoted your last post as it related to the Bible, cultures of the past, and modern times.

In many ways I see some prior cultures had more respect for women, family, charity, honoring parents, better work ethics, stronger capable men rather than a lot of the bums we have today etc. that I see in modern society today.

I dated some male bums that sponged off their parents and didn't know HOW TO BE A MAN because they were too coddled.

Being a strong, capable man is somewhat sort of put down in today's modern society. But I'd say if you're dating a man, watch his work ethics -- it's important. Find out what he stands for, you know what I mean? It's not always going to be a physical relationship.

Don't date a person either because you think you can change them. The only time a person can change is because THEY WANT TOO CHANGE.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Oh brother, this quote was totally taken out of the context in which it was asked.

If that is so perhaps you should be asking yourself what you could have done to prevent same.

 

[one11]

If that is so perhaps you should be asking yourself what you could have done to prevent same.

Lynn, I asked that question awhile ago. I think it was in response to posts #39 and #50 in this thread. You have an unusual way of twisting words around and I thought you were calling God a monster. Then, when you mentioned the "god" of the Hebrews as being nothing more than a god of real estate I thought you were denying God of the OT, I THEN LATER realized this may be YOUR type of Texas humor or something?

I'm trying to learn to understand your posts, but you twist words oddly at times.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Lynn, I asked that question awhile ago. I think it was in response to posts #39 and #50 in this thread. You have an unusual way of twisting words around and I thought you were calling God a monster. Then, when you mentioned the "god" of the Hebrews as being nothing more than a god of real estate I thought you were denying God of the OT, I THEN LATER realized this may be YOUR type of Texas humor or something?

I'm trying to learn to understand your posts, but you twist words oddly at times.

Do you say that because of the tired fundamentalist accusation that those with whom they disagree 'twist' scripture, as if they don't do exactly the same thing?

 

[Nadiine]

God is the ultimate authority and in his great wisdom he has given us a tool to judge the wolves in sheep's clothing.

yes He sure has - & it's too bad that more people don't use it....
but then.... we see why they don't.

 

[Nadiine]

Do you say that because of the tired fundamentalist accusation that those with whom they disagree 'twist' scripture, as if they don't do exactly the same thing?

Nobody is saying that - the issue is the gospel & main tenets of
scripture here.

There are many complex & undetailed teachings in the bible that are
easy to see different beliefs or viewpoints on. But those types of
teachings are NEVER central, main doctrine that make Christianity
what it is as a belief system.

What we have going on here are cut & dry/ black & white verses
being rejected and/or altered to suit a biased preference.
& most of it completely changes Christianity into something else
entirely.

THAT is the twisting I refer to, not twisting doctrines such as
Once saved always saved - becuz there are some obscure verses
that do seem to show you can lose salvation - while the majority
don't relay that.

That doesn't change the main principle that one MUST be saved
via Christ to enter His kingdom - just a discrepancy on the security
of the salvation... both have some merit & don't change the key
points of doctrine.

Promoting sin/evil in God's name DOES change the point of doctrine
in that we're also told that those who continue to live in sin (not repenting) will not inherit God's kingdom.
1 Cor 6:9-11, Gal. 5. & other passages incl. Revelation where God
sends many judgments & the people still refuse to repent of their
thefts, sorcery & immoralities.

There's a big difference btwn doctrinal differences & changing doctrine
to mean what it obviously doesn't.
& this is the main reason why I believe most people reject the scriptures
as God's truth to begin with.
The bible IS so clear & they dislike it - so where they have no case,
they just pretend the bible isn't true anyways.

 

[one11]

The one who in the OT directed the Hebrews to enslave women and children of captured tribes and massacre the men was a mighty evil dude, but whether that was a representation of the real God or not is not indicated.

As for the God of Israel of today, I guess people could worship real estate...

Did you even read your posts #39 and #50 Lynn? This is the post I was asking you about. How does your post have anything to do with twisting scripture? It sounds like antisemitism to me and God hating. So I asked you who Jesus and the Apostles worshiped 150 or more posts ago.

 

[Yuyuchan]

I do not think anything should go on except for a kiss to the check or innocent hugs.
God Bless. <3

 

[Texas Lynn]

Nobody is saying that - the issue is the gospel & main tenets of scripture here.

There are many complex & undetailed teachings in the bible that are
easy to see different beliefs or viewpoints on. But those types of
teachings are NEVER central, main doctrine that make Christianity
what it is as a belief system.

None of the Bible's alleged discussions of human sexuality fall into that category.

What we have going on here are cut & dry/ black & white verses
being rejected and/or altered to suit a biased preference.
& most of it completely changes Christianity into something else
entirely.

Wrong. All the 'gotcha' verses are ambiguous and subject of theological disagreement for generations. Human sexual and marriage customs have changed multiple times. The idea changing views on these issues 'change Christianity' is at best hyperbole.

THAT is the twisting I refer to, not twisting doctrines such as
Once saved always saved - becuz there are some obscure verses
that do seem to show you can lose salvation - while the majority
don't relay that.

The charge others "twist" scripture while the person making this charge supposedly does not is mere rhetoric unsupported by anything but a blind will.

[QUOTE[There's a big difference btwn doctrinal differences & changing doctrine to mean what it obviously doesn't.[/QUOTE]

Such a concept of this being "obvious" is merely an opinion unsupported by facts.

& this is the main reason why I believe most people reject the scriptures as God's truth to begin with.

This is by no means supported by any evidence.

The bible IS so clear & they dislike it - so where they have no case, they just pretend the bible isn't true anyways.

Mere insults, unsupportable by facts.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Did you even read your posts #39 and #50 Lynn? This is the post I was asking you about. How does your post have anything to do with twisting scripture? It sounds like antisemitism to me and God hating. So I asked you who Jesus and the Apostles worshiped 150 or more posts ago.

Show us the antisemitism. Show us the 'god hating'. It follows that one generally does not hate that which does not exist (as I have stated my belief the "Drunk Daddy" concept of a vengeful, evil god many fundamentalists describe is a description of something which does not exist and as such an insult to the Real God).

As to your question, I do not believe it is a respectfully presented inquiry and as such you have the answer you deserve.

 

[emilylauren]

I would say that this thread seems to have morphed into a debate over the authority/reliabilty of the Bible. I would like to respectfully suggest that this could be made into an entirly different thread and the debate be brought there.

As for intimacy I think we could define two different sorts. Friendship/platonic and romantic intimacy. I think that quite a lot of platonic physical intimacy has been lost from our culture-- we've wrapped ourselves in a tiny bubble and refuse to allow anyone in, and this saddens me. I think a lot of the "longing" we have for physical intimacy is assumed to be sexual, and we try to fill it up this way when really we could get physical intimacy from our friends and family. It is interesting to note that the early church kissed each other in greeting-- men/men, women/women, and men/women, and it was on the lips, too. This wasn't a "sexualized" kiss but just one that created intimacy between the Church members. As time went on the Church began segregating men and women from each other and then segregating the priests from the congragation.

In this American culture physical intimacy is percieved to almost always be romantic or sexual. A girl wont hold a guy's hand unless they are dating-- yet there is nothing inherently sexual about such an action. I think we as a culture tend to place too much sexual emphasis on all physical contact. That isn't to say that I think we should be "free love" and try to touch everyone as much as possible! Rather, I think we need to realize that these boundries weve put ourselves into aren't necissarily God-ordained, but cultur-ordained.

As for romantic relationships, I think the physical contact issue is harder because of the romantic feelings between the two people. For them any amount of contact is likely to be more sexualized. It is important to remember that aside from saying sex outside of marriage is wrong, Jesus said that lusting after another person is just as bad as actually having sex with them-- so is your actions cause you or your partner to lust you are going too far. (And clearly this will differ from person to person) The question then becomes, just what is lust? If you are sexually aroused does it automatically mean that lust is taking place? If you kiss your girlfriend, for example, and are aroused by the contact but don't think about having sex with her is it wrong to enjoy the feeling of arousal from being close to her? Is lust more about the feeling of sexual arousal or more about the thoughts/fantasy that creates this arousal?

Secondly, note that Paul encouraged people to flee from sexual immorality. Don't even engage in a hint of it. So often couples will try to climb right up to the edge of having sex with the intent of getting as close as they can without actually having it. But the reason Paul says to flee from sexual immorality and not engage in this sort of behavior is that if you stumbled when that close to the edge you fall off, but if you stumble farther away from the edge you are less likely to fall off the cliff.

Personally, I've never been in a relationship before but the "lines" I've drawn for myself when/if I ever do enter into one are that no sexually inimate touching should take place (i.e. "petting" as much as I hate that term) and no "passionate" kissing. The idea being that if I 'stumble' from the pre-set goals I wont fall into a situation where I'm having sex, but a situation were I'm doing one of the above things.

 

[Nadiine]

I would say that this thread seems to have morphed into a debate over the authority/reliabilty of the Bible. I would like to respectfully suggest that this could be made into an entirly different thread and the debate be brought there.

I agree.
But that is often a central foundation for alot of these posts & threads
when people make moral claims & hold moral beliefs that aren't based
on Biblical principles but their own personal opinions . . which most often counter those doctrines.

If people are rejecting the bible as truth from God for us to learn and
live by, then these thread topics may as well be in the secular areas
of CF - becuz they have no standing in Christianity,
they're secular & based on human opinion.

I'm sure that's why this debate topic keeps making its way into these threads becuz that's where the disagreements & divisions stem from at the source.