Intimacy

[david_x]

Why does every thread here turn into a debate about something completely unrelated to the original topic?

It is a defensive strategy to detract from the original argument (without losing) or caused when true meaning is not understood. (i.e. I was being hypothetical and someone took it literally one time.)

 

[Tissue]

The simple answer for why topics tend to go off on tangents is that issues like these are complicated, and depend upon a good many controversial things, such as the way in which one interprets Scripture (in this case).

 

[Nadiine]

It is a defensive strategy to detract from the original argument (without losing) or caused when true meaning is not understood. (i.e. I was being hypothetical and someone took it literally one time.)

I doubt you can judge people's motives... and as if this is all about
"winning & losing"?

as for me, my motive is in promotion of what God's word has to say
on matters like this, certainly not winning and certainly to detract from the OP..
I definitely believe that the sidetracked subject directly
relates to this OP & has bearing.
How one views scripture teaching on morality will affect one's
moral outlook & opinions.

& in backtracking, it looks like the OP started this "off topic" at the
tale end of her post.
Once people read that, the thread switched focus to why she
doesn't accept the scriptures as authoratitive.
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=50459091&postcount=79

<cut> Im getting sidetracked lol.

I find it hard to trust the bible because it was guided by god but initially written by men with authority.

 

[UnderHisWings1979]

'Sex is like air. It's no big deal unless you're not getting any.'

I always love how, with the rare exception of that individual blessed (or, perhaps, cursed) by genetics, every person I've ever heard who has extolled the ease with which abstinence is practiced is married.

I'm married and I still don't claim abstinence is easy. I have trouble when my wife and I are separated for just a few days, so waiting several years, let alone 20 or 30, is definitely no easy task (and one I failed miserably at, as previously stated, and I will always regret that).

 

[Texas Lynn]

... the thread switched focus to why she
doesn't accept the scriptures as authoratitive.

When fundamentalists claim "the scriptures are authoratative" what they mean is they place their trust in those who interpret these scriptures. Catholics traditionally put their trust in the hierarchy. Reformationists claimed to switch their allegiance to scriptures, but instead placed their allegiance in their own men without admitting it. Fundamentalism is a minority sect within Christianity. Those who adhere to it are often told there are no other sects of Christianity but this is false teaching. They confuse criticism of their sects with criticism of Christianity. The reason for the switch in focus was due to so many participants being misninformed about such things.

 

[one11]

When fundamentalists claim "the scriptures are authoratative" what they mean is they place their trust in those who interpret these scriptures. Catholics traditionally put their trust in the hierarchy. Reformationists claimed to switch their allegiance to scriptures, but instead placed their allegiance in their own men without admitting it. Fundamentalism is a minority sect within Christianity. Those who adhere to it are often told there are no other sects of Christianity but this is false teaching. They confuse criticism of their sects with criticism of Christianity. The reason for the switch in focus was due to so many participants being misninformed about such things.

For fundamentalists, who do you think we place our trust in to interpret scripture?

If you'd ask in a polite way, we'd answer: The Holy Spirit, and some of us combine archaeological studies, along with ancient Hebrew custom studies and Hebrew words. Along with the basics of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, communion and prayer. Among other things, marriage, baptism.... And the deuterocanan vs The Hebrew Bible. What's wrong with that?

As far as Catholics: It's hierarchy AND tradition, plus transubstantiation, plus the RCC deuterocanon with the apocrypha, among other things...

As far as Lutherans: It's Luther, the deuterocanan vs the Hebrew Bible, consubstantiation, among other things (see what's listed above)....

With Methodists it's............................................................................? fill in the blank. What is your Bible for one thing? And who is interpreting your scriptures? You Lynn seem to be after the interpretation of men and women as noted in your first sentence. Your posts always quote so and so and so and so. I don't see non-denominationals doing that.

So, who are the "fundementalists" above you speak of?

 

[david_x]

I doubt you can judge people's motives... and as if this is all about
"winning & losing"?

as for me, my motive is in promotion of what God's word has to say
on matters like this, certainly not winning and certainly to detract from the OP..
I definitely believe that the sidetracked subject directly
relates to this OP & has bearing.
How one views scripture teaching on morality will affect one's
moral outlook & opinions.

& in backtracking, it looks like the OP started this "off topic" at the
tale end of her post.
Once people read that, the thread switched focus to why she
doesn't accept the scriptures as authoratitive.
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=50459091&postcount=79

Don't give people to much credit, they're not terribly complicated to understand. Plus it was more of a joke than an actual attempt at the question...

 

[elephunky]

If I could of posted this in singles I would have!

 

[MarkSB]

If I could of posted this in singles I would have!

They wouldn't let you? Why not?

 

[elephunky]

Not allowd to talk about premarital sex or things to do with premarital making out

 

[Texas Lynn]

For fundamentalists, who do you think we place our trust in to interpret scripture?

If you'd ask in a polite way, we'd answer: The Holy Spirit, and some of us combine archaeological studies, along with ancient Hebrew custom studies and Hebrew words. Along with the basics of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, communion and prayer. Among other things, marriage, baptism.... And the deuterocanan vs The Hebrew Bible. What's wrong with that?

As far as Catholics: It's hierarchy AND tradition, plus transubstantiation, plus the RCC deuterocanon with the apocrypha, among other things...

As far as Lutherans: It's Luther, the deuterocanan vs the Hebrew Bible, consubstantiation, among other things (see what's listed above)....

With Methodists it's............................................................................? fill in the blank. What is your Bible for one thing? And who is interpreting your scriptures? You Lynn seem to be after the interpretation of men and women as noted in your first sentence. Your posts always quote so and so and so and so. I don't see non-denominationals doing that.

So, who are the "fundementalists" above you speak of?

Fundamentalists are those who claim to take scripture literally. Of course, they are highly selective about that.

 

[david_x]

Not allowd to talk about premarital sex or things to do with premarital making out

That's not fair, it seems to me that these are some of the strongest temptations out there for us single and premarital peoples.

(I am single, not premarital...)

 

[Armistead]

*back to topic*

If lust in the mind constitutes the sin of adultery as Jesus stated, then it all depends on what goes on in a person's mind at each "base" they get to.

Since the bible doesn't specify how far a person can go (outside of the
sex acts themselves), it's up to us to analyze our thoughts & desires for the other person & act accordingly.

I think James puts it best becuz it's so simple & covers all
sin for each person privately where specifics aren't taught
(ie. Christian liberties):

James 4:17


Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it,
to him it is sin.

Lust being taught here is not sexual in thought. Christ was teaching that lust is to covet..the desire for a man to take another mans wife. The message teaches if you desire to take another mans wife, you have coveted..lusted. Christ was defining adultery. If you plan to take something, Christ said your guilty already.

We have sexual thoughts due to God created puberty, it has nothing to do with normal sexual thoughts.

 

[Nadiine]

Not allowd to talk about premarital sex or things to do with premarital making out

But people can promote homosexuality & premarital sex HERE freely???

Ok, sorry but that makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever; esp. when
premarital sex/romance issues are seriously prevalent for singles specifically.


Honestly, I wonder about this place anymore

 

[elephunky]

That's not fair, it seems to me that these are some of the strongest temptations out there for us single and premarital peoples.

(I am single, not premarital...)

lol.

Thems are the rules

 

[elephunky]

But people can promote homosexuality & premarital sex HERE freely???

Ok, sorry but that makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever; esp. when
premarital sex/romance issues are seriously prevalent for singles specifically.


Honestly, I wonder about this place anymore

WHo said anything about promoting? You presume too much

 

[Nadiine]

Fundamentalists are those who claim to take scripture literally. Of course, they are highly selective about that.

We better be selective about that!

& you should be selective about what ISN'T literal.... like.......
oh.......... say.............
JESUS CRUCIFIXION & RAISING FROM THE DEAD perhaps?
Gosh, maybe that wasn't literally true either!
& neither were Jesus' teachings about love & giving to
the poor & not judging ....
Gee, what else can I claim isn't literal - selectively

If fundamentalists were stating that all portions of scripture were
in the literal sense, then you couldn't have any analogies, or parables, or poetry or metaphors, or anthropomorphisms, or euphamisms, etc. that we KNOW exist within the Bible.

Please - talk about being darned if you do & darned if you don't.
You spun that to attack fundamentalists either way & put us all
in a negative light.

If we claim it's ALL literal, then we're obnoxiously overboard when things
are obviously NOT literal to any sane person.
(unless of course, Jesus is a door & a mother hen with wings)

If we claim it's literal with exceptions where text obviously allows for
non literality, we're "SELECTIVE"... as if that's a bad thing.

It's in fact the ONLY way to interpret correctly since not all scripture
is literal and not all is metaphorical.
Unless we want to claim Jesus didn't LITERALLY come to this earth
in human form, fulfill the entire Law & die on a cross for sin.

 

[Nadiine]

WHo said anything about promoting? You presume too much

No dGirl, I don't presume too much (I wish that's what it was tho),
unfortunately I read it in this forum on a continual basis -
but it appears that you may think I was referring
to you in my reply?, and I wasn't.
=)

 

[one11]

Fundamentalists are those who claim to take scripture literally. Of course, they are highly selective about that.

I was trying to make you see Lynn that you are a fundamentalists in the ways you have set in your mind. It's like there's no wiggle room in there because you are so stoic about your beliefs that one cannot even plant a seed in there. I pray your heart softens some for seed planting.

 

[Nadiine]

I was trying to make you see Lynn that you are a fundamentalists in the ways you have set in your mind. It's like there's no wiggle room in there because you are so stoic about your beliefs that one cannot even plant a seed in there. I pray your heart softens some for seed planting.

excellent point & observation
I can't agree more

(I guess this is the openmindedness we're supposed to swallow I guess).