• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Physical intimacy before marriage

Discussion in 'Singles (Only*)' started by SullivanZ, Mar 8, 2011.

  1. GQ Chris

    GQ Chris ooey gooey is for brownies, not Bible teachers

    +1,751
    Calvinist
    Single

    What did I say?
     
  2. GQ Chris

    GQ Chris ooey gooey is for brownies, not Bible teachers

    +1,751
    Calvinist
    Single
    The Bible does teach us to deal with our sins harshly. That is all I am saying.
     
  3. You are going to like them so much that it doesn't bother you, just the opposite :p
     
  4. GQ Chris

    GQ Chris ooey gooey is for brownies, not Bible teachers

    +1,751
    Calvinist
    Single
    No matter if its drinking, or porn, or gambling.
     
  5. leothelioness

    leothelioness Well-Known Member

    +4,023
    United States
    Christian
    Celibate
    Thank you, LT.

    I was discussing what this thread was specifically about which is, is non-sexual intimacy before marriage wrong? Apparently there are others here who feel that same as I do.
     
  6. Your opinions are based on culture, not the Gospel itself. I would certainly think the way you convey your words demonstrates that.
     
  7. Hypocrisy becomes a problem because it makes someone who struggles with sins that crusades against the sins of others a man (or woman) battling the supposed demons of others instead of facing their own demons and guilt.
     
  8. leothelioness

    leothelioness Well-Known Member

    +4,023
    United States
    Christian
    Celibate
    The portion that I quoted. I seemed as if you were saying that kissing, hugging, cuddling etc. werer sins. If I read that wrong my apologies to you dear Chris. :p
     
  9. Fremdin

    Fremdin Contributor

    +581
    Christian
    Private
    Just because something isn't biblically wrong doesn't mean it's a good idea. Being intimate with someone, even in a non-sexual way, is something that should be taken seriously.
     
  10. People shouldn't live in fear- they should be open to intimacy and getting hurt in the process.
     
  11. leothelioness

    leothelioness Well-Known Member

    +4,023
    United States
    Christian
    Celibate
    Well let's hope so. :D
     
  12. leothelioness

    leothelioness Well-Known Member

    +4,023
    United States
    Christian
    Celibate
    I'm just saying it isn't a bad thing for me. I cannot, nor will I speak for others.
     
  13. leothelioness

    leothelioness Well-Known Member

    +4,023
    United States
    Christian
    Celibate
    And where did Brad go? I hate it when people come in and then leave because they can't defend their positions.
     
  14. Fremdin

    Fremdin Contributor

    +581
    Christian
    Private
    I can't either. But so many forget that intimacy isn't just about the physical.
     
  15. GQ Chris

    GQ Chris ooey gooey is for brownies, not Bible teachers

    +1,751
    Calvinist
    Single
    nevermind
     
  16. leothelioness

    leothelioness Well-Known Member

    +4,023
    United States
    Christian
    Celibate
    That's true.
     
  17. leothelioness

    leothelioness Well-Known Member

    +4,023
    United States
    Christian
    Celibate
    Oh, Chris that's so wrong!! ^_^


    I have nothing against Brad. I just think his hostility is a bit misguided.
     
  18. Brad2009

    Brad2009 Newbie

    990
    +149
    Christian
    Single
    US-Libertarian
    Just picking up the end of the thread.

    To be clear, in the above, you sound as though you were not promoting physical (if short of sexual) intimacy. To be clear, you were originally condoning physical intimacy so long as it wasn't sex (although, to be fair, I don't think you were trying to condone oral sex or any such thing). But, its also a bit disingenuous to act as though there is no sexual component to the physical intimacy which you were originally condoning.

    Fine, though... I would think it would be obvious which scriptures are at issue (please feel free to provide counter-point scripture, if there are any):

    Matthew 5:27-30
    27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

    Commentary on above: Do you not see the extreme emphasis which Jesus places on keeping your mind pure? An extremely legalistic reading here would point out that canoodling is not explicitly mentioned, I suppose.

    An interesting rendering from the NIV:

    1 Corinthians 7:1-3
    1 Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband.

    Greek link for 1 Corinthians 7:1

    And the NASB rendering of 1 Corinthians 7:1
    1 Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman.

    Link to Greek haptomai (rendered, "to touch" in above verse).

    Commentary on verse - If you look at the concordance links under haptomai, you see that the word is not exclusively sexual. An 'altering touch' is what is spoken of, which I think fits with physical contact which falls short of sex.

    ------------

    That's just two of the low-hanging instances. Any dissenting verses for your side?
     
  19. Brad2009

    Brad2009 Newbie

    990
    +149
    Christian
    Single
    US-Libertarian
    I think that's actually fair. Sorry to single you out leo.
     
  20. leothelioness

    leothelioness Well-Known Member

    +4,023
    United States
    Christian
    Celibate
    No, I wasn't condoning oral sex as that's still sex. Anal, too. I was just saying that I personally don't think kissing, hugging, cuddling, hand holding, etc, was wrong before marriage. People are physical and emotional creatures and for most that's what non-sexual affection appeals to. It's not wrong and it's perfectly normal. I could never be with someone who couldn't show me affection.
     
Loading...