Soul Ties?

[Dave-W]

but he doesn't seem to have much justification for making it all out to be bad, IMO.

Never said all "soul ties" (or what ever they actually are) were bad. Just those made in a sinful way.

 

[Mudinyeri]

I think it's common sense to suggest that we have connections, of sorts, to various people in our lives for various reasons. For me, the whole "branding" (soul ties), guilting and mystical tie breaking made me skittish.

 

[ImaginaryDay]

This idea of "Soul Ties" is interesting to me. I am involved in a 'healing ministry' at my church where the Pastor who developed the program focuses a whole session on the subject. for him, soul ties begin and end with any and every sexual relationship we have had or wished to have had (i.e. 'lusting'). I disagree wholeheartedly with the whole notion. For every sexual sin, I have asked forgiveness, and believe that God's grace is enough. I haven't felt this kind of 'tie' in any of these relationships, nor do I believe they still exist. This Pastor would say different.
The only person I have ever felt any kind of 'tie' or 'kinship' with (which is how I would frame it) was with an old mentor of mine who passed away several years ago. Not in the least bit 'sexual'. This man was the only person who knew everything about me - the whole story of my life. He was also a man who held a number of secrets himself, but was willing to share them with his closest friends. I was grateful to be counted among them. I also don't believe that the 'kinship' with him has been broken in any way.

 

[LinkH]

Never said all "soul ties" (or what ever they actually are) were bad. Just those made in a sinful way.

I was referring to Watchman Nee making soul power out to be a bad thing.

 

[LinkH]

brand it as soul ties.

That gives me an idea for a brand of neckwear targeted at African-American men called 'Soul Ties.' I could make literally hundreds of dollars with this idea during African American history month.

 

[Dave-W]

That gives me an idea for a brand of neckwear targeted at African-American men called 'Soul Ties.'

Only if you can go back to the 1970s. And who REALLY wants to do that???

 

[DZoolander]

That defies common sense. Imagine a 17-year-old dates a young man for a few weeks, rather innocent, burgers and ice cream at Dairy Queen, roller skating, and a movie. Now imagine that 17-year-old dates the same young man and does the same thing plus sex on every date.

If he decides to dump her for the homecoming queen, which scenario will devastate her more, the no-sex scenario or the with-sex scenario? I'd venture to guess that in nearly every case, the scenario with sex is going to be more painful and to be more likely to scar her emotionally for life. I'd venture to guess she'd be much more likely to have problems with feeling wanted, to have problems trusting men, or to have problems with sex if she'd slept with him.

Which scenario would you choose, if you had to, for your sister or daughter to go through?

I can't answer questions about what some hypothetical person may or may not feel. What I can, however, do is look at myself and others that I've known and cull down what were the consistent things between different relationships they've had. What made those relationships unique/significant - or what made them forgettable?

At least with myself - whether or not I felt deeply about a person is completely irrespective of whether or not sex had happened between us. There are people that I felt deeply for that I never touched - and there are people that I touched that I couldn't have cared less about.

I suppose had I really cared for an individual we had also had sex, it would have deepened that feeling. That's perfectly fair. But - if I really was kinda "bleh" about them - sex never made me feel any more excited about them. It never changed my mind or influenced my perception on what role that person was to play within my life. I never would have walked into a scenario saying "I don't know how I feel about this person", had sex with them, and then walked away saying "There's a wife".

It simply never carried that kind of weight with me. Truthfully - in watching other people I've known - it never carried that kind of weight with them either. People felt about others how they felt about them - regardless of whether or not they'd had sex. Sex may intensify the feelings if they were already there - but they never created or really influenced whether or not the feelings ought be there in the first place.

So to boil it down to this idea (which seems to be what people are doing) that "Any person you've had sex with has a unique soul-tie with you because of the intensity of the experience" just seems foreign and untrue to me. I can totally think back to people I've had relations with that apart from basic human concern you ought to extend to anyone - I give no thought to and have absolutely no feeling toward.

 

[DZoolander]

As for what I intend to tell my kids...?

If you're worried about homecoming dances - you're too young to be looking for "love". Have your crushes, go out on your dates, get to know people, etc... But do not look at anything during your adolescence as anything more than temporary and transitory. The person you have your crush on today you will forget about two weeks from now. The person that professes their love for you today will certainly be professing their love to someone else soon after.

...why? Because kids are fickle. Nobody under 25 is worth a damn...and that doesn't mean go out and date 25 year olds. It means understand what you're dealing with, enjoy life within those boundaries, and get yourself set up for your adult life. Focus on yourself, your schooling, etc. That's what's important now.

 

[Dave-W]

The person you have your crush on today you will forget about two weeks from now. The person that professes their love for you today will certainly be professing their love to someone else soon after.

Hmmm. Overly generalized.

I had a crush in jr high. It lasted for years.
I had an even stronger crush in high school. It lasted all 4 years.

 

[mkgal1]

Can we defy infection of a physical wound by sheer willpower, or positive thinking?

I agree with VG--physical bonding isn't what ties people together spiritually or emotionally (our souls).

Earlier (post #52) I wasn't referring to "positive thinking" or "sheer will power". I was referring to things we believe or hangups (things like being okay with enduring an unhealthy and even dangerous relationship because our fear of being alone is greater; or a person having no coping skills so they habitually turn to things that mask their pain)--those things need to get resolved in their minds for there to be healing. In order to "break free" of what some people call "soul ties" I believe it's more a matter of a person changing their mind about certain things (which is what "repentance" means.....right?). I believe our freedom is gained in stages as we learn and live out Truth.

 

[mkgal1]

I think it's common sense to suggest that we have connections, of sorts, to various people in our lives for various reasons. For me, the whole "branding" (soul ties), guilting and mystical tie breaking made me skittish.

Exactly this ^.

Also....for the people that I hold dear in my heart (including those that have passed on)...I pray that our "connection" will be eternal (which I perceive as different than the typical way "soul ties" are described).

 

[DZoolander]

Hmmm. Overly generalized.

I had a crush in jr high. It lasted for years.
I had an even stronger crush in high school. It lasted all 4 years.

Didn't go anywhere in the grand scheme of things, did it?

 

[ValleyGal]

Maybe someone should define what a soul tie actually is, and what makes some ties holy and other ties unholy.

 

[Sabertooth]

..., guilting...

I can say this much, it has nothing to do with imposing guilt on anyone, anymore than concluding that "a physical wound is infected" is an imposition of guilt... [It] is first aid...

It may be necessary to own up to some guilt to receive that healing, but, as Christians, we are expected to own up anyway.

 

[Dave-W]

Didn't go anywhere in the grand scheme of things, did it?

No; and that was my choice.

AFAIK, the first had no clue of my feelings. I never told #2 either but her best friend did know (not sure how, maybe from my friends) so she knew. Her dad even had a talk with me: "I do not allow my daughters to date before age xx." I don't remember if it was 16 or 17. But she was not far from that age at the time. I never asked her out.

 

[Dave-W]

Maybe someone should define what a soul tie actually is, and what makes some ties holy and other ties unholy.

I did already in a previous post. (#14, but it is more a description than an definition)

The problem is not everyone agrees on the definition or that they even exist.

 

[WolfGate]

Maybe someone should define what a soul tie actually is, and what makes some ties holy and other ties unholy.

My thought exactly after reading this entire thread. I generally do a pretty decent job with subjects and nuances, but I'm not doing so well with this thread.

 

[DZoolander]

That's because it's a moving target. It's a "thing" defined by an objective.

The objective is to make people believe that sex in and of itself leads to an undesired consequence. In this case, the undesired consequence is being tied in some manner or form to someone that otherwise you probably wouldn't choose to be tied to. Do you really want to be tied to some random unknown girl from the past? Multiple people who are doing God knows what nowadays?

"Think you had sex with the girl and got away consequence free? No unplanned pregnancy? No venereal disease? Haven't seen her in years? She's not stalking you? You're not beset with remorse? Well - think again. You've got a soul-tie!"

The inference is that sex is so personal, and so intense, that you cannot help but build some sort of connection...even if you're unaware of it. They're there to make you aware of it. Of course, since sex is some miraculous thing, it has to be a connection as deep as the soul. But beyond that - you're not going to get any meaningful definition.

The specifics on what that means will differ depending on who you talk to - and on what they intend to do with it after you've accepted it as being real.

 

[DZoolander]

No; and that was my choice.

AFAIK, the first had no clue of my feelings. I never told #2 either but her best friend did know (not sure how, maybe from my friends) so she knew. Her dad even had a talk with me: "I do not allow my daughters to date before age xx." I don't remember if it was 16 or 17. But she was not far from that age at the time. I never asked her out.

I had a few of those types of things as well.

In fairness though, even if you (or I) had told them, in the grand scheme of things it would have amounted to nothing. The simple fact of the matter is that relationships built in youth (without external social pressures) do not work out. Maybe you can find the 1/1000 exception to the rule - but IMHO it's stupid to go about life acting like you're going to be the exception to what otherwise is overwhelmingly true.

Youth is a period of transition - where you're learning about yourself. It's a truly rare person that can be a contributing part of an adult relationship when they don't truly even understand themselves.

 

[ValleyGal]

I did some research on the term back in the day (1980s) and decided it was somewhat of a misnomer.

There certainly is an on-going non-physical linkage between 2 people who have sex (physical linkage). Paul warns us of this:

1 Corinthians 6:16 Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, “The two shall become one flesh.”

Clearly thru scripture the husband and wife "oneness" continues on beyond just the physical act of sex, here Paul said the same thing happens with the most non-commital sex there is: prostitution. We of Trinitarian belief understand that there is one God but there are Father Son and Spirit. We often look at man made in that image as Body Soul and Spirit. But just as OT Judaism did not see God divided that way, they also did not see man divided that way either. "Body" or "soul" often indicated the WHOLE PERSON.

That being so, then the physical coupling in sex produces an ongoing linkage in both the spirit and soul realms. (not JUST the soul)

Beyond the statements of "one flesh" that can be understood to include both soul and spirit, the bible has little else to say on this subject.

But when you look at the prohibitions against non marital sex from the perspective of this ongoing linkage, it makes sense. God wants us to have linkage; but only according to how He designed us. We were not meant to have that kind of links to people we are not married to, or with people of the same gender or with animals. (or in the case of the guys who visited Lot - with angels)

IOW, it may not be the sex per se, but the linkage that results from that sex that is the real problem.

Okay, I went back and found this for a definition. I would be pretty wary of a whole doctrine built on one verse where the interpretation assumes that sex creates a permanent bond in the whole being. If that were the case, then the sex act alone would constitute marriage, but the Bible clearly states it does not.