stay a virgin until marriage .

[jamie26301]

A disclaimer - I do not mean that the wedding night is not special for virgins. I only mean that I think the expectations are set too high, and could cause a bit of disappointment despite the wonderful connection. I read about a gynecologist who herself and many of her patients (she's an older woman) expressed the same "not what I expected" thoughts.

 

[Siberian_Khatru]

A disclaimer - I do not mean that the wedding night is not special for virgins. I only mean that I think the expectations are set too high, and could cause a bit of disappointment despite the wonderful connection. I read about a gynecologist who herself and many of her patients (she's an older woman) expressed the same "not what I expected" thoughts.

We can solve that by instating premonacta (kidding).

 

[jamie26301]

Well, that all-or-nothing approach has lead to the fall of faith in many believers, in this era.

Huh, this just posted not too long ago:

http://christianchat.com/christian-...arply-share-u-s-population-2.html#post2060529

 

[Olerica]

We can solve that by instating premonacta (kidding).

totally hearing the joke.... wondering who the "Lord" in this particular case might be?

 

[jamie26301]

totally hearing the joke.... wondering who the "Lord" in this particular case might be?

lol well I apparently overstayed my welcome. Passive aggressive jabs are really not necessary. If you think I'm lost, or a sinner, a false teacher, or backslidden... Do you not care enough about me to just say so? To confront "in love?" Is all this necessary? Do you care more about other people, or your doctrine? Do you care more about people, in today's world, or a book as you see it?

Again, I understand my ideas are unconvential, in giving people freedom and choices as God has done for us. By that, I simply mean that I think it is unChristlike to shun people who disagree, esp without honestly answering what they are being shunned for.

It's becoming a thread about "contending for the faith" which honestly, is just contending for details that doesn't save one way or another. I can agree and be saved, and I could agree and be damned... so, why is it soooooo imperative that one think a certain way and it doesn't even pertain to salvation?

See, this is the thing. If we all REALLY care about the lost, then why are we giving the inquirers strict guidelines and rules? Guiding is great, but it seems to me a great imbalance of priorities when standing by absolute truth is more important than someone's soul. And if the church dropped Sola Fide, and Sola Scriptura she would be a lot more consistent in the way she acts... Because it surely doesn't reflect Sola Fide.

When protecting a certain understanding of select details is more important than ushuring people into the Body; when it is more pleasing to allow people to parish into this literal hell that is taught along in this doctrine, to burn and be tormented for all eternity, than to allow them to think and live differently concerning things that are not considered in theory to be salvatic issues.... Then what we have is no longer a church, as Jesus intends it. It is a body of self-righteous white washed tombs.

Sorry for the strong words, but this is just so depressing and honestly, I grieve at times thinking about it.

 

[Practice-English]

Doing it by yourself it's impossible!
It's by the help of God that one can do it!

 

[Olerica]

lol well I apparently overstayed my welcome. Passive aggressive jabs are really not necessary. If you think I'm lost, or a sinner, a false teacher, or backslidden... Do you not care enough about me to just say so? To confront "in love?" Is all this necessary? Do you care more about other people, or your doctrine? Do you care more about people, in today's world, or a book as you see it?

Again, I understand my ideas are unconvential, in giving people freedom and choices as God has done for us. By that, I simply mean that I think it is unChristlike to shun people who disagree, esp without honestly answering what they are being shunned for.

It's becoming a thread about "contending for the faith" which honestly, is just contending for details that doesn't save one way or another. I can agree and be saved, and I could agree and be damned... so, why is it soooooo imperative that one think a certain way and it doesn't even pertain to salvation?

See, this is the thing. If we all REALLY care about the lost, then why are we giving the inquirers strict guidelines and rules? Guiding is great, but it seems to me a great imbalance of priorities when standing by absolute truth is more important than someone's soul. And if the church dropped Sola Fide, and Sola Scriptura she would be a lot more consistent in the way she acts... Because it surely doesn't reflect Sola Fide.

When protecting a certain understanding of select details is more important than ushuring people into the Body; when it is more pleasing to allow people to parish into this literal hell that is taught along in this doctrine, to burn and be tormented for all eternity, than to allow them to think and live differently concerning things that are not considered in theory to be salvatic issues.... Then what we have is no longer a church, as Jesus intends it. It is a body of self-righteous white washed tombs.

Sorry for the strong words, but this is just so depressing and honestly, I grieve at times thinking about it.

WHAT???

Siberian made a joke about premonacta.... you know, where the titled Lord of the land was granted the first night of the marriage bed? I was wondering to whom Siberian was referring. Didn't read the rest of your post, but you've totally misunderstood me here, and I'm sorry you have.

Now I'll go and read the rest of your post.

 

[Olerica]

Added after I read it. Look, you can argue your position all you want to... no, doctrine is not more important to me. I am not sure how this all landed on my head, but heck, I can be your kicking post.

I thoroughly believe in grace. I get stuff wrong all the time, and I'm open about that. If we were in person, this might come off better, there'd be more of a give and take... but in the end? I hear that you want to justify sin. That's how your position reads to me. There IS a standard of absolute - lying, theft, murder... and I believe that includes sex outside of the 1:1 bonds of marriage. You don't agree... and while it's not ok with me, I've stopped arguing with you about it. I was responding to Siberian's joke and a similar joking (I thought) manner.

If it weren't for forgiveness in my day-to-day walk with Jesus? I'd be up a certain creek sans paddle. But bless, feel free to unload.

 

[cinder]

lol well I apparently overstayed my welcome. Passive aggressive jabs are really not necessary. If you think I'm lost, or a sinner, a false teacher, or backslidden... Do you not care enough about me to just say so? To confront "in love?" Is all this necessary? Do you care more about other people, or your doctrine? Do you care more about people, in today's world, or a book as you see it?

Again, I understand my ideas are unconvential, in giving people freedom and choices as God has done for us. By that, I simply mean that I think it is unChristlike to shun people who disagree, esp without honestly answering what they are being shunned for.

It's becoming a thread about "contending for the faith" which honestly, is just contending for details that doesn't save one way or another. I can agree and be saved, and I could agree and be damned... so, why is it soooooo imperative that one think a certain way and it doesn't even pertain to salvation?

See, this is the thing. If we all REALLY care about the lost, then why are we giving the inquirers strict guidelines and rules? Guiding is great, but it seems to me a great imbalance of priorities when standing by absolute truth is more important than someone's soul. And if the church dropped Sola Fide, and Sola Scriptura she would be a lot more consistent in the way she acts... Because it surely doesn't reflect Sola Fide.

When protecting a certain understanding of select details is more important than ushuring people into the Body; when it is more pleasing to allow people to parish into this literal hell that is taught along in this doctrine, to burn and be tormented for all eternity, than to allow them to think and live differently concerning things that are not considered in theory to be salvatic issues.... Then what we have is no longer a church, as Jesus intends it. It is a body of self-righteous white washed tombs.

Sorry for the strong words, but this is just so depressing and honestly, I grieve at times thinking about it.

Well okay, if you want the in your face approach. Michael Card said it best in one of his songs, "We've made you in our image so our faith is idolatry." In other words, if you reject the best source we have for being the revelation of God (that Protestant Bible which was originally physically written by quite a few different people over a timespan of well over 1000 years and yet is still amazingly consistent in its message about who God is) and decide instead that God is defined by your thoughts and opinions and science or naturalistic theories well you aren't following Jesus, you are creating your own Jesus based on your ideas.

Most of us around here will reject your claim to be Christian (i.e. a follower of Jesus) if you reject the authority of the Bible (and consistently attacking the authority of scripture may well be construed as being anti-Christian and result in your officially being no longer welcome). Something must be authoritative in your life. We believe the Bible is authoritative and God has every right to be God and tell people how it is and make the rules, and the freedom to choose sin and rebellion against God, doesn't make it any less wrong to do so. Or as I mentioned in another thread, when did the kingdom of God become the only kingdom ever heard of where obeying the written decrees of the king is optional?

 

[jamie26301]

Added after I read it. Look, you can argue your position all you want to... no, doctrine is not more important to me. I am not sure how this all landed on my head, but heck, I can be your kicking post.

lol no malicious intent from this side. But sometimes one can get slightly defensive in some of the things you did say.

I thoroughly believe in grace. I get stuff wrong all the time, and I'm open about that. If we were in person, this might come off better, there'd be more of a give and take... but in the end? I hear that you want to justify sin. That's how your position reads to me.

That's fine. I understand. Though when *I hear* 'justify sin' it sounds to me like you think I am saying "have sex, it will be alright, don't worry about it." No, I don't. But I am not standing on an absolute about it either - and that's what I meant about a literal, conservative mindset not understanding me.

This is not to you personally, but a general observation. There's this tendency that when someone with this perspective hears an argument, that in order to understand it it has to be filed under black or white. It's confusing that it doesn't fit neatly into EITHER ONE, which is how my argument is - it's not black or white. For someone who thinks in black and white, it is labeled as compromising so they can fit it under black. It's a very limited, crippling line of reasoning, imo. Because life is FULL of choices we make to which there is more than two options.

There IS a standard of absolute - lying, theft, murder... and I believe that includes sex outside of the 1:1 bonds of marriage. You don't agree... and while it's not ok with me, I've stopped arguing with you about it.

I wince when you say arguing, instead of discussion. I've noticed a trend, and not just one this site. When someone doesn't have an absolutely harmonious understanding, and they feel pressured, it is considered arguing. If they are challenged in an uncomfortable manner, it is pushing and arguing. The whole point of discussion is throwing around ideas, but it seems few people consider that discussion anymore. It is not discussion unless everyone echos everyone else.

So far as standard of absolute, being ALWAYS WRONG or ALWAYS RIGHT... that's another animal, but an honest contemplation of morality and ethics will reveal it is NOT that simple.

I was responding to Siberian's joke and a similar joking (I thought) manner.

Well, I must have interpreted it wrong, your joke, or had a faulty understanding of the term. I do know what that is... but apparently interpreted it wrong based on my previous posts with you. Which actually illustrates what I mean about the subjective manner of Scripture.

If it weren't for forgiveness in my day-to-day walk with Jesus? I'd be up a certain creek sans paddle. But bless, feel free to unload.

Thank you. I appreciate it.

 

[jamie26301]

Most of us around here will reject your claim to be Christian (i.e. a follower of Jesus) if you reject the authority of the Bible (and consistently attacking the authority of scripture may well be construed as being anti-Christian and result in your officially being no longer welcome).

Well, that's a shame, and I would be crushed if I banned on the verdict of not being Christian.

And it's not that I have no answer for the rest of your post, but I know it will result in a back and forth where nothing I write is genuinely considered and discussed.

 

[organicbeast]

I don't know what Scripture you could point to that sensuality is wrong in a martial, sexual relationship, or too indulgent.

"Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;" [Eph 5:25]

You tell me. The above verse pretty much says it all.

Sexual intercourse within marriage is an act of love that reinforces a man/woman's relationship from the physical to the soul-level. Since the man and the woman married in the sight of God, the marriage bed is un-defiled and the man/woman have the freedom and should join their body, mind and souls in the sanctity of marriage. There is no curse upon that physical sexual union. They are free to engage in and exchange the powerful sexual-energy system that God had created for both love and reproduction. Comon Jamie you have the Song of Solomon in the Bible to read all you want. The above verse compares to the Love of Christ, so you think about if that has any significance at all?

I don't know who these anti-sex Christians you are talking about? The discussion was about carnality, and sin.

Eating is fleshly, but it was the desire for knowledge that prompted the fall, rather than a sensual inclination - at least, that's what I see. The fruit being "good to eat" was Eve's justification to herself that it couldn't be all that bad - ediable like all the other fruit.

Yes it could have been for a desire for knowledge but I think and IMO it was strangely through deception and a form of seduction that Eve and Adam fell into. Remember after the fall, Adam/Eve were ashamed and hid their physical genitals? Why did they feel that guilt/shame? Because they did something naughty with the loins of their minds!! It is the New Testament that actually proves that your Mind is also reproductive organ, that needs to absorb the seed of Christ/ Word of God and bring forth Christ. [Just like how a man and a woman physically come together and reproduce to bring forth seed] Here is that verse:
" Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;" [1 Peter 1:13]

We have physical loins, and you see the above verse talks about the loins of our mind/[spiritual]. Adam/Eve essentially lost their spiritual-virginity to the Serpent/Tree of the Knowledge of Good & Evil instead of to the Tree of LIFE/Christ.

In one of your posts above you said, that sex is interlinked with the brain. For sure it is on a physical level. Just like how your brain is connected to your body, the same brain is also connected to your mind. It is the Mind that has influence on the Brain. So you listen to your carnal mind, you will do the things of the carnal mind. The physical Brain just receives instructions from the Mind.

And yes, to be carnally-minded is death, seeing how we have all struggled with the carnal nature and we all die. I don't see what that has to do with sex inside marriage. But it is a statistical fact that one of the top five issues that gives couples problems in marriage (and often leads to adultery and divorce if not handled correctly), is sexual dissatisfaction of some kind. Incompatible sexual interests, or extreme differences in desire. Sex is an important thing, and if it is not explored in some fashion (like discussion) before marriage, it could destroy the marriage. And sex helps hold couples together, esp today, BECAUSE it is pleasing and gratifing. You partner making you feel good heightens your intimacy.

You see the problem with what you said above is a lack of faith in God with regards to the area of marriage and finding that suitable partner. I really don't know how much you know the Lord, but are you saying that God is not capable of finding that woman for a patient believer to match his tastes pertaining to desires, energy levels, and other matters of life??

The Bible says:

“House and riches are the inheritance from fathers, and a prudent wife is from the Lord.” [Prov 19:14]

"Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths." [Prov 3:5-6]

“Wait on the LORD: be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart: wait, I say, on the LORD.” [Psalm 27:14]

And yes, Sex is important in a marriage to a certain degree but it should not be made a god or an Idol in the sight of the Holy One. Where does it say in the Bible that you cannot talk about sex if the intent is not to arouse ourselves sexually [for ex: reading erotic novels, pornography and other ways to igniting sexual/sensual desires]. Kids already have sex-ed in school where they educationally learn the basics etc. etc. But if you are suggesting pre-marital sex, then that is clearly a sin because the Bible says so., and also all the ungodly soul-ties and memories that a partner brings into the marriage bed, that is pretty dirty. The holiness of the marriage bed has already been defiled.

I honestly don't know how you would guide young Christian women through this sex-obsessed and sexually-charged culture of North America. As for me with what I saw and experienced about my own carnality and sin. I would beg them to FIRST seek the Kingdom of God , and FIRST fall in LOVE with Christ. Not with any man. There is a time for that, and God himself shall find a suitable proper man for her as per the dispensation of times.

“But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen and settle you.” [1 Peter 5:10]

 

[organicbeast]

I just wanted to apologize if I offended anyone. I stand by my opinions, but perhaps they were a bit too much for some people.

But the title says Christian Chat and not Conservative Christian Chat, after all. Though I know the statement of faith reflects conservative, orthodox (Protestant) doctrine and living. So naturally, it would predominately draw those of that persuasion.

I have not always been "liberal..." but I am more "middle of the road" I believe. I catch heat from right and left, from argument to argument in various topics. But I just remind those that this site, within reason, doesn't prohibit such views being shared. So it's not reasonable to expect exclusiveness in views presented. Surely you could find a forum for that, if you wanted.

Well I hope nobody asked you to shut your mouth or not express your opinion. After all this discussion is going along mainly because of you! lol

I certainly agree with you that sex before marriage should be discussed. But it should not be acted upon. I'd say discuss about sex as much as possible from the physical to the spiritual and have full knowledge before entering marriage. There is nothing wrong with that. That's maturity I think. And of course I don't want to believe that God would just roll the dice when He findeth a spouse for me.

Jamie, if "your middle of the road" state of mind or existence, or lifestyle experience/knowledge is that a young Christian woman should experiment with her sexuality by having sex with men, and try to find out.. "hmm. what do I like?, Na I don't like this man. Lets date another man, and see what this life brings." I personally believe that is an ungodly lifestyle. I am sure the Lord Jesus would not approve of that lifestyle.

 

[cinder]

Well, that's a shame, and I would be crushed if I banned on the verdict of not being Christian.

And it's not that I have no answer for the rest of your post, but I know it will result in a back and forth where nothing I write is genuinely considered and discussed.

Well we aren't usually the vindictive types in this forum, mocking and sarcasm may occur a bit more than is fitting for those professing to love God and people, but most of us don't go out of our way to cause trouble for someone. And no I'm not out to get you banned or convince the rest of the world that you aren't a Christian, but I do very strongly feel that the authority and reliability of the Bible is a non-negotiable for the community of faith. One that is greatly under attack by those who have been influenced by secular, naturalistic world views.

You have very conveniently written me off. You are correct about it only to the extent that the argument of "you can't trust the Bible because it was written by flawed people who had their own biases and cultural limitations" is one I have already considered and rejected and restating it is not going to change my mind. On the other hand, I recently had a discussion with someone on CC who made a very compelling argument that eternal punishment might not be such a biblical position to hold. I'm not quite willing to abandon the idea of eternal punishment in hell just yet, but I've definitely been doing some thinking about what different verses in the Bible actually say versus what I've been taught they meant. And honestly the value and esteem that person showed for both God and scripture during that discussion greatly impressed me and made me think more highly of him. So disagreement is not fruitless, but the evidence and not just the conclusions (or appeals to some modern scholars think so so it must be true) needs to be presented. That is most definitely a topic for another thread however.

Beyond the authority of Scripture issue, however, you have raised some good points about how the church doesn't handle the topic of sexuality well. And you have been more respectful than many who get into debates on CC. You stick to the topic and don't resort to personal attacks or name calling. I may have come at you too harshly, as I don't know your story so I don't know where in your journey of knowing God you are. As such I have no idea of knowing if what I see at this moment in time represents a movement towards greater knowledge of God or away from it, but it would be my hope that you continue to grow in grace and in the knowledge of Christ.

 

[jamie26301]

Jamie, if "your middle of the road" state of mind or existence, or lifestyle experience/knowledge is that a young Christian woman should experiment with her sexuality by having sex with men, and try to find out.. "hmm. what do I like?, Na I don't like this man. Lets date another man, and see what this life brings." I personally believe that is an ungodly lifestyle. I am sure the Lord Jesus would not approve of that lifestyle.

Thank you for the if.

No, that's not what I mean. And I agree in terms of ungodly.

Imo, IF two people DO have sex, they should be ready to marry one another, or raise a child if that comes, together. I'm not saying hit the sack on the night he engages to her, either. I consider this a very important decision and not to be taken lightly. I think advising young people to wait for marriage is good, and it can promote in them a will for self-discipline.

The biggest place where I diverge from the rest is that I believe teens should be taught about sex - ways to protect themselves as well. I do not mean for a mother to pull out an issue of Cosmo to discuss with her teen girl. My reasoning is that it instills the understanding in the teen that this is a SERIOUS THING. And not "don't do this" serious thing. Chances are, and I was a teen once, you command a teen not to do something, it raises their curiosity. You command them not to do it, AND not teach them about protection, you could end up with a grandchild sooner than you expected.

If you treat is as a normal part of life, imo that decreases the curiosity in teaching it as a "naughty" thing. To teach it as a normal thing, it seem to me, would suggest there is nothing particularly special about it, in that they need to explore right away. Of course, they are getting that message in other ways. And your relationship with them to begin with would affect that. But here's a suggestion:

If you really want to discourage your teen, tell them "Oh sure, it's great! Your father/mother and I do it every night. What a way to take the load off!"

If that doesn't work, you're on your own.

 

[organicbeast]

Jesus came for a reason - to release us from the Law, being one of them. I see plenty of admonitions to rebuke and correct... but no where do I see an Apostle say to force or manipulate a believer into submission. To rebuke and to assume the authority of God in dictating one's actions are different, imo.

Again, I'm sorry; just responding. If anyone wants me to give my thoughts from a purely Scriptural point of view, I can do that. Up to now, I'm just addressing why in the context of our society, I think that sheltering young people and giving them a narrow view of a topic that is in reality much more broad, is counter-productive. Because they will find out any fabrications, and that won't be good.
[/QUOTE]

Dead to Sin, Alive to God
(2 Corinthians 4:7-18)1What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? 3Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: 6Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. 7For he that is dead is freed from sin.8Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: 9Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. 10For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. 11Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.12Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. 13Neither yield ye your members asinstruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your membersas instruments of righteousness unto God. 14For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

The Wages of Sin
(1 Peter 3:14-22)15What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. 16Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?17But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. 18Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. 19I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.20For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. 21What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death. 22But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. 23For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

[organicbeast]

Jesus came for a reason - to release us from the Law, being one of them. I see plenty of admonitions to rebuke and correct... but no where do I see an Apostle say to force or manipulate a believer into submission. To rebuke and to assume the authority of God in dictating one's actions are different, imo.

Again, I'm sorry; just responding. If anyone wants me to give my thoughts from a purely Scriptural point of view, I can do that. Up to now, I'm just addressing why in the context of our society, I think that sheltering young people and giving them a narrow view of a topic that is in reality much more broad, is counter-productive. Because they will find out any fabrications, and that won't be good.

Sorry, my reply to the above with regards to the scriptures it is Romans Chapter 6:

Romans Chapter 6

Dead to Sin, Alive in Christ

1 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?
2 By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?
3 Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
5 If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection.
6 For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin--
7because anyone who has died has been freed from sin.
8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him.
9 For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him.
10 The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.
11 In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus.
12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires.
13 Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness.
14 For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.

Slaves to Righteousness

15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!
16 Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey--whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?
17 But thanks be to Godthat, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted.
18 You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.
19 I put this in human terms because you are weak in your natural selves. Just as you used to offer the parts of your body in slavery to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer them in slavery to righteousness leading to holiness.
20 When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness.
21 What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of ? Those things result in death!
22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life.
23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life inChrist Jesus our Lord.

 

[jamie26301]

Well we aren't usually the vindictive types in this forum, mocking and sarcasm may occur a bit more than is fitting for those professing to love God and people, but most of us don't go out of our way to cause trouble for someone.

I did this how? It might have escalated, but if you go back to the beginning of this thread, I think I gave encouragement more than trouble.

I'm not out to get you banned or convince the rest of the world that you aren't a Christian, but I do very strongly feel that the authority and reliability of the Bible is a non-negotiable for the community of faith. One that is greatly under attack by those who have been influenced by secular, naturalistic world views.

I suppose the thing that confuses me, and I've stated this before I think, is that if believing on Jesus Christ, repenting and receiving the forgiveness of sins is what makes you a Christian, then yes, it is negotiable. What I hear, is Jesus + doctrine, when I hear the absolute authority of Scripture is non-negotiable. It is + doctrine because we do not and may never have a uniform understanding.

I do not deny it has authority in terms of guidance and correction, but I don't take that as absolute. And another reason it seems extreme to me, is because some Christians do not have a Bible, like in countries where they are persecuted. To me, in that sense to say Scripture as absolute and non-negotiable is to bind God in His communication, and strip persecuted Christians of communication with Him. It's not... just, and doesn't reflect an all-powerful God, to me. And if His word is required to hear Him, then He is showing partiality to persons, because only those with the Bible can listen.

You have very conveniently written me off.

Based on your post, I didn't think it would be profitable.

You are correct about it only to the extent that the argument of "you can't trust the Bible because it was written by flawed people who had their own biases and cultural limitations" is one I have already considered and rejected and restating it is not going to change my mind.

I didn't think it would be profitable because of that. If your mind is set, you're probably not going to listen closely enough to even understand what I or someone else say. If your mind is made up, you have no incentive to listen.

On the other hand, I recently had a discussion with someone on CC who made a very compelling argument that eternal punishment might not be such a biblical position to hold. I'm not quite willing to abandon the idea of eternal punishment in hell just yet, but I've definitely been doing some thinking about what different verses in the Bible actually say versus what I've been taught they meant.

Well, I think that is wonderful. I have heard arguments to that liking, about hell being referred to a specific area where dead bodies were burned, if I remember correctly.

Beyond the authority of Scripture issue, however, you have raised some good points about how the church doesn't handle the topic of sexuality well. And you have been more respectful than many who get into debates on CC. You stick to the topic and don't resort to personal attacks or name calling.

I appreciate that. Keeping civility can be hard, but I work on it.

I may have come at you too harshly, as I don't know your story so I don't know where in your journey of knowing God you are. As such I have no idea of knowing if what I see at this moment in time represents a movement towards greater knowledge of God or away from it, but it would be my hope that you continue to grow in grace and in the knowledge of Christ.

That is my intention, to grow.

 

[organicbeast]

The biggest place where I diverge from the rest is that I believe teens should be taught about sex - ways to protect themselves as well. I do not mean for a mother to pull out an issue of Cosmo to discuss with her teen girl. My reasoning is that it instills the understanding in the teen that this is a SERIOUS THING. And not "don't do this" serious thing. Chances are, and I was a teen once, you command a teen not to do something, it raises their curiosity. You command them not to do it, AND not teach them about protection, you could end up with a grandchild sooner than you expected. If you treat is as a normal part of life, imo that decreases the curiosity in teaching it as a "naughty" thing. To teach it as a normal thing, it seem to me, would suggest there is nothing particularly special about it, in that they need to explore right away. Of course, they are getting that message in other ways. And your relationship with them to begin with would affect that.

Ya true we have to teach them and give them as much knowledge and understanding regarding that powerful energy source. And why God requires them to honor that energy-source and appropriate it, is because the same energy-source is required for the spiritual development of the soul. [I actually heard this from a female pastor from New York long time ago] I believe that to be true. I really admired her for that word of wisdom.


True, we as humans are curious creatures. But knowledge is power and it can protect us and shield us from hurt. It is this same curiosity to engage and try all sorts of sensual desires of the carnal mind, resulted in men and women to commit homosexual acts also. I have actually seen many men and women advertise even on Craigslist platonic personals that they are "curious" to try the other sex.

Curiosity is natural, but it should be protected by Knowledge I think..

But here's a suggestion:

If you really want to discourage your teen, tell them "Oh sure, it's great! Your father/mother and I do it every night. What a way to take the load off!"

If that doesn't work, you're on your own.

... But what you just said could possibly result in a different type of response from a young teen [other than what you said above], as those are the years of their sexual development. By revealing that private matter between a husband/wife father/mother, you could end up arousing their sensual-senses & curiosity even more, that a young woman/daughter wouldn't wait until she does that act with a man to maybe know how it feels like?? I am sorry, but I don't quite trust my very own carnal mind. It is quite naughty..

 

[cinder]

Originally Posted by cinder

Well we aren't usually the vindictive types in this forum, mocking and sarcasm may occur a bit more than is fitting for those professing to love God and people, but most of us don't go out of our way to cause trouble for someone.



I did this how? It might have escalated, but if you go back to the beginning of this thread, I think I gave encouragement more than trouble.

Not accusing you of causing trouble. Reassuring you that I'm not out to cause you trouble, nor is anyone else around here.

I suppose the thing that confuses me, and I've stated this before I think, is that if believing on Jesus Christ, repenting and receiving the forgiveness of sins is what makes you a Christian, then yes, it is negotiable. What I hear, is Jesus + doctrine, when I hear the absolute authority of Scripture is non-negotiable. It is + doctrine because we do not and may never have a uniform understanding.

I do not deny it has authority in terms of guidance and correction, but I don't take that as absolute. And another reason it seems extreme to me, is because some Christians do not have a Bible, like in countries where they are persecuted. To me, in that sense to say Scripture as absolute and non-negotiable is to bind God in His communication, and strip persecuted Christians of communication with Him. It's not... just, and doesn't reflect an all-powerful God, to me. And if His word is required to hear Him, then He is showing partiality to persons, because only those with the Bible can listen.

Well then I guess the thing that confuses me is if you aren't relying on the Bible as the source of the information you believe about God, then where are you getting that information? Is there another source of information that you consider more reliable, and if so based on what evidence?

Would highest authority be a better term than absolute? By absolute authority we don't mean to imply that no other source can be helpful or consulted, but rather that when there is a conflict between something and the Bible, we follow the Bible. I would say we don't always have to agree on what especially some of the more obscure parts of the Bible mean in order to agree that the Bible is the highest authority and when we understand it, we will submit to what it teaches us.

As for Christians without, or with difficulties in getting, Bibles. I would say that the information they have received and believed about God still had it's origin with the Bible so they are still acknowledging its authority, even if it is mediated through pastors or translators. Having the Bible available to all in their heart language is one of the causes I believe most strongly in and support. I'll never say that the Bible is the only way God can speak to people, but I've also never heard of any Christians with limited access to the Bible saying, don't worry about getting us Bibles, we already have enough knowledge of God through other means. I can, however, forward you a letter from a Christian whose people have no Bible in their language requesting prayer and any other assistance possible so that they can get God's word in a language they can clearly understand.

If your mind is set, you're probably not going to listen closely enough to even understand what I or someone else say. If your mind is made up, you have no incentive to listen.

Same thing could be said of you, but I'm not sure it is an entirely fair statement. It's not a matter of ability or desire to understand (in fact I value having a right understanding of what someone else is saying); it is a matter of understanding and rejecting some of the assumptions inherent in that position. Yet we do seem to at least be coming to a better understanding of what each of us means by the term authority of scripture so the discussion isn't completely fruitless after all.