stay a virgin until marriage .

[jamie26301]

I think I should've defined what I meant by anti-sex - I simply mean that sex or sexuality between a couple has to be just so (in marriage, certain acts or positions not allowed even in marriage, some say). I mean by anti-sex is that the hearts does not matter in these things - what matters is whether or not man has approved of it, and put his stamp of approval on it. And the inconsistancy in that is using Genesis as a model for marriage. Because there is no external approval.

You can't tell a couple's spiritual state and any superficiality on whether or not they are chaste outside of marriage. Because a lot of times, that's how these things sound to me. That lovemaking is not lovemaking between the couple and God - man has to approve of it, and bring the state in as well. To me that's anti-sex, because, imo, pure love between a couple doesn't need man's approval.

Now do I think there should be a ceremony? Yes, but I'm not going to judge another couple on simply the basis of living together or engaging in sex. Iow, this is not a black and white issue to me. I think that if your conscious says to be chaste, you do that. I am with the previous poster, in that I don't see hard Scripture, once scrunitized, that forbids intimacy before marriage - all the way or not. This is a case by case issue, so yes, I will sound contradictory... But then, I don't pretend to be absolute in my thinking, either.

I think young men and women should be given the choice to know what different doctrines there are concerning sex - why, one church father thought that sex even in marriage defiled it. There's been extreme views through the Church's history, even by our Puritian leftover standards.

I just personally feel that young people often feel stifled when given only one path, only one way of thinking, esp concerning something so intimate and engrained in us.... which, I still wonder why we are given urges, that we are told are good and healthy, and yet what is good is not good, not now. If anything is a contradiction, that is.

It really doesn't make sense to preach an absolute, black and white morality, then say "your urges are good and given by God, but they are bad and can cause you to sin." How is that absolute? That's like doubletalk. And if you then say "urges only good in marriage" then you suggest that God doesn't regard our own urges as good or bad, but determined by marriage.

I don't think it's unreasonable to want an answer for this. I'm willing to wager many young Christians wonder this, but won't ask because of the very nature of how Christians approach this and rebuke/condemn anyone who thinks otherwise. It's not healthy, in my opinion, yet that's how sex is treated oftentimes - you have standard things you can say and ask, but don't present any hard questions about it. Just have faith.

I wanted to address the "pet" thing. I comment elsewhere, if you mean I stick exclusively to this topic. But it is a soft spot of sorts, and I don't like these with their wings over the babes oversimplifing this topic. Just as you don't like me suggesting anything other than not to think about sex until you're married. The more simple you make, I think, the more the young person struggles in private. Because it's not a simple thing. When you have a whole medial disciplinary branch dedicated to the study and advising of sex in on its own right, yeah, it's not a simple thing.

If you mean I have an agenda? Well, no. I like to discuss and share and hear experiences. I think some people have benefited and liked some things I posted here - I even got some reputation points on this thread.

And so far as making up my own logic or something... I'm going to sound crass here, and although I'm sure many agree with you - if you just don't want to interact because you just don't want to be bothered with hard questions, just come out and say that. Please don't paint me a troublemaker because you just would rather not answer anything.

I have a really overactive mind, I'm always thinking of ideas and concepts, and I am a wordy writer, I write long reflections by habit. Please don't take my natural means of internet communication as evidence of obsession. Thank you

 

[Lynx]

I would be very grateful if you could point me to where Scripture clearly states it, Olerica, either here or via PM. I have searched for where it's concisely stated without much luck and asked a handful of believers, but have been met with mostly logical assertions of passages that may or may not suggest it.

It would mean a lot to me!

Very well, if we have to go there... Open your bible program or go to an online bible and search for "fornication." It should pull up some relevant verses.

 

[jamie26301]

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.

 

[Siberian_Khatru]

Very well, if we have to go there... Open your bible program or go to an online bible and search for "fornication." It should pull up some relevant verses.

You're not helping me nor the Word by giving me teh internetz as a resource.

 

[seoulsearch]

The best passages I know are:

Deut. 23:18 -- Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Hebrews 13:4 -- Let marriage be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed kept pure and undefiled, for God will judge the fornicator and adulterer.

Now of course, I've seen all kinds of arguments over the years about the specific definitions of "fornicate". I've known some Christians who insist adultery is a married person who has sex outside of their marriage and therefore, if the person they have sex with is unmarried, the MARRIED person is committing adultery and the UNMARRIED person is not, therefore somehow justifying the unmarried person but not the married person.

The woman brought before Jesus who was about to be stoned was "caught in adultery", but nothing is mentioned of the person whom she was committing adultery with (this always bothered me.) I also think that God's people had a very strict culture regarding sexuality and adultery, whereas the other cultures around them pretty much said, "Anytime, anything, anyone," and integrated sexual rites of every imagination into the worship of their gods, which the God of the Bible clearly condemned, because He warned against and severely punished His people for running after foreign gods and their "lawless" ways.

I was raised in a very conservative background in which sex is meant for two people who are married to each other only. I realize there are different views and opinions about this. I've read interpretations in which the definition of "fornication" is twisted in such a way that anything and everything is supposedly permissible. All I can say is, if you have a clean conscience going to bed with someone who is not your spouse or participating in any other various sexual activity outside of your own marriage... that's between you and God.

For myself, and yes, it was partially due to my upbringing and the interpretations I was given of Scripture, my own conscience can't feel "clean" about any other kind of sexual relationship. But if you feel sex between others is good and right in the eyes of God... All I can say is read whatever passages you can find about it (I obviously haven't listed all of them here so this is where the internet sources WOULD be valuable tools in your studies), pray and ask God to convict your heart according to His will, and if you come up with a different view from this I certainly respect your right to have that opinion, but it's not one I can share.

(Hopes that Shouryu will see this discussion because I know he'll be much better at providing more passages than I have here.)

Shour, Shour, you're needed in here!! Do you have a minute?

 

[Olerica]

I can't give you what you are looking for in the way you want it, Siberian. Jesus didn't sit down and say, "Now kids....". However, please consider 1 Corinthians 6: 12-20 which follows - but I know there are other scriptures as well:

12“I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but I will not be mastered by anything. 13You say, “Food for the stomach and the stomach for food, and God will destroy them both.” The body, however, is not meant for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. 15Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”[SUP]b[/SUP] 17But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit.[SUP]c[/SUP]18Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. 19Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.


Now, please note that I am not calling a woman who has sex outside of marriage a prostitute, or a whore. At the time this was written, women were property to be bought and sold. We women were chattle. Personally, I'm glad that particular practice isn't held any longer. I wanted to note that, because I have a feeling the point will be brought up in some sort of rebuttal. I'm glad for a measure of equality in my person-hood.

THAT SAID:

As Christians who follow Christ in the grace that was afforded in the completion of the requirements of the law (whew), we have been purchased. Funny how that kinda rolled around again... all of us were bought with a price not just the virgin woman, not just the woman.... men too. Jesus makes us equal in that we ALL were bought with that price. There's a reason we as the church (both corporately and as individuals) are called the BRIDE of Christ. Jesus is owed our fidelity. (And kids, if you are wondering? I'm sitting in conviction on this too. Thank God, sincerely for grace and mercy.)

So, in conclusion to my thought: while it may be a bit of an inference that pre-marital sex isn't ok, that extra marital sex is sin... I don't think it's that far of a stretch. Edited: My view of the prostitution thing is this: It's not likely a prostitute is visited in any other way but for physical pleasure.

This also: I think in Christendom in general, we're afraid of people understanding the magnitude of sexual pleasure. We're afraid that if people knew what they were missing out on they'd choose sin over God. In my opinion, it's that fear that drives. Unfortunately, I think we SHOULD be educating our young people on physiology, the magnitude of awesome that sex/lovemaking can be.... and the bounds within which we should be holding this sacred act.

I'm not going to proof this, I'm just going to post it. I may not come and clarify... depends... I'm not interested in a fight or disagreement. These are my viewpoints, and I've prayerfully considered how to respond.

 

[Olerica]

But if you feel sex between others is good and right in the eyes of God... All I can say is read whatever passages you can find about it (I obviously haven't listed all of them here so this is where the internet sources WOULD be valuable tools in your studies), pray and ask God to convict your heart according to His will, and if you come up with a different view from this I certainly respect your right to have that opinion, but it's not one I can share.

This. So much this.

 

[kenthomas27]

Actually, Jamie26301, I didn't find your thinking too far aloft of the social norm. After all, this topic of sexual behavior has been discussed forever, caused wars, burned people at the stake, stoned, beheadings, public yokings, suicide, homicide, combination of both, you name it, and our bible promises there's nothing new under the sun - only more of it. And I'm also with you on the "fear of absolutes" in most any situation. I hate hate hate it when some child leaves a picnic plastic knife in his lunchbox and is suspended from school 3 days for having it on school grounds, but maybe not as much as I hate society telling me what's sexually acceptable and good. So instead of the horribly awkward way we humans have of sorting our sexuality out, our God of Israel (knowing the questionable way we were going to foul this up) helps us by offering His suggestions in how to conduct ourselves honorably and pleasing to God pretty much outlined in 1 Corinthians 7: 3-5. And when we're married to treat your spouse honorably and in ways pleasing to God - again outlined in Hebrews 13:4. Doing things other that these only makes our lives more difficult and cumbersome than God who loves us intended.

So, while God did NOT appoint anybody to my knowledge to be His police in this matter, and I don't remember Christ employing His Word by the point of the Roman sword, I do believe He imprints His knowledge on all our hearts as basic human truth; part of our Tree of Knowledge truth. Within that tree is this fruit - it's better to wait till marriage and then honorably share sexuality as part of your holy ordained union. Period. If you choose not to, it's going to make things a lot more difficult and it's no telling what other people will do. I don't believe God grieves because I sin, but because of the grief my sin causes me.

 

[seoulsearch]

I think something else important to consider as well are the reasons why God has put some of these things into place. Something that always amazes me is how practical God is.

If two people who are unmarried have sex with whomever they please, when they finally do marry, they are going to compare that person to all their past lovers, which is probably going to interfere with the bond they have between each other. I think God intended that bond, ideally, to be between two people only in part to cut out all the pain caused by such comparisons (not to mention the possibility of STD's.)

Additionally, God set up these boundaries to protect the precious intimacy between two people that is meant to be exclusive. If you have an unmarried person who believes they can have sex with anyone they want as long as they themselves aren't married, guess what... YOUR spouse is fair game to them. As I've said, I've actually known Christians who felt no qualms about sleeping with married people because they believed, "The married person is sinning, not me--I'm single!!" Personally, I wouldn't want anyone, married or unmarried, to feel that my husband (if/when I get one) is "on the market."

If the unmarried person sleeps with another unmarried person and doesn't marry them, they are potentially sleeping with someone else's future spouse. How many people do you want to sleep with your future wife or husband before you meet them? To me, it's kind of like taking a number at the deli counter: "Now serving #24!!!" and in many ways, your intimacy with that person now becomes a number on a literal "been there, done him/her" list.

Sex reserved for marriage protects your own marriage, as well of that of others.

Now of course, this isn't a perfect world. And some people, through no fault of their own (death of a spouse or the spouse leaving them for someone else, etc.) will have more than one spouse in this lifetime.

I was raised in church and have seen, heard, and read pretty much every argument there is out there (shoot, I went to Lutheran schools... and who else would argue the most passionately over sex outside of marriage than an entire school of hormone-driven teenagers?) but can't help but conclude that God very much believes in order, mutual respect, and saving this incredibly intimate act to be exclusive between two people committed to each other for life.

After all, we, the ONE Body of Christ (not several bodies) will be committed to Christ as His bride for all eternity, and our earthly institutions and regulations are but a mere shadow of what God plans to restore in heaven.

 

[jamie26301]

This is not directed at anyone in particular, but a general response.

I see the logic in strict, inside marriage sex. No comparison. And if sex was the only way we thought of other people in intimate ways, it would hold water. But... Is sex the only means of comparison? One could get married and compare their spouse to a long term relationship, even if there was no sex. Could compare personalities, quirks, habits - certain things you could observe outside of living together. We know more about biology now. A woman who is getting 30, 35 may feel pressured to get married if she wants to have kids. She may marry JUST out of that fear, before she's ready.

The thing is, that the only absolute way to eliminate comparison is to just never get in a serious relationship - and unless your first relationship is your spouse, I don't think that comparison will be completely absent, even if it's not sex. I think that one who releases the past easily or not really close to the previous mate would have the easiest time not comparing.

We are more than sexual beings, contrary to how what I've been saying comes off; we connect in other ways. Amd the biggest problem with such an extreme attitude is it assumes that sex and phsycial attraction (any touching) must be divorced from the rest of the person. But it is all part of the person, yet it is treated as non-exisitant before marriage, while building bonds exclusively in other ways.

So, with the comparison argument, I don't think it's a strong one, because that could apply to other intimate areas, like emotional and intellectual connections - which is allowed. Some people may be far more intellectually inclined, than affectionately, and feel more discontent in lack of stimulating conversation despite their clean, exclusive sex... thinking about so and so they could talk to for hours back into the day. And it wouldn't take but a period of discontentment but bring it up.

About the only problem, the bottom line, I have with the black and white wait til marriage... Is that it is reasoned that in order to justify the literal pain some men would experience, as well as discomfort of women, you have to over exaggerate the marriage bed to motivate, and exaggerate consequences of doing so - you have to manpilate and lie.

There is a struggle here, and you have to justify it. If you have to magnify STDs and preganacy to the degree that it wouldn't be with proper protection (yet entirely possible, however), then are you not stretching the truth, to protect what you think is truth is based on tradition? If the truth is so pure and strong in its own right, why do you need to exaggerate the initial pleasure of two virgins, why do you have to explain life changing consequences as if it's a sure thing, that any fornicator is doomed to?

That's the thing. Young people learn the stats themselves, like people who engage in monogamous, long-term relationships have a far less likely chance of STDs, even if they have multiple partners over the course of a decade... That there is probability here, and how THEY act in sex influences that probabaility. You deliberately mislead the youth and suggest that sex outside of marriage results in horrible things beyond their control, just by having sex, and they learn otherwise... why should they then trust you about anything else you told them concerning sex?

I advocate teaching that sex outside of marriage is wrong, if you feel you must... But withholding and twisting information is probably going to bite you later. If you twist and withold the fundamental facts, you bring everything else you said about sex into question in that child's mind. You undermine your own reliability in the matter. It is an issue of integrity and treating your child or young person as a growing person.

I can understand teaching that waiting as a virtuous thing and rewarded. But the adversion to talking about it because of it feeling good and they might then do it anyway... Well, this is what I've been saying all along. This is THEIR choice. They may choose to do it, to have sex with their partner. Would you rather them feel safe enough with you to ask for help if they need it, and protect themselves? Perhaps if you don't treat it as a cardinal sin, they will even ask you about advise in giving in or not. If you treat this as a subject that welcome for free discussion, even ideas you don't like, you increase the chances that they will trust your judgment, I think.

Again, esp in today's age where it is so easy to find things out, exaggerating this in any way may break their trust in you on this issue. It's best just to be open about the facts, even though you think they may prompt them to try it, instead of them finding out on their own. Call it trusting God for being honest.

And besides, if you are afraid that your child will choose the wrong path if you show them more than one, that is very controlling. God gives us choices and freedom. We really should so the same for our younger generation. Guidance, bit not force and manipulation.

 

[jamie26301]

^ Yes, more unconventional thoughts. But it just doesn't seem to me that the "hush hush" method works in our generation. Considering that the area that is the most adamant about this also the area with the most porn use and teen pregnancy, I just think that presenting it as a choice, rather than a command or threat, gives the teen/young adult more dignity, because the message being made is that they are old enough to be trusted with such a decision.

I don't know, maybe I'm wrong. But when I hear people my age or younger who grew up in a Christian home and left the Church, it's always because of the stifling expectations and commands.

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.

 

[Shouryu]

Quick note: using the NASB in place of my usual NKJV for ease of reading. "Immorality" is very commonly used in place of "fornication," as the Greek word they are translating simply means "sex outside of marriage." Therefore, the Greek word would actually include BOTH fornication AND adultery in the same term, rather than simply unmarried sex.

The Jeruselem Council, through James the Less, rules on whether or not Gentile Christians are to follow Jewish law (which Christ has "freed us" from...actually, we can get into some serious doctrine on that concept alone):
Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. (Acts 15)

Paul reinforces the doctrine from the Jerusalem Council during a later visit to Christians and Jews in Jeruselem before being arrested in the temple:
But concerning the Gentiles who have believed, we wrote, having decided that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication. (Acts 21)

Paul speaks at length to a worldly, young church who doesn't understand that following Christ means pursuing holiness. He goes into detail about WHY fornication is NOT acceptable in God's sight:
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God...Food is for the stomach and the stomach is for food, but God will do away with both of them. Yet the body is not for immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord is for the body. Now God has not only raised the Lord, but will also raise us up through His power. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take away the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? May it never be! 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." But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him. Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body. (1 Corinthians 6)

Paul has a solution for people who don't feel they can abstain from sex: FIND A SPOUSE.
Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband...Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that. But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. (1 Corinthians 7)

Another young church gets a reminder about sanctification from Paul.
For this is the will of God, your sanctification; that is, that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each of you know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor...For God has not called us for the purpose of impurity, but in sanctification. So, he who rejects this is not rejecting man but the God who gives His Holy Spirit to you. (1 Thessalonians 4, NASB)

Paul reminds the Galatians that following Christ isn't about keeping Jewish law, but crucifying the desires of the flesh, and instead, abounding in the fruit of the Holy Spirit.
Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. (Galatians 5)

Paul teaches the Galatians that Jewish law gives way to one crucial concept that fulfills the law in totality: Love your neighbor as yourself. This is the perfect love of Christ, and he expounds this further in his teaching to the Ephesians, pointing out that fornication is NOT loving your neighbor as in God's holy, perfect way.
Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children; and walk in love, just as Christ also loved you and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma. But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints; and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. (Ephesians 5)

Paul teaches that being reborn in Christ and in the Holy Spirit means being dead to the ways of the world and dead to your carnal flesh.
Therefore if you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth. For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, is revealed, then you also will be revealed with Him in glory. Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry. For it is because of these things that the wrath of God will come upon the sons of disobedience, and in them you also once walked, when you were living in them. (Colossians 3)

The Jewish believer is reminded that they are to honor marriage and Christian freedom does not allow for fornication.
Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge. (Hebrews 13)

The church in Philippi seems to be the only one that Paul didn't feel the need to speak to concerning sexual immorality. Good on them. ^_^

Seems to me that scripture is pretty clear on non-marital sex. I don't even think you can bend it by changing translations.

 

[Shouryu]

I would be very grateful if you could point me to where Scripture clearly states it, Olerica, either here or via PM. I have searched for where it's concisely stated without much luck and asked a handful of believers, but have been met with mostly logical assertions of passages that may or may not suggest it.

It would mean a lot to me!

See the prior post.

 

[jamie26301]

Well, I am aware of those Scriptures - I think the great misunderstanding is that I do not regard it as absolute, and I try to consider culture and situation in deciding what is commanded/expected. You didn't quote Jesus one time, and Paul has a history and the personality of a zealous person.

So, I "pick and choose." I find this approach far more comfortable, and because I don't regard it as absolute, and demanding of everyone's adherence, I don't feel the need to defend it or beat people with it. I don't feel threatened when there's evidence that it's not literally true, because my understanding is not literal, at least not to the same degree, although I still draw direction and guidance. It is far less stressful.

And as soon as I say that "well, you shape your own Truth." Yes, in a sense I do - I don't believe in striving for absolute Truth, because then I would be on par with God. Then I wouldn't need God to teach me anymore. I wouldn't need Him.

And believing I found absolute truth, has closed my ears to anything else in the past. I believe in flux of truth, growing and tweaking. And I believe that is different and unique to every person.

I understand the doctrine of virginity, and even support it - my largest beef is the way it is handled and taught. (And it's no wonder they are pushing laws to allow girls to sign for abortions on their own - because extremely religious parents try to run their lives, when it is their decision. Well, you see what happens when you try to dictate others - the pendulum swings back.) And I tend to think abstractly, and most conservatives think literally. I get accused of "permitting" sin, when I am only advising a different approach in addressing and looking at it, which is not black and white and thus misunderstood. I think a different approach, while "compromising" promotes more healthy attitudes, and thus better and even more godly choices in the long run.

The thing I marvel at: If it's not sex, they will fall to some other sin. There seems to be a short list of sins that is implied that avoiding those will set your life. But it could be something else affects their life in a different way to a greater degree. This effort almost appears to try and create sinlessness, esp when the rest of the Christian walk is legalized.

Perhaps, in how I read it, we are all talking cross-purposes.

I'm not going to address all these tonight. But this is the question I have for you and others: How should this be handled in the American church? Beyond or in conjunction with pointing to Scripture?

 

[Shouryu]

So, I "pick and choose." I find this approach far more comfortable, and because I don't regard it as absolute, and demanding of everyone's adherence, I don't feel the need to defend it or beat people with it. I don't feel threatened when there's evidence that it's not literally true, because my understanding is not literal, at least not to the same degree, although I still draw direction and guidance. It is far less stressful.

Well, if you, at your own discretion, get to pick and choose which parts of the Bible are truth and which are not, then so do I. And I choose to pick all of the parts of the Bible that speak about murder and theft as NOT being absolute truth.

If Paul's teachings are not to be considered truth, then you must doubt his message to Timothy: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." (2 Timothy 3) If you're going to play the "Well, JESUS never said it" game, then we also get to question Moses, David, Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and the remaining prophets...as well as ANY of the authors in the Bible....INCLUDING THE AUTHORS OF THE GOSPELS. If you call into doubt the Holy Spirit's divine inspiration of ANY of it, you must be able to apply the same doubt to ANY OF IT. If part of the Bible is conveniently wrong, then ALL of it can be made conveniently wrong. That includes anything in red print.

I'm not going to address all these tonight. But this is the question I have for you and others: How should this be handled in the American church? Beyond or in conjunction with pointing to Scripture?

Quite simply: If God said it (be it through Moses or Paul), then we are to believe it.

If that's too simple, then you'll have to wait for me to get back from work tonight.

 

[Grace-Like-Rain]

So, I "pick and choose." I find this approach far more comfortable, and because I don't regard it as absolute

When someone picks and chooses, what they are really doing is letting their personal opinions, desires, feelings, bias and agendas decide FOR them what they should believe. And we are fallen creatures. Is it hard sometimes to TRUST what the Bible is saying in it's entirety? Absolutely. (Mostly due to lack of understanding.) But I find the Bible much safer to trust than myself, sinful as I am. I already KNOW my own thoughts and ideas are flawed.

 

[Siberian_Khatru]

Quick note: using the NASB in place of my usual NKJV for ease of reading. "Immorality" is very commonly used in place of "fornication," as the Greek word they are translating simply means "sex outside of marriage." Therefore, the Greek word would actually include BOTH fornication AND adultery in the same term, rather than simply unmarried sex.

THIS is the kind of information I've been hoping to find! Hebrews 13:4 is like a vanguard for the defense of anti-premarital sex, and yet the terminology differs greatly between translations. This is very helpful, Shouryu. Thanks!

 

[jamie26301]

If Paul's teachings are not to be considered truth, then you must doubt his message to Timothy: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." (2 Timothy 3)

Well, there are scholars who suggest, based on careful study of grammar and topic, that Paul didn't even write this letter, but a student or follower of his... It was common in the ancient world to sign a name to a writing that wasn't your name - it wasn't considered wrong. They didn't have copyright laws, you see.

If you're going to play the "Well, JESUS never said it" game, then we also get to question Moses, David, Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and the remaining prophets...as well as ANY of the authors in the Bible....INCLUDING THE AUTHORS OF THE GOSPELS.

Sure. That's true. What a fun game! ^.^ Because the Gospels are written quiet a time after the events, and it's very hard for any reasonable person to believe them an exact, word for word, carbon copy of events, esp after hearing "they were ordinary men like you and I."

If you call into doubt the Holy Spirit's divine inspiration of ANY of it,

I call into doubt what is meant by inspiration. That alone is a subject term.

you must be able to apply the same doubt to ANY OF IT.

Certainly.

If part of the Bible is conveniently wrong, then ALL of it can be made conveniently wrong. [That includes anything in red print.

Well, that all-or-nothing approach has lead to the fall of faith in many believers, in this era. And it's not a matter of "convenience" as many Christians believe Jesus is "convenitely" wrong about divorce and remarriage. It is a matter of deeper study and greater discernment that frankly, most Christians are afraid of.

Here is the thing. Historically speaking, WE ALL pick and choose. What is in the Bible is not the only things ever written about Jesus - we all know this. Most of us choose to have faith in the Church Father's decisions, even having not known these men personally, as we believe the books they thought was inspired without having known these men and women personally.

You pick up a Christian book today, many people want to know the background of the author, as well as what she or he say. And many will reject the author all together on the grounds that she/he is not of a particular understanding of faith or isn't a believer. In today's world, we take the person, and their character, along with what is written, in many cases - and so, imo, just accepting without question what is written here, is an act of faith, as most of us would not apply the same method to today's authors. I shared a link one time, and the article wasn't discussed, but dismissed altogether because it wasn't written by a Christian. So it can't have valuable insight. Case in point.

But let's all agree the Protestant Bible (we are aware that this is not the only modern Christian canon?) is the inspired word of God. Now what does it say? Do men have the power to forgive and retain sins? John seems to think so - but many, many Protestants ignore this verse (picking and choosing) because it upsets their tradition.

And imo, one thing that makes the Church look so silly and disillusioned to unbelievers is that BECAUSE we all believe this is absolute truth, and we all believe we have the correct understanding, we can't get along. We slander other Christians and beliefs... and in the very next breath say that anyone who believes in Jesus Christ for salvation and forgiveness of sins is saved and in dwelled with the Holy Spirit - they just don't understand, like we do, even though they have the same Teacher. It's a bunch of hypocritical double talk, it was it is. And it really propells the cause for Christ!

Quite simply: If God said it (be it through Moses or Paul), then we are to believe it.

And quite simply, because an ancient text has a name tagged to the document doesn't mean it was written by that person, or reflect their thoughts.

If that's too simple, then you'll have to wait for me to get back from work tonight.

For something so simple, it sure is divisive.

 

[jamie26301]

When someone picks and chooses, what they are really doing is letting their personal opinions, desires, feelings, bias and agendas decide FOR them what they should believe.

And so does those who believe it to be absolute truth. Your culture, your conservative/liberal slant, your upbringing, all these subjective biases play into how you read it. That's just basic psychology.

And we are fallen creatures.

Which is why claiming an absolute, need no correction of understanding is quite arrogant.

Is it hard sometimes to TRUST what the Bible is saying in it's entirety? Absolutely. (Mostly due to lack of understanding.) But I find the Bible much safer to trust than myself, sinful as I am. I already KNOW my own thoughts and ideas are flawed.

Yes, sure... But it doesn't make sense, it is inconsistent imo, to trust these writing as absolute and without flaw, if the authors were also sinful and flawed in thought... whose to say Paul's understanding of the OT wasn't flawed? It is just a question for thought, because it is circular reason, and puts these men/women on a pedestal as above human error, imo. Because it would take someone without error to write something perfect.

 

[pwrnJC]

Praise GOD for your testimony here. God is going to extra bless you, girl! Amen on your stance, Hallelujah on your "DUGGER" family style of living, So rare to find someone who is openly honest about saving themselves for their wedding night. I hear no songs on the radio or TV sitcoms supporting this. YEs, my wife and I had plenty to look forward to on our wedding night. My children still laugh and say that we are just 'old fashioned".