OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 30, 2014, 08:34:11 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Wedding-day kiss will be couple's first  (Read 11260 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #45 on: February 04, 2008, 05:56:51 AM »

Mullet and houn'dawg jokes aside, many rural Ozarkians use this type of language very affectionately.  This may be stretching things a bit, but it seems to me that when you're married, the man 'belongs' to his wife and the wife 'belongs' to the husband ergo 'my man' and 'my woman'.  Being a native Ozarkian, I know tons of married folks who use these terms and not a single one of them see their spouses as property.

Forgive my ignorance, but what is an Ozarkian?  Huh
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #46 on: February 04, 2008, 12:31:20 PM »

Forgive my ignorance, but what is an Ozarkian?  Huh

Someone from this region of the United States.  The inhabitants have a distinct culture and dialect. 
Logged
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #47 on: February 04, 2008, 10:42:03 PM »

Thanks Nektarios. Very interesting!
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,561



« Reply #48 on: April 12, 2012, 06:49:37 AM »

Quote
Wedding-day kiss will be couple's first 

What a disgusting perversion! Seriously. If you support this kind of thing then shame on you for six weeks.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #49 on: April 12, 2012, 07:57:49 AM »

Logged


I'm going to need this.
acts420
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: the Way
Jurisdiction: Jesus the Anointed One
Posts: 310



WWW
« Reply #50 on: April 30, 2012, 10:10:04 PM »

Quote
The vast majority of couples he marries — as many as four out of five, he said — have committed to do nothing physical besides kiss and hold hands before their weddings....  "We believe the Bible teaches that a person should remain sexually pure until marriage," said Seim, who, along with Burwell's father, will oversee next Saturday's wedding.

They should read their Bibles instead of letting their pastors explain it to them.  They could try reading the Song of Solomon for starters.  Now there's a biblical courtship if I've ever seen one.   Count the kisses before their wedding in that story.  Count the touches.  Count the times their passion is obviously sexual in nature.

Plus, the Bible does not teach that people should remain sexually pure only until marriage.  Instead, it says we should all remain sexually pure before and after marriage.  And that does not mean "no sexual contact."  "Sexual purity" does not mean "no sexual intimacy."  

These teachings destroy the natural, biblical, godly concept of marriage.  Teachings like these Southern Baptists' were prophesied about in 1 Timothy chapter 4.  Southern Baptists are commonly known for forbidding alcohol and often other plants.  That fits 1 Timothy ch 4 quite well.  So do their teachings about marriage. The Baptist pastors who teach people that God says they can't touch or kiss one another passionately until marriage are actually hindering the formation of normal, healthy marriages.  Not everyone is compatible sexually just like not everyone is compatible personally.  As a former Southern Baptist who saw many of my friends get married in these traditions, I can guarantee that many of these couples who do not touch before marriage are going to find they are not very compatible physically.  Many will eventually get divorced.

I'm not saying couples have to fully engage in an entire act of sexual intercourse before marriage.  But to not even touch one another is almost like having an arranged marriage.  It is totally unnatural and it is completely non-biblical.  You might as well not talk to your fiance before marrying her, and then "trust God" that you two will get along well.

1 Timothy 4
The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They hinder people's marriages and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.  6 If you point these things out to the brothers and sisters,[a] you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, nourished on the truths of the faith and of the good teaching that you have followed. 7 Have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives’ tales; rather, train yourself to be godly.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2012, 10:17:24 PM by acts420 » Logged

In Christ,
Jason
www.acts420.com
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,067


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #51 on: April 30, 2012, 10:12:41 PM »

Again with the agenda...  Roll Eyes
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
acts420
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: the Way
Jurisdiction: Jesus the Anointed One
Posts: 310



WWW
« Reply #52 on: April 30, 2012, 10:15:07 PM »

Again with the agenda...  Roll Eyes

Apparently I'm your agenda.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2012, 10:18:43 PM by acts420 » Logged

In Christ,
Jason
www.acts420.com
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #53 on: April 30, 2012, 10:21:27 PM »

acts that was an excellent post, thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #54 on: April 30, 2012, 10:22:29 PM »

wow, that's going to be awkward lol
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,929


"My god is greater."


« Reply #55 on: April 30, 2012, 10:26:13 PM »


They should read their Bibles instead of letting their pastors explain it to them.  They could try reading the Song of Solomon for starters.  Now there's a biblical courtship if I've ever seen one.   Count the kisses before their wedding in that story.  Count the touches.  Count the times their passion is obviously sexual in nature.

Plus, the Bible does not teach that people should remain sexually pure only until marriage.  Instead, it says we should all remain sexually pure before and after marriage.  And that does not mean "no sexual contact."  "Sexual purity" does not mean "no sexual intimacy."  


Yeah, keep on telling yourself that.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,860



« Reply #56 on: April 30, 2012, 10:39:11 PM »

Forgive my ignorance, but what is an Ozarkian?  Huh

Me!!! Raised down in those parts with a long family history. The hills are breathtaking the closer you get to the Boston Mountains.
Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #57 on: April 30, 2012, 10:52:25 PM »

Oh and just fyi I was being sarcastic above...

wow, that's going to be awkward lol
WWJD?
« Last Edit: April 30, 2012, 10:53:09 PM by Achronos » Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,472



« Reply #58 on: April 30, 2012, 11:01:38 PM »


They should read their Bibles instead of letting their pastors explain it to them.  They could try reading the Song of Solomon for starters.  Now there's a biblical courtship if I've ever seen one.   Count the kisses before their wedding in that story.  Count the touches.  Count the times their passion is obviously sexual in nature.

Plus, the Bible does not teach that people should remain sexually pure only until marriage.  Instead, it says we should all remain sexually pure before and after marriage.  And that does not mean "no sexual contact."  "Sexual purity" does not mean "no sexual intimacy."  


Yeah, keep on telling yourself that.
no, don't tell yourself that.  The devil often speaks louder in an echo chamber.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ZealousZeal
Gainsaying Helpmeet
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: ✔
Posts: 2,675


Never cease to intercede for us, your children.


« Reply #59 on: April 30, 2012, 11:05:11 PM »

wow, that's going to be awkward lol

It might have been 8.5 years ago, but I doubt it's awkward anymore.  Wink
Logged

"For this God is our God forever and ever; He will be our guide, even to the end." Psalm 48:14
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,472



« Reply #60 on: April 30, 2012, 11:14:41 PM »

Quote
The vast majority of couples he marries — as many as four out of five, he said — have committed to do nothing physical besides kiss and hold hands before their weddings....  "We believe the Bible teaches that a person should remain sexually pure until marriage," said Seim, who, along with Burwell's father, will oversee next Saturday's wedding.

They should read their Bibles instead of letting their pastors explain it to them.  They could try reading the Song of Solomon for starters.  Now there's a biblical courtship if I've ever seen one.   Count the kisses before their wedding in that story.  Count the touches.  Count the times their passion is obviously sexual in nature.

Plus, the Bible does not teach that people should remain sexually pure only until marriage.  Instead, it says we should all remain sexually pure before and after marriage.  And that does not mean "no sexual contact."  "Sexual purity" does not mean "no sexual intimacy."
 
before marriage, yeah it does.
These teachings destroy the natural, biblical, godly concept of marriage.  Teachings like these Southern Baptists' were prophesied about in 1 Timothy chapter 4.  Southern Baptists are commonly known for forbidding alcohol and often other plants.  That fits 1 Timothy ch 4 quite well.  So do their teachings about marriage. The Baptist pastors who teach people that God says they can't touch or kiss one another passionately until marriage are actually hindering the formation of normal, healthy marriages.  Not everyone is compatible sexually just like not everyone is compatible personally.  As a former Southern Baptist who saw many of my friends get married in these traditions, I can guarantee that many of these couples who do not touch before marriage are going to find they are not very compatible physically.  Many will eventually get divorced.
they will be far outnumbered many times over by those who are touched all over before marriage who divorce eventually, let alone those who never marry, just get touched all over.

I'm not saying couples have to fully engage in an entire act of sexual intercourse before marriage.  But to not even touch one another is almost like having an arranged marriage.  It is totally unnatural and it is completely non-biblical.
It how it was in paradise with Adam and Eve, and so totally natural and completely biblical.

You might as well not talk to your fiance before marrying her, and then "trust God" that you two will get along well.
Pre-owed cars don't run as well as new ones fresh from the factory.  What makes you think used spouses do better?

1 Timothy 4
The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They hinder people's marriages and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.  6 If you point these things out to the brothers and sisters,[a] you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, nourished on the truths of the faith and of the good teaching that you have followed. 7 Have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives’ tales; rather, train yourself to be godly.
I Thessalonians 4
1 Finally, brethren, we beseech and exhort you in the Lord Jesus, that as you learned from us how you ought to live and to please God, just as you are doing, you do so more and more. 2 For you know what instructions we gave you through the Lord Jesus. 3 For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from unchastity; 4 that each one of you know how to take a wife for himself in holiness and honor, 5 not in the passion of lust like heathen who do not know God; 6 that no man transgress, and wrong his brother in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, as we solemnly forewarned you. 7 For God has not called us for uncleanness, but in holiness. 8 Therefore whoever disregards this, disregards not man but God, who gives his Holy Spirit to you.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
acts420
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: the Way
Jurisdiction: Jesus the Anointed One
Posts: 310



WWW
« Reply #61 on: May 01, 2012, 01:54:06 PM »

I'm not saying couples have to fully engage in an entire act of sexual intercourse before marriage.  But to not even touch one another is almost like having an arranged marriage.  It is totally unnatural and it is completely non-biblical.

It how it was in paradise with Adam and Eve, and so totally natural and completely biblical.

Dear ialmisry, are you saying that Adam and Eve never touched one another passionately in paradise?  If so... what makes you think that?

Or are you just saying theirs was an arranged marriage?  Of course it was, in a sense, but then again every marriage is "arranged" by God in a sense.  The fact is, there was one man and one woman then.  Now there are many.  Many couples desire specific characteristics in a spouse, some personal and some physical, and there is nothing wrong with such desires nor with the personal and physical interactions that are often necessary to bring about a union in a couple's desires.

Pre-owed cars don't run as well as new ones fresh from the factory.  What makes you think used spouses do better?

Having worked at a dealership when I was younger, I've driven pre-owned cars that run a lot better than fresh from the factory cars.  It depends on the make and model of the car, if the manufacturer's break-in instructions were followed, and other things.  But I'm not here to argue about cars or common sense.  We could do that all day and it would be pointless.  If your sense leads you to one type of courtship, then follow your path.

My main point is that the Bible does not teach that the way to remain sexually pure until marriage is to do nothing physical besides kiss and hold hands before their weddings.   You cited 1 Thess 4, "... abstain from sexual sin... know how to possess your own vessel in sanctification and honor not in passion of lust, like the Gentiles who do not know God..."  I love that passage.  You do realize that there are contexts in which passion and lust are honorable, right?  In fact, such passions, in the right context, are celebrated with joyful song in the Bible's Song of Solomon, both before the wedding and after.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2012, 01:55:33 PM by acts420 » Logged

In Christ,
Jason
www.acts420.com
acts420
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: the Way
Jurisdiction: Jesus the Anointed One
Posts: 310



WWW
« Reply #62 on: May 01, 2012, 01:54:15 PM »

... Plus, the Bible does not teach that people should remain sexually pure only until marriage.  Instead, it says we should all remain sexually pure before and after marriage.  And that does not mean "no sexual contact."  "Sexual purity" does not mean "no sexual intimacy."  ...

Yeah, keep on telling yourself that.

Dear Iconodule, sarcasm makes it hard to understand a person, especially in writing.  So I may be missing your point.  But my best guess is you should consider that marriage is a gift from God and so are the children that spring from its passions.   If a person must avoid all passionate, sexual touching in order to be sexually pure, then the gift of marriage and childbearing that God gives many Christians makes them impure.  Or do you think married couples should to have passionless sex?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.  Please hold off on the sarcasm as it just makes communication in writing difficult.  All I'm saying is that sexual purity does not require a couple to forbid passionate touching.  What about that is so disagreeable to you?

Have you read the Song of Solomon?  Holy Scripture show us that passionate touching is sometimes an important part of the formation of marriage, a holy part.  If a couple feels led by the Spirit to avoid such touching for whatever reason, then they should feel free to avoid it.  However, if we teach everyone that "the Bible" requires this sort of physically passionless courtship described by the Southern Baptists in the original post, then we are telling a lie from the father of lies and have become icons of Pharisaical legalism at its finest.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2012, 01:57:14 PM by acts420 » Logged

In Christ,
Jason
www.acts420.com
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,472



« Reply #63 on: May 01, 2012, 07:40:06 PM »

I'm not saying couples have to fully engage in an entire act of sexual intercourse before marriage.  But to not even touch one another is almost like having an arranged marriage.  It is totally unnatural and it is completely non-biblical.

It how it was in paradise with Adam and Eve, and so totally natural and completely biblical.

Dear ialmisry, are you saying that Adam and Eve never touched one another passionately in paradise?  If so... what makes you think that?
They were married in paradise, so they could touch one another as passionately as they wanted.

Or are you just saying theirs was an arranged marriage?  Of course it was, in a sense, but then again every marriage is "arranged" by God in a sense.  The fact is, there was one man and one woman then.  Now there are many.  Many couples desire specific characteristics in a spouse, some personal and some physical, and there is nothing wrong with such desires nor with the personal and physical interactions that are often necessary to bring about a union in a couple's desires.
premarital sex is never necessary to bring about a union.  You buy by the label.  You don't get to sample all the bottles.

Pre-owed cars don't run as well as new ones fresh from the factory.  What makes you think used spouses do better?
Having worked at a dealership when I was younger, I've driven pre-owned cars that run a lot better than fresh from the factory cars.  It depends on the make and model of the car, if the manufacturer's break-in instructions were followed, and other things.  But I'm not here to argue about cars or common sense.  We could do that all day and it would be pointless.  If your sense leads you to one type of courtship, then follow your path.
Btw, have you mentioned whether you were married or not?

As for your path


My main point is that the Bible does not teach that the way to remain sexually pure until marriage is to do nothing physical besides kiss and hold hands before their weddings.   You cited 1 Thess 4, "... abstain from sexual sin... know how to possess your own vessel in sanctification and honor not in passion of lust, like the Gentiles who do not know God..."  I love that passage.  You do realize that there are contexts in which passion and lust are honorable, right?
Passion, yes, in the context of marriage.  Lust, never. In any context.  Including marriage.

In fact, such passions, in the right context, are celebrated with joyful song in the Bible's Song of Solomon, both before the wedding and after.
I don't have to deal with your misreading of the Song of Solomon, as more to the point you deceived in thinking we read the NT in the light of the OT, rather than the reverse. II Corinthians 11:2
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,472



« Reply #64 on: May 01, 2012, 07:42:24 PM »

... Plus, the Bible does not teach that people should remain sexually pure only until marriage.  Instead, it says we should all remain sexually pure before and after marriage.  And that does not mean "no sexual contact."  "Sexual purity" does not mean "no sexual intimacy."  ...

Yeah, keep on telling yourself that.

Dear Iconodule, sarcasm makes it hard to understand a person, especially in writing.  So I may be missing your point.  But my best guess is you should consider that marriage is a gift from God and so are the children that spring from its passions.   If a person must avoid all passionate, sexual touching in order to be sexually pure, then the gift of marriage and childbearing that God gives many Christians makes them impure.  Or do you think married couples should to have passionless sex?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.  Please hold off on the sarcasm as it just makes communication in writing difficult.  All I'm saying is that sexual purity does not require a couple to forbid passionate touching.  What about that is so disagreeable to you?

Have you read the Song of Solomon?  Holy Scripture show us that passionate touching is sometimes an important part of the formation of marriage, a holy part.  If a couple feels led by the Spirit to avoid such touching for whatever reason, then they should feel free to avoid it.  However, if we teach everyone that "the Bible" requires this sort of physically passionless courtship described by the Southern Baptists in the original post, then we are telling a lie from the father of lies and have become icons of Pharisaical legalism at its finest.
so you acknowledge your father.

We can distinguish between passion for a spouse and passion outside marriage, even if you can't.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,929


"My god is greater."


« Reply #65 on: May 01, 2012, 08:00:12 PM »

... Plus, the Bible does not teach that people should remain sexually pure only until marriage.  Instead, it says we should all remain sexually pure before and after marriage.  And that does not mean "no sexual contact."  "Sexual purity" does not mean "no sexual intimacy."  ...

Yeah, keep on telling yourself that.

Dear Iconodule, sarcasm makes it hard to understand a person, especially in writing.  So I may be missing your point.  But my best guess is you should consider that marriage is a gift from God and so are the children that spring from its passions.   If a person must avoid all passionate, sexual touching in order to be sexually pure, then the gift of marriage and childbearing that God gives many Christians makes them impure.  Or do you think married couples should to have passionless sex?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.  Please hold off on the sarcasm as it just makes communication in writing difficult.  All I'm saying is that sexual purity does not require a couple to forbid passionate touching.  What about that is so disagreeable to you?

Have you read the Song of Solomon?  Holy Scripture show us that passionate touching is sometimes an important part of the formation of marriage, a holy part.  If a couple feels led by the Spirit to avoid such touching for whatever reason, then they should feel free to avoid it.  However, if we teach everyone that "the Bible" requires this sort of physically passionless courtship described by the Southern Baptists in the original post, then we are telling a lie from the father of lies and have become icons of Pharisaical legalism at its finest.

Acts, this discussion was already exhausted elsewhere. You're not bringing anything new here. Your argument about the Song of Solomon was already refuted.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2012, 08:00:32 PM by Iconodule » Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
acts420
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: the Way
Jurisdiction: Jesus the Anointed One
Posts: 310



WWW
« Reply #66 on: May 01, 2012, 09:22:50 PM »

I'm not saying couples have to fully engage in an entire act of sexual intercourse before marriage.  But to not even touch one another is almost like having an arranged marriage.  It is totally unnatural and it is completely non-biblical.

It how it was in paradise with Adam and Eve, and so totally natural and completely biblical.

Dear ialmisry, are you saying that Adam and Eve never touched one another passionately in paradise?  If so... what makes you think that?
They were married in paradise, so they could touch one another as passionately as they wanted.

Or are you just saying theirs was an arranged marriage?  Of course it was, in a sense, but then again every marriage is "arranged" by God in a sense.  The fact is, there was one man and one woman then.  Now there are many.  Many couples desire specific characteristics in a spouse, some personal and some physical, and there is nothing wrong with such desires nor with the personal and physical interactions that are often necessary to bring about a union in a couple's desires.

premarital sex is never necessary to bring about a union.  You buy by the label.  You don't get to sample all the bottles.


Rather oddly, it seems to me that you're putting words in my mouth and then arguing against them.  I have not said premarital sex is necessary to bring about marriage.  I also have not said anyone gets to have sex before marriage (at least I haven't said so in this thread).  

If we could all stay on topic to this thread, I'd appreciate it.  My point, in this thread, is that people get to touch one another beyond holding hands before marriage.  If a couple wants to do that, then that is perfectly natural, normal, and ok.  There is nothing wrong with passionate touching.  Unlike what these Southern Baptists teach, "the Bible" nowhere institutes these rules they are placing on shoulders.  The Bible never defines "sexual purity" in terms of avoiding passionate touching before marriage.

Pre-owed cars don't run as well as new ones fresh from the factory.  What makes you think used spouses do better?
Having worked at a dealership when I was younger, I've driven pre-owned cars that run a lot better than fresh from the factory cars.  It depends on the make and model of the car, if the manufacturer's break-in instructions were followed, and other things.  But I'm not here to argue about cars or common sense.  We could do that all day and it would be pointless.  If your sense leads you to one type of courtship, then follow your path.

Btw, have you mentioned whether you were married or not?

http://images2.fanpop.com/images/soapbox/mind-your-own-business_8774_1.jpg

As for your path


Are you referring to my upcoming baptism into the orthodox church?  Aw, what a sweet thing to remind me of.  Thank you!

My main point is that the Bible does not teach that the way to remain sexually pure until marriage is to do nothing physical besides kiss and hold hands before their weddings.   You cited 1 Thess 4, "... abstain from sexual sin... know how to possess your own vessel in sanctification and honor not in passion of lust, like the Gentiles who do not know God..."  I love that passage.  You do realize that there are contexts in which passion and lust are honorable, right?
Passion, yes, in the context of marriage.  Lust, never. In any context.  Including marriage.

In fact, such passions, in the right context, are celebrated with joyful song in the Bible's Song of Solomon, both before the wedding and after.
I don't have to deal with your misreading of the Song of Solomon, as more to the point you deceived in thinking we read the NT in the light of the OT, rather than the reverse. II Corinthians 11:2

I've never said we read the NT in light of the OT.  We read everything in the Spirit's light.  "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit." (John 6:63)
« Last Edit: May 01, 2012, 09:24:10 PM by acts420 » Logged

In Christ,
Jason
www.acts420.com
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,472



« Reply #67 on: May 01, 2012, 09:39:04 PM »

I'm not saying couples have to fully engage in an entire act of sexual intercourse before marriage.  But to not even touch one another is almost like having an arranged marriage.  It is totally unnatural and it is completely non-biblical.

It how it was in paradise with Adam and Eve, and so totally natural and completely biblical.

Dear ialmisry, are you saying that Adam and Eve never touched one another passionately in paradise?  If so... what makes you think that?
They were married in paradise, so they could touch one another as passionately as they wanted.

Or are you just saying theirs was an arranged marriage?  Of course it was, in a sense, but then again every marriage is "arranged" by God in a sense.  The fact is, there was one man and one woman then.  Now there are many.  Many couples desire specific characteristics in a spouse, some personal and some physical, and there is nothing wrong with such desires nor with the personal and physical interactions that are often necessary to bring about a union in a couple's desires.

premarital sex is never necessary to bring about a union.  You buy by the label.  You don't get to sample all the bottles.


Rather oddly, it seems to me that you're putting words in my mouth and then arguing against them.  I have not said premarital sex is necessary to bring about marriage.  I also have not said anyone gets to have sex before marriage (at least I haven't said so in this thread).  

If we could all stay on topic to this thread, I'd appreciate it. 
you have a posting history, so we are not going to waste time forgetting about what you are all about.

My point, in this thread, is that people get to touch one another beyond holding hands before marriage.  If a couple wants to do that, then that is perfectly natural, normal, and ok.  There is nothing wrong with passionate touching.  Unlike what these Southern Baptists teach, "the Bible" nowhere institutes these rules they are placing on shoulders.  The Bible never defines "sexual purity" in terms of avoiding passionate touching before marriage.
like I (and Iconodule) said, you have a posting history.  Your ill founded ideas including, but not limited to, your unbiblical idea that it "never defines "sexual purity" in terms of avoiding passionate touching before marriage" have been refuted.  They have not recovered since then.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,24951.msg406969.html#msg406969
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,35214.msg555296.html#msg555296

Pre-owed cars don't run as well as new ones fresh from the factory.  What makes you think used spouses do better?
Having worked at a dealership when I was younger, I've driven pre-owned cars that run a lot better than fresh from the factory cars.  It depends on the make and model of the car, if the manufacturer's break-in instructions were followed, and other things.  But I'm not here to argue about cars or common sense.  We could do that all day and it would be pointless.  If your sense leads you to one type of courtship, then follow your path.

Btw, have you mentioned whether you were married or not?

http://images2.fanpop.com/images/soapbox/mind-your-own-business_8774_1.jpg
since you speak on your own "authority," it is our business to assess that "authority," if we want to pay it any attention.

As for your path


Are you referring to my upcoming baptism into the orthodox church?  Aw, what a sweet thing to remind me of.  Thank you!
So someone is going to baptize someone who insists fornication is OK.  Does their bishop know?

My main point is that the Bible does not teach that the way to remain sexually pure until marriage is to do nothing physical besides kiss and hold hands before their weddings.   You cited 1 Thess 4, "... abstain from sexual sin... know how to possess your own vessel in sanctification and honor not in passion of lust, like the Gentiles who do not know God..."  I love that passage.  You do realize that there are contexts in which passion and lust are honorable, right?
Passion, yes, in the context of marriage.  Lust, never. In any context.  Including marriage.

In fact, such passions, in the right context, are celebrated with joyful song in the Bible's Song of Solomon, both before the wedding and after.
I don't have to deal with your misreading of the Song of Solomon, as more to the point you deceived in thinking we read the NT in the light of the OT, rather than the reverse. II Corinthians 11:2

I've never said we read the NT in light of the OT.  We read everything in the Spirit's light.  "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit." (John 6:63)
the words He has, not those you have.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
acts420
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: the Way
Jurisdiction: Jesus the Anointed One
Posts: 310



WWW
« Reply #68 on: May 02, 2012, 07:14:17 AM »

Rather oddly, it seems to me that you're putting words in my mouth and then arguing against them.  I have not said premarital sex is necessary to bring about marriage.  I also have not said anyone gets to have sex before marriage (at least I haven't said so in this thread).  
... If we could all stay on topic to this thread, I'd appreciate it.
you have a posting history, so we are not going to waste time forgetting about what you are all about.

I'm not asking you to forget about it.  Just keep to the topic of this thread in this thread, please; that's all I'm asking.  If you have an urge to discuss premarital sex, there is already a thread on that topic.  This thread is about Southern Baptists (and apparently others) who say couples must avoid passionate touching beyond the holding of hands until they are married if they wish to be "sexually pure."   "The Bible" nowhere institutes these rules they are placing on shoulders.  The Bible never defines "sexual purity" in terms of avoiding passionate touching before marriage.

Pre-owed cars don't run as well as new ones fresh from the factory.  What makes you think used spouses do better?
Having worked at a dealership when I was younger, I've driven pre-owned cars that run a lot better than fresh from the factory cars.  It depends on the make and model of the car, if the manufacturer's break-in instructions were followed, and other things.  But I'm not here to argue about cars or common sense.  We could do that all day and it would be pointless.  If your sense leads you to one type of courtship, then follow your path.
Btw, have you mentioned whether you were married or not?
since you speak on your own "authority," it is our business to assess that "authority," if we want to pay it any attention.

You made a side analogy about cars, and I responded from my experience in the auto industry.  That's all.  It is not relevant to this discussion at all whether or not I was married when I was younger and working at a car dealership.  

It seems to me that you're avoiding the actual topic of this thread and, instead, are trying to divert attention to my personal life and to the topics of other threads I've been involved in.  If you want to ask me a personal question about my marital history, PM me.  If you want to discuss premarital sex, there is already a thread on that topic (as you've shown you're more than aware of).  

So someone is going to baptize someone who insists fornication is OK.  Does their bishop know?

I most definitely do not insist that any sort of sexual sin is ever okay.

My main point is that the Bible does not teach that the way to remain sexually pure until marriage is to do nothing physical besides kiss and hold hands before their weddings.   You cited 1 Thess 4, "... abstain from sexual sin... know how to possess your own vessel in sanctification and honor not in passion of lust, like the Gentiles who do not know God..."  I love that passage.  You do realize that there are contexts in which passion and lust are honorable, right?
Passion, yes, in the context of marriage.  Lust, never. In any context.  Including marriage.

Then it seems you would condemn even Jesus Christ and His Holy Apostle.  So I am glad you condemn me also.  For even Christ said, "With lust (epithymia) I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.'"  (Luke 22:16)  Likewise, the Holy Apostle said, "But, brothers and sisters, when we were orphaned by being separated from you for a short time, out of our lust (epithymia) we made every effort to see you."  (1 Thessalonians 2:17)   See also 1 Timothy 6:9, "Those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful lusts (epithymia) that plunge people into ruin and destruction."  

There are harmful lusts on one hand while, on the other hand, there are holy and honorable lusts, just as I said.  We can lust for good things or bad things.  The good contexts or bad contexts are what make the intense desires good or bad.  Intense desire, "lust," "epithymia," is not sinful in and of itself.  

Read the Song of Solomon.  Intense desires are celebrated as part of the formation of holy marriage.  Passionate touching is celebrated in joyful song both before the wedding and after.

In fact, such passions, in the right context, are celebrated with joyful song in the Bible's Song of Solomon, both before the wedding and after.
I don't have to deal with your misreading of the Song of Solomon, as more to the point you deceived in thinking we read the NT in the light of the OT, rather than the reverse. II Corinthians 11:2
I've never said we read the NT in light of the OT.  We read everything in the Spirit's light.  "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit." (John 6:63)
the words He has, not those you have.

And that is why I quoted His words in response to your citation of 2 Corinthians 11:2.  Paul was not saying he expects to present everyone in the church as literal virgins, obviously, since Paul advised many to marry and join in body.  His words, even in 2 Corinthians 11, are spirit.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2012, 07:32:01 AM by acts420 » Logged

In Christ,
Jason
www.acts420.com
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,156


WWW
« Reply #69 on: May 02, 2012, 06:31:41 PM »

acts420, if you wish to use the word epithymia, it also means wish or desire in addition to lust.
Logged
acts420
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: the Way
Jurisdiction: Jesus the Anointed One
Posts: 310



WWW
« Reply #70 on: May 02, 2012, 10:32:25 PM »

acts420, if you wish to use the word epithymia, it also means wish or desire in addition to lust.

Exactly.  epithymia = lust = intense desire

Lust, or "epithymia," is not bad in and of itself.  That is my point.  If we "epithymia" for good things, that is good.  If we "epithymia" for bad things, that is bad.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2012, 10:32:43 PM by acts420 » Logged

In Christ,
Jason
www.acts420.com
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,472



« Reply #71 on: May 02, 2012, 10:44:20 PM »

acts420, if you wish to use the word epithymia, it also means wish or desire in addition to lust.

Exactly.  epithymia = lust = intense desire

Lust, or "epithymia," is not bad in and of itself.  That is my point.  If we "epithymia" for good things, that is good.  If we "epithymia" for bad things, that is bad.
you seem unable to make the distinction, if you find lust=intense desire is a value neutral equation.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,156


WWW
« Reply #72 on: May 02, 2012, 11:17:21 PM »

acts420, if you wish to use the word epithymia, it also means wish or desire in addition to lust.

Exactly.  epithymia = lust = intense desire

Lust, or "epithymia," is not bad in and of itself.  That is my point.  If we "epithymia" for good things, that is good.  If we "epithymia" for bad things, that is bad.

Why are you so stuck on the word lust?  According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the root word for lust is the Latin word lascivus (wanton).  The modern usage of the word lust, besides intense or unbridled sexual desire, is an intense longing or enthusiam / eagerness.
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,156


WWW
« Reply #73 on: May 02, 2012, 11:25:49 PM »

Then it seems you would condemn even Jesus Christ and His Holy Apostle.  So I am glad you condemn me also.  For even Christ said, "With fervent desire lust (epithymia) I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.'"  (Luke 22:16)  Likewise, the Holy Apostle said, "But, brothers and sisters, when we were orphaned by being separated from you for a short time, out of our great desire lust (epithymia) we made every effort to see you."  (1 Thessalonians 2:17)   See also 1 Timothy 6:9, "Those who desire want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful lusts (epithymia) that plunge people into ruin and destruction."

I haven't seen the Acts420 Translation of the Bible on amazon.com; I made some minor corrections to the passages cited from Scripture.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2012, 11:26:15 PM by SolEX01 » Logged
acts420
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: the Way
Jurisdiction: Jesus the Anointed One
Posts: 310



WWW
« Reply #74 on: May 03, 2012, 12:22:31 AM »

I haven't seen the Acts420 Translation of the Bible on amazon.com....

That's because I don't sell the word of God.  "Unlike so many, we do not sell the word of God. On the contrary, in Christ we speak before God with sincerity, as those sent from God."  2 Corinthians 2:17

Lust, the English word, is defined as an intense desire.  Sometimes it is used or meant in a sexual context, as in an intense sexual desire.  But sometimes it is used in other contexts.  The greek word is epithymia.

epithymia = lust = intense desire .  Even Christ had epithymia.  Christ had lust.  Christ had intense desires.  There is nothing sinful about lust in and of itself.  The object and context of the lust is what matters ethically speaking.

I'm not "stuck on lust" as you say.  I'm simply concerned that people here are saying lust is a sin.  That is falsehood.  Christ lusted as recorded in the Scriptures.  We should not be implying that Christ was a sinner.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2012, 12:24:59 AM by acts420 » Logged

In Christ,
Jason
www.acts420.com
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,156


WWW
« Reply #75 on: May 03, 2012, 12:33:00 AM »

Christ had lust.

How do you know?

Christ had intense desires.

How do you know?

I'm not "stuck on lust" as you say.  I'm simply concerned that people here are saying lust is a sin.  That is falsehood.  Christ lusted as recorded in the Scriptures.  We should not be implying that Christ was a sinner.

What Scriptures?  I use the Orthodox Study Bible; what Scriptures do you rely on?
Logged
acts420
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: the Way
Jurisdiction: Jesus the Anointed One
Posts: 310



WWW
« Reply #76 on: May 03, 2012, 02:16:33 AM »

Christ had lust.
How do you know?

I believe the Bible.  The Bible says Christ had epithymia.  epithymia = lust = intense desire.  Lust is not always a sexual word.  It simply means "intense desire."

Christ had intense desires.
How do you know?

"With fervent desire lust (epithymia) I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.'"  (Luke 22:16)

I'm not "stuck on lust" as you say.  I'm simply concerned that people here are saying lust is a sin.  That is falsehood.  Christ lusted as recorded in the Scriptures.  We should not be implying that Christ was a sinner.

What Scriptures?  I use the Orthodox Study Bible; what Scriptures do you rely on?

The holy ones, preferably in the original languages.
Logged

In Christ,
Jason
www.acts420.com
ironchapman
A bull of truth in the china shop of falsehoods.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Serious inquirer into Orthodoxy.
Posts: 781



« Reply #77 on: December 14, 2012, 12:12:34 PM »

Bump to post this:

Collin Klein, the Kansas State QB's first kiss with his now-wife was at the altar.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/gameon/2012/11/01/collin-klein-first-kiss/1674805/
Logged

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." --Bertrand Russell
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,698



« Reply #78 on: December 14, 2012, 12:33:03 PM »

Bump to post this:

Collin Klein, the Kansas State QB's first kiss with his now-wife was at the altar.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/gameon/2012/11/01/collin-klein-first-kiss/1674805/

Thanks for the update. However, if this starts another Actian round, i will be watching you like a hawk!  Wink police angel
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
ironchapman
A bull of truth in the china shop of falsehoods.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Serious inquirer into Orthodoxy.
Posts: 781



« Reply #79 on: December 14, 2012, 05:30:42 PM »

Bump to post this:

Collin Klein, the Kansas State QB's first kiss with his now-wife was at the altar.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/gameon/2012/11/01/collin-klein-first-kiss/1674805/

Thanks for the update. However, if this starts another Actian round, i will be watching you like a hawk!  Wink police angel
I have no intention of joining that fight.
Logged

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." --Bertrand Russell
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,561



« Reply #80 on: March 11, 2013, 10:06:29 AM »

When will the madness end?

http://youtu.be/Xp-jZyzQSms
« Last Edit: March 11, 2013, 10:06:40 AM by Asteriktos » Logged
Punch
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,298



« Reply #81 on: March 11, 2013, 05:00:44 PM »

I don't think it is wrong to kiss your woman before you get married, but if you can abstain from it, I think it would be the best choice of all. What an exciting wedding night!

Kiss your woman? Huh  Wonderful choice of words there - that evokes such tender, romantic images of a young couple in love.  Did you mistype these words when your mullet fell into your eyes, or were you distracted by the dawgs hollerin in the front yard?

Awww.  Someone got butthurt.
Logged

Orthodox only because of God and His Russians.
Punch
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,298



« Reply #82 on: March 11, 2013, 05:03:29 PM »

Christ had lust.

How do you know?

Christ had intense desires.

How do you know?

I'm not "stuck on lust" as you say.  I'm simply concerned that people here are saying lust is a sin.  That is falsehood.  Christ lusted as recorded in the Scriptures.  We should not be implying that Christ was a sinner.

What Scriptures?  I use the Orthodox Study Bible; what Scriptures do you rely on?

Christ had every temptation that we have.  And He overcame them all.  Or, have you been taught some other form or Christianity?
Logged

Orthodox only because of God and His Russians.
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,156


WWW
« Reply #83 on: March 11, 2013, 05:57:55 PM »

Christ had lust.

How do you know?

Christ had intense desires.

How do you know?

I'm not "stuck on lust" as you say.  I'm simply concerned that people here are saying lust is a sin.  That is falsehood.  Christ lusted as recorded in the Scriptures.  We should not be implying that Christ was a sinner.

What Scriptures?  I use the Orthodox Study Bible; what Scriptures do you rely on?

Christ had every temptation that we have.  And He overcame them all.  Or, have you been taught some other form or Christianity?

No, I haven't been taught some other form of Christianity.  I was opposing him on pre-marital sex.
Logged
Seraphim98
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 561



« Reply #84 on: April 05, 2013, 11:47:24 PM »

I was at a wedding like this back in the late 80s. Prior to marriage, the couple did nothing more than occasional hand holding and the sharing of little endearments on notes…since they limited physical expressions of their love, they had to be creative and find all sorts of other ways to show it. Their wedding kiss was their first, and I must admit that it was a beautiful and joyful moment for both of them and those who had the privilege to be invited to witness their union as man and wife.
Logged
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.177 seconds with 68 queries.