Holding Hands

[CBCSLTechDude]

Holy smokes 8 pages for "holding hands"? I would only expect a subject like gay-marrige or abortion to go this far.
I honestly don't see the big deal if you can keep yourself and your mind under control and don't hold hands in public just to show off, and etc.

 

[Clean1]

I just don't want to put myself in those type of situations that I may get tempted or even think about STUFF I shouldn't think about. Thats one of my main reasons for not holding hands, kissing, hugging, etc. And if you really love your spouse you won't make a big deal about how they look, kiss, etc. because you'll love them for who they are and what they are. You may not love everything about them but you would do anything for them right?

 

[bapmom]

CBCSL...yuppers.....lol I thought about that too.

Clean1

you got it, "kiddo"

 

[Enoch]

Clean1 I wish more people could have your convictions to live a Holy life. You have set the standard high and that should be applauded.

Two of our younger friends just married and they also chose not to hold hands. They are in their 20’s. There is nothing weird about not kissing or holding hands before marriage. Clean1 perhaps you could talk to your parents about this? After reading through some of the posts I’m taken aback at some of the advice you were given. If any adult or youth ever tells you to go beyond what you feel comfortable with or God leading you to do, red flags should materialize. I’m not sure this is the safest place for you to get advice about such issues.

I agree with reading these books:
When God writes your love story – Eric and Leslie Ludy
When dreams come true – Eric and Leslie Ludy
I kissed dating goodbye – Joshua Harris

Eric and Leslie Ludy

Joshua Harris

 

[CBCSLTechDude]

Also what about "I Gave Dating a Chance"

I've read this book about 3 times, BTW.

 

[Pastor Larry]

As Paul said, It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

Slight problem here ... Paul did not say that it was good for a man not to touch a woman. That was what the Corinthians "wrote to him about." It is clear from teh context of 1 Cor 7 that Paul is actually commanding that a man touch a woman in order to avoid fornication. But he commands it to be done in marriage.

1 Cor 7:1 cannot be applied here.

To the issue at hand, since I have started, if someone asked me about holding hands I would ask them why it is so important. I wouldn't say it is sin. I would say it is unnecessary for teenagers to be doing it. As one grows older and moves toward marriage in a concrete way, a more physical expression of that love may be appropriate. But in high school, it serves no real purpose, and you really won't be "out of touch" for the rest of your life if you choose to abstain from handholding.

But whatever your position, base it on the legitimate principles of Scripture.

 

[Gina B]

Aaron...brought "it" up because the topic IS purity, and I felt it pertained as I wanted to stress that I really do feel that purity is a wonderful thing, I value the idea of it immensely, and would never want to discourage that in the unmarrieds. Wanted it to be perfectly clear, felt as it if may not have been!

You did ask me a few other questions. Like I said, I really don't want to argue this and wish you would not have continued it by asking, but that's ok. I just really didn't want to promote a spirit of disunity, but let's see if I can answer without getting defensive in a bad way!

I'm not harsh with my children, but what do you mean "give them credit?" I shouldn't think they're sinners at heart? That there are no lusts warring in their members? That the universal, non-optional truths of the Scriptures don't apply? No thanks, that's a recipe for disaster.

I really meant just that. Give them credit, without assuming that everything they do will lead to impurity. I certainly would be appalled if my daughter went to get married, and our church wouldn't allow her to wear a white dress because she was seen holding hands with her fiance before the wedding. Assuming that holding hands is a violation of purity just really strikes me as wrong. Also, I strongly feel that it must be very discouraging to pure unmarrieds on here to read that they're not pure or are on the verge of being unpure because they've held hands.
As far as wrong, I don't believe all lust is wrong. We're created male and female. Uncontrollable lust, yes, but there is within us a natural and good desire towards the opposite sex. (read Song of Solomon, you can't tell me these people had no physical attraction to each other before they were wed) I don't feel it's wrong to feel lust towards a future spouse, to a degree. God himself tells us to lust after HIM! Desire. Want. We are physically attracted to people, we are spiritually attracted to God. They are parallel, and neither is wrong. It is part of who we are and how God made us.
Certainly they need to be taught control, and normal thoughts from perverted thoughts and how to allow God to help them control their minds. NOT doing that is indeed a recipe for disaster!
No, I hope you don't believe they're all vile sinners at heart. A saved person's heart has been renewed and they have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, do they not? They deserve to have the Spirit in them recognized, and not to have us constantly dwelling on possible physical insufficiencies. We should provide guidance and safety via rules and limitations and let the spirit of God work, rather than assuming the worst and staunching the normal process of growing up shouldn't we?

Ok, I hope I have answered your questions. I was very sincere about not wanted to argue this, so let me ask you...are you replying to me with the hopes that I will change my mind, and are you reading my responses with the thought that I may be able to change yours?

I can already tell you that I've read enough that I don't feel I'm going to change my stance, although I do respect yours, and still do feel it's a trivial matter not really worthy of such a long discussion, especially considering the strong emotions it's brought out from others. I've seen enough dissent between Christians to last me a lifetime...but if you seriously are looking for my opinion and really have questions, feel free to ask. I simply request that you do so in a non-confrontational manner, and I did sense, hopefully wrongfully so, some antagonism in your response.
(and yes, I realize that I've done more than my share of antagonizing in the past, I've decided it's not very spiritual and I need to calm down, in case you're wondering why I'm not responding like I normally would)

 

[gekko]

CBCSLTechDude... i completely agree with you 100% to infinity. why so many pages? it's so clear. yet people seem to like to walk into fog just so they got something to talk about eh? lol. (nothing against anybody here if offense was taken. i'm sorry)

gekface.

 

[PastorSBC1303]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />As Paul said, It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

Slight problem here ... Paul did not say that it was good for a man not to touch a woman. That was what the Corinthians "wrote to him about." It is clear from teh context of 1 Cor 7 that Paul is actually commanding that a man touch a woman in order to avoid fornication. But he commands it to be done in marriage.

1 Cor 7:1 cannot be applied here.

To the issue at hand, since I have started, if someone asked me about holding hands I would ask them why it is so important. I wouldn't say it is sin. I would say it is unnecessary for teenagers to be doing it. As one grows older and moves toward marriage in a concrete way, a more physical expression of that love may be appropriate. But in high school, it serves no real purpose, and you really won't be "out of touch" for the rest of your life if you choose to abstain from handholding.

But whatever your position, base it on the legitimate principles of Scripture. </font>[/QUOTE]That has been my position on here the whole time. Thanks for stating it again!

 

[Karen]

Originally posted by Johnv:

.......
When a person gets engaged, it's completely different than dating. You're made a commitment to marry a person, and have done so by giving an engagement ring, and setting a date (or the two of you set a date pretty quickly thereafter). You've from that point on committed yourself to that person. You plan on a home, commit finances, iron out how the home will run, etc. Engagement is not something to be taken lightly. You're not engaged without a ring and a date.
..........

John,
You have made many great points. But I have to disagree with you on the concept of not being engaged without a ring and a date. An engagement ring and an established date is merely one cultural way (and fairly recent way) of expressing the commitment of engagement.

One of my little hobbies for years has been saving articles from my hometown newspaper about the anniversary celebrations of couples married 40, 50 or 60plus years. These articles appear quite frequently and are usually a full-page.
Most in my collection reflect Depression and World War II era marriages.

In that economically poor area of the country, most of these engaged couples never had an engagement ring. And generally, marriages were not elaborate. A large percentage of them, when they could get around to it, hitched up the wagon or borrowed a car, got a couple of witnesses, and went to town to the local Presbyterian parsonage. "Uncle ---", the local Presbyterian pastor, performed hundreds of marriages in front of his fireplace, many on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day.
These marriages have lasted, but the engagements did not generally start off with a ring and a date.

Karen

 

[DesiderioDomini]

I noticed something which even though is slightly OT, I wish to comment.

Bapmom:

Do you see what Im saying? Based on Biblical principles (its not good for a man to touch a woman, flee YOUTHFUL lusts, abstain from appearance of evil...etc) Im definitely not going to tell my kids that they ought to practice any part of the physical relationship.

its not good for a man to touch a woman
This has already been cleared up. I'm glad we are all in context now.


flee YOUTHFUL lusts
One thing we must remember, since these things were not listed in the bible, who defines what they are? Who makes the decision that holding hands is a youthful lust? I honestly remember holding hands in HS, and never once lusting over that girl because of it. Does that mean everyone should do as I do? No, stick to your convictions of what God is speaking to you. However, I think it is a bit overblown to label holding hands as a youthful lust.

abstain from appearance of evil
There is literally NOTHING that cant fall into this category. In bible times, eating meat fell under this category. Should a vegetarian hold you to his conviction? Are you bound by it? Are you living according to the word if you continue to eat meat even though he believes it is wrong for you to do so? I highly doubt anyone here would say yes.

I know a guy who cannot watch basketball games without sinning. He used to be an obsessive gambler, and now even watching a game is too tempting for him. Now, I am required, by scripture, to refrain from turning on the Mavs game if he is at my house. Its also not very caring of me to bring up sports in his presence. However, am I also bound by his conviction? Must I now give up watching sports because there is a possibility that I will become a gambler? HARDLY!

My stepfather used to listen to heavy metal music. When he got saved, I was 16, so I thought it would be a good idea to hook him up with some christian heavy metal cds. He told me that listening to them would only make him want the old stuff more, which he did not need to listen to. Now, should I give up Kutless just because it would be tempting for him? If I did, I would give up the worship CD which GOD used to change my life. Such would be foolish.

This is the problem I have with this type of thinking. "If anyone think it is wrong, then you are better off staying away from it". I think it is clear when we take scripture as a whole, and not jsut select verses, we find that we should abstain from those things IN THEIR PRESENCE, but we are not bound by their convictions in our personal lives.

Therefore, I notice that a few teens do not agree that holding hands is wrong. That is just fine for them. However, let me add, if there is someone in your church who does feel it is wrong, THEN YOU ARE WRONG (BIBLICALLY) FOR HOLDING HANDS AT CHURCH. There is no getting around that one. Do not be a stumbling block to them. If you are in doubt, just dont do it around others.

However, for the one who has the conviction not to hold hands, YOU ARE WRONG (BIBLICALLY) IF YOU ATTEMPT TO HOLD ANOTHER BELIEVER RESPONSIBLE TO YOUR CONVICTION. I cite (again) Romans 14, and 1 Corinthians 8. I will let the readers look it up.

This is where as christian teachers we have let our young people down. By our actions we have often taught them that it is OK to push our extrabiblical convictions onto others. I have personally witnessed to MANY people who to this day are not believers because of these actions.

Last semester at a poker tournament, (cant wait to get slammed for that one) I spoke with a girl who said she used to go to church when she was younger, but said she would never go again because there were so many double standards. I asked her to explain, and she said that the church said drinking was wrong, but she later found that the bible didnt say so. However, the church's doctrinal statement said that they believed in SOLA SCRIPTURA! All doctrines were directly from scripture, they claimed. Good thing I had a good day, cuz we got to talk for a while, and I left her with a copy of "Case for Christ" which she seemed excited to read. I still pray for her, but I came to this realization: How many are there like her that NNE has ever noticed? How many never admit WHY they dont go to church, but things like this are the reason?

I dont want to be misunderstood. So let me be clear, just to avoid that possibilty.

If you think holding hands is wrong, then for you, it is. I would never dream of trying to change your mind, and any christian who does is not speaking from God.

However, making any conviction like this binding for another believer is simply unbiblical. Even claiming that they would "do better" or "be a better christian" for doing so is unbiblical. The bible says that a slave is subject to his master. We (christians) are all slaves on this earth, there are no masters among us. If God permitted something for them, who can overrule that?

Sorry I went long. I felt this was important. I again offer my thanks to those young people here who have stood on their convictions. I know this isnt easy. Keep the faith!!!

 

[bapmom]

Desiderio,

I appreciate your comments, but please notice in my point you quoted I was talking specifically to the general notion of "practicing a physical aspect of the relationship." Someone else has come in here and claimed that kids OUGHT to practice things such as kissing because what if they are bad at it?

THat notion is what I objected to so strenuously. In general Id agree with you...in practice I recommend for unmarried people not to even begin with anything physical. Ive never claimed that I have any right to make it BINDING on anyone other than my own children. However, I find no problem with a church's youth group having a policy about such issues.

Ive already posted all of my thoughts on it in here, and I don't want to repeat myself unnecessarily. That gets boring.

[ November 16, 2005, 11:26 AM: Message edited by: bapmom ]

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Karen:
I have to disagree with you on the concept of not being engaged without a ring and a date. An engagement ring and an established date is merely one cultural way (and fairly recent way) of expressing the commitment of engagement.

Dr Laura would agree with me. Having no ring or date when engaged is reminiscent of those who say marriage is just a piece of paper. These days, a ring isn't expensive (a nice ring might be expensive). I personally question the sincerity of a man who asks a woman to marry him, but hasn't even bothered to get her a cheap $25 band. What does it say about his desire to provide for her? Likewise, one must wonder if a couple is really ready to commit to each other for life when they haven't even committed to a date (or even to a general time, such as "we're getting married next spring").

As for the clipping you referred to, in those days, people didn't have 6 month long engagements. It was much more common to marry someone within a month or two of getting engaged. An engagement ring wasn't necessary because the engagement was so brief. As for the small wedding, I personally think people sometimes make way too much hooplah and spend way too much money for weddings. I personally don't recommend that couples get into debt to pay for their weddings. If they can't afford it, then they need to scale it down.

 

[Karen]

I agree with some of your points.
Many times, in those days, people did not have 6 month engagements, that is true. They sometimes had a month or two. (Although they had usually known each other a long time.) Many times they had several years' long engagements because of World War II or other situations.

Even Dr. Laura, I believe, is in favor of long engagements, although you are right - she is strong on a ring. Yet many in my acquaintance never had engagement rings. It was a concept for wealthier people. Even for those who had a ring, it very often was not a diamond. A small garnet or pearl.
There are lots of very conservative Baptists and others who do not believe in rings at all, including wedding rings themselves.

All I am saying is that engagement is a commitment to marry and to begin the preparations.
A ring and a date set right away or a general season set right away are not always an essential part. My husband and I have been married almost thirty years. We were engaged for 2 years because of school. We did not set the actual date till much closer to the wedding. I have a beautiful engagement ring. But we were engaged a year before I got it. And we would have been just as much engaged if I had never gotten one. We agreed on some different priorities at the time.
I can see your point more if the man is employed gainfully post-schooling and WON'T buy a ring because he would rather have a plasma tv and new Jeep.

Sure, some common sense is involved here. A general commitment to marry in 10 or fifteen years would not really be an engagement, I think.

Karen

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Karen:
Even Dr. Laura, I believe, is in favor of long engagements, although you are right - she is strong on a ring.

From what I glean, she's not in favor of engagements that are "too" long. 6 months to a year seems to be her rule of thumb. She seems to consider anything more than that a waste of time, and I agree (barring the wartime scenario, of course).

There are lots of very conservative Baptists and others who do not believe in rings at all, including wedding rings themselves.

That's obviously a valid religious reason that satisfactorily answers the question "why no ring".

My husband and I have been married almost thirty years. We were engaged for 2 years because of school.

I probably would encourage people in school to not get engaged until schooling is done. Just my $.02. Not that you turned out bad or anything

I'm sure you'll agree that school should be a person's primary focus at that time.

I can see your point more if the man is employed gainfully post-schooling and WON'T buy a ring because he would rather have a plasma tv and new Jeep.

That's pretty much where I was going. Well, except for the plasma tv

 

[DesiderioDomini]

Bapmom,

It seems we agree for the most part. I agree that youth groups should set limits as to what is allowable at church. I personally see no need for physical affection of any kind at church, except a hug or handshake, or a kiss on the cheek hello and goodbye for close friends, as some are in habit of doing. Anything by couples outside this, and even I am annoyed by it.

I see your point about setting limits for your own children. May I pass on a word of wisdom about that? I think it is a great idea, as long as you do one thing. You must make it an intrinsic value for THEM. I say this only because I have witnessed, both in my own life and in my ministry, that when parents set down rules such as these without truely teaching WHY they set these rules, and without allowing feedback from their kids, rebellion is often a high risk.

I would never try to TELL you how to raise your kids of course. I just know that it is important to find a way (which you will know best since you are their mom) to make this value important to THEM, and not just for YOU. That way, their reasoning is different.

For one, they arent following this rule for you, they are following it to please God.

Two, should they fail, they need to realize as David did "against only you have I sinned". Often it is more difficult to get over a mistake when you feel that you sinned against so many people, especially since us humans are not perfect, and we often dont forgive as God does. If your children know they must seek GODS forgiveness, they would seek repentance much easier.

Dont take this post the wrong way, I am sure you thought of most of this. You seem to be a good mom with your kids best interests at heart. No one knows your kids like you do. Just take this from a youth minister who has heard many stories in his few days. If I am off base, then feel free to ignore!

 

[bapmom]

Desiderio,

you make an excellent point here! This has been one of my main concerns in raising our children because I also have seen rebellion from kids who had no "whys" explained to them. In fact, I was one of them at times. I remember vowing to always explain the why to my own children, and my husband and I have both tried our best to do this.

So far Ive seen a good response from our kids. Our oldest is only 11, so we are just going to start the teen years ourselves. So far Ive seen a good response from her, and she is very willing to talk still.

I appreciate what you've said, and I am glad to have some confirmation that we were thinking straight.

 

[ThexBlondestxBrunnette]

Clean1:

Ok so I know I'm joining this conversation really late but some of the things some of the people have posted really bothers me. I am 15 years old and I also believe that it is wrong to touch a person of the opposite sex if their only intention is to show their love to one another. AND NO THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S WRONG TO HOLD A CHILD'S HAND AND NO IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU CAN'T TOUCH YOUR WIFE!!! That is the most ridiculse (sp) thing I have ever heard. God DID tell Noah to replenish the earth and I don't think Noah did that without ever touching his wife, do you??? And if a man and woman not holding hands before marriage is "out of context" then how can you believe anything else in the Bible?? When God says it's wrong, it's wrong. So my point is if God only meant sexual contact, He probably would have said it. And even if that is what He meant by the verse, I'd rather be safe then to sin and lead others into the same sin.

I go to a public school, and yes sometimes it does get hard to go against all of the world's standards and beliefs but isn't it "greater is he that is in me than he that is in the world"?? One thing though that makes it hard is when non-believers criticize your beliefs but it especially hurts when other Christians do. Not many teens are willing to take a stand like this so I beg you to please don't destroy our hope. There are still a few out there who really do want to do right by God and others. So please instead of criticism, lift us up. It's kind of like our preacher says (and please don't take offense to this) "the reason a lot of teens won't go with God is because their parents won't"

 

[Brother Bob]

If the human race can't comfort one another by holding hands, hugging or just patting someone on the back and not in a sexual way but just to show some kind of affection towards your fellow man, then we sure live in a cold world.

 

[HisOwn]

If the human race can't comfort one another by holding hands, hugging or just patting someone on the back and not in a sexual way but just to show some kind of affection towards your fellow man, then we sure live in a cold world.

:thumbs: Amen!!