Is it a sin for a man to touch a women to whom he is not married?

[rbell]

I know that it is good for a man not to touch a woman. I don't know that I would accuse one of sin for touching one, but I couldn't say he is doing good.

Let's keep in in proper context, though.

The other day, I helped an older lady at church negotiate a step up into a vehicle. (She's in her nineties). I held her arm and steadied her.

There's touching, and then there's touching. What I did involved physical contact, and it was good that I helped her.

 

[annsni]

Let's keep in in proper context, though.

The other day, I helped an older lady at church negotiate a step up into a vehicle. (She's in her nineties). I held her arm and steadied her.

There's touching, and then there's touching. What I did involved physical contact, and it was good that I helped her.

Exactly what I was thinking....

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Let's keep in in proper context, though.

The other day, I helped an older lady at church negotiate a step up into a vehicle. (She's in her nineties). I held her arm and steadied her.

There's touching, and then there's touching. What I did involved physical contact, and it was good that I helped her.

to the stocks with you!

 

[webdog]

In a discussion in the BV forum. The statement was made that unmarried people should never embrace or kiss in anyway.

I pointed out that in some cultures kissing on the cheek and even embracing are the acceptable and cultural and expected means of greeting.

I was told that this is still wrong. What say ye?

I haven't read all of the responses here, but my mom would be ticked!

So much for showing affection to my children, too...

 

[Aaron]

Let's keep in in proper context, though.

The other day, I helped an older lady at church negotiate a step up into a vehicle. (She's in her nineties). I held her arm and steadied her.

There's touching, and then there's touching. What I did involved physical contact, and it was good that I helped her.

If you happen to be into old ladies, I'd say it's good for you not to touch one.

 

[rbell]

If you happen to be into old ladies, I'd say it's good for you not to touch one.

yikes!

Dunno what to say...

 

[Alcott]

Beginning when I was 24, I started going to the Single Adult Labor Day Conferences at Glorieta, going to about a dozen in 15 years. At one of them, alongside the seminars and activities was a "Hug-In." In this, a husband and wife team led some songs and talked about the 'need' for physical touching [including that story about the baby some researchers tried to raise completely without human contact-- he died]. Then we had this list and illustrated drawings of about 15 different types of hugs, and we were to go around the room trying them, and getting the other person to sign our paper for that one-- just like "mixers" of finding someone left-handed, someone with blood-shot eyes, someone who owns a black labrador, et al. A "brother hug" was just both guys putting their arms over the other's shoulder. I don't remember any other of the names except the "octopus hug" (think legs) - that was the one that made everybody a little shy. But seeing that (as they had before, most likely) the couple showed a 'variation' of it that was less... intrusive, I suppose.

Anyway, I did that stuff in those days, and even ordered one of their red T-shirts, with a bear, which said "I'M A HUGGER!" But I assure you I wouldn't do that now-- nothing even close. That period of about 2-3 years was the only time in my life for trying to change myself into a "touchy feely" person. I had just come out of a really bad experience in a church, deploring the rigidity and the hesitance to reach out and relate and always falling back on 'Baptist tradition.' So I tried going that feel-good direction for a time before I gradually realized I'm just pretending with it-- I'm not really like that. So now, with the passage of another 20 years, I'm probably more like those "rigid, hesitant" old Baptists that I once had such a conflict with. In our current Single Adult group, I'm probably one of the least 'huggy' of all, and I'm sure most of them wouldn't believe I once took part in something like the "hug-in."

I think the ideal has to be somewhere between being stuffy and being huggy. Human touch is important, and there is a place for it among Christian brother and sisters. Don't deny it-- but don't make some kind of program out of it

 

[Aaron]

yikes!

Dunno what to say...

I don't mean YOU personally, I mean you collectively. Obviously the point is that it's best that a man avoid touching women (who aren't his mother or grandmother or sister or the old lady needing help crossing the road, you get the picture . . .) as a general rule.

We know what is in the hearts of men.

Can't say it's a sin to do otherwise, but I can't say it's good. At least that's how I read the passage. Ya'll can dream up all the exeptions you want till you make it say otherwise: that it's not good for a man not to touch a woman, but then you'd be like Democrats who lost an election—just keep counting until the vote comes out the way you want it.

 

[rbell]

I don't mean YOU personally, I mean you collectively. Obviously the point is that it's best that a man avoid touching women (who aren't his mother or grandmother or sister or the old lady needing help crossing the road, you get the picture . . .) as a general rule.

We know what is in the hearts of men.

Can't say it's a sin to do otherwise, but I can't say it's good. At least that's how I read the passage. Ya'll can dream up all the exeptions you want till you make it say otherwise: that it's not good for a man not to touch a woman, but then you'd be like Democrats who lost an election—just keep counting until the vote comes out the way you want it.

I was actually trying to be funny earlier...but I couldn't think of anything witty that wouldn't attract a mod's attention... :laugh:

Now playing on my iPod: "He Touched Me"

 

[Berean]

As a child we had a saying about a less then desireable beauty; "I wouldn't touch her with a ten foot pole".

 

[Alcott]

Should only a woman baptize another woman?

 

[Marcia]

Should only a woman baptize another woman?

I don't think that's what the text means by "touching."

 

[Dale-c]

It has been a while since I studied this passage but from memory I was thinking it was actually talking about marriage and for that current situation....but I need to go back and read again.

Touching in non sexual ways are certainly fine I would say.
Though some think that there should be no contact at all between unmarried young people of opposite genders.

There is of course room for culture here but when young men do not help ladies in certain situation, that might involve touching, they are not a gentleman.

 

[Alcott]

How about male doctors, male nurses, male dressmakers, male shoe clerks,....

I bring up these rather silly examples, including the one about only women baptizing women, because it shows where taking scripture in the direction of literalism by the English language can lead.

 

[John Toppass]

We can give what we think to be exceptions all day long but can anyone come up with scripture that states the actual act of touching in itself is sin? I could not find one. We have even been warned by an administrator to be careful when so far everything said has been completely inbounds. In fact, I have not read a post yet that says it is a sin. If it were a sin, the sin would not be in the touch but in the lust that someone might have, and they are probably going to have that sin whether or not they touch.

 

[Marcia]

How about male doctors, male nurses, male dressmakers, male shoe clerks,....

I bring up these rather silly examples, including the one about only women baptizing women, because it shows where taking scripture in the direction of literalism by the English language can lead.

I think the context shows that it does not apply to your examples. This has nothing to do with literalism, which is not wrong in and of itself if a passage is strictly literal, but has to do with sound hermeneutics. The context suggests at the very least a non-innocent type of touching.

 

[Marcia]

I wonder why Baptists seems obsessed with whether something is called a sin or not (I realize this is the question in the OP). This happens on threads on gambling -- "I can't find gambling called a sin in the Bible so I'll gamble," for example.

Is it not true that there are some things to avoid even if they are not technically a sin? This does not take a rocket science brain to understand.

Didn't Paul say that all is allowed but not all is profitable (paraphrasing from memory)?

I can walk into a bar where there are dirty jokes and lewd looks and maybe walking into the bar is not a sin - technically - but is it a good idea? Of course not.

Why do some have to have something labeled a sin in the Bible to say it's not good?

 

[Alive in Christ]

"In a discussion in the BV forum. The statement was made that unmarried people should never embrace or kiss in anyway."

Utter nonsense.

Excessive legalism run amuck.


:godisgood:

 

[rbell]

I wonder why Baptists seems obsessed with whether something is called a sin or not (I realize this is the question in the OP). This happens on threads on gambling -- "I can't find gambling called a sin in the Bible so I'll gamble," for example.

Is it not true that there are some things to avoid even if they are not technically a sin? This does not take a rocket science brain to understand.

Didn't Paul say that all is allowed but not all is profitable (paraphrasing from memory)?

I can walk into a bar where there are dirty jokes and lewd looks and maybe walking into the bar is not a sin - technically - but is it a good idea? Of course not.

Why do some have to have something labeled a sin in the Bible to say it's not good?

Hence my post on "is it sinful?" versus, "is it wise?"

The context suggests at the very least a non-innocent type of touching.

My point exactly. Although this now means that when a Sunday School teacher does a good job, we can't do like pro football players & give a slap on the rump and say "good job."

 

[Amy.G]

Taken in context, I think this verse is referring to se*ual relations, not affectionate, friendly "touching".

1Co*7:1 ¶ Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

1Co*7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.