Standards for dating?

[chickenlady]

"One question: If physical contact usually leads a man into sin(*) and emotional contact leads a woman to sin(**), then why are we quick to allow emotional contact, but we are quick to disaprove of physical contact when we set "godly" standards for dating?"

Its really a misconception that a woman is only turned on by emotion. Women are and can be turned on by touching more than anything. A slight pat on the back could do more than you think. I think it really depends on the person what gets them going.

You can't allow a person into your heart unless you open yourself emotionally. You don't need physical contact to get to know a person, until it's appropreate. That's how I feel. If God says it's not right for a man to touch a woman, you can't argue with it.

 

[superdave]

If God says it's not right for a man to touch a woman, you can't argue with it.

What exactly are you making Paul say here. He is not talking about a dating/courting relationship here, he is talking about not getting married period.

Besides, he doesnt say its not right, he says its good not to, the contrapositive is not automatically true.

 

[buckster75]

We have a widowed deacon who goes to a widows house for hours sometimes til late at night. The often take weekend trips together. Any comments?

 

[I hate sin]

4His_glory

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Me and my wife date without a chaperone (and without the little ones) as often as possible. Not enough!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(I'm single...but I am praying for God to keep me that way).
I just would like to encourage others out their that do not share your enthusiasm;

Pro 5:18 Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth.
Pro 5:19 Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote: originally by chickenlady;

If God says it's not right for a man to touch a woman, you can't argue with it.

superdave writes;

What exactly are you making Paul say here. He is not talking about a dating/courting relationship here, he is talking about not getting married period.

Besides, he doesn't say its not right, he says its good not to, the contrapositive is not automatically true.

Brother Superdave, please expound more on this..."He is not talking about a dating/courting relationship here, he is talking about not getting married period." with the scriptures.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by 4His_glory:

We find that in many areas fundamentalists have gotten away from genuine heart change, to outward conformity. Sad.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My dear brother, what do you mean; Are you speaking about the way many of today's churches are doing the opposite to what Rom 12:1-2 says; "I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.
Rom 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God."

 

[StefanM]

'απτεσθαι = "to touch" in the verse cited by chickenlady

--------
From Thayer's in my handy-dandy E-sword (easy to paste!)

G680
ἅπτομαι
haptomai
Thayer Definition:
1) to fasten one’s self to, adhere to, cling to
1a) to touch
1b) of carnal intercourse with a women or cohabitation
1c) of levitical practice of having no fellowship with heathen practices. Things not to be touched appear to be both women and certain kinds of food, so celibacy and abstinence of certain kinds of food and drink are recommended.
1d) to touch, assail anyone
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: reflexive of G681

-----------
Strongs:
G680
ἅπτομαι
haptomai
hap'-tom-ahee
Reflexive of G681; properly to attach oneself to, that is, to touch (in many implied relations): - touch.

--------
I think the context here clearly demands that 'απτεσθαι refers to sex in any form, since Paul immediately provides an alternative in v. 2.

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

-----

StefanM's paraphrase of 1 Cor 7:1-2:

Now, about the things you wrote: it is good not to have sex. But because of the danger of sexual immorality, let each man and woman have a spouse.

-----------

 

[buckster75]

is it required to write 2 pages to get a response?

 

[Petrel]

Originally posted by buckster75:
is it required to write 2 pages to get a response?

I think everyone is unwilling to make a judgement on a situation they are completely unaware of the particulars of.

 

[4His_glory]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by 4His_glory:

We find that in many areas fundamentalists have gotten away from genuine heart change, to outward conformity. Sad.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My dear brother, what do you mean; Are you speaking about the way many of today's churches are doing the opposite to what Rom 12:1-2 says; "I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.
Rom 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God."

I mean what I said, I thought it was easy to understand. Many IFB preahcers preach a list of dos and don't and God will zap you if you don't do this, instead of mangifying Christ before there people and allowing His glory to change them. So many live lives of conformity and though on the outside they look good, there hearts are far from Christ. They are trying to please Him with the things they do and don't do instead of allowing His grace to work in them.

God bless.

 

[chickenlady]

Oh boy Super dave. So what are you saying that Paul was saying it wasn't good to get married? Cause that's what it sounds like by what you think Paul is saying. There's no way you can twist that verse around, and you can even take it out of context and it still means what it means.

I've known people that are able to touch and not lust, but that is not the case with everyone.

Here's an example: The guy can touch affectionately with no lust, he respects his woman to the fullest and actually couldn't think of her in a lustful way because he feels so much respect for her. Holding her, says more to him than words could ever say about how much he cares for her. He truely and honestly expresses his love language by touching, with no lust attatched (yup it is possible).

Now his girlfriend, isn't that way. He isn't even reguarding that she may be that way but yet like every other man assumes she's only aroused by "emotion" (big joke by the way). By being touched, she wants to advance to the next level, since she's stimulated by touch. It will make them both eventually stumble, eventhough his affectionate intentions were pure.

Don't you notice that everything advances to the next level? A leaning turns into holding, and holding turns into a carressing, and a caressing turns into kissing, etc. I've seen it happen. Don't argue with the bible!!!!

And Here's a tip for the guys who have messed around and then want a pure woman to corrupt:

YOU DON'T DESERVE ONE. KEEP YOUR PAWS OFF.

 

[StefanM]

superdave, feel free to correct me if I misinterpreted your position.

Superdave was explaining (and I concur) that Paul was advocating the position that it is good for a person not to marry [the implied application of "to touch"/'απτεσθαι-- which carries a clear sexual meaning--we're not talking about hugging/kissing here](not that marriage is bad, but that celibacy is good), but Paul realized the dangers of immorality, so he gave the advice to marry as a way to fulfill sexual desires without immorality.

 

[StefanM]

Also, we see that when Paul says, "it is good for a man not to touch a woman," he does NOT qualify that statement. Note that Paul does NOT say, "It is good for a man not to touch a woman until he is married to her." Of course, Paul expands his statement a few verses later, cautioning married couples to regularly engage in intercourse to avoid immorality.

 

[chickenlady]

the point is here we're not talking about marriage. We're talking about touching within a dating relationship. It's self explainatory in the bible to get married if you want somebody to grope. That verse was intended for those that aren't married.

 

[buckster75]

Originally posted by buckster75:
We have a widowed deacon who goes to a widows house for hours sometimes til late at night. The often take weekend trips together. Any comments?

ok more details. These people are over 70. The deacon's grandson has commented that his granddad is just using this woman for sex. The deacon's daughter has stated that when they go off on thier multiday trips they go to the "boats" (casinos). Someone has seen them going into motel rooms alone on these trips. Ask if you need more to give a comment.

 

[I hate sin]

superdave and StefanM

This is a doctrinal reponse to your responses to chickenlady; (Which I believe makes things more simple for everyone who may be confused).

quote: (Originally by chickenlady)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If God says it's not right for a man to touch a woman, you can't argue with it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

response by superdave;

What exactly are you making Paul say here. He is not talking about a dating/courting relationship here, he is talking about not getting married period.

Besides, he doesnt say its not right, he says its good not to, the contrapositive is not automatically true.


Response by brother Graham;

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

If a man is not married it is good for him not to touch a woman in anyway that involves leading to fornication. A man who is single or a woman, should avoid all situations or positions that would cause their emotions for one another to produce an act of fornication, this is what is meant (not to touch). However, Paul does not condemn a man or woman touching inside the bounds of marriage as a husband and wife. If a woman or man wants to avoid fornication and not burn in their lusts, let him or her have their own husband or wife as Paul states in verse 2. Paul would that every man would remain single as he was for the Lord (verse 7) but this is not possible for every man hath his proper gift. Some are set apart from the womb to be as Paul (Gal 1:15a But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, ; Mat 19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.) and some are to respect that finding a good wife to share their life with in the Lord is a favour from God (Pro 18:22 Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the LORD.)

 

[superdave]

You made my point. And no, CL, Paul is not merely talking about the unmarried person. In context he is talking about human beings in the general sense.

He is referring specifically to fornication, and making his point that In Paul's opinion, if one was never to engage in any relationship with a member of the opposite sex, it could be a benefit to that person when it comes to their ministry, something that perhaps was true in Paul's case, but is not the case in a majority of the population. You cannot use this verse specifically as a "do not touch" commandment, since in its context, he is specifically talking about fornication, and he is referencing it as it relates to the decision about whether or not to seek a wife. The passage has a literal historical context, and should not be viewed as a single phrase outside of that.

If a man is not married it is good for him not to touch a woman in anyway that involves leading to fornication.

I am a little fuzzy on what exactly you would include in this rather vague description

A man who is single or a woman, should avoid all situations or positions that would cause their emotions for one another to produce an act of fornication, this is what is meant (not to touch).

This statement I have a problem with, hopefully you don't mean it as I have interpreted it. Are you implying that situations or positions that I put myself in could "produce" an act of fornication. I should be a person who is ready to please God regardless of what circumstances I find myself in. This seems to lead to some opportunities to excuse my behavior as "caused by my emotions" If I place myself in a situation that allows for some particular sin, either willfully or through carelessness, it doesn't mean that I should be excused for my feelings or emotions leading me to sin.

However, Paul does not condemn a man or woman touching inside the bounds of marriage as a husband and wife.

Again, this point clearly limits the scope to fornication, rather than merely some vague "touching" description.

I hope you all realize I am taking a bit of the "Devil's Advocate" position here, but I am concerned that scripture is being taken lightly or out of context here. I have seen it too often in IFB circles. The Bible can't mean something it didn't mean when Paul wrote it.

 

[chickenlady]

you guys are basically just re-instating my point.

 

[buckster75]

can we ever get to the point where we can say it is no one's business? (as far as age) do we have to remain above reproach? does it matter on the status of the person? (married, single)

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by buckster75:
can we ever get to the point where we can say it is no one's business?

Yes. By the time someone is of age and living on their own, not beholden to another, it's reasoneble to believe the point of it being no one's business has been reached.

do we have to remain above reproach?

I think a person can be presumed to be above reproach until reasonable doubt is cast upon that by the person's actions. When I was dating my wife, we went on a weekend trp to Las Vegas. We stayed in the same hotel, but had adjoining rooms. I can't tell you the number of persons who presumed that we were being immoral. It was sad that I had to "explain" myself to people. I'd have thought that my generally moral character in other aspects of life would have been sufficient. But some people simply like to gossip.

does it matter on the status of the person?

Not really, though I don't approve of married people dating

Seriously, though, I DO think married people should date ... each other. Dating, courting, etc, should not cease when the ring goes on.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by chickenlady:
It's self explainatory in the bible to get married if you want somebody to grope.

True, but there is much touching that is not groping. Holding hands, hugging, and kissing, are not groping. They can be done respectfully. I held my wife's hand in public all the time when we were unmarried. I hugged her frequently when we were dating. I never left her at the end of the day without kissing her goodbye.

We're married now, and we still hold hands, hug, and kiss. But now we get to grope too

 

[superdave]

Don't you notice that everything advances to the next level? A leaning turns into holding, and holding turns into a carressing, and a caressing turns into kissing, etc. I've seen it happen. Don't argue with the bible!!!!

I don't see any Bible there, just experiential anecdotes and hyperbole

Superdave was explaining (and I concur) that Paul was advocating the position that it is good for a person not to marry [the implied application of "to touch"/'απτεσθαι-- which carries a clear sexual meaning--we're not talking about hugging/kissing here](not that marriage is bad, but that celibacy is good), but Paul realized the dangers of immorality, so he gave the advice to marry as a way to fulfill sexual desires without immorality.

Absoulutely right, so I am going to assert that I am not the one interpreting Paul's point incorrectly. He is saying that celibacy for some people is better, including himself in that group. However, he is not making a value judgement between marriage and celibacy.

If a person does not believe that they can minister more effectively by marrying the person they are persuing, than they should avoid it. IMO, derived from what Paul says about marriage and celibacy in general.