quote:

ORIGINAL: d4nnyb0y02

What do you think about this? Technically, as holiness and perfect godliness is concerned... I believe we went to far physically just by holding hands, and kissing on the cheek.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kerrlaw

quote:

ORIGINAL: d4nnyb0y02

What do you think about this? Technically, as holiness and perfect godliness is concerned... I believe we went to far physically just by holding hands, and kissing on the cheek.

To each his/her own. I personally do not believe that kissing, much less hand holding, is sinful when done by single people of the opposite sex.

I kissed the lovely Mrs. Kerrlaw on our first date and on every opportunity thereafter for the past 22 years and don't regret a single smooch.

quote:

Well, I'm not worried about it. It is what it is. I am just moved to teach, and to teach what is good and true regardless of my own personal agenda, walk, history, or experience.

quote:

Out of what I believe was their zealousness to walk in righteousness (a good thing), they created a series of "hedge laws" to prevent them from getting close to breaking the real laws of God. Sometimes these hedge laws can be a great aid to help us walk in righteousness, but only when they are laws we personally adapt for ourselves. These are laws that should never be taught as mandates for other because they are not taught in Scripture. When these kinds of laws are mandated on others they become nothing more than simply a religious burden. Let's be careful to not fall into the same trap of heaping burden upon burden on the backs of those we attempt to teach about righteousness.

quote:

ORIGINAL: d4nnyb0y02

quote:

Out of what I believe was their zealousness to walk in righteousness (a good thing), they created a series of "hedge laws" to prevent them from getting close to breaking the real laws of God. Sometimes these hedge laws can be a great aid to help us walk in righteousness, but only when they are laws we personally adapt for ourselves. These are laws that should never be taught as mandates for other because they are not taught in Scripture. When these kinds of laws are mandated on others they become nothing more than simply a religious burden. Let's be careful to not fall into the same trap of heaping burden upon burden on the backs of those we attempt to teach about righteousness.

Agreed, and that's why I posted and asked. I am unconvinced that "to touch a woman" means to marry, and the context doesn't suggest that to me at all. However, I can see that it may mean to touch, sexually. Thanks all for your advice.

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

quote:

Well, I'm not worried about it. It is what it is. I am just moved to teach, and to teach what is good and true regardless of my own personal agenda, walk, history, or experience.

While have no problems with anyone choosing to do this in their own courtship, and I understand that rampant sexual immorality is a huge problem within the church today, I think it is a huge mistake to teach these standards to others because it is a standard based on a misunderstanding of Scripture (as others have pointed out).

This represent the same kind of mistake that was made by the pharisees. Out of what I believe was their zealousness to walk in righteousness (a good thing), they created a series of "hedge laws" to prevent them from getting close to breaking the real laws of God. Sometimes these hedge laws can be a great aid to help us walk in righteousness, but only when they are laws we personally adapt for ourselves. These are laws that should never be taught as mandates for other because they are not taught in Scripture. When these kinds of laws are mandated on others they become nothing more than simply a religious burden. Let's be careful to not fall into the same trap of heaping burden upon burden on the backs of those we attempt to teach about righteousness.

=================================

Here is a good example of what I mean:

In the OT there is a law that says don't cook a calf in its mother's milk.

This became a hedge law that said Don't cook a meat in any milk (because the milk might be from the mother)

This later became don't cook meat with any milk product (like cheese).

Today what these means is that Kosher kitchens have separate refrigerators and freezers (or compartments) for milk and meat products, so that the milk and meat are never accidentally mixed. In between cooking milk and meat products the kitchen must be completely cleaned for fear of accidentally allowing the slightest possibility that these products might be mixed. At a kosher hotel in Israel in which I stayed they published a schedule to let you know when milk products may be ordered and when meat products may be ordered. If you wanted a cheeseburger, you would have to order a slice of cheese, and wait two hours and then order a hamburger to put it on. And I don't think it would be a very good idea to get caught doing so.

FYI - Here are only some of the requirements for a Kosher Fridge.

# The door can be opened/closed at any time without concern of directly turning on or off any lights, digital readouts, solenoids, fans, valves, compressor, icons, tones or alarms.

# Any defrost cycle that becomes active will not be a function of the number of times or the length of time that the door is opened.

# The ice maker is disabled automatically.

# The cold water dispenser and all other dispenser functions are deactivated.

# In the event of a power failure, when power returns, the unit will return to [holiday] mode.

** These requirements all have to do with an entirely different set of hedge laws i.e. not doing work on the sabbath. If the light turned on when the door was opened, or the ice maker was operational then it would be a violation of the sabbath hedge laws against doing work **

quote:


Since you seem to be a stickler for detail, shouldn't we point out that there is more than one Kosher standard and the one chosen for presentation here is one of the more extreme versions?

quote:

I kissed the lovely Mrs. Kerrlaw on our first date and on every opportunity thereafter for the past 22 years and don't regret a single smooch.

quote:

ORIGINAL: d4nnyb0y02

What do you think about this? Technically, as holiness and perfect godliness is concerned... I believe we went to far physically just by holding hands, and kissing on the cheek.

-----------

1 Corinthians 7:1-3

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

Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.

quote:

ORIGINAL: d4nnyb0y02

What do you think about this? Technically, as holiness and perfect godliness is concerned... I believe we went to far physically just by holding hands, and kissing on the cheek.

-----------

1 Corinthians 7:1-3

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

Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.

quote:

When Paul said it is good for a man not to touch a woman, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HE MEANT!

quote:

Whether you admit it or not, YOU KNOW ITS THE TRUTH ANYHOW!

quote:

ORIGINAL: apostolic862004

d4nnyboy02, you nailed it! I don't care what anybody says. When Paul said it is good for a man not to touch a woman, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HE MEANT!

quote:

Do you agree or do you feel that I am incorrect?

quote:

ORIGINAL: apostolic862004

Eutychus,

If what you say is true, then wouldn't he have said it is a SIN for a to touch a woman? Because he is referring to Single men and women. If he was referring to intercourse, he would have called it fornication like he did everywhere else.

Do you agree or do you feel that I am incorrect?

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

quote:

Do you agree or do you feel that I am incorrect?

You are incorrect because you do not understand the idiomatic nature of this phrase.


id⋅i⋅om
   /ˈɪdiəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [id-ee-uhm] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. an expression whose meaning is not predictable from the usual meanings of its constituent elements, as kick the bucket or hang one's head, or from the general grammatical rules of a language, as the table round for the round table, and that is not a constituent of a larger expression of like characteristics.
2. a language, dialect, or style of speaking peculiar to a people.
3. a construction or expression of one language whose parts correspond to elements in another language but whose total structure or meaning is not matched in the same way in the second language.
4. the peculiar character or genius of a language.

Another example: In Hebrew, if I ask "Do you want me to do it standing on one leg?", I mean "You have given me an unreasonably short time in which to complete the task!"

Or "When Adam knew Eve, she became pregnant", as in the other examples above "knowing" means something far more than intellectual knowledge. If I say in Hebrew "ani yidea etach" (I know you), I had better be talking to my wife!