Catholic Dating & Marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter Syphro
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You say I am rigorous, but I am not rigorous, I am very very soft and lax. There is much more rigor necessary than what I have said so far. :confused:

If a man and woman would be ashamed to do anything with each other, being witnessed by someone else not yet involved who would later be their spouse, they should not do it.

Because that person -will- see them, he -will- know in the end. Both the actions, and the thoughts, that person -will- see. All -will- be revealed.

And the angels, saints, and the Lord all see already. They know how corrupt you truly are, and how it is time to change.

‘Search me, O Lord, and try me: prove my reins and my heart.’

Psalms 26:2

‘The time has come: you must wake up now.’

Romans 13:11
 
Meh, I agree with many catholic teachings and tend to disregard the myth and lore written over 2000 years ago. I can’t really see how greek legends are disregarded and yet the bible is taken literally by some.

I follow a catholic life, and that is all that matters.
Okay, so you are not really Catholic, you just like to call yourself Catholic. Thank you for making that clear.

And it is not how you live, it is what you believe. There are many different words for people who believe one thing and live another, or live one thing and believe another.

I would add that you are correct that Greek legends have nothing to do with Catholic teachings. That, of course, is because Jews wrote the Bible (except the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts).
 
Okay, so you are not really Catholic, you just like to call yourself Catholic. Thank you for making that clear.

And it is not how you live, it is what you believe. There are many different words for people who believe one thing and live another, or live one thing and believe another.

I would add that you are correct that Greek legends have nothing to do with Catholic teachings. That, of course, is because Jews wrote the Bible (except the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts).
It’s not who we are, but what we do that defines us.

I respect Jesus of Nazareth, but I believe that there is much confusion and mystery surrounding what actually happened.

God cannot be defined by the Church or even our imaginations. We are just too small to understand anything. Imagine the time humankind has existed. On a piece of string of about 2 miles long, we have only existed for less than an inch of the entire length of string.

That is why I will never let my imagination be restricted by religion. An open mind is a blessing.

I have faith in humanity and they should take heed to what Jesus did because perhaps we can achieve something.
 
The hard and fast rules are as follows: Lust is a sin, non-negotiable, dogma. Period. Entering willfully into a near occasion of sin, is a sin, because it is choosing to sin. Non-negotiable.

Therefor no kissing for couples is a hard and fast rule.

Now even if a couple could kiss without it being a near occasion of sin, that is without any arousal, it would still normativly be a sin because they would not know ahead of time that they could do it and would risk it and because it would be the sin of scandal. Scandal is a bad example to others.

We are called to love chastity, not hate it. To desire purity and that which protects it, not despise it. 🙂
I don’t think so. While its true that lust is a sin, kissing does not necessarily cause lust. It is a sign of affection that goes beyond a simple hand-shake and/or hug. It can be very passion arousing. It can lead to lust, however, lust is more than just arousement. Lust is a conscious inordinate desire for sexual gratification for sexual gratifications purpose only. It can be mental (as Jesus warned) and/or physical. Entering into a situation that causes lust incidentally/accidentally the first time is not the same as repeatedly pursing that lust.

While you may disagree w/ my analysis, I think there’s room for both of our viewpoints. I know in my personal experience if I were to have avoided all instances of passion and/or arousement prior to marriage, I’d have had to hide away in a locked room & never met my husband prior to our wedding. While we were dating we were blessed (cursed) w/ ‘chemistry’ that just the fact that we were together often left us wondering what it’d be like when we could have marital relations. It was not lust to spend time getting to know one another. As time passed, the ‘chemistry’ became easier for us to deal with and we could sit closer, touch a bit more, and continue discussing important things about our future. Now that we’re married there are still times when our ‘chemistry’ gets the better of us, but we know/think that God put us together this way for a very good reason!

** Note, I said kissing & hugging, but not making out &/or fondling, petting, or laying side-by-side. There is a difference between a lingering good-night kiss & a make-out session in the car. One is meant to express enduring affection. The other is preparatory for marital relations.

I’m also unclear of the sin of scandal. It seems to me that any public displays of affection could be interpreted as scandalous. For example a married couple kissing (whether passionately or not) don’t have a sign on their heads saying “We’re married - this is allowed.” The same is true for married couples living among youngsters. It may be ‘assumed’ they’re married, but no one necessarily knows w/o asking. There are countless examples of behavior that is perfectly acceptable &/or desirable that the definition of scandal could inhibit if its followed strictly. Perhaps you can enlighten me (and others).
 
It’s not who we are, but what we do that defines us.

I respect Jesus of Nazareth, but I believe that there is much confusion and mystery surrounding what actually happened.

God cannot be defined by the Church or even our imaginations. We are just too small to understand anything. Imagine the time humankind has existed. On a piece of string of about 2 miles long, we have only existed for less than an inch of the entire length of string.

That is why I will never let my imagination be restricted by religion. An open mind is a blessing.

I have faith in humanity and they should take heed to what Jesus did because perhaps we can achieve something.
Everything you have posted about what you believe is antithetical to Catholic teaching.

In light of that, I would respectfully request that you do not list “Catholic” as your religion on your profile as it is not only inaccurate, it is confusing.
 
Entering willfully into a near occasion of sin, is a sin, because it is choosing to sin. Non-negotiable.
Can you cite any documentary support for the assertion that this is church teaching?
 
{snip}
Entering willfully into a near occasion of sin, is a sin, because it is choosing to sin. Non-negotiable.
{snip}
The very definition of “occasion of sin” means it is NOT a sin. For goodness sake, driving a car is a near occasion of sin for many people.

This is nothing less than scrupulosity trying to masquerade as doctrine.

If you want to disgree, if you want to prove me wrong, you will have to cite an authoritative source that directly, not through conclusion or logical assertion, supports your assertion.

You will not be able to find one because it does not exist.
 
Let’s set things straight here.
  • Willfully entering, WITHOUT A GOOD REASON, into the NEAR occasion of sin is a sin, and if it is a near occasion of mortal sin than it is a mortal sin. A NEAR occasion of sin is a situation, place, person, etc. that almost always leads one to sin. Not all occasions of sin are universal, but some get close. Commonly-cited examples are that of a bar for an alcoholic, or a strip club for me.
Some consider “company keeping” (the old term that seems popular with “Trads”) or the “steady dating” that goes on prior to marriage a near occasion of sin, but a necessary one if marriage is within near sight for the couples.
  • There are several kinds of kisses. Some are grave matter between unmarried couples; some are sinless between them; some are venial sins.
A kiss meant to arouse sexual passion (e.g. a “French” kiss) can be grave matter, and therefore mortal sin if the conditions are met.

A decent kiss - and this is difficult to define, but might include a “peck on a cheek” or possibly more (but not much more!) - is not necessarily a sin.
  • Lust should not be confused with mere sexual desire or arousal. Rather, it is the unlawful SEEKING of (or consent to) venereal pleasure. Venereal pleasure is a rather old-fashioned term, but it may be defined as the “stirring sensation of the organs of generation” (John Hardon). If one, unmarried, does something - looks at pornography or an immodestly dressed woman, kisses or touches somebody, etc. - seeking to be aroused (or to arouse another), they lust.
Sexual arousal itself is not lust, nor is it necessarily a sin if unintentional. Even for the unmarried, it is a response to a God-given instinct. However, indulging in that arousal by knowing it is there, by consenting to it, and by enjoying the stimulation is a sin.

As for this statement:
Come now, wouldn’t you prefer to fall in love with someone who would love only you, and never feel the slightest sexual attraction for another person besides you? Never had, never will?
I’d be quite flattered and at the same time a bit worried for the girl.

I find what you say a bit rigoristic, because it implies that being sexually attracted to somebody you are not married to is a sin. This is silly. Being attracted is not a sin; it is natural. God put this attraction into us to help us find a spouse and have children. Catholicism should not be confused Manicheanism or some other philosophical system that condemns the sensual as evil. Rather, Catholicism teaches us to regulate the sensual and direct it to its proper end. Acting on one’s sexual attraction (or thinking impure thoughts, or consenting to desires to commit impure acts with the object of the attraction) is sinful; being attracted is not. I hope I’m sexually attracted to my future spouse (if I marry)!

I wonder: in your idea of an ideal “Catholic” society, how would prospective spouses meet one another? Would they ever see each other before marriage? Would marriages be arranged, and males and females strictly segregated outside the home (as in some Islamic societies) to prevent lust or even mere “sexual attraction”?

As to the OP’s questions:
  • The church condemns pre-marital cohabitation as sinful. Roughly 99% of these relationships are sexually active I’ve heard. It would be a near occasion of sin and scandal to others. See CCC 2391.
You might be interested in checking out “Christian Courtship in an Oversexed World” by T.G. Morrow: books.google.com/books?id=YKNe5Uq0WxQC&dq=oversexed+world&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=S_BbmtUDsF&sig=Tclsy6XtArCvBx5ShV-0FnIjYRU&hl=en&ei=1NQISvXuIZyUswPv8J3mCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4
 
Let’s set things straight here.
  • Willfully entering, WITHOUT A GOOD REASON, into the NEAR occasion of sin is a sin, and if it is a near occasion of mortal sin than it is a mortal sin. A NEAR occasion of sin is a situation, place, person, etc. that almost always leads one to sin. Not all occasions of sin are universal, but some get close. Commonly-cited examples are that of a bar for an alcoholic, or a strip club for me.
Can you cite any documentary support for the assertion that this is church teaching?
 
God is given the name Logos in the scriptures for a reason. 🙂

What part of choosing to sin, the will to sin, is a sin which is basic Catholicism do you not understand?

One sins in thought, word, and deed - And the first is right there.

If you enter into a near occasion of sin, at the least it is negligently culpable, but normatively because you -know- you will usually sin there it is worse.

Not only is willfully entering into near occasions of sin a sin, you are **not allowed to be absolved **by a priest if you continue to do so. He is forbidden to absolve you because you are not repentant and it would blaspheme the sacrament. Sorrow is not sufficient to be absolved, you have to repent and show firm resolution in that regard.

The traditional act of contrition which you say after every Confession contains the promise: To avoid the near occasion of sin.

There are different kinds of occasions of sin: remote, near, and necessary. The remote is basically everyday, what is all around us but does not normally cause us to fall though it is possible, it is far from us. The near is the person, place, or thing that we usually or always sin upon encountering. The necessary occasion of sin is one we cannot escape for some extraordinary and grave reason, and so it is not our fault for entering into.

Baltimore Catechism:

Q. What must we do to receive the Sacrament of Penance worthily?

A. To receive the Sacrament of Penance worthily we must do five things:
  1. We must examine our conscience.
  2. We must have sorrow for our sins.
    ** 3. We must make a firm resolution never more to offend God.**
  3. We must confess our sins to the priest.
  4. We must accept the penance which the priest gives us.
  5. Q. What do you mean by a firm purpose of sinning no more?
A. By a firm purpose of sinning no more I mean a fixed resolve not only to avoid all mortal sin, but also its near occasions.

“Fixed.” Not for a certain time, but for all the future.
207. Q. What do you mean by the near occasions of sin?

A. By the near occasions of sin I mean all the persons, places and things that may easily lead us into sin.

“Occasions.” There are many kinds of occasions of sin. First, we have voluntary and necessary occasions, or those we can avoid and those we cannot avoid. For example: if a companion uses immodest conversation we can avoid that occasion, because we can keep away from him; but if the one who sins is a member of our own family, always living with us, we cannot so easily avoid that occasion. Second, near and remote occasions. An occasion is said to be “near” when we usually fall into sin by it. For instance, if a man gets intoxicated almost every time he visits a certain place, then that place is a “near occasion” of sin for him; but if he gets intoxicated only once out of every fifty times or so that he goes there, then it is said to be a “remote occasion.” Now, it is not enough to avoid the sins: we must also avoid the occasions. If we have a firm purpose of amendment, if we desire to do better, we must be resolved to avoid everything that will lead us to sin. It is not enough to say, I will go to that place or with that person, but I will never again commit the same sins. No matter what you think now, if you go into the occasion, you will fall again; because Our Lord, who cannot speak falsely, says: “He who loves the danger will perish in it.” Now the occasion of sin is always “the danger”; and if you go into it, Our Lord’s words will come true, and you will fall miserably. Take away the cause, take away the occasion, and then the sin will cease of itself. Let us suppose the plaster in your house fell down, and you found that it fell because there was a leak in the water-pipe above, and the water coming through wet the plaster and made it fall. What is the first thing your father would do in that case? Why, get a plumber and stop up the leak in the pipe before putting up the plaster again. Would it not be foolish to engage a plasterer to repair the ceiling while the pipe was still leaking? Everyone would say that man must be out of his mind: the plaster will fall down as often as he puts it up, and it matters not either how well he puts it up. If he wants it to stay up, he must first mend the pipe-take away the cause of its falling. Now the occasion of sin is like the leak in the pipe-in the case of sin, it will very likely cause you to fall every time. Stop up the leak, take away the occasion, and then you will not fall into sin-at least not so frequently.

“The persons” are generally bad companions, and though they may not be bad when alone, they are bad when with us, and thus we become also bad companions for them, and occasions of sin.

“The places,” Liquor saloons, low theaters, dance halls, and all places where we may see or hear anything against faith or morals.

“Things,” Bad books, pictures, and the like.
 
  1. The Duties of the Confessor toward Penitents who are in Occasione Proxima Voluntaria
[Voluntary Near Occasion of Sin]

Penitents who are in occasione continua cannot, as a rule, be absolved, even the first time, before they have given up that which constitutes the occasion, however much they may promise to do so. For so long as a penitent remains under the influence of this occasion, he is in immediate danger of breaking his resolution to abandon it, as its removal, after an attachment to it has been formed and its fascination experienced, is very difficult and demands great self-command ; so that there is reason for fearing that the presence of the sinful object will again enslave the penitent. Hence, the penitent who knows this and would, nevertheless, expose himself to the danger of breaking his resolution, must be regarded as not disposed, and the confessor who indulges him sins against his duty as judge by absolving an ill-disposed penitent, and also against his duty as physician of the soul by not applying the necessary means of amendment.
There are some extraordinary exceptions and leeway gone into in the theological instruction manuals for confessors, but this is the standard.

You can try the sermons below, Sensus Traditionis the one on ‘Recidivism’ and 2006-Occasions-of-Sin-and-Company-Keeping from Audio Sancto, amongst many others to help with these matters.

‘A penitent who wishes to receive absolution before the removal of such an occasion is not disposed for the sacrament; because he is in the proximate danger of violating his purpose as well as the obligation by which he is bound under pain of mortal sin to remove the occasion. To take away proximate occasions is very painful and difficult, and can be effected only by doing great violence to one s self. But he who has already received absolution will scarcely offer such violence to himself. Freed from the fear of being deprived of absolution, he will flatter himself with the hope of being able to resist temptations without taking away the occasion; and thus remaining in the occasion, he will certainly relapse. This we know by the experience of so many miserable sinners who, after receiving absolution from over-indulgent confessors, neglect to remove the occasion of sin: thus they fall back, and become worse than before. Hence, on account of the danger of violating the purpose that he has made of removing the occasion of sin, the penitent who wishes to be absolved before he takes it away is not disposed for absolution, and therefore the confessor who absolves him is certainly guilty of sin. And here let it be observed, that, generally speaking, the greater the rigor with which the confessor treats his penitents, when there is question of the danger of formal sins, particularly against chastity, the more he will promote their sanctification. But, on the other hand, the greater his indulgence, the greater his cruelty to their souls. St. Thomas of Villanova says that confessors who are too indulgent are impiously merciful. Such charity is contrary to charity.’
  • St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, Dignity and Duties of the Priest
 
Father Hardon, by the way is very gravely in error. It is no wonder there have been so many problems with celibacy.

Here is a little extra, though I hate to post once more, it addresses for the most part the rest that has been said.

Some helpful sermons:

Review of Sins Against the 6th and 9th Commandments

Occasions of Sin and Company Keeping

Some further are below.

Excerpts from the sermons:

Pope Alexander VII condemned the idea that it is only a venial sin for the unmarried to kiss for the sensual pleasure arising from the kiss even if there’s no danger of further consent of and going any farther. It is condemned for the unmarried to kiss for the sensual pleasure of kissing.

St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, Bishop and Doctor of the Church: “This means that every time someone with sufficient reflect and full consent of the will delights in carnal or sensual pleasure associated with someone to whom he is not married he commits a mortal sin. This is not only true with kisses but also with respect to other touches performed for carnal pleasure. The reason is that any delight taken in carnal pleasure, that is to say any delight taken in stirring up the appetites which surround the creative power, is a movement towards the marital act.”

Further excerpts from the saints:

Gaze not about, says the Holy Ghost, upon another’s beauty; . . . hereby lust is enkindled as a fire? Gaze not upon another’s beauty; for from looks arise evil imaginations, by which an impure fire is lighted up. Hence St. Francis de Sales used to say, that “they who wish to exclude an enemy from the city must keep the gates locked.”

Hence, to avoid the sight of dangerous objects, the saints were accustomed to keep their eyes almost continually fixed on the earth, and to abstain even from looking at innocent objects. After being a novice for a year, St. Bernard could not tell whether his cell was vaulted. In consequence of never raising his eyes from the ground, he never knew that there were but three windows to the church of the monastery, in which he spent his novitiate. He once, without perceiving a lake, walked along its banks for nearly an entire day; and hearing his companions speak about it, he asked when they had seen it. St. Peter of Alcantara kept his eyes constantly cast down, so that he did not know the brothers with whom he conversed. It was by the voice, and not by the countenance, that he was able to recognize them.

The saints were particularly cautious not to look at persons of a different sex. St. Hugh, bishop, when compelled to speak with women, never looked at them in the face. St. Clare would never fix her eyes on the face of a man. She was greatly afflicted because, when raising her eyes at the elevation to see the consecrated host, she once involuntarily saw the countenance of the priest. St. Aloysius never looked at his own mother in the face. It is related of St. Arsenius, that a noble lady went to visit him in the desert, to beg of him to recommend her to God. When the saint perceived that his visitor was a woman, he turned away from her she then said to him: " Arsenius, since you will neither seen or hear me, at least remember me in your prayers." “No,” replied the saint, “but I will beg of God to make me forget you, and never more to think of you.”

St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, Bishop and Doctor of the Church
 
  1. I find it rather rash that you would accuse Fr. Hardon of being “very gravely in error” or connect him to the celibacy crisis. Fr. Hardon was an exceedingly holy and very orthodox priest who wrote catechisms, founded The Marian Catechists, and was spiritual advisor to Mother Teresa. There is currently a cause for his beatification. He was also a defender of celibacy:
therealpresence.org/archives/Priesthood/Priesthood_010.htm

2.What you cited from the priest was one of 45 condemnations issued by Pope Alexander VII in 1665:

“It is a probable opinion which states that a kiss is only venial when performed for the sake of the carnal and sensible * delight which arises from the kiss, if danger of further consent and pollution is excluded.” (catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma12.php)

At the end of the list there is this line:

“All these are condemned and prohibited, at least as scandalous.”

I don’t know if such a condemnation would be considered infallible, especially given the fairly weak “at least as scandalous” language used. But it doesn’t matter. What Hardon said squares perfectly with Alexander’s condemnation, as well as Liguori’s teaching. Hardon teaches that to CONSENT to VENEREAL (which I believe is the same as carnal) pleasure is grave matter. Not all kisses and hugs are performed for the sake of “carnal and sensible delight”. There are certain kisses (embraces, touches, etc.) which ARE intended to arouse - but to condemn all kissing on this basis as sinful is simply misguided.

Do you believe holding hands is also sinful?
  1. Fr. Hardon is far more credible (in terms of having built for himself a reputation) than any of the priests you are fond of quoting from Audio Sancto. Likewise, the words of the saints, although extremely valuable, do not always constitute dogma or even the official moral teachings of the church. If that were the case, than dancing would be sinful, since St. John Vianney harshly condemned it and forbid his penitents from dancing, but early abortion would not be murder, because St. Thomas Aquinas believed that ensoulment occurred well after conception.
 
Can you cite any documentary support for the assertion that this is church teaching?
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"It is important to remember that there is a wide difference between the cause and the occasion of sin. The cause of sin in the last analysis is the perverse human will and is intrinsic to the human composite. The occasion is something extrinsic and, given the freedom of the will, cannot, properly speaking, stand in causal relation to the act or vicious habit which we call sin. There can be no doubt that in general the same obligation which binds us to refrain from sin requires us to shun its occasion. Qui tenetur ad finem, tenetur ad media (he who is bound to reach a certain end is bound to employ the means to attain it). "

newadvent.org/cathen/11196a.htm
 
We are created to reign one day in heaven
We are not made to reign in heaven, we are made to be his children, his servants by which he gives an inheritance but we do not reign, that’s Mary’s and God’s job not us mere humans beside our Blessed Mother.

Just because you know a lot about the Church, be sure that you go and talk to the priests to know what the true interpretation should be, for you have gone to the Extreme extreme on this. This is not heaven, we are on a imperfect earth, and we are the imperfect people by which the devil wants for his revenge at God. Sure his demons influence are actions if we are not careful to think before we do something, but that does not mean that just because we sin that God does forgive us and doesn’t give us a second chance to start over anew, which is done continuously, depending on much chances we need is a lot for any human because we sin a lot in our lives. Just because you aim to be a saint one day, which is also my goal, does not mean you are one right now. Plus you can’t force someone to do something. In the bible Christ did not force someone to believe in Him or to repent to Him when he saw them, they must to Him, not the other way around. People have free will and in this world, which has sin everywhere, people cannot be expected to be perfect, which is the impression I got from you. We are imperfect. Sure we are young and learn as we go but just because we sin once and then get forgiven does not mean that He still bars Heaven from us, it is the very opposite by which he opens the doors for us.

Next time, think before you act and make sure you have your facts straight. Yes, what the saints are true but you are taking it to the very extreme as an expectation. Remember that we are imperfect and we are sinners, even you and if you say that you aren’t then you are sinning right there because you lied to yourself and to us, the people around you. Yes, if we love God then we will do as He asks of us but we are still human and will make mistakes. Next time you see a quote from a saint pray upon it and ask God the grace of the Full meaning of that quote and not the skin or our interpretation of it. It is God’s Word and Grace that we should seek when faced with such a Question, problem, or situation.
 
Ok, this is amazing… Has no one here ever read Pope John Paul 2’s “Theology of the Body”???

Seriously people!

When a couple kisses, they are hopefully expressing affection for eachother via the language of the BODY. Christ expressed His love on the Cross. Naked, arms outstretched, sacrificing His body for our sins. Jesus is a true Bridegroom, His Church(us) being His Holy Bride.

One thing real quick, Shin. Now, I understand what you are trying to say about lust and sin. At least, I think I do. Anyway, I know lust is a sin and terrible for UNMARRIED couples, so what about the MARRIED ones?

My sisters and I were just talking about it. This is our conclusion:

When one is married, their sexual thoughts and acts toward each-other are sanctified. This is so because you have both asked and received God’s blessing in your marriage. Now they have God’s help and Grace. Outside of marriage, thinking of someone in a sexuall way is a sin. Therefore, if kissing them leads to thinking about them sexually, don’t kiss! (Has anyone ever read “Arms of Love” by Carmen Marcoux???)

This is the simplest way I could describe our conversation…

Just because sin is extremely easy to fall into doesn’t mean that one should sacrifice the good and even holy things because SOMETHING BAD COULD HAPPEN. Sex is an extremely important part in our role as the bride of Christ, the Church.

Ok, ok. I don’t want to rave and foam at the mouth proclaiming you’re all sinners and vassels of Hell so I’m going to point you(any and all of you) towards Christopher West who is an educated speaker on “Theology of the Body”, a writing of late Pope John Paul 2.

His website has many things about Marriage and Sex and sins of the flesh. Well, it’s mostly based on John Paul 2’s writing but he describes the meaning of it in his own words. If you can understand the original text and so on, congradulations! It’s more than I can do! (At my age, that’s understandable. No insults on anyone’s intelligence, obviously.)

Seriously though people. Shin has valid points. I liked the ‘perible of the plaster’, if I may say so. I can see that in my own life and how that has hurt those of my friends when they ignored caution in a given situation.

On the other hand, one can not just avoid the world. God DOES GIVE US TESTS; to prove ourselves in virtue and trust that He will give us the grace to handle anything He asks of us.

I know that when I don’t want to sin, God will help if I need His protection.

Like someone once said: Courage is not lack of fear, it’s the will to overcome it.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t have that will-power. It’s His will I’m counting on to save me. If I do that, WE CAN DO ANYTHING. 👍

Ok, now I’m really going to stop preaching cause that’s not my place. All I can say is to look at that website and you will find a heck of a lot about God’s plan for His bride.

[SIGN]God Bless[/SIGN]😃
 
Shin, you are mistaken.

Kissing is NOT wrong. It is a sign of affection. The actual harm in kissing comes in seeing your partner as an object that you can kiss whenever you feel in the mood, which is lust. Yes the occasion of sin can arise, but you seem to assume that this cannot occur within marriage as well. Even in marriage it is easy to fall prey to lust. If you view your partner as an object with which to fulfill you sexually (which is not impossible and increasing nowadays) Then you sin. Thus is sex within marriage wrong cause it is a near occasion to the sin of lust? NO! It is a sign of affection within marriage and a grace, just as kissing is a sign of affection while dating. Yes it can lead to sin but so could sex within marriage itself. So why are both ok? Because both are appropriate! Kissing passionately is WRONG when doing it to family members but OK when doing it to someone you are dating, just as sex is WRONG while dating but OK while married. Both are occasions of near sin within their appropriate settings, but it does not mean either are forbidden. Some sort of physical affection is not only appropriate while dating, but NEEDED. Humans are spiritual AND physical beings, and require a spiritual connection and a physical connection to our partner, whether it be kissing, holding hands, hugging, etc. Sex is only appropriate during marraige because at marraige the two become one flesh and must multiply.

You need to let go of your puritan ways. It saddens me when Christians in their attempt to be chaste end up going to far and forbid any kind of touching.
 
Shin, you are mistaken.

Kissing is NOT wrong. It is a sign of affection. The actual harm in kissing comes in seeing your partner as an object that you can kiss whenever you feel in the mood, which is lust. Yes the occasion of sin can arise, but you seem to assume that this cannot occur within marriage as well. Even in marriage it is easy to fall prey to lust. If you view your partner as an object with which to fulfill you sexually (which is not impossible and increasing nowadays) Then you sin. Thus is sex within marriage wrong cause it is a near occasion to the sin of lust? NO! It is a sign of affection within marriage and a grace, just as kissing is a sign of affection while dating. Yes it can lead to sin but so could sex within marriage itself. So why are both ok? Because both are appropriate! Kissing passionately is WRONG when doing it to family members but OK when doing it to someone you are dating, just as sex is WRONG while dating but OK while married. Both are occasions of near sin within their appropriate settings, but it does not mean either are forbidden. Some sort of physical affection is not only appropriate while dating, but NEEDED. Humans are spiritual AND physical beings, and require a spiritual connection and a physical connection to our partner, whether it be kissing, holding hands, hugging, etc. Sex is only appropriate during marraige because at marraige the two become one flesh and must multiply.

You need to let go of your puritan ways. It saddens me when Christians in their attempt to be chaste end up going to far and forbid any kind of touching.
👍 I agree… totally, Jesus came so set us FREE, free… Sin is always in the intentions of our hearts… so, If you are well intended I could not be wrong to express what you feel. God will give you the grace to keep yourself for marriage. It’s a good idea to avoid alone and dark places… or any situation where it might be too tempting. But we all need affection and hugs… be natural… otherwise how love is supposed to flow… with constant worry and… feeling of paranoia about it. :hypno:
 
Other wise we would be like Pharisees, All paranoid about the rules… and “small letters”. In that case we wouldn’t be FREE but… SLAVES of scrupulosity taken to the extreme of fanaticism… Totally the opposite Idea of that Jesus wants for us…

My :twocents:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top