Godliness Vs the control of men

[Adam77]

I can understand the frustration. For a long time, I didn't feel connected to people at church, but if they needed my help, i was asked. I was happy to help, but at the same time, I felt like they didn't want me around. I eventually got over it and started spending time with people from church outside of church. i let my guard down, which helped me to be more open to fellowship.

i'm now at a new fellowship since i moved away from home, so i guess you can say i'm starting all over again. since i'm an introvert, it can be difficult, but little by little, i'll get there.

Thanks for that.
I feel the same way.
I feel that people will come up to me if they want something or need something, but I have found that I haven't experienced reciprocated reliability, which as you'll understand is incredibly frustrating not to mention saddening (we're a family after all, are we not?).

I feel that people will happily use(take advantage?) of me, but as you say, don't actually want me around for anything other.

 

[Hevosmies]

I am still waiting on the verse explanation here:

1 Corinthians 7:8-9 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

 

[UnderGrace]

I am still waiting on the verse explanation here:

1 Corinthians 7:8-9 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

I think you will be waiting a long time.

The premise is flawed from the start and there is no way to support it Biblically.

 

[Adam77]

I am still waiting on the verse explanation here:

1 Corinthians 7:8-9 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

The Bible has a lot to say about sex.
It talks about a girl who is presented as a virgin but isn’t.
It talks about adultery.
It talks about when rape is okay (Deut. 22:28–9)
It talks about how to take captured women as wives (Num. 31:17–18 and see also Deut. 21:11, Exodus 21:4)
It talks about which relatives you may not sleep with. It even talks about which relatives you must sleep with (Gen. 38:8–10, 2 Sam. 12:8)

I'll wait for somebody to say that all of this doesn't apply NOW, even though I was informed earlier in the thread that God's standards are universal and unchanging...

Moving on...

Paul said
“Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry” (1 Cor. 7:8–9).
In other words, marriage is the second best option.

Burden of proof reversal.
"You're challenging the deepest and most important part of our culture, so please answer MY questions so that I'm the one asking the questions and not you".
Doesn't work like that. This no sex before marriage thing is pure culture/tradition, and has no place biblically.
Much like modern tithing (see my other thread here: https://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/giving-money-to-church.180415/)

By the way, when you read through the tithing thread (link just above), could you tell me which members of our forum are perverting God's word and which aren't please?

 

[melita916]

Thanks for that.
I feel the same way.
I feel that people will come up to me if they want something or need something, but I have found that I haven't experienced reciprocated reliability, which as you'll understand is incredibly frustrating not to mention saddening (we're a family after all, are we not?).

I feel that people will happily use(take advantage?) of me, but as you say, don't actually want me around for anything other.

in the ideal congregation, EVERY single person would look for ways to fellowship with another in the same congregation. but we all come from different backgrounds, have different traits/personality, experienced different scenarios. smaller congregations can be easier to get to know others. bigger congregations encourage people to join a small group because it's easier to connect with others.

perhaps join a bible study group or a ministry, and after the meeting is over, talk with others rather than leaving right away (i don't know if this is what you're doing or not). i used to leave right away after i was done helping because i didn't feel welcomed. maybe others thought i didn't want to talk with them because i was leaving right away. after i let my guard down, others told me they thought i didn't want to be bothered, so they didn't bother lol. they said, "melita, we really thought you didn't want to be around us..."

and then we saw it was ALL a misunderstanding.

 

[Lillywolf]

Other than the manipulative nature of some churches to extract the maximum amount possible from your wallet, over the years I've noticed some strange cultural phenomenon within some Christian circles that bears no relation to God:

1. "An unmarried couple must not live together until after marriage".

Why?
Oh, that's easy. It's because 50,000 years ago it was traditional for a man to build an extra house on the side of his in-law's house...

Can't see the link between the two?

You're not the only one!

This isn't related to God, but to some millennia old tradition that has long since passed.

Being 'Godly' is one thing, being controlled by ancient customs is another.


2. The same is true for the great pillar of man made pseudo-holy control: sex before marriage.

This is always justified with the same explanation, which goes something like this:
Sex is very intimate, you're both exposing yourself and opening up to each other, why sleep around before you know each other properly.

Firstly, sex before marriage does not equal sleeping around.

Secondly, two consenting adults who have taken the time to get to know each other are able to make their own decisions as they please. Sex before marriage, despite what some would have you believe, is not against anything in the Bible.

I await the arrival of 'me too' Christians who have asked the same question, been encouraged to interpret a certain part of the Bible in a very specific and symbolic way, and now encourage other Christians to do the same.


3. Church roofs.
The Church of England, along with other Churches and 'mega-Church' organisations, are among the wealthiest institutions on the planet.

Despite this, your local village Church has been literally begging for £20k to have the roof fixed for the last 15 years, and the amount needed hasn't changed.


4. The singles within the Church select each other to marry.

Yes, people tend to get together if they have similar values and interests, but you know what I mean here.
Simply the worst kind of cultural inbreeding there is, in some cases not that far short of arranged marriages.


Why am I posting this?
Because I'm sick to death of extinct ancient customs and peripheral culture masquerading as scripture, and used to exert varying forms of control on people's lives.

Cultural tradition is typically inclusive of cultural religious ideology. Wherever you go, including into the OT Judaism. But in matters of premarital sex, you're right.
We discussed this quite awhile ago.

This thread is now closed but worthy of sharing here since you were challenged to bring forth two or more witnesses to affirm your position concerning PMS. Wow there's an acronym of very interesting proportions. PMS. Hmmmm. You may want to check out the links in "Related" column on the right side of this thread. ))I edited to add that((
Why does the bible never specifically condemn premarital sex? [closed]

 

[Hevosmies]

Doesn't work like that. This no sex before marriage thing is pure culture/tradition, and has no place biblically.

Proof?

 

[UnderGrace]

Proof?

I think you missed the response....... there is no proof.

Agreed, one cannot prove a premise that is wrong.

You want me to provide a quote that doesn't exist?
That's like asking me to provide a quote proving that somebody DIDN'T say something...

 

[Locutus]

"for it is better to marry than to burn"

Do we have to put our girlfriends on the back burner or back on the shelf?

 

[Adam77]

I think you missed the response....... there is no proof.

Agreed, one cannot prove a premise that is wrong.

It's not that it's wrong, it's that it's impossible to provide a quote proving that somebody didn't say something.

The logic is simple.

The lack of rational thought even given to what is in the Bible is shocking, and in all honesty I'm beginning to wonder whether I'm in the right crowd.

 

[Blik]

The real issue is whether you are a Bible-believing Christian.

If you understand you and the world were created by God, it is one reason. But to understand the importance of a stable family is a LOT more than that. It is a lot more than culture, Christianity, and culture.

We and the world were created to have sex within a family. When that breaks down so sex is willy nilly with anyone the family goes. Children have no stability to grow on, and they also become unstable. You can check this fact out by looking at crime rates and how family stability is connected.

All nations are built up from the family. Hitler tried to get rid of the importance of family and it doesn't work. The family is built from a woman and man coming together sexually and if they prefer free sex then the family goes. Families come together to communities who come together in counties who come together as nations. Break up the family and the nations finally crumble. Rome is an example of this, history tells us this is true.

 

[Adam77]

If you understand you and the world were created by God, it is one reason. But to understand the importance of a stable family is a LOT more than that. It is a lot more than culture, Christianity, and culture.

We and the world were created to have sex within a family. When that breaks down so sex is willy nilly with anyone the family goes. Children have no stability to grow on, and they also become unstable. You can check this fact out by looking at crime rates and how family stability is connected.

All nations are built up from the family. Hitler tried to get rid of the importance of family and it doesn't work. The family is built from a woman and man coming together sexually and if they prefer free sex then the family goes. Families come together to communities who come together in counties who come together as nations. Break up the family and the nations finally crumble. Rome is an example of this, history tells us this is true.

It was only a matter of time before Hitler was mentioned I guess.

Your logic is flawed.
Crime rates may correlate with lack of family stability, however to extrapolate back and say that family is more stable and supportive if sex doesn't occur outside of marriage is mere conjecture, and has nothing to do with whether sex before marriage is biblical or not.

In fact, somebody above agreed that sex before marriage is not discussed in the Bible.
It was the person who said the thread is closed.

 

[Blik]

It was only a matter of time before Hitler was mentioned I guess.

Your logic is flawed.
Crime rates may correlate with lack of family stability, however to extrapolate back and say that family is more stable and supportive if sex doesn't occur outside of marriage is mere conjecture, and has nothing to do with whether sex before marriage is biblical or not.

In fact, somebody above agreed that sex before marriage is not discussed in the Bible.
It was the person who said the thread is closed.

We are speaking of multiple sex partners I thought.

If you read in Genesis about the creation of sex it points out that Adam was just one person and he was made into two people who came together with sex. This was the basis of the first family. So each was half of a whole family. Put multiple partners in there and it is a very strange whole.

 

[Adam77]

We are speaking of multiple sex partners I thought.

If you read in Genesis about the creation of sex it points out that Adam was just one person and he was made into two people who came together with sex. This was the basis of the first family. So each was half of a whole family. Put multiple partners in there and it is a very strange whole.

If you read my first posts on the thread, you will see there are 5 points that I raise.

In those first posts I described sex before marriage as "The great pillar of man made pseudo-religious control".
The irony is that with the exception of one person, every single contributor to this thread over three pages has focused on sex before marriage and not commented at all on the other 4 points.

Having sex before marriage is one thing, multiple sex partners is another.
Don't confuse two different issues.

 

[p_rehbein]

A contemporary/ modern view of a word used in a biblical context within an ancient culture is not going to work.

Works for me.............the entire premise of this Thread is baloney......oh, wait, that's not in Scripture is it? Uh, er, well, hmm, it may be.

 

[Adstar]

This one is not open to correction.. They have rejected the Word of God and thus they do not believe Him.. It is clear he hates the Word of God..

 

[p_rehbein]

He has certainly been given enough Scripture to know his premise is at the very least flawed

 

[Hevosmies]

It's not that it's wrong, it's that it's impossible to provide a quote proving that somebody didn't say something.

The logic is simple.

The lack of rational thought even given to what is in the Bible is shocking, and in all honesty I'm beginning to wonder whether I'm in the right crowd.

Here is the deal: We have a verse, YOU DONT.

Here is the verse again:

1 Corinthians 7:8-9 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

 

[UnderGrace]

Here is the deal: We have a verse, YOU DONT.

Here is the verse again:

1 Corinthians 7:8-9 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

Indeed, the entire idea of premarital sex is more a modern western construct, so Mr. 77 is refuting his own premise which is the real irony.

Labelling an act as "premarital sex" attempts to create a reality that does not really exist according to scripture.

The underpinning principle in regard to sex is found right back at the beginning of the biblical narrative:
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
-- Genesis 2:24 (KJV)

This "one flesh" union can only happen ONE TIME.
https://christianity.stackexchange.com

 

[Dino246]

It's not that it's wrong, it's that it's impossible to provide a quote proving that somebody didn't say something.

The logic is simple.

The lack of rational thought even given to what is in the Bible is shocking, and in all honesty I'm beginning to wonder whether I'm in the right crowd.

You are on the right track in the first part of the third sentence. Logic is not a common subject in school, and much of what passes for argument here is mostly simple bickering by people who don't know how to structure a logical argument, let alone examine one for weaknesses and fallacies. Most people are never taught how to think.

I challenged you to provide evidence for your assertions, knowing full well that it doesn't exist. You are correct in your first two sentences. What you seem to have overlooked is this principle: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You are making an argument from (supposed) silence, with all the validity of "The moon is made of green cheese; the Bible doesn't say it isn't". The burden is still on you to prove that the less-clear restrictions regarding sex don't refer to pre-marital sex at all.

I am certain that when Paul wrote, "It is better to marry than to burn with passion" that he was, at least in part, affirming marriage as the only proper place for sex. You don't seem to see it that way. We can agree to disagree, but claiming that my conclusion is irrational is... irrational.