Saving Physical Relationship for Marriage Really a Huge Mistake?

Saving Physical Relationship for Marriage Really a Huge Mistake?
by Steve Watters on 12/30/2008 at 6:00 AM

A Chicago couple got married recently and shared their first Christmas together as husband and wife. Few weddings of ordinary couples get news coverage beyond the wedding announcements feature that some papers still have, but this couple made the news because they not only planned to save sex for after their wedding, but also planned to save their first kiss.

In a follow-up to this story, the Chicago Tribune wrote:

When the Tribune reported last month that Chicago couple Melody LaLuz and Claudaniel Fabien were about to wed without ever having kissed, much less slept together, hundreds of readers responded passionately.

Some were incredulous: "Huuuuge mistake. ... To go in with that as an unknown is too big of a risk factor."

Reading this last line reminded me just how upside down conventional wisdom is about physical intimacy and marriage. For the past four decades Americans have developed an unhealthy fear of marrying someone without giving them a sexual audition. In that same time, Americans have lost just about all the healthy fear they once had about what premarital sex might do to undermine their future marriage. As a result, we have a culture of people who go around sampling the sexual potential of future partners with little concern for the wear and tear they are putting on those people (or themselves).

I realize there are some unfortunate examples of couples who discovered serious sexual problems after they got married. But how many more examples are out there of couples who have compromised their sexual satisfaction in marriage by trying to eliminate all sexual surprises before marriage? As Michael Lawrence (an occassional Boundless contributor) says, "I've never met a couple in all my marriage work who say they wish they had been more physical before they got married."

Sex | Mail This | Share on Facebook

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

1. Louise from Chicago said the following at 9:02 AM on Dec 30:

See what funny new stories emerge from my neck of the woods...LOL.

I read the Tribune articles...and my own personal opinion is that their public declaration to remain chaste before marriage was of rather questionable taste.

I feel these details are private and should be kept private.

2. Gayle said the following at 9:02 AM on Dec 30:

My husband and I walked into marriage this May and shared our first kiss at the alter. While we did have an affectionate physical relationship during our dating and engagement seasons we were no where near what the world calls "prepared". The honeymoon and there after has been a wonderful learning experience in becoming one. I am so glad that both of us stuck to our values and waited through the single years to finally get married at ages 30 and 32. I know some couples have trouble with the adjustment but in my personal experience these couples were the "experienced" ones. One piece of advise I would give to any engaged couple preparing for the wedding day is get the counsel of a godly couple you respect. We did and they helped us with both the practical and spiritual things we needed.

3. Jethro said the following at 9:02 AM on Dec 30:

Is it not a little strange that we audition potential partners in every area except sexually though? I'm sure most women are interested in their husband's looks, his character, his earning potential, his social skills etc. Why shouldn't they also be interested in his abilities as a lover? And visa-versa of course.

4. Carolyn said the following at 9:03 AM on Dec 30:

I followed the link to the article, and even read over the comments. I was so saddened by the public response. One commenter placed a wager on the couple's marriage lasting "3 years, max." Another said they would "wait for the divorce...then laugh." And one even went so far as to call the relationship of the couple "dysfunctional."

Many of my friends are currently planning weddings, proposals, and lives together. At the same time, many of their parents are ending their own marriages in divorce. It scares me. These new marriages begin happily -- as so many do -- but with the picture of divorce already in their mind.

And it's clear from the article comments that for many, divorce is not only an option, but an expectation. Those of us who support full, long-lasting, till-death-do-us-part marriages have to change that.

5. Malcolm said the following at 9:04 AM on Dec 30:

I can relate wholeheartedly with this article. I'm getting married in eleven days, will have been dating my fiancé for a year minus a day when we are married, and we haven't kissed. The topic came up three weeks into our relationship, rather at random, and I was amazed that we both felt strongly about not kissing while dating. Believe me, the desire is strong, but greater is the desire for purity leading into marriage. The wait may be long (we are both virgins; I am 30 years old), but I firmly believe God rewards those who follow his design for marriage and sexuality. I'll take any surprises that go along with that!

6. rushncap said the following at 9:07 AM on Dec 30:

Look, let's face it. There are Biblical reasons for having no "physical intimacy" or whatever euphemism for sex you want to use before marriage. But let's just keep it there. There are absolutely no good reasons for saving sex for marriage that have nothing to do with religious mores. Well, check that, there are 2: STDs and unwanted pregnancies. Assuming you can avoid those 2 problems -- and with modern medicine it's not particularly difficult to do -- all the reasons for not having sex before marriage boil down to religious objections. People who do not have those don't care. I have no problem if my future wife has had sex with other men. In fact, my current girlfriend has had 4 previous partners. I'd be scared to marry a virgin. That does not sound appealing to me at all.

7. Niki said the following at 9:46 AM on Dec 30:

Having saved my first kiss with my husband until our wedding day as well, I would disagree that the only reasons to avoid sexual contact outside of marriage are religious (outside of unwanted pregnancies and STDs). The emotional scars of those sexual encounters with people outside of marriage last a long time, are very difficult to heal, and can prove a huge issue in a future marital relationship.

While my husband and I made the decision to wait, not just for sex, but for a kiss, we both had had previous encounters with other people (I was still 'technically' a virgin, although, I was walking a dangerous line, and my husband was not a virgin), and have had to spend some long evenings talking through things that have come between us intimately as a result of those previous relationships. I can't imagine how scenarios like that are solely the burden of religious people.

8. Louise from Chicago said the following at 9:47 AM on Dec 30:

Comment 1 contains a typo...it should read "funny NEWS stories."

9. IMO said the following at 9:47 AM on Dec 30:

#6In fact, my current girlfriend has had 4 previous partners. I'd be scared to marry a virgin. That does not sound appealing to me at all.

What if she had 100 partners? Would that make a difference? Just curious.

10. Adam said the following at 11:12 AM on Dec 30:

rushcap,

There are Biblical reasons for having no "physical intimacy" or whatever euphemism for sex you want to use before marriage. But let's just keep it there. There are absolutely no good reasons for saving sex for marriage that have nothing to do with religious mores.

There are absolutely no good reasons for saying anything is wrong without religious mores.

God Bless,
Adam

11. Noel said the following at 11:12 AM on Dec 30:

In my experience most people will not get married without "testing the sexual waters" but will get married without testing the waters for finances, problem solving, will both spouses work (if not, which one?), how to raise kids, involvement with extended family . . . the list goes on and on.

I have not met one person who got divorced because of sexual incompatibility - it's always about one of the other issues.

There is so much work to do, and so much that has already been done . . .

12. NeedACatchyName said the following at 11:12 AM on Dec 30:

How is this story even newsworthy? I didn't think this practice was all that uncommon amongst evangelicals, especially now with the courtship movement promoted by Joshua Harris et al. I know quite a few people (mostly girls, though there are a couple guys) who refuse to have any physical contact with a significant other except for maybe a quick hug before their wedding day, and that's a "deal breaker" for them that you must agree to before they'll go out with you. Heck, in some social circles it's getting almost impossible to find a date unless you agree to no kissing before marriage.

Now, this may be comparing apples to oranges, as I live pretty much in the center of the "Bible Belt," which is an extremely conservative region of the U.S., and the couple in question is from Chicago, which is not known for being all that conservative. Still, it must have a pretty slow news day for this to make the paper. The Chicago Tribune should try and find some stories that are actually, well, news.

13. Liz said the following at 11:12 AM on Dec 30:

Personally, I wouldn’t want to marry someone that I had never even kissed. For me, I know it wouldn’t add to the spiritual connection with my future spouse, and for me, I don’t think abstaining from kissing until the wedding day will make my future marriage any stronger than if I had decided not to kiss. That said, this is a decision that is personal and is up to the couple in question. Why does everyone feel the need to judge and qualify everyone else’s decisions?

If a couple chooses not to kiss or have any other degree of physical intimacy, that’s their choice, and I think it’s awesome if it makes them happy. I’m anticipating getting engaged this year, and I’ll probably dial down the physical contact a bit before the wedding, because, frankly, I think it will be fun to have something to look forward to, but not because I think it’s wrong or immoral to have physical affection with my (future) fiancé.

14. Louse from Chicago said the following at 11:38 AM on Dec 30:

Comment 12, most people from the Midwestern U.S. have a secular rather than a biblical worldview.

This definitely includes people with religious affiliation.

I agree with you that this was a rather silly news story.

Most likely it WAS a slow news day!

Louise

15. Bethany D. said the following at 12:19 PM on Dec 30:

I view some of this debate as being about trust vs. fear. When we enter into a pre-marriage relationship, will we trust that the God who brought us together will continue to be with us even if we discover sexual problems after we are married? Or will we give in to fear and try to "make sure" on our own?

"As for me and my house, we will choose the Lord. Joshua 24:15"

16. Daniella said the following at 1:45 PM on Dec 30:

I don't understand the reasoning behind "testing" your partner sexually. They say it's like "you wouldn't buy a car without test driving it first". But if you really truly loved someone and were compatable in most other areas, would you break up with them because they weren't absolutely amazing in bed? I'd hope not!

17. Andrew said the following at 1:48 PM on Dec 30:

I think a lot of our society's fear of the no sex for marriage thing has to do with the fact that "evangelicals" divorce at the same rate of the general population. But, actually, among the people I know, it seems the the evangelicals who are getting divorced used to be kids who used youth groups for "hookups" (unfortunatly theres a lot of them). Very few young Christian couples who are strong in their faith and were able to keep themselves pure before marriage end up divorcing.

18. Ariana said the following at 2:52 PM on Dec 30:

I'm suspicious of the argument about discovering "sexual problems". Just because people are virgins does not mean that they do not see doctors or have an understanding of the human anatomy before they get married. Essentially, some of these supposed problems could be discovered without actually engaging in sexual activity before marriage.

And even if they couldn't be, I'm not sure that it's much different than getting married and then discovering that the husband or wife cannot have children...or getting married and then a tragic accident happens radically altering one partner's physical abilities. There are always risks of something tragic and/or bizarre happening--whether you've had sex before or not.

Besides, with the STD rates as high as 1 in 4 in some places, and the fact that these diseases spread at exponential rates, health reasons alone should be enough justification for saving sex for marriage.

19. TruthWar said the following at 2:53 PM on Dec 30:

"Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman."

1 Corinthians 7:1

Why do people comment as if it is ok or "normal" to "experiment sexually" before marriage?

Aren't Christians supposed to be different from the world, realizing that sex before marriage is an abomination before an infinitely Holy God? Which is why this verse follows...

"Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband."

1 Corinthians 7:2

Also, whether one kisses or not prior to marriage has nothing to do with how with producing a successful marriage [although it helps]. Just as the Pharisees strain out a gnat and swallow a camel,so can a person hold out on kissing (and other sexual activities)prior to marriage and yet still be sinning. E.G., a man and woman can abstain from kissing and fornication prior to marriage and yet addiction to pornography is involved.

However, those who refrain from sexual activity [kissing] prior to marriage for the Glory and Honor of Jesus Christ and His Excellency are the ones who understand the very purpose of two becoming one. It is to reflect the Glory of God on earth, symbolizing the relationship between Christ and the church and how He gave Himself up for her.

20. rushncap said the following at 3:18 PM on Dec 30:

Nikki (#7) -- what emotional scars? I don't know what kind of sex you're talking about, but the one I'm used to does not leave "scars". Neither I nor my girlfriend have any problems with our past partners or experiences. We've talked about them, discussed them, laughed about some of them, but we're with each other now. That's all that matters.

IMO (#9) -- that may or may not matter. Certainly having an STD increases with each partner, but we both got tested before we did anything where that would be an issue. As for what you're driving at, would it bother me? Depends. I don't want a girl who sleeps with every guy she meets, and there is no way a 22 year old could have 100 serious relationships. But I have no problem with a girl who has sex with her boyfriend. That is, of course, personal preference. Some guys would not mind 100, 200 etc. previous partners. I figure if she is willing to sleep with anyone, she might cheat on me. So I would not date someone like that, more than likely. But why would I begrudge her having sex with exes?

Adam (#10) -- nothing wrong with that. As long as you don't try to hide religious objections in a wool of secular objections.

21. IMO said the following at 3:31 PM on Dec 30:

Thanks for answering rushncap. I was just wondering what your threshold was. If you had a discussion about partners (seeing how you know she had 4), then maybe there was a reason for that discussion? Or maybe it was totally random how you found out her stats.

22. Glenise said the following at 7:43 PM on Dec 30:

What's so scary about marrying a virgin?

23. anonymous said the following at 7:43 PM on Dec 30:

My husband and I shared our first kiss at our wedding, and we were both virgins. We were also one of those couples that ran into sexual "problems," such that weren't able to have sex until 6 months after we were married.

I have thought many times during and after that period of how grateful I am that I was going through this with a supportive, committed man who had already signed up for the long haul...to whom this was a mere glitch in our happy new life and future together. I can't imagine having had to deal with the issue in the back seat of a car, dorm room, or with someone "testing the waters."

24. Kelly said the following at 7:43 PM on Dec 30:

rushncap - I have emotional scars from too much intimacy, even without going all the way.

Likewise with a few of my girlfriends, who were pressured into sex, or chose sex and later they regretted it.

Your girlfriend must be quite unusual, or fully convinced that premarital sex is not a sin, to not have any emotional scars.

25. Denisha said the following at 7:43 PM on Dec 30:

Wow, I think this story is actually very encouraging. I'm not a virgin, but I'm saving myself for marriage, because personally premarital sex sucks for women.
1) Women can become preganet, even with the use of protection and birth control.
2)Women are very emotional and expect some sort feeling of love when having sex.
3)It hurts terribly when you have sex a few times. I bled for a few times.

4)Disease. I know people with STD and sexual disorders.

Men if you love women, save sex for marriage with your special woman. I have been sex free for 2yrs and I'm happy! :D

26. Adam said the following at 7:43 PM on Dec 30:

Hey Everyone!

Ya, the world hates any kind of restraint at all. For instance, the media also thinks it is wierd that Jehovah's Witnesses do not say the pledge, and do not celebrate Christmas. While I believe the Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong about this, I do not believe they are wrong because they would like to exercise restraint.

Now, I do not believe that refraining from kissing is something that is Biblical. In fact, people are suprised when I have no reaction at all to hearing that someone has decided to do this. What is really impressive to me is a person who *has* kissed their girlfriend, and yet has not done anything that the Bible has forbidden. It is really easy to add rules to God's word that are not there to help us to keep God's word. For example, it is amazing when someone has the spritual discernment to know that kissing is right, but sexual intercourse is not.

TruthWar,

Why do people comment as if it is ok or "normal" to "experiment sexually" before marriage?

Aren't Christians supposed to be different from the world, realizing that sex before marriage is an abomination before an infinitely Holy God? Which is why this verse follows...

Where are you getting this idea that kissing is "sexual experementation?" What do you mean by that? I would reject that assertion entirely. Yes, the Bible forbids premarital sexual relations, but kissing has nothing whatsoever to do with that.

"Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman."

1 Corinthians 7:1

Actually, the Greek term "hapto" meaning "to touch" is being used as a euphomism for sexual relations. For instance, the standard Greek lexicon A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature defines this word as:

4. to touch intimately, have sexual contact, of intercourse w. a woman

In fact, it goes on to cite 1 Corinthians 7:1 as an example of this. Likewise, Thayer's Lexicon says the following:

b. gunaikos, of carnal intercourse with a woman, or cohabitation, 1 Cor. 7:1,

Notice how this lexicon likewise gives 1 Corinthians 7:1 as an example of a text in which "touch" means to have "carnal intercourse" with a woman.

Likwise, 1 Corinthians 7:2 says nothing about single people. The term "to have" here means "to have sexual relations with." Had he meant "let each one marry," the more common phrase "receive a wife" would be used. In fact, this very same expression is used when John the Baptist was telling Herod that it was not lawful for him "to have his brother's wife" [Mark 6:18]. This is a very clear example of where "to have" means "to have sexual relations with."

In fact, lest you think I am making any of this up, one of the most scholarly New Testament translations today is the New English Translation. It was headed up by Dr. Daniel B. Wallace who teaches at Dallas Theological Seminary, and is well known in conservative circles for his scholarship. What is interesting is the traslation and reasoning for the translation of these two verses that the comittee gives. They can be found at:

http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=1Co&chapter=7

Likewise, here is their translation, and their notes on 1 Corinthians 7:1-2:

1 Corinthians 7:1-2 Now with regard to the issues you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” [1] 2 But because of immoralities, each man should have relations with [2] his own wife and each woman with [3] her own husband.

[1] Grk “It is good for a man not to touch a woman,” a euphemism for sexual relations. This idiom occurs ten times in Greek literature, and all of the references except one appear to refer to sexual relations (cf., e.g., Josephus, Ant. 1.8.1 [1.163]; Gen 20:6 [LXX]; Prov 6:29 [LXX]). For discussion see G. D. Fee, First Corinthians (NICNT), 275. Many recent interpreters believe that here again (as in 6:12-13) Paul cites a slogan the Corinthians apparently used to justify their actions. If this is so, Paul agrees with the slogan in part, but corrects it in the following verses to show how the Corinthians misused the idea to justify abstinence within marriage (cf. 8:1, 4; 10:23). See also G. D. Fee, “1 Corinthians 7:1 in the NIV,” JETS 23 (1980): 307-14.

[2] tn Grk “each man should have his own wife.” “Have” in this context means “have marital relations with” (see the following verse). The verb ἐχέτω (ecetw, “have”) occurs twice in the Greek text, but has not been repeated in the translation for stylistic reasons. This verb occurs 8 times in the LXX (Exod 2:1; Deut 28:30; 2 Chr 11:21; 1 Esd 9:12, 18; Tob 3:8; Isa 13:16; 54:1) with the meaning “have sexual relations with,” and 9 times elsewhere in the NT with the same meaning (Matt 20:23; 22:28; Mark 6:18; 12:33; Luke 20:28; John 4:18 [twice]; 1 Cor 5:1; 7:29).

[3] tn Grk “should have.” For explanation of the translation, see the note on “have relations with” earlier in this verse.

Again, while I appriciate the concerns of those that say premarital kissing is a sin, I don't believe that a careful examination of scripture will bear this out. I have known many people who kissed before marriage, had a very pure and God honoring relationship, and went on to have wonderful marriages. Hence, I don't think that the answer is as easy as you would like to make it. We really need to wrestle with these issues, as issues of purity are extremely important.

God Bless,
Adam

27. Albrecht Barajas said the following at 7:43 PM on Dec 30:

Well... after reading both sides of the story I find the whole thing really amusing. To kiss or not to kiss is a personal choice and completely OUT of public discussion. The fact that this story was published in a (said-so) serious paper made me laugh. Chsistians, theists and atheists in this postmodern society forget that the MOST precious gift mankind has is FREEDOM!!! That is the very ONE that allow us to find the God of the Bible. That is the way I see relationships; if a couple is choosing to wait as a sign of love (and not pride) LET THEM BE. Putting tags is scary. The Nazis did that.

28. rushncap said the following at 7:43 PM on Dec 30:

Well, IMO, I don't have a "threshold". That's far too arbitrary. I just see if I like a girl or not. If I do, her past history does not matter. However, her past history is part of who she is, if that makes sense. If she is the type of person who sleeps with anyone, that's a red flag. What her actual number is is irrelevant. Just like with drinking: I don't mind if she drinks periodically, but I do mind if she's an alcoholic. I don't have a specific "number of drinks per week" threshold.

Why do I know her "stats"? Because we talk about everything including, yes, sex. I know them for the same reason I know who her friends are, what foods she likes, that she was a cheerleader in high school, what her grades were, etc. I love her, and I want to know everything about her life. Former relationships are, of course, a big part of it, just like they are for me. Why do you assume that because we discussed something it must have been bad or uncomfortable?

29. Keith said the following at 7:58 PM on Dec 30:

Well, several thoughts about this:

First, for me I would consider it wrong to wait until marriage for a first kiss. Many women are affirmed that they are loved through physical touch and kisses. To refuse to kiss until the wedding day would be to put one's personal moral self righteousness above your duty to communicate to your partner that they are loved.

Yes, it is OK to kiss your girlfriend before your wedding day; there is a big difference between sex and a kiss.

I think the saddest though about people who have had sex with several partners if that the art of loving people has been forgotten. Magazine covers have headlines about one way or another to get the best sex - But I have yet to see one that gives any advise on how to love someone better.
It is not the increase of sexual immorality that bothers me, but the decrease in people's ability to love that really scares me...

30. Melissa said the following at 8:18 AM on Dec 31:

It's interesting how heated the debate over pre-marital kissing is! But for me, it doesn't matter if a man i am considering does or doesn't agree to that- just that he respects my opinion, which is on the cheek, forehead, etc, only. Because it's not explicitly in the Bible, i can't make a hard and fast rule on that. I can say that too much intimacy does leave scars... how long they take to heal, surface, or resurface, depends on the person in question. But they come from realizing the damage of the sins we've committed. They're no different than carrying scars from someone's sin against you (such as your parents divorcing) but that you had a part in it. Sin is forgiven and forgotten, but the consequences remain, and know this from personal experience. I applaud these people's committment to purity, but hope it came from hearts devoted to God rather than legalism. Because if it's caused by anything other than God, it's worthless anyways.

31. Anonymous said the following at 8:18 AM on Dec 31:

Keith, (#29):
How could it be wrong to wait until marriage to kiss? I understand you arguing that it is not a sin, but how could it be a sin to wait until marriage.

However, I do not believe that a kiss is necessary to show your love and affection. As a woman who longs to be kissed, I see it as true love that a man would wait until our wedding day. The desire is there - but he truly demonstrates his love by waiting. Instead of us asking "how far is too far?", I want us to begin asking, "How far can we possibly go to honor God in our relationship?" I want it to be my goal to live without even a hint of impurity. Eph. 5:3 says, "But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people." Not only that, in Scripture, sex is a sacred thing - including every form of physical interaction leading up to sex. I want to set aside all of that for marriage, to try to protect the sacredness of sex in that marriage.

I don't believe that kissing before marriage is a sin, per say. But I do believe that it can be a wise course of action, and a way of truly expressing your love for each other.

32. TruthWar said the following at 8:18 AM on Dec 31:

Adam

"Yes, the Bible forbids premarital sexual relations, but kissing has nothing whatsoever to do with that."

If there is an assertion about kissing, this is an assertion. How do you know that kissing has nothing to do with premarital sexual relations?

'"Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman."

1 Corinthians 7:1

Actually, the Greek term "hapto" meaning "to touch" is being used as a euphomism for sexual relations. For instance, the standard Greek lexicon A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature defines this word as:

4. to touch intimately, have sexual contact, of intercourse w. a woman

In fact, it goes on to cite 1 Corinthians 7:1 as an example of this. Likewise, Thayer's Lexicon says the following:

b. gunaikos, of carnal intercourse with a woman, or cohabitation, 1 Cor. 7:1,

Notice how this lexicon likewise gives 1 Corinthians 7:1 as an example of a text in which "touch" means to have "carnal intercourse" with a woman.

http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=1Co&chapter=7

Likewise, here is their translation, and their notes on 1 Corinthians 7:1-2:

1 Corinthians 7:1-2 Now with regard to the issues you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” [1] 2 But because of immoralities, each man should have relations with [2] his own wife and each woman with [3] her own husband.

[2] tn Grk “each man should have his own wife.” “Have” in this context means “have marital relations with” (see the following verse). The verb ἐχέτω (ecetw, “have”) occurs twice in the Greek text, but has not been repeated in the translation for stylistic reasons. This verb occurs 8 times in the LXX (Exod 2:1; Deut 28:30; 2 Chr 11:21; 1 Esd 9:12, 18; Tob 3:8; Isa 13:16; 54:1) with the meaning “have sexual relations with,” and 9 times elsewhere in the NT with the same meaning (Matt 20:23; 22:28; Mark 6:18; 12:33; Luke 20:28; John 4:18 [twice]; 1 Cor 5:1; 7:29).

[3] tn Grk “should have.” For explanation of the translation, see the note on “have relations with” earlier in this verse."'

Exactly. Thanks for copying and pasting that. It affirms my statement. : )

33. TruthWar said the following at 8:18 AM on Dec 31:

Adam, (#26)

"Where are you getting this idea that kissing is "sexual experementation?" What do you mean by that?

The wisdom of God.

"I would reject that assertion entirely. Yes, the Bible forbids premarital sexual relations, but kissing has nothing whatsoever to do with that."

Do you realize that you stated that I am asserting, by using an assertion?

"Yes, the Bible forbids premarital sexual relations, but kissing has nothing whatsoever to do with that."

How do you know?

""Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman."

1 Corinthians 7:1

4. to touch intimately, have sexual contact, of intercourse w. a woman

In fact, it goes on to cite 1 Corinthians 7:1 as an example of this. Likewise, Thayer's Lexicon says the following:

b. gunaikos, of carnal intercourse with a woman, or cohabitation, 1 Cor. 7:1,

Notice how this lexicon likewise gives 1 Corinthians 7:1 as an example of a text in which "touch" means to have "carnal intercourse" with a woman.

http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=1Co&chapter=7

Likewise, here is their translation, and their notes on 1 Corinthians 7:1-2:

[3] tn Grk “should have.” For explanation of the translation, see the note on “have relations with” earlier in this verse."

I am thankful you took the time to copy and paste, but what does that have to do with what I said?

34. LouiseinPA said the following at 8:22 AM on Dec 31:

Adam (#26), Thanks for the insightful comment. My fiancee and I have kissed, hugged, held hands, etc but have refrained from doing sexual activities. What scares me is not that this couple enters marriage without "testing driving" each other but that they can't seem to distinguish between the "affirming touch" and the "sexual touch." A kiss on the lips does not have to be sexual, it can be a non sexual way to express love. I get sad for these couples that they can't see the difference. I know some people have concerns about being able to control themselves sexually but control IS possible. That said, I don't think it's wrong to wait until the wedding but I do think that it's unnecessary and eliminates many wonderful moments couples can share before marriage.

Keith (#29), I agree that the saddest part is not the "bad" thinks that come from sex but rather how premarital sex demonstrates how our culture uses people as objects. I know people who have had premarital sex and aren't "scarred" in the way that they have physical scares or even emotional scares in the sense that they look back on their experiences. What saddens me is that the separation of sex from love and the ease with which people get used to using people sexually and forget about how sacrificial love is at the center of the strongest marriage.

35. Kiss-and-Tell said the following at 8:23 AM on Dec 31:

Ahh...the kissing debate. My own experience throws in an interesting twist for those not sure where they stand. I was crazy about my husband and convinced the Lord had brought us together (a great story in itself) and wanted to get married as soon as possible. We were in a perfect situation to get married but he wanted to wait another year or so to get to know each other better. When the subject came up, I told him that I would not kiss him until we were engaged. Neither of us wanted a long engagement which was handy. He stewed over it for a few days and then went on to thoroughly tempt me for a couple of weeks. Kissing me on the forehead, rubbing noses, etc.... At the end of two weeks he asked me to marry him! I barely had time to say yes before he smothered me. :) We are very happily married! Christians agree that saving love making for after the wedding propels us toward marriage, but under estimate the power of a first kiss.

36. Marlanda said the following at 8:24 AM on Dec 31:

I'd still like to what is scary about marrying a vigin.

37. IMO said the following at 8:24 AM on Dec 31:

"Why do you assume that because we discussed something it must have been bad or uncomfortable?"

I am not assuming anything. That's why I was just asking a question. I don't have a hidden agenda. I honestly don't know what I said to make you think that just because you "discussed something it must have been bad or uncomfortable." I will clarify my comment than.
------------
I will say that some conversations are more intimate to have than others.

IMO of course, having a conversation about somebody's fav food is different than having a conversation about that person's sex life. And the more private and intimate conversations tend to come up a bit later in the relationship (for most people, I assume).

On the extreme flip side, I'm sure there are some people who'd spill their whole life story on the first date.

38. Brent1776 said the following at 8:24 AM on Dec 31:

There are absolutely no good reasons ... all the reasons for not having sex before marriage boil down to religious objections.

There are discoverable rational reasons for every Biblical teaching. The notion that any Biblical teaching is just "religious objection" that technology enables us to ignore without consequence is nothing short of a black lie cooked up in hell.

39. TruthWar said the following at 8:25 AM on Dec 31:

Adam, (#26)

"Now, I do not believe that refraining from kissing is something that is Biblical."

What is your biblical basis for this?

"In fact, people are suprised when I have no reaction at all to hearing that someone has decided to do this."

Are you making yourself an authority?

"What is really impressive to me is a person who *has* kissed their girlfriend, and yet has not done anything that the Bible has forbidden."

Again, how would you know this?

"It is really easy to add rules to God's word that are not there to help us to keep God's word."

Can you elaborate on this?

"For example, it is amazing when someone has the spritual discernment to know that kissing is right, but sexual intercourse is not."

Again, what is your biblical basis for this?

"Where are you getting this idea that kissing is "sexual experementation?"

The wisdom of God and the Scriptures.

"I would reject that assertion entirely. Yes, the Bible forbids premarital sexual relations, but kissing has nothing whatsoever to do with that."

Do you realize that your entire post is an assertion?

"Yes, the Bible forbids premarital sexual relations, but kissing has nothing whatsoever to do with that."

Again, what is the biblical basis for this?

40. JOSES said the following at 8:25 AM on Dec 31:

I figure sex is spiritual and should be ruled out completely before marriage. But to kiss......?Hmmmm.....just be careFULL!!!

41. IMO said the following at 8:25 AM on Dec 31:

PS
Hmmm I just realized that there have been times (back in college) where kind of random acquantances (think frat guys) would ask (probably due to alcohol) about my sexual experience (or lackthereof)...

So I guess on second thought, it's (knowing how many partners somebody has) more common (in my experience) than I give it credit...

42. Jen said the following at 9:01 AM on Dec 31:

How interesting the timing of this article!

I have been dealing/wrestling with this topic for about two months. I have made the commitment to stay a virgin until I'm married, but the shocking thing for me has been the response of the past two guys that I've considered dating.

While we were in the "talking" stage, sex became a topic of conversation. One guy found out I was a virgin; he was shocked! (He was in my Sunday School class!) This happened with another guy [not from my church, though]. Both informed me they could not/would not date me because they want to have sex with their girlfriend.
They both have been very "gentleman-ly" about the situation: one complimenting me on saving myself for marriage and not just "the right guy". The other has stayed my friend and I hope to be a witness to him because he has noticed something different about my life and he is searching to believe in something.

It makes me sad to admit that I considered, if even for a minute, whether my decision to stay pure was worth it or not. After many tears and prayers, God adamantly reminded me that this would go against everything I have believed and been taught my whole life.

It also makes me sad that Christians have let the world influence us so much that this is even a debatable subject! I guess all we can do is pray and be a witness for the wonderful plans God has for our lives if we live by His Word.

43. Adam said the following at 9:11 AM on Dec 31:

TruthWar,

I am very simply saying:

1. All protestants believe that the Bible is sufficient to define what sin is.

2. The Bible never defines kissing as sinful.

3. Therefore, kissing is not sinful.

As for your arguments from the passage, you were the one who quoted 1 Corinthians 7:1-2 with regards to single people, when it has nothing to do with single people. Paul is addressing a perversion of a principle which the Corinthians were using to say that married people could be celebate. To apply this text to this debate is a huge exegetical leap.

Now, again, I appriciate the concerns of people who want to say that kissing is wrong. However, I am afraid that we are not being careful to be Biblical in our thinking. The Bible does give us solutions to this problem, and I think we need to turn back to the Bible to solve these issues rather than adding well-meaning rules to the Bible.

God Bless,
Adam

44. LouiseinPA said the following at 9:18 AM on Dec 31:

To me, I think the key issue is how we define kissing. Kissing is NOT always sexual in nature. Clearly the Bible forbids activities intended to be sexually arousing but kissing isn't always under this umbrella...

Again, I think this is a matter of personal discernment. Most couples can kiss and not get sexually tempted. But for a few you cannot, it may be wise to refrain from kissing on the mouth. To suggest that it makes one more "holy" or a better Christian to do so, IMO, it legalism. What matters is the issue of lust in one's heart and some people can lust without even touching their fiancee/girlfriend while some can kiss and not be sexually tempted.

45. Ted Slater said the following at 9:20 AM on Dec 31:

Adam (#43), I've come to expect better biblical scholarship from you; your logic is exceedingly faulty.

You argue that because the Bible doesn't specifically say that kissing is sinful, then it is not sinful.

If you kissed my wife, that would indeed be sinful.

If I kissed your girlfriend, that would indeed be sinful.

If I walked up to some woman on the street and kissed her, that would indeed be sinful.

There are times and places when kissing is sinful, i.e., missing the mark.

There are times and places when it's just wise to refrain from kissing. If someone has determined that kissing "starts their motor," and they therefore determine not to kiss until they're free to let their motor run (e.g., when they're married), such restraint is wise and admirable.

Your trying to dissuade them from practicing such restraint is foolish, Adam. Indeed, it's sinful to encourage others to flirt with sexual temptation.

46. Naomi said the following at 10:33 AM on Dec 31:

rushncap: ...all the reasons for not having sex before marriage boil down to religious objections.

You did mention STDs and unwanted pregnancies. And besides that, you said, nothing else? Whoa... aren't these two WAY enough?

On this article
It's just amazing to me that right now, the world is changing. That they actually put you on the newspaper for advocating abstinence or being virgins is kinda craaazzzy.

It's not like the world has changed on what it thinks about sex. People have been engaging in pre-marital, extra-marital, elicit sex many centuries ago.

What's astonishing is how it's been broadcast officially as acceptable. In the earlier centuries, pre-marital affairs also made headlines but they were deemed scandalous.

47. Adam said the following at 11:22 AM on Dec 31:

Ted,

Again, you continue to take me out of context. I thought we were talking about premarital kissing in the context of relationships. *That* is what is not found in the Bible. Considering the OP was about a couple who had just gotten married, most of the people here are talking about not kissing *until* they get to the altar, I just assumed [perhaps wrongly] that kissing here was to be understood in the context of a premarital couple in a romantic relationship. Yes, the things you mentioned are found in the Bible, not under the specific heading of "kissing," but in other related areas such as the fact that a husband is bound to his wife. If you would like to argue this is the case with premarital kissing between two couples who are in a romantic relationship I am willing to listen. Thus far, all of the arguments I have seen have been really bad.

Ted, I am simply wanting to back to scripture. All of the other issues you have raised have Biblical solutions without having to say that premarital kissing between a couple in a romantic relationship is wrong, and thus, add to scripture. All of your concerns are valid concerns. I am just trying to cut away the tradition so that we can go back to scripture and address these concerns from a Biblical perspective.

Yes, I do not mind if someone wants to refrain from kissing because they recognize that they cannot do it without being tempted. I have no problems with that. However, in a constant pursuit of holiness, I do not believe we should stay that way. We need to grow in our hatred of sin so much so that the idea of having inappropriate desires while we are kissing our girlfriend is as repulsive as eating roadkill. That is why I said that I have a great admiration for those who kiss their girlfriend, and yet, do not sin. However, notice how, in none of this, did I *ever* say that premarital kissing between a couple in a romantic relationship is sin. In fact, I have said that a state in which a person refrains from kissing because they know they are tempted in that situation is not ideal, and that we need to be fighting to get rid of the sin that is causing us to be tempted in those situations.

God Bless,
Adam

48. Tiffany said the following at 11:24 AM on Dec 31:

Ted,

Why is it sinful to kiss a woman on the street?

49. Niki said the following at 11:24 AM on Dec 31:

Rushncap #20 -

Maybe it's different for girls than for guys, but, from my experience, and from talking with friends of mine, all of us have had sexual encounters that we have regretted, either because we were pressured into it, felt guilty because we gave in, it came about too fast, our partner wasn't gentle and didn't care that we were hurt, etc. Having experiences like that will certainly have an effect on the way you view yourself and sex, and usually in a negative way. I'm not saying you CAN'T get past it, but from my experience, it's something that has taken a lot of communication and hard work with my husband to be able to relate to him as I should.

50. Matt said the following at 11:53 AM on Dec 31:

I can't find the quote right now, but I'm pretty sure that Joshua Harris would say something like "If you're trying to define 'how far is too far'", then you've missed the point entirely.

I think that it boils down to this verse:

Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:

"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." (Matthew 22:34-40, NIV).

Rather than looking for an extremely specific verse to apply to our extremely specific situation, I think that we can come to conclusions regarding how we should act using the principles summed up in the previously quoted verse. Jesus even says, "All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments", meaning that these commandments are what the entire Law is based on - a fear of God and a respect for one another. I strongly believe that if we honestly try to follow these principles, and ask "Does this honour God and my fellow person" every time we are not sure what course of action to take, and follow the questions to their conclusions, we will come up with the best answer.

51. Ted Slater said the following at 12:15 PM on Dec 31:

Adam, again I'm surprised at your response.

Scripture is clear that we are to FLEE sexual immorality, not invite temptation or see how close we can get while still successfully resisting the temptation. Kissing between non-married people in itself may not in every case be "immorality," but it is an onramp to sexual immorality. That cannot be contested.

That you diminish couples who have pledged not to kiss until they are married, implying that they are less mature than kissing couples, that their discipline is "not ideal," is irresponsible. About the man who encourages temptation Jesus said the following: "It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were cast into the sea...." You should take Jesus' warning seriously, Adam.

So you've never experienced sexual tension when you kiss your fiancée, never felt your body start to rev when your lips touch? If that's the case, your girlfriend should be insulted that she has such little effect on you.

52. Jo said the following at 4:58 PM on Dec 31:

Ted:
"There are times and places when kissing is sinful, i.e., missing the mark."

Of course there are. One can also sin while taking communion (1 Cor 11). Just goes to show that even an inherently GOOD thing mandated by God can involve sin if context and attitude are wrong.

I don't see how what Adam said was incorrect? If the Bible doesn't specifically say that premarital kissing is wrong, then anyone claiming it IS must show that it conflicts with an established Biblical principle (as all your examples of sinful kissing do).

Anyway, you're right that something not sinful in itself may nonetheless still be unwise, but that's a different point - and surely it's for each individual couple to decide what is or isn't unwise for them, in the absence of a definite Biblical command either way?

If I hear about a couple who are saving kissing for marriage, I don't feel challenged by it or awestruck by their incredible self control or amazed at their holiness. I simply think, "Cool, good for them." It's great, but it's no more great than any other couple who protect their purity in different ways. I think that's what Adam meant when he said he had no opinion, and I agree.

53. John said the following at 4:58 PM on Dec 31:

rushncap,

So it doesn't bother you that she's thinking about other guys while she's with you?

Notice I didn't say "might". She's doing it.

It also doesn't bother you to kiss her when she's used her mouth and lips sexually with someone else?

What about if you want to marry her? Will you care then?

Do you know men carry an undetectable STD that can kill women?

54. Kimberly E said the following at 4:59 PM on Dec 31:

I wanted to comment on the thought expressed by some of the commenters that they feel it would be foolish to not take their future mate out for a test drive of sorts in the bedroom.

Half the fun of entering into a marriage relationship with your true love is exploring your physical relationship together, learning what pleases and doesn't please the other. I think you are working on a faulty, "Hollywood-style" idea that what works for one woman (or guy) works on the other....or that lovemaking (Which differs from "Sex") is about skill, technique, and your abilities in this area (or lack thereof). To a woman who desires a pure relationship, skill on the wedding night is not an indication that we've found ourselves a great guy but that this guy did a little too much learning either with other women or with porn before I came along.

If someone has kept themselves pure on purpose, as opposed to being celibate because of some unhealthy view of physical love (which is why communication is important!!), then that doesn't automatically mean that the wedding night is going to be a dud...if you are performance orientated, and have five former lovers to compare the night to, then you may be disappointed, however if you view it as it is, two people becoming one flesh, and learning to love each other, it will be far from dull.

Regarding not kissing until marriage...my husband of 17 years and I shared our first kiss at the altar. This was not our first ever kiss though, as we both got saved in our 20s and as such we bore the scars of sinful mistakes we made from our pre-Christian riotous living. The decision not to kiss, for us, was made because we knew the frailties and weaknesses of our own fleshly desires, and we desired to be pure at our wedding day. This is something we don't regret at all.

55. Adam said the following at 4:59 PM on Dec 31:

Ted,

Scripture is clear that we are to FLEE sexual immorality, not invite temptation or see how close we can get while still successfully resisting the temptation.

Actually, the Bible also tells us to flee idolatry [1 Corinthians 10:14] as well as the love of money [1 Timothy 6:10-11]. Does that man that is somehow wrong for someone such as myself to witness to cultists and members of world religions since it is an "on ramp" to idolatry? Does that mean that it is also wrong to save your money because this, likewise, is an "on ramp" to the love of money?

Again, the question is where or not a person actually *is* tempted in those situations. I think it would be more appropriate to say that [remarital kissing *could be* an on ramp to sexual immorality. If you deny this, then how do you explain the couples who have kissed throughout there entire relationship, and never became involved in sexual immorality as a result? I agree, that a person should not be doing those things if he is tempted in those situations. The problem is that, if he is tempted in those situations, there is still a battle for him. He is not to remain that way, since God has called him to press on to holiness.

I do, Ted, and that is why I want to go back to scripture. You see, all you have presented me with is pragmatism. This is what is going to work to keep you outwardly holy. This idea is not Biblical. I agree that we need to do things to help us keep from sinning outwardly. However, the sin is still in our hearts. To suggest that merely not doing something that you know leads to your temptation without the fight against sin is totally unbiblical.

God demands holiness. For someone to have the state of mind that says, "If only I were kissing a girl, then I would spit in God's face" is not holiness. We need to recognize it when we have that attitude, and yes, do things to prevent it. However, we also need to take steps to remove that attitude from our hearts by the blood of Jesus Christ. Without that, we become nothing more then whitewashed tombs, people who do what is right on the outside, but, given the right situation, we would spit in God's face.

So, yes, I am not impressed by a couple who has decided not to kiss until their wedding day. I consider holiness of the heart more impressive then outward holiness with inward sin that, given the right situation, would spit in God's face.

God Bless,
Adam

56. Sylvia said the following at 5:01 PM on Dec 31:

Can we factor in here the fact that kisses are things shared not only between lovers but between good friends, between parents and children, aunts uncles, nieces and nephews? Have not all of us experienced that strong the strong non-sexual love that compels us to kiss a tiny baby, or a long lost friend? We can't pretend kissing is always a form of foreplay, unless we are ready to call the cops on all of the people who kiss their little sons and daughters every single day.
I think that saving kisses for marriage is a good idea for a lot of couples. I would never discourage it (there's a good chance I would choose it myself if the issue arose)but I can also see Keith's(#29) point. People, and couples are different, and I think kisses given unselfishly can be an important part of making a partner feel valued and loved in preparation for marriage.
While for some, possibly many couples (in the USA especially) kisses may very well be just a way of sneaking in a little thrill before the wedding(and therefore selfish and sinful), I think we would be silly to not consider that fact that kisses can also be, affectionate, familial, symbolic, and completely pure.
In a courtship situation, it is wrong for either party to cause the other to stumble, or to use the other for personal gratification, but it is very right to display love and devotion in a way that glorifies our loving, faithful God and honors, by its pure intent, the institution of marriage.

57. BDB said the following at 5:02 PM on Dec 31:

Kiss-And-Tell (#35) wrote:

>>I was crazy about my husband and convinced the Lord had brought us together (a great story in itself) <<

Do tell, please share the story...

One of the reasons that's an interesting statement is that when people are choosing to trust God's guidance, they don't need to "test drive" things. They can trust that whatever challenges they might face in the future, God will be there to make it work out.

58. a sassy sister said the following at 5:03 PM on Dec 31:

ted:

I have to agree with Matt on this one. When you ask the question of whether or not your personal actions honor God and your fellow person, then (hopefully) conviction sets in for each person. There are some couples who kissed before marriage, and they have healthy, God-honoring marriages. I guess what I find so troubling here too many times is that I see a lot of Christians that want to correct but do not want to be a part of restoration apart from simply telling the person how deeply in sin they are.

when you start talking about whether kissing in a premarital relationship is sin, I wonder if we are debating the wrong things. I wonder about the following:
If your position about kissing is stemming from maintaing a standard of sexual purity, is that standard driven more by the opinions of men and tradition, or is it about a desire to please God and obey His Word?

If you have made a decision about kissing as a couple(premarital and beyond), how do you respond and deal with those who don't share your position?

Just some things that I'm thinking about....

59. R.L. said the following at 6:36 PM on Jan 1:

By experience, I believe that one thing that needs to be dealt with concerning sexual experience and marriage is people who have been sexually abused.

Oftentimes, sexual promiscuity can be a result of this abuse...though not an excuse for it.

It's amazing how many people have confessed being abused to me (men, women, married, single).

For some who experience this end up being sexually promiscuious...some take the opposite extreme...not knowing how to deal with their own sexuality as God sees fit.

Cases I definitely believe are fit for counsel and that I would like to see addressed in more churches.

I definitely believe that it's great for people to save sex for marriage.

Yet, I am curious as to how many people have been messed up due to the sinful sexualization of our world. (via movies, TV, even word references on a cell phone letting you know that you could watch wild girls... and the like...noticed the words on my cell phone last night).

Anyway, praise God for people waiting for Him through marriage and for those who receive renewal after sexual compromise of their own will whether it's due to sexual abuse or their own desire to sin.

I have received more counsel from some married women in church who had sex with their husbands before they were married. Their life is a testimony to me as much as the testimony of a woman who did not have sex.

The following thought just occurred to me:

It is my hope that men and women who save themselves for marriage can not just be a testimony of what they've done for themselves, but a testimony to encourage others toward a life of sexual purity.

Love, R.L.

60. Fred Walker said the following at 6:36 PM on Jan 1:

How can people not be impressed by the self-control it takes not to kiss before the wedding day?

61. Liln said the following at 6:38 PM on Jan 1:

Very interesting comments here. As a young woman under twenty, I'm currently not ready to marry, so I'm not able to bring a lot to the table in this discussion. I am and will remain a virgin until I have said "I do" to one man, and know that I will be married to him for life.

On kissing before marriage, I don't believe it is a sin, but that it can become one. If you are kissing because of a selfish desire to satisfy yourself, it's wrong; but if the kiss is to signify the love you feel for your fiancee, it's fine, IMHO.

Personally, I will not kiss a man I am not engaged to. I think it's cool to save your first kiss for the altar, but I don't have a problem with kissing during your engagement, as long as you remain pure to each other.

I'm new to posting here, so I hope this makes sense to all.

62. Christopher from Albuquerque said the following at 6:41 PM on Jan 1:

I don't want to definitely say that kissing before being married is a sin for *every* courting Christian couple (courting with an eye to marriage), because I don't know the hearts, and susceptibility to temptation, of every such couple. However, as Ted has written, it is hard for me to imagine how kissing a woman whom he desires could *not* sexually stir up a Christian man.

Moreover, as I learned very painfully in 2008, until each person has said "I do," and the minister has pronounced them married, by the power vested in him by God, that couple is *not married.* How many people is it wise or truly loving to kiss before one's wedding night, even if one has every intention of marrying a certain person whom one wants to kiss? There is simply no definite way to know that one will be married to a person until one *is married* to that person. Along the way, a lot of heartbreak and numbing of the heart and soul can occur if one kisses before marriage. How loving is that to oneself and to the other person?

As Christians, we are called to live by *Biblical* principles of love, even if doing so may seem unusual and unloving to others (as in, "You must not love your fiancee! You haven't even kissed her yet!").

If I kiss my fiancee (if I ever meet her, that is!) before marriage, I believe that I will not be *truly* loving her or myself, because I will be awakening love before its time-- which would be the wedding day, since that "awakening," Lord willing, can be brought to fulfillment that night or the next day!

63. Samantha said the following at 10:57 AM on Jan 3:

I enjoy reading the comments at Boundless. It amazing to see the lengths to which people will go, in order to justify sinning.

64. rushncap said the following at 10:58 AM on Jan 3:

John (#53) -- I'm glad you know so much about my girlfriend. Next time I can't think of a birthday present for her I'll call you, OK?

Do those things bother me? No, not at all. And I do want to marry her. And no, they don't bother me. As for "undetectable STD", is that like magic? Or do you have an actual name for this miracle disease?

65. Leah said the following at 11:01 AM on Jan 3:

Some were incredulous: "Huuuuge mistake. ... To go in with that as an unknown is too big of a risk factor."

That, and Jethro (3)'s comment, both reek of the world's attitude that marriage is about sex. Newsflash: it's not. A potential spouse's character, religion, and even earning potential (for men) is of far more importance. Sex is important, yes. But when you're going through a tough time and feel like you hate each other, sex will not be what keeps you together. Your character and beliefs will be.

Adam (43) - 1. All protestants believe that the Bible is sufficient to define what sin is.

2. The Bible never defines kissing as sinful.

3. Therefore, kissing is not sinful.

Ah, wrong. The bible never defines shooting as sinful, either. Does that mean it isn't? Not quite.

The bible DOES say that murder is sinful. Shooting can facilitate murder. In that case, it's sinful.

The bible also says that to have sex with or to lust for anyone but your spouse is sinful. Kissing can facilitate that. In that case, it's sinful.

To say "the bible does not comment on x means x is not sinful" is misleading and, as Ted said, poor biblical scholarship.

66. Leah said the following at 11:01 AM on Jan 3:

Adam (55): Oh come ON! Think things through a bit first. Ted is not saying kissing is ALWAYS a sin or ALWAYS an on-ramp. In the same way, saving money is not ALWAYS an on-ramp to idolatory or the love of money. You're being really pedantic here.

Ted's only saying that it can be, and people need to be aware of this, and if it is, then it is good for them to avoid it, and indeed sinful if they don't.

That does NOT mean, that if people for whom kissing is NOT an on-ramp DO kiss their girlfriends/fiancees, that they're sinning.

67. rushncap said the following at 11:02 AM on Jan 3:

Naomi (#46) -- STDs and pregnancies are both easily preventable with modern medicine and a modicum of personal responsibility. That's kind of like arguing that we should not drive, because we can get into a car crash and die. In 2008 in a Western country preventing STDs and unwanted pregnancies is very easy.

68. Ariana said the following at 11:03 AM on Jan 3:

Fred (#60) asked:

"How can people not be impressed by the self-control it takes not to kiss before the wedding day?"

Agreeing more with Adam's line of reasoning in this argument, I'd say that what impresses me about couples who do not kiss before the wedding is the depth of their desire to please God.

I'm not as much impressed by their self-control because it is much easier to go to extremes and just remove a potential opportunity to sin rather than to actually exercise self-control in a situation.

It's much easier for some societies to just cover women from head to toe in clothing than it is to force their men to control themselves when looking at a woman.

If you know that kissing is going to lead you to sin and therefore you avoid it, then that's the 100% right decision for you to make...but you don't get any extra points for self control. Obedience, yes, faithfulness, definitely, but refusing to kiss doesn't mean that you've mastered lust in the least, or your thought life.

Neither does it mean that if you were actually put in the path of temptation (meaning that you had a real opportunity to sin) that you would know how to not give in to your desire. And no, wanting really bad to kiss isn't the path of temptation because kissing isn't the sin, it's having sex that's the sin. Fleeing the sin is what we are called to do. But the opportunity to sin will always be with us. Do whatever you need to do to avoid sin--cut off your right hand, gouge out your eye, as Jesus says. But don't confuse the opportunity to sin (kissing) with the sin itself (fornication).

Refusing to kiss means that you've recognized a weak spot within yourself, it doesn't mean that you've done anything to strengthen it.

Insofar as not kissing serves to bring couples into greater obedience to God then that is wonderful. But neither the couple nor the church should rely on such outward signs as proof of a pure heart. The stuff on the inside still has to be worked out.

69. Kiss-and-Tell said the following at 11:04 AM on Jan 3:

BDB #57 "Kiss-and-Tell(#35), Do please tell the story."

My husband is a godly man very practical and methodical and I have to be careful that I'm not constantly trying to hurry him into decisions as I did our engagement. :)
He was raised on the mission field and felt as called to the ministry as his parents did. When he became an adult, instead of returning to the states he found a vocation in this country and stayed on the field working along side his parents. He stayed very busy and years past...
I desired to serve the Lord in a foreign country, but had never felt that the time was right. I did a lot of travelling "testing the waters" of different places and spent a big part of most summers working in children's ministries and camps.
While at a ski camp, a teenager that I only knew as a counsellor asked me if I would go on a trip she was taking that summer to help at a children's Bible camp overseas. Her father would not allow her to go unless a chaperone he knew was along. She needed a decision right away. The more I prayed about it the more convinced I became that I was was suppose make the trip. Nothing about it made sense practically. I didn't know the ministry at all or anyone in the group, it was expensive, etc...
But I went. As soon I as arrived, it was as if I had arrived home. A strange thing to feel about a place you had never been, but it was true. It didn't take long for me to find a place in the ministry. Also, working along side my husband I was so impressed by his devotion to the Lord, love for the children, his character, leadership, and more. Before long I was crushing terribly, and getting miserable at the thought of leaving. One evening I was pouring my heart out to the Lord in prayer telling Him how unfair it was to bring me here, allowing me to fall in love with the country, the people, and the ministry, allow me to meet the most incredible man, and then send me home again! It was as if the Lord spoke to me then and said, "Do you not think I knew you would love this place and this man? That is why I brought you here!" I left a week later with my husband's parents promising to find a way to bring me to work with them. My husband, on the other hand, didn't have an interest in my at all. It was months and many e-mails later that the Lord began to bring my good points to his remembrance. I could go on but this is getting rather long.... we married the next summer.
So there you have it!

70. Carrie (the original) said the following at 11:04 AM on Jan 3:

Each person needs to weight the issue in their own hearts, that's for sure. I've have multiple conversations with good, Christian married couples and the consensus is that once the door on the physical part of relationships is opened is pretty darn hard to close it.
I can see this in my own life as well. If the circumstances ever lead to it, I would definitely be wrestling over whether or not to kiss before the altar. I have kissed one boy (before I was a Christian). It was more than a little enjoyable for me. I know I would want to kiss for extended periods of time.
I don't know what I would do or what boundaries I would set (hand-holding only? pecks on the cheek?), but I can see the merits of the pragmatic argument.

71. Glenise said the following at 11:11 AM on Jan 3:

Since no one has answered my question (what's so scary about marrying a virgin), I guess I'll assume that there is nothing to be scared about.

Whew!

72. Adam said the following at 2:34 PM on Jan 3:

Leah,

Ah, wrong. The bible never defines shooting as sinful, either. Does that mean it isn't? Not quite.

The bible DOES say that murder is sinful. Shooting can facilitate murder. In that case, it's sinful.

The bible also says that to have sex with or to lust for anyone but your spouse is sinful. Kissing can facilitate that. In that case, it's sinful.

To say "the bible does not comment on x means x is not sinful" is misleading and, as Ted said, poor biblical scholarship.

Actually, Leah, notice the conclusion of your argument. The conclusion is that shooting is not wrong, if it is done morally, and that shooting is wrong if it is done for immoral intentions. If you want to argue that way, then we must logically say that *everything* is wrong because it is theoretically possible to do *anything* with immoral intentions.

In essence, you have erected a strawman of my position. I am not saying that you have to find the exact phrase "premarital kissing is sinful." You can find the sentence "Pressing your lips together with someone of the opposite sex before you are married is evil in the eyes of God," and I would accept that as well. I am saying that, neither in vocabulary nor in concept does the Bible ever forbid premarital kissing. It tells us always to be pure in our intentions when we do anything [including kiss before marriage], but *never* does it forbid premarital kissing, and that is the point. My only reason for bringing this up is to direct this back to a *Biblical* discussion, rather than a discussion of things that are added to God's word on the basis of good intentions.

Hence, the issue is not whether or not one kisses before marriage. The issue is one's intentions in so doing. That is so often the case when we have things that the Bible does not say are wrong in and of themselves, such as premarital kissing. However, the Bible does say a whole lot about our intentions. If you are doing the right thing for the wrong reason, then you are still doing what is wrong. That goes for anything we do. However, it is the *intentions* that are wrong, not the action itself.

Hence, if someone wants to refrain from premarital kissing because they know that they could never do it with good intentions, that is fine, but it is the *bad intentions* that are the sin, *not* the premarital kissing.

God Bless,
Adam

73. BDB said the following at 9:10 PM on Jan 4:

Jen (#42) wrote:

>>Both informed me they could not/would not date me because they want to have sex with their girlfriend. <<

See, this statement is what makes me understand the women I met in college who, almost immediately upon meeting them, informed me that they "didn't date anymore." Honestly, I don't remember asking, I remember being surprised that the conversation went that direction. They would, however, go to dinner, the beach, a play, a movie and all sorts of other activities as long as it wasn't "dating." OK, that runs afoul of all the "not your buddy" articles. But it's also an interesting operational response to a dating=sex environment.

74. BDB said the following at 9:16 PM on Jan 4:

Kiss-N-Tell (#69) that's a neat story.

This part is a good reminder:

>>My husband, on the other hand, didn't have an interest in me at all. It was months and many e-mails later that the Lord began to bring my good points to his remembrance.<<

I suppose that's also a good illustration of why those short-term missions trips are worthwhile: it gives God a change to put us in a completely new situation and see things we might never think to look for.

Glenise (#71)

>>I guess I'll assume that there is nothing to be scared about.<<

Yes, there are MUCH MUCH scarier things in the world!

75. Kelly said the following at 9:17 PM on Jan 4:

Glenise - I've heard from men I've dated that they're scared of marrying a virgin because she'll have no idea and might not be any good in bed.

I always argue that it doesn't MATTER if she's good in bed or not, because within marriage, the desire to please each other means you can learn.

It seems to fall on deaf ears. :(

76. John said the following at 9:22 PM on Jan 4:

rushncap,

You're so smart, it suprises me you don't know the name of the disease that men carry that does not affect them, but can kill women.

That's too bad.

"miracle disease"- Is that your attempt at sarcasm? Pretty lame.

So it doesn't bother you that she pictures other men while with you or that your kissing a mouth that was used sexually with other men?

Good for you.

You going to tell your daughter if you have one to have sex with the same number of men as your wife, her mom?

77. Fred Walker said the following at 9:23 PM on Jan 4:

Ariana (#68),

The opportunity is not always with us and we should seek to avoid the opportunity (insofar as it is possible) as well as the actual sin.

When something isn't specifically a sin (compared with being drunk for example) it is very easy to convince yourself that it is ok, even if you know that it will lead to sin and so it does take considerable self-control to resist kissing.

If a couple is in no way tempted to have or think about sex when they kiss no problem, but how many couples do you know like this? Not all kisses are sexual but I'd lay odds that for new couples kissing the thoughts of one or both will drift towards sex.

I was just simply talking about self-control and I was not saying that they were more holy. Although on the subject of self-control I agree that having just one drink can be more difficult than not having any at all.

78. Leah said the following at 11:37 AM on Jan 5:

Adam (72) - did you even read my post? I was making the point that shooting (and kissing) isn't necessarily wrong!

I'm not saying you have to find a black and white statement saying "x is wrong".. in fact, I'm arguing the exact opposite! Seriously, I feel like my head is about to implode with the sheer "doesn't make sense-ness" of your comment.

Go and read it again. Really. My point was this: The bible does not comment on some things. This does not NECESSARILY mean those things are ok. You have to look at the intentions and results.

I, for one, think shooting is perfectly fine provided you do it in the right circumstances. I enjoy it. But you can't say "shooting is never a sin because the bible doesn't say so". It often is a sin.

I also think premarital kissing is fine, also provided you do it in the right circumstances. In the same way as shooting, you can't say "kissing is never a sin because the bible doesn't say so". It often is a sin.

It all depends on your heart and the results.

Your comment is all about emphasising the fact the bible does not forbid premarital kissing. Did I ever say it does?? Did I ever say it was wrong?? Please, read things properly. Half your comment was just reiterating exactly what I'd already said.

79. S said the following at 11:41 AM on Jan 5:

#76 - What disease are you referring to?

80. Adam said the following at 3:02 PM on Jan 5:

Leah,

Did you even read *my* post? Take your argument to its logical conclusion, Leah. If you are going to say that intentions make the action wrong, then you must believe that everything could be wrong, given that you can do anything with bad intentions. Thus, this whole "you shouldn't kiss" idea could also be "you shouldn't eat a bean burrito," or, "you shouldn't wash your car." The objection totally looses all force, and relegates itself to something that is totally uninteresting.

That is why I argued that the action itself is not wrong when done with bad intentions, but the bad intentions themselves are what are wrong. I know you will probably say that you already agreed with all of this stuff, but follow me through until the end. You say shooting at someone is always wrong. Let us ask if you shoot them with a nerf gun, would it still be wrong? No, of course not. What if that person were attacking you with a knife, would it then be wrong to shoot them with a high powered rifle? No, you see, even in your example breaks down, proving that shooting is never wrong, but the intention behind it can be. Hence, it is not the shooting that is wrong when you shoot with the intent to murder, but it is the intent to kill someone, and the action of killing them needlessly that is wrong. The shooting is simply the means by which you carry out that action. What I am saying is that we need to distinguish between the means that we use to carry out a particular immoral action, and the immoral action itself.

I was actually trying to go even deeper and point out that, while it is true that certain things can be wrong in some situations while right in other situations, there is always universal moral law which governs all things. Thus it is a volation of this universal moral law that is wrong, not the action itself. If you deny this, then you are left with moral relativism. For the Christian this is scripture. What are the absolute moral standards that scripture sets up that would define when intentions are wrong, and when they are right? How would this apply to the ways in which we express our love physically to those with whom we are in a relationship?

These are questions I never hear people address when they just simply say "We don't want to kiss until our wedding day." This is not letting scripture drive the issue, but rather, unbiblical countercultural traditionalism. I believe we should rather be looking at the ultimate standard of scripture, rather than popular Christian culture.

So, again, what I am objecting to is the notion that the action itself is being called sin, rather then the violation of the absolute moral laws prescribed in God's word. If God does not specifically say the action is wrong, then the action itself is never wrong, but the use of that action to violate God's ultimate standard is always wrong, again distinguishing between the means whereby we violate God's law, and the violation of God's law itself.

God Bless,
Adam

81. Ted Slater said the following at 3:55 PM on Jan 5:

Adam (#80) -- truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

You seem to be saying that, when it comes to things about which the Bible doesn't specifically speak, the *intentions* are what make an action sinful, not the action itself. Is that correct?

I see holes in that argument. If a guy's intentions are *good* when he kisses his girlfriend (e.g., to affirm his uncovenanted affection for her) but his kissing her leads *her* engine to start running in a way only appropriate within marriage, would not that kiss indeed be sinful? Or is that singular kiss both bad and good -- bad for her and good for him?

I think it's clear that if his intentions are good, yet they cause his girlfriend to stumble, then his intentions are irrelevant: He has brought about sin through his behavior.

I point again to Jesus' warning in Mark 9:42: "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea." Someone can intend good toward someone, but "cause them to sin." And woe to them.

Check out the following verse as well, where Jesus says, "And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire."

Let me rephrase that for this conversation: "And if your kissing causes you to sin, cut it out. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two lips to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire."

Jesus is specifically giving counsel that it is good to stop a behavior if it causes you to sin. He's not telling us to work through our issues, or to resist the temptations while engaging in a particular behavior -- He is telling us to cut it off and tear it out. Our Lord is very "pragmatic" here, Adam, something you seem to dismiss.

82. dasiopa said the following at 8:26 AM on Jan 6:

Adam: I think what you are saying is that sin is done in the heart, period. Since shooting can't be done by the heart, shooting also can't be sinful. What the heart *can* do are things like hate, envy, and lust. If shooting occurs because of hate, then the hate was the sin, not the shooting.

Ted: You said
I think it's clear that if his intentions are good, yet they cause his girlfriend to stumble, then his intentions are irrelevant: He has brought about sin through his behavior.

This is actually not clear to me and I hope you can help me understand it. Who sinned, how, and when?

As I understand it, the guy's sin is identified as sin by its result (the gal being "turned on"). The implication is that he wouldn't have been sinning if, for whatever reason, the kiss hadn't had that effect. What if the kiss *did* get her engine running, but she didn't sin? Or what if she didn't sin then and there, but a week later she entertained a lustful thought about that kiss... would the guy's sin have occured at the time of the kiss or at the time of her thought?

If sin only happens in the heart, then all those questions are moot: either the guy sinned when he rebelliously decided to kiss her even though he knew better, or he didn't know better and therefore didn't sin at all.

What I don't like about that conclusion is the idea that ignorance is innocent. Is it?

83. Kate (who is applying to law school!) said the following at 8:28 AM on Jan 6:

BDB- Welcome to the world of the single girl. I once went on a date with a nice, intelligent graduate student. It went ok, so I agreed to another. We went on a walk in the park, he sits me down on a lovely stone bridge and asks me when we're going to have sex. Suddenly, I had an urgent appointment to get to. Now. (I was tempted to shove him over the lovely stone bridge, but that wouldn't have been very Christian of me.)

Jen- Forget those guys. We can do better, and we will!

This kind of stuff almost makes me long for the dating of 1950s social hygiene films. "Golly gee Bill! I'd love to go with you to the fraternity skating party!" Of course, than Bill would Drive Carelessly and we would die or be disfigured in a horrible automobile accident. But at least an important lesson would be learned.

84. Jethro said the following at 8:29 AM on Jan 6:

Leah (#65),

You have severely misrepresented my position. I never said that marriage was just about sex. Sex is clearly part of marriage, but I'm not sure where you get the impression I said it was the be all and end all...

85. Naomi said the following at 8:29 AM on Jan 6:

rushncap -- STDs and pregnancies are both easily preventable with modern medicine and a modicum of personal responsibility.
That's kind of like arguing that we should not drive, because we can get into a car crash and die. In 2008 in a Western country preventing STDs and unwanted pregnancies is very easy.

You should read:
One third of pregnancies in the United States are unwanted
as in the DCR report and by the Guttmacher Institute.

It does say that half of these do not use contraception. What happened to the other half?

Oh yeah, they were using contraception and still got unwanted pregnancy.

A 50-50 chance is NOT easy, even and especially for a Western country like yours.

Your logic on driving here is not applicable unless you really want to prove that sex is the ultimate reason for living.

Seriously, rushncap, there is NO justification for sex before marriage in the Bible with or without contraception. If you wish to justify that however, then you're in the wrong place.

86. Jeremy said the following at 9:22 AM on Jan 6:

#76, #79, etc.

The fact that John refuses to name the disease with which he wishes to scare people is, of course, telling. My guess is that he refers to HPV, which is difficult to detect when there is not a wart outbreak, and is the cause of most cases of cervical cancer.

Fortunately for society, but unfortunately for John and those of his ilk who wish only to scare (including, sadly, Focus on the Family), there is now an extremely effective HPV vaccine. The CDC website with information about it is: http://www.cdc.gov/std/Hpv/STDFact-HPV-vaccine.htm

87. Jonathan said the following at 9:24 AM on Jan 6:

#79: I would assume that HPV is the disease being referred to. Even with lab test this can go undetected in males, and if passed to a female can result in cervical cancer. There are a lot of STD/STIs that can have no outward symptoms, but usually a lab test will pick them up.

88. John said the following at 12:38 PM on Jan 6:

Jeremy,

Being as intelligent as you are, I'm sure you know that the vaccine doesn't work on all types of HPV and in fact doesn't always work against the ones it is designed for.

Of course you knew that already, you and your "ilk" always know everything.

By the way, HPV is not only undetectable in guys, it has no effect on them, but, it does, as others have pointed out, cause cervical cancer which can lead to death.

89. Jeremy said the following at 3:17 PM on Jan 6:

John (#88):

Of course, no vaccine is 100% effective, but the HPV vaccine is about as close as they come in terms of preventing cervical cancer. It really is quite a wonder, and if widely adopted, will likely make cervical cancer (like polio) largely a thing of the past.

Anyway, this is drifting from the point of this post. In summary of my mini-rant, yes, pre-marital sex is sinful, but using scare tactics and encouraging disease amongst the sexually active population (including harmless victims of rape and the like) is not an appropriate response.

90. Glenise said the following at 5:01 PM on Jan 6:

Thank you Kelley and BDB.

91. FirstTimothy5 said the following at 9:38 PM on Jan 6:

I believe that the bible does speak about premarital kissing, provided you are talking about the kissing whereby lips lock and tongues collide. Check out this verse:

Treat younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity.
(1 Timothy 5:1-2)

If it's ok to kiss your fiance before marriage then it should be ok to kiss any other man. Remember that he/she is still your brother/sister in christ and you are not married yet.

Also, God forbid that the marriage is called off and you regret sharing an intimate kiss. He would again retract to being just your brother in Christ. Don't defraud each other by the lies that the world tells you about kissing.

I believe a kiss on the cheek/forehead is fine but it's hard for me to believe that a man and a woman can share a kiss (the tongue locking one)and not have any kind of turn on, though restrained. This kind of kissing should only be shared between a husband and a wife. The bible is clear about "absolute purity."

Our culture has distorted what Truth is but Peter did speak about this distortion of issues that are hard to understand. (2 Peter 3:16)

Allow yourself to be lead by the Holy Spirit and He will reveal the truth about kissing, if you allow Him to.

Blessings,
SM

92. K.L. said the following at 9:09 AM on Jan 7:

I love that verse about absolute purity, 1 Timothy 5:1-2, that was used in comment 91. Here's an illustration that I came up with: Imagine the two extremes of black and white, which gradually fade into each other, leaving gray in between. White represents, "absolute purity," and black represents, "absolute impurity," so to speak. The gray area represents pretty much everything that the Bible does not specifically say is right or wrong. Now, if something is classified as under the "gray area," can it be absolutely pure, classified under the "white area"? You might say, "Well, just because something is gray, that doesn't automatically make it black, or sinful, either". You're right, it doesn't. But that's not the point. The point is, we're trying to determine what absolute purity is, and the fact of the matter is, absolute purity does not fall somewhere in between white and black. It's white. Period. And if you want to live a life of absolute purity, then that means no gray areas. If you're unsure if pre-marital kissing is ok (which, deep down I think all Christians have thought this way), then don't kiss until you get to the altar. Honestly, would it kill you if you waited? Probably not. I don't know if we will ever know if these gray areas are actually black or white, but until then, if we want to be absolutely pure (as much as we humanly can), we should avoid these gray areas at all costs. As the saying goes, "When in doubt, don't."

93. John said the following at 9:10 AM on Jan 7:

Jeremy,

There already is a way to have 0 cervical cancer cases

ABSTINENCE

"In summary of my mini-rant, yes, pre-marital sex is sinful, but using scare tactics and encouraging disease amongst the sexually active population (including harmless victims of rape and the like) is not an appropriate response."

That's nice that you think that. Has nothing to do with anything I've said or that I can find anyone else has said on this particular post.

However, it isn't as appropriate as lauding something as more effective than it really is or encouraging people to under go an unnecessary medical treatment.

But let’s not bother people like rushncap with "minor" hurdles to self-indulgence.

It's easier on the conscience to believe falsely that ones behavior is okay when in fact it is selfish and destructive.

94. Tiffany said the following at 9:11 AM on Jan 7:

Are some of you arguing that being turned on is a sin?

95. Jonathan said the following at 1:15 PM on Jan 7:

#94--Yes i think ultimately that some are indeed arguing this. I ran into this in pre-marital counseling with the pastor who was marrying us (he knew my wife but not me, since we met overseas). At one point he looked me in the eye and asked if I had ever 'kissed her'..I said yes. He then asked if that then caused me to become aroused, to which i replied 'well yes, but I also got aroused talking on the phone with her about life'. He seemed a bit taken back by that, but frankly since when did getting aroused by a person you are dating with intent to marry become a sin? Are we supposed to have no sexual feelings for anyone of the opposite sex until married? I'm pretty sure no one would directly argue for that, but indirectly it seems to be another matter altogether. In my experience simply thinking about seeing my wife again tonight will cause me to 'become aroused', and that wasn't something that developed post-marriage...in fact it was one of the things that let me know we could be a bit more than just friends.

96. IMO said the following at 4:34 PM on Jan 7:

#94, #95

In your opinion, is there a distinction between sexual lust and arousal?

97. Anonymous for this one said the following at 4:34 PM on Jan 7:

#95: this is an interesting one...

I'm still not sure if there is an absolute rule about kissing or not before marriage, but what I can tell is that my husband and I were virgins when we got married and it was really great that way. You do learn quickly, and learning together is even better. It also helps a lot to know that you can trust your partner fully, as he is already fully committed and won't run away at the first little problem that may arise...

98. K.L. said the following at 4:50 PM on Jan 7:

I don't think that finding your boyfriend/girlfriend to be arousing is a sin. That's perfectly natural. You're supposed to have those feelings. It only becomes a sin when you inappropriately act on or dwell on (lust) those feelings. For example, holding hands and putting your arm around each other, I think is an appropriate way to express your feelings for one another. Having sex, is not.

99. FirstTimothy5 said the following at 5:09 PM on Jan 7:

It seems that we will always have questions regarding the flesh, about whether kissing is a sin or being turned on is a sin or ... but Paul tells us to put no confidence in the flesh (Collosians 3:3).

It seems to me that when two unmarried people engage in kissing, they are saying, I'm strong enough to put my foot on the brakes. I can suppress these desires in my own strength so that I won't sin. But, God wants us to rely on His strengh. He wants us to live by His Spirit, who will show us how to conduct ourselves in this depraved world.

How many Christians really ask themselves, "If I kiss my girlfriend/boyfriend, am I really honoring God and the other person, or am I satisfying my own pleasures? Is this of the flesh or really God."

God knew that we would have desires of the flesh and that is why He created marriage for his people - us!

There are many issues which people claim the bible doesn't address and John did say that the whole world wouldn't have room for all the books that could be written. (John 21:25).

However if we are looking for all the Dos and Don'ts in the bible then we miss the gift of the Holy Spirit which God gave us, to mentor us on how to live.

If you are still unsure whether kissing before marriage is God honoring or not, why don't you ask God? James says if we lack wisdom, we should ask God.(James 1:5-8). Note the condition of asking God. If you have already made up your mind whether kissing before marriage is ok then why bother?

Blessings,
SM

100. FirstTimothy5 said the following at 5:41 PM on Jan 7:

100

Putting no confidence in the flesh is described in Philipians 3:3 not Collosians

Contributors

About Us

Relevant Boundless Articles

GOOGLE THIS BLOG

SUBSCRIBE VIA EMAIL

Newer Post | Older Post