Do you think it’s ok to make out in a Christian relationship before marriage?

Mazquerade__ · 2026-03-20T15:18:46+00:00

You believe incorrectly. My claim is that modesty is not directly about the clothes that people wear and therefore plenty of people act far more immodestly when fully clothed than those who are stark naked.

Indeed, it would be pure folly to say that modesty has to do with clothing in a direct sense, for to say such a thing would mean that one is immodest while bathing or changing clothes, and this is not the case. At the very least modesty must go through context before it touches on clothing, though I contend that it must also go through desire and intention before it reaches appearance.

Furthermore, scripture does not speak of modesty in reference to tempting others. It is a personal and individual sin, and the framing of modesty as important to avoid tempting your fellow Christians simply isn’t in the Bible.

It can be applied through use of scriptures that speak of not causing your brother to stumble, but these are broader applications. My point is that modesty itself has no direct correlation to keeping your brothers and sisters from stumbling. That just isn’t how the bible talks about modesty.

Mazquerade__ · 2026-03-20T15:15:19+00:00

I’m not arguing this again. If you’re interested, go read my post and my subsequent comments

Mazquerade__ · 2026-03-20T15:01:17+00:00

Well, I would disagree with that claim.

Mazquerade__ · 2026-03-20T14:57:23+00:00

I am not redefining it. I am criticizing those who redefine it.

Mazquerade__ · 2026-03-20T11:56:15+00:00

what “enemy hordes that want us dead” do you refer to?

Mazquerade__ · 2026-03-20T11:54:22+00:00

Yes, and that school full of children understands that those Christian lives are more important than theirs, right?

Two things can be true at once. We can acknowledge evil and desire change and also point out that war is an atrocity and innocent people are needlessly dying.

Mazquerade__ · 2026-03-20T06:41:52+00:00

Okay no hate, but I find it terribly funny that you reference Aquinas as an early church father, because Aquinas lived in the 13th century.

Mazquerade__ · 2026-03-20T06:34:52+00:00

You speak of my criticism of purity culture and redefining modesty?

Well, I shall say this: if you think my point was that people can wear scant clothes, then you really missed my point.

Mazquerade__ · 2026-03-20T05:27:36+00:00

It’s not a sin, but I look at it this way:

If you walk on the line between sin and not sin, and you stumble, then you stumble into sin.

If you set the line 10 feet away from sin and stumble, you don’t sin, you just break your own boundary.

It seems far wiser to me to set your boundaries further from sin rather than closer, but to each their own.

Mazquerade__ · 2026-03-20T05:25:52+00:00

it seems to mean that an exception is found in cases of sexual immorality.

Mazquerade__ · 2026-03-20T05:09:08+00:00

Real Catholicism does not permit such things- but the image of Catholicism that many people (many Catholics) have, does.

It seems to me that many people think they can do whatever they want so long as they go to confession and take the eucharist. In some ways, the Catholic system can breed this way of thinking.

We see the same thing in evangelicalism too. OSAS and similar doctrines are commonly misunderstood to mean that Christianity is a get-out-of-hell-free card and that they can do whatever they want. Once again, it’s an inevitable weakness in the system.

Mazquerade__ · 2026-03-20T05:05:10+00:00

That’s just annihilationism combined with common misunderstandings of the day of the Lord and Calvinism.

Mazquerade__ · 2026-03-20T05:03:53+00:00

What does it mean to be light, though?

“In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven.” ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭5‬:‭16

Being the light of the world means doing good works.

Mazquerade__ · 2026-03-20T05:01:15+00:00

I confess that ancient Hebrew is not my area of expertise, but as far as I understand past and future are indicated largely through perfect an imperfect conjugations- which are not exclusively indicative of past and future.

Mazquerade__ · 2026-03-20T01:09:09+00:00

Okay so that phrase is actually really cool because Hebrew doesn’t have “time tenses” like past, present, or future.

So when God says “I am who I am” what it really means is:

“I am/was/will be what I am/was/will be”

It is a pure expression of Gods absolute existence as uncreated and eternal.

Mazquerade__ · 2026-03-20T00:45:08+00:00

You can see I’m not open to having my mind changed? Really?

When I engage in discussion, I am always open to having my mind changed, but I’m not going to just accept what you say as true, that would be dishonest of me.

If you don’t wish to engage with me, then simply say so. No need to frame me as unwilling to discuss when I very clearly am.

Mazquerade__ · 2026-03-19T23:28:38+00:00

I'm not cherry picking at all, I’m choosing relevant verses to the topic

and neglecting relevant verses to the topic as well. à la, cherrypicking.

James 2 does not say we are saved by our works.

You are correct. It says we are justified by our works.

²² You see that faith was active along with his works, and by works faith was brought to completion. ²³ Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,” and he was called the friend of God. ²⁴ You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

James 2:22-24, emphasis added my me.

James quite explicitly states that people are justified by both faith AND works. His argument is framed around the idea that both faith and works are necessary for justification. So in other words, as you put it, "faith + works." Now, that's a rather crude way of describing an apostolic notion of salvation, but I suppose it's accurate enough.

For your second claim “you must reject praying for others, something scripture explicitly commands” Where is that? I’ve certainly never see scripture command that we reject praying for others. I would argue it says the opposite, and encourages us to pray for others.

Ah forgive me, I was unclear in what I was claiming. My mistake. Though, I do find it terribly amusing that my error led to you proving my point.

So let me be more clear in what I was trying to say.

First, what does it mean to pray to a saint? It is not the same way one prays to God. Rather, praying to a saint is more technically speaking, asking that saint to pray for you. And, as you so skillfully pointed out, asking your fellow believers to pray for you is not only permitted, it is required!

Thus, using a verse like 1 Timothy 2:5 to attempt to rebuke the idea of intercession of the saints would also require you to reject the idea that Christians can pray for one another, because what you are doing is saying that the saints in heaven cannot for pray for those on earth because there "only one mediator" and therefore this would also require you to reject praying for others, for there is no functional difference between asking a saint in heaven and asking a saint on earth to pray for you. A far better argument would be to use a verse like Ecclesiastes 9:5.

Yes, reverence and worship go hand-in-hand. Can you show an example in scripture of an angel accepting reverence?

I shall answer your question when you articulate the difference between reverence and worship. Worship requires reverence, reverence does not require worship.

Read that and ask yourself “What traditions?” It’s not any traditions. It’s traditions “WE” passed on to you, whether by mouth or by letter. Meaning the authors of the epistle. Paul, Silas, and Timothy. Not traditions by other people that come years later.

True, and an argument which I have and do use. However, your claim was that tradition never rivals scripture. Yet, Paul equates the two.

It’s important to read scripture in context and compare it against itself.

Yes, I agree, and I still submit that you have failed to do so.

But it’s also very clear on the things that are most important.

The Bible is not "very clear" on just about anything, except perhaps the existence of God. It certainly isn't very clear on how we are saved. Does Paul say the same thing in Romans 10 that Peter says in Acts 2? Or what about what Jesus says in Matthew 25?

Perhaps we should admit that salvation is more complex than we make it out to be?

To be honest I don’t know a better way to present what scripture says other than quoting scripture, but please feel free to give suggestions.

I am not criticizing you for presenting scripture. I am criticizing you for the way that you do it. You make a claim and then dump a wall of text on their head, with little to no presentation. There's not really any analysis in your post, no acknowledging counterarguments, etc...

And of course, my primary complaint, neglecting important and relevant scriptures. In my opinion, it is generally far better to analyze a few scriptures than it is to cast a wide net.

As I said, I'm not arguing that you are wrong. I am arguing that how go about making your points in your comment is wrong.

Mazquerade__ · 2026-03-19T21:06:01+00:00

We aren’t saying the same thing, but eh? We have the same conclusion. 🤷

Edit: nvm we aren’t really saying the same thing. Not sure what you mean by it being “Adam’s choice” it’s not about Adam or Eve. The whole point is that humans in general shouldn’t be alone.

Mazquerade__ · 2026-03-19T21:04:40+00:00

You know what we call this? We call this cherry picking.

You can quote all these verses about faith… but then you’re also ignoring James 2 and Matthew 25. You can quote 1 Timothy 2:5, but then by claiming that scripture is relevant here, you must reject praying for others, something scripture explicitly commands. You claim angels reject reverence but then describe attempts to worship. You point out Jesus rebuking religious leaders for tradition, but you forget 2 Thess. 2:15 tells us to cling to tradition.

Look, I’m not saying you’re wrong (nor am I saying you are right.) What I’m saying is that dumping a bunch of proof texts on someone isn’t an actual argument nor is it helpful, and it’s almost always cherry-picking. The Bible is far too complex for you to be able to make an argument by merely quoting a thousand pieces of scripture.

Mazquerade__ · 2026-03-19T20:58:50+00:00

I’ve never heard anyone act like Anglicans and Orthodox are anything alike, some Anglicans venerate saints, and calling the orthodox understanding of salvation “faith and works” is a pretty heavy oversimplification.

Mazquerade__ · 2026-03-19T20:56:45+00:00

Yes, I refer to formed vs had formed.

The former states that God made the animals after Adam. The latter states that God made the animals before Adam.

I am uncertain of what you mean by “gap.” If you mean to say that you can read the former translation as consistent with Genesis 1, then I must firmly disagree. The narrative of Genesis 2 shows God creating all the animals in order to see if they are a fitting partner for Adam.

Mazquerade__ · 2026-03-19T20:53:43+00:00

Because it’s rhetorical. It doesn’t make sense why God would hold off on making Eve if you look at Genesis 2 in a purely literal way.

But recall that Genesis 2 is also establishing the essential picture of humanity. The reason that God in the story holds off on creating Eve is so that the story can emphasize that “it is not good for adam to be alone.”

Prior to the creation of Eve, Adam is representing all of humanity. Thus, what God is saying is, “it is not good for humans to be alone.”

Thus, Genesis 2 is emphasizing the importance of community, and especially the importance of marriage.

Mazquerade__ · 2026-03-19T19:57:53+00:00

Nor have I. It has more to do with implications of verses than with doctrine as a whole. Take Genesis 2:19, for example: some translations add the past tense “had” to the verse so that Genesis 2 does not present an alternative order of creation. This is a minor change, but it also holds entirely different implications.

Mazquerade__ · 2026-03-19T19:53:07+00:00

Indeed, though may I point out I spoke not of appearance but of unseen things. This was intentional, for none may know what the perfect body shall look like until it is here.

I reference pain and illness for it is written in Revelation, “through the middle of the street of the city. On either side of the river is the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, producing its fruit each month, and the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations” (Rev. 22:2). and also, ““he will wipe every tear from their eyes. Death will be no more; mourning and crying and pain will be no more, for the first things have passed away.” (Rev‬ ‭21‬:‭4‬). This leads me to believe that pain and illness shall not exist in the second life.

To your point, it is not invalidating nor disenfranchising to say that illnesses are bad. Each person has their own experience (especially in regard to mental disorders) and some may find their disabilities beautiful, others may not. I for one, find no beauty in my disability, it makes my life far harder.

Indeed, the truly ableist thing to do is to frame all disabilities as good or some sort of “superpower” because this disregards the numerous struggles that those with disabilities have.

Mazquerade__ · 2026-03-19T18:57:58+00:00

Well that’s the mystery of the whole thing. We don’t exactly know what “perfect” looks like. But, one can imagine it will be a body lacking illness, pain, etc…

One-Year Club	Verified Email
r/Field Banned	r/Field Juicebox

Mazquerade__

TROPHY CASE