@ Pilgrim1

Thx for your mails.

I have replied do check your box.

Shallom!

@dafidixone,

Lol. . . first, I must say thank you.

_{I've almost given up trying to access my mails in the library; so I'll just say anytime you send them, I should be able to check when I get home - usually the early hours of the day (except weekends).}

God bless!

oh my!! Boon?? You were looking for me? Were you mad at me? I'm so sorry. It is a long story-One day, i will tell you what happened but the truth is I never logged back since the last comment I made till now,

Hey G-girl!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Where have you been? Is this really you  I hope all is well.

Yes, it is really me and not some imposter-What can I say to make you believe it is me?? I am sure you will understand why I had to go for 6 mons,

Glad to hear from you again, G-girl. No one can impersonate you - I can pick out your posting in a million! Do you mind coming over to your thread - NL and lets have a good heart to heart talk . . . so that we don't disrespect P1.


Shalom

Hi again, folks.

After perusing the various contributions about this subject and promising sometime to come back to share a few pointers, I thought first to throw in a resource - just food for thought. It comes from a link someone sent to my email and asked what I thought about it. For one, my kind respects to Pastor Mark Driscoll, whom I have only come to know through intros from emailers. Listened to a few of his messages (as well recommended) and was greatly impressed and refreshed. I haven't gone through all chapters in the reco-'ed linked, and should be able to come bacl later and share a few thoughts on it afterwards. Here it is: A Theology of P_A_Christians (most 'church-goers' find it quite offensive, so beware!)

For now, let me leave you with this: "Abstain from all appearance of evil." (1 Thess. 5:22).

Shalom.

Sex enigmatic ke, simple as abc jo.

What is more enigmatic about the religious view of sex is the hierarchical attitudes most religion advocate, though the rarely encourage this extremes.

Firstly, they claim that the purest form of existence is a sexless existence. Paul so much as says that it is better for people not to marry and prefers celibacy to marriage. But if you cannot deal with the temptations of the flesh, then go ahead and get married [and have as much sex as you want].

Second, it tries to define what forms of sex are acceptable, define the missionary sex between man and woman as the only acceptable form, and eschewing sex between consenting adults of the same sex.

Thirdly, some religions see sex as only meant for procreation, frowning on sex for pleasure.


In a Pauline hierarchy of sexual virtue, this is how people would be ranged, top to bottom, with top being the best and ideal;

1) Virgin
2) Virgin and celibate
3) Virgin and Married
4) Married and not virgin

The majority of adult Christians are in category (4), the bottom of the ladder. Any other form of sexual union would be classed as aberrant and sinful

Hi @huxley,

huxley:

What is more enigmatic about the religious view of sex is the hierarchical attitudes most religion advocate, though the rarely encourage this extremes.

Lol, thanks for your inputs; but why is it that this subject of sex has to be a question that kicks off with your disaffection for "religion"? How is it that you are too driven against this matter that you no longer can hold any rational thought until you have kicked off your commentary against religion? My dear huxley, there's more to life than fighting people's convictions, and always taking that attitude does not come off as a healthy approach in discussions (which incidentally I'm not the only who has noted this) . Anyway, your call.

huxley:

Firstly, they claim that the purest form of existence is a sexless existence.

"They" don't make any such claim - you're making that claim on a fausse braie sentiment and trying to hang it on "them".

huxley:

Paul so much as says that it is better for people not to marry

1 Corinthians 7:9 - "But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn."

huxley:

and prefers celibacy to marriage.

1 Corinthians 7:7 - "For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that." Paul did not make a choice for anyone, and he goes so far as to acknowledge that each person has their own inclination granted them. He does not place his own inclination as superior over any other person's.

huxley:

But if you cannot deal with the temptations of the flesh, then go ahead and get married [and have as much sex as you want]

.

Please contain your hubris, huxley. I hope that is not too hard to ask? I do hope for simplicity you cannot be too assuming as to represent the parenthesis as part of Paul's thoughts.

huxley:

Second, it tries to define what forms of sex are acceptable, define the missionary sex between man and woman as the only acceptable form, and eschewing sex between consenting adults of the same sex.

I am so sorry for folks like you - you just cannot contain yourself even on simple matters that you have to go this length to misrepresent people's views? Haa! I see your type of "rationality".

huxley:

Thirdly, some religions see sex as only meant for procreation, frowning on sex for pleasure.

Good that you say "some religions", not Biblical Christianity.

huxley:

In a Pauline hierarchy of sexual virtue, this is how people would be ranged, top to bottom, with top being the best and ideal;

1) Virgin
2) Virgin and celibate
3) Virgin and Married
4) Married and not virgin

Wrong. Plain wrong. Paul did not rank them that way, or he would have had something else to say instead of this: "I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. " (1 Corinthians 7:8-9).

Just in case you missed it:

(a) "good" if you remain single (verse 8 )

(b) "better" if you get married (verse 9)

Then this: "Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge" (Hebrews 13:4).

But what about verse 38 of 1 Corinthians 7? Does it say that it is "better" that a person remains unmarried? Here - "So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better." So many people read this verse in isolation and then come to the simplistic idea that marriage is inferior to being unmarried. Nope - Paul made that statement in reference to those who were thinking of serving the Lord as the main focus of their lives (read it from verse 35). If others did not have such deep occupations in their hearts and still want to attend upon ministry, it would be a hard life for them. This is the kind of warning the Bible gives for those who allow themselves to become celibate by religious others - because when they cannot contain themselves, they would fall into a sad situation of sexual abuse.

huxley:

The majority of adult Christians are in category (4), the bottom of the ladder.

And what is sooooo wrong with being married as a Christian?

huxley:

Any other form of sexual union would be classed as aberrant and sinful

Any other form of sexual union which celebrates sin is sinful indeed.

Cheers.

Personally I think the way the bible explains sex only makes it all the more confusing why because again one has to bend the bible beliefs to meet with today's need.

Ok, let us analyse these verses

Let me take a similar example:


It is good for you to be vegetarian. But if you enjoy meat, then you should eat only lean meat.

If your doctor were to say that to you, what impression would that leave in your mind? Would the doctor be defining a hierarchy of options? Does it suggest that the two options are on a par? From the above statement, which is the preferred state? I submit that it is:

1) Vegetarian
2) Only lean meat

Do you agree with this assessment? If not, why?


Now, let us look at the verse from the bible;

1 Cor 7:

8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am.
9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Why did Paul use the word "But" in these verses? If Paul had meant marriage to be a superior state, how could he have said this:

8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is better (or best) for them to get married, unlike me.

But he did not say that. He clearly puts celibacy in a higher place than marriage. But if you cannot control yourself, you should consider marriage.




Take a look at this phrase, which I think you misinterpreted;

for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

What is Paul comparing in the above phrase? I submit, it is marriage and passion (or to put is simply, sexual desire) resulting from celibacy. He is clearly NOT comparing marriage and celibacy. He is comparing marriage and uncontrollable sexual desire.

So for those who have no problems with controlling their sexual desire, celibacy is a preferred state. How could Paul have said this, if this phrase was meant to compare marriage and celibacy?

for it is better to marry than to be celibate (or remain unmarried).

But if he had said this, in the context of verse 8, it would had rendered the entire verses (8 and 9) non-sensical, as in;

8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am.
9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to be celibate.

Chrisbenogor:

Personally I think the way the bible explains sex only makes it all the more confusing why because again one has to bend the bible beliefs to meet with today's need.

No one's going to bend anything to fit into the present. I have never come across anyone who honestly testifies that Biblical tenets on sex are confusing - look well: they may be making such claims where something in their lives is disturbing them.

pilgrim.1:

No one's going to bend anything to fit into the present. I have never come across anyone who honestly testifies that Biblical tenets on sex are confusing - look well: they may be making such claims where something in their lives is disturbing them.

sodom had no bible and was judged. imagine this generation.

illicit sez is a destiny robber. there is nothing like no string attached sex

@huxley,

huxley:

Ok, let us analyse these verses

Let me take a similar example:


It is good for you to be vegetarian. But if you enjoy meat, then you should eat only lean meat.

If your doctor were to say that to you, what impression would that leave in your mind? Would the doctor be defining a hierarchy of options? Does it suggest that the two options are on a par? From the above statement, which is the preferred state? I submit that it is:

1) Vegetarian
2) Only lean meat

Do you agree with this assessment? If not, why?

That analogy does not fit into this matter about sex and marriage - what is the correlation? How do you delineate sexual matters along the lines of a doctor's reco to eat lean meat?

huxley:

Now, let us look at the verse from the bible;

1 Cor 7:

8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am.
9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Why did Paul use the word "But" in these verses? If Paul had meant marriage to be a superior state, how could he have said this:

8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is better (or best) for them to get married, unlike me.

Actually, if you take a closer look, you will find that Paul only said it was "good" (not "better or best" to be unmarried. I know some who think that "better of best" is what was used in that verse, but it does not appear so in Greek.

huxley:

But he did not say that. He clearly puts celibacy in a higher place than marriage. But if you cannot control yourself, should you consider marriage.

Nope - you need to read it again as I offered earlier. Taking the verses in isolation will confuse the matter for you; but the moment in read them in their connection with other verses, you see the big picture says a different thing from your assumptions.

huxley:

Take a look at this phrase, which I think you misinterpreted;

for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

What is Paul comparing in the above phrase? I submit, it is marriage and passion (or to put is simply, sexual desire) resulting from celibacy. He is clearly NOT comparing marriage and celibacy. He is comparing marriage and uncontrollable sexual desire.

Granted - did you miss verse 38 also?

huxley:

So for those who have no problems with controlling their sexual desire, celibacy is a preferred state.

You see your problem? Now the simple question is this: why would he have applied it to "those who have no problem" instead of everyone? You who see a comparison here have failed to take the same rule of thumb as you have tried to make out in the case for verses 8-9. Clearly, paul was not making a hierarchical choice between marriage and celibacy on a plank - he applied them to specific cases, rather than to a general rule of thumb!

huxley:

How could Paul have said this if this phrase was meant to compare marriage and celibacy?

He did not, and your problem was that you are the one making this comparison for yourself. Did Paul not acknowledge clearly that cleibacy was not something that applied to everyone (verse 7)? Look again at what you even admitted in bold:

huxley:

for it is [b]better to marry than to be celibate (or remain unmarried).[/b]

huxley:

But if he had said this in the context of verse 8, it would had rendered the entire verses non-sensical,

Glad you could see that once you ignore the context, you render your own argument nonsensical. It always pays to read and take in the whole picture instead of merely throwing around verses here and there. On closer scrutiny, the inference you draw from such would simply leave more questions than answers in your submissions.

Regards.

JJYOU:

illicit sez is a destiny robber.

I like that sooooooo much. Could you allow me "steal" that one and retain in my diary? Thank you.

LOL.

This matter again.

its serious o,

i have a friend who WILL NOT marry a non-virgin

whether she is a christian or not.

He says Fornication comes with baggages he cannot afford to carry

So his wife must be Tear Rubber!

Hmm, na wah.

na real wa.

LOL

Even when i said, But God has forgiven her.

He said, No ooh! mba

That is Between her and God.

He dosnt want to be a part of the consequences she must still face


i was like, oma sheeee o!!

Gamine:

LOL.

This matter again.

its serious o,

i have a friend who WILL NOT marry a non-virgin

whether she is a christian or not.

He says Fornication comes with baggages he cannot afford to carry

So his wife must be Tear Rubber!

Interesting!

But who really is a virgin?

Is a woman who has had viginal penetration either through masturbatory devices or through medical intervention, but without penile penetration, still considered a virgin?

Is a man who has experience orgasmic ejections but without vaginal (or anal) penetration still a virgin?

A Virgin hasnt had sex with either a female/male

Homosexuals dont have sex, i dunno wat the heck they do

As you know.

Having objectile penetrations doesnt give the kind of consequences that come with

having human intercourse.

Im talking Spiritual bonding now, not just physical.

Thats the difference.

pilgrim.1:

I like that sooooooo much. Could you allow me "steal" that one and retain in my diary? Thank you.

my dear sister, i normally make a small charge for this rent a quote business i run on the side but seeing it is your first i release copyright. thanks for all your hard work and research

our God always have our best interest behind every word he gave us. i think we should do a study of these verses

1 Corinthians 6: 9 Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, 10 or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people—none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God. 11 Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
Avoiding Sexual Sin
12 You say, “[b]I am allowed to do anything”—but not everything is good for you. And even though “I am allowed to do anything,” I must not become a slave to anything. [/b]13 You say, “Food was made for the stomach, and the stomach for food.” (This is true, though someday God will do away with both of them.) But you can’t say that our bodies were made for sexual immorality. They were made for the Lord, and the Lord cares about our bodies. 14 And God will raise us from the dead by his power, just as he raised our Lord from the dead.

15 Don’t you realize that your bodies are actually parts of Christ? Should a man take his body, which is part of Christ, and join it to a prostitute? Never! 16 And don’t you realize that if a man joins himself to a prostitute, he becomes one body with her? For the Scriptures say, “The two are united into one.”[d] 17 But the person who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with him.

18 Run from sexual sin! No other sin so clearly affects the body as this one does. For sexual immorality is a sin against your own body. 19 Don’t you realize that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, who lives in you and was given to you by God? You do not belong to yourself, 20 for God bought you with a high price. So you must honor God with your body.

Galatians 5: 19 -21

19 When you follow the desires of your sinful nature, the results are very clear: sexual immorality, impurity, lustful pleasures, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hostility, quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, dissension, division, 21 envy, drunkenness, wild parties, and other sins like these. Let me tell you again, as I have before, that anyone living that sort of life will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

Gamine:

A Virgin hasnt had sex with either a female/male

Homosexuals don't have sex, i don't know what the heck they do

As you know.

Having objectile penetrations doesnt give the kind of consequences that come with

having human intercourse.

I'm talking Spiritual bonding now, not just physical.

Thats the difference.

Romans 1:26-32 (New Living Translation)

26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires.

Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men

, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.

28 Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done. 29 Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. 30 They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They invent new ways of sinning, and they disobey their parents. 31 They refuse to understand, break their promises, are heartless, and have no mercy. 32 They know God’s justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too.

pilgrim.1:

@huxley,

That analogy does not fit into this matter about sex and marriage - what is the correlation? How do you delineate sexual matters along the lines of a doctor's reco to eat lean meat?

I am sure we are agreed that the meaning of documents, text, etc, come from the words within it.  The words used by Paul, if they follow the rules of the grammar and syntax of language, should convey a certain meaning.   I used the analogy because, if words are important, they should convey exactly the same meaning.

In the case of my analogy,  I have simply replace the context of marriage with a context of food, leaving the sentence structure essentially intact.   I am not comparing the concept of marriage and food.  I am looking at meaning in language.


Here they are again:

It is good for you to be vegetarian. But if you enjoy meat, then you should eat only lean meat.

Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am.  But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Where does it suggest that I am comparing the context of marriage and the context of food?  


Ok let us look at the rest of the chapter, starting at verse 32;

32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs—how he can please the Lord.
33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife—
34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband.
35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.
36 If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if she is getting along in years and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married.
37 But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin—this man also does the right thing.
38 So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does even better.




An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord .   .    .  BUT   a married man is concerned about his wife .   .    .

What meaning can you draw from the above sentence?


38 So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does even better.

But those who do NOT marry do EVEN BETTER.  Correct?   If language is to mean anything, then from the foregoing the unmarried do EVEN BETTER than the married.  Correct?

huxley:

Interesting!  

But who really is a virgin?

Is a woman who has had viginal penetration either through masturbatory devices or through medical intervention, but without penile penetration, still considered a virgin?

Is a man who has experience orgasmic ejections but without vaginal (or anal) penetration still a virgin?

2 Timothy 3:7  Weymouth New Testament
and are always learning something new, and yet are never able to arrive at real knowledge of the truth.

sex is the driving force of humanity, like water, we need it to survive. However, our body is the temple of the Lord we must not abuse it.
I also encourage marriage b4 sex

Peace

@huxley,

huxley:

I am sure we are agreed that the meaning of documents, text, etc, come from the words within it. The words used by Paul, if they follow the rules of the grammar and syntax of language, should convey a certain meaning. I used the analogy because, if words are important, they should convey exactly the same meaning.

Even when you used another analogy, you have still failed to grasped the gist of that passage. You're isolating verses to help the idea that celibacy was (in Paul's mind) far superior to marriage - which if we take care to examine, is as far from the real case as can possibly be.

Why so? Because in the first instance, you don't seem to be able to grasp that 1 Corinthians 7:38 is not a stand-alone verse - rather, it pertains to those who have their hearts set on service in the Christian ministry. This is why I referred you to verse 35 inclusive so you get the simple picture there -

[38]And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you,
but for that which is comely,
and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.

[36]But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin,
if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will,
he sinneth not: let them marry.

[37]Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity,
but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will
keep his virgin, doeth well.

[38]So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well;
but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.

The point should be clear even to a casual reader. You don't draw a conclusion by taking a "syntax" in isolation - I hope you know that already? In which case, when you look acrefully at verse 38 which begins with "so then", it throws your mind back to the previous verses, not so?

Now, what are the previous verses saying - that celibacy overall is more preferred to marriage? Nope - because that would mean that the one who interpretes them that way just wants to deliberately ignore certain verses, especially v. 37. Reading from verse 35, it is clear that Paul enters into the matter of Christian service ("that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction". He does not arrive suddenly at verse 38 while largely ignoring the previous statements. I hope you get the matter sorted now?

But, of course, you may not - and that would be understandable on the premise that you would largely ignoring verses 35 and 37 and arriving at an inference drawn in isolation on verse 38. Not only so, you would ignore also such references as Hebrews 13:4. In this latter case, does he present celibacy as superior to marriage?

The simple thing here is that people often take verse 38 of 1 Cor. 7 in isolation and then promote the idea that such and that is superior to the other - whereas that is not the overall picture. There was a reason for 38, and it is not a stand-alone verse.

pilgrim.1:

@huxley,

Even when you used another analogy, you have still failed to grasped the gist of that passage. You're isolating verses to help the idea that celibacy was (in Paul's mind) far superior to marriage - which if we take care to examine, is as far from the real case as can possibly be.

Why so? Because in the first instance, you don't seem to be able to grasp that 1 Corinthians 7:38 is not a stand-alone verse - rather, it pertains to those who have their hearts set on service in the Christian ministry. This is why I referred you to verse 35 inclusive so you get the simple picture there -

[38]And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you,
but for that which is comely,
and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.

[36]But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin,
if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will,
he sinneth not: let them marry.

[37]Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity,
but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will
keep his virgin, doeth well.

[38]So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well;
but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.

The point should be clear even to a casual reader. You don't draw a conclusion by taking a "syntax" in isolation - I hope you know that already? In which case, when you look acrefully at verse 38 which begins with "so then", it throws your mind back to the previous verses, not so?

Now, what are the previous verses saying - that celibacy overall is more preferred to marriage? Nope - because that would mean that the one who interpretes them that way just wants to deliberately ignore certain verses, especially v. 37. Reading from verse 35, it is clear that Paul enters into the matter of Christian service ("that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction". He does not arrive suddenly at verse 38 while largely ignoring the previous statements. I hope you get the matter sorted now?

But, of course, you may not - and that would be understandable on the premise that you would largely ignoring verses 35 and 37 and arriving at an inference drawn in isolation on verse 38. Not only so, you would ignore also such references as Hebrews 13:4. In this latter case, does he present celibacy as superior to marriage?

The simple thing here is that people often take verse 38 of 1 Cor. 7 in isolation and then promote the idea that such and that is superior to the other - whereas that is not the overall picture. There was a reason for 38, and it is not a stand-alone verse.

Pardon me, these are just ad hoc, incoherent  and incomprehensible comments.  You make comments like "  . . you not not take this in isolation . . . "   But you do not show how one relates to the other.  I am sure you can do better.

Let look at one of your comments from above relating to verse 38;

But what about verse 38 of 1 Corinthians 7? Does it say that it is "better" that a person remains unmarried? Here - "So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better."  So many people read this verse in isolation and then come to the simplistic idea that marriage is inferior to being unmarried. Nope - Paul made that statement in reference to those who were thinking of serving the Lord as the main focus of their lives (read it from verse 35). If others did not have such deep occupations in their hearts and still want to attend upon ministry, it would be a hard life for them. This is the kind of warning the Bible gives for those who allow themselves to become celibate by religious others - because when they cannot contain themselves, they would fall into a sad situation of sexual abuse.

Now, this is verse 35:

35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

Who is Paul addressing here?   How do you know it is for "those who were thinking of serving the Lord as the main focus of their lives"  ?

BY the way,   who are people intending to server God as the primary focus of their lives?   Does this not describe every  Christian?   Does a Christian have anything else besides serving God as their main concern?

Was these meant to be Pastors, Ministers, Deacons, Bishops,  Saints,  the laity, the ordinary man/woman?  Who really is Paul addressing here.


Here is the main part of the text


[b]32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs—how he can please the Lord.
33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife—
34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband.
35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.
36 If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if she is getting along in years and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married.
37 But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin—this man also does the right thing.
38 So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does even better.[/b]


This is simply plain language.  How can there be any other meaning than the plain meaning that oozes out from it?

Verses 32 & 33 say ,  an unmarried man is concerned about how he can please the Lord  BUT a married man is concerned about the affairs of the world - about pleasing his wife.

Verse 34, exactly the same, but this time the subject is about unmarried woman (virgin).

Verse 35 - explains why they need to remain unmarried,  so that their undivided attention may be focused to the Lord.

Verse 36,  But those who cannot control themselves should get married

Verse 37,  Those who can control themselves and have made up their mind to NOT marry are doing the RIGHT thing.

Verse 38.  This is like a synopsis to the foregoing verses.  It starts with the conclusive conjunction expression "So then . . .".  It basically summaries and ties together the preceeding verses in the following way -  to get married is good, BUT to remain unmarried is EVEN BETTER.


Is this not simple plain English?   Why are you ambiguating the meaning with some tawdry and tortuous bending of the text

Ok I no wan talk plenty before but now una wan open my nyash.
First of all pilgrim your analysis of that paul's statement is wrong. The first part of the statement says "it is good to be unmarried" the second part says "but it is better to be married than to burn with desire". Look carefully the "better" was a comparison between between burning with desire and being married, not with the first part of the sentence at all. Huxley's analogy was super and to the point this is simple syntax, in the grander scheme of things the statement would mean it would be better than burning with desire, not better than being celibate.
Pilgrim you twisted those words there and you of all people are taking things out of context. I know you will by instinct want to click on reply and fire away a defence but lets bring in a third party or better still let the statement be verified by an external source, no amount of bending or twisting would change it.
Huxley was right with his analogy, totally spot on. Your defence of meat and sex does not hold water it is the syntax of the sentence in this particular case we are talking about.
Now about confusing, the tenets of biblical sex does not fit into the reality of what we have today. But I do not want us to muddle issues up first respond to this first.

Sex: An Enigmatic Subject?

I want to believe that the moderator did not see this topic to trash it to the romance thread.

In fact, what we have failed to take in account is the general audience Paul was addressing and why he was addressing them in this fashion.

Remember, when Paul was writing, there was no such thing as the Bible.  The Christians at the time relied on oral tradition and very little of written text thy may have had.   The earliest reader of Pauls letters and epistles would never had read Matthew, Mark, Luke and John,  Acts, and many of the other New Testament books.  Pauls writings were some of the first NT documents to be composed.

Further,  the books of Corinthians was sent out as a letter to the Christians of Corinth, a city in the Greek state. The citizens of Pauls own hometown would not have had access to the book of Corinthians until much later.

So while the Christians of Corinthian may have been busy organising their lives according to Pauls injunctions, we have little evidence that the citizens of other cities of the Roman empire at the time benefited from the book of Corinthians. The Christians of other cities had letters addressed to them, dealing with issues pertinent to their locale.   For instance, the citizens of Galatia had some letters addressed to them.  For the most part of the 300 years prior to the compilation of the bible,  the Galatians who have had no idea what Paul would have told the Corinthians (I admit, this is a very broad analysis, cause there are occasions where Paul mentions in passing what he told other cities.  But the main content of this letter to other cities would not become widely available until much later, following the compilations and the financial wherewithal provided by the Roman Church to produce and translate these books).

So if Pauls message was so important, it would have gone unnoticed by the vast majority of Christian at the time, mainly due to logistical constraints.  A Thessolonian or Galatian who was in doubt about whether to marry would not have had the book of Corinthian.    A romanised Jewish Christian who may be in  a quandary about  the dietary laws would not have had the letters of Paul dealing with this subject.

Now, the key question is this - Would such difficiency in one's knowledge about the right doctrine an obstacle to one's salvation?  What if you had been a Jamesian Christian who favour Works and Law, unlike the Paulines who favour Faith and Grace.  Would this lack of knowledge of the correct doctrinal position jeopardise your salvation?

@huxley,

huxley:

Pardon me, these are just ad hoc, incoherent  and incomprehensible comments.  You make comments like "  . . you not not take this in isolation . . . "   But you do not show how one relates to the other.  I am sure you can do better.

Lol, were you banging your head on your keyboard or what? I don't remember where I said "you not not take this in isolation" - was that how you demonstrate your incohenrence? Okay, just teasing ya!

Anyway, you still seem bent on going round in circles at this matter; and I'll just humour you a lil more. No offence, but huxley, take it slowly and then see the point.

Let's say your analogy of lean meat comes in from the doc. The point is: would the doc's prescription be standing alone or in relation to something? Eating lean mean is by no means the big picture - because that does not apply to everybody, does it? That is precisely the point you raised and what you have been arguing so far in consequence is the direct opposite of your own summisings!

The eating of lean meat is not the more preferred for others who do not need that recommendation! It does not apply to every person who eats meat! If someone is better off eating lean meat, it does not mean therefore that eating lean meat is the better choice for everyone!

This was why I have again and again referred to verse 35 when reading verse 38 - surely that is not hard to see, is it? It becomes hard for you to see it when you ignore the preceding verse and treat verse 38 as a stand-alone verse! Which is not my worry. . . I'm just amused that you who spoke of "syntax" are the first to break that same rule!

What does verse 35 point to any differently from what I have highlighted earlier? If you have a problem with that, I am sorry it is not my worry - people naturally have a problem with what they like to ignore; and this is no different. But I had hoped you would help yourself and not be ignoring that verse.

huxley:

BY the way,   who are people intending to server God as the primary focus of their lives?   Does this not describe every  Christian?   Does a Christian have anything else besides serving God as their main concern?

Ignore the preceding verses again, not so? Dear huxley, all Christians are called to serve the Lord; but not all Christians are called to serve Him in the same capacity. To make this point clear to you, please read 1 Corinthians 12:29-30. As for those addressed in ch. 7:37, it does distinguishes the people there instead of applying that references to all Christians, does it not?

huxley:

Was these meant to be Pastors, Ministers, Deacons, Bishops,  Saints,  the laity, the ordinary man/woman?  Who really is Paul addressing here.

Read verse 37.

huxley:

This is simply plain language.  How can there be any other meaning than the plain meaning that oozes out from it?

The language is plain enough, but I don't see how it applies the very same thing to every Christian, not when you read verse 37 - unless you want us to no longer see the plainness in that verse, yes?

huxley:

Verses 32 & 33 say ,  an unmarried man is concerned about how he can please the Lord  BUT a married man is concerned about the affairs of the world - about pleasing his wife.

Verse 34, exactly the same, but this time the subject is about unmarried woman (virgin).

Verse 35 - explains why they need to remain unmarried,  so that their undivided attention may be focused to the Lord.

Verse 36,  But those who cannot control themselves should get married

Verse 37,  Those who can control themselves and have made up their mind to NOT marry are doing the RIGHT thing.

Why is it that you are not applying every thing to every group of persons there? Why the constant recourse to "those who" and another "those who"? Why the distinction if they are all the same?

huxley:

Verse 38.  This is like a synopsis to the foregoing verses.  It starts with the conclusive conjunction expression "So then . . .".  It basically summaries and ties together the preceeding verses in the following way -  to get married is good, BUT to remain unmarried is EVEN BETTER.

To what end was it "better" to remain married? This is the point that you keep ignoring. You sound like it is to be treated like a stand-alone verse and yet you purr over the preceding verses and apply the distinction of "those who" as different from "those who". . !! I wonder why the distinction you apply and then try to lump them all in one bracket on a vacant plank! There is a reason why Paul made the reference to those in verse 38 - that verse is not a vacant or stand-alone verse!

huxley:

Is this not simple plain English?   Why are you ambiguating the meaning with some tawdry and tortuous bending of the text

Thanks, such lazy statements do not worry me in the least. If you can demonstrate that the verse 38 stands alone, then I could see your point. ignoring its connection and hooting for "plain English" does not lend substance to what you assume.

Cheers.