How long have you been single?

[passion84god]

When modern Christians devote enormous amounts of energy to finding a spouse, building a family, and pursuing romantic fulfillment, it is fair to ask whether they are pursuing God's kingdom or simply baptizing the same desires that dominate the surrounding culture. The fact that something is lawful does not automatically mean it is spiritually beneficial or worthy of primary attention.

So the issue is not whether marriage is allowed. The issue is whether Christians have given marriage a prominence that neither Jesus nor Paul gave it. On that question, simply quoting verses that permit marriage does not answer the concern.

I haven't been following this conversation for days, but I must admit that I agree with what you said here. Personally, I am content being single because my desire is to totally devote myself to the Lord without distraction, even though that hasn't truly been the case lately. For me, it's mostly a preference of that which is eternal, the potential saving of the souls of men, women, and children, versus that which is temporal, marriage. There is also the issue of children. Seeing how evil this world is, I have to ask myself if I would truly want to bring a child into it. Sure, if God somehow ordained for me to have children who might labor in his vineyard one day, but there is certainly no guarantee that such would happen apart from some sort of divine promise from God. My comments are certainly not meant to speak evil of the institution of marriage. I just don't see it as God's desired path for me. At the same time, I do find myself attracted to certain women at times. Thankfully, those feelings dissipate quickly. I say that only because the single life is the life that I have chosen, so there is no rational reason for me to tempt myself otherwise.​

 

[Lovette]

Ecclesiastes 7:10​

10 Say not thou, What is the cause that the former days were better than these? for thou dost not enquire wisely concerning this.

What caused the progressive 10s and roaring 20s better than the dirty 30s and warring 40s? What caused the vibrant and prosperous 90s and 00s better than the great recession and social division in the 10s and 20s? THis is not a sign of weakness or a modern malady, back in the ancient time of the OT, Israelites born in Babylonian captivity were reminiscing a homeland they never knew. This is just being human.

 

[passion84god]

What caused the progressive 10s and roaring 20s better than the dirty 30s and warring 40s? What caused the vibrant and prosperous 90s and 00s better than the great recession and social division in the 10s and 20s? THis is not a sign of weakness or a modern malady, back in the ancient time of the OT, Israelites born in Babylonian captivity were reminiscing a homeland they never knew. This is just being human.

Remember that Solomon said "there is nothing new under the sun." The same spiritual war that began in the garden of Eden continues to this day. We are all part of the same war, whether we realize it or not, and whether we like it or not.

 

[RodColeman]

"Whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.” Yeah, very interesting indeed, I'm as reasonable as the Lord's own disciples who drew their conclusion in Matt. 19:10 - it is better not to marry at all than to get stuck in a bad marriage for the rest of your life, or worse, married with the love of your life, only finding out later that you were attracted to the wrong person under the influence of hormonal birth control! I didn't make this up, it has been reported among many that hormonal birth control distorts mating preference. You may mock the idea as absurd, Lord Jesus didn't. Instead, He acknowledges that some people can accept such a calling and that others cannot. The discussion ends not with a celebration of marriage but with recognition that celibacy for the kingdom is a legitimate and even noble path.

"What? Where in the Bible are we given a list of forbidden sex acts between a married couple?" Where in the bible encourage you to snoop around other people's sex life?

You repeatedly defend marriage against a charge that was never made. But acknowledging that something is permitted by God does not automatically mean it should occupy a central place in a believer's life. Wealth is permitted. Food is permitted. Recreation is permitted. Yet all of these can become idols when people organize their lives around them. Marriage is no different.

You cite 1 Corinthians 7 as proof that Paul approved of marriage. Of course he did. Nobody disputes that. What is striking, however, is the relative emphasis Paul gives to marriage versus singleness. Throughout the chapter, Paul's preference is obvious. He repeatedly says it is "good" to remain unmarried as he is, that the unmarried person is able to be concerned with the things of the Lord in a way the married person cannot, and that in his judgment the unmarried state is better under the circumstances.

The fact that Paul allows marriage does not erase the fact that he consistently presents it as a concession to human weakness rather than as the ideal state for maximum devotion to God. "Better to marry than to burn" is hardly a glowing endorsement. It is a remedy, not a celebration.

Likewise, in 1 Timothy 4 Paul condemns those who forbid marriage, but warning people about the potential spiritual dangers of marriage is not the same thing as forbidding it. There is a significant difference between saying "marriage is sinful" and saying "marriage can become a distraction from wholehearted devotion to God." Paul himself makes precisely that argument in 1 Corinthians 7.

When modern Christians devote enormous amounts of energy to finding a spouse, building a family, and pursuing romantic fulfillment, it is fair to ask whether they are pursuing God's kingdom or simply baptizing the same desires that dominate the surrounding culture. The fact that something is lawful does not automatically mean it is spiritually beneficial or worthy of primary attention.

So the issue is not whether marriage is allowed. The issue is whether Christians have given marriage a prominence that neither Jesus nor Paul gave it. On that question, simply quoting verses that permit marriage does not answer the concern.

If you've decided that singleness is best for you personally, that's fine. If you want to promote singleness to every other Christian, that's fine. If some of those Christians decide that they want marriage instead, well...that's fine, too.

And just because someone passionately desires marriage doesn't mean that they're making an "idol" out of it. In The Old Testament we see childless women mourn their childlessness and beg God for a child. These women are never condemned for "idolatry." We also Jephtah's daughter literally mourn her virginity after her father's rash vow. She is never condemned for idolatry. In 1 Corinthians 7 Paul mentions people who "burn with passion" but he never condemns them for idolatry.

If I make anything a goal in life, is that automatically idolatry? If I'm unemployed and am taking action to look for work, am I an idolator? If I'm married and me and my wife try very hard to have kids, am I an idolator? if I'm overweight and am putting effort into losing weight, am I an idolator? People mean well when they warn you about "making marriage an idol," but I think they can overdo it sometimes.

And just because someone badly wants marriage doesn't mean that they're guilty of "organizing your whole life around it." I'd be careful about making accusations like that, or assumptions about that, to people who are simply normal desires for good things.

You seem to think that your only options in life are singleness or an unhappy marriage. i find that puzzling, but, if so, I understand your own personal reluctance to marry.

You also mention that Paul prefers singleness. Well, great. Good for him. More power to you, Paul! But even Paul conceded that not everyone is like him. As I've stated, he makes lots of nuanced statements about singleness and marriage. He does say that being single is good, yes.. He also says that it's "better" to marry than to "burn with passion." Just one example. Nowhere does he forbid marriage or say that singleness is more "spiritual."

You also write that Paul says that "marriage can become a distraction from wholehearted devotion to God." I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this point, but I don't believe this is what Paul's original point here was. I believe Paul said here that marriage, or the search for marriage, is distracting, and if you're not distracted by it, then maybe you have the gift of celibacy. I guess all the married pastors all made a dreadful mistake because their marriage is distracting them from their ministry too much?

Again, Paul's points here are pretty nuanced. Paul says he has no "commandment from God" about this. Paul says that he wishes that everyone was single like him ── not that God wishes it. He says that he, personally, is content with being single ── but he admits that not everyone is like that. He says that it's good to stay single, but that it's better to marry if you have strong desires. Paul "supposes" that it's better to stay single because of "the present distress," some crisis that the church in Corinth was dealing with at the time. He says you're not sinning by marrying. Paul says a widow would be happier if she stayed single, but he admits that this is just a personal opinion. Evidently, many people are not happier being single. In 1 Timothy 4:1-3 Paul also condemns people who forbid marriage. And if Paul wrote the Book of Hebrews, then he also said that marriage is a good thing.

Sure, Paul emphasizes the benefits of singleness. He also prefers it for himself, personally. Doesn't change the fact that I'd rather not be single. Paul was OK with that when writing to his own readership in Corinth.

But if you, personally, find that marrying and starting a family is too much of a distraction, well, good news. Nobody is forcing you to marry.

 

[Lovette]

I haven't been following this conversation for days, but I must admit that I agree with what you said here. Personally, I am content being single because my desire is to totally devote myself to the Lord without distraction, even though that hasn't truly been the case lately. For me, it's mostly a preference of that which is eternal, the potential saving of the souls of men, women, and children, versus that which is temporal, marriage. There is also the issue of children. Seeing how evil this world is, I have to ask myself if I would truly want to bring a child into it. Sure, if God somehow ordained for me to have children who might labor in his vineyard one day, but there is certainly no guarantee that such would happen apart from some sort of divine promise from God. My comments are certainly not meant to speak evil of the institution of marriage. I just don't see it as God's desired path for me. At the same time, I do find myself attracted to certain women at times. Thankfully, those feelings dissipate quickly. I say that only because the single life is the life that I have chosen, so there is no rational reason for me to tempt myself otherwise.​

And frankly speaking, nowhere in the bible specifically states that civil, earthly marriage is a magnificent blessing. Quite the contrary, right after the Fall in the garden, Adam blamed Eve for eating the forbidden fruit, Eve was cursed with contention agaisnt her husband (Gen. 3:16);

Also, marriage is for Christians and heathens, Jews and Gentiles alike, it's never an exclusive blessing for the believers. It has been reported that divorce rate in the church is as high as the rest of the population, domestic strife in the church is as common as the rest of the population; however, counterintuitively, it appears that the college educated, high income couples, the kind of "godless liberals" in blue states have longer and stabler marriages.

 

[Lovette]

If you've decided that singleness is best for you personally, that's fine. If you want to promote singleness to every other Christian, that's fine. If some of those Christians decide that they want marriage instead, well...that's fine, too.

And just because someone passionately desires marriage doesn't mean that they're making an "idol" out of it. In The Old Testament we see childless women mourn their childlessness and beg God for a child. These women are never condemned for "idolatry." We also Jephtah's daughter literally mourn her virginity after her father's rash vow. She is never condemned for idolatry. In 1 Corinthians 7 Paul mentions people who "burn with passion" but he never condemns them for idolatry.

If I make anything a goal in life, is that automatically idolatry? If I'm unemployed and am taking action to look for work, am I an idolator? If I'm married and me and my wife try very hard to have kids, am I an idolator? if I'm overweight and am putting effort into losing weight, am I an idolator? People mean well when they warn you about "making marriage an idol," but I think they can overdo it sometimes.

And just because someone badly wants marriage doesn't mean that they're guilty of "organizing your whole life around it." I'd be careful about making accusations like that, or assumptions about that, to people who are simply normal desires for good things.

You seem to think that your only options in life are singleness or an unhappy marriage. i find that puzzling, but, if so, I understand your own personal reluctance to marry.

You also mention that Paul prefers singleness. Well, great. Good for him. More power to you, Paul! But even Paul conceded that not everyone is like him. As I've stated, he makes lots of nuanced statements about singleness and marriage. He does say that being single is good, yes.. He also says that it's "better" to marry than to "burn with passion." Just one example. Nowhere does he forbid marriage or say that singleness is more "spiritual."

You also write that Paul says that "marriage can become a distraction from wholehearted devotion to God." I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this point, but I don't believe this is what Paul's original point here was. I believe Paul said here that marriage, or the search for marriage, is distracting, and if you're not distracted by it, then maybe you have the gift of celibacy. I guess all the married pastors all made a dreadful mistake because their marriage is distracting them from their ministry too much?

Again, Paul's points here are pretty nuanced. Paul says he has no "commandment from God" about this. Paul says that he wishes that everyone was single like him ── not that God wishes it. He says that he, personally, is content with being single ── but he admits that not everyone is like that. He says that it's good to stay single, but that it's better to marry if you have strong desires. Paul "supposes" that it's better to stay single because of "the present distress," some crisis that the church in Corinth was dealing with at the time. He says you're not sinning by marrying. Paul says a widow would be happier if she stayed single, but he admits that this is just a personal opinion. Evidently, many people are not happier being single. In 1 Timothy 4:1-3 Paul also condemns people who forbid marriage. And if Paul wrote the Book of Hebrews, then he also said that marriage is a good thing.

Sure, Paul emphasizes the benefits of singleness. He also prefers it for himself, personally. Doesn't change the fact that I'd rather not be single. Paul was OK with that when writing to his own readership in Corinth.

But if you, personally, find that marrying and starting a family is too much of a distraction, well, good news. Nobody is forcing you to marry.

No one said that every desire for marriage is idolatry. No one said that every person seeking a spouse is organizing their entire life around marriage. The point is that marriage occupies such a privileged place in modern Christian culture that many believers never seriously examine whether their desire for it is spiritually healthy, culturally conditioned, or excessive.

The examples you cite from Scripture do not really address this concern, neither is it truthful. In the OT the idolatry of fertility is most definitely disapproved by God. A few examples: Jacob loved Rachel over Leah, Leah thought she could earn his love by bearing him kids, yet six sons got her nothing, Jacob still preferred Rachel, who suffered from infertility; then Rachel conceived Joseph, who was presumably torn to pieces by wild beasts; then Benjamin, who literally caused his mother’s death in hard labor. Then there was Hannah, who begged and begged the Lord everyday for a kid, until she finally let it go, stopped obsessing and started submitting to God’s sovereignty, as she “went her way and ate, and her face was no longer sad,” (1 Sam. 1:18), only then did the Lord remember her and grant her a kid.

Likewise, nobody claimed that setting goals automatically equals idolatry, but “man proposes, God disposes.” And this is exceptionally true in marriage, since no amount of money or power can buy love.

There is a difference between wanting something and needing it in order to feel complete. That distinction matters because Scripture repeatedly points believers toward contentment in Christ regardless of circumstances. Paul says he learned contentment in abundance and in lack. Yet many Christians speak as though singleness is a tragic waiting room until "real life" begins. That attitude deserves scrutiny.

You also dismiss Paul's preference for singleness too quickly. Paul was not merely sharing a lifestyle preference comparable to preferring tea over coffee. He repeatedly grounds his preference in theological reasoning. His argument is that unmarried believers possess freedoms that married believers do not. They are less divided in their responsibilities and more available for service to the Lord.

And lastly, did all married pastors make a dreadful mistake? Only those who idolize their marriages are, those who tout and flash their family and kids to their congregations, as if it were the prize for their faith. From the time of the Lord’s ministry up until modern era, it was more common for married folks to leave their marriage life or prospect of marriage for Christ, either for missionary journey, crusade or other callings, than for single folks to join the ministry in hope of finding a mate and getting married.

 

[Lovette]

Remember that Solomon said "there is nothing new under the sun." The same spiritual war that began in the garden of Eden continues to this day. We are all part of the same war, whether we realize it or not, and whether we like it or not.

Maybe, but we used to know who our allies and enemies were, they ain't hiding behind the veneer of screens and algorithms.

 

[passion84god]

Maybe, but we used to know who our allies and enemies were, they ain't hiding behind the veneer of screens and algorithms.

I have only read a handful of posts here, so I am not sure what the primary points of contention are between you and others. I don't have the brainpower to go back and read the entire thread. Can you briefly tell me what your points of contention are? Surprisingly, in the few posts that I have read, I do agree with a lot of what you have said. If anybody else would like to give me their own breakdown of the major points of contention, then that is fine too.​

 

[RodColeman]

No one said that every desire for marriage is idolatry. No one said that every person seeking a spouse is organizing their entire life around marriage. The point is that marriage occupies such a privileged place in modern Christian culture that many believers never seriously examine whether their desire for it is spiritually healthy, culturally conditioned, or excessive.

The examples you cite from Scripture do not really address this concern, neither is it truthful. In the OT the idolatry of fertility is most definitely disapproved by God. A few examples: Jacob loved Rachel over Leah, Leah thought she could earn his love by bearing him kids, yet six sons got her nothing, Jacob still preferred Rachel, who suffered from infertility; then Rachel conceived Joseph, who was presumably torn to pieces by wild beasts; then Benjamin, who literally caused his mother’s death in hard labor. Then there was Hannah, who begged and begged the Lord everyday for a kid, until she finally let it go, stopped obsessing and started submitting to God’s sovereignty, as she “went her way and ate, and her face was no longer sad,” (1 Sam. 1:18), only then did the Lord remember her and grant her a kid.

Likewise, nobody claimed that setting goals automatically equals idolatry, but “man proposes, God disposes.” And this is exceptionally true in marriage, since no amount of money or power can buy love.

There is a difference between wanting something and needing it in order to feel complete. That distinction matters because Scripture repeatedly points believers toward contentment in Christ regardless of circumstances. Paul says he learned contentment in abundance and in lack. Yet many Christians speak as though singleness is a tragic waiting room until "real life" begins. That attitude deserves scrutiny.

You also dismiss Paul's preference for singleness too quickly. Paul was not merely sharing a lifestyle preference comparable to preferring tea over coffee. He repeatedly grounds his preference in theological reasoning. His argument is that unmarried believers possess freedoms that married believers do not. They are less divided in their responsibilities and more available for service to the Lord.

And lastly, did all married pastors make a dreadful mistake? Only those who idolize their marriages are, those who tout and flash their family and kids to their congregations, as if it were the prize for their faith. From the time of the Lord’s ministry up until modern era, it was more common for married folks to leave their marriage life or prospect of marriage for Christ, either for missionary journey, crusade or other callings, than for single folks to join the ministry in hope of finding a mate and getting married.

Well, good. I'm glad you can agree on those points on idolatry, then.

Personally, I have not concluded that my own desire for marriage is excessive, spiritually unhealthy or the result of cultural brainwashing. Nor has God told me these things.

The Old Testament says nothing about the so-called "idolatry of fertility," as you put it. It just mentions people grieving their unmet desires for good things. I guess they were wrong to grieve those things? is that your takeaway from these stories?

You seem to be suggesting that there's some sort of formula for reaching "contentment" if we just change our emotional state or something. It's not wrong to feel emotions. We can all control our actions and decisions. We cannot control what emotions we feel in situations like unwanted singleness.

"There is a difference between wanting something and needing it in order to feel complete." Just because someone wants marriage badly doesn't mean that they think it'll make them "complete."

Concerning contentment, Paul talks about being content in all things. Not with all things.

And, yes, I understand that Paul says good things about singleness. But he says all those other things, too. And yes, Paul prefers singleness. Great! Good for him. I'm not Paul. Even Paul conceded that not everyone is like him.

"[Paul's] argument is that unmarried believers possess freedoms that married believers do not. They are less divided in their responsibilities and more available for service to the Lord."
Again, I don't agree with interpretation. Paul basically says here that an unmarried person is devoted to the Lord and not distracted by the needs of his spouse. This is then interpreted by some to mean that a person can do "more ministry" as a single.

I don't think that's what Paul says here. I mean, if that's the case, why are all the pastors and church elders typically married? Did they make a mistake? Is marriage getting in the way of their ministry? What Paul says here, I believe, is that if you aren’t distracted by the desire for marriage, then maybe you have the gift of singleness.

And, of course, in English, "distracting" has a negative connotation, so we often bring that into play when reaching this passage. But it seems more like Paul might have merely been making the elementary observation that marriage, or the search for marriage, can place more demands on your time and attention than the life of someone who is genuinely content with being single (like Paul was) But, of course, Paul said that not everyone is like him, a single man content with being single.

You seem to genuinely prefer singleness for yourself. Great. I have no problem with that. But not everyone's like that. Does that reality somehow bother you? Do you see it as your mission to convert all the single people who desire marriage into single people who desire to stay single instead?

 

[Lovette]

I have only read a handful of posts here, so I am not sure what the primary points of contention are between you and others. I don't have the brainpower to go back and read the entire thread. Can you briefly tell me what your points of contention are? Surprisingly, in the few posts that I have read, I do agree with a lot of what you have said. If anybody else would like to give me their own breakdown of the major points of contention, then that is fine too.​

They consider singleness as preparing stage for marriage, I see it as destiny; they exalt marriage as a holy union, I see it as a worldly union, the only holy union is between church and Christ; they defend the magical power of marriage that transforms the nature of sex from the most sacrilegious act to the most sacred act, I see the nature of sex as the same, marriage just puts a leash on it.

 

[passion84god]

They consider singleness as preparing stage for marriage, I see it as destiny;

I see it as both, depending on the situation or the individual involved.

they exalt marriage as a holy union, I see it as a worldly union, the only holy union is between church and Christ;

Again, I see it as both, depending on the participants. Biblical marriage mirrors the relationship between Christ and the church.

they defend the magical power of marriage that transforms the nature of sex from the most sacrilegious act to the most sacred act, I see the nature of sex as the same, marriage just puts a leash on it.

I definitely don't believe that normal sexual relations between a man and his wife are sacrilegious. At the same time, I don't believe that normal sexual relations between a man and his wife are the most sacred act.

 

[Lovette]

Well, good. I'm glad you can agree on those points on idolatry, then.

Personally, I have not concluded that my own desire for marriage is excessive, spiritually unhealthy or the result of cultural brainwashing. Nor has God told me these things.

The Old Testament says nothing about the so-called "idolatry of fertility," as you put it. It just mentions people grieving their unmet desires for good things. I guess they were wrong to grieve those things? is that your takeaway from these stories?

You're in denial. Did Jeremiah rebuke the worship of Ishtar/Ashtorah? That's a fertility goddess. "Year by year, when she (Hannah) went up to the house of the Lord, that she (Penninah who'd borne two sons) provoked her; therefore she wept and did not eat.” That obsession was infertility grief.

When the Lord saw that Leah was unloved, He opened her womb; but Rachel was barren. So Leah conceived and bore a son, and she called his name Reuben; for she said, “The Lord has surely looked on my affliction. Now therefore, my husband will love me.” Then she conceived again and bore a son, and said, “Because the Lord has heard that I am unloved, He has therefore given me this son also.” And she called his name Simeon. She conceived again and bore a son, and said, “Now this time my husband will become attached to me, because I have borne him three sons.” (Gen. 29:31-34) This mania, futile mania of childbearing to earn love is idolatry of fertility. "Give me child or let me die!" Likewise, idolatry of fertility, at the cost of their own life.

You seem to be suggesting that there's some sort of formula for reaching "contentment" if we just change our emotional state or something. It's not wrong to feel emotions. We can all control our actions and decisions. We cannot control what emotions we feel in situations like unwanted singleness.

"There is a difference between wanting something and needing it in order to feel complete." Just because someone wants marriage badly doesn't mean that they think it'll make them "complete."

Concerning contentment, Paul talks about being content in all things. Not with all things.

And, yes, I understand that Paul says good things about singleness. But he says all those other things, too. And yes, Paul prefers singleness. Great! Good for him. I'm not Paul. Even Paul conceded that not everyone is like him.

"[Paul's] argument is that unmarried believers possess freedoms that married believers do not. They are less divided in their responsibilities and more available for service to the Lord."
Again, I don't agree with interpretation. Paul basically says here that an unmarried person is devoted to the Lord and not distracted by the needs of his spouse. This is then interpreted by some to mean that a person can do "more ministry" as a single.

I don't think that's what Paul says here. I mean, if that's the case, why are all the pastors and church elders typically married? Did they make a mistake? Is marriage getting in the way of their ministry? What Paul says here, I believe, is that if you aren’t distracted by the desire for marriage, then maybe you have the gift of singleness.

And, of course, in English, "distracting" has a negative connotation, so we often bring that into play when reaching this passage. But it seems more like Paul might have merely been making the elementary observation that marriage, or the search for marriage, can place more demands on your time and attention than the life of someone who is genuinely content with being single (like Paul was) But, of course, Paul said that not everyone is like him, a single man content with being single.

You seem to genuinely prefer singleness for yourself. Great. I have no problem with that. But not everyone's like that. Does that reality somehow bother you? Do you see it as your mission to convert all the single people who desire marriage into single people who desire to stay single instead?

Nobody is claiming that people can simply flip a switch and become content. Nobody is suggesting that unwanted singleness doesn't hurt or that feelings can be controlled by sheer willpower. The question is whether Christians should encourage one another to view those emotions through the lens of discipleship rather than treating their fulfillment as an unquestionable necessity. After all, many godly desires go unfulfilled. A Christian response is to thank God for what He does grant you, not curse God for what He doesn’t. That is precisely why contentment matters. Paul's contentment did not require his circumstances to become what he preferred. He learned contentment while remaining in circumstances he would not have chosen.

Regarding 1 Corinthians 7, I think your interpretation minimizes the force of Paul's actual argument. You say Paul is merely observing that marriage places additional demands on a person's time and attention, and that is exactly the point.

Also the outcome varies dramatically, depending on whom you marry; a godly partner brings you closer to God, an ungodly partner lures you farther, marriage itself is a neutral institution; and either way, marriage requires you to share your body and soul, even to die for your partner, not everyone can handle it.

Paul explicitly draws a comparison, that the unmarried person's interests are less divided. The example of married pastors does not refute Paul's argument, the question, is on spiritual priority, whether marriage is a means to serve God or God is a means to get married. So again, it’s about idolatry of marriage, as most churches have become so marriage-centered that single Christians are often viewed as incomplete and inferior.

And last, once again, singleness is not something I "choose", is a fate chosen for me; it's not something I "prefer", beggars can't be choosers. The only thing I preach is that, unsatiated carnal desire is the root of all agonies. You can desire for a prince charming or a princess buttercup who doesn't exist; you can settle for a hellish marriage just for the sake of getting married; or you can accept it as not only a price to serve God, but also the void that led you to God, and be content with it.

 

[passion84god]

I need to get some sleep, but not before quickly responding to this:

You're in denial. Did Jeremiah rebuke the worship of Ishtar/Ashtorah? That's a fertility goddess. "Year by year, when she (Hannah) went up to the house of the Lord, that she (Penninah who'd borne two sons) provoked her; therefore she wept and did not eat.” That obsession was infertility grief.

Are you suggesting that the birth of the prophet Samuel, whose words never fell to the ground, was the direct result of fertility goddess worship? It seems that you are. If you are, then that is insane.

 

[Lovette]

I see it as both, depending on the situation or the individual involved.

Again, I see it as both, depending on the participants. Biblical marriage mirrors the relationship between Christ and the church.

I definitely don't believe that normal sexual relations between a man and his wife are sacrilegious. At the same time, I don't believe that normal sexual relations between a man and his wife are the most sacred act.

There's an obscure emotion called "disenfranchised grief," compared to normal grief of losing something or someone you hold dear, "disenfranchised grief" is about losing something or someone you've never had, some essential experiences you expected to have but failed to achieve due to circumstances, the absence of it makes you feel empty, worthless and anguished. If this is a real legitimate thing, not just the sin of envy, then like normal griefs, you go through denial, anger, bargaining, depression and reach acceptance at last.

 

[Lovette]

I need to get some sleep, but not before quickly responding to this:

Are you suggesting that the birth of the prophet Samuel, whose words never fell to the ground, was the direct result of fertility goddess worship? It seems that you are. If you are, then that is insane.

Nope, his birth was the direct result of Hannah's submission to God, not her grief or her obsession with ferility. You're blending two separate cases, one in the book of Jeremiah, the other Samuel I.

 

[Lovette]

I need to get some sleep, but not before quickly responding to this:

Are you suggesting that the birth of the prophet Samuel, whose words never fell to the ground, was the direct result of fertility goddess worship? It seems that you are. If you are, then that is insane.

BTW, this may sound a bit harsh, but if you pray and offer to God only for a kid, as though God owes you one or you can buy one from God, you're effectively praying to Ishtar, not God the Most High; if you'r praying and offer to God only for a girlfriend, you're effectively praying to Aphrodite/Venus; if only for a good marriage, then Juno/Hera; this is the problem with prosperity gospel, in essence it's the same as Israelites' worship of the golden calf, whom they identified as the God Almighty that delivered them from Egypt, which made them doubly guilty.

 

[RodColeman]

You're in denial. Did Jeremiah rebuke the worship of Ishtar/Ashtorah? That's a fertility goddess. "Year by year, when she (Hannah) went up to the house of the Lord, that she (Penninah who'd borne two sons) provoked her; therefore she wept and did not eat.” That obsession was infertility grief.

When the Lord saw that Leah was unloved, He opened her womb; but Rachel was barren. So Leah conceived and bore a son, and she called his name Reuben; for she said, “The Lord has surely looked on my affliction. Now therefore, my husband will love me.” Then she conceived again and bore a son, and said, “Because the Lord has heard that I am unloved, He has therefore given me this son also.” And she called his name Simeon. She conceived again and bore a son, and said, “Now this time my husband will become attached to me, because I have borne him three sons.” (Gen. 29:31-34) This mania, futile mania of childbearing to earn love is idolatry of fertility. "Give me child or let me die!" Likewise, idolatry of fertility, at the cost of their own life.

Nobody is claiming that people can simply flip a switch and become content. Nobody is suggesting that unwanted singleness doesn't hurt or that feelings can be controlled by sheer willpower. The question is whether Christians should encourage one another to view those emotions through the lens of discipleship rather than treating their fulfillment as an unquestionable necessity. After all, many godly desires go unfulfilled. A Christian response is to thank God for what He does grant you, not curse God for what He doesn’t. That is precisely why contentment matters. Paul's contentment did not require his circumstances to become what he preferred. He learned contentment while remaining in circumstances he would not have chosen.

Regarding 1 Corinthians 7, I think your interpretation minimizes the force of Paul's actual argument. You say Paul is merely observing that marriage places additional demands on a person's time and attention, and that is exactly the point.

Also the outcome varies dramatically, depending on whom you marry; a godly partner brings you closer to God, an ungodly partner lures you farther, marriage itself is a neutral institution; and either way, marriage requires you to share your body and soul, even to die for your partner, not everyone can handle it.

Paul explicitly draws a comparison, that the unmarried person's interests are less divided. The example of married pastors does not refute Paul's argument, the question, is on spiritual priority, whether marriage is a means to serve God or God is a means to get married. So again, it’s about idolatry of marriage, as most churches have become so marriage-centered that single Christians are often viewed as incomplete and inferior.

And last, once again, singleness is not something I "choose", is a fate chosen for me; it's not something I "prefer", beggars can't be choosers. The only thing I preach is that, unsatiated carnal desire is the root of all agonies. You can desire for a prince charming or a princess buttercup who doesn't exist; you can settle for a hellish marriage just for the sake of getting married; or you can accept it as not only a price to serve God, but also the void that led you to God, and be content with it.

Now you assume I'm in denial. Your mind-reading powers are truly extraordinary, haha.

"The question is whether Christians should encourage one another to view those emotions through the lens of discipleship rather than treating their fulfillment as an unquestionable necessity."
I can only speak for myself, of course. I don't believe that these desires are an "unquestionable necessity." Nobody as ever told me that these desires are an unquestionable necessity. And just because someone desires romance/marriage/sex doesn't mean they view it that way, either.

" A Christian response is to thank God for what He does grant you, not curse God for what He doesn’t." I don't "curse God" for my singleness. I'm not aware of anyone else on this thread doing so, either.

Concerning Paul's own contentment with singleness, yes, Paul was content with his own singleness. In 1 Corinthians 7, he also said that he wished everyone was like him in that regard. But he also conceded that not everyone is like that, and that it would actually be better for those people to marry.

You say I'm minimizing the force of Paul's argument. Again, Paul's argument here is fairly nuanced. He does not demand singleness of his readers. You seem to believe that the proper response to reading this letter is to stay single for your entire lifetime. Nowhere in the letter does Paul require this of his readers in Corinth. He makes lots of nuanced statements here.

And, yes, it's bad to marry an ungodly partner. That's why it's important to marry a godly partner, and to carefully evaluate such a relationship. That's the whole point of the dating process.

And just because someone badly wants marriage doesn't mean they're "idolizing" it. Interestingly enough, the Bible nowhere says anything about "idolizing marriage." This is a warning invented by well-meaning modern-day Christians, and yeah, it can be sound advice, sure. But I think people can overdo it.

You also say that "unsatiated carnal desire is the root of all agonies." I wonder if by "carnal" you mean "sinful." Is that the case? I often hear Christians call sexual desires "carnal" or something along those lines. Of course, God created sex. Sex is supposed to be a good thing, albeit something reserved for a married couple.

"You can desire for a prince charming or a princess buttercup who doesn't exist; you can settle for a hellish marriage just for the sake of getting married; or you can accept it as not only a price to serve God, but also the void that led you to God, and be content with it." If you, for whatever reason, think these are your only options in life, and think that these are the only possible outcomes, well, I can't help you. Good news, though. You don't have to get married if you don't want to. It's your choice. Not everybody is single by choice. But it is something we can choose. If you prefer singleness, well, great! Good for you. More power to you. But, like Paul conceded, not everyone is like that. That's OK, too.

You seem to, quite often, accuse people on this thread of holding positions that they never claimed to hold. What are you, a mind reader?

 

[RodColeman]

BTW, this may sound a bit harsh, but if you pray and offer to God only for a kid, as though God owes you one or you can buy one from God, you're effectively praying to Ishtar, not God the Most High; if you'r praying and offer to God only for a girlfriend, you're effectively praying to Aphrodite/Venus; if only for a good marriage, then Juno/Hera; this is the problem with prosperity gospel, in essence it's the same as Israelites' worship of the golden calf, whom they identified as the God Almighty that delivered them from Egypt, which made them doubly guilty.

In the Bible, we see Hannah pray for a child. We see Isaac pray for a child on behalf of his wife. We see Rachel pray for a child. Where in the Bible are these people condemned for doing so?

Also, I find it curious that you assume that someone who's praying to God for a child or a romantic partner is "only" praying to God for child or a romantic partner. This is all they're praying about? That's quite an assumption.

 

[passion84god]

There's an obscure emotion called "disenfranchised grief," compared to normal grief of losing something or someone you hold dear, "disenfranchised grief" is about losing something or someone you've never had, some essential experiences you expected to have but failed to achieve due to circumstances, the absence of it makes you feel empty, worthless and anguished. If this is a real legitimate thing, not just the sin of envy, then like normal griefs, you go through denial, anger, bargaining, depression and reach acceptance at last.

Your definition does not seem to match this definition:

Disenfranchised Grief — Family Health Psychiatric & Counseling Center, Pc

www.fhpcc.com

"Disenfranchised grief is generally grief that is not usually openly acknowledged, socially accepted or publicly mourned. Examples of disenfranchised grief include loss of a pet, perinatal losses, elective abortions, loss of a body part, loss of a personality from dementia, and loss of a loved one who is not “blood related” (i.e. a boyfriend/girlfriend, extramarital lover, in-laws). Society disenfranchises grief and mourners by not recognizing one or more of the following: the relationship between the deceased and a survivor, the importance of the loss, or the need to be a griever. Society also attempts to regulate how, when, and how long people may grieve by placing terms such as complicated grief on those who seem to be grieving longer than they should. Grief and sadness make people uncomfortable. Therefore, we often try to make people feel better or we simply ignore or minimize their grief as something that they need to “get over.” Establishing definitions of proper and improper mourning techniques is another way of excluding certain individuals, thereby disenfranchising them and their grief."

I don't mean to judge you, but your posts seem to be laced with anger and bitterness. It seems as if you regularly point out a possible wrong motive for desiring something while presenting it as the only possible motive, and then you mercilessly rail against it. I am not a psychologist, and I have no desire to judge or condemn you, but it truly sounds as if you experienced a deep hurt at some time in your past that has not yet been effectively healed. If so, then I hope that you find healing through the only one who can truly mend a broken heart.​

Isaiah 61:1​

61 The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;

 

[Lovette]

Your definition does not seem to match this definition:

Then it's not a real thing. Not my idea, I've heard it a lot, I was just bring it up.