Being Single is Awesome!

[Mr. SmartyPants]

I take on a theology in which each individual is to love another to advance the Kingdom of God. That being said, I think it's up to the individual to decide if they want to get married or not.

I'll need to make this note: Being married or unmarried does not make you a Godlier person. Loving your neighbor, spouse, friends, whoever, is what makes you a godly person.

Thomas Merton says that to mean that we are made in the image of God means that we are made in the image of love. That we are a reflection of love. And as Kierkegaard would say, to love another is to bring forth an aspect of the divine. So when we love one another, we are in essence being Christ to others.

This being the case, it makes sense that a marriage between two people would create the best opportunity for two people to deeply and intimately love one another. Both within the realm of romance and real, self-denying love.

This is my theological theory, which i made up yesterday, so I'm unsure of its academic credibility. The Genesis narrative mentions how God said it was not good for Adam to be alone, so God makes Eve. Why? For there to be that opportunity for two people to love each other so deeply which is a representation of God's love for us. To love another individual is to love God. It is to love Love. Because we are all made in the image of God. Each individual has an immense capacity to be a radical, self-denying, lover towards everyone.

And this is how the Kingdom of God comes down to us.

That means, in essence, we ourselves are love.

"To say that I am made in the image of God is to say that love is the reason for my existence, for God is love. Love is my true identity. Selflessness is my true self. Love is my true character. Love is my name."
-Thomas Merton

[Peanut]

I think that having a spouse and kids definitely takes a big chunk of your free time, but you can serve God just by having a Godly relationship with your spouse and kids (and anyone else you know for that matter). You don't have to be a monk or a nun to serve God.

I would like to build off of this and some of what Ryan said to suggest that perhaps we have a tendency to see serving God as being a large thing when it can and usually is the small things. The best example I can think of revolves around the acceptance of Christianity within the Roman Empire. Whether you like it or not, there is a pretty good argument to be made that Constantine helped the spread of Christianity and without him, the Church would not be as widespread as it is today. I, however, disagree with this. I don't think it was Constantine who should be thanked for acceptance and support the Roman Empire. His mother was a Christian before him thanks to a miraculous healing. She is responsible for building many Churches including the Church of the Nativity and (if I'm remembering correctly) the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. She may have had a huge influence on Constantine's conversion if we are to assume it was genuine at any point. But it's not her who I think was the catalyst for all of this. It was instead the unnamed Christian who prayed for her healing. This individual, with a single act, has impacted the whole of Christianity more then some of the greatest names throughout Church history and yet even they are merely another part to a much longer chain that reaches back to Christ himeslf. My point in telling this is to say that you can never know the results of an action at the time you are making it. If you are married and have kids, you may have played a hand in the formation of the next Billy Graham or Jurgen Moltmann or unnamed Christian whose own small action sets off a chain reaction that changes the world.

This is my theological theory, which i made up yesterday, so I'm unsure of its academic credibility. The Genesis narrative mentions how God said it was not good for Adam to be alone, so God makes Eve. Why? For there to be that opportunity for two people to love each other so deeply which is a representation of God's love for us. To love another individual is to love God. It is to love Love. Because we are all made in the image of God. Each individual has an immense capacity to be a radical, self-denying, lover towards everyone.

Hmmm...I'm not sure I agree with the idea that to love others is to love God in a certain sense. Jesus, when asked what the greatest commandment is, started with love God and then added onto it that the second greatest is love people. The Ten Commandments are organized in a similar way. I think that our love from people ultimately flows from our love of God. Maybe I was reading your post wrong and this is what you intended but I think it is wise to keep our love of God at the forefront especially when it comes to our love of people. I honestly don't think the two can be separated for Christians.

[Etoh*the*Greato]

I take on a theology in which each individual is to love another to advance the Kingdom of God. That being said, I think it's up to the individual to decide if they want to get married or not.

I'll need to make this note: Being married or unmarried does not make you a Godlier person. Loving your neighbor, spouse, friends, whoever, is what makes you a godly person.

Thomas Merton says that to mean that we are made in the image of God means that we are made in the image of love. That we are a reflection of love. And as Kierkegaard would say, to love another is to bring forth an aspect of the divine. So when we love one another, we are in essence being Christ to others.

This being the case, it makes sense that a marriage between two people would create the best opportunity for two people to deeply and intimately love one another. Both within the realm of romance and real, self-denying love.

This is my theological theory, which i made up yesterday, so I'm unsure of its academic credibility. The Genesis narrative mentions how God said it was not good for Adam to be alone, so God makes Eve. Why? For there to be that opportunity for two people to love each other so deeply which is a representation of God's love for us. To love another individual is to love God. It is to love Love. Because we are all made in the image of God. Each individual has an immense capacity to be a radical, self-denying, lover towards everyone.

And this is how the Kingdom of God comes down to us.

That means, in essence, we ourselves are love.

"To say that I am made in the image of God is to say that love is the reason for my existence, for God is love. Love is my true identity. Selflessness is my true self. Love is my true character. Love is my name."
-Thomas Merton

Have you gotten to where you're writing a thesis for anything yet...? This is a beautiful, well thought out, and frankly inventive assessment of the whole subject from a Christ-centric standpoint. I'd love to see more on it if you were to also look at what Paul has said about the subject of single-ness versus the state of matrimony. I think it would make a good topic of study for you to write on.

Frankly, it touches very close on something I've had difficulty articulating, but have tried to do for much of my walk. There is more to be said about loving actions than there are about bold words. To each of my friends and family, and hopefully to strangers too (Although I do have that little butt-head part of me that occasionally acts out - especially online).

[TheSubtleDoctor]

Jesus, when asked what the greatest commandment is, started with love God and then added onto it that the second greatest is love people.

Jumping in:

Remember, Christ said, "And the second is like it." How can they be anything alike if loving God and loving others are so very different?

Also recall the following: "'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me."MSP's analysis seems to make sense of this passage, which does seem to suggest that loving other is, in fact, loving God.

[Radical Dreamer]

Jumping in:

Remember, Christ said, "And the second is like it." How can they be anything alike if loving God and loving others are so very different?

Also recall the following: "'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me."MSP's analysis seems to make sense of this passage, which does seem to suggest that loving other is, in fact, loving God.

This. Also,

"Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him."
John 14:20-22

Jesus commands us to love others, and when we love others, we are obeying God. Therefore, we show that we love God by loving others, because we're being obedient to Him.

[Nate]

I don't believe at all that Paul was telling the people. Of the church in Corinth (or us Believers) that one had to stay unmarried just as he was. He knew that not everyone would have the same calling he did.

Just throwing that out there in case someone gets the wrong idea that Paul "commanded" Believers to stay single.

He didn't command but in the second half of verse one of 1 Corinthians 7 he says:

"It is good for a man not to marry."

He restates this later when he says "Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife" and says near the end "So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does even better."

In verse 7, he also says,

"I wish that all men were as I am."

Paul says flat out he wishes all men were single. As I said before, unless he's advocating human extinction or sex outside of marriage, it's clear Paul isn't the best person to listen to on the subject. Of course, this is partially due to what Peanut said, that Paul believed Christ would return before he died, and so marrying or having kids was pointless because the second coming would happen in his lifetime.

Now again, Paul says "If you can't keep it in your pants then totally get married." Actually it's pretty funny that some people go on and on about marriage being all about love, and Paul's view was you should get married so you can have sex, as he states in verse 9:

"But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."

I like Paul but like I said, I don't really take most of his stuff at face value. He was a product of his time and mindset and so he wasn't really thinking right about a lot of things I think.

[ShiroiHikari]

I like Paul but like I said, I don't really take most of his stuff at face value. He was a product of his time and mindset and so he wasn't really thinking right about a lot of things I think.

Ditto. I mean, first, he says women should keep their mouths shut in church and then he says that he wishes all men stayed single? Total woman-hater.

[Roy Mustang]

I'm going to say something that I wanted to say about the first part that everyone was talking about.

This post and what I'm going to say is doesn't mean that marriage is a bad thing, but it's something that single people really really need to think about, before starting a relationship with some one.


A good number of single people don't think about this as some are so worried about wanting to have someone to date or marry. Are you ready for the commitment in being married or having a bf/gf in your left.

Even when dating, there is a lot of things that change and one of the biggest thing about a relationship is sacrifice.

Some of these sacrifices can be big or small. Some people jump in and not think about the sacrifices that will take place.

Are you ready not always go out with your friends or doing something that you did, when your single. And when you do get a change to do something that you did in your single life, are you going to make a sacrifice to not go, if your love one is sick or needs you at home, because they need you more after having a very crappy day.


I can say that with my relationship that I have made more sacrifices in my life time with my soon to be wife. I never look bad at them as a bad thing and that is something that people really really need to view and think about, are you really really ready to move away from your single life.

[font="Book Antiqua"][color="Red"]Col. Roy Mustang[/color][/font]

[Mithrandir]

He didn't command but in the second half of verse one of 1 Corinthians 7 he says:

"It is good for a man not to marry."

He restates this later when he says "Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife" and says near the end "So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does even better."

In verse 7, he also says,

"I wish that all men were as I am."

Paul says flat out he wishes all men were single. As I said before, unless he's advocating human extinction or sex outside of marriage, it's clear Paul isn't the best person to listen to on the subject. Of course, this is partially due to what Peanut said, that Paul believed Christ would return before he died, and so marrying or having kids was pointless because the second coming would happen in his lifetime.

Now again, Paul says "If you can't keep it in your pants then totally get married." Actually it's pretty funny that some people go on and on about marriage being all about love, and Paul's view was you should get married so you can have sex, as he states in verse 9:

"But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."

I like Paul but like I said, I don't really take most of his stuff at face value. He was a product of his time and mindset and so he wasn't really thinking right about a lot of things I think.

As I've said many, MANY times before... Please think twice about posting controversial points of view on CAA. We're not trying to tell you how to think]This has been a recording[/i].

[Peanut]

Jumping in:

Remember, Christ said, "And the second is like it." How can they be anything alike if loving God and loving others are so very different?

Also recall the following: "'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me."MSP's analysis seems to make sense of this passage, which does seem to suggest that loving other is, in fact, loving God.

You have a point. And I can see where my assessment failed. I still sort of stand behind what I said since I don't think my analysis is harmed by these verses. I am not denying any connection, relation, or similarity whatsoever mostly just trying to posit that the correct starting point for this is loving God. Hence why I said:

I think that our love from people ultimately flows from our love of God.

In fact, I'm not sure what Ryan and I said really was much different. I think Ryan would probably agree with me on what I said. Then again, I'm not Ryan.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

I agree. God is naturally that source. So loving is loving.

[Peanut]

I agree. God is naturally that source. So loving is loving.

That's what I thought. All I was saying is that I would have liked it if you put a little more emphasis on God in your post. Nothing that undermines and nothing that really disagrees with it.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

Lol. Well I'm not here to please you, John. =p

[Peanut]

Lol. Well I'm not here to please you, John. =p

You're right...that's for your harem.

[armeck]

i'm only 15 so when i say "i like being single" no one ever takes what i say seriously (except my best friend) so it's really cool to see al these people saying very smiler things to what i have said! XD

[Ante Bellum]

Now there ARE those God has chosen that just don't care about being with someone, whether they be asexual or just flat out not interested or fired up to do God's work. Hey, that's great. But that is pretty uncommon.

I'd just like to throw this out there, but being asexual doesn't mean that you wouldn't ever want to be with people. It's...*ahem*...a preference, but it doesn't usually affect the emotional need for relationships.

[Lynna]

Ditto. I mean, first, he says women should keep their mouths shut in church and then he says that he wishes all men stayed single? Total woman-hater.

Umm...Just to say, I once read an article that said that when Paul said Women should stay silent in church, He said it because the women of that time stayed in house all day, probably only occaisionally going to theatres and stuff like that. The only other time they saw people would be when thier friends visited, so they could talk all they wanted with them. So when at church, they probably didn't know when not to talk (like, when other people are talking)
That was just something I read

[armeck]

Umm...Just to say, I once read an article that said that when Paul said Women should stay silent in church, He said it because the women of that time stayed in house all day, probably only occaisionally going to theatres and stuff like that. The only other time they saw people would be when thier friends visited, so they could talk all they wanted with them. So when at church, they probably didn't know when not to talk (like, when other people are talking)
That was just something I read

i agree!

yeah i also heard that in those churches men would sit on one side, and women the other, and if a woman had a question she would yell the question to her husband... i think that is what he was saying. in Christ there are not male and female, so i doubt God really has a problem with "women" talking in church XD

[ShiroiHikari]

As I've said many, MANY times before... Please think twice about posting controversial points of view on CAA. We're not trying to tell you how to think]This has been a recording[/i].

Now just a cotton-picking minute here. Controversial points of view? Did I miss something somewhere? Right now, there's another explicitly theological thread that's being allowed to go on, even in direct violation of the rule according to the site FAQ. And there's posts in there that are way more controversial than saying Paul had kind of weird ideas about marriage.

But instead you came into this civil discussion to pick on Nate's post in which he wasn't even being inflammatory. If anyone's post in this thread ought to have been called out, it probably should have been my post in which I made a bad joke.

Letting the formerly-strict theological discussion rules slide? Sure, whatever. Calling someone out for a civil, non-inflammatory post? I'm sorry but I'm not going to keep quiet about that.

[Yuki-Anne]

A good number of single people don't think about this as some are so worried about wanting to have someone to date or marry. Are you ready for the commitment in being married or having a bf/gf in your left.

Even when dating, there is a lot of things that change and one of the biggest thing about a relationship is sacrifice.

Some of these sacrifices can be big or small. Some people jump in and not think about the sacrifices that will take place.

Are you ready not always go out with your friends or doing something that you did, when your single. And when you do get a change to do something that you did in your single life, are you going to make a sacrifice to not go, if your love one is sick or needs you at home, because they need you more after having a very crappy day.

I'm going to ignore the theological discussion at hand, and just say... I think a lot of us who are older have seen enough marriage and relationships at work around us to know that it takes hard work and sacrifice. But most of us are agreed that we think it's totally worth it. Nobody here is thinking that marriage would solve all of our problems.

Also, to those who were posting the "family as ministry" view... thank you. My mother went through serious bouts of depression because people were always telling her she needed to "get out and do ministry," but she just didn't have the time or energy after homeschooling two sons and a daughter all week. So whenever people would tell her she wasn't doing enough, it would send her into this tailspin. I remember sometimes we had to go look for her and she'd be crying in an isolated staircase at church because it was another one of those sermons.

But what she did for my brothers and I was the most influential ministry in my life. I saw my mother's faith, I watched it grow deeper. I remember the person she was when I was little, and when I see the person she is now, it inspires me, because God has changed her and matured her so much. If she hadn't spent so much of her time and energy on her kids, I would never have seen what God can do in a person's life, no matter how broken and depressed she is.

If it wasn't for my father, I wouldn't know what a real man is, or how a real man should treat a woman. I wouldn't know that a real man encourages his family to read the Bible, that a real man prays with his wife and children, that he never lifts a finger against his wife, that he disciplines his children gently but firmly and expects them to do what is right, and that he tells his daughter she is beautiful and he is lucky to have her in his life, and that a man who does any less probably isn't really the sort of man she wants to marry.

These people were the most effective evangelists in my life. So I don't agree that marriage makes you unable to serve God. It just changes the venue.

[Mithrandir]

Now just a cotton-picking minute here. Controversial points of view? Did I miss something somewhere? Right now, there's another explicitly theological thread that's being allowed to go on, even in direct violation of the rule according to the site FAQ. And there's posts in there that are way more controversial than saying Paul had kind of weird ideas about marriage.

But instead you came into this civil discussion to pick on Nate's post in which he wasn't even being inflammatory. If anyone's post in this thread ought to have been called out, it probably should have been my post in which I made a bad joke.

Letting the formerly-strict theological discussion rules slide? Sure, whatever. Calling someone out for a civil, non-inflammatory post? I'm sorry but I'm not going to keep quiet about that.

Some months back a whole lot of people on the board were very upset with our rules about no theology discussion/debates at all. We received a lot of pressure to remove these rules. In the interest of being "fair minded" we agreed to be somewhat more flexible in how we applied these rules but reserved the right to cut-off controversial topics before they could get out of hand.

There's not really any way to draw a hard line on what level of discussion should and should not be allowed on the board without simply saying "all or none." This topic keeps coming up, and we keep trying to accommodate. But it seems like every time we allow the line to slip a little farther, we always get "called out" for being arbitrary about what we're doing when we finally step in.

I make no pretense of being perfect or impartial, but I *do* assert in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS that I have every intention of keeping the board a safe place at the core of every decision like this which I make.

Since I can't remember the thread in which we came to this conclusion, I'll spin off a quick thread in the announcements thread and link it back to the FAQ to lessen the resurgence of these kinds of misunderstandings.

Regards,
Mith

[armeck]

never a dull moment here on CAA XD

[Mithrandir]

Update: I just realized I didn't apologize for not being clear before in my previous post. That should not have happened. I'm sorry that this wasn't clear enough from the beginning. I've posted an updated announcement and linked it to the FAQ page.

It appears there has been some misunderstanding all around the board on this one (even on the mod staff). It's on the agenda for our mod meeting.

Also, I have not been in the other thread. I've been AWOL on that one while I deal with other stuff. I'll be sure to check it out and update everyone if things change.

Thank you for your patience while we work through this one...

[Roy Mustang]

Nobody here is thinking that marriage would solve all of our problems.

Not here no, but I have seen many in my age group or a little younger that think that marriage will solve their problems and that is one of the worst way of thinking.


But if you look at some of the younger groups as teens and early adults, some don't even think about the hard work and sacrifice that they will have to make, when dating for teens and marriage for early adults.


I'm sorry if this bugs you on what I said, but I have seen too much of this by a number of people that think that dating and marriage will fix everything in their life.

[font="Book Antiqua"][color="Red"]Col. Roy Mustang [/color][/font]

[Solid Ronin]

So if Adam, the guy who was closer to God than any of us can ever be in this lifetime, wasn't happy and able to do his work while he was single, what does that say?

Pft! And tw--

By the way, in b4 someone says "But after Eve showed up he ate the fruit so that proves being single was better!" That's just nonsense.

-Aw.

[Nate]

That was just something I read

For the record, Lynna, Nette wasn't being serious...she was making a joke. which is why she put the :p smiley at the end. XD

[Ante Bellum]

I have a feeling that smilies are one of the most commonly ignored things in a post.

[Peanut]

I have a feeling that smilies are one of the most commonly ignored things in a post.

That just means you have to use more of them...like so.:P:sweat::thumb::lol:

[Ante Bellum]

But...but...but I don't like those as much.

[Nate]

I have a feeling that smilies are one of the most commonly ignored things in a post.

For some reason I misread that as "similes" at first and I was confused because I didn't remember anyone using one.