Being Single is Awesome!

[Htom Sirveaux]

Am I the only one who hates getting wedding invitations? Seriously, I just get depressed watching all my friends and family get married and start families of their own. And whenever I visit my parents, my mom finds some excuse (or sometimes no excuse at all) to bring up how much she wants grandbabies. That doesn't help.

[TWWK]

I'd generally disagree with this, but it depends on what you mean. There are some who would say (and have said) that family is a way one can serve God. Personally, getting married has actually enhanced my ability to serve God in many ways.

I'll clear this up, since I obviously didn't state it clearly originally.

Family is a ministry - it's an important one. But with family, one is (i limited) in ministry. You (i probably) can't pick up at a moment's notice and go to Kenya for missions (though my neighbor did just do this); you (i probably) couldn't work with certain groups of individuals because of limited hours, even though you feel a heart to; you (i probably) couldn't do disaster relief.

Like I said, responsibility is to family when you are (i supporting) one - I'm not talking about being a part of one. A large part of our heart, time and energy is devoted to family; when you're single, you can devote more of each of those to God.

[Warrior 4 Jesus]

TWWK, the above atittude is probably well-intentioned but it's this very advice from married people that riles single people and often find condescending.

[Yuki-Anne]

Am I the only one who hates getting wedding invitations? Seriously, I just get depressed watching all my friends and family get married and start families of their own. And whenever I visit my parents, my mom finds some excuse (or sometimes no excuse at all) to bring up how much she wants grandbabies. That doesn't help.

I know, right?

My facebook is riddled with people's wedding and baby pictures. It's like a landmine of marital bliss.

[goldenspines]

Wow, it was going so great until people started complaining about married couples (or "to be married"). Which, I can relate to, but it's one of my many flaws. Married people are cool. Some newlyweds can be a bit too loveydovey all over facebook though. XD;

I think one should strive to give their all to God whether they are single or married. (one could argue that being married requires you to give 200% of yourself to God, since you and your spouse are "one", but that's just a thought).

Going back to the OP, I agree with all the points made, but all of them, especially this point:

1) You can concentrate on your personal walk with God a whole lot easier.

largely depend on the individual's mindset to be effective. I've known some people (though I can't say for sure if this happens to a lot of people) that use their "singleness" to draw away from God instead of close to Him. It goes back to the common trait of jealousy which we start out having as children. "That other kid got the super special awesome bike that can fly and turn him into a Kamen Rider, but I only got a tricycle from a thrift store. God must love that kid way more than He loves me." Same goes for single people looking at their married couple friends. "If God really loved me, he would give me a spouse like He has given my friends."

So yes, in order for being single to be "awesome", we have to get past the fact that we are lacking something that would make us whole (i.e: spouse/boyfriend/girlfriend). That's a hard mountain to climb over, since most of us have seen in society, both in and out of the church, (as I believe Rushair mentioned) that being "grown-up" is to be in a serious relationship or married.

[Shao Feng-Li]

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.

Well, Paul penned the inspired word of God, so we must look at it as infallible and inerrant. I think what he was saying was for that particular church and time. They were facing great persecution. I've never heard anything supporting that Paul thought Christ was returning so very soon and that's why he didn't want people to marry right then. His letters were personal for the different churches- while the principle my still apply, not all of the events do. Like not eating things in front of a weaker brother- OT food laws aren't that big of a deal for Christians to not follow these days, but the principle is still there. Also, it's kind of scary when Christians say things like "Paul was wrong". Ok, so what other parts of scripture are wrong? You know, just seems like a really slippery slope. If it seems like I'd disagree with scripture, I assume that I simply don't understand it. And I only think that because of this verse:

2 Timothy 3:16-17 (New King James Version)

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

[K. Ayato]

Thanks for saying that married people are cool, goldy . Made my day .

[Peanut]

Well, Paul penned the inspired word of God, so we must look at it as infallible and inerrant. I think what he was saying was for that particular church and time. They were facing great persecution. I've never heard anything supporting that Paul thought Christ was returning so very soon and that's why he didn't want people to marry right then. His letters were personal for the different churches- while the principle my still apply, not all of the events do. Like not eating things in front of a weaker brother- OT food laws aren't that big of a deal for Christians to not follow these days, but the principle is still there. Also, it's kind of scary when Christians say things like "Paul was wrong". Ok, so what other parts of scripture are wrong? You know, just seems like a really slippery slope. If it seems like I'd disagree with scripture, I assume that I simply don't understand it. And I only think that because of this verse:

2 Timothy 3:16-17 (New King James Version)

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

This is starting to go into a rather controversial topic, but I'll go ahead and address this anyway. There is more then one way to interpret that the Bible is inspired and I can only think of a few ways which undermine the overall message of it. In some of these, you can point to various things within scripture as being inaccurate but still claim the Bible is inspired since the point of most (if not all) the books are not written to be histories or an accurate representation of the events within them. Two examples that I can think of off the top of my head are the Gospel's differing accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection and another is the references in Kings and Chronicles to official court documents (I could hunt them down if you want me to). Both of these show that some of that their respective books wasn't written to be historical accounts of what happened. This becomes a problem that has to be addressed (and usually is addressed) by individuals with a more literal interpretation of the Bible. For the view I mentioned earlier, these problems are not a big deal at all since they don't contradict the purpose that those books were written for. Personally, I actually agree with this view and have found that it has actually helped my faith instead of decrease it. If it sounds like I'm trying to advocate it, I'm not. I'm just pointing out that there are other ways to read the Bible that question historical, scientific, mathematical, etc... inerrancy but don't lessen inspiration.

It's a pretty well accepted fact that Paul had a "kingdom is at hand" eschatology and that it influenced his writing (including those passages). I can't think of any serious conservative scholar who would disagree with this but, then again, I haven't looked. This doesn't lessen the inspiration or impact these words have on our lives. Instead it gives us an understanding as to why Paul probably said some of the things he said (this passage on singleness being one of them).

Finally, 2 Timothy 3:15-16 can be read as being related to the Old Testament and not the entirety of the New. The reason for this is at the time of its writing, The New Testament wasn't formed yet (in fact, I don't think Revelation had even been written yet) and the term scripture was commonly only used in relation to what we would consider to be the Old Testament. I'm bringing this up just to bring awareness to the fact that not everyone is going to take this as a proof that scripture is perfect. In fact, unless they accept scripture as being inerrant, inspired, and infallible, I think they would likely demand outside evidence for you to support your opinion.

[Radical Dreamer]

So yes, in order for being single to be "awesome", we have to get past the fact that we are lacking something that would make us whole (i.e: spouse/boyfriend/girlfriend). That's a hard mountain to climb over, since most of us have seen in society, both in and out of the church, (as I believe Rushair mentioned) that being "grown-up" is to be in a serious relationship or married.

I think that this is the crux of the whole thread, really. Being in a relationship with a significant other isn't what makes a person "whole." An individual needs to be a complete individual on their own before entering a relationship--that's what makes a healthy relationship happen. XD If two incomplete individuals enter into a relationship, chances are they'll rely too much on the other person to "complete" them, when that's a task the other person simply can't fulfill. Our culture has certainly ingrained it into our minds that we need another person to be whole, but it's one of the many lies that culture has told us, and arguably could be a facet behind the reason why so many marriages end in divorce. XD I'd have to look into it more to be sure on that, but I'm betting it's not a bad hypothesis. XD

[ShiroiHikari]

...I've known some people (though I can't say for sure if this happens to a lot of people) that use their "singleness" to draw away from God instead of close to Him. It goes back to the common trait of jealousy which we start out having as children. "That other kid got the super special awesome bike that can fly and turn him into a Kamen Rider, but I only got a tricycle from a thrift store. God must love that kid way more than He loves me." Same goes for single people looking at their married couple friends. "If God really loved me, he would give me a spouse like He has given my friends."

It really bothers me when this happens. Jealousy is never pretty and bitterness is like poison.

For a long time, I was very upset that I did not get to have a "real" wedding. Every time I had to hear about wedding crap I got angry and jealous and bitter. I stopped when I realized I was beginning to hate and resent one of my friends over it. I confessed it to her, and to God, and then let it go, and I'm much happier for it.

Anyway, being single and being married/engaged are each blessings in their own ways and for different reasons.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

John... thank you so much for posting that. XD

Theologically, I think it is too hasty to go from "Bible is divinely inspired" to "infallible and inerrant". That's quite a leap that, in my opinion, doesn't have much substantial evidence to support.

Secondly, using 2 Timothy to validate the Bible's qualifications is circular reasoning. You can't do that.

[Dante]

*Blinks* I'm just somehow curious... how did our happy little "HOORAY WE'RE SINGLE!" thread turn into a debate over whether being single or not was more Godly. Given that it's not something one person can single handedly change (the consent of two people in a major life decision is instead necessary) I imagine that God must allow for both paths to work equally well. If the people who don't want to say "Hooray we're single!" want to make their own thread saying "Hooray we found one another!" they ought to... but we singles have a right to be happy about our status too .

[Mr. SmartyPants]

*Blinks* I'm just somehow curious... how did our happy little "HOORAY WE'RE SINGLE!" thread turn into a debate over whether being single or not was more Godly. Given that it's not something one person can single handedly change (the consent of two people in a major life decision is instead necessary) I imagine that God must allow for both paths to work equally well. If the people who don't want to say "Hooray we're single!" want to make their own thread saying "Hooray we found one another!" they ought to... but we singles have a right to be happy about our status too .

It's because we're Christians. We gotta find a spiritual perspective into everything. =p

[ShiroiHikari]

but we singles have a right to be happy about our status too .

Nobody was saying otherwise.

[Radical Dreamer]

Yeah, this isn't really about one status being better than the other. XD I think its intent is to help the single people recognize that hey, there are a lot of good things about being single, so instead of feeling depressed and caught in a cycle of "I'll never find anyone," it's better to simply be content with all circumstances in life, regardless of whether or not you're single or in a relationship/married. XD

[armeck]

i have made 4 efforts to join this conversation, and i guess i was a little late to join because all of my attempts failed, so i'm signing out on this one.

[Nate]

Theologically, I think it is too hasty to go from "Bible is divinely inspired" to "infallible and inerrant". That's quite a leap that, in my opinion, doesn't have much substantial evidence to support.

I agree with this completely. And again, Paul was writing his letters to very specific churches with specific problems. Now, this doesn't mean his letters and his words can't be applicable to us. Of course they can! A good example is say, prayer threads that people have made on this site. People's responses to the prayer threads are written to be specific to that individual and his/her problems. However, those posts can also be used to teach and love others. But in the end, they're still posts to a specific person with a specific problem, and aren't always going to be applicable at all times.

This is why we can look at verses where Paul says "Women shouldn't talk in church" and realize, as Lynna and Armeck were saying, that the reason Paul said that was because of the fact that women weren't well-educated at the time and if they were in church, might bother their husbands about something said or taught during the service. We can look at the cultural context of that and say "Well, we don't really have that problem anymore, so a woman speaking in church isn't a big deal now." Same thing with the verses where Paul says women should have long hair and men should have short hair. That doesn't mean it's wrong for girls to get short haircuts or for dudes to have long hair nowadays, it's just the cultural context of what he was saying.

[Htom Sirveaux]

I don't really have anything more to say on the subject right now, but if I did I'd be afraid to say it because it wouldn't be deeply theological or mind-blowingly intelligent. I would expect a sweeping-aside sort of reply somewhere along the lines of "Shh dear, the grownups are talking." Or no reply at all.

My point is, I was hoping that if there was going to be a thread like this, it would be intended for people of (shamefully) average intellect who don't know their Bible inside-out. But it seems that would just leave a thread fulla' me, and there's a rule against machine-gun posting.

Whatever.

[Ante Bellum]

Hey, I don't really know the first thing about the Bible, so I can't really say anything either. Although, it would be kind of nice if it wasn't dragged into this.
Meaning that, yeah, it went from a general topic to arguing about what the Bible says.

[Shao Feng-Li]

EDIT: eh, nevermind. You guys seem to make things way too convoluted :/

[Yuki-Anne]

I think what my good friend Shao is trying to say is...

just kidding.

I didn't mean to sound like I was bashing married couples. :/ I don't mind too much that my facebook is riddled with pictures of weddings. Some days it gets to me, but most days I just look at the pictures and feel happy that my friends got to have such a beautiful day. Really, I'm kind of a wedding picture addict. I helped my best friend with her wedding, so now wedding stuff really interests me. I love the creative things people come up with to make their wedding their own. Honestly, weddings are great for showcasing a couple's creativity and personality, and I think looking at a couple's wedding tells you something about who they are and how they relate to each other.

It feels a little bittersweet, though, because... well, I haven't had one (yet), but at the same time, I'm okay with that. Being single is kind of great most days.


(You see what I did there? TOTALLY rode the train around the bend and put my post back on topic...)

[Cognitive Gear]

Yeah, this isn't really about one status being better than the other. XD I think its intent is to help the single people recognize that hey, there are a lot of good things about being single, so instead of feeling depressed and caught in a cycle of "I'll never find anyone," it's better to simply be content with all circumstances in life, regardless of whether or not you're single or in a relationship/married. XD

This is pretty much exactly what I was trying to get at. A whole lot of Christians (like the ones I grew up with) seem to have this idea that being married is the only way to be happy, and if you aren't married when you are young, then there must be something wrong.

I don't think that either of those ideas are really true. In fact, one of the most common phrases I seem to hear in regards to marriage, and why it is a good thing, is that it "makes you whole". I have no idea where this idea came from, or why it is so commonly shared. Early in my life I just sort of assumed that it was the Biblical way to think of it, but as I've gotten older and more likely to question my assumptions, I haven't been able to find any evidence of this.

Now I've come to see it in a different light. Through marriage, two whole, complete individuals are made into one new whole. I really do wonder what the divorce rate of Christians would look like if we took the time to ensure that our marriages were between two whole people, rather than two people looking to be made complete by someone other than God.

[Nate]

I don't know what circular reasoning is either.

Circular reasoning is when you use something to define itself, or when you use a statement that you assume to be true automatically to prove it true. I'm trying to avoid using larger words, so that may not be 100% accurate.

Anyway the example Wikipedia gives is:

"Only an untrustworthy person would run for office. The fact that politicians are untrustworthy is proof of this."

Such an argument is fallacious, because it relies upon its own proposition — "politicians are untrustworthy" — in order to support its central premise. Essentially, the argument assumes that its central point is already proven, and uses this in support of itself.

And so, when you quote 1 Timothy and say "The Bible is true because this verse says it's true," you are assuming it is already proven that the Bible is true before you use the verse.

Now, I'm not trying to say "The Bible is all a lie!" Clearly, as a Christian, I do believe the Bible is true. However, there are other ways to verify the truth of the Bible than using itself to prove itself true.

Paul can't be in error in his teaching.

None of us are saying Paul is in error. We're saying there's context to everything he says, those contexts being the time period he lived in, his personal beliefs, the people he was writing to...all that stuff. To take an example, let's use what I said before about when he wrote that women should have long hair and men should have short hair and otherwise it's an affront to God. Now, was he wrong or in error when he wrote that? No, of course not. In that time period, those things would have been completely true. It would have been shameful in the 1st century for a woman to have short hair or a man to have long hair.

However, this is not the case in our current day. Does that make Paul wrong? Absolutely not! It merely means that the culture has changed. It is no longer seen as shameful or unfeminine for a woman to have short hair, so women don't need to worry about getting pixie cuts or whatever they're called. Again, Paul is not in error or wrong. It's just society has changed, and certain things are more acceptable now that were not at the time.

It seems that the Bible not being infallible and inerrant puts on the same level as like, the book of Mormon or something.

Not really. Here's the thing, is that "inerrant" and "divinely inspired" are not synonyms. Okay, here's a good example.

Let's take any of Jesus' parables. Let's say the parable of the talents because that's the first one that came to mind. You know the one, the master gave his servants some talents, and they came back later and the first one had more, and the second one had more, but the third one had buried his talents so he still only had the one.

Did this story actually happen? Was there really a master, in real life, who gave his three servants talents, and they had those exact same amounts and did everything exactly as the story said? Well, there's no way to prove that there was. But it doesn't matter. The parable was a story meant to illustrate a divine truth. Whether it actually happened in real life is irrelevant.

Now the story is divinely inspired. After all, Jesus told it, and He was divine. But that doesn't mean the story is inerrant and completely factually true, because it doesn't need to be. It's a parable. It's got a greater meaning behind it than the actual events in the story. But what if it actually did happen, but the second servant actually had 8 talents in real life when the parable said he had 7? Does that mean the story is false, wrong, to be ignored? Does it make it not divinely inspired just because a tiny detail was wrong? No, because again, the details are unimportant. The importance is in the message.

This is what Ryan meant when he said that divinely inspired is not equivalent to infallible and inerrant. This is why I agree with him. I know you probably still disagree, which is fine, but I did want to explain in more detail why we hold our opinions and are not trying to be insulting or belittle the Bible with that belief.

[Shao Feng-Li]

OK that does make a bit more sense.

[Yuki-Anne]

Now I've come to see it in a different light. Through marriage, two whole, complete individuals are made into one new whole. I really do wonder what the divorce rate of Christians would look like if we took the time to ensure that our marriages were between two whole people, rather than two people looking to be made complete by someone other than God.

This. Oh so very much this.

In all of my counseling classes, in all of my relationship classes (Bible college is awesome!), this was emphasized. You cannot rely on another person to make you whole. Because they can't. You'll just be disappointed. Very, very disappointed.

This makes me grateful that I have had time to grow older and mature more without a relationship, because I have been forced to become a whole person. I really couldn't do what I do without being whole, healthy, and mature. And I'm excited for the day when I can share my whole, healthy, mature self with another whole, healthy, mature human being. I say when because "if" would have been awkward in the grammatical structure of that sentence.

[Radical Dreamer]

I say when because "if" would have been awkward in the grammatical structure of that sentence.

I would just like to say that this made me LOL. XD

Anyways, thanks for being civil in your discussion and explanations, everyone! I'd just like to drop a note that anyone who feels like they have something to add to the original topic of the thread shouldn't feel like they can't say it now--just because there's more than one conversation happening doesn't mean you can't participate in either. XD This is the internet, not a classroom! Don't feel like you have to raise your hand to talk. XD

[Htom Sirveaux]

Not really. Here's the thing, is that "inerrant" and "divinely inspired" are not synonyms. Okay, here's a good example.Let's take any of Jesus' parables. Let's say the parable of the talents because that's the first one that came to mind. You know the one, the master gave his servants some talents, and they came back later and the first one had more, and the second one had more, but the third one had buried his talents so he still only had the one.

But you can't use that as a example, because the Bible clearly states that it's a parable. A better example would be the story of Noah and the Ark. It plays out a bit like one of Aesop's Fables because it's somewhat romanticized. But even if it's not word-for-word fact, it's basically true.

Yay, I got one right!

[Mr. SmartyPants]

EDIT: eh, nevermind. You guys seem to make things way too convoluted :/

That's understandable, but please understand that I approach my faith like this because my faith is just that important to me.

I'm sure that Nate thinks the same way. Because, of course, our faith is very important to us. Hence, we wish to approach what is important to us with a degree of scrutiny. I know for me, I'm going to question the very idea of things like... the creation account and the narrative on the tower of Babel. Sure I can believe that they happened. But I think a part of my faith is seeing how the scriptures are presented as both truth and as literature. In essence, there is a beauty, to me, in seeing that the creation story and the tower of Babel are metafictions, meaning it is a story to represent a deeper truth of God. To me, believing them at face value only diminished the value of those stories as a piece of God's creativity.

[shooraijin]

I really think the interpretation portion of this thread deserves a thread of its own, and now that you can do that, please do so.

[Nightshade X]

As far as singleness goes, I find it to be like a coin. On one side, we have the supremely obvious advantages. I can do whatever the boink I want to, when I want to, and I don't have to consider anyone in my decisions but myself (for the most part). In pleasing God, all I have to worry about is whether I'm doing right by Him, so it's easy. If I were dating someone, my concerns about my conduct, activities, and everything else would have to be run through a filter of whether whatever I'm doing would offend/exclude/whatever to that person. Also, my relationship with God would have a completely different dynamic to it, as part of that relationship would now include how I treat that significant person. It's easier to be single in this regard.

However, the other side of the coin hits me in the freakin' eyes every time I see a couple or hang out with my friends, since who's dating who is apparently the most significant subject of any conversation. Plus, almost all of my friends are dating, so where does that leave me? I'm often left feeling very alone and separated from a lot of things because I'm not with someone. I once said that I'd just transfer the energy I spent wanting a girlfriend to loving my friends and the people whose lives I cross daily, but let's face it... sometimes, that's not good enough. Sometimes... I just want to hold someone. Sometimes, I just want to love on someone and I want someone to love me... and it's easy to lose myself in that.

So... yeah. Two sides of the same situation. Equally powerful, one more obvious than the other, but they are both what I think of being single... and every day is a bloody coin flip.

...and I will revise this eventually. I never seem to get out everything I want to say...