[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by tlj009

It just doesn't make sense to me that naming animals would just happen to be thrown in the middle of God saying it is not good for man to be alone and actually creating woman.

It makes perfect sense to me. It goes to there being no helper for Adam, to Adam being familiar with all of the animal life. It shows that nothing in the world is sufficient to fill Adam's need for a helper.

Yes. I think that it is very clear that woman is the only proper solution. But I don't think that it is necessarily the only proper solution for Adam's problem of needing a helper.

I do not mean this rudely at all. BUT... doesn't the second statement directly contradict the first here? If it is the only proper solution, then it is necessarily the only proper solution to the problem at hand.

As I am reading this it reads like this. It is, but no it isn't, which is a contradiction and does not make any sense.

I guess what it amounts to is that I am not sure that "not good that the man should be alone" means that it is not good for man to not have a mate. I don't see how Paul's position on marriage would be acceptable if it was not good to remain single.

Paul understood his position to be unusual. (there are passages for that) But according to genesis, it is not good to not have a mate. And Paul speaks of the goodness of marriage. There are a few very small advantages of being alone, and Paul was in that category, where it was better to be alone, but even so, can you say Paul's life choices were "good" in the same sense as Genesis means good?

It had great moral good, but it is not the scriptural default. I think there is a good reason for that.

[tlj009]

I do not mean this rudely at all. BUT... doesn't the second statement directly contradict the first here? If it is the only proper solution, then it is necessarily the only proper solution to the problem at hand.

As I am reading this it reads like this. It is, but no it isn't, which is a contradiction and does not make any sense.

Yeah. I started to explain it, then got distracted and well that is what I ended up with. What I was aiming for was that Adam was in a slightly different situation then pretty much everyone else in that he was the only human on earth at the time. Now when God says that it is not good for man to be alone, I think he is referring to not having a companion at all rather than not having a mate. So when taking into account the future of mankind, the only proper solution is woman as she is a companion that will also allow the earth to be populated. If we are just trying to solve Adam's immediate need of a help meet, then I really don't see woman as being the only proper solution. In other words, woman provided what God wanted her to provide and was proper for that need, but I am not sure the need was solely that it isn't good for man to not have a mate.

Paul understood his position to be unusual. (there are passages for that) But according to genesis, it is not good to not have a mate. And Paul speaks of the goodness of marriage. There are a few very small advantages of being alone, and Paul was in that category, where it was better to be alone, but even so, can you say Paul's life choices were "good" in the same sense as Genesis means good?

It had great moral good, but it is not the scriptural default. I think there is a good reason for that.

I don't know how you view "good" in each case. Paul says that it is better not to be married because in marriage your attentions are not solely on God but split between your wife and God. That is why Paul said that it is better to be single, so that you can better serve God. He goes so far as to tell us that it is better to get married if we struggle with a particular sin. In Genesis, I view God's comment as a helper will allow man to serve God better in the sense that Adam was likely lonely and God wants us to serve with joy.

What sense do you view good in Genesis? Perfect? I may see your point if that is the case. Man is not perfect so I will create a helpmate to make him perfect???

I don't know about the scriptural default. We were created alone. So by default we are alone. We did recieve a mate very early on though.

[DaGeek]

Hey guys, not to try to get in the middle of this debate, but the OP asked for there not to be this sort of debate. Perhaps it should be split into another thread?

[tlj009]

Hey guys, not to try to get in the middle of this debate, but the OP asked for there not to be this sort of debate. Perhaps it should be split into another thread?

I am sorry. I noticed that something was mentioned about a "raging debate" but I didn't think we were even close to that. Bill is an administrator and he is welcome to delete all of my posts if he wants. (Or anyone else.)

[Rainer.]

Originally Posted by demonhuntress

1 Corinthians 7: http://bibleresources.bible.com/pass...s+7&version=31

I'll agree, I'm a little iffy on the whole I have "one" person waiting for you. What I love is the part about gluing yourself totally and completely to God. That's the heart of what I'm driving at: whether you are to be married one day or not, develop a deep relationship God first and foremost.

As for the whole "perfect one for you" thing, I've been thinking about this a lot lately. Because that is the one thing in the world that God cannot do. He cannot force someone to love. If he could, we'd be mindless robots. But he gave us free will. So lately I've been wondering, how, as the Christian circles seem to so adamently believe, can there be that one if God can't make you love them?

Please, please, PLEASE state your opinions kindly and in LOVE, and don't turn this into some raging debate.

For me:

The concept of "the one" for you isn't so much that there is one single person out there in the world that is specifically and exclusively made to be with you and only you.

Rather, it is a twofold concept. First of all, if you are seeking a husband or wife, there is probably a person out there that you will ultimately wed. As the Holy Spirit leads your life and the life of that person, you two will eventually cross paths. Secondly, when you and the other person mutually agree to go into the bond of wedlock, the two of you grow to be the de facto ideal spouses for one another. It takes work on behalf of both parties, but you both undergo a transformation by intimacy whereby your lives no longer make anymore sense apart, and work better together.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by tlj009

Yeah. I started to explain it, then got distracted and well that is what I ended up with. What I was aiming for was that Adam was in a slightly different situation then pretty much everyone else in that he was the only human on earth at the time. Now when God says that it is not good for man to be alone, I think he is referring to not having a companion at all rather than not having a mate. So when taking into account the future of mankind, the only proper solution is woman as she is a companion that will also allow the earth to be populated. If we are just trying to solve Adam's immediate need of a help meet, then I really don't see woman as being the only proper solution. In other words, woman provided what God wanted her to provide and was proper for that need, but I am not sure the need was solely that it isn't good for man to not have a mate.

However, Paul, I might point out, does not propose his position as normative. (see 1 Cor 7:1-2) I think the existence of our sex drive is an indication that we do need a mate. Its an honest need, and without her, God says it was not good. BTW, the explanation helped to see where you were coming from. I got woefully confused prior, thanks.

Also, why would the earth need to be populated prior to death? This is an honest question.

I don't know how you view "good" in each case. Paul says that it is better not to be married because in marriage your attentions are not solely on God but split between your wife and God. That is why Paul said that it is better to be single, so that you can better serve God. He goes so far as to tell us that it is better to get married if we struggle with a particular sin. In Genesis, I view God's comment as a helper will allow man to serve God better in the sense that Adam was likely lonely and God wants us to serve with joy.

He says so in less strong terms than that, but Paul's singleness of focus led him to an extreme mentality that led him to be shipwrecked, beaten, stoned, imprisoned, etc. Paul's singleness of purpose allowed him to take some definite risks, but he makes it clear in 1 corinthians 7 that that was a specific calling and that each man has such from God. He acknowledges in the first couple verses that the default is marriage, meaning most of us have a different calling than him. Thus it seems insane to suggest that we attempt to conform to a calling of paul, when we are called to be more like Peter. (a married guy)

What sense do you view good in Genesis? Perfect? I may see your point if that is the case. Man is not perfect so I will create a helpmate to make him perfect???

definitely not perfect, in fact quite the opposite. I will say that I think God is talking about it being a good thing. it would be fair to say that paul did not live a good life in some senses, not in his actions, but his circumstances were not good. A helpmeet definitely makes life better, Is that clear? (at least positionally as to what I kind of mean, the word good is pretty broad and without getting overly verbose, its a little hard)

I don't know about the scriptural default. We were created alone. So by default we are alone. We did recieve a mate very early on though.

1 Corinthians 7 is pretty clear that marriage is the default.

[Rainer.]

Originally Posted by DaGeek

Hey guys, not to try to get in the middle of this debate, but the OP asked for there not to be this sort of debate. Perhaps it should be split into another thread?

The discussion pertains to the original post. So it stays.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

my point is not to start a raging debate at all.

My point is that it is counseling young people to attempt to live a life not their biblical calling necessarily. It leads to a life of frustration and impossibility. Also, I think it devalues the actual value of marriage and our need for human companionship which God put in us from the garden when we try to live in a way we cannot, there is no acheiving the conditions of the letter. If thats the case it will lead to loneliness and covering it up in an attempt to be a "good Christian."

Feeling a need for another is a need God put in us.

Its a recent development I have watched in my lifetime and I think it devalues our actual needs as people.

[Grasshopper359]

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

I like "Pray to God, but row toward the shore."

Me too. I find that the longer someone tries to "be content with being alone" the more difficult it becomes. In addition to what Bill said, sociologists have found that men in particular who remain single past their mid-20s begin to develop increasingly anti-social tendencies, and are more inclined to experience loneliness, frustration, restlessness, anxiety, depression and poor self-image. The longer this goes on, the more likely they are to see their situation as permanent, and they can degenerate into a state of learned helplessness in which they honestly believe that nobody finds them desirable as a mate, dismissing signs to the contrary as figments of their imagination, misinterpretations, etc. Let's face it - when you've seldom or never dated, you don't have the energy or even inclination to start when you're pushing 30 years old. Ironically enough, it's within Christian circles that this is most pronounced. Josh Harris can write what he wants, but the facts don't leave the "Gift of Singleness" theory legs to stand on.

[Rainer.]

Originally Posted by Grasshopper359

Josh Harris can write what he wants, but the facts don't leave the "Gift of Singleness" theory legs to stand on.

I do think many people do indeed have the "gift of singleness", but what has made most sense to me is that if you aren't content being single, then you probably were not given that gift.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by Rainer.

I do think many people do indeed have the "gift of singleness", but what has made most sense to me is that if you aren't content being single, then you probably were not given that gift.

I think we got two definitions going here:

Gift of singleness: Like the apostle Paul - Called to a life of singleness. Not interested in marriage at all. Biblical.

Gift of singleness: Josh Harris style - Singleness is a gift that everybody should embrace. Not biblical at all.