the following which people like you conveniently fail to paraphrase:
"But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife, is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided." 1 Corinthians 7:32-33
One can only wonder how you'd explain the fact that the vast majority of pedophiles are married men or explain why the sexual abuse of minors is rampant in public education where there is no discipline of celibacy for you to blame.
If this is how you respond to what I wrote, and these are the words you use tou support YOUR argument (which, I suppose, is in support of celabacy), it is no wonder obama fooled so many, no wonder democrats keep getting elected and no wonder that our great united States is no longer united.
First: I didn't paraphrase a thing, but quoted scripture, to wit:
"1 Cor. 7:8&9 .. I say therefore to the unmarriedand widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
You chose to come at me with a group of words I quite frankly cannot find in the Bible.
Paul wrote that he "would have you without carefullness" and YOU wrote the he said "But I would have you to be without solicitude.'
Carefulness is defined and ubderstood to mean in this verse that Paul wants you to be aware of the danger(s) of not having settled the matter of male/female sexuality and the pull it has on each other, especially the man (Paul is speaking of a man)
Solicitude is defined as being attentative to the care and well being of ...
Paul writes of the danger and you wrote of careing for.
Two entirely defferent subjects
But that's what happens when you change the words and misquote the speaker.
Did Sarah Palin say she could see Russia from her house ?