There is an error that occurs practically universally when interpreting Scripture, and that is to ignore the context of a passage you are trying to interpret.
1) You are leaving a bit unclear whether you think experiencing temptation is a sin or not, or that only certain "types" of temptation are. Would love a straight answer on that.
2) Do you think that seeking marriage/being married is a necessary, sufficient, or necessary and sufficient condition for obeying God's law with respect to sex? Your statement "the God commanded way to resist sexual temptation begins with… taking a wife" suggests necessity, but your later statement "And if he is struggling with temptation, the way that God calls him to act is… to get married!" suggests that it is sufficient. I think both are false but if you could be clear on which one you are arguing for I would appreciate it.
3) You say "Because the standard modern American way to read I Corinthians Seven is to completely divorce (see my opening above) a couple of parts of the passage, and Incognito, in doing so, wasn’t helped by my post. So let me be very clear: Paul, in I Corinthians Seven, speaks of a ‘gift’ that he had, and that is not shared by all men. Indeed it is shared by so few men that he used the word ‘every man’ to describe those who don’t have it. It is the gift… of sexual continence." This is unclear in a couple parts:
A) Are you saying that I am reading the passage in the "American way" in that I chop it up? I ask because you seem to say so but it doesn't really impact the rest of your argument.
B) What do you mean by "continence"? Per the dictionary definition, it's just "the ability to control your sexual desires"(https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/continence) but you seem to use it as "not being tempted with sexual desire." These are not the same! If you could disambiguate I would really appreciate it.
These are great questions. I have two other posts lined up on this subject for this week. They probably should drop Tuesday and Thursday so post answering these questions will hopefully be able to be dropped on Saturday.
You're saying that all men shouldn't be monks. Not that no men should be? There are men who should be monks then? Those who are called to such a life should live according to their calling? Or do you mean to say that such a calling does not exist? This is confusing.
A couple clarifying questions:
1) You are leaving a bit unclear whether you think experiencing temptation is a sin or not, or that only certain "types" of temptation are. Would love a straight answer on that.
2) Do you think that seeking marriage/being married is a necessary, sufficient, or necessary and sufficient condition for obeying God's law with respect to sex? Your statement "the God commanded way to resist sexual temptation begins with… taking a wife" suggests necessity, but your later statement "And if he is struggling with temptation, the way that God calls him to act is… to get married!" suggests that it is sufficient. I think both are false but if you could be clear on which one you are arguing for I would appreciate it.
3) You say "Because the standard modern American way to read I Corinthians Seven is to completely divorce (see my opening above) a couple of parts of the passage, and Incognito, in doing so, wasn’t helped by my post. So let me be very clear: Paul, in I Corinthians Seven, speaks of a ‘gift’ that he had, and that is not shared by all men. Indeed it is shared by so few men that he used the word ‘every man’ to describe those who don’t have it. It is the gift… of sexual continence." This is unclear in a couple parts:
A) Are you saying that I am reading the passage in the "American way" in that I chop it up? I ask because you seem to say so but it doesn't really impact the rest of your argument.
B) What do you mean by "continence"? Per the dictionary definition, it's just "the ability to control your sexual desires"(https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/continence) but you seem to use it as "not being tempted with sexual desire." These are not the same! If you could disambiguate I would really appreciate it.
These are great questions. I have two other posts lined up on this subject for this week. They probably should drop Tuesday and Thursday so post answering these questions will hopefully be able to be dropped on Saturday.
You're saying that all men shouldn't be monks. Not that no men should be? There are men who should be monks then? Those who are called to such a life should live according to their calling? Or do you mean to say that such a calling does not exist? This is confusing.