I JUST realized something..............

[thessalonian]

i have took Thess, and Imags post to heart. i guess where even now if i was disrespectful. because your "almighty leader" disrespected my Almighty Leader,lol. seriously though, when you take away from the praise and glory so rightfuly deseirved, from my Almighty Leader, i take that very personal. as do you when i took away from your "almighty leader" least you know where im comin from. right? now that were on the same page, yall can get back to orginal thread topic.

oh yea, thx thess, for lettin me know where i stand with my walk with Christ. ill try to get back on the right path now, since you have showed me the way and stop being "not so christian like." maybee you should be pope.

the way i see it, lettin people spew garbage and take away from Jesus glory, is "not very christian like."

So you said that NOTHING the pope says in consistent with scripture. Do you completely disagree with the statements I posted above. You seem to have avoided that issue. I can post many more like statements by him that I certainly hope you would not disagree with. Do answer this question. Thanks.

 

[thessalonian]

the way i see it, lettin people spew garbage and take away from Jesus glory, is "not very christian like."

Recognizing what God has done in and through men and women of faith does not in the slightest take away from his glory. Does it take away God's glory to say that Moses freed the Jews from the Egyptians or led the people out of Egypt and through the desert?

Heb.3
[16] Who were they that heard and yet were rebellious? Was it not all those who left Egypt under the leadership of Moses?

It does not detract at all from God by saying that Moses led the people out of Egypt as long as one knows that he did it through the power of God at work in him.

Eph 3
20]
Now to him who by the power at work within us is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think,
[21] to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations, for ever and ever. Amen.

Neither should we shy away from acknowledging the power of God in our lives and the lives of others. Paul in fact commands us to do it.

Heb.13
[7] Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God; consider the outcome of their life, and imitate their faith.

 

[jive]

i have took Thess, and Imags post to heart. i guess where even now if i was disrespectful. because your "almighty leader" disrespected my Almighty Leader,lol. seriously though, when you take away from the praise and glory so rightfuly deseirved, from my Almighty Leader, i take that very personal. as do you when i took away from your "almighty leader" least you know where im comin from. right? now that were on the same page, yall can get back to orginal thread topic.

oh yea, thx thess, for lettin me know where i stand with my walk with Christ. ill try to get back on the right path now, since you have showed me the way and stop being "not so christian like." maybee you should be pope.

the way i see it, lettin people spew garbage and take away from Jesus glory, is "not very christian like."

So you said that NOTHING the pope says in consistent with scripture. Do you completely disagree with the statements I posted above. You seem to have avoided that issue. I can post many more like statements by him that I certainly hope you would not disagree with. Do answer this question. Thanks.

i didnt say NOTHING he said, just the quoted part that disrespects my saviour, i dont listen to the shmope, nor do i look to him as a role model or "holy man" i look to no man like that, because there are none worthy of lookin up to like that, imho. i look to God for my guidance. i was refuring to what he said that was posted in this thread above. thats all. i have no clue what else he has said.

 

[thessalonian]

By the way Jive, why did you feel the need to change the words of the address?

On May 7, 1997, "IT IS POSSIBLE TO UNDERSTAND THE AUTHENTIC MEANING OF MARIAN WORSHIP in the ecclesial community ... which furthermore is based on the will of Christ" (Vatican Information Service, May 7, 1997).
(Ibid.).

[/quote]

Here is the words spoken by JP II.

2. In the light of this entrustment to his beloved disciple, one can understand the authentic meaning of Marian devotion in the ecclesial community. In fact, it places Christians in Jesus’ filial relationship to his mother, putting them in a condition to grow in intimacy with both of them.



Now I have a devotin to my wife. Is that worship? Is it wrong. I am devoted to our marriage and rasing our kids. Worship? I am sure you were just cutting and pasting from an anti-catholic website (you need to ref such sites when you plagerize material from them). You are responsible for the content of the words you post her, no matter where they come from. Don't expect us to give you a free pass on this board with anything you post. It will be challenged.

Do you say that Mary had no part in the plan of salvation? I certainly hope not. God worked through her in bringing the savior of the world to this earth. What is wrong with acknowledging that?

 

[Imagican]

Come on now, Can't we all just,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,get along, (he he he).

None of this nit picking back and forth has anything to do with the topic.

So, you two, kiss and make up so yall can get back to making plans on your next movie together, (but there will be NO making out with each other).

 

[thessalonian]

Come on now, Can't we all just,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,get along, (he he he).

None of this nit picking back and forth has anything to do with the topic.

So, you two, kiss and make up so yall can get back to making plans on your next movie together, (but there will be NO making out with each other).

?? nit picking? He or his anti-catholic site change a word to worship, it is not nit picking for me to call them on it. Your bias in the matter is duly noted. As for staying on topic. It seems that only bothers you when it is you not straying from the topic. :-?

 

[jive]

By the way Jive, why did you feel the need to change the words of the address?

On May 7, 1997, "IT IS POSSIBLE TO UNDERSTAND THE AUTHENTIC MEANING OF MARIAN WORSHIP in the ecclesial community ... which furthermore is based on the will of Christ" (Vatican Information Service, May 7, 1997).
(Ibid.).

Here is the words spoken by JP II.

2. In the light of this entrustment to his beloved disciple, one can understand the authentic meaning of Marian devotion in the ecclesial community. In fact, it places Christians in Jesus’ filial relationship to his mother, putting them in a condition to grow in intimacy with both of them.



Now I have a devotin to my wife. Is that worship? Is it wrong. I am devoted to our marriage and rasing our kids. Worship? I am sure you were just cutting and pasting from an anti-catholic website (you need to ref such sites when you plagerize material from them). You are responsible for the content of the words you post her, no matter where they come from. Don't expect us to give you a free pass on this board with anything you post. It will be challenged.

Do you say that Mary had no part in the plan of salvation? I certainly hope not. God worked through her in bringing the savior of the world to this earth. What is wrong with acknowledging that?

1. that wasnt origanly posted by me, ive stated that.
2. what about the rest of what he said that was posted here?
3. one of the definitions for devotion is; idolatry, religious zeal/ the willingness to serve GOD.
4. devoted to your wife why? because God said be devoted to her
5. how are you devoted to marry if not through worship?
6. its clear that the pope, meant devotion as worship, loving marry brings you closer to Jesus?? how? scripture?
7. did he say make room for marry? in doing that do you not have take room from Jesus, the one who died for you? any man claiming to be "holy" would know better than to say something so "ignorant".
8. i dont know where the original quoted post by the pope came from, where did yours come from?
9. did he say anything there based on scripture, hey or even close??
10. he pretty much said just the opposite of what the bible teaches.

 

[Klee shay]

Hi Imagican

No offence taken with your comments. I understand this is a debate and its great we can all share our thoughts.

As far as I can tell, I'm not a trinitarian. I've been taught lots of different things because my mother attended many different churchs. The overall truth is that God is the Father, Jesus is the Son and both are One. This is how the bible portrays it and how Jesus spoke it.

Example: We are told that when a man and woman wed that 'they' become ONE. Are they really the 'same'? Are they 'truly' one, or is this simply a sybolic description of the joining in a common purpose? These we are left to discern for ourselves. And, any religion that teaches 'otherwise' is nothing more than 'man-made' teaching. I choose to follow the Word instead of men.

I don't believe its how we understand "One" to mean intellectually, it's how we live as "One". Jesus knew he was the Son of God but do you think for one minute He lived as if he wasn't One with the Father?

My husband and I are indeed One so there are no definitions of He and I separately. We are who we are by physical gender and genetics without question but we live as one. If we didn't, why consider ourselves married according to the Word of God? Is my body my body and not my husband's and likewise, is my husband's body his body and not mine? Yes we have separate bodies but if we lived as if they weren't one, would we be married according to God's word?

Jesus is the Son of God but if he lived as if he wasn't One with God, but indeed a separate entity, then he lied about being one with the Father. You can't be "partially" one or "almost" one, you are one without question or you are not one at all. Unity is unity otherwise its division.

This means that the WAY was defined by the Father and delivered by the Son.

I agree. Could they do this however, if Jesus considered Himself separate to God? This is not saying the same thing as Jesus thought *HE* was God. As you say, the way was defined by the Father but they were still unified in how the outcome would be delivered - as "One".

Can a 'trinitarian' explain to me what would be 'wrong' with me worshiping ONLY one God, the Father, and worshiping Christ AS His Son? Why would someone insist that I MUST accept their teaching or I am not 'born again'?

I am not a trinitarian so I cannot answer. I would be interested in knowing the answer to your question also.

This does NOT mean that we are all the same, just that we have a common bond through Jesus Christ, able to lead us to the Father.

If we did not live as if we were the same however, how could we be lead to the Father? As in the case of Jesus, if he did not live as if he was One with the Father, how could he be directed in same?

To 'turn' Chist into GOD, takes away what was taught BEFORE 'trinity'. God taught us from the BEGINNING that there is ONLY ONE GOD. To make Christ God goes completely against this teaching.

Only one God and I suspect this is why the Trinitarian perspective is what it is. They believe in only One God. God had a Son and created a means to adopt mankind as His Heirs? Unified they are all drawn to the one God. They only follow one God. Jesus is not a separate God - He is One with God.

Or at least that is what I have gleaned from separate discussions. I'm not Trinitarian so I could be wrong. Trinitarian persepective is welcome to correct me. I would be interested to know if they believe Jesus *IS* God or if He is just one with Him.

It is stated that Christ WAS created, therefore He could NOT BE God. A part of God, OF God, no doubt, but God Himself is reserved TO GOD HIMSELF and NO OTHER.

Yes it is as you say. So why did God design the means to have a Son and make mankind His heirs? God will always be God without exception or competition, but he has designed a means of unification for all His creations. Jesus was unified and lived as One with God. Why is it so wrong to acknowledge this fact? Jesus taught it so why shy away from teaching it ourselves? He still remains the Son of God but he lived as One with God.

And I see that you at least have the understanding that there is the possibility that 'trinity' makes NO difference. That's good, for that opens up the possible understanding of what I have been trying to offer.

Absolutely, I don't think trinity or any other means we develop to understand God makes a difference to "believing" in the One true God which asked us to honour Him through acknowledging the sacrifice of His Son. Is this trinity, is this not trinity? It is as it's stated. God who loved the world so much that he sent his only begotten Son...

Now, what IF 'trinity' is nothing more than a 'pagan' word to describe a 'pagan' Godhead and NOT the Godhead offered through the Word. Then, does it matter?

Unfortunately I don't know much about 'trinity' to say whether it matters or not. I only came into this discussion when there appeared to be a division in what Jesus taught. He taught he was the Son of God but that He was also One with God. These are two distinct truths which should never be divided. :D

 

[Imagican]

Klee,

Probably fortunate for you that you know little of this doctrine. For this will mean that it not cloud your understanding. I understand that Jesus and God are one, fear not, but my understanding of this oneness is different than the doctrine 'trinity' teaches.

As long as one realizes that the Father is the head of Christ as Christ is the head of the Church and the man is the head of the woman, authority is in it's right place. Otherwise there is much complication when man tries to make All equal.

There IS an order and this order is crucial in the organization of the Church. So long as it is followed, many of the complications of man's yearning for power can be eliminated. Otherwise, we see that in order to rule over other men, there will be those that teach a 'different order', and this destroys rather than edifies the body.

We have ONE leader in the Body, and there is ONE ruler over ALL. He can empower who He will at His will, but that HE IS THE POWER is without question.

One little tid-bit to chew upon: Would Satan have tempted Christ has he not been able to deliver what was offered? And would he have tempted Christ if the Son of God had not the free will to choose? And wouldn't it take Christ overcoming the flesh to BECOME the PERFECT Sacrifice? Neat little points that bring on a much deeper understanding of the Son.

Until we meet again.

MEC

 

[Klee shay]

I feel like a right imbecile!!! :

Imagican, my last response was meant to be in ginercat's thread, wasn't it?

 

[Imagican]

Hey Klee,

Oftentimes we are better off without certain knowledge. Just imagine if Eve had not been tempted in the garden............... What a wonderful existence they would have had without the 'knowledge'.

Actually there are about three threads with the 'same' theme right now. Going in slightly different directions, but I think that your post would have fit nicely in any one of them.

 

[Imagican]

Come on now, Can't we all just,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,get along, (he he he).

None of this nit picking back and forth has anything to do with the topic.

So, you two, kiss and make up so yall can get back to making plans on your next movie together, (but there will be NO making out with each other).

?? nit picking? He or his anti-catholic site change a word to worship, it is not nit picking for me to call them on it. Your bias in the matter is duly noted. As for staying on topic. It seems that only bothers you when it is you not straying from the topic. :-?

Missed this one. Thess, where's your 'sense of humor'? I thought that I tried to make it 'obvious' that my post was meant ONLY in the most humorous intent. I really don't care how 'off topic' anyone's posts are so long as they have something 'constructive' to offer. And please, feel free, (as far as I'm concerned), to 'nit-pick' anytime. And I didn't mean to insinuate that pointing out one's changing of 'anything', such as individual words to alter the meaning of scripture is nit-picking, as already stated, I thought maybe a bit of humor might lighten things up a tad. Sorry for a possible 'misleading' innuendo. My apologies. You know that I am certainly 'against' the altering of words in order to 'make one's point' rather than following what has 'actually' been offered.

 

[thessalonian]

1. that wasnt origanly posted by me, ive stated that.

Ah to be able to pass the buck of responsibility. I did a search for that quote on the net and found it in about 200 places all by protestants. I got 20 hits for "authentic meaning of Marian devotion". Funny thing is that all of these were on Catholic sites. Seems the protestants have changed the wording for sensationalistic purposes. This is pretty clear. I got my quote directly from the source, the vatican.va site where all of his wednesday audiences are posted.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_ ... /index.htm

Here is the very one of which we speak.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_ ... 97_en.html

You may also if you like view the latin and some other languages and do the translating for yourself. However, JP II had command of 8 different languages and one of them was English. As I recall he delivered his Wed. audiences in both Italian and English. So I think we can trust the english translation from the source on this one.

You have done a fine job of demonstrating how these many, many, protestant urban legends about what Catholicism believes and teaches spread. Thank you. No body thinks to say "did he really say "authentic worship of Mary"". I better check that out before I post it. No they want to believe that is what he said and so they post it.

2. what about the rest of what he said that was posted here?

I'm getting to it. If you would quote things correctly instead of passing around that same old loaf of fruitcake every Christmass we could get to it.

3. one of the definitions for devotion is; idolatry, religious zeal/ the willingness to serve GOD.

Certainly devotion can be a part of worship. The words are not equal however and devotion does not have to be worship. The Pope did not believe Mary was God and so your definition does not fit. Sorry.

4. devoted to your wife why? because God said be devoted to her

Yep, it's not worship is it.

5. how are you devoted to marry if not through worship?

I am devoted to Mary in learning about her son which is her desire for me. In following her example of obedience to God when she said "be it done unto me according to thy will" in Luke 1 and "do WHATEVER he tells you" in the story of the wedding at canna in John's Gospel. I am devoted in praying the rosary, asking her for her intercession to her son for the grace for a deeper understanding of who he is. This comes about in part during the rosary by reflecting on the scriptures, regarding his life, death, and resurrection. That is the heart of the rosary. You Protestants focus on us saying hail mary's. You judge it by the externals. It is really a Christocentric prayer focusing on the life, death, and resurrection of her son who she points to and wishes us to come to know more deeply.

6. its clear that the pope, meant devotion as worship, loving marry brings you closer to Jesus?? how? scripture?

Nope, not clear at all. The Pope NEVER says Mary is a God or any form of deity so it cannot be worship. He knows that Mary can do nothing for us except ask for the grace of her son to bring about the desired benefit. You are simply superimposing your biases of what practices in the Catholic faith mean. Yes, scripture brings us closer to Jesus. Loving his mother and understanding that he loved her brings us closer to him. How can I claim to have a friend yet not love his mother or at least show some sort of honor toward her. That friend would not be my friend for long if I badmouthed his mother.

7. did he say make room for marry? in doing that do you not have take room from Jesus, the one who died for you? any man claiming to be "holy" would know better than to say something so "ignorant".

This is foolishness. If I love my children am I taking away from my love of Jesus. If this is the case I should actually have few if any children by your logic. The opposite is actually true. As we love others our love for Christ increases. As we come to know the important role that Mary played in salvation history and love her for her obedience to God in says "let it be done unto me according to thy will", my love for him grows because I see that God was responsible for the grace Mary needed to submit to his will and that HE was the one who placed her on this earth for his purposes. My children increase my love for God because I see them as his means of working out his will in my life to become more patient and kind, while accepting the great responsibility of a family. Love does not divide, it multiplies. Reflecting on the other saints and the great things God did in their lives, increases my love for God as well.

8. i dont know where the original quoted post by the pope came from, where did yours come from?

As I said above, the vatican website. Kinda handy when protestants throw things at me that I doudt were said. I've used it many times as I have here.

9. did he say anything there based on scripture, hey or even close??

In the context in which it is spoken it is quite consistent with scripture. More later.

10. he pretty much said just the opposite of what the bible teaches.

Nope, he said the opposite of what YOU THINK the Bible teaches. There is a difference. You are missing the great depth of scripture. More later.

Blessings

 

[Imagican]

Thess,

Paul plainly states that HE is our example. He also states that we 'should' be 'like' him, (celibate). But, if we are unable to do such for the lust in our hearts, that it be better that we wed than suffer for this lust unfulfilled.

Now, if we take what Paul offered, and make an attempt at understanding this, we surely find that what he offered was a 'complete' devotion to God. For, if we decide to wed, at least a part of our love and devotion MUST be dedicated to those that we choose to make ourselves ONE with.

This by NO means offers that to wed is to 'take away' from God, it simply offers that there is NO way that the devotion of one that is wed is capable of being as concentrated as one who isn't.

Nothing wrong with being married or having children. But, it certainly keeps one from approaching the relationship that was obtained by Paul. For all the time spent loving our mates and children is time that is impossible to spend in prayer or devotion to God.

What Paul offered was NOT law of any sort. What he offered he offered out of a desire to see others obtain what he had. And knowing that those that wed would NOT be able to please their spouses and their children without taking 'time out' to do this, it is indicated that these would suffer for the sake of the relationship devoted to God alone.

His offering was nothing more than a 'showing' of the love that he had for us. Having obtained something so glorious, he offered what it takes to obtain what he had, an utterly pure relationship with the Father through His Son. Not a bad thing to strive for, but most of us will NEVER obtain such for we allow the things of the world to 'get in the way'.

You, of all people, should understand this. For this MUST be the reason that the Catholic Church refuses to allow Priest to wed. Their family is the 'body' and there is NO time for a personal family in which to 'deter' one from a 'total' devotion. Right?

 

[jive]

1. that wasnt origanly posted by me, ive stated that.

Ah to be able to pass the buck of responsibility. I did a search for that quote on the net and found it in about 200 places all by protestants. I got 20 hits for "authentic meaning of Marian devotion". Funny thing is that all of these were on Catholic sites. Seems the protestants have changed the wording for sensationalistic purposes. This is pretty clear. I got my quote directly from the source, the vatican.va site where all of his wednesday audiences are posted.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_ ... /index.htm

Here is the very one of which we speak.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_ ... 97_en.html

You may also if you like view the latin and some other languages and do the translating for yourself. However, JP II had command of 8 different languages and one of them was English. As I recall he delivered his Wed. audiences in both Italian and English. So I think we can trust the english translation from the source on this one.

You have done a fine job of demonstrating how these many, many, protestant urban legends about what Catholicism believes and teaches spread. Thank you. No body thinks to say "did he really say "authentic worship of Mary"". I better check that out before I post it. No they want to believe that is what he said and so they post it.

yea....yea....shame on me.

I'm getting to it. If you would quote things correctly instead of passing around that same old loaf of fruitcake every Christmass we could get to it.

lmao, same ol fruitcake, thats a good one.

Certainly devotion can be a part of worship. The words are not equal however and devotion does not have to be worship. The Pope did not believe Mary was God and so your definition does not fit. Sorry.

what about the idolatry part?

Yep, it's not worship is it

.
what if you started bowing and praying to your wife???

I am devoted to Mary in learning about her son which is her desire for me. In following her example of obedience to God when she said "be it done unto me according to thy will" in Luke 1 and "do WHATEVER he tells you" in the story of the wedding at canna in John's Gospel. I am devoted in praying the rosary, asking her for her intercession to her son for the grace for a deeper understanding of who he is. This comes about in part during the rosary by reflecting on the scriptures, regarding his life, death, and resurrection. That is the heart of the rosary. You Protestants focus on us saying hail mary's. You judge it by the externals. It is really a Christocentric prayer focusing on the life, death, and resurrection of her son who she points to and wishes us to come to know more deeply.

why dont you talk, directly to Jesus himself? arnt you putting marry before him? im not a Protestant. uh Jesus himself points to you and wants you to know him more deeply. who do you serve? him or marry?

Nope, not clear at all. The Pope NEVER says Mary is a God or any form of deity so it cannot be worship. He knows that Mary can do nothing for us except ask for the grace of her son to bring about the desired benefit. You are simply superimposing your biases of what practices in the Catholic faith mean. Yes, scripture brings us closer to Jesus. Loving his mother and understanding that he loved her brings us closer to him. How can I claim to have a friend yet not love his mother or at least show some sort of honor toward her. That friend would not be my friend for long if I badmouthed his mother.

yea....that pretty much dont make a lick a sinse to me. and im not badmouthing his mother, i dont have a problem with marry,marry obviously is in Gods favor. BUT compared to her Son, she is NOTHING. let me ask you something.........witch one of your sins did marry die for??

This is foolishness. If I love my children am I taking away from my love of Jesus. If this is the case I should actually have few if any children by your logic. The opposite is actually true. As we love others our love for Christ increases. As we come to know the important role that Mary played in salvation history and love her for her obedience to God in says "let it be done unto me according to thy will", my love for him grows because I see that God was responsible for the grace Mary needed to submit to his will and that HE was the one who placed her on this earth for his purposes. My children increase my love for God because I see them as his means of working out his will in my life to become more patient and kind, while accepting the great responsibility of a family. Love does not divide, it multiplies. Reflecting on the other saints and the great things God did in their lives, increases my love for God as well.

foolishness, you got that right. do you pray to your kids? no but do you pray to marry? yes, see thats the diffrance. refflecting on the saints? dont you mean praying to the saints? like i said before if your devoting prayer and time to marry, your taking that prayer and time from Jesus.

wheres the scripture? that backs what the pope said. where it tells you to pray to anybody else but God? why do "you catholices" always want to throw in a middle man? marry is your middle man to Jesus, why? and why do you need to confess your sins to another man and let him talk to God for you? i know the scripture excuss for that no need to post it, i want to know why though, you dont talk to Him yourself, how is possible to have a real personal relation ship with Jesus when you got everybody else talking to him but you?

In the context in which it is spoken it is quite consistent with scripture. More later.

you better break out the visegrips.

Nope, he said the opposite of what YOU THINK the Bible teaches. There is a difference. You are missing the great depth of scripture. More later.

i think he pretty much said the opposite ofwhat ALOT OF PEOPLE THINK the bible teaches.

look.............your probly a good person, and i dont want to argue with you on this cause im telling were not goin to agree on nothing, because it makes on sinse to me. if you want to awnser the questions i posted go for it. if not i totaly understand. but i realy dont feel like goin back and forth on somethin i feel to be so rediculas. pray for me and ill pray for you and hopefully we will see eachother on the Otherside.

 

[thessalonian]

You, of all people, should understand this. For this MUST be the reason that the Catholic Church refuses to allow Priest to wed. Their family is the 'body' and there is NO time for a personal family in which to 'deter' one from a 'total' devotion. Right?

Imigican, Imigican, my man! How refreshing it is to hear a non-catholic handle Paul's words so beautifully. Praise God. I think that is the first time I've ever had a non-catholic deal with 1 Cor 7 head on. I expected that someone would bring that passage up with regard to my post. I don't completely agree or disagree with your contention that getting married and having a family detracts from our ability to love God. I have to say that in my analysis as I reflect on your post, and on the passage you site and others such as Luke 7 and John 12 where Jesus expresses the great love that a couple of women have for him, washing his feet with their tears and drying them with their hair, vs. the pharasee who had a deeper knowledge but loved less because he was forgiven less. The basis is love is not always knowledge and understanding, though certainly that can produce greater love. Some love because of understanding and some can be brought to greater love of God through service. In Luke 7 Jesus tells us the basis of the womans great love for him is in the great amount of forgiveness she has recieved. I doudt if she got married (if she was not) that her love for him would decrease.

Paul doesn't mention love in 1 Cor 7, though I don't think it wrong to interpolate it in as you have done and consider the implications. But once again as I sit on the bed at night dressing my little girl in pajama's or getting a hug from my other young children, it makes me love God more for the great blessings he has given me. Marriage is a path toward greater love of God and I don't see Paul's words as saying it is not. The man is divided between gaining greater knowledge of God and having more prayer time certainly. But he can serve God and he can acknowledge the benefits God has given him in family. So while the single path to God might bring about greater love sooner, I think it is mistake to say that a married man is headed in the opposite direction by choosing marriage. That is the implication of your post. Divided cannot mean that on the day before he gets married he has X love for God and the next day he has 1/2 X love for God. If that were the case I am quite certain Paul would demand that noone get married. No, over 5 years I think it more likely he would see the single man with total devotion of his time to God increasing in love by 2X to the married man perhaps 1.5X. That may be the problem he sees.

His words also speak about the trials of marriage, consistent with Matt 19 where Jesus responds to Peter's question, "it is better not to marry", as "to some this has been given for the kingdom". In the married life there are occasions to sin that the single person dedicated to God may not have I think.

Anyway my thoughts. I agree with alot of what you said but from the perspective of less of an increase in love and service to God rather than a perhaps implied decrease in love and service to God. I certainly serve him by serving my family.

Blessings