WordWolf

Curtis Armstrong Joaquin Phoenix Jared Leto Brent Spiner Alan Tudyk Lennie Weinrib Ted Knight Frank Welker Kevin Michael Richardson Jeff Bennett James Patrick Stewart John DiMaggio

No, but I would love to see Brent Spiner and Alan Tudyk attempt to play "Johnny Cash" sometime.

This is NOT a "Twilight" movie.

While I agree that the things he did were antithetical to God's will (and would push one AWAY from God rather than drawing one CLOSER to God), I'm doubtful he was EVER close to God. His decision to get into preaching was as a career move, not as a calling. His neighbors thought it was ridiculous- he'd earned a reputation as a showoff, a braggart, a bully. His first 2 years as a preacher were punctuated- according to him- with him considering quitting. That's TWICE in the first TWO YEARS. He could deliver a sermon, but it wasn't until the first year of doing so was over that he even considered the idea that the Bible was God's Word. (What was he basing the sermons ON for a year?) He had a history of editing the work of other Christians. The rise of his speaking some things people consider excellent or more can be traced directly to his exposure to the writings of Bullinger, the book by Stiles, and the class of Leonard. In fact, the things he said that were considered noteworthy were all taken directly from those 3 sources. (There were other sources with more minor influences like Kenyon.) He put forth that he was getting all this from God Almighty and that he was going solely to the Bible as his textbook and his workbook, as he said many times. One interesting result of repeating aloud the contents of the works of others was the occasional inability to understand something, and repeating it incorrectly, then changing later and saying something completely different. From Bullinger, he got "all without exception" and "all without distinction", and later "all without exception" and "all with A distinction." His explanations of the differences between other (allos) and other (heteros) were inconsistent for the same reason. According to the pfal class, "anabolepto" means to physically witness- but in the book, "eidon" means to physically witness. For a man who supposedly JUST read the Bible for hundreds of hours a week, he still managed to get confused on who Paul heard say he "almost persuaded to be a Christian." He couldn't remember if it was Felix or Festus. He couldn't pick from either because it was neither- it was AGRIPPA who said it. Why did vpw sound convincing while saying stuff that sounded like it had such good substance? He plagiarized entirely the works of those who taught good substance. His only skill there was in preaching it. vpw could take a speech and make it sound heartfelt and personally meaningful even if he didn't believe it nor understood it. Actors do much the same. Any actor worth the name can take something, and recite it, and emote it fully with no connection to the content. There's one exercise where a couple had a romantic scene- where the dialogue was entirely composed of a supermarket shopping list, recited romantically. I'm hardly a noted actor, and I once emoted a speech where the content was a recipe. It's a skill among actors, and among politicians. Con artists can have it also. vpw sold the whole picture after assembling it- that he was a real man of God. We bought it because he was convincing- and partly because others we trusted bought it before us. So, I don't think vpw HAD a connection with God to be disconnected FROM. I think he was emoting and imitating the connections of valid Christians, and filling in the rest with empty showmanship. He'd pause, then claim he'd gotten revelation on something. He'd hide his sources of information, and insinuate/ suggest they were all by revelation. It was all part of the con.

Curtis Armstrong Joaquin Phoenix Jared Leto Brent Spiner Alan Tudyk Lennie Weinrib

"It is the oldest story in the book- he desires the one thing he cannot have." "You may have killed me, cousin, but my will is done, regardless!" "We have to get the bullets out quickly, or they end up dying on us during questioning. " "What happens to them afterward?" "We put the bullets back in." "There is a good reason why these rules were created, and they are the only reason we have survived this long! " "We were ambushed. Death Dealers; three of them. " " And the candidate?" "We lost him." "You lost him?" "Why are you helping me?" "I'm not. I'm helping me." "Jump." "Are you f***ing kidding me?" "Calm yourself, Kraven. The human doesn't concern you. Besides, I've laid low for long enough." "Just keep your men at bay, Lucian, at least for the time being. Don't make me have to regret our arrangement." "You just concentrate on your part. Remember, I've bled for you once already. Without me, you'd have nothing. You'd *be* nothing." "You know why I have been awakened, servant?" "No, my lord, but I will soon find out." "You mean - when you find her? "Yes, my lord." "You must let her come to me. We have much to discuss, Selene and I. She has shown me a great many disturbing things. Things that will be *dealt* with soon enough. This covern has grown weak, decadent. Perhaps I should have left someone else in charge of my affairs. Still, her memories are chaotic. There is no sense of time." "Please, my lord, let me summon assistance. You are in need of rest." "I have rested enough. What you will do is summon Marcus." "But he still slumbers, my lord. Amelia and the council members are arriving tomorrow night to awaken Marcus - not you, my lord. You have been awakened a full century ahead of schedule."

I suspect so. It would be enough for me. Actually, I would have gotten it from the quote about the bullets.

While I can't say I agree on ALL points, I agree with Mark that a lot of the doctrine was adapted from Greco-Roman mythology, of shades in the underworld, tortured for eternity. I agree with him and Rob Bell that I don't buy the idea that lots of humanity will be (or are) tortured for centuries or forever. I don't see that squaring the the Bible, and I don't see that squaring with God's M.O. There was a quote, attributed to Mark Twain, where he supposedly didn't agree with it, either. It's one thing to destroy a villain, it is another to punish for a time during his sentence, but to torture forever made no sense to him. (I just don't see "eternal torture for humanity" working on paper.)

The sad thing is, if vpw had spoken sincerely and from the heart when he said that, it would have been a really good thing. He directed people to read Ephesians 6, starting at verse 10. He read aloud, misreading aloud so everyone reading along could catch the distinction. " 'Finally, my brethren, be strong in vp wierwille." *group 'no'* "Say it LOUDER!" *group 'NO!'* "That's right. You're not strong in vp wierwille. Many of you may have heard God's Word from me, but I didn't die for you." *shout from offside that sounded like VF* "IT WAS JESUS CHRIST!" "You said it, man!" Then vpw criticized people who say to look at this or that leader. "I look at The Word, baby!" Sadly, all of that was show. vpw wanted us to look to vpw, but when the microphones were on, he knew to say the opposite. Who would possibly believe the accounts of the victims, of the abused, when vpw said the opposite IN PUBLIC? Who would imagine vpw could be such a Grade A Hypocrite that he could do that all the time? It sounds ridiculous, and if there wasn't so much testimony from so many witnesses and so many victims, it might not be possible to accept that vpw did it. vpw SO deluded himself into thinking he was "THE Man of God" that- when he was in his final hours of life, he wracked his brain, looking for how he could somehow have "missed it" and failed God so he couldn't Super-Believe into instant health. He looked back on his life, and was unable to find anything sufficient. That was all for himself, alone. Now, THAT'S quite a level of delusion.

IIRC, Stanley Kubrick did "Full Metal Jacket." Since this was a different director, how about we go with "PLATOON?"

"It is the oldest story in the book- he desires the one thing he cannot have." "You may have killed me, cousin, but my will is done, regardless!" "We have to get the bullets out quickly, or they end up dying on us during questioning. " "What happens to them afterward?" "We put the bullets back in." "There is a good reason why these rules were created, and they are the only reason we have survived this long! " "We were ambushed. Death Dealers; three of them. " " And the candidate?" "We lost him." "You lost him?" "Why are you helping me?" "I'm not. I'm helping me." "Jump." "Are you f***ing kidding me?" "Calm yourself, Kraven. The human doesn't concern you. Besides, I've laid low for long enough." "Just keep your men at bay, Lucian, at least for the time being. Don't make me have to regret our arrangement." "You just concentrate on your part. Remember, I've bled for you once already. Without me, you'd have nothing. You'd *be* nothing."

It's the difference between watching a cooking show, and cooking dinner. It's the difference between watching a show about helping someone, and going out to help someone. You're taking an active role in your own life- something contrary to twi and R&R. Feel subversive? Feel more powerful?

In case anyone cares, Mike (a poster who all but worshipped vpw) claimed that AFTER that teaching, vpw's "REAL" last teaching was "The Joy of Service." The "the Joy of Service Transcript" has been posted here twice (posted by dmiller, reposted by me) and can be found if anyone cares enough. It was a verbose COMMERCIAL for twi. BTW, anyone who wants a quick summary of the main points of that entire transcript, it's simple. I said it before: "Serving people is important for Christians. Therefore, master all three levels of PFAL and serve them that. There are no answers outside the Way Ministry." (The end,) My initial response to it was that this was the closing remarks of a man with an overinflated sense of his organization, and an underinflated sense of all Christians outside that organization.

We saw the Epicureans and the Stoics in Acts briefly- where the Epicureans felt the key to happiness was to indulge freely, and the Stoics thought the key to enlightenment was to deny the flesh and all worldly pleasures. We were never told to follow EITHER as an example, or that EITHER was recommended or even a good idea. However, it seems like some people will always think the key to spirituality will be to completely deny the flesh. It hasn't worked yet in all of history, so I doubt it's going to start working now.

Some years ago, I read a news story about Afghanistan. There's some super-repressive sub-culture there that doesn't allow pre-marital sex, but it also doesn't allow flirting or, apparently, even MEETING the opposite sex. It seemed obvious that they were attempting to prevent pre-marital sex, but in the process, they disallowed even conversation or being in the vicinity of each other. One side-effect was unexpected, at least by me. With a complete vacuum of women in any manner whatsoever in their lives, some of the men were paying some adolescent (teen) boys to dress up as women and, basically, pretend to be women. The boys got attention and got gifts. They also got molested. Rather than provoke outrage, it seemed like their society was used to it and didn't see any problems with it. I'm not saying this EXACT thing happens whenever ALL sex is disallowed and marriage is not allowed (de facto like in Afghanistan or de jure like the RCC clergy), but there certainly seems to be correlations between people doing stuff like this and marriage and every single form of sex is disallowed.

"It is the oldest story in the book- he desires the one thing he cannot have." "You may have killed me, cousin, but my will is done, regardless!" "We have to get the bullets out quickly, or they end up dying on us during questioning. " "What happens to them afterward?" "We put the bullets back in." "There is a good reason why these rules were created, and they are the only reason we have survived this long! " "We were ambushed. Death Dealers; three of them. " " And the candidate?" "We lost him." "You lost him?" "Why are you helping me?" "I'm not. I'm helping me." "Jump." "Are you f***ing kidding me?"

It's nothing like "Boys From Brazil". It isn't apocalyptic, but it may or may not be considered SF, depending on who you ask.

I'm going to agree that- if one CAN practice celibacy as part of an overall picture to dedicate one's entire life to serving God- that it shouldn't be discouraged. I also agree that candidates for the priesthood go in knowing the sacrifices and the difficulties. On the other hand, it's also true that, historically, we've seen that instituting it as international church-wide led to difficulties, primarily that of "we're not staying celibate" in previous centuries, and in this century with molestations. "If you can't be chaste, at least be careful" was a saying among the "celibate" priests in one European country at one time. Mind you, we've seen quite a bit of this preserved in history- and we know the RCC can keep some secrets so there's almost certainly plenty that slipped between the cracks of recorded history and/or was hidden by the RCC. So, I don't think that making this a requirement across ALL the clergy- and needing local clergy worldwide who have to follow it- is practical. As history has shown us, they broke the vow of celibacy one way or another, and the present is no different. As for those who didn't break it, we're looking at priests who left because they wanted to start a family, lots of candidates who never BECAME priests because they wanted families, and- as one priest said on the subject- a high rate of drinking problems among the celibate clergy as they struggle to remain celibate. Right now, if they clear out ALL the non-celibates including ALL the molesters, the number of priests would drop- and they're at a low rate of candidacy as it is. So, history has shown us that the required celibacy largely does not work, and it causes pious Catholics to refuse to consider the clergy solely because of that "DISCIPLINE." The RCC REQUIRES parish priestS (plural) in local churches EVERYWHERE since they are the only ones who can consecrate the Eucharist. If you require a purge of all that really can't remain celibate, then you'll have many local parishes unable to function as churches because they can't hold a mass or have Penance! To me, this suggests 2 possibilities: 1) remove the mandatory requirement of the "DISCIPLINE" of celibacy on priests, allowing for non-celibate candidates of good conscience to fulfill the role of priest 2) expand the deaconate to allow deacons to fulfill all the required functions of priests in a parish (consecration, penance, etc), allowing for the non-celibate deacons of good conscience to serve as the RCC needs The RCC needs more people to fulfill the functions of priests- and the lack of priests is increasing. Either they can allow more people to become priests, or allow the functions of priests to pass to other pious servants of the church. I don't see a third option that addresses the need for more people to fulfill the functions of priests. If you see one- one that actually allows those functions to be fulfilled and not leave parishes bereft of a local leader- then please outline it.

I think we've discussed covenantal versus dispensational before, but I'm not sure what thread it was on, and I think we're due for a new thread, anyway. This is all just my thinking, so make of it what you will. The "dispensationalism" we learned (renamed "administrations" by vpw) came to us by way of Bullinger. His idea was that history (past, present and future) were divided into times that could be explained in terms of differences in how God related to man. If it's called "administrations", then it's described in governmental terms. "Dispensation" doesn't speak to our minds, and the usage has changed over the last century. Back in twi, I took the same Greek word "oikonomia", and preferred its translation "STEWARDSHIP" over its translation of "administration." With "stewardship" I thought the obvious questions were- what is being stewarded (God's Word, IMHO), and who is acting as stewards? The form of "God's Word" and who were the stewards changed over time. As it turned out, I was thinking more along the lines of basic covenantal rather than dispensational. I see an Almighty God dealing with his stupid, prideful children on the Earth. He gives them things, he warns them about dangers and tells them what to do after "avoid the danger", and He continues to Love His children even though they continue to mess things up across the centuries and millenia. God makes covenants and carries them out, God expects us to keep our end of deals going, and humans invariably mess that up one way or another. BTW, dispensationals don't seem to agree with each other. Outside twi, some of them believe in dozens of dispensations. EWB and vpw both said 7- but vpw disagreed which they were. Both had the original Paradise, then the Patriarchal, then the Law (of Moses) as 1,2 and 3. EWB said the next one was Grace. vpw said the next one was "Christ", which was the year JC preached and healed and so on, followed by "Grace" as #5 (Pentecost and now.) vpw said the next will be the "Revealing" (the apocalypse and so on), ending only after the devil is destroyed at the end of Revelation 21, leading to the final Paradise or "Glory". EWB had said that the Law was in effect until the Ascension- Pentecost, and Grace was #4. That made #5 the "Revealing" (apocalypse), leading to Jesus' victorious reign of 1000 years, which is "MILLENIAL" and #6. That left 7 the same- "Glory." I think the 1000 years is more likely to be an "administration" than the single year, no matter how significant.

More or less, that's what I said (I used more words, not less. ;) )

Oldies, Over the years, I think you've had a continuing problem with the subjects of "fiduciary responsibility" and "risk management" (related concepts.) I think it's an "idea barrier"- something like a "language barrier", but with incompatible IDEAS rather than incompatible WORDS. I will try to explain how they relate here. Simply put, a "fiduciary responsibility" is the responsibility someone has in running a system, a program, etc. The RCC's system of ordination- candidacy and all the steps to ordination- is a program (or set of programs) that is meant for people to go through. The RCC has a fiduciary responsibility to ensure it's safe for the participants, and actually does what it's purported to do (i.e. train their clergy.) Now, "risk management" means to look at a system or program and see where possible dangers lie, and eliminate the risks by redesign or by adding counter-measures specifically to address them. (If the candidates have to ford a shallow creek, risk management will either say to make a little bridge or to relocate what they have to do so they don't cross that creek, for example.) The RCC has a responsibility- one which they've shirked- to go over their program, identify ALL the risks, then do whatever they have to in order to eliminate the risks, or at least minimize the risks. Just because no measure is 100% foolproof- especially against human stupidity- does not mean no measures are taken. So, you sound like you're saying that allowing marriage won't do ANYTHING to the risk of sodomy, and therefore marriage should not be discussed nor instituted. Au contraire. Marriage won't solve ALL the problems, but it will alleviate a few: 1) More responsible candidates would step forward, sure they could serve God as well as have a wife and possibly family. This will reverse the current trend of decreasing numbers of clergy, which is a problem. Alleviating this will mean it will be easier to take a hard line on unfit clergy. The current clergy, to a degree, are worried that their numbers are so small that it may be worse to lose more priests than to keep a "potential" molester in place. With more clergy, they can see what is the greater risk. So, those alone will address 2 problems. Furthermore, by allowing priests to marry and have conjugal relations with their own wives, they will have a solution to problems of how to address persistent lustful desires besides "leave the clergy or molest someone." So, molestation cases will go down, at least in part, with SOME of the motives to molest removed. So, risk management would suggest that allowing clergy to marry MAY be the solution they need. (I say "MAY" because they will need to go over the possible consequences of this, and address them ahead of time. Personally, I think it's worthwhile and sensible, but they may not agree with me. I say the benefits outweigh the handicaps.) ======================== What we DO agree on is that those who realized they couldn't do the job responsibly should have resigned rather than molest, and should have been dumped and charged by police if they refused to resign and chose to molest instead. It's not as if the problem is some kind of secret- everybody knows they're supposed to be celibate long before they submit an application. I know someone who went to Catholic school (not me.) They did a field trip to a place where they train priests- a retreat or something (AFAIK, this is standard, and I was on one such field trip, long ago.) In his case, the clergyman leading the trip addressed him privately, and asked if he'd ever considered Holy Orders. He emphatically said he would never consider it, because clergy had to be celibate for life and there was no way he was going to go along with that. Mildly amused, the clergyman replied that he was glad that he'd already considered that and had taken it into account, since it was better to realize that and not apply than to realize it once one is a candidate. (I'm paraphrasing the words but I have the ideas represented fairly.) I think the RCC is going to need strong measures to fix this- and is going to have to make some permanent changes to fix this. They have the responsibility to do whatever they have to in order to safeguard the flock.

"It is the oldest story in the book- he desires the one thing he cannot have." "You may have killed me, cousin, but my will is done, regardless!" "We have to get the bullets out quickly, or they end up dying on us during questioning. " "What happens to them afterward?" "We put the bullets back in."

I think the actress might be Catherine Mannheim, but even if she is, that's all I've got so far.

Forgive me for hijacking the thread, but whether I'm right or not, we should address the subject of whether or not the Bible thinks celibacy is a bad idea, and I think all the relevant verses are here. Here's how I see these, please correct me as needed..... ============================================== 7 Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. 3 The husband must [a]fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. [No fooling around. Get married instead, and both of you are responsible to relate conjugally with each other.] 5 Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and [b]come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 But this I say by way of concession, not of command. 7 [If you take a break, let it be a brief one and then resume conjugal relations, and that's Paul's best idea.] 7 [c]Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that. [Is Paul suggesting here that he's not married? It seems so to me, and we never see signs that he was married. (Then again, Peter was married and only one verse mentions that.)] 8 But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. 9 But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. Sure looks like he's unmarried NOW. Paul even says here that it's good to remain unmarried if you're not married- but if you can't remain celibate, then marry instead.] 10 But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not [d]leave her husband 11 (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not [e]divorce his wife. 12 But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not [f]divorce her. 13 And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not [g]send her husband away. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through [h]her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. 15 Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called [i]us [j]to peace. 16 For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife? [If you're married, stay married.] 25 Now concerning virgins I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion as one who [n]by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy. 26 I think then that this is good in view of the [o]present distress, that it is good for a man [p]to remain as he is. 27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife. 28 But if you marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. [Still looks like he's saying that it's good to be single (and celibate), and good to marry (and not be celibate.) ] So, I don't see this "you HAVE to be celibate to serve God" thing and think that came later. (Seriously, this "don't have relations with your spouse" thing completely contradicts I Corinthians 7.) I'm aware, however, that someone can read a few verses, take them out of the context of the chapter, and whip up some odd new doctrine.][/b] 32 But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; 33 but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, 34 and his interests are divided. The woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how she may please her husband. 35 This I say for your own benefit; not to put a restraint upon you, but [r]to promote what is appropriate and to secure undistracted devotion to the Lord.

1 Corinthians 7 New American Standard Bible (NASB) Teaching on Marriage 7 Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. 3 The husband must [a]fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and [b]come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 But this I say by way of concession, not of command. 7 [c]Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that. 8 But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. 9 But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. 10 But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not [d]leave her husband 11 (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not [e]divorce his wife. 12 But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not [f]divorce her. 13 And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not [g]send her husband away. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through [h]her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. 15 Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called [i]us [j]to peace. 16 For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife? 17 Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And so I direct in all the churches. 18 Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God. 20 Each man must remain in that [k]condition in which he was called. 21 Were you called while a slave? [l]Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather [m]do that. 22 For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord’s freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ’s slave. 23 You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men. 24 Brethren, each one is to remain with God in that condition in which he was called. 25 Now concerning virgins I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion as one who [n]by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy. 26 I think then that this is good in view of the [o]present distress, that it is good for a man [p]to remain as he is. 27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife. 28 But if you marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Yet such will have [q]trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you. 29 But this I say, brethren, the time has been shortened, so that from now on those who have wives should be as though they had none; 30 and those who weep, as though they did not weep; and those who rejoice, as though they did not rejoice; and those who buy, as though they did not possess; 31 and those who use the world, as though they did not make full use of it; for the form of this world is passing away. 32 But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; 33 but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, 34 and his interests are divided. The woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how she may please her husband. 35 This I say for your own benefit; not to put a restraint upon you, but [r]to promote what is appropriate and to secure undistracted devotion to the Lord. 36 But if any man thinks that he is acting unbecomingly toward his virgin daughter, if she is past her youth, and if it must be so, let him do what he wishes, he does not sin; let [s]her marry. 37 But he who stands firm in his heart, [t]being under no constraint, but has authority [u]over his own will, and has decided this in his own heart, to keep his own virgin daughter, he will do well. 38 So then both he who gives his own virgin daughter in marriage does well, and he who does not give her in marriage will do better. 39 A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if her husband [v]is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. 40 But in my opinion she is happier if she remains as she is; and I think that I also have the Spirit of God.