What does the New Testament say about divorce and remarriage? Is there any ambiguity in what Jesus and Paul said that might point to different interpretations? (Can Scripture have multiple interpretations, and, if so, who's right?)
And further, why do divorce and remarriage get a relative pass from evangelical Christians (they are certainly not trying to outlaw it), while homosexuality is something many of them would like to criminalize?
Starting this thread at Brenda Durham's suggestion, so let's see if she and other anti-gay Christians participate in this discussion.
Ah. Finally. I like it.
One immediate correction though. I'm not "anti-gay" as in anti-any person; I'm anti-homosexuality. I know many people who are gay or support the gay lifestyle, and I love those people just like I love all humans, just like I love anyone who is a drunkard, but I hate their actions. One can love the soul of a person but still hate their actions.
Also....you're still mixing the two subjects. But alright I guess....
I'm with Brenda. So, it makes me hesitant to comment on this thread if it brands me as 'anti-gay'.
"Prejudice and discrimination have social and personal impact. On the social level, prejudice and discrimination against lesbian, gay, and bisexual people are reflected in the everyday stereotypes of members of these groups. These stereotypes persist even though they are not supported by evidence, and they are often used to excuse unequal treatment of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people.
Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding.
Furthermore, it seems likely that the promotion of change therapies reinforces stereotypes and contributes to a negative climate for lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons. This appears to be especially likely for lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals who grow up in more conservative religious settings."
Christian marriage, as I understand it, is about making a commitment to society that two people who want to bond with one another will promise to stay together for the security of children who come along. I don't see why homosexuals feel the need to make that social commitment since their actions won't, in natural law, won't have effect on another person ie; their child/children. We mistake marriage for something personal. It isn't.
That's not true. Plenty of heterosexuals don't have children (they either can't or don't want to) and plenty of gay couples do.
What's not true? That marriage was designed as a promise to society?
Well, I don't know. But if your point is that marriage is about social commitment through childrearing, then many straights should not be allowed to married, and may gays should.
I didn't say anything about 'should'. I thought you asked the question about what it means.
Biblically, 2 people can commit to one another through the grace of God without the need for a church ceremony. We have marriages to protect the rights of children and their mothers from neglect or harm. That is the tradition. Many hetros can't have children its true. If two Catholics get married with the intention to not have children, the marriage is seen as invalid. So it isn't just gays who are discriminated against.
So marriage between a man and a woman is only a commitment to society and marriage is nothing personal. What a strange way of looking at a union. If this is what heterosexual marriage is all about, it might explain why "gay marriage" is so criticised, because it is a union, which is very personal, based on love, not a commitment to society. If this is how straight marriage is viewed by those in it, maybe this is a reason it so often ends in divorce.
Well, its a good idea to be in love if you're going to make such a commitment, since it binds you for life. Why do we celebrate it in front of loads f people and have a lawful certificate to seal the deal if it's personal rather than social?
But if we can make that commitment before God and one another without the validation of the law, why the marriage? My argument is that the origins of marriage are not romantic, or personal but about social stability which has its basis in the family. We have put a Hollywood twist on marriage which has no relevance to the meaning of the thing. It is about obedience to authority both natural and supernatural, for the sake of order and peace.
Are you serious?
What marriage is "good for" has changed countless times throughout history. Mutual interdependence as you see in a married couple does provide a considerably more stable unit that does benefit society. Why two gay people aren't that more stable unit when they're married over being single is something that you might want to explain.
Again, you asked what means by Christian standards and I've told you. If you think marriage should mean something else that's a different argument.
Actually, I don't really understand how society is more stable if two gay people get married. Would it be like two friends promising to be friends forever?
Only if you view two heterosexuals being married as two friends promising to be friends with benefits forever.
Most people find marriage to be a little more than that.
Do they? How come they're divorcing all the time?
ha ha well, that's one way of looking at it.
Honestly, I think that my best friend and I could definately have provided more stability and been better parents to our kids then either of our heterosexual marriages provided. She's not really my type though.
Ok, thanks for answering my question. You're not serious.
I actually agree with you... sort of.
Marriage is good for society and stability and that is probably one of the main reasons that the bible is so gung ho on it. Several piece of scripture have more to do with society than the kingdom of God. (I'll digress here because its a completely different debate)
Its unreasonable, however, to expect a marriage to be all about the support of society and children. It actually does more damage to society if there isn't at least a strong friendship involved, love is a pretty ideal goal here.
Thats one of the reasons that I support Gay marriage. I think that happiness in a marriage leads to longer marriages and MORE stability. If you are gay and trying to "play straight" then the marriage is a ticking time bomb.
Brenda Durham: The Bible is very specific about divorce.
Almighty God tells us the following:
DEUTERONOMY:24:1; "When a man taketh a wife and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write a 'Bill of Divorcement' and give it to her in her hand and send her out of his house. Almighty God is dealing here with fornication, adultery.
Jesus tells us:
MATTHEW:5:32 "But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced, committeth adultery."
MATTHEW:19:9; "And I say unto you, whosoever shall put away his wife except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her which is put away, doth commit adultery.
Almighty God only recognizes adultery as reason for divorce and Jesus the Son of God only recognizes Adultery as the only reason for a decree of divorce.
Fornication (porneia) is different from adultery (moichai).
So, your last statement should read:
Almighty God only recognizes fornication (pre-marital sex) as reason for divorce and Jesus the Son of God only recognizes fornication as the only reason for a decree of divorce.
It matters not which Greek word you wish to use. Adultery is against God's Law AND pre-marital sex is too. Obviously pre-marital sex would not be adultery, unless one of the partners happened not to be married.
My point is adultery (cheating during a marriage) is not grounds for a divorce, only fornication (pre-marital sex) is.
Looking at Scriptures in both Old and New Testaments, it's clear that fornication doesn't define just pre-marital sex. In 2Chronicles 21: 6, and 21: 11, we're told how Jehoram, king of Judah, married the daughter of Ahab, an Israeli king who did evil, and "caused the inhabitants of Jerusalem to commit fornication".....
Best I've figured out, that means he committed fornication by marrying the woman. Literal and spiritual fornication both perhaps.
Even in the New Testament, 1Corinthians 5: 1 talks about how there was fornication among the church members, specifically a man who "had" his father's wife (the footnotes say, if one is to believe the scholars' interpretations, that the man married his stepmother.) That indicates that fornication can be premarital sex OR can be incestuous relationships or perhaps other unfaithfulness to God's laws.
Isaiah 23:17 talks about a whole city, Tyre, which would commit fornication with "all the kingdoms of the world"...
That would indicate that fornication can mean unfaithfulness, spirtual unfaithfulness (including maybe marrying people of other cities who weren't following God), not just sexual immorality.
It would seem to me that "fornication" defines a wider range of activity than just pre-marital sex and can mean sexual immorality of other sorts as well as unfaithfulness to God. At least that's how I read it. Interesting topic of discussion. Are fornication and adultery's terms interchangeable?....or is fornication the act itself while adultery is unfaithfulness to someone? I'm wondering. If a married man cheats on his wife with a single woman, the single woman has committed fornication but not adultery; but the married man has committed both fornication and adultery, it would seem....
Well, yes, Brenda, the word "fornicate" can be used figuratively in any language when it's clear the context is not interpersonal or sexual at all. When you're talking about a city acting like a harlot and "fornicating", we're not concerned whether it's a pre-marital or post-marital act. (This is for Isaiah) In the Hebrew texts, it's translated as "doing commerce with" precisely for this reason. BTW the Hebrew word for fornication is "zanah."
In Chronicles, the words in Hebrew used were actually "vaiyaas hara" (do evil) and "vaiyezen" (to play, go astray), which are not "zanah." Chalk that up to poor translation by King James, who probably used a corrupted Greek or Vulgate Latin version, not the original Masoretic text.
For the New Testament pieces, I would read this very, very in-depth but eminently readable treatise on the subject (including the conclusion by Herbert Armstrong):
http://www.t-cog.org/Articles/COG-Meani … orneia.htm
You can't fault the logic of his argument, even if you don't like what it says.
Not a bad article. Most of it confirms what I've already said! I don't necessarily agree with Armstrong on the context of the verse about "except for the cause of fornication" however. And at any rate, I've already said that I've committed sin in my lifetime, and that includes the way I remarried. I've not been trying to make up excuses for sin. What I am doing is telling you something over and over that you refuse to see----that there is forgiveness upon repentance for ALL sins except the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. I was in a backslidden condition, rebellious against God, at a point in my life. The good news is that God can cleanse people's souls from all unrighteousness. That includes the sins of divorce, remarriage, etc. To say that I could never get forgiveness would be to deny the power of God. ...And that....might just be blasphemy against the Holy Spirit! I do know it would be a sin! Most Christians aren't sure exactly what blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is, but I do know I don't wanna find out by trying it!
That is what's lacking in the article as well, the fact that a fornicator or adulterer/adulteress can be cleansed. Yes, even in the middle of their second marriage or whatever. The union of a man and woman can be sanctioned, no matter what their past is. It is the sexual union of two men or two women, however, that cannot be sanctioned. Marriage as willed by God is good; even marriage that happened outside of His will can be sanctioned. But He never willed for coupling, much less marriage, to consist of two same-gendered people.
1Corinthians 6: 9-11:
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
And such were some of you; but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."
A forgiven person is no longer a fornicator or an adulterer/ess, or thief, or drunkard, etc. because they become a new creature in Christ. That growth is sometimes progressive. But it sets the heart on things above and not on condemnation of ourselves for our past sins.
I'm no longer an adulteress or fornicator like you keep insisting that I am. Praise God! Because His blood's powerful and His mercy is great. Because of that, I'm no longer considered a sinner in the eyes of God; I'm a child of the Most High!
What are unrepentant homosexuals? Just as any other unrepentant sinner---- Unwilling to acknowledge their sin, that's the condition they're in. The Holy Spirit is the convincer of sin. To deny Him could be blasphemy too. As I said, I don't want to find out. The salvation concept is like this----acknowlegement and repentance brings forgiveness and salvation! And if one stays the course of Faith, ultimate salvation.
Wow! Praise God! Thank you Brenda for allowing God to have his way in this powerful message. God's love and forgiveness is beautiful!
I have read this whole thread with an open mind. I am aware of how the Bible was put together and I realize that it was written by man , not God. For the record, I am a beliver in God and Jesus, but my views are quite different from traditional beliefs. But... if you are inclined to take the Bible as a literal word of God then you cannot pick and choose how to excuse your behavior while condeming others.
It amazes me how you are able to state that God can sanction your adultress marriage but not a union between man and man. According to scriptures, God considers no sin above another. When you married your first husband you took a vow before God that you would keep yourself only to him until death do you part. Therefore, he is your only husband in the eyes of God until death do you part. So having sex with ANY other man (including your second husband) is an adultress act every time it occurs. So while you received forgiveness for your past adultry, you are still committing adultry and sinning.
While the scriptures say you can divorce , it does not say it is OK to remarry or have sex with other men. Otherwise, you continue to break your vow taken before God. You can't have it both ways. If your marriage is forgiven, then so is the union between man and man. A sinful state is a sinful state, no matter the cause.
Forgiveness is freely given by God to all. Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone. We are all sinners (usually on a daily basis) such as lying to your boss, keeping property we know does not belong to us, ect.... The saying look to the log in your own eye before you point out the splinter in another, is apt.
Brenda, my Greek-English lexicon for the N.T. agrees with your conclusion that fornication is sexual immorality of any kind:
porneÀw; kporneÀw; porne°a, av f : to engage in sexual immorality of any kind, often with the implication of prostitution - ‘to engage in illicit sex, to commit fornication, sexual immorality, fornication, prostitution.’
Sorry, but I asked you earlier if you had ever been divorced, Ms. Dee. I may have missed your response so I though I would inquire again. No big deal, just wondering.
with all do respect on this topic. I have been divorced once and have re married a wonderful man. In my heart he is my first husband. In reality the first husband was abusive and I am sure God understands and will forgive me for being so stupid in marrying the first one. When I allowed God to send me the man that I was to marry for life, I did. And I have been very happy and blessed these 7 years with him! Married four.
I believe the Bible states that the only justifiable reason for a divorce is Adultery by one of the folks..and..i don't think Lesbianism is really even thought of as nearly as ugly and abominable as male homosexuality..Personally I think both lifestyles are wrong but I try to just try to keep my ugly ways and means out of front page news ..As far as will homosexuals go to heaven..It is my understanding that the entire issue of ones eternal home is If the person has asked Jesus to be his or her savior and Lord..That is the entire enchilada
Hopefully there are others who'd like to post responses.
For now, I'll input something that you livelonger still like to ignore----repentance and forgiveness. And the fact that one must take the entire jist of the Bible into account when interpreting. For instance, if the Westboro Church would take into account the fact that God loves everyone, instead of just going by specific Scriptures that say homosexuality is an abomination, then they wouldn't have the gall to hold up signs saying God hates ANYONE at all. Yes, it's an abomination, but the Bible clearly says in multiple places that it can be forgiven upon repentance.
Same with the "adultery" of remarriage.
And indeed there are two people in a marriage. What does the Bible say? "He who putteth her away causeth her to commit adultery"? Let's be specific here.....I'll go look it up unless you have the exact quote.
well put, Brenda! Just because sin is called sin, doesn't mean Christians are condemning and rejecting sinners. God is the judge. We're all sinners and need mercy and grace and forgiveness. We're not the ones who determine what is sin and what is not.
Why, then, is civil divorce and remarriage entirely acceptable to evangelical Christians, and even sanctioned by most evangelical churches, while homosexuality and gay marriage is sought to be criminalized and/or forbidden (on religious grounds)?
This has got to be a rhetorical question, LL.
The answer is obvious!
Because one is marriage between a man and a woman
(we'll stick to that one-on-one definition rather than edge into plural marriage by FLDS who may or may not be considered "Christian," depending on one's viewpoint).
The other is marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman, and thus an abomination against God and humanity.
No, one is a tacit acceptance by the church that the re-married couple will commit adultery and is thereby condoned.
The other is a homosexual couple and is not condoned.
One sin is OK while the other is not?
That is because it is not the marraige in the case of the homosexual couple that is sinful... but the lifestyle of homosexuality itself.
So?... What would make you think they are the same.
The anology is a failure. Divorce and homosexuality are two different animals.
And I know all sin is sin and wieghs the same.
My point is that the sin of one is the act of divorce, and the other the act of homosexuality... not the same. The act must be left aside and action taken to correct it... not marry it and commit it every day.
What kind of logic is this BS about divorce, remarraige, and homosexuality... a red herring.
And once more the point is ignored. The church does not provide the divorce; they provide the second marriage which they KNOW will result in continuing episodes of adultery. Adultery is a sin which the church is promoting as OK.
No, adultery does not equal homosexuality, but it a sin just the same. The question is, and remains, why would the church promote, facilitate and accept one sin as perfectly OK but not the other? The only thing I can think of is that in this day and age of massive numbers of divorces they would lose a great number of coppers in their collection plates if they alienated the divorced crowd.
The sin is not the act of divorce necessarily.
The sin is the adultery caused by the second marriage.
I don't see the second marraige as adultery once repentance and forgiveness is sought and found.
I see it as a new try.
We are not to live in the past... but to move forward, to grow and learn. "Progress" is a term you understand. You learn from your mistakes, flaws and failures, and grow and learn as you go.
You should love God's progressive agenda, Bruce. It is all you.
His agenda doesn't follow the Mason Rules for Sinless Living. He says the remarriage puts the new couple in a sinful state. Try to spin out of it, like the church has, but that's The Word.
Mason has no rules for sinless living.
I simply do the best I can in this world. And I do not go out and seek immorality for pleasure, nor do I set out to lie, cheat, steal, commit adultery, or many other things each day.
I simply try... I try, and ask for guidance and repent for those things I do wrong or fail at living up to.
I do not embrace sin, mine or any others, and live at as though it is my only pupose in life.
But that is the way of the church. If you don't like the rules simply re-interpret them into something more civilized and current society will accept.
Divorce and re-marriage is quite acceptable to modern society and therefore the church must find a reason that God intended all along to make it so. We just didn't understand before the new interpretation.
livelonger, one is about who naturally is to marry who as instituted by God to form the institution of a family. The other is about what to do when one in such a relationship sins and does not repent.
They're both considered sins, and not part of God's design...according to Christian scripture. When you get remarried, you are in a state of unrepentant sin (the only way by Christian doctrine to truly repent is to reconcile with your first spouse). Getting remarried is not a momentary sin; it is a state of sin.
Why are you OK with a legalized state of adultery? What was unclear about what Jesus said repeatedly in the Bible on the matter?
It is impossible to decide the rights or wrongs of former marriages without being intimately involved with both sides during the actual breakups.
Sin can be forgiven. I would not forbid a repentant murderer from joining the church, and so I cannot say a repentant adulterer should be forbidden from marrying in the church.
That first statement is, again, very liberal. You do understand what Christian doctrine (i.e. what the Bible says) is on the matter, right? If you go by what Jesus said, repeatedly, then divorce and remarriage are not sanctioned.
As for your latter: living in a state of sin, like a second marriage, is to continue to commit the same sin (adultery) over and over again and thus be unrepentant. Again, the Bible is abundantly clear about this. The way to repent is to return to your first spouse.
It is not a liberal view. It is a view that is consistent with all that Jesus and Paul confirmed about the four O.T. grounds for divorce and remarriage, while emphasizing that divorce should be avoided whenever possible and that believers should go the extra mile in trying to maintain a marriage. They allowed divorce on specific grounds from the O.T. and rejected the no-fault divorces all first century readers understood of the Hillelites and of the Greco-Roman culture.
You're again putting words in the mouth of Jesus and Paul.
"should avoid it whenever possible"
You can refer to these crystal-clear, repetitive-for-a-reason passages instead:
Matthew 5: 31-32
I'm afraid, livelonger, that you however are taking all these passages out of context, their original context.
Really? They're crystal clear.
There's a pretty strong historical/cultural context to Leviticus 18:22 (and other supposed anti-gay Biblical prohibitions), too, but to really understand that would require you to look at the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
It is a sincere question, livelonger. Have you yourself done that?
Also, I was not discussing your homosexual issue here. It confuses the discussion when you mix other issues in. Are you wanting a response on the passages you list having to do with divorce?
What I'm trying to suggest is an overall view of scripture. Scripture helps interpret scripture. They are connected to each other to provide an overall view.
And if I'm not mistaken, America's laws have been recognizing that. Isn't it required now at least in some States that couples go through counseling before divorcing, especially if they have children? I'll have to go look that up maybe...
Someone in the other thread mentioned that and asked why Christians don't try to actively cut down on the number of divorces. When I think of it, I often would wish that I and my husband had been required (or at least strongly cautioned) to take counseling sessions. A person in the situation is usually so confused and hurt and angry that they do need someone to make them stop and think twice (or more, even, since I thought twice about it anyway as most do) before dissolving a marital union, even if there's infidelity involved. And children are hurt by divorce much more than a couple sometimes realizes at the time.
There is no easy answer. There is only repentance and forgiveness in God's eyes. And when the deed is done and over, one must move on finally, because to live in the past is a sin in itself. Upon repentance, God removes our sins as far as the east is from the west. Divorced Christians have to do the same at some point.
You have explained it very well Brenda.
Here's part of the subject:
Matthew 5: 32:
"But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery; and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery".
Do you suppose that applies to the the wife who divorces her husband because HE cheated? I would think so. Unless of course one believes the husband can disrespect the wife and she just has to take it without responding. Hmmm...I don't hold to the view that the wife has no recourse. Because, first of all, the commandment God gives to the husbands is to love their wives and treat her right. So, his responsibility actually comes first. He is supposed to be her covering, her protector, her leader, and guide the relationship in a Godly manner first and foremost. I wonder where Adam was when the serpent tempted Eve? Why did he leave her alone, unprotected? Did he know there was an evil serpent in the Garden? Both he and Eve had been warned not to eat of the tree. But perhaps he was just out doing his work of dominating the animal kingdom.......
At any rate, why did he eat of the tree after Eve did, since he knew it was a sin? Was it to share the blame, or was it because he could say she tempted him?
At another rate (lol), even though one verse in the Bible says Eve was in the transgression, other places tell us that Adam sinned also.
And therein lies the difficulty many people have with interpreting the Bible on certain subjects. All points must be taken into consideration. Especially the point about repentance and forgiveness. I'm convinced that Adam and Eve were forgiven, since they were ashamed of what they had done and were driven from the Garden and they accepted their punishment.
Same with divorce. We are punished for it, no matter who caused the other to sin. But the foundation of the significance and sanction of marriage between a man and a woman stayed intact in God's eyes. Marriage was still between a man and woman and was good and natural.
What recourse does a wronged spouse have? The Bible says it's better to marry than to burn. So....a woman or man who gets wronged by a spouse and divorces can stay celibate....or what? If they desire a mate and their natural inclination to mate is so strong that they'd be committing ANOTHER sin by remaining celibate (tempted to fornicate or self-pleasure), then that only adds to the confusion and gives them no hope of forgiveness! Would God make them suffer that way?
So they can remarry their former spouse. Really? What if that spouse is already remarried, or refuses to reconcile? Does God really back us into a corner so rigidly? What if the spouse doesn't repent of his wrong to his wife?
The Bible talks about the unbelieving spouse who leaves his/her spouse. It says a brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases. Which means we cannot impose the divine standard upon the unregenerate. The unregenerate would, I believe, apply to the unrepentant cheating spouse. This leaves the spouse free.
Wow. I'm talkin' my head off and nobody's responding to this topic. Well, still, I'm getting into it. Bring it on. Or is everyone convinced that divorced women are incapable of getting forgiveness, that I am forever stamped with a scarlet letter? Is everyone afraid to talk about this subject? Is every other Christian who's been divorced afraid livelonger will stamp them with the big scarlet letter too?
I'm not giving up. I'll check back tomorrow or whenever I can.
'Nighty night meself.
Or anyone awake. lol. later!
Brenda, I've read all of your posts and I would like to ask you a question. You have spent a great deal of effort justifying your actions and explaining why, even though the Bible labeled remarriage adultery, it isn't really. Not in your case.
Have you spent anywhere near that amount of time attempting to look at the the subject of homosexuality which you choose to label sin and find a way to understand how it isn't any more unacceptable than divorce?
Don't take this the wrong way. I think the labeling of divorced people as adulterers is uncaring and callous, but I also think this stand against homosexuality falls under the same heading.
"But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery"
In other words, if a man divorces an innocent wife, she is no longer innocent. She is an adulteress by definition. That is typical of the anti-woman bias that pervades the whole bible and is reason enough for rational people to stop looking to that old book for moral authority.
I've found that line of argumentation doesn't really work. Trying to convince someone who considers him/herself a devout Christian that Christianity is bunk doesn't go anywhere. What's far more effective is pointing out they're not nearly as devout as they'd like to think by using the only source they're willing to respect.
So in the New Testament it says that a man can divorce his wife for some reason or other? That particular lesson must have passed me by.
You said you thought that was OT. I said, no, it wasn't, and gave you the NT passage to refer to.
Sorry, I meant that I don't know what the passage means. I'm not a Bible worshiper, I'm afraid.
Those are the words of the one you call Jesus lizzieboo. You do know who that is?
I don't mean to sound unkind, but you can't be serious. You have no interest in knowing the words of the one the religion is named for?
Don't bring Jesus into the discussion, it usually confuses Christians.
I never mentioned being uninterested. I want to know WTF it means. Nobody can have a discussion on this forum without putting a set of bloody numbers at the end of everything. Have you all got your King James Bibles next to you so you can quote it at any time? And what's with the Elizabethan English everyone uses? It's ridiculous. I don't get "...who so-ever shall put away his wife...causes her to commit adultery.." I don't get it. And if someone quotes something why should I have to go and look the bugger up?
They are quoting King James, it sounds like. It's the easiest translation to Google.
What I got from that whole discourse was simply a damned if you do, damned if you don't thing. He was talking about several of the different Mosaic laws. The whole point of the discussion seemed to be showing that by the law, we will all end up sinning.
I doubt if many would agree.
Don't worry, most Christians have no idea what the Bible means, so you are not alone.
Brenda: You're starting with an assumption, that fornication is the same thing as adultery. If that were the case, it would read "...saving for the cause of adultery, causeth her to commit adultery" in its English translation, which is not the case. It would also mean that Jesus simply agreed with the school of Shammai's grounds for divorce, which he didn't.
Fornication is sexual relations between unmarried people. What Jesus is referring to here is if the husband finds out during the betrothal period that his wife-to-be was, in fact, not a virgin, and thus had fornicated. This was the only "out" of a marriage according to Jesus. (Paul added another; if 2 non-Christians are married, and one converts to Christianity and the other doesn't, then the Christian can leave the marriage)
So adultery (sexual relations involving a married person) is not grounds for divorce according to Jesus. The couple may separate, but not divorce and certainly not remarry. The only other option is to reconcile.
Since this is abundantly clear from the Scripture, why are evangelical Christians not trying to ban divorce and remarriage, since it's clearly a condemnable sin by Jesus?
Like Brenda has been saying, it is more a matter of whether or not there is repentance. If there is, then there can be forgiveness.
"The emphasis of the New Testament is against divorce unless it is truly necessary. Jesus and Paul teach against the no-fault divorce procedures of Jewish and Greco-Roman societies, respectively.Christians should never cause a divorce by breaking marriage vows and are encouraged to forgive their partners as long as that partner repents. These conclusions depend on reading the N.T. text through the eyes of a first-century believer. The modern church minister should concentrate on keeping marriage together but also should support those who have gone through the pain of divorce, enabling them to remarry after finding forgiveness." From the book "Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible".
In line with the studies in this book, I also think that if an unbelieving spouse breaks his or her marriage vows an is unrepentant, the believing spouse can biblically agree to divorce. Breaking the vows is more than just physically (adultery, pornography addiction, etc.) but also the vows to take care of and cherish, etc.
Thanks for posting that explanation. I still can't help but think that if Christians marry, they are doing so for life in the eyes of their God and that the marriage must work because it is a marriage in which Christians believe God put them together.
A divorce would then signify that God was wrong in his decision to put them together, so the explanation seems like they are having their cake and eating it too.
You have free will, troub.
If you choose to marry someone it is your choice, not Gods.
God does not pre-ordain your fate... He works within and around your choices, decisions, and actions, so when it fails... it is not God's choice which has failed, but your own.
I'm having a difficult time understanding that. If God "works within and around your choices, decisions, and actions" what does he do exactly that is of any import? If I have free will and my choices are my own and God cannot be held responsible, what is the point of God?
A Troubled Man, like TMMason points out, since people have free will in God's eyes, this makes the issue more complex. By complex I'm thinking of a situation I know of where the person really thought God would have him/her marry someone. Then after marriage found out that other person had chosen to go in another direction, contrary to what had been promised before the wedding. I think it is the other person who failed and was actually deceitful, and not God.
What is the point of God? Well, he does not micro-manage, but provides a way of salvation from this world that is beyond death. The point of God is that there is more than this world that we see with our eyes. If you think what you see is all there is, then I can see you saying there is no "point of God".
That sounds like a very liberal interpretation of the Bible's rules on divorce.
Contrast that with a very strict interpretation of the Bible's rules on homosexuality by you, Brenda, and others.
Why is it OK to have a liberal interpretation on one issue, and a strict/conservative interpretation on another? Shouldn't you at least be consistent?
I'm getting lost in this thread. Which statement are you referring to as sounding very liberal?
"The modern church minister should ... support those who have gone through the pain of divorce, enabling them to remarry after finding forgiveness."
That would be a liberal Christian minister ("modern" I guess is a less politically-charged euphemism). A strict, conservative one would tell those divorced people they have 2 options: separate (but stay married) or reconcile. They would never, ever tell the person to divorce, much less remarry.
"I also think that if an unbelieving spouse breaks his or her marriage vows an is unrepentant, the believing spouse can biblically agree to divorce. Breaking the vows is more than just physically (adultery, pornography addiction, etc.) but also the vows to take care of and cherish, etc."
That's just your opinion, or the opinion of the person who wrote that book you like. Neither are the word of Jesus in the New Testament.
I do not think your statement is true that any conservative minister would tell divorced people they have only those two options. I've seen many instances of more options.
The overall emphasis of the NT calls believers to a very high view of marriage. The believer is to commit him/herself completely to marriage, even putting up with repeated breaking of marriage vows by a weak partner. *If* the partner is hard-hearted, though, and doesn't genuinely repent an struggle to change one's ways, the biblical solution is divorce. Jesus did not naively assume that everyone would be perfect, and Paul realized there were special problems when a believer was married to an unbeliever, or to someone who acted like an unbeliever. Christians are called to suffer in marriage, if necessary, but they are also given a solution, if necessary.
Amen, Ms Dee.
I think this may be too much logic for them tough. They have stopped teaching critical reasoning skills in High School and College... so it will be a painful experience for some.
All that common sense may kill off some of the weaker minds.
I don't know how to add on here a wry-smileyface in response, but that is what is on my face right now. Yes, it is a very complex issue that takes a lot of exegetical study of the cultural context back then. There is so much misunderstanding out there. sigh
I totally agree with you livelonger. The emphasis is inconsistant. You cannot bring down the house that one thing is wrong and then say 'hey, I'm a work in progress' when it comes to divorce.
I think Malachi said it best.
“For the man who does not love his wife but divorces her, says the Lord, the God of Israel, covers his garment with violence, says the Lord of hosts. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and do not be faithless."
But the fact is you can repent for your sins, and try your best to sin no more. So I would think a Christain who gets divorced may then find repentance and seek forgiveness for it, and never divorce again.
A serial divorcer would be no more sinless that a homosexual who repents and then continues to act in that way, or one who thinks it is okay and he will be forgiven anyways, so no biggie he can keep on in his ways. Wrong, you cannot keep doing it with blatent dis-regard and think there will be no wages earned for that, or any other, sinful attitude and act.
The point is we are all flawed and we all fail and sin, but you are to repent and try your best not to sin anymore. Not ignore the fact that you'r sinning, or embrace it and thrive in it.... that is just wrong.
You all know what Christ said when he forgave someone... "Your sins are forgiven you, now go your way and sin no more.
He did not say go ahead and have at it... don't worry about it.
No... not in the least.
Malichi also speaks more directly to todays immorality and flagrant un-natural behaviours, and the acceptance of that behaviour and immorality by society and the church.
"You have wearied the Lord with your words. But you say, “How have we wearied him?” By saying, “Everyone who does evil is good in the sight of the Lord, and he delights in them.” Or by asking, “Where is the God of justice?”
All you lil Atheists can cry all you want, and all you christians who think you can embrace that behaviour can scream all you want... but unsless you'r trying to correct yourself, then you are not going to be in good standing with god.
We cannot just accept that, or any sinful behaviour, as moral and correct and embrace it, and teach our children it is fine to do and practice because God will let it slide.
Anyone who thinks you can, has a rude awakening coming.
For a religion that says no one can know the mind of God, you guys spend an exorbitant amount of time proving you don't believe that.
Why bother saying you follow the Bible if you're simply going to justify away the behavior you don't personally want to consider sin?
And where have I justified any, nor condemned any, that was not done so, in the Bible?
I try my best not to sin, but yes I fail at that some times, we all do. But that doesn't mean you run headlong into and embrace and accept all sin, or any sin, as correct moral and aceeptable, E.
And no... no man can know the mind of God. But all men, even you, can know what he thinks of certain things.
Read the Bible.
He has told you what he thinks of things.
And how r u 2 day E?
I'm fine. Hope you had a nice visit with the baby.
I was not attempting to imply you thought you did not sin, that was the point. By the definitions as set by Christianity, we all sin. Every day. Why rail against what you perceive as a particular sin of others? No one is asking anyone to' embrace', as you put it, anything.
It simply seems odd that religious people make a lot of excuses why their sins are either justified, or forgiven. Those are the excuses each individual makes for themselves, in their own minds. Why can't the religious give people the latitude to do the same, for themselves. If you aren't fairly judging your own actions, maybe you aren't fairly judging the actions of others?
By asking society to embrace it, I by explicit participation, being a member of this society, am being asked accept it. By allowing it into our schools, and teaching our children it is moral and acceptable, I am being forced to condone and accept it.
And that is unacceptable.
And it is not that, "poof" your sins disappear because you ask for forgiveness. You must try... repent and try... that is what is asked. Not embrace and accept your sins. Accept you are sinning and correct it.
I don't think anyone is expecting your "explicit participation" in homosexuality. LOL!!!
What you are expected to do is give others their rights and not make their lives miserable by treating them as a pariah. They have the same responsiblity to you.
Your rights end at their nose.
Another way the Fruits of the Spirit will enrich your life.
You know, I could make a pretty convincing argument about who's responsibility it is to educate children... according to the bible.
So basically, if you don't like the way that the school system works, do what God wanted you to do in the first place... Educate your own damn kids. If that responsibility is too onerous for you then don't blame others when THEY don't raise YOUR kids the way that YOU want.
Don't open up that can of worms. There's already enough zealots brain waging their kids. Schools are the only sanity they have access too.
This is not directed at you. I know you home school and you sound like you've got a good handle on the God question. But we don't need the pentecostals and fundamentalists raising another generation of people with backwoods rhetoric.
LOL, but you have no idea how annoying the zealots are to the poor teachers that are trying to do their jobs. I have a couple friends that are teachers in public school systems that deal with them every day.
I wouldn't worry too much about brain washing... the kids will enter the real world at some point. Since they will be completely ignorant of the way it really works they will be pregnant lesbian drug addicts within a couple months.
Hell I want to be a gay man just to piss TM off and he's not even related to me.
Being gay doesn't piss me off.
I simply do not accept the immoral, unatural, or deviant, for normal, moral, and natural.
You can do what-ever you want, you have that right. Just do not expect to force society, or any other, to accept your behaviour as anything other than what it is.
See how that works?
I can hate a thing someone does, and not hate that person.
I don't like what heroin addicts do, but I don't hate them. I pity them and wish them well, but I do not condone and support their actions. Same with thieves, liars, molesters, etc.
My children were schooled out-side the public system. So keep your advice.
And there are many kids who parents cannot afford to, or they do not have the where-with-all to educate them themselves. Those kids are trapped in the public Govt schools, and thus trapped in the agendas.
See how that works?
And if you do not send your kid to school, you go to jail.
So that BS about it is your choice is just that, BS.
What crap. Homeschooling is legal in almost every country. Its normal in many. So jail? Please.
As far as finances-don't give me that crap either. If fundies have the time and money to picket funerals then they can most certainly dedicate it to their children instead of their "causes"
According to the bible, it is YOUR responsibility to educate your children as it is mine. If you cannot spend the time doing it then you damn sure shouldn't bitch about other's doing it wrong.
AND FUTHERMORE, the school system is not required to teach to a minority point of view. You views and the views of the fundies are NOT majority. The world doesn't agree with you and shouldn't have to teach views that the majority of educated parents consider warped.
If you do not home-school your children to the the states standards, which many parents cannot... and you do not send them to private school which few can, and they do not go to the public school, you go to jail.
Many out there are incapable of teaching their children, either they do not have the time, or the know how.
What part of that don't you get?
You cannot just pull your kid out of public school and home-school him at your lesure. You have to keep up with their standards and time frame. That is a fact.
And as I said, if you do not send them to a private school, they better be attending the public one or you go to jail.
And I am far from the minority view.
Too bad if you do not like it.
Gee you sound like a teacher who isn't being listened to by her class. Throw a fit much.
And there is currently a huge push by the NEA and DOE to get rid of home-schooling.
And your last remark is what? An attempt to call all Christians a part of the westborough bapti crowd... please. Give it a break already.
Wow, you really don't have any idea what you are talking about do you?
Even "unschooling" is considered an acceptable form of education. Very very few states have specific requirements-especially testing-any more. The HSLDA has pretty much got them running scared about putting ANY limits on how and where you homeschool... so um... yeah you can take your child out of school at your leisure.
And if you weren't the minority view then everything would be going your way...
Don't try looking down your nose at me TM, you aren't tall enough.
I actually know what I am talking about Your failings as a "christian parent" aside, I'm sure god will forgive you... especially with all the time you spend preaching your..er.. I mean his agenda.
Massachusetts has been suing home-schoolers, along with other states, for years to cease it.
So that all is clear BS, is a joke.
And you know nothing about my parenting. My children are doing just fine and making their way great... not collecting welfare and waiting on the Govt to hold their hands and tell them what to do.
And I haven't even looked at you... never mind down anything.
You are not all you think. So back to reallity.
And I do not see where things are not going my way. Conservatives hold 1/2 of 1/3rd of the Govt, and we are running the show. Wait till 2012... gonna be fun.
ROFLMAO, conservative is not the same as zealot. Yes republicans may take power, but not based on social views but because of the fiscal issues. And on that, republicans may very well be the best suited to deal with the budget.
However, any social issues-including abortion, gay rights...etc. that you all try to write laws on will be quickly and effectively squished by the third branch of the government...
And academia will laugh at any attempt to teach your version of morals in the public school system.
Republicans will be in power, my prediction, 4 years. Long enough to do the budget then back to democrats. Have fun with that.
Oh we are coming to take our schools back... along with all the other social institution that have been stolen.
I am sure we will find you there among the Unionists Communists, and Socialists, preaching Marx and screaming about the haves and have nots... and the abomination of white oppression and unfairness of American society....blah blah blah.
Yup... you have been pegged, teacher.
Don't worry I will bring you an apple so you won't starve on the unemploymnent line after your Unions wastes all your monies in the elections.
You definitely sound like a teacher to me... like some others I have met. Most don't ever want to admit till forced to though... so. I could never figure out what they were so ashamed of that they wouldn't want to admit it.
I'm a homeschooler, so yes I am a teacher. Degree one is in law and degree two English. Neither is an education degree. But it is hilarious that someone would use the word "teacher" as an insult.
I suppose "spreader of ignorance" is a compliment to you?
Many many christians really do know they are sinners and are unwilling to cast stones. If I am going to rally against a specific sin, its going to be one of the biggies...
"Thou shalt not pick up hitchhikers, cut their bodies into bits and serve them at a roadside hamburger stand" for instance. Or "Thou shalt not beat up old people and leave them to die for a $600 social security check" or even "Thou shall have the common decency to give a starving homeless man a meal every now and then"
"Two consenting adults shalt not bugger each other of their own free will in the privacy of their home because it upsets those who really need to be buggered by SOMEBODY" doesn't even rank on my list of spiritual issues to be considered.
I've sinned, I'll sin again, I'll ask forgiveness and because the trinity made me and knows I'm flawed they will forgive me. I'll try not to let them down again, but I probably will.
With all that I am trying to fix myself, how the hell am I qualified to play "God's Police Officer" to everyone else on the planet?
Exactly. I do realize that the lion's share of christian's get this point, but the vocal right wing minority is a heck of an irritant.
Judge not lest ye be judged.
As you point out, Melissa, there is a hierarchy of sinful activities/actions. Some are sins of commission and some are sins of omission.
All sins are not created equal (mortal and venial are two different levels -- if you believe in such things).
This obsession with other people's sex lives is really Puritanical (read: antiquated).
If people want to live in fear of some so-called "homosexual agenda" let them get their panties twisted in a bunch and hide in their churches.
Me, I'm a lot more concerned with real crimes (read: sins) that actually hurt people.
As to the discussion at hand I'll divide the two issues.
MARRIAGE: The Mosaic law says that anyone who divorces their spouse except for marital unfaithfulness (this includes the breaking of the vows to care for and look after one another - ie, "if anyone divorces their spouse because they feel like it") they are guilty of sinning against the covenant. As the marriage covenant is meant to mirror the covenant between God and humans, it is regarding with extreme gravity in the Bible - but God does make allowance for it under those strict circumstances because He understand people are broken and are capable of hurting one another in irreparable ways. It is not an excuse, but a compassionate concession from a God who understands how far we've fallen. No mistake, the breaking of a marriage is a painful thing that rests on the sinfulness of man, and the Bible is very serious about whereas modern Evangelicals are not. But that is one of the many reasons Christ sacrificed himself - so that our sin and its consequences would not leave us separated from Him.
HOMOSEXUALITY: Nowhere in Scripture does it say homosexuality is a sin, but the phrase used is "homosexual offenders." This refers to someone who knows the Levitical law, understand God's stance that homosexual relations are unnatural and unfit for human beings, and continues to pursue such a lifestyle anyway. It is a display of loving one's own body and pleasure more than one's identity and ability to overcome in Christ. God is very clear - homosexual relations are off-limits to his children and the covenant of marriage was instituted to exhibit His church and nature between a man and woman. But the homosexual and even the "homosexual offender" is not cast into the dark - it is very clear in Hebrews that God cherishes every person and that in Christ we have a perfect savior who provides resistance to temptation and the ability to overcome everything in ourselves that is displeasing to the Father.
This leads right into A Troubled Man's question: the fact is that, in the Bible, divine sovereignty (God's control over everything) more often than not acts jointly with human responsibility. God's purpose is not to get us to follow all the rules, but to follow and love Him - love requires freedom and, in many ways, it requires mistakes. So the "point of God" is not that he plays us like puppet strings but that He is worth of praise because he made us, gave us a measure of freedom by his wisdom so that we could truly love him, and that He sacrificed for us when we used that freedom in order to make gods of ourselves - the two sides of God are Holiness and Ransom.
In another thread you said a gay person can repent and stop the behavior and then all is well with the Lord your God.
So if someone has divorced and remarries, when they repent shouldn't they stop their behavior, leave their second husband and reconcile with the first or live alone and celibate, rather than continue to make their new husband an adulterer according to scripture?
To be completely literal, the bible doesn't mention lesbianism at all. Lesbians feel free to do whatever... God must not care.
Romans 1:24-32 ESV
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. ...
Which, at the time of writing, could mean anything from anal sex with a man to doing a giraffe. But it's nice you assume that the bible was written with your views in mind.
In fairness, Melissa, he has the scriptural goods there. It's a matter of whether you accept scripture as the literal inerrant word of God or the codification into law the cultural bias at the time.
I do see how you could read it the way you do, but I see no reason to exclude lesbianism from their fears. Does it say it explicitly? No. But I think it's implied.
(It is a semantic loophole, though!)
Really? I saw nothing at all about woman and woman unless you declare that the pleasurable act of sex is unnatural. Personally, both the act and the pleasure would seem to be quite natural; only cultural bias (from man, not God) has declared otherwise.
Man and man is addressed, but woman and woman except for that single term of unnatural.
It's not that I find it unnatural. I don't at all. I think scripture does, though. But like I said, it's not explicit, and you could argue that it isn't in there, but I think it's implied with the connection to the man on man phrase below it.
Don't get me confused with scripture. I am a LGBT advocate. I just want to remain credible.
I was referring to the words, not to you. In fact, it is more towards the people that translated those words - I doubt that the original was unnatural.
That particular term has become a catch-all for anything not approved of (by the church in this case) but seems a little odd when referring to something that is completely natural and common in nature. It is only through human society, and religion in particular, that such actions have come to be defined as unnatural
Actually, its really neither. I accept that the bible was written by man, deciphered by man, and recopied by man. I also understand that one word can have many meanings and given almost any bible verse I could, if I chose, twist it to mean almost anything.
This verse, in several versions reads: (and I hate verse wars)
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;
Quite honestly, I could read either of those a thousand different ways to mean a thousand different things... From the puritan point of view then unnatural could mean adultary with other men, different sexual positions, oral sex, anal sex, masturbation, tactile manipulation, lesbianism, more than one partner at a time, using objects, dancing naked or not knowing how to fix a bacon samwhich.
I was going to answer this here... but after the 5th paragraph of my answer... I decided this was Hub Material. To put it in short.... Sin is Sin... love God and pray and He'll show you the way. I'll make my hub now... lol. Thanks for the inspiration.
I agree with lizzieBoo. Marriage is a social commitment and plays a very important role in a society. When you get married you made a vow that no matter what happen you should be together helping one another to what any circumstances will come on your way.
It's a fallacy to think that Christians take divorce lightly. We know there's shame and tumult and hurt and sin involved. It's like a death, to even consider divorce or be pressed to consider it. It's a nightmare, something one never fully recovers from except by the grace of God.
Ms Dee and TM and some others have input some very good common-sense (and Biblical) points.
It's also a fallacy to think that evangelical churches take divorce lightly. There are rules, at least in the church I grew up in and in the particular network of authority, about whether a divorced man can be ordained as a Pastor, etc.
Although I imagine many churches are for sure becoming more liberal on that. But one thing's for sure for a Christian----there is forgiveness upon repentance. I'm glad there a people here who do understand that, even though livelonger seems to not be able to grasp that concept.
Oh hey, Woman of Courage, didn't see your post! Love ya, miss talking to you often.
I understand it quite a bit better than you do.
You can't stay in a sinful relationship and have truly repented. Isn't that right? (Swap out "remarried" with "gay" and you'll see what I mean)
The problem is that you think living in a second marriage is a one-time sin that can be repented away, while being gay is a state of sin that can't. There is no basis for this kind of thinking except for the fact that you're guilty of one and not the other.
No, the basis is this----
It's not a sin for a man and woman to be married. Divorce and re-marriage, yes, contains sin.
But IS a sin for a man and man, or two women, to have sexual relations, period, even if they become "married".
Sex between people who are in their second marriage is sin. It's adultery. Are you saying that's a lesser sin than gay sex according to the Bible? If so, please provide proof that adultery is better than gay sex.
I'm saying that the very basis of one (heterosexual unions) is God-given, while the other (homosexual unions) is stated by Him to be an abomination.
If He were going to sanction same-gender sexual unions in any way, shape, or form, He would've given people a set of rules to go by, like He did in telling husbands how to treat their wives and vise-versa.
Two men cannot be each other's "husband" or "wife", and a woman cannot be another woman's "wife" nor "husband".
As far as divorce, if there were no avenue of forgiveness, then God's love would be of no effect. The Bible plainly illustrates that there IS obtainable forgiveness. And even a vehicle for witnessing. The woman at the well whom Jesus pointed out to that she had been married...how many times? then went to tell others, brought them to Him, saying come meet a man who has told me all that I've done. Sin is a terrible thing, but the knowledge of obtainable forgiveness after shame and repentance is made even sweeter by the acknowlegement of our sins. That's about Jesus; it always ends up being about Him, praise Him! The only sinless one!
God didn't create men and then leave them without an avenue for repentance and forgiveness, nor did He leave them without a recourse. He made them male persons. Somewhere, (unless they don't need a companion) there is a woman with whom each man is meant to share life or at least a portion of their lives.
He didn't say gay unions were an abomination. He said nothing on the topic whatsoever.
However, with respect to the Samaritan woman, he told her to go back to her husband. She said she wasn't living with her husband, and Jesus said, yes, that's true. She was forgiven because presumably she *did* leave the man she was living with and go back to her husband.
You too can be forgiven by Jesus if you would just return to your first husband and ask for forgiveness.
Reference John 4; good; we're on the same page on that. At least literal page. ha
....She said she had no husband.
I reckon that meant she was living with a man without being married. Or perhaps you can show me where he was her 6th husband? I don't see it.
And which husband do you think she "presumably" went back to? The first, you said? I dunno; it doesn't say, does it? What if her first husband was dead or re-married? What if her second, third, fourth, or fifth husbands were?
The first husband might have been dead? I'm guessing you're joking here. Why would Jesus say, "Go, call thy husband, and come hither" if he was dead? Are you saying Jesus didn't know. Because Jesus knowing the truth was pretty central to this woman considering him a prophet.
Even though he knew she wasn't with her husband, he still told her to get him and come back.
Are you saying that she in fact did NOT do this, and did NOT reconcile with her husband? The only other alternative would be that she simply stayed separated from all men.
No, I didn't say she didn't reconcile. I said the Bible doesn't say whether she did or not, as far as I've found. If you can find it, feel free to post it.
She had had 5 husbands, according to Jesus. I dunno which one He was asking her to go get, or if He was just testing her to see how she'd respond. I do know that God often asks people to answer questions that He Himself of course already knows the answers to, like He did Adam and Cain and many others.
Good point Brenda. We can not assume she reconciled with one of her husbands. It's not stated in scripture.
Would Jesus have accepted her as repented if she hadn't?
Lovely how there's lots of flexible interpretation when it comes to those sins you and your loved ones may commit, right?
" Would Jesus have accepted her as repented if she hadn't?" No, because Jesus specifically told her to reconcile with her husband. So what's your point? Every situation is different. Where do you see in scripture every divorced person is required to reconcile with their spouse? The scriptures have been pointed out to you concerning this. In relation to your last question, WRONG. It's not fair to assume things about me. One can not have a descent discussion based on what someone may or may not be doing. I don't justify sin. I do not value divorce, but I do value marriage.
You all keep talking about the woman at the well. At what point are you interpreting that she was told to reconcile with any husband?
I just pulled it up online. Paraphrased, he said 'fetch your husband' she said 'I'm not married' he said 'that's right, you've been married five times and you're living with someone else now'.
How the heck does that get interpreted into being told to reconcile?
1 Corinthians 7:10-11: "And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife."
The bible gives two clear grounds for a divorce. Sexual immorality ( Matthew 5:32; 19:9.) The other is abandonment by a unbeliever. ( 1 Corinthians 7:15.) Confession, forgiveness, reconciliation, and restoration is always the first steps. Divorce should be a last resort. God hates divorce also, but it is written in the word of God that there are two grounds for divorce. Thanks for sharing that scripture. I encourage you next time to read all of the bible passages concerning divorce. Take care.
Likewise, I encourage you to read what the passages say more carefully.
Matthew 5:32, 19:9: The only allowance for divorce is *fornication*, not sexual immorality or even adultery. Fornication (porneia in the original Koine Greek) referred to pre-marital sex. If a husband found out his wife had fornicated (i.e. she wasn't a virgin), then he was allowed to divorce her. Otherwise, it is forbidden. Remarriage was equivalent to adultery. That was Jesus's word and he said so repeatedly.
Paul added that a non-Christian can divorce a Christian.
So if you accept Paul's word as the word of God, then, yes, there are two grounds for divorce, but not the ones you mention.
Woman of Courage: What fate is awaiting a person who got a divorce for neither of those two reasons, and then remarried?
livelonger, It will never end with you. I have given additional bible scriptures which you refuse to accept. I will not waste my time and energy to answer your question. It has been discussed before in this forum, but it's hard for you to digest it .
You don't know nothing about me. I find it very childish for an adult to make fun of one's username. I don't care at all of your false accusations concerning me. Shame on you for spewing out another personal attack . Don't get angry with me because I refuse to argue with you. No hard feelings, but if you respond back with insults and nonsense, I will politely disregard it.
They cannot see any view but the one acquired by rectal-cranial inversion. Your point is valid, they are both equal sins and each time a remarried person has sex with their new spouse they are sinning just the same as two homosexuals are sinning each time they have sex... if you follow their logic.
So is one repentance enough, or is it a daily thing? Cause God has got to be tired of hearing "I'm sorry" after anyone has sex. I mean its bad enough that his name is called repeatedly during the act
I personally do not believe that either is a sin, or any more of a sin than having sex in any situation besides procreation appears to be to the tight-arsed puritans.
I don't either! But those are my liberal Jewish views.
Those who claim to be devout Christians really do practice the type of contortions of logic to explain away their behavior that you beautifully and humorously (and anatomically!) described by that metaphor.
Try being a liberal christian LL Your values get all warped by believing in the "hippy crap" that Jesus taught.
True! And I should say that "devout" shouldn't be synonymous with "conservative"/Christianist. As I understand it, you're pretty devout personally, and certainly not a Christianist.
I've dedicated my life to Christ. He affects everything I do. I have a little boy in heaven that I need to get to one day I hope to God he's not in the heaven that certain bigots say exists... I don't want him to be around all that hatred.
There are a lot of concepts the leant Leftist Socialist liberal Democrat Progressive mind cannot grasp.
It is a mental disorder.
It inhibits proper logical function and routes all reasoning powers to the more primal aspects of the consciousness. In turn creating an over-whelming desire in one, and a need to force all, to wallow in filth and depravity, immorallity and decadence, in the name of human rights and equality of freedom.
Unfortunately it is fatal to the society which has too many citizens afflicted with its filth filled, immoral, deviant un-natural, perverse, decaying, touch. Many an empire has succumbed to this plague upon humanity... and I think ours may be next.
Sorry for the sad news... but someone has to bear the wieght of breaking it.
I'm not leftist socialist liberal democrat progressive Mr. Mason and I'm telling you that the refusal of the fundametalists to use their brain on this issue is a little disheartening. Live Longer made valid points and you post insults. That is typical behavior that serves no purpose. It is an attempt to turn the debate away from the issues because it is obvious none of your side has a leg to stand on.
If you believe compassion, logic and reason are mental disorders, then I suppose you have a right to believe whatever you choose. There is no law that requires you to think.
No, people are trying to help fundamentalists see the filth that lives in the minds of the fundamentalists. The depravity of spirit of fundamentalism. We are trying to help you see that you don't have to force your archaic values on the rest of the world, simply because you fear that you cannot live true to your own convictions without doing so. Insulting us doesn't degrade us. It degrades you.
There is always a silver lining. The good news is that once fundamentalism is put to rest, we won't have to worry about the un-natural,perverse, decaying touch of this very very hateful philosophy.
Oh that was nice, E.
I am not even going to wreck the effect with a response. I will just sit back and enjoy reading that over for a few minutes.
Of course your absolutetly wrong... but that's okay.
No, I'm not wrong. I'm sorry you are incapable of seeing it.
Sure you are.
Don't take it so hard... it'll be okay.
I'm not taking it hard Mr. Mason, except for the fact that at times you appear not to think before you post. I know you are a nicer person than those unkind things you said.
You should be more careful. People might think you believe that crazy stuff you post.
Which crazy stuff would that be?
I don't believe I have called for any stoning or any punishments or criminalities of behaviours, but society has a right to reject something.
I have stated over and over, they can have civil unions and they have all their rights, they just cannot propagate it is moral natural acceptable behaviour to the lil school kids. Is that so bad?
Well, I was specifically talking about your exceptionally rude post that caused me to import and edit the quote.
As to the homosexual issue, I will say one thing. I find it hilarious that you all pick and choose what 'sins' you feel compelled to get self rightous about. And it is also amusing how those 'sins' are always conveniently the 'sins' of others. You spend a great deal of time rationalizing why the things you do can't be considered wrong and are quickly 'forgiven'.
Not one of you has responded with a valid argument to Live Longers questions. Why is that?
Brenda nad ms dee have both laid out valid reasoned responses above E.
And which sin of mine would you like to discuss?
I have a few still.
Hey Brenda, I do understand. Your replies are very meaningful. I can see that your words about homosexuality, divorce and remarriage are in line with the word of God. Thanks for not twisting the scriptures. I have not yet found a scripture where God commands the wife to reconcile with her husband to receive forgiveness. There are people who have reconciled with their spouse through the leading and guidance of God. This is the case of a cheating spouse who is truly repentant , and change their behavior. The scriptures does not state for a man or woman to reconcile with their spouse if one is a habitual adulterer.
Oh how we must suffer from stupidity. It must be from the lack of "If you don't agree with conservative bigotry then you lack critical thinking" courses in college.
I had to take sociology instead.
If only someone would have been around to teach me to pass judgement on everybody I might have become a evangelical preacher or even a member of a right wing hate group! Instead of doing volunteer work I could be picketing a funeral... The horror...
Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Romans 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
I was reluctant to post anything on this thread.
We cannot justify ourselves by any means at all. We can only be justifed by the grace of God.
1John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
Cleansing is a process. We are all in the process of cleansing if we have accepted Jesus Christ according to the Word of God.
What is a christian bible? One with the Torah ripped out?
The "christian" bible either condemns, forgives, or even both...... depending on who reads it and what their agenda is, as should be evident to those who use these forums.
The Christian Bible tells it like it is. It pulls no punches.
The law was given because of lawlessness. This makes sense become if everyone obeyed the law completely there would be no need for it.
The law of grace works for all who will accept it. Since we have all trangrssed the law, we need grace to overcome the lawlessness that is instilled within us.
Do we need special types of stones to kill all of the sinners needing slaying according to your gods bible, or will just any run-of-the-mill rock do as well? And is it okay to use modern weapons when slaying the heathens and disbelievers as we are commanded to in your christian handbook?
Another question. If we follow the bible's scripture and actually slay someone, perhaps an infidel or some other such abominated person, will the alibi "god said...." get me off scot free? These are important things to know if one is to follow what "God said".
And since you are always posting "God says.." opinions, you obviously know exactly what kind of stones are proper to throw.
And ask him where I lost my knife, while you are at it. Thanks!
May Moe bless you!
It seems you missed the last part of my comment above. I will repost it just for you. The law of grace works for all who will accept it. Since we have all trangrssed the law, we need grace to overcome the lawlessness that is instilled within us.
No need for stones unless you are building something.
Your thoughts made me finish up a train of thought that started two threads ago; reading these literalist posts. You know what I think?
There may very well have been a supernatural oversight of the words in all of the texts to the major religions; but the reason would have been more useful than allowing the hatred and prejudices that are gleaned from the texts. The reasons are played out on these forums daily.
We are given a window into the minds of everyone that has read them. The words pull our deepest hopes, dreams, fears and aspirations to the surface for all to see.
We all imagine what would be the mind of an unknowable force, but in giving voice to our musings we show our own true colors, not the color of any god.
I wish people would see themselves for who they are and stop hiding behind a book to play out their prejudices against their fellow man.
We cannot know the mind of God completely, but we can know what is revealed to us. I don't believe man has the capacity to know God's full mind.
This is truth. The Bible tells us to examine ourselves. 2Co_13:5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves.
The Christian Bible is the original Bible (the Hebrew Tanakh) with some reshuffling of the books, which Christians call the Old Testament, and the New Testament.
Some Christians (and apparently ex-Christians) act as if it were the only one, but it's not. It's not even the first or the last (the Mormon version I suppose would be the most recent).
What does the Christian Bible say about divorce and remarriage?
Christian Bible does not present what Jesus and Mary believed in and they acted on; it does comprise of Jesus' teachings. Jesus did not write Bible.
Jesus and Mary followed the Law of Moses.
It doesn't matter... any lil bit of logic that contains sense... common or other-wise, is lost on some.
That is right! However there are times that couple fight because of their individual differences which sometimes lead to physical abuses. With such situation, divorce is applicable if the couple has no reconciliation and things such fightings happen all over again.
I do not agree with these claims that because we can find only "two clear grounds for a divorce" or the "only allowance for divorce is *fornication*, not sexual immorality or even adultery" in the Bible, God would not allow any other reason whatsoever for divorce. This is living by the law and not by grace. Jesus said all the laws and the prophets are contained in the commandment to fully love God, and your neighbor as yourself. God's love is the guide, not the jots and tittles of rules and laws. Love and forgiveness for the repentant are the guidelines.
When the adulterous woman caught in adultery was not stoned, Jesus said to her repentant heart, go and sin no more. John 8: 3-11. She was forgiven and to no longer sleep with a man who was not her husband. Same is true for a gay person caught in homosexual acts. Jesus would say to the repentant heart, go and sin no more, i.e. no longer have sex with someone of the same sex. Very clear.
Got it. Makes sense. A divorced woman who remarries should never have sex with her second husband, then. Thanks for clearing that up.
Wrong. Not have sex with anyone who is not her husband. Does not say what # husband. You are over-thinking it, reading something into it that is not there. You make it unclear by adding to it, don't you see? Just stick to the example and it is clear.
Matthew 19:9: "And I say to you, Whoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery: and whoever marries her which is put away does commit adultery."
Divorce and remarriage is adultery in God's eyes, according to a strict reading of the Bible.
As you said, adulterers are told to sin no more.
I can only point out what's written. If you refuse to read and understand it, that's your problem.
Beautifully written Ms Dee. I understand it's extremely hard for some to grasp that concept.
And on the 8th day, God created forum trolls.
I agree. Beautifully written Ms. Dee, with common sense and Biblical sense. The two do go together, and you two ladies have it!
A quick good night. God bless you!
LL, Give it up.
To some it is impossible to probe into their own beliefs and question the contradictions that they might find there.
Questioning ones own faith and viewpoints requires a strength that comes from FEELING your faith instead of reading it. If you don't have that feeling to fall back on all you can do is quote scriptures and hope that they line up with your opinions.
Yeah, I'm just always puzzled by the cognitive dissonance. I guess some people will deliberately not see what's right in front of their face if they don't want to.
They aren't really listening. Hell, to be honest I stopped listening to them too. It really does come down to having to survive and thinking whatever it takes to be able to sleep at night
I'm not sure why one sin is worse than another or why it is homosexuality that so many get hung up on, but trying logical debate just isn't going to work. The best they can come up with to explain their own feelings of hatred and disgust is a bible verse.
It really is their own loss. That much negativity is an awful burden to carry. I don't really think that's what God intended people to feel everyday.
Very much agreed. I guess it's the cold-heartedness served up with a smile that I find so grating.
I do think a lot of it is very much motivated by fear; a lot of the literalists "know" they or people very close to them are going to Hell, and they think by "distracting God" with teh gays will get them off scot-free.
Honestly I don't even think that is it.
Its more of a need for reassurance that their views are right. The more extreme the view, the more need for reassurance. The Bible is the... well Bible of reassurance. That's why so much twisting of scripture happens. People don't understand why they feel the way they do, they have some inkling that it really isn't logical, and they search out justifications of those feelings. If they aren't bothered by a topic... it is a non-issue so the bible is less important.
I choke down quite a lot of Bible verses that I interpret as being contrary to my beliefs. The bits about how to be a good wife and subservience to your husband make me shudder... Still I try to listen to them despite my extremely feminist nature. My husband responds by not asking too terribly much in the way of servitude because he knows how hard the struggle is for me.
On the OTHER side of the spectrum... I would homeschool my kids regardless of the verses in the Bible that can be interpreted as me having the obligation to do such. It is MUCH MUCH easier for me to bend those verses to support my pre-existing views.
But I have enough self-awareness to know that I have those tendencies. I try (very very very) hard not to use scripture to prove that I am right. To do such means that I am using God's word to further MY cause. Which, to me, is heresy.
That's a fair and honest way of looking at things. I believe that scripture can be wrestled with, but that the way it works in my tradition.
Christianity works a bit differently, but you're right that you can't selectively apply what's easy for you, while ignoring or pretending not to understand the parts that are difficult, even if you do believe that scripture must be accepted as it is.
Christianity itself is motivated by fear, Jason. Most of the believers are frightened at a very early age. They cannot help it, even when they grow to adulthood.
Anything logical which goes against their guidebook scares the heck out of them.
Oh hush, you are as bad as them. Generalizations are silly because there will always be something or someone that breaks the generalization. Why start from a position that is likely to be proven wrong... At least preface your statements with "most" or "a majority"
Christianity, to some, really does spring from a desire to be more like Christ rather than the fear of burning in hell forever.
I did say "most" Melissa. I didn't say why the remainder believed as they do.
I am going by my own experience with the multitude of self proclaimed Christians in this area. You can't sling a cat around here without hitting a "true believer."
If I get hit with a flying cat, you better hope to God that I am a true believer. Otherwise that poor cat is going to have a very very bad return trip
Randy we all believe different things for different reasons. Its damn hard to deal with some people's beliefs, especially if they infringe upon the rights of others. Cruelty sucks, Bigotry sucks, and people doing it in Christ's name really sucks.
I gotta call these people brothers and sisters... which sucks on a personal level.
But it sucks more to have Jesus blamed for all the idiocy that Christians do. At the core of it, even if his existence was complete mythology, he really wasn't that bad of a role model.
I've never blamed Jesus for these folks, Melissa. They've never met him either. I feel more pity than anger toward them.
You are a better person than me randy, because they tend to piss me off. I even piss myself off sometimes . It's hard to have a belief system that doesn't turn one holier-than-thou and unfortunately I have fallen into that trap too many times as well. I agree a lot with the atheists and non-believers on a lot of things in these forums. I hate that the state of Christianity and many other organized religions has come to that. I don't think that any religion was formed with the intention to spread hate.
I agree with Melissa on this one, and keep in mind that I'm not Christian myself (but I was raised Catholic, so I'm not totally in the dark). It's not hard to see whom Christianity is really fear-based, though - they're the one constantly telling everyone else to be afraid, too.
I was raised going to church almost every time the doors of the church opened. Even as a small child I was able to see it was a way for people to be controlled by the words of the pastor who felt his power as he looked down upon his "sinful but attentive" congregation.
Sure, there were some who tried to follow the teachings of the main story plot characters in the bible, but most were very judgmental of others who didn't think as they did.
If a black person were to have the nerve to try and attend one of the services I would have feared for their safety in this "House of the Lord."
Someone once asked me if there was a miracle which would make me believe in the Cristian god. I replied "yes, if all of the so-called Christian cults could agree on what their bible really says, and became one complete body."
There is no possible chance of this happening as they cannot accept the other cults as being true Christians. They are controlled by their church leaders who interpret the scripture for them instead of using the common sense "their god gave them".
My former childhood church recently split into two separate factions, with one part of the congregation leaving to form their own cult with different beliefs after being established well over a century ago. All because a new pastor didn't interpret the bible as one faction wanted him to.
The actions of the members with their accusations and downright ugliness towards each other was sickening to behold. Entire families split and refused to acknowledge each others right to believe as they wanted. "Judge not....." was ignored by both factions as their church was torn apart.
Yep, I want to be like those people. Just like those who are so righteous on these forums everyday, they are able to excuse their own shortcomings while condemning others with equally scriptural transgressions.
How much of this is really a form of tribalism with a religious facade, though?
I'm not apologizing for anything, but I find it curious that lots of evangelical forms of Christianity really do split along geographical or even racial lines.
I would add "political lines" to the equation, Jason. This is especially true in the deep south and many western states. One merely has to look at where many of the pro-christian posters are from. Usually, they are from Texas, NC, Ga, SC, Ariz, Tenn, Utah, etc.
Apparently, God prefers these states over others.
Another example of how having the Bible at the centre if Christianity spoils the message of Christianity.
The OT is motivated by Fear.
The NT is motivated by Guilt.
Sure Ray, but they are both used to control peoples lives by church leaders by picking and choosing which scripture to interpret to back up their own personal beliefs. This thread is a good example of how this works. Hypocrites are nothing new in this sad excuse for a organization touted as being "gods chosen".
I'd rather go to hell than spend eternity in the same place with these "Bible thumpers".
I can understand your point of view.
However, let me see if I can clear up something and hopefully, you'll see what has happened. Religion, it's original design was to support the "god" concept, give people answer and manipulate them through the use of individual inability to deal with fear.
That is the OT for you. Then, Jesus actually did arrive on scene and saw what was happening and found it to be an atrocity. Now, I know you don't believe Jesus ever lived and I don't care that you don't, but Jesus was the first and only one, who brought into existence, individual accountability. There are glimpses of it in others, but nothing like what Jesus taught.
Now, out of fear, the Religious establishment executed him, because he threatened their control.
When you look or read anything from the NT, it's all based on guilt. Not fear. The Religious establishment found a new method, where the individual would literally fight against themselves, based on guilt and fear would no longer be needed.
Remember, Jesus came to fulfill the so-called Laws, from the OT, which means those ended and were no longer to be followed, because of his simple philosophy, love "god"(metaphor) and love they neighbor as thyself. It replaced all, because Love is the most powerful of all our emotions and can bring peace, if used properly.
It's the morons, like Paul and the Church, who skewed Jesus' teachings and put them into a book.
"Religion, it's original design was to support the "god" concept, give people answer and manipulate them through the use of individual inability to deal with fear."
Where do you find this, Ray? As far as I know, there is nothing to back up this statement. The anonymous writers of the works attributed to "Moses" cannot be asked the purpose of their intentions for the plagiarized versions of myths which existed long before the authors wrote them down.
It was found during my research of Christianity and other World Religions.
Try to remember, the first 5 books of Christianity were stolen from other Religions and were in support of the "god" concept.
Again, manipulated for the use of the Religious establishment.
None of the works can be verified on "who" wrote them, however, as I found, many of them were actually written by the same person and this was learned by examining the original writings and using hand writing analysis.
In the case of Moses, many biblical scholars feel the works attributed to him were written by different authors. And besides, there is no one to vouch for his veracity.
But we do know the flood story was taken from the previously written Epic of Gilgamesh and the Jesus myth was based on a previous Egyptian god. Not sure but I believe it was Horus.
Some of the distortion provided in the bible(Christianity) was taken about Horus, as you think. It was added by the Religious establishment, to support Jesus, because nothing was written done at the time.
Remember, Jesus' actual disciples didn't write anything down for almost 40-60 after Jesus was executed. The Religious establishment needed something to fill in the gaps.
And because the Romans and Greeks accepted many gods before the "Jesus saga" was chosen by one leader and the others prohibited. Those who had faith in the former gods needed something familiar to impel them to accept this new cult, so myths from the previous religions were incorporated into the "new and improved" christian faith.
A regular publishing of the equivalent of today's paperback novels also helped establish a following of the supposed life of Jesus. And the earliest hearsay account was indeed written many decades after Jesus was supposed to have existed. Most of the rest were accomplished centuries later and changed at will by the church.
There is nothing to authenticate any of these books of the bible were indeed authored by "inspired men of god". There were many "Joseph Smiths" in those days because superstition trumped knowledge among the common folk.
Correct again, except for the fact that Jesus did actually exist. James has already provided the evidence of Jesus' existence outside of scripture. He posted it in the forums awhile back. To make the claim that he didn't exist, is to deny his overall human message, which actually cannot be denied- Love god(metaphor) and Love thy neighbor as thyself. The metaphor "god" is self. Because, self is the highest authority possible and no other authority exists. This is one of the main reason behind his teachings, which is about looking for "god" through introspection...one's own consciousness and conscience. God- all powerful, all knowing, all understanding of one's own life.
The question is do you know why superstition trumped knowledge among the common folk? The reason would be for control of the common folk. Those who were in power believed that chaos would ensue, if humankind was not made to answer to a higher authority, much less a higher power. The higher authority is the gimmick sold to those who choose to be irresponsible about understanding their life and the distortion tactics used since then have made "Life" appear as if it's more complicated or complex than it actually is.
The actual highest authority is guiding oneself and mastering oneself, so no harm is done to others. No authority ever needed to exist other than self.
Religion is based on telling people that they are unworthy(sinful- guilt), so they will believe that they need to be guided. It's a lie.
hey Cags, if by chance you can repost that info about James and proof outside of scripture i would sincerely appreciate celebrating my literacy with that piece, thanks in advance if you are able.
I remember James posting it. However, I am not sure that it is recent enough to find? But, I am sure James would be glad to repost it himself, considering he knows exactly where he got the information from. His post, I think it was well over a year ago.
I too would like to see this proof, Ray. Even the Romans, who were very meticulous in recording matters of law and court proceedings, had no reference to Jesus.
But the church did make several attempts, several hundred years later, to corrupt the works of Josephus to include something to back up the existence of Jesus. Unsuccessfully, as it turns out, because there were previous copies without the corruption included.
Looking forward to the evidence James provided.
Let me attempt a humble response. Too many have pontificated on matters we ought to handle very gently and with a sense of awe. The "Christian Bible" is not a manual which gives you answers when needed and can be ignored at other times. It is a revelation of the heart of God. So while there are specific passages that address marriage, divorce and homosexuality, they can be understood only in the light of what the Bible says about God, the human condition and His purposes going forward.
When God created man he stated that "it is not good that man should be alone". This is after he's entrusted to Adam the care of the rest of creation. I'm sure you know the account in Scripture. He created the woman and brought her to be a help suitable for him. To make it clear to Adam, just how suiteable, he had Adam review all the other creatures first. This set Adam up to appreciate the uniqueness of the woman. And indeed he did.
Why did God institute marriage? Was it just that Adam needing help? I don't think so. God had already embarked on a plan to redeem a people for himself. These would be a people whose sins were forgiven and who lived in covenant relationship with God. That relationship required a model. The relationship of a man and wife provides a perfect visual and experiential window into God's vast plan of salvation. Paul works that out in Ephesians 5.
So given that background, it's clear that God intends that a man and a woman enter into marriage for life with a commitment to reflect in their relationship to the world, and in particular to their children, the gospel love God has for his own. Anything short of this would displease God and be sin.
Jesus gave the general overall principle in Matthew 5 and 19. But Paul was dealing with a particular situation in I Cor.7. What is a Christian spouse's attitude toward a partner who does not share his/her faith? Paul tells us to stick with the marriage. Perhaps in God's grace the unbeliever may be attracted to Christ by the believing partner. On the other hand, if the unbeliever is determined to leave, the believer is to let him/her go. Under such circumstances the believing partner is free, presumable free to remarry a believer.
It's obvious then that homosexual partnerships would displease God, however no more so than heterosexual unfaithfulness. True followers of Christ will promote marriage as menitoned above, but recognize that in a world shared by those who do not follow Christ we can't expect governments to enforce moral principles which, though correct and true, require an internal loyalty to the Savior for proper fulfillment. The government may attempt to control such things, but really has not right to. Government exist to protect us from destroying each other. Homosexuals deserve the same protection the rest of us enjoy. That can be done without endorsing homosexuality as an alternate to marriage.
Hope this helps.
fascinating that using Adam, about 6,000 year old man who was the first, when man has been around so very much longer. all of religions were/are stilll based on sun worship. there is so much information available to peel back the curtain to see the wizard hiding behind it. JESUS, HORUS, MITHRA, and, KRISHNA are just a few of the same story throughout history back to the summerians, same story, different faces. there is great documentation available about much of what has happened-using declination of time with star charts of NASA programs have determined much already.
Science? Don't confuse these believers with facts and logic, Mike. If it ain't in their KJV bible, it ain't relevant.
Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself.
Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes. Prov. 26:4,5
"Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn.
Rhett Butler-Gone With The wind
I hate verse wars, but here is my contribution anyway...
I take these verses to mean that God wants everybody to just shut the f*** up and mind their own damn business...
Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?
“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.
1 Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. 2 One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. 4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.
5 One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. 6 Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives for ourselves alone, and none of us dies for ourselves alone. 8 If we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. 9 For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.
10 You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister[a]? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. 11 It is written:
“‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord,
‘every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will acknowledge God.’”[b]
12 So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God.
13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister.
1 Corinthians 13:1-8
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing. Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; ...
And my personal favorite:
If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless.
So, in short, God would really just like everyone to shut up now. Unless you can twist those scriptures to mean something else?
I'm pretty sure "everyone" appreciates that bullying tirade. Kinda like watching a car careen outta control or putting a bent shotgun in the hands of a 4-year-old.
Even the moderators have rules about a poster telling other posters to shut up. Not to mention the expletive you used, Melissa.
OMG! Not a bully using bible verses to prove a point! That's...that's... unheard of.
And I didn't tell anyone to shut up... God did But feel free to report me if you like
And I starred the expletive myself my dear sister in faith
Those were excellent New Testament passages, it makes me almost want to be a Christian. It is easy to forget, when I read the hate from many Christians in the name of their God, who they believe wants them to hate for him, what the teachings of Christ actually are. Far from being hate-filled as many Christians would have us believe, they are actually full of love and understanding for his fellow man. If Christians could actually follow these teachings, then there would be so much less anger in the world.
I have read so many Christians on here, and the majority of them would seem not to share your views. I wonder how they could read the above passages and interpret them to mean that they have a duty to hate. Such thinking is irrational. The fact that quoting such wonderful teachings of the peaceful and loving Jesus has made a Christian criticise you, would seem to suggest that a lot of Christians are not in the business of love. I wonder why, if they don't believe in the words of Jesus, do they bother to call themselves Christians. They could go and worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster instead.
Sherlock, the Bible is a very big book with a whole lot of information. The message that any person gets while reading it will be reliant in some part on that persons feelings/reasons/agenda. I was compelled to the church later in life by love. The biggest love I ever felt. Since it was love that drove me to Christ, love is what I found in his words. I was blessed that so many of his words WERE about love, it was easy for me.
Had I been driven to the church by guilt, I could have found(and in some cases did find) much to feel guilty about. If I would have been driven by anger, I could have found plenty there too.
Its kind of like reading this sentence: The car is red. It is a very simple straight forward sentence. Yet the car in my head is likely very different from the car in your head. Such is so with the Bible. There may be (and quite probably are) huge problems with the translation across different languages and generations. Those problems, however, don't begin to touch the differences in peoples minds from reading the same sentence in the same language.
I'm done with this thread. livelonger asked for participation from Bible-believing Christians like me, and I for one was happy to oblige. I've fulfilled my obligation and am no longer interested in listening to the rebellion against forgiveness, especially since he deemed a cursing, biased, Christian-hating post to be "nice". I think what upset the attacker so much must've been the quoting about forgiveness and cleansing. Those concepts tee the Devil off too, so I'm not surprised. It's now turning into a baiting thread replete with smiling attempts at serpentine trickery.
Anyway, my advice to anyone who's susceptible to getting drawn into the confusion is to read the Bible with a repentant heart and a spirit willing to Love the Lord and an ear that hears common-sense, because the basic and overall intent of the Bible is really NOT hard to understand when you do that.
Yes it was indeed the quoting about forgiveness and cleansing Brenda.
Just trying to save my sister from going to hell by pointing out her obvious sins. That's what Christians do right? I could find some scripture about vanity or lack of humility before God if you need it too. Wouldn't want to be remiss in my duties
I'm sure that God will forgive one of all of their sins. All one has to do is ask. I'm sure that includes you two as well.
"Oh hush, you're as bad as they are!"
Remember who said that?
It would be great if everyone posting on this forum would say if they had, or had not been divorced. I have, just getting the ball rolling here. Of course, we already know one poster has and was the reason for this thread, but not sure about everyone else.
I have not been divorced, but I think it must be really traumatic. In fact, I wonder at how people recover from that.
I haven't been divorced, but I believe in a few cardinal rules of marriage. I'd divorce in a heartbeat if they were broken. And feel no shame in the process.
I know Randy and I knew when I wrote it. I'll ask forgiveness later, when I get over them tromping all over my religion.
I am divorced. My ex-husband was abusive and ended up being directly responsible for the death of my child. Unfortunately that wasn't listed as a reason for divorce, so yes I am living in sin with my second husband.
And I really do believe it is a sin. Since I ask God for forgiveness for just about everything at least three times a day and spend the majority of my life actively seeking to be the best that I can be, I'm hoping that he weighs that against the rest when it's time for judgement. If not, I tried my best and fell short.
Well, I'm glad I don't believe it's a sin, and I'm sorry, but I hope I'm right and you're wrong.
Melissa you made me cry with that post. But, I won't comment other than to say you're a very good person and I'm sure anyone on any plane of existence can see that.
I'll offer you virtual hugs for the support, but please don't think my life is anything other than wonderful I have three beautiful children of earth, a big brute of a teddy bear as a husband and a very rare outlook on life. I've already had the worst thing that will ever happen to me happen. Everything else is smooth sailing :)Don't ever cry about anything I post, I really am doing very well!
I didn't mean it in that manner. I've read enough of your posts to glean that you are a happy survivor that knows when she's found the silver lining.
This is one of the problems I have with the Christian concept of God, though. I label myself agnostic simply because of the fact that whatever is has not been defined clearly. No benevolent force could want someone who had a right to say they were once a victim to suffer guilt at finding happiness.
That's a valid point as well. My heart tells me that Jesus really was all about love and complete acceptance. I have guilt already and that also colors my faith. I honestly believe that the Gates are open to everyone-regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation. I ask forgiveness for lots of things, including the occasional desire to smack someone, and I think-on a purely psychological basis, that the asking helps me keep on track (not only spiritually but on the "I'm not going to climb a clock tower today" level as well.
I think I wandered off topic a bit... I guess the TLDR answer is: Yeah, that does suck but I'm not sure that my guilt isn't my own rather than religion based.
Well, I suffer from guilt too; but I see it as letting myself down. Straying from the path I see as right, for me. I just don't have anyone to ask forgiveness from; other than me, or someone I might have wronged.
I figure when everything is said and done if I find out there is a judgement, I'll be taken at face value, the same as anyone else.
I admire you for your honesty, Melissa. But I don't think you've committed any transgressions by your divorce. This goes for anyone else who's been divorced as well.
Sorry, but I believe those old opinions in the bible are no more based on any god than those we give here on these forums. The mores and social beliefs of the times, when these old opinions were supposedly made, certainly had a great influence on the anonymous author's values.
Marriage, including very young girls marrying old men, was very different in those times. One cannot base their lives on the beliefs of past religions no more than they can believe in religions yet to come.
I still fail to understand your praying for forgiveness so much if your god already knows your intentions. It seems to suggest you fail to trust his knowledge of your intentions if you have to keep reminding him of your transgressions when he already knows.
Think of how silly it would be for him to ask you. "Hey Melissa, does this white robe make my butt look big"?
I agree with you-in part-I think. I do agree that some parts of the Bible are colored by the men that recorded it, men that translated it, and then personal experience while reading it.
The problem is -and I am willing to admit that my faith is not perfect-that I don't know what is skewed and what is the true voice.
Yes I know that assumes that there really is a God and that he is the right one You've got to allow that my starting point is there, for reasons that are right for me.
Yes, you have a right to believe in any entity you choose, just as the rest of us do. If you choose to believe the old book has merit other than it's origin indicates, this is fine with me too.
People have had faith in even worse deities, and much better ones for that matter, for perhaps hundreds of thousands of years. Many of these ancient stories and myths comprise the text of your present bible. Those ancient ones had just as much, and perhaps even more, faith in those other "gods", as you have in yours.
Personally, I created my own religion ruled by a god named Moe. Yes, I am proud to proclaim myself as a Stoogist. I am inspired by Moe to write the Gospels According To his apostles, Larry, Shemp, Curly, and Curly Joe.
Yes, I do realize Curly Joe was a minor stooge. but he still had something to say. I figured if a conman like Joseph Smith could do it, I could too.
You have no idea how open I am to that I know a lot of the history of the bible and could have an interesting conversation (in another thread) about the more modern (I.E. 600 or so years ago) mixing of the Celtic stories and traditions and the effect they had on the European version of Christianity. You would most definitely win out on the older mythology mixing though
I came to Christianity from a generally wiccan POV and still hold onto the view that one of the reasons to "worship" a deity is to emulate the qualities that you wish to have in your own life. We could also talk about that whole thought process for hours too. But, if Curly is who you want to be like, then go for it! Sense of humour is a worthwhile personal goal
So I suppose everyone got a glimpse at the different kinds of Christians on this thread. We have those who are forgiving and non-judgmental of their fellow man and are also intelligent enough to know they can only see inside of their own hearts and minds.
And then we have the others.
I am always amazed that in the 21st century people still care what a collection of books, which were written in the Bronze Age has to say. If people imagine how humanity lived and what else they believed in the Bronze Age. It was then believed the world was a flat disc which had a dome above that went only a few miles up, and which made up the entire universe. If anyone were to still believe that the Earth was a flat disc, with the universe, a small dome, people would quite rightly assume they were mad. Yet, here we are in 2011, with 150 years of solid scientific evidence for evolution and with the age of the universe known to be approximately 13.7 billion years old, not the 6,000 the creationists indoctrinate their children to believe. I certainly am happy to take advantage of the lifestyle made possible by scientific progress, and I have no intention of returning to the Bronze Age, no matter how much of a sinner this makes me.
by Freegoldman 7 years ago
plz tell me
by calico Stark 2 years ago
Does a Christian woman have a biblical right to divorce her emotionally abusive husband?Is emotional abuse a valid reason for a person to get a divorce? Or should the spouse believe for a supernatural transformation?
by Eric Dierker 5 years ago
Where is the list of the grounds for divorce in the Bible.I know somewhere there is an old list that goes right through all the "legal" grounds in a list form for why there can be a legitimate divorce.
by blessedp 6 years ago
Do you believe in divorce and re-marriage?The bible tells us that, What God has joined together let no man put asunder. Whosoever putteth away his wife and marry another commit adultery, and if anybody marry her also commit adultery. What say you?
by Asahda Shavaja Poet of the New Age 7 years ago
Is this idea causing our youth to become immoral? Why go to these extents just to SEPARATE GOD & KNOWLEDGE..does it make sense? When I was young my class said the pledge of allegiance every morning and spoke the words "one nation under GOD", now it's a crime, really? What are your...
by PhoenixV 3 years ago
What Does The Bible Say About Getting A Divorce?
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|