Divorce is a sin against God

[gabosaurus]

The covenant of marriage is one of the first defined by God. Throughout the books of the Bible, God made it clear that marriage is a lifetime commitment.

Matthew 5:31-32
It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 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

Malachi 2:16a:
“I hate divorce, says the Lord God of Israel.”

Matthew 19:6
So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate

A great many of you feel free to condemn homosexuals, because of what is written in the Bible.
But if you are divorced, you are no better than a homosexual. Since both are seen as sins in the eyes of the Lord.

[crin63]

A great many of you feel free to condemn homosexuals, because of what is written in the Bible.
But if you are divorced, you are no better than a homosexual. Since both are seen as sins in the eyes of the Lord.

Mat 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.

I know this will be hard for you to grasp but you need to use the whole Bible not just what you want.

God intended for marriages to be for a lifetime between a man and a woman but if one of them commits adultery then the other can divorce them and remarry.

1Co 7:12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
1Co 7:13 And the woman which hath a husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
1Co 7:15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

Bondage would be the marriage covenant.

[crin63]

A couple more for you since you weren't able to locate theses earlier.

Deu 24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.

Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

[darin]

Except Divorce isn't neccessarily sinful. (shrug). Doesn't mean God likes it, nor considers it ideal.

However, the verses listed above show NO grounds for divorce. People have used them as grounds for divorce in err I believe.

What those say is, "If you put away your wife/spouse, you make them a fornicator (unless they've already fornicated themselves)."

That's NOT 'cause for escape.'

The BIGGEST logic flaw in the OP is this: Homos don't repent of their sin, nor seek forgiveness and restoration. IF divorce is "sinful" (which I highly doubt), it's very able to seek repentence, and attain same.

:)

ANYONE here who has broken ANY of their vows on occasion could be called having sinned.

I've found people LOVE to cherry pick what is sinful with very little concern as to what the bible is trying to say, vs. what words they read.


Very interesting reading on Divorce: http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Brewer/PPages/DRC/WhitefieldBriefing.htm


NT Grounds for Divorce

Which grounds for divorce did Jesus accept? He was never asked this question, and he does not tell us, though we know from his answer to the question about the ‘Any Cause’ divorce that he allowed divorce for adultery. In the absence of further evidence, we have to assume that he accepted all four Old Testament grounds for divorce, as did all other Jews.

There are many aspects of Jesus’ teaching for which we have no record — e.g. he never affirmed monotheism or condemned rape— because there was no need to record everything which his audience already agreed with. When Jesus did disagree, he was not shy to say so. When he was asked about the ‘Any Cause’ divorce Jesus took the opportunity to point out several matters in which he disagreed with other Jews, including monogamy (all Jews except the Qumran sect allowed polygamy), optional divorce for adultery (which most Jews regarded as compulsory), and optional marriage (which all Jews regarded as compulsory).

Fortunately Paul is not as silent as Jesus, because he has to remind his partly-gentile audience about the obligations within marriage, as mentioned above.
Way ahead for the Church

The problem for the modern church, living in a climate of no-fault divorce, is how to re-introduce the teaching that divorce should only occur when there are specific biblical grounds for it.

One way forward may be to re-emphasise the marriage vows of traditional Christian wedding services which retain references to all four biblical grounds for divorce — faithfulness and the three types of neglect. The marriage vows “to love honour and keep” are based on ancient Jewish vows as cited in Ephesians 5.28-29 where Christ “loves… nourishes and cherishes” or, more literally, “loves, feeds and keeps warm” his bride.

The Old Testament spoke about marriage as a ‘contract’ and regarded the marriage vows as stipulations in that contract. If one partner broke their marriage vows the other was entitled, as with any business contract, to either declare the contract broken or to forgive a repentant partner. This gives the decision back to the wronged partner.

We do not want to regard marriage merely in terms of contractual obligations, but wedding vows could be taught both as the foundations of marriage and as the only valid grounds for divorce. The biblical grounds for divorce would thereby regain their status as a focus for building and maintaining a marriage rather than just the means to its end.

[manu1959]

The covenant of marriage is one of the first defined by God. Throughout the books of the Bible, God made it clear that marriage is a lifetime commitment.

Matthew 5:31-32
It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 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

Malachi 2:16a:
“I hate divorce, says the Lord God of Israel.”

Matthew 19:6
So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate

A great many of you feel free to condemn homosexuals, because of what is written in the Bible.
But if you are divorced, you are no better than a homosexual. Since both are seen as sins in the eyes of the Lord.

are you trying to justify a sin with a sin.....or are you saying all sin is equal

[darin]

She's trying to equate continued unrepentence with something (which isn't sinful under certain contexts) that happens and then stops.

(shrug).

[manu1959]

She's trying to equate continued unrepentence with something (which isn't sinful under certain contexts) that happens and then stops.

(shrug).

nah.....she is trying to justify a sin with a sin.....it is what libs do.....

[gabosaurus]

What I am saying is -- God intended marriage to be forever. That is why he created it.
If you broke your vows of matrimony, you have sinned.


she is trying to justify a sin with a sin.....it is what libs do

Why is why so many Bush apologists justs his misdeeds with "well, look at what Clinton did!"

Don't be calling out "sinners" if you are living in sin. If you have divorced and remarried, you have sinned, and dragged your new wife into a sinful relationship.

[PostmodernProphet]

A great many of you feel free to condemn homosexuals, because of what is written in the Bible.
But if you are divorced, you are no better than a homosexual. Since both are seen as sins in the eyes of the Lord.

considering the fact that there isn't a single person in the world who hasn't sinned a half dozen times between getting up in the morning and having breakfast, I'm not sure what your point is.....

unless you are trying to point out how people started telling us that divorce wasn't a bad thing fifty years ago and we have now reached the point where most people believe that to be true......and now people have started telling us that homosexual marriage isn't a bad thing today and fifty years from now we may reach the point where most people believe that to be true.....

[Roomy]

considering the fact that there isn't a single person in the world who hasn't sinned a half dozen times between getting up in the morning and having breakfast, I'm not sure what your point is.....

unless you are trying to point out how people started telling us that divorce wasn't a bad thing fifty years ago and we have now reached the point where most people believe that to be true......and now people have started telling us that homosexual marriage isn't a bad thing today and fifty years from now we may reach the point where most people believe that to be true.....

OH I dare bet you'll find a few here who would argue they never sin and if they do they quickly repent of their sins so that they are forgiven in the eyes of their God.We have contenders for Sainthoods and martyrdom here and you don't need to look too hard for them.

[darin]

What I am saying is -- God intended marriage to be forever. That is why he created it.
If you broke your vows of matrimony, you have sinned.



Why is why so many Bush apologists justs his misdeeds with "well, look at what Clinton did!"

Don't be calling out "sinners" if you are living in sin. If you have divorced and remarried, you have sinned, and dragged your new wife into a sinful relationship.

It's the church's duty to point out the sins in the lives of it's own. that's the point.

AND I think I put up pretty compelling arguments against divorce being 'sinful'.

[midcan5]

Maybe people can only see the sins of others, a rather curious aliment that seems to have no cure.

"The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and three hundred sixty two admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision." Lynne Lavner

[bullypulpit]

Mat 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.

I know this will be hard for you to grasp but <i><b>you need to use the whole Bible</b></i> not just what you want.

God intended for marriages to be for a lifetime between a man and a woman but if one of them commits adultery then the other can divorce them and remarry.

1Co 7:12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
1Co 7:13 And the woman which hath a husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
1Co 7:15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

Bondage would be the marriage covenant.

Oh, now THAT is rich. The religious right wing-nuts use those parts of the Bible they find convenient and ignore the rest on a daily basis. <img src=http://macg.net/emoticons/tongue3.gif>

[actsnoblemartin]

I love how you call people who believe in the bible nuts.

#1 nobody follows the bible perfectly

#2 liberals created their own religion called liberalism

I am not religious, but lets atleast be honest about this ok?


Oh, now THAT is rich. The religious right wing-nuts use those parts of the Bible they find convenient and ignore the rest on a daily basis. <img src=http://macg.net/emoticons/tongue3.gif>

[Hagbard Celine]

The 2000-year-old tribal laws of a bunch of patriarchal goat-herders have no bearing on my life. (shrug) I live by US law, not the law of the Torah.

[glockmail]

The 2000-year-old tribal laws of a bunch of patriarchal goat-herders have no bearing on my life. (shrug) I live by US law, not the law of the Torah. So you don't care if its a sin against God because you don't belive in God. So what's your purpose of posting in this thread?:pee:

[Hagbard Celine]

So you don't care if its a sin against God because you don't belive in God. So what's your purpose of posting in this thread?:pee:

I never said that I don't believe in God. Adherence to the laws of orthodox Judaism isn't the only quantifier for belief in God.

[namvet]

Originally Posted by gabosaurus
A great many of you feel free to condemn homosexuals, because of what is written in the Bible.
But if you are divorced, you are no better than a homosexual. Since both are seen as sins in the eyes of the Lord.

this coming from a faggot left wing radical lug nut. she reads the Qur'an not the bible.

[PostmodernProphet]

I live by US law, not the law of the Torah.

/shrugs....it isn't the law you live by that should cause you concern.....it's the law you die by......

[Hagbard Celine]

/shrugs....it isn't the law you live by that should cause you concern.....it's the law you die by......

Ooh, I've got shivers down my spine. :rolleyes: Is it, could it be?! Am I feeling convicted by the fear of Jebus? No, no, that's just the ITIS from those chicken wings I had for lunch. Never mind.

[Hagbard Celine]

this coming from a faggot left wing radical lug nut. she reads the Qur'an not the bible.

Ooh, it's the ol' combo insult! Much more advanced that the regular, single punch insult. This one has all the hitting power of a regular insult with the acidic vitriol of accused sacriledge thrown in to boot and none of the logical reasoning of a well-conjured debate retort!
I don't know about you guys, but I give this insult a seven out of ten. I would've ranked it higher, but I always take-off points for speculation and xenophobia.

[Abbey Marie]

Ooh, it's the ol' combo insult! Much more advanced that the regular, single punch insult. This one has all the hitting power of a regular insult with the acidic vitriol of accused sacriledge thrown in to boot and none of the logical reasoning of a well-conjured debate retort!
I don't know about you guys, but I give this insult a seven out of ten. I would've ranked it higher, but I always take-off points for speculation and xenophobia.


You know, though his comment was bad, with your relentless insults and mockery, I'm not sure you're qualified to call anyone on their behavior.

So, what do you believe in, Hag? Can't be the Bible, as you have demonstrated many, many times that you find it to be foolishness. So, where do you get your info on this God you say you believe in?

[darin]

this coming from a faggot left wing radical lug nut. she reads the Qur'an not the bible.

Was THAT really called for? I mean, REALLY???

Here's a tip:


Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:


Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

:D (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html)

[Hagbard Celine]

You know, though his comment was bad, with your relentless insults and mockery, I'm not sure you're qualified to call anyone on their behavior.

So, what do you believe in, Hag? Can't be the Bible, as you have demonstrated many, many times that you find it to be foolishness. So, where do you get your info on this God you say you believe in?

I know God exists because I feel it in my soul Abbey.

And I've never said that the whole Bible is foolishness. However, I do not think it is historically or scientifically accurate nor do I think that modern people like us should worry ourselves over the antiquated and patriarchal laws laid down in the old Testament. We know we can eat shrimp and pork and get divorced and that women should have the same rights as men and that adultery isn't punishable by death--we know these things, so why do we continue to pick and choose which Old Testament, Jewish laws we try to follow? It's goofy imo.

[Yurt]

gabs, what do you make of divorce when one spouse commits adultery? you completely ignored that and other points as well...

[hjmick]

this coming from a faggot left wing radical lug nut. she reads the Qur'an not the bible.


Was THAT really called for? I mean, REALLY???

No, it was not called for. Not even remotely. But the again, is any of the name calling, insults, and demeaning commentary really called for? It's not as if you win an argument or debate by resorting to such tactics. When was the last time someone changed your opinion on something by calling you a "douche bag?"

[Hagbard Celine]

No, it was not called for. Not even remotely. But the again, is any of the name calling, insults, and demeaning commentary really called for? It's not as if you win an argument or debate by resorting to such tactics. When was the last time someone changed your opinion on something by calling you a "douche bag?"

You know what? That's a good point. I think I'll vote Republican this time hjmick. Thanks for changing my opinion with your biting remarks! :cheers2:

[Roomy]

No, it was not called for. Not even remotely. But the again, is any of the name calling, insults, and demeaning commentary really called for? It's not as if you win an argument or debate by resorting to such tactics. When was the last time someone changed your opinion on something by calling you a "douche bag?"

Someone called me a 'Cocksmooch' the other day:laugh2: I was stopped in my tracks:laugh2:

[hjmick]

You know what? That's a good point. I think I'll vote Republican this time hjmick. Thanks for changing my opinion with your biting remarks! :cheers2:

Damn it Hag! I'm sitting here enjoying my righteous indignation and you go and make me laugh. What the hell?

[hjmick]

Someone called me a 'Cocksmooch' the other day:laugh2: I was stopped in my tracks:laugh2:

Well, at least that's a new one.

[glockmail]

I never said that I don't believe in God. Adherence to the laws of orthodox Judaism isn't the only quantifier for belief in God.
I'm sorry for making that assumption then. But if you don't beleive in the Torah you should at least have some respect for those that do and not call the writers a bunch of goat herders. Save that for the Muzzies out there. :coffee:

[Hagbard Celine]

I'm sorry for making that assumption then. But if you don't beleive in the Torah you should at least have some respect for those that do and not call the writers a bunch of goat herders. Save that for the Muzzies out there. :coffee:

Well? I apologize for using such callous language, but it's essentially true. The men who wrote the Bible were less educated and knew less about the world than any of us do and their ability to communicate with God was no less one-sided than ours is imo. The lessons in the Bible are excellent, but no more special than those gleamed from Aesop's fables or from Greek mythology imo. I just think that God allows more elasticity in faith than strict Bible adherents would have us all believe. If God really created us then he knows how flawed we are and he wouldn't leave our salvation up to strict adherence to a book written by our own kind.

[No1tovote4]

It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 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


Anybody ever notice that he causes HER to commit adultery, and only those who marry her are committing adultery? So you can divorce her and marry and not commit adultery, she cannot.

[glockmail]

Well? I apologize for using such callous language, but it's essentially true. The men who wrote the Bible were less educated and knew less about the world than any of us do and their ability to communicate with God was no less one-sided than ours is imo. The lessons in the Bible are excellent, but no more special than those gleamed from Aesop's fables or from Greek mythology imo. I just think that God allows more elasticity in faith than strict Bible adherents would have us all believe. If God really created us then he knows how flawed we are and he wouldn't leave our salvation up to strict adherence to a book written by our own kind.
According to scholars the Torah wasn't written by men, but transcribed to men directly by God.

I don't have a problem with people not adhering to "organized" religions. I can see why many are turned off by them due to shenanigans of its leaders and such. In fact when I was younger my faith fell outside the Catholic Church and in many aspects still does.

As an example we've had discussions in this forum about "tithing" and I am on record as being against it. I don't believe the Catholic Church requires it but I know of several Protestant churches that do. I’m sure requiring 10% of your income to get in the door turns a lot of people off.

Organizations, however, provide a mechanism for learning and for worship. As I grow older I have found this to provide me and especially my kids with a lot of benefit. I can go to a Catholic church in Rome, Mexico or any State in the US and witness the same ceremony that has remained relatively unchanged for nearly 2000 years.

[Yurt]

Well? I apologize for using such callous language, but it's essentially true. The men who wrote the Bible were less educated and knew less about the world than any of us do and their ability to communicate with God was no less one-sided than ours is imo. The lessons in the Bible are excellent, but no more special than those gleamed from Aesop's fables or from Greek mythology imo. I just think that God allows more elasticity in faith than strict Bible adherents would have us all believe. If God really created us then he knows how flawed we are and he wouldn't leave our salvation up to strict adherence to a book written by our own kind.

how do you personally find out and/or more about God? you mentioned earlier that you feel God, is this also your way of learning more about him?

[Roomy]

how do you personally find out and/or more about God? you mentioned earlier that you feel God, is this also your way of learning more about him?

Surely it is impossible to learn any more about God, he stopped talking thousands of years ago, didn't he? He/she is telling nobody nothing, anybody that says he talks to him/her is usually dismissed as a lunatic post haste, and with good reason.

[Trigg]

A great many of you feel free to condemn homosexuals, because of what is written in the Bible.
But if you are divorced, you are no better than a homosexual. Since both are seen as sins in the eyes of the Lord.

I do believe that only you could come up with this asinine conclusion.

[Yurt]

Surely it is impossible to learn any more about God, he stopped talking thousands of years ago, didn't he? He/she is telling nobody nothing, anybody that says he talks to him/her is usually dismissed as a lunatic post haste, and with good reason.

he did? do you have proof?

[Roomy]

he did? do you have proof?

I have faith and courage in my convictions:cool:
If it is good enough for theists it has to be good enough for me.

[bullypulpit]

The 2000-year-old tribal laws of a bunch of patriarchal goat-herders have no bearing on my life. (shrug) I live by US law, not the law of the Torah.

Actually it would be Talmudic law, but you're right in either case. US law is rooted in English Common Law, not religious doctrine.

[bullypulpit]

I love how you call people who believe in the bible nuts.

#1 nobody follows the bible perfectly

#2 liberals created their own religion called liberalism

I am not religious, but lets atleast be honest about this ok?

I know many who believe in the Bible who aren't nuts. They walk the walk and don't presume to impose their faith on those who neither need nor want it. I reserve the classification of "nuts" for those busybodies who need to tend to their own salvation before they start worrying about the salvation of others...If salvation is what you want to call it.

As for point #1, if the Bible is the inerrant and inviolate word of God, then those in the religious right needs to treat it as such and live by its tenets...ALL of them.

Regarding point #2, there is no 'religion' of "liberalism".

[Abbey Marie]

I know many who believe in the Bible who aren't nuts. They walk the walk and don't presume to impose their faith on those who neither need nor want it. I reserve the classification of "nuts" for those busybodies who need to tend to their own salvation before they start worrying about the salvation of others...If salvation is what you want to call it.

As for point #1, if the Bible is the inerrant and inviolate word of God, then those in the religious right needs to treat it as such and live by its tenets...ALL of them.

Regarding point #2, there is no 'religion' of "liberalism".

If the bolded part is true of these people you know, they are either not Bible believers, or pick and choose what they like in it. Jesus specifically commanded evangelism. There is no call to be obnoxious in doing so, of course.

[darin]

This topic was in another thread recently - bump for interest.

[5stringJeff]

I'll re-make a point that was made earlier in the thread: both divorce and homosexual acts are sins, but God seeks repentance from, and offers forgiveness to, both the divorcee and the homosexual offender.

[-Cp]

What I am saying is -- God intended marriage to be forever. That is why he created it.
If you broke your vows of matrimony, you have sinned.


:link::link::link::link:

[-Cp]

I'll re-make a point that was made earlier in the thread: both divorce and homosexual acts are sins, but God seeks repentance from, and offers forgiveness to, both the divorcee and the homosexual offender.

Can you please provide scripture that says Divorce is a sin?

[5stringJeff]

Can you please provide scripture that says Divorce is a sin?

Malachi 2:16: "'For I hate divorce,' says the LORD, the God of Israel."

Matthew 5:32: "But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery."

Matthew 19:3-9: "Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?" And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, `FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'? "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?" He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

1 Corinthians 7:10-11: "But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife."

[darin]

Matthew 5:32: "But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery."


To people who use that verse to justify divorce in cases of adultery, I read that as "Unless she's adulterated herself already, divorcing causes that action."

Adultery is NOT a God-sanctioned justification for divorce.

[-Cp]

Malachi 2:16: "'For I hate divorce,' says the LORD, the God of Israel."

God hates lots of things....




Matthew 5:32: "But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery."

Matthew 19:3-9: "Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?" And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, `FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'? "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?" He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."


1 Corinthians 7:10-11: "But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife."

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=379357&postcount=48

Hmm... Got any that specifically say Divorce is a sin?

[gabosaurus]

The Bible says divorce is a sin.
The Bible says homosexuality is a sin.

Shouldn't divorced people be looked upon the same as homosexuals?
I would certainly think so.

[-Cp]

The Bible says divorce is a sin.


Where?

[darin]

The Bible says divorce is a sin.
The Bible says homosexuality is a sin.

Shouldn't divorced people be looked upon the same as homosexuals?
I would certainly think so.

Dude - you're a broken record. Repeating the same falsehood will NEVER make it a truth.

[crin63]

Marriage is and was a contract. If it was permissible to kill a woman for NOT being a virgin or to kill her and the man that laid with her for committing adultery. Then how can there have been no grounds for divorce. I would submit that Jesus was either clarifying or changing the OT. To allow for divorce in the case of adultery instead having to kill the woman and the man that lie with her. However He did not overturn the ability to divorce her for some uncleanness the man found in her. He said nothing regarding that matter.

Deu 22:13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
Deu 22:14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:
Deu 22:15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:
Deu 22:16 And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
Deu 22:17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.
Deu 22:18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
Deu 22:19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
Deu 22:20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
Deu 22:21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.


Deu 22:23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
Deu 22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
Deu 22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:


Deu 22:28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
Deu 22:29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.



Deu 24:1 When a man hath taken 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 her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
Deu 24:2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.

[Mr. P]

Deu 22:28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
Deu 22:29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

Now, it seems to me that this says: Pre-marital sex is ok as long as you're not caught. If caught you pay Daddy for it, prostitution?. Or maybe it just creates a shotgun wedding so to speak? If ya do her ya own her..for fifty shekels of silver? Hummmm...interesting..I owe, I owe.

[gabosaurus]

Malachi 2:16:
“I hate divorce, says the LORD God of Israel.”

Matthew 19:6
“So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate”

God permitted divorce only for sexual immorality. And only the innocent party was allowed to remarry.

Matthew 5:32
"But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery."

Matthew 19:9
"I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

So if you have divorced your wife, and particularly if you have remarried, you have sinned against God.
You might as well be a faggot. :p

[-Cp]

Malachi 2:16:
“I hate divorce, says the LORD God of Israel.”

Matthew 19:6
“So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate”

God permitted divorce only for sexual immorality. And only the innocent party was allowed to remarry.

Matthew 5:32
"But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery."

Matthew 19:9
"I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

So if you have divorced your wife, and particularly if you have remarried, you have sinned against God.
You might as well be a faggot. :p

So.. do you have ANY scriptures at all that claim it's a sin?

[PostmodernProphet]

God hates lots of things....




http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=379357&postcount=48

Hmm... Got any that specifically say Divorce is a sin?

oh come on, CP....this is getting ridiculous....

[darin]

Malachi 2:16:
“I hate divorce, says the LORD God of Israel.”

Matthew 19:6
“So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate”

God permitted divorce only for sexual immorality. And only the innocent party was allowed to remarry.

Matthew 5:32
"But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery."

Matthew 19:9
"I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

So if you have divorced your wife, and particularly if you have remarried, you have sinned against God.
You might as well be a faggot. :p

I addressed those in my larger post in this thread. You misunderstand. Again, that last one you used has NOTHING to do with the topic. God NEVER permitted divorce for marital unfaithfulness - if he HAD it'd mean every divorce is okay in your book. Unfaithfulness = breaking ANY vows one has made. I will never understand how adults can equate: "Unless your spouse has committed adultery on their own, divorcing them causes them to commit adultery" with "If your spouse sins, you may divorce them w/o sin"

Very interesting reading on Divorce: http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Brewer/PPages/DRC/WhitefieldBriefing.htm


NT Grounds for Divorce

Which grounds for divorce did Jesus accept? He was never asked this question, and he does not tell us, though we know from his answer to the question about the ‘Any Cause’ divorce that he allowed divorce for adultery. In the absence of further evidence, we have to assume that he accepted all four Old Testament grounds for divorce, as did all other Jews.

There are many aspects of Jesus’ teaching for which we have no record — e.g. he never affirmed monotheism or condemned rape— because there was no need to record everything which his audience already agreed with. When Jesus did disagree, he was not shy to say so. When he was asked about the ‘Any Cause’ divorce Jesus took the opportunity to point out several matters in which he disagreed with other Jews, including monogamy (all Jews except the Qumran sect allowed polygamy), optional divorce for adultery (which most Jews regarded as compulsory), and optional marriage (which all Jews regarded as compulsory).

Fortunately Paul is not as silent as Jesus, because he has to remind his partly-gentile audience about the obligations within marriage, as mentioned above.
Way ahead for the Church

The problem for the modern church, living in a climate of no-fault divorce, is how to re-introduce the teaching that divorce should only occur when there are specific biblical grounds for it.

One way forward may be to re-emphasise the marriage vows of traditional Christian wedding services which retain references to all four biblical grounds for divorce — faithfulness and the three types of neglect. The marriage vows “to love honour and keep” are based on ancient Jewish vows as cited in Ephesians 5.28-29 where Christ “loves… nourishes and cherishes” or, more literally, “loves, feeds and keeps warm” his bride.

The Old Testament spoke about marriage as a ‘contract’ and regarded the marriage vows as stipulations in that contract. If one partner broke their marriage vows the other was entitled, as with any business contract, to either declare the contract broken or to forgive a repentant partner. This gives the decision back to the wronged partner.

We do not want to regard marriage merely in terms of contractual obligations, but wedding vows could be taught both as the foundations of marriage and as the only valid grounds for divorce. The biblical grounds for divorce would thereby regain their status as a focus for building and maintaining a marriage rather than just the means to its end.

[crin63]

Now, it seems to me that this says: Pre-marital sex is ok as long as you're not caught. If caught you pay Daddy for it, prostitution?. Or maybe it just creates a shotgun wedding so to speak? If ya do her ya own her..for fifty shekels of silver? Hummmm...interesting..I owe, I owe.

You also had to marry her and could never divorce her (put her away).

[PostmodernProphet]

You also had to marry her and could never divorce her (put her away).

I will admit, I have often wondered if this approach didn't punish the woman more than the man.....of course, our current secular system accomplishes as bad a result with defense lawyers battering the victim.....

[gabosaurus]

You can twist it anyway you want. There are no scriptural grounds for divorce.
God intended marriage to be a permanent union.
Marriage is not Wal-Mart. If you get tired of your spouse, you can't trade her in for a new one.

[PostmodernProphet]

though, if I were married to you, hell might be worth it....

[-Cp]

oh come on, CP....this is getting ridiculous....

No, what's ridiculous is how they say it's a sin, yet nowhere in scripture does it say so..

[darin]

You can twist it anyway you want. There are no scriptural grounds for divorce.
God intended marriage to be a permanent union.
Marriage is not Wal-Mart. If you get tired of your spouse, you can't trade her in for a new one.

Or is it - you refuse to learn something that challenges what you thought you knew about ANYTHING?

I have provided clear explanation why you are wrong - typical liberal fashion, you just stomp your feet and insist you're right.

[crin63]

You can twist it anyway you want. There are no scriptural grounds for divorce.
God intended marriage to be a permanent union.
Marriage is not Wal-Mart. If you get tired of your spouse, you can't trade her in for a new one.

Although, Yes God intends marriage to last forever, He did provide grounds for divorce.

I provided scriptural grounds for divorce from the old testament. There are just as many in the new testament.

[darin]

dude - CR - it's like this:

Gabby: The sky is not blue.

Reasonable person: Light is a kind of energy that can travel through space. Light from the sun or a light bulb looks white, but it is really a mixture of many colors. The colors in white light are red, orange, yellow, green, blue and violet. You can see these colors when you look at a rainbow in the sky.

The sky is filled with air. Air is a mixture of tiny gas molecules and small bits of solid stuff, like dust.

As sunlight goes through the air, it bumps into the molecules and dust. When light hits a gas molecule, it may bounce off in a different direction. Some colors of light, like red and orange, pass straight through the air. But most of the blue light bounces off in all directions. In this way, the blue light gets scattered all around the sky.

When you look up, some of this blue light reaches your eyes from all over the sky. Since you see blue light from everywhere overhead, the sky looks blue.

In space, there is no air. Because there is nothing for the light to bounce off, it just goes straight. None of the light gets scattered, and the "sky" looks dark and black.
:D (http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/sky_blue.html)

Gabby: You can twist things anyway you want, it's still not blue.

[crin63]

dude - CR - it's like this:

Gabby: The sky is not blue.

Reasonable person: Light is a kind of energy that can travel through space. Light from the sun or a light bulb looks white, but it is really a mixture of many colors. The colors in white light are red, orange, yellow, green, blue and violet. You can see these colors when you look at a rainbow in the sky.

The sky is filled with air. Air is a mixture of tiny gas molecules and small bits of solid stuff, like dust.

As sunlight goes through the air, it bumps into the molecules and dust. When light hits a gas molecule, it may bounce off in a different direction. Some colors of light, like red and orange, pass straight through the air. But most of the blue light bounces off in all directions. In this way, the blue light gets scattered all around the sky.

When you look up, some of this blue light reaches your eyes from all over the sky. Since you see blue light from everywhere overhead, the sky looks blue.

In space, there is no air. Because there is nothing for the light to bounce off, it just goes straight. None of the light gets scattered, and the "sky" looks dark and black.
:D (http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/sky_blue.html)

Gabby: You can twist things anyway you want, it's still not blue.

I realize that she wont be intellectually honest about it because she has some sort of agenda. Don't confuse her with facts, she has already made up her mind.

[DragonStryk72]

Oh, now THAT is rich. The religious right wing-nuts use those parts of the Bible they find convenient and ignore the rest on a daily basis. <img src=http://macg.net/emoticons/tongue3.gif>

Actually, all people do it. Anyone who uses a single quote, or even a series of the quotes is committing the same foul: They are not using the whole of the message. Neither side does, and I don't see it happening any time soon.

Personally, Being both catholic, and conservative, I don't see either homosexuality or divorce as an unimpeachable sin. Neither one is up there with rape or murder. Of course the christian god wants marriage to last, look at every single religion on the planet, and come back to me when you find the one that goes, "As to divorce and homosexuality.... meh, no big deal, do what you will."

[PostmodernProphet]

No, what's ridiculous is how they say it's a sin, yet nowhere in scripture does it say so..

only if you can sustain the belief that you are still being obedient, after God says "this really sucks and I don't like it"......

[PostmodernProphet]

Neither one is up there with rape or murder.

you know, nothing I have ever read in scripture leads me to believe there is such a thing as "you're more disobedient that I am"......

[-Cp]

only if you can sustain the belief that you are still being obedient, after God says "this really sucks and I don't like it"......


http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/OTeSources/39-Malachi/Text/Articles/Kaiser-DivorceMalachi-CTR.pdf


It is altogether true that God hates divorce. But He neither hates all divorces in the same way nor hates every aspect of divorce. He hates what occasions every divorce--even the one that He gave to sinful Israel. He hates the results that often flow to children and to injured parties of a divorce (yet even that did not stop Him from willing divorce in Ezra 10:44, 11). And He hates divorces wrongly obtained on grounds that He has not sanctioned.

The OT word for divorce occurs in the phrase, certificate of "divorce" (ttyrk); literally, it reads "certificate" or "bill of cutting off."25 Thus the other party was "cut off" by the one divorcing him/her. However, even though the vocabulary for "divorce" is in place in both testaments, one must not automatically infer that there were two opposing views to the permanence of marriage in the OT, as some have held--especially in those popular or scholarly treatments which falsely pit the strong disdain for divorce found in Mal 2:13-16 against an imagined approval of divorce in the Mosaic legislation of Deut 24:1-4.

In fact, the purpose of the Mosaic regulation was neither to encourage divorce, enjoin it, nor to approve it; instead, it was given to prescribe certain procedures if and when it tragically took place. What it did do was to force the one divorcing his spouse to give his former wife the protection of a "certificate of divorce" lest the one divorcing her engage in a type of polygamy--now claiming he was divorced, later claiming he was still married to her when he wanted to indulge his passions with his former "wife." But the main teaching of Deut 24:1-4 specially forbids a man to remarry his first wife after he had divorced her and she had remarried--even if her second husband had subsequently died or also divorced her.

It is unfortunate that the KJV, the English RV, and the ASV adopted a translation of Deut 24:1-4 which added to the confusion and isunderstanding of this key Mosaic passage. On their rendering, divorce is not just tolerated or permitted; it is commanded when the "uncleanness" described in the protasis of these verses occurs.

[crin63]

It is altogether true that God hates divorce. But He neither hates all divorces in the same way nor hates every aspect of divorce. He hates what occasions every divorce--even the one that He gave to sinful Israel. He hates the results that often flow to children and to injured parties of a divorce (yet even that did not stop Him from willing divorce in Ezra 10:44, 11). And He hates divorces wrongly obtained on grounds that He has not sanctioned.

The OT word for divorce occurs in the phrase, certificate of "divorce" (ttyrk); literally, it reads "certificate" or "bill of cutting off."25 Thus the other party was "cut off" by the one divorcing him/her. However, even though the vocabulary for "divorce" is in place in both testaments, one must not automatically infer that there were two opposing views to the permanence of marriage in the OT, as some have held--especially in those popular or scholarly treatments which falsely pit the strong disdain for divorce found in Mal 2:13-16 against an imagined approval of divorce in the Mosaic legislation of Deut 24:1-4.

In fact, the purpose of the Mosaic regulation was neither to encourage divorce, enjoin it, nor to approve it; instead, it was given to prescribe certain procedures if and when it tragically took place. What it did do was to force the one divorcing his spouse to give his former wife the protection of a "certificate of divorce" lest the one divorcing her engage in a type of polygamy--now claiming he was divorced, later claiming he was still married to her when he wanted to indulge his passions with his former "wife." But the main teaching of Deut 24:1-4 specially forbids a man to remarry his first wife after he had divorced her and she had remarried--even if her second husband had subsequently died or also divorced her.

It is unfortunate that the KJV, the English RV, and the ASV adopted a translation of Deut 24:1-4 which added to the confusion and isunderstanding of this key Mosaic passage. On their rendering, divorce is not just tolerated or permitted; it is commanded when the "uncleanness" described in the protasis of these verses occurs.

I agree with much of what you have said, however divorce was a remedy for an offended party or broken contract. It wasn't just so the other didn't walk away and end up being a fornicator.

In Deut. 24 it says if she find no favor in his eyes because he found some uncleanness. Sounds to me like its at the guys discretion.

[gabosaurus]

I agree with much of what you have said, however divorce was a remedy for an offended party or broken contract. It wasn't just so the other didn't walk away and end up being a fornicator.

In Deut. 24 it says if she find no favor in his eyes because he found some uncleanness. Sounds to me like its at the guys discretion.

Unfortunately, this is probably the truth. A guy can interpret the Bible his way and walk about without any justification.
The justifications that God gives do not cover the majority of modern divorces. If you want a younger, better looking and more obedient spouse, just dump the old one and be on your way. No questions asked.

The way I interpret the Bible, marriage is a lifetime covenant. God disapproves of divorce.
A great many of you look down on homosexuality, because God disapproved of it. I view divorce in the same manner.
If you are divorced, and particularly if you are remarried, you have scorned God and will be standing in the same line for Hell as the homosexuals you loathe so much. Because you are all the same ilk. You have doomed yourself and any additional spouse you may take.

[Jeff]

Unfortunately, this is probably the truth. A guy can interpret the Bible his way and walk about without any justification.
The justifications that God gives do not cover the majority of modern divorces. If you want a younger, better looking and more obedient spouse, just dump the old one and be on your way. No questions asked.

The way I interpret the Bible, marriage is a lifetime covenant. God disapproves of divorce.
A great many of you look down on homosexuality, because God disapproved of it. I view divorce in the same manner.
If you are divorced, and particularly if you are remarried, you have scorned God and will be standing in the same line for Hell as the homosexuals you loathe so much. Because you are all the same ilk. You have doomed yourself and any additional spouse you may take.

I agree with ya divorce is suppose to be wrong, as is homo sex, but do you really think God believes that a woman who is being beat by a man or as in my case a man that is married to a woman that is stealing the household money and cheating, do you really think God believes you should stay in the marriage

On the other hand homo sex is just that, ya knew going into it what ya were doing, even if the relationship goes wrong ( as in the examples above) it was a sin before it went wrong

[darin]

Unfortunately, this is probably the truth. A guy can interpret the Bible his way and walk about without any justification.
The justifications that God gives do not cover the majority of modern divorces. If you want a younger, better looking and more obedient spouse, just dump the old one and be on your way. No questions asked.

The way I interpret the Bible, marriage is a lifetime covenant. God disapproves of divorce.
A great many of you look down on homosexuality, because God disapproved of it. I view divorce in the same manner.
If you are divorced, and particularly if you are remarried, you have scorned God and will be standing in the same line for Hell as the homosexuals you loathe so much. Because you are all the same ilk. You have doomed yourself and any additional spouse you may take.


I don't doubt your sincerity - but all the sincerity in the world won't make a falsehood true. (shrug). Open your mind and really LEARN scripture if you want to know God's heart. Don't settle.

[crin63]

Unfortunately, this is probably the truth. A guy can interpret the Bible his way and walk about without any justification.
The justifications that God gives do not cover the majority of modern divorces. If you want a younger, better looking and more obedient spouse, just dump the old one and be on your way. No questions asked.

The way I interpret the Bible, marriage is a lifetime covenant. God disapproves of divorce.
A great many of you look down on homosexuality, because God disapproved of it. I view divorce in the same manner.
If you are divorced, and particularly if you are remarried, you have scorned God and will be standing in the same line for Hell as the homosexuals you loathe so much. Because you are all the same ilk. You have doomed yourself and any additional spouse you may take.

Although we have already been through this I will recap for the rest. I was married to a whore that did 7 or 8 guys while we were married. Once I confronted her about it she insisted that she would continue to do as she pleased because I loved my sons so much that I would never leave her because of them. She said she would whore herself out for $100 if she wanted too. She tried everything to break me and get me to hit her, which I never did. I committed no sin by divorcing her and I remained faithful to her until I left and then I also got custody of my sons from her.

[glockmail]

Wow what a button pusher. Kudos for keeping your cool. :salute:

[5stringJeff]

God hates lots of things....

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=379357&postcount=48

Hmm... Got any that specifically say Divorce is a sin?


So.. do you have ANY scriptures at all that claim it's a sin?

(as to a 4-year-old: ) We have given you several passages that clearly show the command not to divorce. As I'm sure you know, acting contrary to God's command is a sin. Therefore, divorce is a sin.

[5stringJeff]

To people who use that verse to justify divorce in cases of adultery, I read that as "Unless she's adulterated herself already, divorcing causes that action."

Adultery is NOT a God-sanctioned justification for divorce.

Actually, the verse you're referring to is Matthew 19:9: "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

[5stringJeff]

You can twist it anyway you want. There are no scriptural grounds for divorce.
God intended marriage to be a permanent union.
Marriage is not Wal-Mart. If you get tired of your spouse, you can't trade her in for a new one.

There is one Scriptural ground for divorce: adultery on the part of the other spouse.

[gabosaurus]

There is one Scriptural ground for divorce: adultery on the part of the other spouse.

Very true. So how do alleged "Christians" justify divorce just because they get tired of the person they marry? Or because they become enamored with someone else?
If you decide one day that your wife doesn't fit your needs, can you just tell her "sorry babe, I'm going to dump you and marry someone else"?
To me, that is sinful. And you will need to answer to God for it.

[crin63]

Very true. So how do alleged "Christians" justify divorce just because they get tired of the person they marry? Or because they become enamored with someone else?
If you decide one day that your wife doesn't fit your needs, can you just tell her "sorry babe, I'm going to dump you and marry someone else"?
To me, that is sinful. And you will need to answer to God for it.

I think you actually hit the nail on the head with this gabs. The key word is, "alleged". Thats wherein lies the problem. Non-Christians claiming to be Christians and running around behaving like no actual Christian should ever behave.

[5stringJeff]

Very true. So how do alleged "Christians" justify divorce just because they get tired of the person they marry? Or because they become enamored with someone else?
If you decide one day that your wife doesn't fit your needs, can you just tell her "sorry babe, I'm going to dump you and marry someone else"?
To me, that is sinful. And you will need to answer to God for it.

I don't think the type of divorce you described is justified.

Out of curiosity, Gabby, do you support the repeal of no-fault divorce laws?

[-Cp]

(as to a 4-year-old: ) We have given you several passages that clearly show the command not to divorce. As I'm sure you know, acting contrary to God's command is a sin. Therefore, divorce is a sin.

Wow.. could ya be anymore condescending?

Got never gave a command that "divorce is sin"..

Was Jonah sinning when he ran from God yet God snatched him up anyways?

[gabosaurus]

Got never gave a command that "divorce is sin"..


The fact that is it in The Bible is not good enough for you? Perhaps you need to read more closely.

No-fault divorce laws are an abomination. I think everyone who wants a divorce needs to show just cause.

[darin]

There is one Scriptural ground for divorce: adultery on the part of the other spouse.

I disagree. There's NO 'justified' reason for divorce given. Christ simply stated "Unless your spouse has already adulterated her/himself, divorcing them causes them to commit it. Much different than "go ahead and divorce them if they commit adultery'.

Actually, the only sanction I've ever read is when one is married to a non-believer who wishes to divorce them.

But - again, I think folk aren't taking into account the actual words/verbage used between 'put away' and 'divorce', etc, as I've posted.

[-Cp]

The fact that is it in The Bible is not good enough for you? Perhaps you need to read more closely.

No-fault divorce laws are an abomination. I think everyone who wants a divorce needs to show just cause.

You have just given me platitudes with no scripture that shows it's a sin..

[GW in Ohio]

What I am saying is -- God intended marriage to be forever. That is why he created it.
If you broke your vows of matrimony, you have sinned.



Why is why so many Bush apologists justs his misdeeds with "well, look at what Clinton did!"

Don't be calling out "sinners" if you are living in sin. If you have divorced and remarried, you have sinned, and dragged your new wife into a sinful relationship.

Some of you guys are just crazy as loons. Do you really think God holds it against you if you get a divorce?

[GW in Ohio]

Very true. So how do alleged "Christians" justify divorce just because they get tired of the person they marry? Or because they become enamored with someone else?
If you decide one day that your wife doesn't fit your needs, can you just tell her "sorry babe, I'm going to dump you and marry someone else"?
To me, that is sinful. And you will need to answer to God for it.

Actually, I agree with Gabby on that one. If you dump your wife because you're going through a midlife crisis, that's something you'll have to answer for.

On the other hand, if your spouse turns out to be abusive, or an alcoholic, or a serial philanderer, you should dump him or her. And no, God won't hold that against you.

[-Cp]

Actually, I agree with Gabby on that one. If you dump your wife because you're going through a midlife crisis, that's something you'll have to answer for.

On the other hand, if your spouse turns out to be abusive, or an alcoholic, or a serial philanderer, you should dump him or her. And no, God won't hold that against you.

Well it's comforting for all of us - I'm sure - to know that you speak on behalf of God... ..:lame2:

[GW in Ohio]

So you don't care if its a sin against God because you don't belive in God. So what's your purpose of posting in this thread?:pee:

Glockie: I think what he's saying is, he doesn't believe in your God.

I don't, either. And before you hasten to label me an atheist, don't. I'm not an atheist.

More and more people don't believe in your God these days. And no, that's not a sign that this is a "sinful age." It's an indication that we're emerging from a long, medieval nightmare.


Well it's comforting for all of us - I'm sure - to know that you speak on behalf of God... ..:lame2:

Hey, not a problem.

If you need to know what God thinks about other stuff, just ask.....


I'll re-make a point that was made earlier in the thread: both divorce and homosexual acts are sins, but God seeks repentance from, and offers forgiveness to, both the divorcee and the homosexual offender.

Starting wars on flimsy or made-up pretexts that kill thousands of people are sins, also. If we're categorizing sins from small to humungous, getting a divorce is pretty chickenshit stuff compared to what Bush and Cheney and the rest of their gang did in Iraq.

And homosexuality? A sin? Please.......

[darin]

Glockie: I think what he's saying is, he doesn't believe in your God.

I don't, either. And before you hasten to label me an atheist, don't. I'm not an atheist.

More and more people don't believe in your God these days. And no, that's not a sign that this is a "sinful age." It's an indication that we're emerging from a long, medieval nightmare.



Hey, not a problem.

If you need to know what God thinks about other stuff, just ask.....



Starting wars on flimsy or made-up pretexts that kill thousands of people are sins, also. If we're categorizing sins from small to humungous, getting a divorce is pretty chickenshit stuff compared to what Bush and Cheney and the rest of their gang did in Iraq.

And homosexuality? A sin? Please.......


GW, are you a christian? If not, your opinion on what is or isn't a sin is worthless. Sins don't matter to people who don't care about sin.

[Missileman]

Glockie: I think what he's saying is, he doesn't believe in your God.

I don't, either. And before you hasten to label me an atheist, don't. I'm not an atheist.


Christians are atheists too...the only difference is I believe in one god fewer than they do.

[5stringJeff]

Starting wars on flimsy or made-up pretexts that kill thousands of people are sins, also. If we're categorizing sins from small to humungous, getting a divorce is pretty chickenshit stuff compared to what Bush and Cheney and the rest of their gang did in Iraq.

And homosexuality? A sin? Please.......

First, the war in Iraq has nothing to do with this thread.

Second, if you don't think homosexuality is a sin, you should reread your Bible.

[emmett]

Glockie: I think what he's saying is, he doesn't believe in your God.

I don't, either. And before you hasten to label me an atheist, don't. I'm not an atheist.

More and more people don't believe in your God these days. And no, that's not a sign that this is a "sinful age." It's an indication that we're emerging from a long, medieval nightmare.



Hey, not a problem.

If you need to know what God thinks about other stuff, just ask.....



Starting wars on flimsy or made-up pretexts that kill thousands of people are sins, also. If we're categorizing sins from small to humungous, getting a divorce is pretty chickenshit stuff compared to what Bush and Cheney and the rest of their gang did in Iraq.

And homosexuality? A sin? Please.......


X rated post coming!



Ladies....before reading please be advised that I feel it necessary to use disgusting language in this post. BEWARE! One might not want to read this.



WARNING.................read above before reading further/








WARNING







OK.....GW. Here it is. If you do not think that one man stuffing his penis into another man's rectum and hunching wildly to acheive sexual gradification is not a sick and dimented act, you are indeed one sick individual. This is about as unnatural an act as anything I could possibly think of. Sin.........I believe so pal!

[gabosaurus]

So tell me Emmett, why is it a sin for a man to have anal sex with another man, but not a sin for a man to have anal sex with a woman?
And why is it wrong for men to love men, but OK for women to love women?
Questions open to anyone, actually. Have at it.

[darin]

So tell me Emmett, why is it a sin for a man to have anal sex with another man, but not a sin for a man to have anal sex with a woman?
And why is it wrong for men to love men, but OK for women to love women?
Questions open to anyone, actually. Have at it.

Homosexuality fucks with people's mind - creates a world of hurt inside somebody. God tells us to avoid things that harm us.

Your last question is so nasty of a fallacy, it makes the entire board a little dumber. :(

(sigh).

Stop being a turd, Gabby, and at least try to discuss this rationally.

[gabosaurus]

Homosexuality fucks with people's mind - creates a world of hurt inside somebody. God tells us to avoid things that harm us.

Your last question is so nasty of a fallacy, it makes the entire board a little dumber. :(


You have to have a pretty weak mind to be disturbed by homosexuality. Consenting adults should be allowed a lot of leniency. I don't see anything in the Bible about golden showers, fecal eroticism, armpit fetishes or role playing, but not a lot of folks are into it. On the other hand, the Bible is in favor of group sex. I am not.
It's not a fallacy. A great many of you have admitted to being fans of woman-on-woman sex. You find nothing wrong with it.
And there are many on this board that are already so dumb, it a little more will hardly be noticeable. :p

[darin]

You have to have a pretty weak mind to be disturbed by homosexuality. Consenting adults should be allowed a lot of leniency. I don't see anything in the Bible about golden showers, fecal eroticism, armpit fetishes or role playing, but not a lot of folks are into it. On the other hand, the Bible is in favor of group sex. I am not.
It's not a fallacy. A great many of you have admitted to being fans of woman-on-woman sex. You find nothing wrong with it.
And there are many on this board that are already so dumb, it a little more will hardly be noticeable. :p


There is cause and affect. The cause - homosexual activities HURT people physically, morally, and spiritually. What starts the desire for what is functionally moronic sexual activities is traumatic and hurtful to people. Instead of seeking the spiritual and mental help required to treat their problems, they use 'sex with others of the same sex'. It's not a cure - that lifestyle drives them further into scared, lonely and hurtful places, mentally.

The bible is in favor of group sex, eh? See, now I know you will not even argue this rationally.

The fallacy is - you brought up LOVE. I love MANY men. I don't have the mental disorder, thankfully, that confuses love and sex. That is to say, I don't feel drawn to have sex with everything or one I love.

That in and of itself - that desire to have sex with objects of love - shows the illness so many folk face. And you, Gabby, you are an enabler for them.

[crin63]

There is cause and affect. The cause - homosexual activities HURT people physically, morally, and spiritually. What starts the desire for what is functionally moronic sexual activities is traumatic and hurtful to people. Instead of seeking the spiritual and mental help required to treat their problems, they use 'sex with others of the same sex'. It's not a cure - that lifestyle drives them further into scared, lonely and hurtful places, mentally.

The bible is in favor of group sex, eh? See, now I know you will not even argue this rationally.

The fallacy is - you brought up LOVE. I love MANY men. I don't have the mental disorder, thankfully, that confuses love and sex. That is to say, I don't feel drawn to have sex with everything or one I love.

That in and of itself - that desire to have sex with objects of love - shows the illness so many folk face. And you, Gabby, you are an enabler for them.

What you have to understand about gabby is that she thinks at a high schoolers level. Thats who she hangs around all day is screwed up high schoolers. Her thoughts and opinions make so much more sense if you look at them in their proper perspective. She is like a super-senior who is doing their 5th year in high school.

[Joyful HoneyBee]

Back to the original premise and question, whether divorce is a sin or not -

Many people overlook the fact that God himself wrote a letter of divorce to Israel at one point because of the unfaithfulness of the nation.

Jeremiah 3:8 says, "Then I saw that for all the causes for which backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a certificate of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but went and played the Harlot also."

Scripture also mentions the certificate of divorce in Isaiah 50:1.

The reason for the divorce is clearly spelled out - the unfaithfulness of the nation. Scripture has made it abundantly clear throughout that faithfulness is not merely a choice in a marriage, it is what is expected.

In fact, scripture dictates fulfilling our faithful obligation in all the responsibilities we take on. Those instances are far too many to list here.

As for homosexuality and whether or not it is sinful, few things in scripture are more vividly admonished than this lifestyle. The fact that Lot and his family barely escaped the annihilation of Sodom and Gomorrah is pretty strong evidence of how well God receives homosexuality and related forms of immorality. Lots wife, you may recall, turned into a pillar of salt for just looking back.

Leviticus - uhhh, the book of laws, leaves no room for a lack of clarity on that point. When scripture states that a man shall not lie with a man as he would with a woman, most reasonable people would realize that this is a discussion about sexual behavior. Unreasonable people might see something different (if they stand on their head with their thumb stuck up one nostril and turn their elbow into their ear thereby twisting their entire perspective out of normal adjustment, that is).

I'm jus' sayin'......

[darin]

Lot's wife turned into a pillar of salt for her disobediance - nothing to do w/ homosexuality.

[Joyful HoneyBee]

Exactly....all of Lots family had been instructed to not look back and she chose disobedience and looked back.

[Mr. P]

http://rightfromtheheart.org/player.php?title=If+You+Are+the+Victim+of+Adultery&file=%2Fmnt%2Fstor2-wc1-dfw1%2F401226%2F401373%2Fwww.rightfromtheheart.org %2Fweb%2Fcontent%2Fmedia%2Fradio%2F20090824.mp3

[glockmail]

So tell me Emmett, why is it a sin for a man to have anal sex with another man, but not a sin for a man to have anal sex with a woman?
And why is it wrong for men to love men, but OK for women to love women?
Questions open to anyone, actually. Have at it. Sodomy is a sin no matter how you swallow it Gabby. *shrug*

[glockmail]

Glockie: I think what he's saying is, he doesn't believe in your God.

I don't, either. And before you hasten to label me an atheist, don't. I'm not an atheist.

More and more people don't believe in your God these days. And no, that's not a sign that this is a "sinful age." It's an indication that we're emerging from a long, medieval nightmare.......

Good- more room for me and my friends in Heaven. :dev: