Christians that remarry.

[Noir]

Was reading through the sermon on the mount when I read this

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

Given these are (suposadily) words direct from the messiahs mouth, why are Christians allowed to remarry at all?

[ConHog]

Was reading through the sermon on the mount when I read this

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

Given these are (suposadily) words direct from the messiahs mouth, why are Christians allowed to remarry at all?

Because God recognizes that sometimes Christians marry non Christians and allows them to divorce them and then remarry. MY wife cheated when we were both 21 years old. I refuse to believed that God intended for me to either stay with her and tolerate the behavior or remain single the rest of my life.

[J.T]

Because God recognizes that sometimes Christians marry non Christians and allows them to divorce them and then remarry.
Where is this in the scripture?


MY wife cheated when we were both 21 years old.
You have 2 options"
-Stone her
-Forgive her and make your marriage work

Or you above the laws and commandments of God?


I refuse to believed that God intended for me to either stay with her and tolerate the behavior or remain single the rest of my life.

Ah, so what you want god's laws to be are more important that what he actually said. You just pick and choose what bits you like when constructing your own false religion... Enjoy that broad and winding path :thumb:

[ConHog]

Where is this in the scripture?
You have 2 options"
-Stone her
-Forgive her and make your marriage work

Or you above the laws and commandments of God?


Ah, so what you want god's laws to be are more important that what he actually said. You just pick and choose what bits you like when constructing your own false religion... Enjoy that broad and winding path :thumb:

Imagine that , JT found his way into a thread about a religion he supposedly cares nothing for.\\





But


Matthew 19:9

9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

[Noir]

Because God recognizes that sometimes Christians marry non Christians and allows them to divorce them and then remarry. MY wife cheated when we were both 21 years old. I refuse to believed that God intended for me to either stay with her and tolerate the behavior or remain single the rest of my life.

Indeed. But any chirstian who divorcies someone who did *not* cheat on them. Must remain single. Yes?

[ConHog]

Indeed. But any chirstian who divorcies someone who did *not* cheat on them. Must remain single. Yes?

My personal opinion is that Scripture says just that. But I am conflicted, what about abuse? abandonment? And other such things. Is a woman supposed to remain alone and single for instance if her husband beats her until she finally leaves his worthless ass?

[DragonStryk72]

Was reading through the sermon on the mount when I read this

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

Given these are (suposadily) words direct from the messiahs mouth, why are Christians allowed to remarry at all?

Good question, Noir. let's look at that, shall we? Well, first off, there's the one exception to the no divorces bit, and that's extra-marital sex, as mentioned above as fornication. So that one is a clean divorce grounds, no harm no foul.

Shy of those grounds, you're not supposed to get a divorce, cause, you know "Til death do us part". However, remember that Jesus also repeatedly preached forgiveness of sins, and spoke against the anal retentiveness of Jewish law at the time, such as when women would be stoned for committing adultery "Let ye who is without sin cast the first stone".

[Noir]

My personal opinion is that Scripture says just that. But I am conflicted, what about abuse? abandonment? And other such things. Is a woman supposed to remain alone and single for instance if her husband beats her until she finally leaves his worthless ass?

Yep. Looks pretty cut and dry to me.

Reminds me of a pogram I watched not too long ago about people making their Wills. And tree was a Muslim Man and Wife who wanted theirs made in acordence with Islamic law. And (surprise surpirse) they found it to be very sexiest, ridiculously so. And the wife especially found it hard to deal with, they kept saying things like 'We view Islam as being about Justice, and this doesn't seem just" (for example anything given to the girls must be doubled, the wife has no property rights if the husband dies etc.) they kept going to different people, asking if the law was open to greyness or other interpretation, and where told no lol.

It was kinda sad seeing them try to find someone to give them a loophole to do what was obviously more sensible that whatever's in their book. But I imagine the same happens with the quote in the OP. I have no doubt people will of found a greyness to justify what they want to do and not be considered adulterers. But it looks pretty black and White to me.

[DragonStryk72]

Yep. Looks pretty cut and dry to me.

Reminds me of a pogram I watched not too long ago about people making their Wills. And tree was a Muslim Man and Wife who wanted theirs made in acordence with Islamic law. And (surprise surpirse) they found it to be very sexiest, ridiculously so. And the wife especially found it hard to deal with, they kept saying things like 'We view Islam as being about Justice, and this doesn't seem just" (for example anything given to the girls must be doubled, the wife has no property rights if the husband dies etc.) they kept going to different people, asking if the law was open to greyness or other interpretation, and where told no lol.

It was kinda sad seeing them try to find someone to give them a loophole to do what was obviously more sensible that whatever's in their book. But I imagine the same happens with the quote in the OP. I have no doubt people will of found a greyness to justify what they want to do and not be considered adulterers. But it looks pretty black and White to me.

Yeah, read the rest of the New Testament first. It isn't about a "loophole", because Christ wasn't establishing laws, period. Never, not once, did he lay out an actual law of any kind. In fact, he largely struck down the Jewish book of law that had existed up until his time. "Since the time of St. John the Baptist, we are no longer under the Law, but under Grace". And I say this with 6 years of study under my belt. Hell, the pharisees tried to trick Christ multiple times with the Law, and it never took. The entire idea of Christ's message was built around getting rid of the loopholes, but at the same time, allowing for the fact that people are human, and therefore will sin, all of us. This is why forgiveness of sins was so important to his sermons.

[Noir]

Good question, Noir. let's look at that, shall we? Well, first off, there's the one exception to the no divorces bit, and that's extra-marital sex, as mentioned above as fornication. So that one is a clean divorce grounds, no harm no foul.

Shy of those grounds, you're not supposed to get a divorce, cause, you know "Til death do us part". However, remember that Jesus also repeatedly preached forgiveness of sins, and spoke against the anal retentiveness of Jewish law at the time, such as when women would be stoned for committing adultery "Let ye who is without sin cast the first stone".

Two aspects, the first being forgiveness, the second being anal retentiveness.

Forgiveness: surly there is a difference between asking forgiveness for a sin committed by an action, and a continuos 'living' sin. By which I mean...If I stole a bike, and asked for forgiveness, that's fine. But what if I asked for forgiveness knowing fill well that tomorrow I planned to steal another?
By living with a second wife and/or having sex with her, you are in a constant state of adultery. How can you ask for forgiveness when you know you will keep doing the very sin you want forgiven for?

Retentiveness of laws; At what date should we of cast this law aside? Isn't it a bit short sighted for Jesus to specifically mention a Sin that he knew would cause this kind of confusion given he already spoke out against such Jewish laws as you mentioned?

[DragonStryk72]

Two aspects, the first being forgiveness, the second being anal retentiveness.

Forgiveness: surly there is a difference between asking forgiveness for a sin committed by an action, and a continus 'living' sin. By which I mean...If I stole a bike, and asked for forgiveness, that's fine. But what if I asked for forgiveness knowing fill well that tomorrow I planned to steal another?
By living with a second wife and/or having sex with her, you are in a constant state of adultery. How cam you ask for forgiveness when you know you will keep doing the very sin you want forgiven for?

Well, then you aren't really sorry, then, are you? Seems pretty simple, and doesn't require legalese at all. Most people who ask for forgiveness have no intention of committing the sin again. For divorce, you used to have to have grounds, which was the way it worked until the Church of England jumped up and rewrote things so that the king could keep having more wives.

All sins are not the same. Is stealing a bike as bad a sin as beating a baby to death with a bat? Of course not. Same thing here. You have already screwed up by getting divorced, but the best that you or any other person out there can do is to lead the best life they can after that. This will likely involve falling in love again, and doing your best to honor that love. Nowhere in all of Christ's teachings does it say that you're going to hell for this, it simply says that it's a sin, but then, all men are sinners. However, if you are truly sorry for how your marriage went the first time, and work on making your second marriage a good one, then you should be fine. Any attempt to legalese Christ's teachings though, comes down to this: Maybe it is a sin, but he knew us to be sinful, and so forgives us as long as we are truly repentant.

Retentiveness of laws; At what date should we of cast this law aside? Isn't it a bit short sighted for Jesus to specifically mention a Sin that he knew would cause this kind of concussion given he already spoke out against such Jewish laws as you mentioned?

"Since the time of St. John the Baptist, we are no longer under the law, but under Grace." Yeah, about that time. You also have to remember the audience he was preaching to at the time. Sure, he could have gotten into the nitty-gritty of every single thing that could be done wrong in a marriage, but would anyone have listened? No, of course not. This is why Christians don't get circumcised, or have to stop working on the weekends, or any other things that were required by Jewish law.

[Noir]

So basically, ignore what Jesus said in the OP.

[J.T]

My personal opinion is that Scripture says just that. But I am conflicted, what about abuse? abandonment? And other such things. Is a woman supposed to remain alone and single for instance if her husband beats her until she finally leaves his worthless ass?

Leave him? Who says she has a say in the matter? I don't remember Jesus saying anything of the sort

[ConHog]

Leave him? Who says she has a say in the matter? I don't remember Jesus saying anything of the sort

You might believe women are property and thus subject to the whims of a man, but Christianity does not.

[J.T]

or any other things that were required by Jewish law.

thou shalt not murder?

[J.T]

You might believe women are property and thus subject to the whims of a man, but Christianity does not.

Really? Where did Jesus announce this change?

[DragonStryk72]

So basically, ignore what Jesus said in the OP.

No, listen to all of what Jesus said, not just the part you quote so you can prove a point. As you said, you read one section, meaning one portion of what he said.

Here's one: Have you ever heard, seen, or met an atheist who was a hooting dickhole about it? The kind of guy who makes you wish he would just stop talking so he'd stop getting the rest of you, who are not hooting dickholes, in trouble? See, we here in Catholicism have those types as well, just as there are hooting dickholes in wicca, Judaism, Islam, and even Buddhists. It happens, and neither, nor any member of any faith, including atheism, can speak for the whole of everyone.

You are unable to speak for atheists everywhere, but you seem to demand that we who have faith in God speak for all of us. None of us bug you about your faith in no God, we pretty much just leave you to it. You, however, do not bestow the same respect to us.

[DragonStryk72]

thou shalt not murder?

"Love thy neighbor as you would love thyself"

"Love your Enemy"

However, the Jewish Book of Law refers directly to Leviticus. This is where you got some of the more retarded laws that would ensure that every single poster on this board would have been put to death a ways back. Now, if you care to put forth a real point, as opposed to this weak ass crap of a quote above, then feel free, but don't come back to this dicussion pulling another one of your bullshit runs. Otherwise, me and Noir were actually having a debate. You might want to take notes on how to have one.

[J.T]

"Love thy neighbor as you would love thyself"

"Love your Enemy"


So euthanasia and abortion of severely deformed children are okay with you?

[Noir]

No, listen to all of what Jesus said, not just the part you quote so you can prove a point. As you said, you read one section, meaning one portion of what he said.

Here's one: Have you ever heard, seen, or met an atheist who was a hooting dickhole about it? The kind of guy who makes you wish he would just stop talking so he'd stop getting the rest of you, who are not hooting dickholes, in trouble? See, we here in Catholicism have those types as well, just as there are hooting dickholes in wicca, Judaism, Islam, and even Buddhists. It happens, and neither, nor any member of any faith, including atheism, can speak for the whole of everyone.

You are unable to speak for atheists everywhere, but you seem to demand that we who have faith in God speak for all of us. None of us bug you about your faith in no God, we pretty much just leave you to it. You, however, do not bestow the same respect to us.

The fact remains that what Jesus said in the OP is black and White. The fact that you can take other pars of the bible to show how what Jesus said doesn't matter shows how silly it all is.

And I'm not asking for someone to speak for everyone. But I do find t telling that on a matter like this (which we must remember is rolling dice on whether or not you'd spend an eternity in hell) there is disagreement over a black and White sentence.

I respect no idea enough to not challenge it and challenge it again. My entire youth I had your god forced down my throat by th state, I wasn't 'left to it'. You can bieve whatever you want to believe in the privacy of your own home, but keep it out of public life and my private life, and don't discriminate against others of your type because you feel have the suriourity to do so. Once the religious do that, I won't be bugging anyone.

[Nukeman]

The fact remains that what Jesus said in the OP is black and White. The fact that you can take other pars of the bible to show how what Jesus said doesn't matter shows how silly it all is.

And I'm not asking for someone to speak for everyone. But I do find t telling that on a matter like this (which we must remember is rolling dice on whether or not you'd spend an eternity in hell) there is disagreement over a black and White sentence.

I respect no idea enough to not challenge it and challenge it again. My entire youth I had your god forced down my throat by th state, I wasn't 'left to it'. You can bieve whatever you want to believe in the privacy of your own home, but keep it out of public life and my private life, and don't discriminate against others of your type because you feel have the suriourity to do so. Once the religious do that, I won't be bugging anyone.Jonathon, no offence but YOU are the one that keeps bringing up religious posts. If you wnat it "left out of yoru public and private life" why do you continue to bring it up.

[Noir]

Jonathon, no offence but YOU are the one that keeps bringing up religious posts. If you wnat it "left out of yoru public and private life" why do you continue to bring it up.

Common mistake but just to say, my names spelt 'Jonathan' (:

And yes, I bring up religious posts because religion has yet to keep itself out of public life, keep itself out if my private life, and stop discriminating aginst others. Once it does, I'll never give it a moments consideration again.