Is Jesus's divorce law anti-love?

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Is Jesus's divorce law anti-love?


Jesus agreed with the O.T God on divorce. Let no man break that union or let no man put asunder.

I see that as anti-love. If Jesus is wrong about such a fundamental issue, then what else was he wrong about?

If a Christian, even if you become convinced that Jesus was indeed wrong, it would not make any difference to you because you actually follow tradition, culture and your family’s inherited traditional God. Not really a God that you selected through trials of his moral character. Right? Shame on you for neglecting the most important decision of your life.

I think that the moral reason all divorce pleas should be granted is that no one, gay, straight and all conditions in between or over, should be denied the ability to seek a lifetime loving partner, wife or husband, for any reason. I see being able to seek a loving mate or partner as a fundamental human right.

Do you agree?

Regards
DL

[darin]

Jesus doesn't have a Divorce Law. What you're quoting isn't about "Thou shall NEVER divorce!" - it's one of the most mis-used verses by the church in attempts to control 'followers'.

[DragonStryk72]

Is Jesus's divorce law anti-love?


Jesus agreed with the O.T God on divorce. Let no man break that union or let no man put asunder.

I see that as anti-love. If Jesus is wrong about such a fundamental issue, then what else was he wrong about?

If a Christian, even if you become convinced that Jesus was indeed wrong, it would not make any difference to you because you actually follow tradition, culture and your family’s inherited traditional God. Not really a God that you selected through trials of his moral character. Right? Shame on you for neglecting the most important decision of your life.

I think that the moral reason all divorce pleas should be granted is that no one, gay, straight and all conditions in between or over, should be denied the ability to seek a lifetime loving partner, wife or husband, for any reason. I see being able to seek a loving mate or partner as a fundamental human right.

Do you agree?

Regards
DL



You're free to see it however you want. You're wrong, but you're still free to see it that way.

I love how you completely try to obviate Christ working to stop the stoning of women for adultery with this one. He was all about love, it was one his main themes.

You know why he says it like that? Because marriage is an oath to God to love, honor, and cherish. Key point in that, love. It's part of the oath you take upon marrying. So yeah, Jesus is against that, unless that love is broken (say by adultery). This was included in his speech on marriage. Actually, by the times at which is was said, it was really quite progressive, but hey, that requires context, which has never been a strength of yours.

Oh, and love the condescension right out of the OP. Christ would be so very proud of you, Christian.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Jesus doesn't have a Divorce Law. What you're quoting isn't about "Thou shall NEVER divorce!" - it's one of the most mis-used verses by the church in attempts to control 'followers'.

That is what religions are all about and yes, they will miss-use whatever they can to keep the money coming in.

All churches do all the time is lie to us about God.

Regards
DL


You're free to see it however you want. You're wrong, but you're still free to see it that way.

I love how you completely try to obviate Christ working to stop the stoning of women for adultery with this one. He was all about love, it was one his main themes.

You know why he says it like that? Because marriage is an oath to God to love, honor, and cherish. Key point in that, love. It's part of the oath you take upon marrying. So yeah, Jesus is against that, unless that love is broken (say by adultery). This was included in his speech on marriage. Actually, by the times at which is was said, it was really quite progressive, but hey, that requires context, which has never been a strength of yours.

Oh, and love the condescension right out of the OP. Christ would be so very proud of you, Christian.

I am not a Christian but agree with the tone you used for them. Literalist Christians that is.

We should all try to keep oaths but to say to a man who gets beat up twice a week by his partner that he cannot seek a loving partner is quite immoral.

If you could do that, it would show how your religion has corrupted your morals.

I take it that you would also deny gays the right to seek a loving mate.

Knowing that divorce rates for Christians run at about 60% and adding in the gay population, just what % of the population would you deny loving mates to?

Regards
DL

[fj1200]

I take it that you would also deny gays the right to seek a loving mate.

:facepalm99: Preconceived emotions are strong with this one.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

:facepalm99: Preconceived emotions are strong with this one.

No denial says all I need to know.

Regards
DL

[fj1200]

No denial says all I need to know.

DS will tell you what you need to know but it will make no difference to what already exists in your mind.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

DS will tell you what you need to know but it will make no difference to what already exists in your mind.

Now you speak for other posters. Rather presumptuous.

Regards
DL

[Said1]

Is Jesus's divorce law anti-love?


Jesus agreed with the O.T God on divorce. Let no man break that union or let no man put asunder.

I see that as anti-love. If Jesus is wrong about such a fundamental issue, then what else was he wrong about?

If a Christian, even if you become convinced that Jesus was indeed wrong, it would not make any difference to you because you actually follow tradition, culture and your family’s inherited traditional God. Not really a God that you selected through trials of his moral character. Right? Shame on you for neglecting the most important decision of your life.

I think that the moral reason all divorce pleas should be granted is that no one, gay, straight and all conditions in between or over, should be denied the ability to seek a lifetime loving partner, wife or husband, for any reason. I see being able to seek a loving mate or partner as a fundamental human right.

Do you agree?

Regards
DL



Well, if all that you're asking is that someone be nice to you (lovingly) then sure, I agree. Mean people suck, and I'm sure Jesus inferred, said and implies this many times. YOLO.

[fj1200]

Now you speak for other posters. Rather presumptuous.

I'm in no way speaking for him. I just know that you are presuming ignorantly. :)

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Well, if all that you're asking is that someone be nice to you (lovingly) then sure, I agree. Mean people suck, and I'm sure Jesus inferred, said and implies this many times. YOLO.

Exactly why love should not be denied anyone.

Good discernment.

Regards
DL

[gabosaurus]

Divorce itself is anti-love.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Divorce itself is anti-love.


No. It is used where there is no love so it cannot be anti-love.

It's use facilitates the looking for love when a heart does not have any.

For Christians to deny people the right to fill that loveless void with love shows that Christianity is not a religion of love. That is why their God shows so much hate and Christians do not reject his sorry ass.

Regard
DL

[red state]

Bottom Line:

Marriage, first of all, is or MUST be between a man and woman. Marriage is also to be UNDER GOD where two equally yoked Christians are wed.

Secondly, it is a LIFE LONG commitment (OATH). This commitment is for better or worse and we must strive to work out troubles and flaws. Habitual misconduct does allow one to leave an unGodly life to live one away from the threats and shame of an habitually abusive or godless party.

Thirdly, it is man's law that we divorce. Love is something you work on.....not fall into. Having said this, our society is all too quick to "fix" a problem by running from it. As a result, we make the same mistake or "FIX" with another spouse when we should have reconciled our differences with the first spouse.

fourthly, I do not see divorce as a sin (which it isn't) but the re-marrying of another as the sin. There are grounds to cut off relationship to a spouse (such as violence, cheating and the lack of seeing to the health of a spouse).

Christ (GOD) created marriage between a man and women as symbolic to the marriage of the church to Christ. Once you are His bride, He will not cast you away. Likewise, the Ark was symbolic of the plan of salvation.

Lastly, when in Heaven, we are no longer a spouse to anyone....................we then become brother and sister. This is a good thing considering the many times some people may marry during their lifetime through divorce or death. The only just way to re-marry is after the death of a loved mate/spouse.

These anti-Christian threads are becoming quite boring and although I chimed in, I did so as respectful as I possibly with my take on the subject while appealing to others regarding our participation in such deplorable, boorish threads (not to confuse this word with BOREDOM). In fact, boorish defines the author of these threads quite accurately in that he/she is slow witted, rude, ignorant and brash with the widest sense of such discription. Truth be told, threads should never be presented in the hateful and negative tones that this despicable author has displayed throughout their presence here at DP. The trolling and hatefulness within this thread and all of their previous threads have a single purpose and that is not for civil discussion but to mock and shame the faith of others who have done no harm or support the evils of doing others harm. These threads are merely trolling and I sincerely wish we would better this forum by simply such threads pass to the bottom (where they belong).

In short.....................:trolls:..............Pp pplllLLlllleeEEEAAAAAaaaaaassssssSSSEEEeeeee!!!!!! !!

I shall not do so again! BOTTOM LINE!

[gabosaurus]

For Christians to deny people the right to fill that loveless void with love shows that Christianity is not a religion of love. That is why their God shows so much hate and Christians do not reject his sorry ass.


It is difficult for those who do not believe to understand the concepts of those who do.

[tailfins]

Jesus doesn't have a Divorce Law. What you're quoting isn't about "Thou shall NEVER divorce!" - it's one of the most mis-used verses by the church in attempts to control 'followers'.

My mom believed that and took almost daily beatings from 1937 to 1952 because of it. She only divorced after one of her kids took a beating. I get my nasty side from those half-siblings. She produced four very mean adults by letting it go on so long.

[Caliban]

Although I'm not a Christian, I'm not naive enough to believe that Christian churches are all one thing and not another. The Church is a human institution existing in time and manned by sinful people, so it has often been wrong about things. But the same Church that could engage in the Albigensian Crusade, the Holy Inquisition and selling indulgences also included and fostered Saint Francis, St. Catherine and St. Thomas Aquinas.

It's not all one thing or another. It's neither unblemished perfection nor dark-age error.

[DragonStryk72]

That is what religions are all about and yes, they will miss-use whatever they can to keep the money coming in.

All churches do all the time is lie to us about God.

Regards
DL

That is patently false. There are many church that truly believe in the message they send. However, as the Bible teaches, we are all fallible, no matter how faithful we might be. We all sin at times.

I am not a Christian but agree with the tone you used for them. Literalist Christians that is.

We should all try to keep oaths but to say to a man who gets beat up twice a week by his partner that he cannot seek a loving partner is quite immoral.

If you could do that, it would show how your religion has corrupted your morals.

I take it that you would also deny gays the right to seek a loving mate.

Knowing that divorce rates for Christians run at about 60% and adding in the gay population, just what % of the population would you deny loving mates to?

Regards
DL

Actually, Christ never said that, and people keep attributing that into his sermon, somehow. Abuse is the absolute antithesis of the oath to love, honor, and cherish. I mentioned adultery as a point, because he did bring up several things aside from that. To abuse your spouse is a clear sin.

Christ was very much against literalism with the Bible. After all, this is the man that said:

"Judge not, be judged not"
"Love thy enemy" as the greatest commandment
"Let ye who is without sin cast the first stone" (Notably, did not cast a stone afterward)

:lol:, oh god, guys, did no one clue him in on my stance on gay marriage? Actually, I'm for it, my dad's gay. Yeah, gay/bi friends, it's one of my regular argument arenas here, though it hasn't been a topic of recent. There are several reasons for this:

It's not mine to judge (I feel Jesus'll back me on this one)
We're not actually talking about religious marriage when we talk about gay marriage, we're talking about contractual state marriage.
Love was the greatest commandment of Christ, so as a Christian, clearly that's the point we should be willing to take
Yes, homosexuality is a sin... technically. However, any act of sex other than missionary position sex, with your wife, for the sole purpose of having children, is also technically a sin, and of the same caliber. I just can't imagine Christ/God being against an act of love between consenting adults. We've got bigger problems (Israel/Palestine, Massive global debt crushing economies, environmental impact, continuing to allow Michael Bay to direct movies.)
Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, render unto God that which is God's

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Bottom Line:

Marriage, first of all, is or MUST be between a man and woman. Marriage is also to be UNDER GOD where two equally yoked Christians are wed.

Secondly, it is a LIFE LONG commitment (OATH). This commitment is for better or worse and we must strive to work out troubles and flaws. Habitual misconduct does allow one to leave an unGodly life to live one away from the threats and shame of an habitually abusive or godless party.

Thirdly, it is man's law that we divorce. Love is something you work on.....not fall into. Having said this, our society is all too quick to "fix" a problem by running from it. As a result, we make the same mistake or "FIX" with another spouse when we should have reconciled our differences with the first spouse.

fourthly, I do not see divorce as a sin (which it isn't) but the re-marrying of another as the sin. There are grounds to cut off relationship to a spouse (such as violence, cheating and the lack of seeing to the health of a spouse).

Christ (GOD) created marriage between a man and women as symbolic to the marriage of the church to Christ. Once you are His bride, He will not cast you away. Likewise, the Ark was symbolic of the plan of salvation.

Lastly, when in Heaven, we are no longer a spouse to anyone....................we then become brother and sister. This is a good thing considering the many times some people may marry during their lifetime through divorce or death. The only just way to re-marry is after the death of a loved mate/spouse.

These anti-Christian threads are becoming quite boring and although I chimed in, I did so as respectful as I possibly with my take on the subject while appealing to others regarding our participation in such deplorable, boorish threads (not to confuse this word with BOREDOM). In fact, boorish defines the author of these threads quite accurately in that he/she is slow witted, rude, ignorant and brash with the widest sense of such discription. Truth be told, threads should never be presented in the hateful and negative tones that this despicable author has displayed throughout their presence here at DP. The trolling and hatefulness within this thread and all of their previous threads have a single purpose and that is not for civil discussion but to mock and shame the faith of others who have done no harm or support the evils of doing others harm. These threads are merely trolling and I sincerely wish we would better this forum by simply such threads pass to the bottom (where they belong).

In short.....................:trolls:..............Pp pplllLLlllleeEEEAAAAAaaaaaassssssSSSEEEeeeee!!!!!! !!

I shall not do so again! BOTTOM LINE!

It must be eh.

Yet you added to what God and Jesus allow. Wow. You are quite brave. Or stupid.

"Whoever imagines himself a favorite with God,
holds other people in contempt.
Whenever a man believes that he has the exact truth from God,
there is in that man no spirit of compromise.
He has not the modesty born of the imperfections of human nature;
he has the arrogance of theological certainty and the tyranny born of ignorant assurance.
Believing himself to be the slave of God,
he imitates his master,
and of all tyrants,
the worst is a slave in power."
--Robert Ingersoll

Regards
DL


It is difficult for those who do not believe to understand the concepts of those who do.




Not for a Gnostic Christian though.

I see here that it is difficult for those who do not know love to recognize that it should not be denied to others without a really good reason and that a no divorce policy is anti-love and no a good reason at all.

Your religion has corrupted your morals and you view of love.

How will you get yourself into heaven? On your own merit or via a scapegoat?

Revisit substitutionary atonement or vicarious redemption and scapegoating with me just to refresh your memory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNtBkOXItqw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNtBkOXItqw)

I am not an atheist but Satan and Christians want atheists to embrace barbaric human sacrifice and the notion that we should profit from punishing the innocent instead of the guilty. Scapegoating IOW.

In reality, if God did demand such a barbaric sacrifice, he would be sinning as we all know that it is immoral to kill the innocent. God knows this yet Christians do not seem to. You do. Right?

Those with good morals will know that no noble and gracious God would demand the sacrifice of a son just to prove it's benevolence. When you die, Satan will ask you; how was your ticket to heaven purchased? With innocent blood?

If and when you say yes, you become his.

-----------------------------------

The other option in scriptures, a moral one, is shown here. 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Scriptures indicate that God prefers repentance to sacrifice and as God’s will is supreme and cannot be thwarted, this will come to pass.

---------------------------------

It is a special distorted Christian view of love that sees, --- as the greatest act of love possible, --- their God condemning them, and then turning anddemanding his son’s deaths and thus corrupting God's perfect justice. A bribe set by God as judge himself for himself. This is of course ridiculous.

Christians have an insane view of love, IMO.

Would you express your love for humanity or those you love by having your own child needlessly murdered?

Or if convinced that a sacrifice was somehow good, would you have the moral fortitude to step up yourself to that cross instead of sending your child?

Your cowardly God did not.

Regards
DL

[gabosaurus]

Brother Love's Traveling Salvation Show!

[DragonStryk72]

Not for a Gnostic Christian though.

I see here that it is difficult for those who do not know love to recognize that it should not be denied to others without a really good reason and that a no divorce policy is anti-love and no a good reason at all.

Your religion has corrupted your morals and you view of love.

OMG, you are so ignorant, and you keep on digging the hole deeper, lol. You just accused the most liberal person on the site, who is pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-gay marriage, and pro-feminism, of being a Christian zealot. And she's been devoutly liberal for years, man. I mean, seriously, you should look up some of her Bush-era posts.

Dear Lord, man... you just can't win for trying, can you? lol, man, I think you should just give up the ship with this whole run you're doing.


How will you get yourself into heaven? On your own merit or via a scapegoat?

Revisit substitutionary atonement or vicarious redemption and scapegoating with me just to refresh your memory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNtBkOXItqw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNtBkOXItqw)

I am not an atheist but Satan and Christians want atheists to embrace barbaric human sacrifice and the notion that we should profit from punishing the innocent instead of the guilty. Scapegoating IOW.

In reality, if God did demand such a barbaric sacrifice, he would be sinning as we all know that it is immoral to kill the innocent. God knows this yet Christians do not seem to. You do. Right?

Those with good morals will know that no noble and gracious God would demand the sacrifice of a son just to prove it's benevolence. When you die, Satan will ask you; how was your ticket to heaven purchased? With innocent blood?

If and when you say yes, you become his.

So, we're back to spamming your other threads again, huh? I admit, Gabs is not a good debater, so you can probably get away with going after her, but then, she admits to not being a good debater, so she's just not going to debate you.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Brother Love's Traveling Salvation Show!






No one on earth need salvation because God does not condemn what has emanate rom himself.

If believers cannot believe that their creator created them for the best possible end, then that prove that their God is obviously a loser.

As above so below says that if nature and man create for the best possible end then God will as well.

No salvation required.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

OMG, you are so ignorant, and you keep on digging the hole deeper, lol. You just accused the most liberal person on the site, who is pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-gay marriage, and pro-feminism, of being a Christian zealot. And she's been devoutly liberal for years, man. I mean, seriously, you should look up some of her Bush-era posts.

Dear Lord, man... you just can't win for trying, can you? lol, man, I think you should just give up the ship with this whole run you're doing.

[FONT=Times New Roman]

So, we're back to spamming your other threads again, huh? I admit, Gabs is not a good debater, so you can probably get away with going after her, but then, she admits to not being a good debater, so she's just not going to debate you.

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. [COLOR=blue]Eleanor Roosevelt (file:///C:/quotes/quotes/e/eleanorroo385439.html)


Regards
DL

[gabosaurus]

The deniers are always going to deny. They will continue to deny right up to the day when they meet their maker.
Believers do not need to seek salvation. By accepting Christ into their life and living true to his principles, believers know they have earned a place in the Kingdom of Heaven.
Non-believers can scream, yell, argue and pontificate all they want. It's all unnecessary hot air. The argument was settled on a cross about 2,000 years ago. Jesus Christ died so the rest of us can live a blessed life for all eternity.
Thus spoketh the religious zealot. :bunny4:

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

The deniers are always going to deny. They will continue to deny right up to the day when they meet their maker.
Believers do not need to seek salvation. By accepting Christ into their life and living true to his principles, believers know they have earned a place in the Kingdom of Heaven.
Non-believers can scream, yell, argue and pontificate all they want. It's all unnecessary hot air. The argument was settled on a cross about 2,000 years ago. Jesus Christ died so the rest of us can live a blessed life for all eternity.
Thus spoketh the religious zealot. :bunny4:

How will you get yourself into heaven? On your own merit or via a scapegoat?

Revisit substitutionary atonement or vicarious redemption and scapegoating with me just to refresh your memory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNtBkOXItqw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNtBkOXItqw)

I am not an atheist but Satan and Christians want atheists to embrace barbaric human sacrifice and the notion that we should profit from punishing the innocent instead of the guilty. Scapegoating IOW.

In reality, if God did demand such a barbaric sacrifice, he would be sinning as we all know that it is immoral to kill the innocent. God knows this yet Christians do not seem to. You do. Right?

Those with good morals will know that no noble and gracious God would demand the sacrifice of a son just to prove it's benevolence. When you die, Satan will ask you; how was your ticket to heaven purchased? With innocent blood?

If and when you say yes, you become his.

-----------------------------------

The other option in scriptures, a moral one, is shown here. 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Scriptures indicate that God prefers repentance to sacrifice and as God’s will is supreme and cannot be thwarted, this will come to pass.

---------------------------------

It is a special distorted Christian view of love that sees, --- as the greatest act of love possible, --- their God condemning them, and then turning anddemanding his son’s deaths and thus corrupting God's perfect justice. A bribe set by God as judge himself for himself. This is of course ridiculous.

Christians have an insane view of love, IMO.

Would you express your love for humanity or those you love by having your own child needlessly murdered?

Or if convinced that a sacrifice was somehow good, would you have the moral fortitude to step up yourself to that cross instead of sending your child?

Your cowardly God did not.

Regards
DL