Remarriage Bibically

DiscipleDave · Oct 2, 2015

Sure, if they do not have sex together. Can two people who love each other live with each other without having sex? Sure they can. Being Homosexual is not what is sinful. The act of homosexual sex is what is sinful. So can two guys who get saved, be OK with God, sure if they do not have sex with each other. This generation falsely believes that having sex is LOVE. Two people can live together and NEVER have sex, and yet love each other dearly. But this generation equates love with sex. Many homosexuals i have counseled, have said to me "How can it be against God for me to love him/her?" i tell them it is not against God to love him/her, it is against God to have sex with him/her, big difference. But this generation equates love with sex. Can two people live together and Love each other without ever having sex? The answer is Yes. It is not the Love that is sinful to God, it is the Sex that is sinful to God.

The Word of God has instructions how a husband is to treat his wife.
The Word of God has instructions how a wife is to treat her husband.
The Word of God has instructions on the role of a husband to his wife and kids.
The Word of God has instructions on the role of a wife to her husband and kids.
There are NO INSTRUCTIONS in the Word of God concerning how a husband is to treat his husband
There are NO INSTRUCTIONS in the Word of God concerning how a wife is to treat her wife
Why are there no instructions in the Word of God? Because it is not Godly. God set up ORDER from Adam and Eve to this day. A husband is to marry a wife, this has been the way of God since the beginning of human creation. It is only the last days generation that seek to CHANGE that which God has set up from the beginning. And that CHANGE all in the name of love. Again is not ungodly for a man to love a man, or a woman to love a woman, it is however ungodly for a man to have sex with a man, or a woman having sex with a woman, which has nothing to do with LOVE. You can Love someone without having sex with them.

^i^ responding to post # 40

Dan58 · Oct 3, 2015

iwant2serve said:

No, what's unlawful remains unlawful. Being forgiven does not make sin acceptable or lawful, it just means that condemnation for breaking the law is suspended because the penalty was paid.. Or something like; "He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities... and with his stripes we are healed." (Isaiah 53:5). Sin is never accepted, it was just answered (atoned) for.

ladylynn · Oct 3, 2015

The Old Covenant of law made any second chances impossible. You were doomed and had no refuge. You were left to pay your own way by law. Not so under the New Covenant of Grace. No more condemnation. We will find grace and help in time of need. Unlike the old covenant; nothing like the old covenant.
The law came by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ....

iwant2serve · Oct 3, 2015

ladylynn said:

There was plenty grace show by God in the OT. Look how many chances He gave Israel to repent and turn from their wicked ways. So to believe that there was no grace in the OT is wrong. Plus there was a way for this sins to be forgiven just no permanent sacrifice as Jesus was.

DiscipleDave · Oct 3, 2015

ladylynn said:

They did have second chances, but only if they could afford it. Under the old covenant a sin was forgiven by sacrificing certain animals, this particular sin you would have to sacrifice a bird, that particular sin you would have to sacrifice a lamb. So as long as you had the money to buy the animals, you could afford to have your sins forgiven. The problem was under the old covenant, many could not afford 10 sheep for the 10 sins they committed, So they were lost, and the sins just kept adding up, till their was no hope for that person to be saved. Jesus came teaching a new way for sins to be forgiven, so that those who were lost and doomed, could now be Saved. The pharisees were wealthy people, therefore if they committed a sin, they would buy whatever animal they needed and sacrifice to have that sin forgiven. The problem was they were rich, and did not have mercy and compassion on those who were not. A person would come to priests, and say i can't afford to buy a sheep, for my one sin that i committed, instead of the rich pharisees having mercy and compassion on that person and help that person, they would turn them away, because they lived by every letter of the law, if a sin is to be committed you have to sacrifice a particular animal, it was not their fault they could not afford those animals to sacrifice them. That is why Jesus told them, they should have had mercy.

Mat_23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

So when Jesus showed up in the flesh, MOST were lost, while the rich were Saved according to the Old covenant. So those Many who were lost, because of their sins not being forgiven, had nothing to lose but to believe on the man who teaches them another way they can be SAVED. Under the old covenant, as long as you had the money, you could continue to buy animals for sacrificing, so that your sins could be forgiven.

^i^ responding to post #83

ladylynn · Oct 4, 2015

iwant2serve said:

There is a major difference between mercy and grace. We are now under the covenant of grace not the covenant of law. In order to understand how God is dealing with the believer now in this covenant, you have to believe there IS a new covenant and that these covenants are majorly different with different conditions. Many new covenant believers are still living under the covenant of law.

ladylynn · Oct 4, 2015

DiscipleDave said:

They did have second chances, but only if they could afford it. Under the old covenant a sin was forgiven by sacrificing certain animals, this particular sin you would have to sacrifice a bird, that particular sin you would have to sacrifice a lamb. So as long as you had the money to buy the animals, you could afford to have your sins forgiven. The problem was under the old covenant, many could not afford 10 sheep for the 10 sins they committed, So they were lost, and the sins just kept adding up, till their was no hope for that person to be saved. Jesus came teaching a new way for sins to be forgiven, so that those who were lost and doomed, could now be Saved. The pharisees were wealthy people, therefore if they committed a sin, they would buy whatever animal they needed and sacrifice to have that sin forgiven. The problem was they were rich, and did not have mercy and compassion on those who were not. A person would come to priests, and say i can't afford to buy a sheep, for my one sin that i committed, instead of the rich pharisees having mercy and compassion on that person and help that person, they would turn them away, because they lived by every letter of the law, if a sin is to be committed you have to sacrifice a particular animal, it was not their fault they could not afford those animals to sacrifice them. That is why Jesus told them, they should have had mercy.

Mat_23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

So when Jesus showed up in the flesh, MOST were lost, while the rich were Saved according to the Old covenant. So those Many who were lost, because of their sins not being forgiven, had nothing to lose but to believe on the man who teaches them another way they can be SAVED. Under the old covenant, as long as you had the money, you could continue to buy animals for sacrificing, so that your sins could be forgiven.

^i^ responding to post #83

From what I understand from the Bible, the poor got to use turtle doves and were not required to have those huge animals.
A blood sacrifice had to be offered. The priests would offer an animal up for the whole nation and the sacrifice was as good as the high priest. Many times if a certain high priest had some sin they had a rope around him just in case so they could pull him out of the Holy of Holies. Again, different covenants require different conditions.

NikkiK · Oct 4, 2015

DiscipleDave said:

So you can love someone romantically of the same sex, and it is not sin if you do not have sex with them? What about desire? Is it a sin to desire? If you love someone romantically I would assume there is desire.

What you have said I find intriguing. It is something to think on.

HeRoseFromTheDead · Oct 4, 2015

NikkiK said:

I think romantic love is indistinguishable from sexual love. Loving someone of the same sex is perfectly biblical as long as sexuality is not part of the relationship. David said his love for Jonathan was greater than that for women. After Jonathan died, he said:

I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women. 2 Samuel 1:26

BarlyGurl · Oct 4, 2015

HeRoseFromTheDead said:

David also did not have a very good track record with loving women... ever notice that??? David was also DISTINGUISHING the BROTHERLY KINSHIP he felt toward Johnathan as being profoundly greater than romantic love he had thus far experienced. Please be very careful how you present "love" because you are coming off as if you also agree that two homosexuals are free to live as partners so long as there is no sex... yet at the same time say romantic love is indistinguishable from sexual love. Pretty much looks like talking out both sides of your face. Perhaps you are not acquainted with AGAPE, PHILEO and EROS love and their distinct differences?

BarlyGurl · Oct 4, 2015

NikkiK said:

What it is..... is a recipe for torture for one or both parties.

Having romantic feelings IS DESIRE and WILL progress to sexual desire.... that is exactly how the mind and body are created to operate.

NikkiK · Oct 4, 2015

BarlyGurl said:

That is what I thought. I cannot imagine loving someone romantically and then not desiring them. I can imagine loving someone and not desiring them but it's a different sort of love. It can be profound, special and intimate but is not romantic..However that does not mean romantic love would not happen or desire would not happen.

It would be an awful way to live to always desire but never to have. Very tempting.

HeRoseFromTheDead · Oct 4, 2015

BarlyGurl said:

David also did not have a very good track record with loving women... ever notice that??? David was also DISTINGUISHING the BROTHERLY KINSHIP he felt toward Johnathan as being profoundly greater than romantic love he had thus far experienced. Please be very careful how you present "love" because you are coming off as if you also agree that two homosexuals are free to live as partners so long as there is no sex... yet at the same time say romantic love is indistinguishable from sexual love. Pretty much looks like talking out both sides of your face. Perhaps you are not acquainted with AGAPE, PHILEO and EROS love and their distinct differences?

If they're not having sex and being romantic with each other, they're not homosexuals.

ladylynn · Oct 4, 2015

BarlyGurl said:

David also did not have a very good track record with loving women... ever notice that??? David was also DISTINGUISHING the BROTHERLY KINSHIP he felt toward Johnathan as being profoundly greater than romantic love he had thus far experienced. Please be very careful how you present "love" because you are coming off as if you also agree that two homosexuals are free to live as partners so long as there is no sex... yet at the same time say romantic love is indistinguishable from sexual love. Pretty much looks like talking out both sides of your face. Perhaps you are not acquainted with AGAPE, PHILEO and EROS love and their distinct differences?

Hey BarlyGurl., Excellent words that were very much needed for the clarification in this thread. Very much agree.

ladylynn · Oct 4, 2015

BarlyGurl said:

Exactly., a recipe for torture for both parties. That would be like a single man and a single woman living together expecting everyone to assume they are not sinning as well as they themselves believing they won't get closer and fall into a relationship. Just putting yourself in a situation like that living together is not wise. And for the Christian, just isn't right. Very much has the appearance of evil.

iwant2serve · Oct 5, 2015

ladylynn said:

Grace is not getting what you deserve like eternal life. Mercy is being found guilty but not being punished. So the covenant of Grace is the removal of the guilt as long as you stop doing what you are guilty of which is to repent or turn away from the thing that is wrong. Repent does not mean you can still do what is wrong and say I am forgiven because of Grace. Paul speaks of this in Romans 6:1-2 shall we continue in sin now that grace has come? God forbid.

iwant2serve · Oct 5, 2015

Two people can love each other and some have even desired one another in opposite sexes. The main thing is not to follow throw on that desire. I am sure we have all desired to do something ungodly in our lives and did not follow through on it. Examples some have desired to steal but did not, have sex before marriage but did not, lie but did not and so on. Did these things become a sin because of the desire to do or a testimony for resisting the temptation?

shotgunner · Oct 5, 2015

iwant2serve said:

The adultery is to divorce without just cause or to marry one who is divorced without just cause. The second marriage itself is not adultery as marriage is not adultery. Even using your most strict interpretation the divorced spouse would be free to marry as soon as the other spouse had sex with someone else, since then fornication would be just cause. You cannot use the words of Jesus to keep a divorced spouse from ever getting married to another.

Then if you apply the words of Jesus that to even look at another woman with lust is to commit adultery Then you will have a divorced spouse free to marry again very soon.

NikkiK · Oct 5, 2015

shotgunner said:

The adultery is to divorce without just cause or to marry one who is divorced without just cause. The second marriage itself is not adultery as marriage is not adultery. Even using your most strict interpretation the divorced spouse would be free to marry as soon as the other spouse had sex with someone else, since then fornication would be just cause. You cannot use the words of Jesus to keep a divorced spouse from ever getting married to another.

Then if you apply the words of Jesus that to even look at another woman with lust is to commit adultery Then you will have a divorced spouse free to marry again very soon.

I think I agree with this more than anything that is being said about remarriage.

cupid · Oct 5, 2015

atwhatcost said:

Remember that 73% if the Black families are raising fatherless kids on welfare, yet these single mothers are church people.
The incentive of money has produced a culture where single mothers seem OK to even Christians.

Remarriage Bibically

Senior Member

Senior Member

ladylynn

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

ladylynn

Guest

ladylynn

Guest

NikkiK

Guest

Senior Member

BarlyGurl

Guest

BarlyGurl

Guest

NikkiK

Guest

Senior Member

ladylynn

Guest

ladylynn

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

shotgunner

Guest

NikkiK

Guest

Banned