More false doctrine being spewed from some pulpit somewhere...

[parablepete]

An exception? "But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases" Not being under bondage means one would be free to remarry. If you couldn't remarry, you would still be under bondage to the previous relationship. It can't be any clearer than that. Fornication is not the only reason for acceptable biblical divorce.

Being under bondage is no longer, but, it does not mean you can Re-Marry. Matt. 19:9 you must believe ALL the bible.

 

[crossnote]

That is patently false. How many adulterers do you know, or have ever heard of, that do it openly? Why do you think they hide it from their spouse? Why do you think there are so many divorces because of it? I have never hear of one adulterer, outside of bigamy, that thinks what they do is okay. Now you might find some that try to justify it, but they know good and well it is wrong. Not other reason to hide it.

Sounds what gzusfrk was saying.

 

[phil112]

Being under bondage is no longer, but, it does not mean you can Re-Marry. Matt. 19:9 you must believe ALL the bible.

Friend, you are incorrect. Paul said, and I quote: "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."
Being "not under bondage" means being free. If you couldn't remarry, you would still be bound by that previous marriage. Paul clearly says that is not the case.
Romans 7:2 says: " For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband."
It is very clear. Paul states, without question, a person is free. Free to stay single, or free to remarry. It cannot have any other meaning.
In Matthew, Christ was talking to jews that were in a covenant relationship with God. Paul was the apostle to the gentiles, specifically, and what Paul said is what is relevent to us today about this subject. In 2 Timothy 1:11 Paul said: "Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles."
Paul got his gospel directly from Christ: "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.....[SUP] [/SUP]For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."
If Christ hadn't been murdered, He would have told us this Himself. Instead, He spoke these instructions to us thru Paul. This is Christ talking to us, not covenant jews.

There are many scriptures where who is being spoken to matters, and that is especially true in the law. Unfortunately many people, including some here, refuse to accept clear scripture about such things.

 

[phil112]

Sounds what gzusfrk was saying.

You are correct. I reread his post and I absolutely misunderstood what he said. Poor reading comprehension on my part (the unforgiveable forum sin for me), and I sent him a personal message staing as much. Thank you crossnote for correcting me.

 

[gamlet]

1. That isn't true.
2. Again, not true. The act of homosexuality is what is condemned, not the person.
3. I have no clue how you got here from there. That is a reach.
4. If you want that to make sense to me, you'll have to elaborate.

1. All men are sinful. Please show me someone who isn't.
2. When you condemn the act, you convict people who belong to a smaller group than when you condemn sin in general.
3. and 4. To condemn others, you'd have to believe that you yourself aren't guilty of any sin, because you'd be condemning yourself. That's what Jesus taught when he wrote on the sand.

 

[phil112]

Originally Posted by gamlet

Pride is always sinful. Covetousness is always sinful. Adulterous lust is always sinful; etc. etc.

So why don't I hear the same objections to these as I do when you say homosexuality is always sinful. I think it's because these are general sins. (1) Everybody's guilty. So if you condemn these sins, nobody gets hurt. But (2)if you condemn homosexuality, there's a specific group you're condemning. (3)You're also excusing your own sinfulness. (4)That's what happens when you condemn others.

Originally Posted by phil112

1. That isn't true.
2. Again, not true. The act of homosexuality is what is condemned, not the person.
3. I have no clue how you got here from there. That is a reach.
4. If you want that to make sense to me, you'll have to elaborate.

1. All men are sinful. Please show me someone who isn't.
2. When you condemn the act, you convict people who belong to a smaller group than when you condemn sin in general.
3. and 4. To condemn others, you'd have to believe that you yourself aren't guilty of any sin, because you'd be condemning yourself. That's what Jesus taught when he wrote on the sand.

1. All men are born into sin. The bible tells us to stop sinning. Do you deny that?
2. Ludicrous! All sin is to be condemned! Who advocated only condemning homosexuality?
3. No where does the bible tell us not to identify and condemn sin. Christ called those men out because they were hypocrites.

I hope you don't have children. You would never be able to tell them not to do wrong. I can hear it now: "Oh little johnny, that is wrong. But you know, I have sinned so I don't have any room to tell you not to. Go ahead, son."

 

[gamlet]

1. All men are born into sin. The bible tells us to stop sinning. Do you deny that?
2. Ludicrous! All sin is to be condemned! Who advocated only condemning homosexuality?
3. No where does the bible tell us not to identify and condemn sin. Christ called those men out because they were hypocrites.

I hope you don't have children. You would never be able to tell them not to do wrong. I can hear it now: "Oh little johnny, that is wrong. But you know, I have sinned so I don't have any room to tell you not to. Go ahead, son."

1. Jesus said, "Go and sin no more." He probably meant not to live in sin. But we are all guilty of it too often.
2. If you condemn sin, condemn all kinds of sin equally. People in this thread have been saying that homosexuals have gotten the sore end of the deal. They are condemned more than others. That's where I'm chiming in here.
3. I do have children. I tell them what I think is wrong and right. I try not to do it in a condemnatory fashion so that I don't damage them spiritually. Take good care when you condemn sin in others. I think we need to be able to show acceptance first, before we tell them where they've gone wrong.