Divorce is unbiblical

[Reaper]

It's simple. If they got a divorce that had no real grounds they are still married to their first spouse in the eyes of God so even if they "remarry" they are still married to their first spouse and they are not married to their second spouse in the eyes of God. What they may have is a valid civil marriage, but they do not have a valid marriage in the eyes of God. To say otherwise would make God a polygamist.

So what do you do with the millions of people who did divorce and remarry for reasons other than physical adultery? Do you take the position that the divorce was a sin that could be forgiven thereby releasing them to move forward in their lives or are they living in a continual state of sin by virtue of their remarriage? If they are living in a continuing state of sin and do not repent by asking for forgiveness and remedying the situation by leaving their current relationship are they sinning with a high hand and at some point does their very salvation come into question?

What is the remedy for millions of people in this situation? Do you honestly believe God would agree with destroying current family systems because of previous mistakes/sins? I don't believe that is consistent with God's design. If the parties divorced for reasons which do not fall under the umbrella of adultery than they have sinned and need to ask for forgiveness. The consequences for that sin undoubtedly plays out in a myriad of ways in their lives and relationships. The repentance piece, however, may be in the form of grasping a deeper understanding of what marriage is and what is required rather than inflicting even more pain and suffering on people including children who have probably already been through the destruction of their family once.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

by not giving gays and lesbians relationships special legal rights ie marrige is in no ways takeing away thier constitutional rights

It is creating a second class of citizens. This is against the constitution, and has been ruled unconstitutional multiple times. At the time the constitution was written, it was set up this way so that property-owners would not have more rights than non-property-owners. Later, the higher courts affirmed the constitution included that non-whites had the same rights as whites. Not too long after that, even women were given the same rights as men.

a country is free to make laws that some relationships have special rights and some do not

Sure, "a county" is free to make said laws. The United States of America, however, already has a constitution that says that is not allowed. There are no special rights afforded to one class of people that cannot be afforded to others. As stated above, groups have sometimes had to fight for their rights, but every time they do, the courts acknowledge that equal rights means equal rights. Sure, at the time the constitution was written, our founding fathers meant "all white males." They probably never dreamed that women would get the right to vote, or that a man who was half-black would be president some day (regardless of how good or bad he is as president).

eg brother and sister ,(no special rights)

Actually, there are many rights bestowed on family members just by virtue of being related. This is one of the many reasons why gays and lesbians are requesting the rights that are associated with marriage. They don't care about the religious aspect. There have been many cases where family members who abandoned the person decades ago are trumping wills and other specific legal documents, just by virtue of being related, while the partner who has stood by that person while they were sick is left with nothing. Yes, even when the person left a will, courts are deciding against the will, against the partner, in favor of the family, because the couple was never married, because they could not be, legally.

This is absolutely unjust. I don't care how sinful a lifestyle the homosexual lifestyle is. Jesus and the Prophets would absolutely scream at any Christian who honestly thinks it's more important to protect some stupid word "marriage" that doesn't even mean what they think it means than to mete out justice to others in the land. Love your enemy, Jesus taught. Feed the alien in your land, and care for them, the prophets warned. By refusing to give legal rights to gays, we are absolutely breaking God's commandments.

I'm not saying homosexuality isn't a sin. (Though there are Christians who have made some convincing arguments that way -- I'm not going there.) I'm saying that denying legal, secular rights to sinners just because they commit one particular sin instead of another, is a far worse injustice. It angers me that so many Christians are doing this, in the name of Christ. If Jesus were here, he would be weeping indeed.

 

[Reaper]

Do you believe homosexuality is a sin or do you believe that promiscuity in homosexual relationships is a sin? It seems that since this issue came to the fore front in the 70s religious people have been trying to figure out a way to find a compromise because the alternative is messy. If I say homosexuality is a sin I'm going to get all sorts of labels and insults. If I say promiscuity, whether hetero or homo, is a sin, I will still get some heat, but not as much. There were many things that Jesus didn't address directly or at least weren't captured in Scripture, but to think that because he didn't address homosexuality was in some way a wink or passive approval is to be terribly deluded. As you are aware, Paul addressed it very directly in Romans 1. This is not about promiscuity any more than the account of Sodom and Gomorrah was about promiscuity and not homosexuality. As a society we have gone from hearing a desire for tolerance from the homosexual community to a demand for equality and normalization in all things including marriage and teaching about it in the schools. It is no more or less a sin than fornication or adultery, but it is a sin.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

The issue of divorce is simple and complex at the same time. We know that God hates it and allows for it only in the case of adultery. However, the word adultery may have a broader application than simply sexual sin. To adulterize something is in essence to corrupt it. For example, in the cases of domestic violence, abandonment or toxic dysfunction. When one partner essentially takes the position that they are not going to make any effort in the relationship and makes the environment unbearable. Under these circumstances some have argued that the covenant has been "adulterized", therefore grounds may exist that are not inconsistent with God's direction or intent. Jesus expressed contempt because men had so abused their power and position that they were putting their wives away for any reason. Now, I recognize that applying a broader definition of "adultery" creates a potentially very slippery slope and it is not nice and neat and tidy as sexual sin, nonetheless because it is difficult does not mean it is not worthy of consideration. Some will say that if these non sexual sin situation exist, the offended party may separate, but not divorce or if they divorce they may not remarry. Again, I believe we must examine the possibility that the practical application lies somewhere between only in cases of sexual sin and a the system that Jesus referenced where people were divorcing for any an all reasons thus making a mockery of marriage.

As for homosexuality... the original poster obviously has an agenda. It is a difficult issue to grapple with. How do you tell 7-10% of the U.S. population that their natural inclinations (or acquired inclinations) are abnormal, sinful and without repentance will lead to condemnation? Surveys show that 70% of people under the age of 25 favor homosexual marriage. This is not wisdom it is indoctrination, however, it will likely make this discussion moot in the next 20 years. Her points about gluttony, gossip and even casual divorce are well taken. The church is far too tolerant of behaviors within the body that are toxic and dysfunctional. These examples, however, should not be used as a way to normalize homosexuality. Scripture is clear that it is unnatural and statistically it is also a deviation from the norm (heterosexuality). The challenge for Christians is to develop and be able to articulate responses to questions posed in favor of homosexuality being a viable lifestyle beyond simply saying "Because the Bible says so". Ultimately that is true, but we should be able to negotiate the questions intelligently and compassionately so that even if we are accused of bigotry we will have put forth compelling reasons for our position. I do not believe that God established prohibitions on behaviors randomly, but rather for our protection. If this is true we should be able to construct positions that reveal that intention. Have a great day!!

I just want to say thank you for your post. It is so refreshing to read such a reasoned response. You are clearly an intelligent and kind person. I suspect that we probably disagree on a few topics, but I also suspect that if we ever were to meet in this life, we could be good friends, and I would take pride to be your sister in Christ. Thank you, and may God continue to bless you in your ministry!

 

[Reaper]

I doubt He would be weeping. Granting homosexual couples the same benefits as married couples was offered and rejected by the homosexual community. What about hetero couples who just live together, but don't get married. Well, we now have "common law" marriages to partially cover that one for legal purposes. What about polygamy? What if any collection of consenting adults define their relationship a certain way and want to marry. Should they be denied the right? Are they second class citizens? Equating race and ethnicity with how one prefers to engage in sex is the fruit of decades of indoctrination and political inroads. Why should my wealthy neighbor have more money than me? Doesn't that make me a second class citizen? The issue of discrimination was established to protect people who could not help their status and were in the minority. Equating a persons desire to have sex with someone of their own gender to a person of color is ludicrous, but popular these days. Homosexuals should have the same rights and privileges as any other unmarried citizen.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

I have a question. . should the church elders ask you to leave if you are a christian couple going through a divorce and ask you to attend another church but tell you once the divorce is over they will welcome you back as a single parent. .

this is happening to a women in my congregation right now. . the elders told her they do not agree with divorce and could not care/cover her while she and her husband went through with this. . as they dont believe in dovorce. . they pointed her to other churches but as I say. did tell her she could return once the divorce was final. . thoughts. .

At least the church is being honest and consistent.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

When you marry, you promise to love that person as long as you live, not to live with them as long as you're in love.

 

[iamsoandso]

OK you win "Christ you can give a letter of divorce",, to the woman the "church" for any reason,,for adultry,,,you can make "grace of no effect',,,,,,that is you are of this world,,and the law is given,,,and Christ came into this world and he is an "groom" at any time shall he set aside the woman who is his wife?he again shall not die,, and so the woman who is his wife shall not be free to marry another,she shall not bear children after the devil when her husband is died.this is the law and it is given for him to fulfill,,,and you are clumsy in it children of the wife,,,,for your father will teach you and you will know it,,,,,,,be not afraid..

 

[syborg]

At least the church is being honest and consistent.

Please explain?

 

[nath1234]

This is absolutely unjust. I don't care how sinful a lifestyle the homosexual lifestyle is. Jesus and the Prophets would absolutely scream at any Christian who honestly thinks it's more important to protect some stupid word "marriage" that doesn't even mean what they think it means than to mete out justice to others in the land. Love your enemy, Jesus taught. Feed the alien in your land, and care for them, the prophets warned. By refusing to give legal rights to gays, we are absolutely breaking God's commandments.

I'm not saying homosexuality isn't a sin. (Though there are Christians who have made some convincing arguments that way -- I'm not going there.) I'm saying that denying legal, secular rights to sinners just because they commit one particular sin instead of another, is a far worse injustice. It angers me that so many Christians are doing this, in the name of Christ. If Jesus were here, he would be weeping indeed.[/quote]

I completly disargee with this statement Jesus was never out there supporting a political agenda that every one should have equal rights in fact i would say the opposite Jesus supported the idea that some people have special rights and others do not

he told his deciples only to go to the lost sheep of Israel not to any one else because the decendants of abarham Isach and Jacob are Gods special people. that is why he gave the message to them first

also it is very clear that in heaven we will not all have equill rights

2And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
3And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.



Marriage between a man and a woman is special and it should have special rights



and as you can see form my argument God and oboviously his son support the idea that some things are special and others are not



the christian morals that America was founded on, is what made America a great and proserous country and it will be the moral decline of America that will be its down fall.



HISTORY TEACHES US MAN DOES NOT LEARN FORM HISTORY


I pray the above statement does not come come true for America


nath

 

[rainacorn]

I am really glad to see this thread. Not too long ago, my pastor gave a sermon about the qualifications for becoming a deacon. By my understanding, it is incredibly clear that someone who is divorced and remarried is not 'above reproach' and is therefore not qualified.

My pastor, although he is extremely conservative in every other area, said that if we are to forbid people who have been divorced and remarried from being deacons, then we must also forbid anyone who has ever been angry before or who has ever committed a sin.

That's just ridiculous. We gloss over divorce because sooooo many people have been divorced and remarried. These are good people and often play an important role in church activities. If we want to say you can be remarried and be a deacon, then that's fine... but let's not pretend it's Biblical.

Broadening it out a bit- divorce is only okay when it comes to infidelity, apparently. But when is remarriage okay? Is it ever okay?

 

[keshka]

If homosexuality is such a sin, then why did God creat homosexuals in the first place? To test us? To tempt us?

I've been reading this thread with some interest, and have been chatting about the issue with my gay friends. Did you know that homosexuality is not just a human thing, and that other mammals and even birds have been known to engage in same-sex mating and pair-bonding? It's really interesting stuff.

According to the biological theories, there's a reason for homosexuality in the animal kingdom.

As we all know, heterosexual creatures find mates of the opposite sex, leave the home roost and forge their own lives, and have children etc.

But animal studies have shown that families of animals with heterosexual members are longer-lived. This is because the homosexual family member has no children of their own, and so acts as an additional 'protector' for their nieces and nephews, almost acting as a third parent to their siblings' offspring.

This means that those animals who have homosexual aunts and uncles gain an advantage over those who do not, so the family's 'homosexual gene', dormant in the nieces and nephews, gets passed down to future generations.

And that is why homosexuals exist - the animal kingdom's very own protectors and carers. Why should such a lifestyle be considered sinful?

The Bible's teachings set back womens' rights by centuries, treating them almost as second-class citizens, who weren't allowed to teach, divorce hateful husbands, become priests, or even pray without wearing a hat (!). Why can Christianity not learn from the mistakes it made with the shoddy treatment of women? Why do we have to go through the same thing again with homosexuals?

 

[SantoSubito]

If homosexuality is such a sin, then why did God creat homosexuals in the first place? To test us? To tempt us?

I've been reading this thread with some interest, and have been chatting about the issue with my gay friends. Did you know that homosexuality is not just a human thing, and that other mammals and even birds have been known to engage in same-sex mating and pair-bonding? It's really interesting stuff.

According to the biological theories, there's a reason for homosexuality in the animal kingdom.

As we all know, heterosexual creatures find mates of the opposite sex, leave the home roost and forge their own lives, and have children etc.

But animal studies have shown that families of animals with heterosexual members are longer-lived. This is because the homosexual family member has no children of their own, and so acts as an additional 'protector' for their nieces and nephews, almost acting as a third parent to their siblings' offspring.

This means that those animals who have homosexual aunts and uncles gain an advantage over those who do not, so the family's 'homosexual gene', dormant in the nieces and nephews, gets passed down to future generations.

And that is why homosexuals exist - the animal kingdom's very own protectors and carers. Why should such a lifestyle be considered sinful?

Easily answered. God didn't create homosexuals (as is evidence by the fact that the search for the elusive "gay gene" goes on). We however are fallen and our very nature is corrupted as is the nature of all creation, so things like homosexuality, birth defects, etc, can surface. This does not mean that God meant us to have birth defects or be homosexual it is simply evidence that we live in a fallen and corrupted world.

The Bible's teachings set back womens' rights by centuries, treating them almost as second-class citizens, who weren't allowed to teach, divorce hateful husbands, become priests, or even pray without wearing a hat (!). Why can Christianity not learn from the mistakes it made with the shoddy treatment of women? Why do we have to go through the same thing again with homosexuals?

That would depend on your church. The RCC for example doesn't allow women to teach at Mass, doesn't allow divorce, doesn't allow them to become priests or deacons, and still encourages the practice of women praying veiled (which is still a semi-common sight in some Catholic parishes), but we also see a womens hair as her head covering.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

Please explain?

If a church expels members for being sinners, at least it is being consistent, and expelling all sinners, rather than saying there are some sins that would exclude you from membership and others that would not.

Some churches say if you're gay, you can't be a member unless and until you repent from that lifestyle. Yet they don't have the same standards for heterosexuals who are living in sin. I'm just saying a church should be consistent. Personally, I know I am no less a sinner than anyone else. If we have to be perfect before we commit our lives to Christ, then there's no hope for me!

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

My pastor, although he is extremely conservative in every other area, said that if we are to forbid people who have been divorced and remarried from being deacons, then we must also forbid anyone who has ever been angry before or who has ever committed a sin.

This is a good point. Which sins are okay and which aren't? Which sins bar you from certain roles and which don't? Which sins are unforgivable and which aren't? There is some scriptural support for some distinction, but we mortals must be very careful not to take it upon ourselves to judge another person's heart. Only God can do that.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

If homosexuality is such a sin, then why did God creat homosexuals in the first place? To test us? To tempt us?

Some will say that God did not create homosexuality, but that it is a disorder or sickness.

Did you know that homosexuality is not just a human thing, and that other mammals and even birds have been known to engage in same-sex mating and pair-bonding?

Just because a behavior is noticed in the animal kingdom doesn't mean it isn't sinful. After all, some animals eat their own young. I hope you agree that if a human killed and ate his or her own children, you would consider that a grave sin.

The Bible's teachings set back womens' rights by centuries, treating them almost as second-class citizens, who weren't allowed to teach, divorce hateful husbands, become priests, or even pray without wearing a hat (!). Why can Christianity not learn from the mistakes it made with the shoddy treatment of women? Why do we have to go through the same thing again with homosexuals?

Though I agree with some of what you're saying, I am ultimately a Biblical apologist. I don't think it's okay just to throw out the Bible, just because we don't like what it says.

In the case of women's rights, portions of the Bible which were written as "descriptive" were misinterpreted as "proscriptive." In other words, passages where Biblical writers were describing the role of women, at that time and place (thousands of years ago) were taken to be authoritative, as to how women should be treated for all time. It was not a case of the Bible being wrong, but the Bible being misunderstood. It would be like if I wrote a story about my home town, the way I remembered it from when I grew up, and someone read it now. They might think I was lying, if they lived in my home town today. But I'm not lying; it's not that my writing is wrong, just that I was writing from my own perspective, and today is different, half a century later.

Some Biblical scholars say that the passages about homosexuality are the same. That Paul is not saying that homosexuality is wrong, but rather describing what has happened to a specific group of homosexuals. That is another debate for another time. There is significant Scriptural scholarship on the topic by people far more versed (no pun intended) than me on both sides of the argument.

Ultimately, as I said, I believe it is not up to me to decide who is a sinner and who is not. I know that I am a sinner. If I am really answering the call as a Christian, I am trying to purge myself of my own sins, and any energy I have left over to worry about someone else should be to make sure their needs are being met -- the hungry have food, the sick are healed, the poor have aid. I figure if I have any energy left to worry about what sins someone else may or may not be committing, then I'm doing something wrong.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

Easily answered. God didn't create homosexuals (as is evidence by the fact that the search for the elusive "gay gene" goes on). We however are fallen and our very nature is corrupted as is the nature of all creation, so things like homosexuality, birth defects, etc, can surface. This does not mean that God meant us to have birth defects or be homosexual it is simply evidence that we live in a fallen and corrupted world.

I think this is an excellent example. I like to compare homosexuality to a physical deformity. Some people have birth defects that cause physical deformities. Other people have physical deformities due to something that happened to them, an accident or something. Some people are deformed due to bad choices they made at some point in their life. Other people didn't have a choice in the matter. With modern medicine, most people are able to get prosthetics to cover up their deformity.

I have met gay people who certainly chose their lifestyle, but most gays I have met tell me they did not choose it, it was the way they were born. I know some who have changed from being gay to being straight, and some who may still feel an attraction to those of their own gender, but will not give in to such feelings. It is not for me to tell them what they should do, any more than I would tell someone who is missing an arm, "You should really wear a prosthetic arm." I know that God wants them to be whole. If they ask me, I will tell them about Jesus, and the wonderful life Jesus has for anyone who gives his or her life to God. That is my job. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[luciddream1982]

Some Biblical scholars say that the passages about homosexuality are the same. That Paul is not saying that homosexuality is wrong, but rather describing what has happened to a specific group of homosexuals. That is another debate for another time. There is significant Scriptural scholarship on the topic by people far more versed (no pun intended) than me on both sides of the argument.

Anyway you slice it, anyway you dice it, the bible makes it very clear that homosexuality is wrong. No if, ands, or buts about it. Anyone who doesn't believe the bible condemns homosexuality is deceiving themselves.

 

[luciddream1982]

I have met gay people who certainly chose their lifestyle, but most gays I have met tell me they did not choose it, it was the way they were born.

Everyone chooses their lifestyle. You are not born with a lifestyle. The may not have chosen to have homosexual desires but they choose whether or not to act on it.

 

[tribesman]

Both.

Even if homosexuality is a sin, I don't understand why non-Christians should not receive the legal rights that are given by marriage.

That might make sense in the political sense of the day, however I see no reason as a christian to give homosexuals an inch of recognition or the impression that their sin is OK to a tiniest degree.

Now, as for hypocrisy, yes, it bugs me when some fancy-pants televangelist preaches about the sin of homosexuality. Jesus spoke against wealth way more than he spoke against sexual sins. That doesn't mean promiscuity is okay, just because Jesus didn't talk about it all the time. I think promiscuity is wrong, whether it's homo- or heterosexual. The problem is, among my friends, the straight ones are way more promiscuous than the gay ones, and somehow a lot of them think that the sexual laws in Scripture don't apply to them, just to gays. That's my beef.

Got you on this one. People might rightly object, what about sins of gluttony, greed, covetousness, unlawful divorces etc. Again positive, it would be huge hypocrisy to single out homosexuality as sin while not condemning also these sins for what they are. However, as for homosexuality is concerned on all the level it affects one needs to remember that it's not only mentioned as a sin in scripture, but also as something that is an abomination, gives blood guilt and carries the physical death penalty with it. The other sins mentioned, adultery excepted, are not mentioned in same manner. In Rom.1:18-32 it is also mentioned as a sign of reprobation.

Unlawfully divorced people are not called abominations or are said to have blood guilt. Over weight people who are in their seat due to gluttony are not said to be killed by death penalty. And the list goes on. So, even if our time focus much on anything sexual and many christians just speak out against sexual sins, homosexuality carries many other evils with it, thus the sharp line against it in Scripture.

We are not to forget about that.

Actually, what I would like is to get rid of the word "marriage" altogether. The word has too much "baggage." I think too many Americans associate it with matrimony -- which IS instituted by God -- and I totally get why Christians say gays can't engage in holy matrimony. That makes total sense to me. But "marriage" doesn't mean "matrimony." Unfortunately, no one gets that, so we need to throw that word away, because clearly trying to educate the public hasn't worked. Couples who want to be married in the church, receive a union in God's eyes, receive the rite of Holy Matrimony. Gays don't partake in this. Neither do atheist heterosexuals. Why would they? Couples who want the legal, state-given rights associated with "marriage" would also go to a justice of the peace and get a civil union. A couple could do both, if they wanted to, or one or the other, or neither. This is how most other countries work. Couples need to go to court in addition to the church wedding if they want to be legally married, or they can just go to court and skip the fancy church wedding (many do this). If you just do a church wedding, you're not legally married.

This is a big issue, the difference between wed in Christ and outside Christ etc. Yet, again, I see nothing good coming from when society, as secular as it may ever be, gives the signal that gay unions or marriages, call it whatever term one wish, are OK and acceptable as the laws of the land. Yes, most people defile and abuse most things, it shall not be better going further down that road.