Divorce is unbiblical

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
S

sunshine_debbie

Guest
#121
#121
I am not sure how this topic got so far off topic as to homosexuality, and such, but I do have a question. If a Christian gets divorced from an unbeliever and then remarries a believer, does that mean they were not really saved? Or do they just to ask forgiveness for committing adultry? Even though by staying in the second marriage they are still committing the sin? Does that mean they should seperate from the 2nd marriage? I would really appreciate some clarification on this issue. Thanks
 
resurrection33

resurrection33

Banned
#122
Dec 19, 2009
27,513
128
0
71
#122
TheGrungeDiva said:
That also rules out heterosexuality.


Well, either the church should stop allowing for divorce for reasons other than chastity, or the church should allow for monogamous faithful homosexual relationship. I only ask for consistency. My problem is with those who claim Biblical authority as an excuse for bigotry when they ignore stronger Biblical evidence for other behaviors.

So homosexuality is a sin. So is gluttony. Yet I know of no church that tells fat people they can't be Christians until they turn away from their sinful lifestyle. I know of no Christian community that seeks to limit rights for gluttons. And I challenge you to find one Christian who says fat people shouldn't be allowed to get married.

Lots of sinful people get married. There are a lot of marriages in this country that are far from holy. In a country where a couple of drunken sluts can get married by an Elvis Impersonator in Las Vegas, marriage is FAR from holy. In a nation where divorce is well over 50%, marriage is not sacred. God has nothing to do with marriage in this country, and I don't think he ever has. It is purely a legal contract. If the church wishes to deny the rite of matrimony to gays and lesbians, I absolutely support that. But when they want to inflict their beliefs on others, they are going against the constitution, which so many have fought and died to protect. Sorry, but as a Patriotic American, I just can't get behind that.
Click to expand...
Sex between a husband and wife is not an act of unchastity.
 
T

TheGrungeDiva

Guest
#123
#123
sunshine_debbie said:
I am not sure how this topic got so far off topic as to homosexuality, and such, but I do have a question. If a Christian gets divorced from an unbeliever and then remarries a believer, does that mean they were not really saved? Or do they just to ask forgiveness for committing adultry? Even though by staying in the second marriage they are still committing the sin? Does that mean they should seperate from the 2nd marriage? I would really appreciate some clarification on this issue. Thanks
Click to expand...
I don't know if there is an answer to this question specifically in Scripture, but I do recall a similar question asked of Jesus, about multiple marriages, and which one was "legit" as it were. Jesus' answer was, in so many words, that marriage is of this world, not of God's kingdom, and that women and men will not be paired off in couples in heaven the way they are here.

Yes, God certainly can bless marriage, and I believe God does bless marriages done between a man and a woman who love each other and who make vows of fidelity before their friends, family, and before God. I think it is possible for God to bless a 2nd marriage, even when one party has been divorced, even for reasons other than infidelity. I believe that God's grace is infinite. It is clear, however, that in these cases, it is God, blessing a human institution, not humans partaking a holy sacrament. Marriage is not a means of God's grace, it is a secular ritual which God can choose to bless, and which God often does choose to bless, I believe.

Does this make sense?
 
T

TheGrungeDiva

Guest
#124
#124
resurrection33 said:
Sex between a husband and wife is not an act of unchastity.
Click to expand...
Sex, even if between people who are legally married to each other, is by definition NOT chastity. "Chaste" means no sex. It doesn't mean no sex outside of marriage. That would be "fidelity."

So you are mistaken: sex between a husband and wife is, by definition, an act of unchastity.

I believe what you meant is that sex between a husband and wife is not an act of adultery. This is true.

However, I can think of a lot of unholy acts between two married people, acts that God never intended. I have mentioned some of them.

I honestly don't see how anyone could see a 24-hour "marriage" between two drunks who never intended to remain married and just did it because they were drunk as "holy." The God I worship certainly doesn't see that as holy.
 
resurrection33

resurrection33

Banned
#125
Dec 19, 2009
27,513
128
0
71
#125
TheGrungeDiva said:
Sex, even if between people who are legally married to each other, is by definition NOT chastity. "Chaste" means no sex. It doesn't mean no sex outside of marriage. That would be "fidelity."

So you are mistaken: sex between a husband and wife is, by definition, an act of unchastity.

I believe what you meant is that sex between a husband and wife is not an act of adultery. This is true.

However, I can think of a lot of unholy acts between two married people, acts that God never intended. I have mentioned some of them.

I honestly don't see how anyone could see a 24-hour "marriage" between two drunks who never intended to remain married and just did it because they were drunk as "holy." The God I worship certainly doesn't see that as holy.
Click to expand...
There is nothing unchaste about a lawfully married husband and wife having a sexual relationship with each other.
 
resurrection33

resurrection33

Banned
#126
Dec 19, 2009
27,513
128
0
71
#126
TheGrungeDiva said:
Sex, even if between people who are legally married to each other, is by definition NOT chastity. "Chaste" means no sex. It doesn't mean no sex outside of marriage. That would be "fidelity."

So you are mistaken: sex between a husband and wife is, by definition, an act of unchastity.

I believe what you meant is that sex between a husband and wife is not an act of adultery. This is true.

However, I can think of a lot of unholy acts between two married people, acts that God never intended. I have mentioned some of them.

I honestly don't see how anyone could see a 24-hour "marriage" between two drunks who never intended to remain married and just did it because they were drunk as "holy." The God I worship certainly doesn't see that as holy.
Click to expand...
Remember that a person is only supposed to marry once in life, unless their spouse dies.
 
J

jimmydiggs

Guest
#128
#128
resurrection33 said:
There is nothing unchaste about a lawfully married husband and wife having a sexual relationship with each other.
Click to expand...
Definition of CHASTITY

1
: the quality or state of being chaste: as
a : abstention from unlawful sexual intercourse
b : abstention from all sexual intercourse
c : purity in conduct and intention
d : restraint and simplicity in design or expression
2
: personal integrity


From Webster.
 
resurrection33

resurrection33

Banned
#129
Dec 19, 2009
27,513
128
0
71
#129
jimmydiggs said:
Definition of CHASTITY

1
: the quality or state of being chaste: as
a : abstention from unlawful sexual intercourse
b : abstention from all sexual intercourse
c : purity in conduct and intention
d : restraint and simplicity in design or expression
2
: personal integrity


From Webster.
Click to expand...
There is nothing unchaste about a lawfully wedded man and woman having a sexual relationship. By “lawfully,” I mean “lawfully in the eyes of the Lord.” You can't marry one person and then divorce that person so that you can marry another.
 
resurrection33

resurrection33

Banned
#130
Dec 19, 2009
27,513
128
0
71
#130
jimmydiggs said:
Definition of CHASTITY

1
: the quality or state of being chaste: as
a : abstention from unlawful sexual intercourse
b : abstention from all sexual intercourse
c : purity in conduct and intention
d : restraint and simplicity in design or expression
2
: personal integrity


From Webster.
Click to expand...
Do you have a dictionary published by the Lord?
 
S

SantoSubito

Guest
#131
#131
TheGrungeDiva said:
Sex, even if between people who are legally married to each other, is by definition NOT chastity. "Chaste" means no sex. It doesn't mean no sex outside of marriage. That would be "fidelity."

So you are mistaken: sex between a husband and wife is, by definition, an act of unchastity.

I believe what you meant is that sex between a husband and wife is not an act of adultery. This is true.

However, I can think of a lot of unholy acts between two married people, acts that God never intended. I have mentioned some of them.

I honestly don't see how anyone could see a 24-hour "marriage" between two drunks who never intended to remain married and just did it because they were drunk as "holy." The God I worship certainly doesn't see that as holy.
Click to expand...
It wouldn't have been a valid marriage anyway, since neither party was able to give full and proper consent.
 
T

TheGrungeDiva

Guest
#132
#132
resurrection33 said:
Do you have a dictionary published by the Lord?
Click to expand...
Well, if marriage were godly, that would matter.

But Jesus made it clear that marriage is of the world, and not of God's kingdom. So a dictionary published by the Lord may have "chastity" in it, but it wouldn't include "marriage," since that's a secular concept.
 
T

TheGrungeDiva

Guest
#133
#133
SantoSubito said:
It wouldn't have been a valid marriage anyway, since neither party was able to give full and proper consent.
Click to expand...
And yet said marriages are considered fully legal in the U.S. We may not consider them "valid," and God may not consider them valid, but for the purposes of legal rights and laws, the US, and every state therein, considers them valid.

So why are heterosexuals entitled to a legal marriage that's "invalid," while gays are not entitled to the same legal yet invalid marriage?

Just sayin.
 
S

SantoSubito

Guest
#134
#134
TheGrungeDiva said:
And yet said marriages are considered fully legal in the U.S. We may not consider them "valid," and God may not consider them valid, but for the purposes of legal rights and laws, the US, and every state therein, considers them valid.

So why are heterosexuals entitled to a legal marriage that's "invalid," while gays are not entitled to the same legal yet invalid marriage?

Just sayin.
Click to expand...
Because the government bans things that aren't particularly beneficial to society, and the government has a vested interest in promoting marriage and child birth. Some things they ban don't make sense (like first cousin marriages), but theres usually a reason behind it.
 
resurrection33

resurrection33

Banned
#135
Dec 19, 2009
27,513
128
0
71
#135
TheGrungeDiva said:
Well, if marriage were godly, that would matter.

But Jesus made it clear that marriage is of the world, and not of God's kingdom. So a dictionary published by the Lord may have "chastity" in it, but it wouldn't include "marriage," since that's a secular concept.
Click to expand...
When a man and woman marry, and neither has been married before, they are permitted to have sexual relations with each other.
 
tribesman

tribesman

Senior Member
#136
Oct 13, 2011
4,621
281
83
#136
TheGrungeDiva said:
You are right: I was assuming that you were referring to the US, and that was wrong of me. I suspect the difficulty I have understanding your grammar also stems from this -- I'm guessing English is not your native language.
Click to expand...
That's right

TheGrungeDiva said:
I cannot say what laws should or should not be passed in other countries. Not being a citizen of any other country, I have no right to say such, or to have an opinion one way or another what any other country does.

I don't know what your citizenship is, either. If you do not have citizenship or even legal alien residency in the US, then really, you have no right to say what laws the US should or should not pass, either. You absolutely may (and, I would argue, should) fight for what you think is right in your home country, whatever that might be. And any country you live in for long enough to establish legal residency, such as a school or work visa, would similarly be valid. But if you're just a visitor, you have no more right to tell us what to do. It's as rude as going over to someone's house and then insulting their decorating. If you don't like it, then don't let the door hit your butt on the way out.
Click to expand...
I would say that it is primarily about taking a general stance on the matter - as christians - not trying to impose ones views upon countries in which one has no citizenship. Of course, each one is limited to the citizenship/s one has to legally partake of political processes like elections, referendums etc, if such exists. But that does not hinder one to have a view on the matter. I find it hard to understand people who are for one thing in the US while against the same thing in other countries.

And I agree with you that the conversation was good.
 
T

TheGrungeDiva

Guest
#138
#138
SantoSubito said:
Because the government bans things that aren't particularly beneficial to society, and the government has a vested interest in promoting marriage and child birth. Some things they ban don't make sense (like first cousin marriages), but theres usually a reason behind it.
Click to expand...
How are gay marriages less beneficial to society than straight marriages? As long as homosexuality exists (which is a given -- I don't think anyone can argue that gays don't exist, whether it's a sin or not, we see homosexual behavior in thousands of species of animals, so it's not something that's ever going to go away this side of paradise) isn't it in the best interest of society at large for gays to be in stable, monogamous relationships rather than the promiscuous lifestyle that perpetuates disease and further break-down in society? Obviously, we cannot force gays not to have sex, but we can at least allow them to marry if they so choose, offering to them one thread of decency in an otherwise lost world. Isn't that the least we can offer?

And, as a further comment on the above parenthetical, as I saw on facebook the other day: homosexuality is documented in thousands of species. Homophobia in only one. Now what looks "unnatural"?
 
L

luciddream1982

Guest
#139
#139
TheGrungeDiva said:
And, as a further comment on the above parenthetical, as I saw on facebook the other day: homosexuality is documented in thousands of species. Homophobia in only one. Now what looks "unnatural"?
Click to expand...
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is AGAINST NATURE:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Homosexuality looks "unnatural"
 
B

Babirusa

Guest
#140
#140
Homosexuality is natural, as TheGrungeDiva pointed out, given the thousands of species that practice it.

Is the Bible really a credible source of rules of conduct, as luciddream believes? If you think it is then to be consistent you also have to apply Leviticus 19:19 (NIV):

“‘Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.