|
Post by someguy on Apr 22, 2009 15:25:46 GMT -5
People can argue a very vague interpretation of what Jesus said and make arguments on both sides of the fence. I know what I believe and no matter what people may say, I know and believe in the grace of God. Even to those horrible divorced and remarried sinners. When I sit here and read all everyone has to say I think of what Bertrand Russell had to say about people...."Cruel men believe in a cruel God and use their belief to excuse their cruelty. Only kindly men believe in a kindly God, and they would be kindly in any case." If someone wants to believe in a God that shows no mercy, they will find verses to back that up. Apparently there are even those on this board that think that equates to someone believing in a God who stands for nothing. That breaks my heart, but that is just one persons understanding. I make my stand with those who believe in a kindly, gracious God. Therefore, the master I know and love is this God, the kindly one. My Lord and God, loved the spiritually sick and diseased, offered rest and hope inspite of everything they were and hated the hypocrisy and envy of the unrighteous who called themselves better than others. Far to often we seem to equate righteousness to only those who never again fall forgetting that we ourselves our sinners, all the time not just once and a while, and maybe even we are sinners of the worst kind, believing our sin is less than the sin of others. May God have mercy on those who feel there sin is better than those terrible divorced and remarried people. Folks, we have all fallen short of the glory of God. If we are to start taking a stand on the D&R people, then I want to start punting those who think lustful thoughts. Being a man, that means myself and every other man is gone. Seeing we will be left with just women, how about those who gossip or spread rumors or are busybodies...how many women would that leave? I am sure in no time at all, we could punt every single one of the friends for sins that we continue to do. Not just something that we have done. We seem to think that these people are living in sin so they shouldn't be allowed in. Are we not all living in sin except for the grace of God who has given us new robes? Every person who thinks we should remove any D&R person is so self-righteous it is sickening. If you are without sin and not going to be sinning then by all means remove them. If you are not in this boat then learn about the kindly God. It will make your life a lot easier, and with all your extra time you used to spend judging those around you, you could start to get to know some of these people. You might actually find you have something in common. You might even make a new friend.
|
|
|
Post by sojourningthrulife on Apr 22, 2009 15:38:52 GMT -5
Remarriage was allowed for "one cause" (fornication) under the law of Moses (Deut.). Adultery was not a cause for divorce; however, fornication was. In the New Testament Jesus went back to "in the beginning it was not so ...." Jesus went back to the beginning / to what was in God's heart (not in the hard hearts that Moses was dealing with). Jesus did not want that put asunder what had been united in the marital state. Reconciliation is what is spoken about in the New Testament if there is a marital problem even a problem that goes as deep as divorce. They were encouraged to reconcile. Remarriage utterly ruins a possibility of reconciliation. Reconciliation is also what the Gospel is doing for us, being reconciled to our Redeemer. Also, many on this board are into grace but not into works. With the divorce and remarriage issue grace seems to DISAPPEAR. With the grace of God ruling in our hearts and lives we should be able to live with only one living mate, not two, not three, not four, not five, so when do the numbers stop for those of you who believe in "divorce and remarriage."? Do you stop at one divorce and remarriage, or two or three I have never heard your answer on that one.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Apr 22, 2009 15:50:58 GMT -5
When I sit here and read all everyone has to say I think of what Bertrand Russell had to say about people...."Cruel men believe in a cruel God and use their belief to excuse their cruelty. Only kindly men believe in a kindly God, and they would be kindly in any case." I like that! Our Bible is a complicated mix of lots of different opinions about God, satisfying just about every personality.
|
|
eaglesnest
Junior Member
Never look down on someone, unless you are helping them up.....Jesse Jackson
Posts: 69
|
Post by eaglesnest on Apr 22, 2009 15:55:39 GMT -5
Remarriage was allowed for "one cause" (fornication) under the law of Moses (Deut.). Adultery was not a cause for divorce; however, fornication was. In the New Testament Jesus went back to "in the beginning it was not so ...." Jesus went back to the beginning / to what was in God's heart (not in the hard hearts that Moses was dealing with). Jesus did not want that put asunder what had been united in the marital state. Reconciliation is what is spoken about in the New Testament if there is a marital problem even a problem that goes as deep as divorce. They were encouraged to reconcile. Remarriage utterly ruins a possibility of reconciliation. Reconciliation is also what the Gospel is doing for us, being reconciled to our Redeemer. Also, many on this board are into grace but not into works. With the divorce and remarriage issue grace seems to DISAPPEAR. With the grace of God ruling in our hearts and lives we should be able to live with only one living mate, not two, not three, not four, not five, so when do the numbers stop for those of you who believe in "divorce and remarriage."? Do you stop at one divorce and remarriage, or two or three I have never heard your answer on that one. a kind reply to sojourningthrulife, just something to think about:
Would you rather err on the side of mercy or on the side of judgement? Have you yourself ever walked a mile in the shoes of those you are referring to?
Seems to me that as long as YOU live by your convictions, the convictions God has made real to you, then why should it concern you what others are or are not doing in regards to marriage/divorce/remarriage? How does what they do affect YOUR salvation? If you died today, you answer only for yourself, not the others. And those who don't show mercy won't be receiving it - a fearful place to be in -
|
|
|
Post by someguy on Apr 22, 2009 16:09:22 GMT -5
a kind reply to sojourningthrulife, just something to think about:
Would you rather err on the side of mercy or on the side of judgment? Have you yourself ever walked a mile in the shoes of those you are referring to?
Seems to me that as long as YOU live by your convictions, the convictions God has made real to you, then why should it concern you what others are or are not doing in regards to marriage/divorce/remarriage? How does what they do affect YOUR salvation? If you died today, you answer only for yourself, not the others. And those who don't show mercy won't be receiving it - a fearful place to be in - Personally I believe that those who live without mercy will die and be judged without mercy. I suppose because I believe in a merciful God I tend to error on the side of mercy. But then I don't think that is bad place to error, rather that then error on the side of judgment...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2009 16:12:37 GMT -5
Sojourningthrulife wrote:
Do you recommend reconciling with a spouse who beats up on the other? Do you recommend reconciling with a spouse who threatens to murder the other?
And thank goodness it does in those toxic situations.
I don't "believe in" divorce and remarriage, and I doubt that anyone else does here either. That's one of the false premises you use along with the reconciliation argument.
You should stop at exactly the number of remarriages that God tells you to stop, it's quite simple really.
|
|
eaglesnest
Junior Member
Never look down on someone, unless you are helping them up.....Jesse Jackson
Posts: 69
|
Post by eaglesnest on Apr 22, 2009 16:20:44 GMT -5
Sojourningthrulife wrote: Do you recommend reconciling with a spouse who beats up on the other? Do you recommend reconciling with a spouse who threatens to murder the other? And thank goodness it does in those toxic situations. I don't "believe in" divorce and remarriage, and I doubt that anyone else does here either. That's one of the false premises you use along with the reconciliation argument. You should stop at exactly the number of remarriages that God tells you to stop, it's quite simple really. Amen
|
|
|
Post by scarletto on Apr 22, 2009 16:21:23 GMT -5
Remarriage was allowed for "one cause" (fornication) under the law of Moses (Deut.). Adultery was not a cause for divorce; however, fornication was.In the New Testament Jesus went back to "in the beginning it was not so ...." Jesus went back to the beginning / to what was in God's heart (not in the hard hearts that Moses was dealing with). Jesus did not want that put asunder what had been united in the marital state. Reconciliation is what is spoken about in the New Testament if there is a marital problem even a problem that goes as deep as divorce. They were encouraged to reconcile. Remarriage utterly ruins a possibility of reconciliation. Reconciliation is also what the Gospel is doing for us, being reconciled to our Redeemer. Also, many on this board are into grace but not into works. With the divorce and remarriage issue grace seems to DISAPPEAR. With the grace of God ruling in our hearts and lives we should be able to live with only one living mate, not two, not three, not four, not five, so when do the numbers stop for those of you who believe in "divorce and remarriage."? Do you stop at one divorce and remarriage, or two or three I have never heard your answer on that one. sojourner, --Appreciate your thoughts on this. D&R is not an issue for me, per se, as I've never been divorced. But, I have been widowed and remarried twice. This issue hits home more for me with regards to HOW I treat someone who IS divorced and remarried(as though they are commiting the sin of adultery every day and thus living in sin) I don't believe that they are a worse "sinner" than I am. But, because of my 'KNOWN' and very public out in the open marital status, I would not be forbidden from taking part in fellowship meetings. However, if you only KNEW the sins that I do harbor and have harbored in my heart, you might ask me to not take part in meeting....I deal with my sin every day. I go to God and I confess my sins (I also confess my sins with others sometimes)...and I ask for forgiveness and I ask for cleansing and purging and healing....I ask for HIS help to FULLY repent....the EARNEST DESIRE to repent is on my heart, in my mind and my soul yearns for repentance and cleansing. I don't personally wish to harbor unforgiveness to ANYONE, including fellow sinners, (which includes you, me and everyone.) I've discovered, that being married and staying married DOES require graciousness, forebarance, patience & thanks for bringing that up. Are you advocating that people should not ever get divorced? Are you also advocating that someone should divorce the second spouse to get right with God? If so, what does that say about extending grace to the person one is CURRENTLY married to? The simplest definition of fornication is: Sex outside of wedlock. Adultery is a TYPE OF fornication. PREMARITAL sex is also fornication. We humans can ban others from meetings, and we can ask people not to partake of such and such and humans can relinquish "privileges" all we want to, but it doesn't hold a candle to God's superior judgment and at the end of our life it will all come down to the individual and God...God and God alone will decide who gets to be a partaker of Heaven and Heaven's Glory. Yes, the people in Moses' day had hard hearts-thus "requiring" a bill of divorcement (to improve the quality of life for the put-away wife). Looking at the context there, the men were putting their wives away, and moving on to another wife; leaving the previous wife in the bondage of a LOVELESS MARRIAGE. Thanks for pointing that out about the hardheartedness..... Yet, we can fall into the same hardheartedness toward one another if we ban, or forbid someone because they are a sinner--and we ourselves have somehow determined who is the better sinner and/or who is not "worthy" according to the type of sin. Are we not in a sense 'putting away' that awful divorced and remarried person into some type of forbidden status? Have you yourself extended forgiveness to someone who commits the sin of adultery or fornication? I hope so, as there are many people you may come into contact with who fit that category. If you do not forgive them, God will not forgive you. Forgiving someone does not mean you are condoning their sin....and that is, I think part of the issue. We don't want the "appearance" of condoning sin. (for what it's worth, just my thoughts) scarlett
|
|
terry
Senior Member
Posts: 328
|
Post by terry on Apr 22, 2009 16:41:36 GMT -5
Remarriage was allowed for "one cause" (fornication) under the law of Moses (Deut.). Adultery was not a cause for divorce; however, fornication was. In the New Testament Jesus went back to "in the beginning it was not so ...." Jesus went back to the beginning / to what was in God's heart (not in the hard hearts that Moses was dealing with). Jesus did not want that put asunder what had been united in the marital state. Reconciliation is what is spoken about in the New Testament if there is a marital problem even a problem that goes as deep as divorce. They were encouraged to reconcile. Remarriage utterly ruins a possibility of reconciliation. Reconciliation is also what the Gospel is doing for us, being reconciled to our Redeemer. Also, many on this board are into grace but not into works. With the divorce and remarriage issue grace seems to DISAPPEAR. With the grace of God ruling in our hearts and lives we should be able to live with only one living mate, not two, not three, not four, not five, so when do the numbers stop for those of you who believe in "divorce and remarriage."? Do you stop at one divorce and remarriage, or two or three I have never heard your answer on that one. Once again you're becoming legalistic. What is the difference between fornication and adultery? And was the difference in meaning the same during the translation of KJV? What was the difference when the scripture was written? You're straining at gnats.
|
|
|
Post by hippyatheart on Apr 22, 2009 17:00:03 GMT -5
Remarriage was allowed for "one cause" (fornication) under the law of Moses (Deut.). Adultery was not a cause for divorce; however, fornication was.In the New Testament Jesus went back to "in the beginning it was not so ...." Jesus went back to the beginning / to what was in God's heart (not in the hard hearts that Moses was dealing with). Jesus did not want that put asunder what had been united in the marital state. Reconciliation is what is spoken about in the New Testament if there is a marital problem even a problem that goes as deep as divorce. They were encouraged to reconcile. Remarriage utterly ruins a possibility of reconciliation. Reconciliation is also what the Gospel is doing for us, being reconciled to our Redeemer. Also, many on this board are into grace but not into works. With the divorce and remarriage issue grace seems to DISAPPEAR. With the grace of God ruling in our hearts and lives we should be able to live with only one living mate, not two, not three, not four, not five, so when do the numbers stop for those of you who believe in "divorce and remarriage."? Do you stop at one divorce and remarriage, or two or three I have never heard your answer on that one. sojourner, --Appreciate your thoughts on this. D&R is not an issue for me, per se, as I've never been divorced. But, I have been widowed and remarried twice. This issue hits home more for me with regards to HOW I treat someone who IS divorced and remarried(as though they are commiting the sin of adultery every day and thus living in sin) I don't believe that they are a worse "sinner" than I am. But, because of my 'KNOWN' and very public out in the open marital status, I would not be forbidden from taking part in fellowship meetings. However, if you only KNEW the sins that I do harbor and have harbored in my heart, you might ask me to not take part in meeting....I deal with my sin every day. I go to God and I confess my sins (I also confess my sins with others sometimes)...and I ask for forgiveness and I ask for cleansing and purging and healing....I ask for HIS help to FULLY repent....the EARNEST DESIRE to repent is on my heart, in my mind and my soul yearns for repentance and cleansing. I don't personally wish to harbor unforgiveness to ANYONE, including fellow sinners, (which includes you, me and everyone.) I've discovered, that being married and staying married DOES require graciousness, forebarance, patience & thanks for bringing that up. Are you advocating that people should not ever get divorced? Are you also advocating that someone should divorce the second spouse to get right with God? If so, what does that say about extending grace to the person one is CURRENTLY married to? The simplest definition of fornication is: Sex outside of wedlock. Adultery is a TYPE OF fornication. PREMARITAL sex is also fornication. We humans can ban others from meetings, and we can ask people not to partake of such and such and humans can relinquish "privileges" all we want to, but it doesn't hold a candle to God's superior judgment and at the end of our life it will all come down to the individual and God...God and God alone will decide who gets to be a partaker of Heaven and Heaven's Glory. Yes, the people in Moses' day had hard hearts-thus "requiring" a bill of divorcement to needful. Looking at the context there, the men were putting their wives away, and moving on to another wife; leaving the previous in the bondage of a LOVELESS MARRIAGE. Thanks for pointing that out the hardheartedness..... Yet, we can fall into the same hard-heartedness toward one another if we ban, or forbid someone because they are a sinner and we ourselves have somehow determined who is the better sinner and/or who is not "worthy" according to the type of sin. Are we not in a sense 'putting away' that awful divorced and remarried person into some type of forbidden status? Have you yourself extended forgiveness to someone who commits the sin of adultery or fornication? I hope so, as there are many people you may come into contact with who fit that category. If you do not forgive them, God will not forgive you. Forgiving someone does not mean you are condoning their sin....and that is, I think part of the issue. We don't want the "appearance" of condoning sin. (for what it's worth, just my thoughts) scarlett Scarlett, dear. I understand what you are trying to say...and thanks for your previous post earlier today. Nicely done. My mom was always one who was very concerned with appearances and especially whether or not it appeared as though she was condoning another person's sin. Personally, I think she spent too much time and energy on that & she found out the hard way because it backfired on her eventually that being so preoccupied with the appearance of sin and/or the appearance of condoning another's sin did not pan out spiritually. She put herself in spiritual bondage by thinking she could somehow "correct" the perceived sin in another person. In spending so much time and energy concerning herself with the sin of others and the appearance of condoning the sin of others, she was spiritually stunted for a number of years, in my opinion. I noticed, however, that when she started attending to her own issues more & her OWN SIN, and when she realized the full extent of the fallacy of thinking one can "right" another's sin, she changed-(for the better)- her entire life became more peaceful, enriching, and she is spiritually prosperous. She has confessed all of this to me in recent years and it has opened up an avenue of fellowship between the two of us that is truly priceless. We learn from one another and from one another's mistakes. For now, I choose to remain divorced and unmarried and I have no desire to remarry another or to remarry my EX, for that matter. I am happy as an individual WITH God and my relationship with those in my life is greatly improved because my relationship with God comes first. I am content to be married to God and to be the spotless Bride of Christ. My status as a spotless Bride has helped me to see that my body is the Lord's Temple and there is a whole lot more I could do to pollute this body such as fill it full of junk and live a sedentary lifestyle, than to remarry someone of the Lord's choosing. Can I wear the Bridal Gown truthfully...? I've yet to find a man who can be as good of a husband as Christ is to me. Maybe my standards are too high, but hey, I'm a happy Bride!!! Best to You, hah
|
|
|
Post by hippyatheart on Apr 22, 2009 17:02:30 GMT -5
Remarriage was allowed for "one cause" (fornication) under the law of Moses (Deut.). Adultery was not a cause for divorce; however, fornication was. In the New Testament Jesus went back to "in the beginning it was not so ...." Jesus went back to the beginning / to what was in God's heart (not in the hard hearts that Moses was dealing with). Jesus did not want that put asunder what had been united in the marital state. Reconciliation is what is spoken about in the New Testament if there is a marital problem even a problem that goes as deep as divorce. They were encouraged to reconcile. Remarriage utterly ruins a possibility of reconciliation. Reconciliation is also what the Gospel is doing for us, being reconciled to our Redeemer. Also, many on this board are into grace but not into works. With the divorce and remarriage issue grace seems to DISAPPEAR. With the grace of God ruling in our hearts and lives we should be able to live with only one living mate, not two, not three, not four, not five, so when do the numbers stop for those of you who believe in "divorce and remarriage."? Do you stop at one divorce and remarriage, or two or three I have never heard your answer on that one. Once again you're becoming legalistic. What is the difference between fornication and adultery? And was the difference in meaning the same during the translation of KJV? What was the difference when the scripture was written? You're straining at gnats. Terry, It's always been my understanding that-- Sex that occurs in anyplace OTHER than within the marital union is considered fornication. By that definition, adultery would qualify, as well as premarital sex and/or extramarital sex. For example: If I were not married, but just dating a man and we had sex, that would be considered fornication. If I WAS married and had sex with anyone BESIDES my husband, that too would be considered fornication, but it would ALSO be considered adultery. There seems to be some basic misunderstanding and/or disagreement about the common meaning or usage of some of the terminology that is being used in this discussion. hah
|
|
terry
Senior Member
Posts: 328
|
Post by terry on Apr 22, 2009 17:13:27 GMT -5
Remarriage was allowed for "one cause" (fornication) under the law of Moses (Deut.). Adultery was not a cause for divorce; however, fornication was.In the New Testament Jesus went back to "in the beginning it was not so ...." Jesus went back to the beginning / to what was in God's heart (not in the hard hearts that Moses was dealing with). Jesus did not want that put asunder what had been united in the marital state. Reconciliation is what is spoken about in the New Testament if there is a marital problem even a problem that goes as deep as divorce. They were encouraged to reconcile. Remarriage utterly ruins a possibility of reconciliation. Reconciliation is also what the Gospel is doing for us, being reconciled to our Redeemer. Also, many on this board are into grace but not into works. With the divorce and remarriage issue grace seems to DISAPPEAR. With the grace of God ruling in our hearts and lives we should be able to live with only one living mate, not two, not three, not four, not five, so when do the numbers stop for those of you who believe in "divorce and remarriage."? Do you stop at one divorce and remarriage, or two or three I have never heard your answer on that one. sojourner, --Appreciate your thoughts on this. D&R is not an issue for me, per se, as I've never been divorced. But, I have been widowed and remarried twice. This issue hits home more for me with regards to HOW I treat someone who IS divorced and remarried(as though they are commiting the sin of adultery every day and thus living in sin) I don't believe that they are a worse "sinner" than I am. But, because of my 'KNOWN' and very public out in the open marital status, I would not be forbidden from taking part in fellowship meetings. However, if you only KNEW the sins that I do harbor and have harbored in my heart, you might ask me to not take part in meeting....I deal with my sin every day. I go to God and I confess my sins (I also confess my sins with others sometimes)...and I ask for forgiveness and I ask for cleansing and purging and healing....I ask for HIS help to FULLY repent....the EARNEST DESIRE to repent is on my heart, in my mind and my soul yearns for repentance and cleansing. I don't personally wish to harbor unforgiveness to ANYONE, including fellow sinners, (which includes you, me and everyone.) I've discovered, that being married and staying married DOES require graciousness, forebarance, patience & thanks for bringing that up. Are you advocating that people should not ever get divorced? Are you also advocating that someone should divorce the second spouse to get right with God? If so, what does that say about extending grace to the person one is CURRENTLY married to? The simplest definition of fornication is: Sex outside of wedlock. Adultery is a TYPE OF fornication. PREMARITAL sex is also fornication. We humans can ban others from meetings, and we can ask people not to partake of such and such and humans can relinquish "privileges" all we want to, but it doesn't hold a candle to God's superior judgment and at the end of our life it will all come down to the individual and God...God and God alone will decide who gets to be a partaker of Heaven and Heaven's Glory. Yes, the people in Moses' day had hard hearts-thus "requiring" a bill of divorcement to needful. Looking at the context there, the men were putting their wives away, and moving on to another wife; leaving the previous in the bondage of a LOVELESS MARRIAGE. Thanks for pointing that out the hardheartedness..... Yet, we can fall into the same hard-heartedness toward one another if we ban, or forbid someone because they are a sinner and we ourselves have somehow determined who is the better sinner and/or who is not "worthy" according to the type of sin. Are we not in a sense 'putting away' that awful divorced and remarried person into some type of forbidden status? Have you yourself extended forgiveness to someone who commits the sin of adultery or fornication? I hope so, as there are many people you may come into contact with who fit that category. If you do not forgive them, God will not forgive you. Forgiving someone does not mean you are condoning their sin....and that is, I think part of the issue. We don't want the "appearance" of condoning sin. (for what it's worth, just my thoughts) scarlett I hadn't gotten to your post before I made my last one, but you speak to the issue very well. The one thing (which I've mentioned many times) that I learned (and the lesson was hard) during my days a divorced 2x2 was not to judge what someone else did under stressful times. Until you've been in that situation and dealt with the stress and issues you don't understand. And understanding doesn't give you the right to judge. As someone said isn't it better to err on the side of mercy? As for the how many times can someone divorce and remarry? Each situation needs to be looked at individually. Obviously if someone is on thier 4th or 5th spouse one has to be suspecious (on his/her wisdom in choosing a mate if nothing else). A spouse who destroys a marriage because they were unfaithful can be considered differntly than the spouse who was wronged. And yes, I'm speaking from my own personal experience, although even should I be granted full status I wouldn't return.
|
|
|
Post by jphillips on Apr 22, 2009 17:15:41 GMT -5
It's always been my understanding that-- Sex that occurs in anyplace OTHER than within the marital union is considered fornication. By that definition, adultery would qualify, as well as premarital sex and/or extramarital sex. For example: If I were not married, but just dating a man and we had sex, that would be considered fornication. If I WAS married and had sex with anyone BESIDES my husband, that too would be considered fornication, but it would ALSO be considered adultery. There seems to be some basic misunderstanding and/or disagreement about the common meaning or usage of some of the terminology that is being used in this discussion. hah hah, I've always heard the though of such, in the heart, with another (non-spouse) is as great a sin as the actual physical participation. OOooooooooohhhh, is no one INNOCENT?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2009 17:43:32 GMT -5
] It seems very difficult for humanity to allow the Comforter to accomplish what He is sent to do. Teaching of the Lord is not mean, nor a taskmaster, but, a Comforter. Personally, I grieve upon hearing of any who have not been Comforted in the "way they worship" for I cannot believe the Comforter will do anything other than what the Lord has promised. Shame upon any who decide others are unworthy of such Comfort from God.
|
|
|
Post by Sylvestra on Apr 22, 2009 17:44:29 GMT -5
Sorry, Edy, but sometimes you just have to choose between scripture and common sense. I think "ignorant" is a severe word for people who are merely obeying scripture. Not that I don't agree with you...I just wouldn't say it out loud... Do you eat pork or shell fish? Do you favor stoning adulterers? Do you drink milk and eat meat at the same meal? So, Terry, what you are saying is that all the Law of God was thrown out? We are just to ignore the guidelines God gave in Scripture? What Law do you think the "overcomers" will rule the nations with when they are ruling with Christ? I think we need to get more familiar with the LAWS God promised to write in OUR HEARTS....what Laws do you think the "heart" Laws are? No I don't eat pork or shell fish -- and furthermore, any other fish that does not have scales. Stoning adulterers? Hey, it doesn't even seem that people today can figure out who is and who is not an adulterer! So the stoning will have to wait a while (same with stoning homosexuals). Neither can we decide as a whole, if anyone should get the death penalty!! or not! In our day and age, some arenas are totally the message of Baal hitting head on with the message of "Elijah"! Many of the Laws were part of the sacrificial Laws that were put away. We'd all be better off morally, economically, and physically if we'd pay attention to the rest of the Laws! But, with all that said, what basis are you going to use to "guide" situations like divorce and remarriage if not God's Law? E
|
|
|
Post by Sylvestra on Apr 22, 2009 17:52:49 GMT -5
Remarriage was allowed for "one cause" (fornication) under the law of Moses (Deut.). Adultery was not a cause for divorce; however, fornication was. In the New Testament Jesus went back to "in the beginning it was not so ...." Jesus went back to the beginning / to what was in God's heart (not in the hard hearts that Moses was dealing with). Jesus did not want that put asunder what had been united in the marital state. Reconciliation is what is spoken about in the New Testament if there is a marital problem even a problem that goes as deep as divorce. They were encouraged to reconcile. Remarriage utterly ruins a possibility of reconciliation. Reconciliation is also what the Gospel is doing for us, being reconciled to our Redeemer. Also, many on this board are into grace but not into works. With the divorce and remarriage issue grace seems to DISAPPEAR. With the grace of God ruling in our hearts and lives we should be able to live with only one living mate, not two, not three, not four, not five, so when do the numbers stop for those of you who believe in "divorce and remarriage."? Do you stop at one divorce and remarriage, or two or three I have never heard your answer on that one. See, there you go again. Get your reference books out (try Strong's) and look up "fornication". It covers any sexual sin including adultery. You probably believe, as I used to, that "fornication" means having sex with someone when you are not married.....but that's not all it means. Why would the number of divorces and remarriages make any difference anyway? When you break the speed limit, how often can you do that either? How many times can someone lie about things before it is "too much"? Or, how many times can you kid take money from you (read steal), before you disown him? E
|
|
|
Post by scarletto on Apr 22, 2009 18:19:56 GMT -5
It's always been my understanding that-- Sex that occurs in anyplace OTHER than within the marital union is considered fornication. By that definition, adultery would qualify, as well as premarital sex and/or extramarital sex. For example: If I were not married, but just dating a man and we had sex, that would be considered fornication. If I WAS married and had sex with anyone BESIDES my husband, that too would be considered fornication, but it would ALSO be considered adultery. There seems to be some basic misunderstanding and/or disagreement about the common meaning or usage of some of the terminology that is being used in this discussion. hah hah, I've always heard the though of such, in the heart, with another (non-spouse) is as great a sin as the actual physical participation. OOooooooooohhhh, is no one INNOCENT? Indeed ManFred: There are different TYPES of fornication and different types of adultery. Fornication speaks to sexual intercourse. Adultery speaks to adulterating (contaminating) the marital union, such as with unfaithfulness. This can be accomplished via having sex with someone outside of your marriage or their marriage or both of your marriages-depending on the situation...but there are other ways one can adulterate a marriage. Some people feel that ANY type of unfaithfulness is considered adulterating a marriage, such as lusting after another, being dishonest about something both partners have agreed to be honest on, or even emotional "cheating". Having said all that, is no one exempt? Hmm? I so understand why forgiveness and cleansing are needed in lasting, healthy marriages.God Himself divorced the Children of Israel for spiritual "cheating" and idolatry. God then "remarried" to the Gentiles. However, since God is God, He has the ability to stay fully married to the Gentiles and also to reconcile with the 'Daughters of Zion'....Whom He felt fallen into idolatry & went a-whoring with idols. God's first marriage to humans was with the Children of Israel. He made a covenant with them and vows were taken. He wanted them to propagate His People physically as well as spiritually. Hey, look, all He wanted was a loving and faithful union and asked that they remain true to their VOWS....with Him....They didn't remain true, so God divorced them...read about it in the Prophets aplenty. Isaiah 57verse8(for example)- Behind the doors also and the posts hast thou set up thy remembrance: for thou hast discovered thyself to another than me, and art gone up; thou hast enlarged thy bed and made thee a covenant with them; thou lovedst their bed where thou sawest it. It basically says here that the Children of Israel cheated on Him. I guess God felt that was grounds for divorce...but He has always desired to reconcile and has always provided a Way for reconciliation...Have you ever asked yourself this: What are the requirements for reconciliation...not according to man's ideas, but according to God? scarlett
|
|
|
Post by JO on Apr 22, 2009 19:26:35 GMT -5
So, Terry, what you are saying is that all the Law of God was thrown out? We are just to ignore the guidelines God gave in Scripture? What Law do you think the "overcomers" will rule the nations with when they are ruling with Christ? I think we need to get more familiar with the LAWS God promised to write in OUR HEARTS....what Laws do you think the "heart" Laws are? No I don't eat pork or shell fish -- and furthermore, any other fish that does not have scales. Stoning adulterers? Hey, it doesn't even seem that people today can figure out who is and who is not an adulterer! So the stoning will have to wait a while (same with stoning homosexuals). Neither can we decide as a whole, if anyone should get the death penalty!! or not! In our day and age, some arenas are totally the message of Baal hitting head on with the message of "Elijah"! Many of the Laws were part of the sacrificial Laws that were put away. We'd all be better off morally, economically, and physically if we'd pay attention to the rest of the Laws! But, with all that said, what basis are you going to use to "guide" situations like divorce and remarriage if not God's Law? E So when did God's people stop stoning those caught in adultery? And when did it become illegal for a man of God to have more than one wife?
|
|
terry
Senior Member
Posts: 328
|
Post by terry on Apr 22, 2009 20:39:59 GMT -5
Do you eat pork or shell fish? Do you favor stoning adulterers? Do you drink milk and eat meat at the same meal? So, Terry, what you are saying is that all the Law of God was thrown out? We are just to ignore the guidelines God gave in Scripture? What Law do you think the "overcomers" will rule the nations with when they are ruling with Christ? I think we need to get more familiar with the LAWS God promised to write in OUR HEARTS....what Laws do you think the "heart" Laws are? No I don't eat pork or shell fish -- and furthermore, any other fish that does not have scales. Stoning adulterers? Hey, it doesn't even seem that people today can figure out who is and who is not an adulterer! So the stoning will have to wait a while (same with stoning homosexuals). Neither can we decide as a whole, if anyone should get the death penalty!! or not! In our day and age, some arenas are totally the message of Baal hitting head on with the message of "Elijah"! Many of the Laws were part of the sacrificial Laws that were put away. We'd all be better off morally, economically, and physically if we'd pay attention to the rest of the Laws! But, with all that said, what basis are you going to use to "guide" situations like divorce and remarriage if not God's Law? E Okay, I don't know what parts of the law have been thrown out, but you can't with any intellectual honesty claim any part of the OT law without claiming all of it. And in the OT men were allowed multiple wives and concubines (not sure why a man would want to--have enough trouble keeping one happy!!!!!!) But seriously woman in the OT where basically property--we don't and shouldn't cling to that. If fornication is any sexual activity outside the marriage, then why doesn't Jesus's exception hold true within the 2x2's? I think that the laws that Jesus taught were nonjudgemental, compassionate and loving and that isn't what is taught within the 2x2. When I was divorced and still "in" there was a young mother of two who was also divorced living about 30 miles south of me (different field of workers--I had several tell me why don't you just marry X that way both of you will have a spouse and your both professing so that may be a plus with the workers. HUH? Talk about an arranged marriage. And these were well meaning people who actually had compasion for me, but it was surreal. that would have been a marriage made in h--l, not that X wasn't a good person, it was that we weren't didn't know we were compatable and I didn't want to get into a situation that might make me think we were when we weren't--similar to an earlier poster experience with her brother. Before I started dating my wife, I dated a lady from the Nazarene's--we discussed religion--and she asked the question "so if I marry you, I'm automatically tainted in your church why would I want to do that?" I had no answer.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Apr 22, 2009 21:04:03 GMT -5
sojourneying in Post #264 wrote:
I respectfully disagree with the above statement. Where does Deut address "one cause"? And where does Deut say that "one cause" was "fornication"? What does Deut 24:2 mean, if it is not giving the divorced woman right to remarry? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is what Deuteronomy 24 says: (KJV)
1When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
2And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.
3And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;
4Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The meaning of "some uncleaness" was what the Pharisees asked Jesus about. They wanted to know HIS definition on this flaming issue that the two sects of Pharisees disagreed over. The Hillel-Shammai dispute was well known throughout Palestine, and in Jewish history.
Hillel and Shammai were two famous rabbis who were the heads of rabbinical schools in Jerusalem. They lived about a generation before Jesus. Hillel had gained recognition as a leading authority on Mosaic law. Shammai also had attained to prominence as a teacher of the law.
Hillel taught that a Jew could divorce his wife FOR ANY CAUSE WHATEVER--burning the biscuits was a "good enough reason," by him. Shammai held that divorce was lawful only for the cause of fornication.
This dispute was debated up and down the land between the "every cause" of Hillel and the "one cause" of Shammai.
It was not a dispute about remarriage, but rather about the LAWFUL cause of divorce that allowed remarriage. Various authorities have written abut the Hillel-Shammai dispute.
Denial of remarriage after divorce was unknown to Jews. See Jewish Marriage Anthology, Philip and Hanna Goodman p 294 Jewish Publication Society, 1965)
Dr. Alfred Edersheim, the world recognized Jewish NT authority wrote: " On the question: What constituted lawful grounds of divorce? the Schools were divided. All held that divorce was lawful; the only questions being as to its grounds." (The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Eerdmans).
|
|
|
Post by Sylvestra on Apr 22, 2009 21:48:36 GMT -5
So, Terry, what you are saying is that all the Law of God was thrown out? We are just to ignore the guidelines God gave in Scripture? What Law do you think the "overcomers" will rule the nations with when they are ruling with Christ? I think we need to get more familiar with the LAWS God promised to write in OUR HEARTS....what Laws do you think the "heart" Laws are? No I don't eat pork or shell fish -- and furthermore, any other fish that does not have scales. Stoning adulterers? Hey, it doesn't even seem that people today can figure out who is and who is not an adulterer! So the stoning will have to wait a while (same with stoning homosexuals). Neither can we decide as a whole, if anyone should get the death penalty!! or not! In our day and age, some arenas are totally the message of Baal hitting head on with the message of "Elijah"! Many of the Laws were part of the sacrificial Laws that were put away. We'd all be better off morally, economically, and physically if we'd pay attention to the rest of the Laws! But, with all that said, what basis are you going to use to "guide" situations like divorce and remarriage if not God's Law? E Okay, I don't know what parts of the law have been thrown out, but you can't with any intellectual honesty claim any part of the OT law without claiming all of it. And in the OT men were allowed multiple wives and concubines (not sure why a man would want to--have enough trouble keeping one happy!!!!!!) But seriously woman in the OT where basically property--we don't and shouldn't cling to that. If fornication is any sexual activity outside the marriage, then why doesn't Jesus's exception hold true within the 2x2's? I think that the laws that Jesus taught were nonjudgemental, compassionate and loving and that isn't what is taught within the 2x2. When I was divorced and still "in" there was a young mother of two who was also divorced living about 30 miles south of me (different field of workers--I had several tell me why don't you just marry X that way both of you will have a spouse and your both professing so that may be a plus with the workers. HUH? Talk about an arranged marriage. And these were well meaning people who actually had compasion for me, but it was surreal. that would have been a marriage made in h--l, not that X wasn't a good person, it was that we weren't didn't know we were compatable and I didn't want to get into a situation that might make me think we were when we weren't--similar to an earlier poster experience with her brother. Before I started dating my wife, I dated a lady from the Nazarene's--we discussed religion--and she asked the question "so if I marry you, I'm automatically tainted in your church why would I want to do that?" I had no answer. You know, Terry, I have been thinking about the discussion between the two of us.....and I know we've both been "through the wringer" on this issue. But, I was thinking, if we are going to discount the Law of God as recorded in the OT because "Jesus changed all of that somehow", why is divorce, remarriage, incest, or anything else given there even a problem we need to worry about? Does that make any sense to you either? Or, should we give respect to its "guidance"? Regardless of how you feel about the guidance of the Old Testament Law, I think we can both agree that the F & W (and a number of other churches) just don't have the best interest of the parties involved. I'm very happy to see the progress you've made through the challenge you've had in life with this issue (d & r) as you've shared with us over the years on this Board. I always read the posts when I see your name! Best! In His Love, Edy P.S. I think you would be interested in a thread that was on this Board some years ago (I believe Rob Oxenbridge started it) on polygamy in our day. (Maybe someone can find it.) I don't believe the Bible has ever banned it. Even in the times of multiple wives, and man still had to give a wife a "proper bill of divorce" before he put her out of his harem. I've been wondering lately if "we" could get another wife at our house. I need the help LOL!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2009 22:06:29 GMT -5
sojourneying in Post #264 wrote: I respectfully disagree with the above statement. Where does Deut address "one cause"? And where does Deut say that "one cause" was "fornication"? What does Deut 24:2 mean, if it is not giving the divorced woman right to remarry? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is what Deuteronomy 24 says: (KJV) 1When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. 2And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. 3And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; 4Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The meaning of "some uncleaness" was what the Pharisees asked Jesus about. They wanted to know HIS definition on this flaming issue that the two sects of Pharisees disagreed over. The Hillel-Shammai dispute was well known throughout Palestine, and in Jewish history. Hillel and Shammai were two famous rabbis who were the heads of rabbinical schools in Jerusalem. They lived about a generation before Jesus. Hillel had gained recognition as a leading authority on Mosaic law. Shammai also had attained to prominence as a teacher of the law. Hillel taught that a Jew could divorce his wife FOR ANY CAUSE WHATEVER--burning the biscuits was a "good enough reason," by him. Shammai held that divorce was lawful only for the cause of fornication. This dispute was debated up and down the land between the "every cause" of Hillel and the "one cause" of Shammai. It was not a dispute about remarriage, but rather about the LAWFUL cause of divorce that allowed remarriage. Various authorities have written abut the Hillel-Shammai dispute. Denial of remarriage after divorce was unknown to Jews. See Jewish Marriage Anthology, Philip and Hanna Goodman p 294 Jewish Publication Society, 1965) Dr. Alfred Edersheim, the world recognized Jewish NT authority wrote: " On the question: What constituted lawful grounds of divorce? the Schools were divided. All held that divorce was lawful; the only questions being as to its grounds." (The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Eerdmans). Your assessment of the background of Jesus' discussion on remarriage is the way I understand it too Cherie. Nice concise summary.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Apr 22, 2009 23:34:26 GMT -5
So Jesus naming it as adultery was shocking to the disciples:
Matt. 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. 10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Apr 23, 2009 6:23:04 GMT -5
So Jesus naming it as adultery was shocking to the disciples: Matt. 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. 10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. "Put away" does not mean the same as "divorce," in the Bible. Divorce was separation from board and bed with a Bill of divorcement which allowed for remarriage, which the law in Deut provided in cases of divorce. "Putting away" was an ugly, mean, selfish practice some Jewish men were doing--that of kicking out their wives and NOT giving them a Bill of Divorce as the OT provided for. Without that Bill of D, neither the husband or the wife could marry again, without committing adultery, bcs they were still bound to the spouse until there was a Bill of Divorcement given to the wife. When they "put away" a wife, rather than divorce her, (i.e. kicked her out with nothing) they didn't have to give back her dowry. For more info on "putting away" read Walter Callison's article here: www.tellingthetruth.info/bible_topics/remarriage.php
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Apr 23, 2009 7:10:07 GMT -5
Okay, I don't know what parts of the law have been thrown out, but you can't with any intellectual honesty claim any part of the OT law without claiming all of it. And in the OT men were allowed multiple wives and concubines (not sure why a man would want to--have enough trouble keeping one happy!!!!!!) But seriously woman in the OT where basically property--we don't and shouldn't cling to that. If fornication is any sexual activity outside the marriage, then why doesn't Jesus's exception hold true within the 2x2's? I think that the laws that Jesus taught were nonjudgemental, compassionate and loving and that isn't what is taught within the 2x2. When I was divorced and still "in" there was a young mother of two who was also divorced living about 30 miles south of me (different field of workers--I had several tell me why don't you just marry X that way both of you will have a spouse and your both professing so that may be a plus with the workers. HUH? Talk about an arranged marriage. And these were well meaning people who actually had compasion for me, but it was surreal. that would have been a marriage made in h--l, not that X wasn't a good person, it was that we weren't didn't know we were compatable and I didn't want to get into a situation that might make me think we were when we weren't--similar to an earlier poster experience with her brother. Before I started dating my wife, I dated a lady from the Nazarene's--we discussed religion--and she asked the question "so if I marry you, I'm automatically tainted in your church why would I want to do that?" I had no answer. You know, Terry, I have been thinking about the discussion between the two of us.....and I know we've both been "through the wringer" on this issue. But, I was thinking, if we are going to discount the Law of God as recorded in the OT because "Jesus changed all of that somehow", why is divorce, remarriage, incest, or anything else given there even a problem we need to worry about? Does that make any sense to you either? Or, should we give respect to its "guidance"? Regardless of how you feel about the guidance of the Old Testament Law, I think we can both agree that the F & W (and a number of other churches) just don't have the best interest of the parties involved. I'm very happy to see the progress you've made through the challenge you've had in life with this issue (d & r) as you've shared with us over the years on this Board. I always read the posts when I see your name! Best! In His Love, Edy P.S. I think you would be interested in a thread that was on this Board some years ago (I believe Rob Oxenbridge started it) on polygamy in our day. (Maybe someone can find it.) I don't believe the Bible has ever banned it. Even in the times of multiple wives, and man still had to give a wife a "proper bill of divorce" before he put her out of his harem. I've been wondering lately if "we" could get another wife at our house. I need the help LOL! First, I think the "one wife" became a necessity for the Jews during their long captivity before Jesus was born. And sensibly argued, that when God first made man, he needed more then one wife to "populate" the world......I think the "one" wife issue of today's churches comes from a Misunderstanding in regards that Paul wrote that a bishop or deacon should be the husband of ONE wife.....and that was simply to ensure that the man had time to see to church business....keeping more then one wife happy and content and "cheered up" takes time and energy. This day and age, one wife is usually a very sensible choice for the fact of finances and being able to enjoy one's own work under the sun....I think Solomon came up with some of this wisdom, though late in life, he screwed up but it seems he revisited his views on that even in his late writings. Secondly, the ONLY 2 commandments that Jesus signified for us to follow are these: 1) Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your mind, and with all your soul. 2) The second is like unto it! LOVE your brethren as yourself. NOW for number 1, if we love the Lord our God in the right amount, the right proportion, we are not going to go against His will. For number 2, Paul made that one much, much plainer when he said if we love our brother then we're certainly not going to be trespassing, oppressing or defrauding our brother. NOW that would be fulfilling the other 10 commandmants. D&R can be either negative effect on others or it can be positive effect on others.....just what is it our heart and mind when we do anything makes the action either for the good or for the bad..... In all things, some men can see cleanness whereas other men see only dirt and filth. It is in the mindset. I do not think Jesus taught having a negative mindset at all....and that's where many of us go wrong. IT IS THE MINDSET WE HAVE that makes the action bad or good.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Apr 23, 2009 10:14:16 GMT -5
Here are the verses that tell what Jesus said about divorce:
It seems to me that Jesus used the terms "put away" and "divorcement" fairly interchangeably. They both seem to be unacceptable, since he says that a man who married a divorced woman commits adultery.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Apr 23, 2009 10:27:17 GMT -5
Here are the verses that tell what Jesus said about divorce: It seems to me that Jesus used the terms "put away" and "divorcement" fairly interchangeably. They both seem to be unacceptable, since he says that a man who married a divorced woman commits adultery. The Greek words for "divorce" and "put away" are not the same Greek words, have different meanings and are not interchangeable: The distinction between "put away" and "divorce," between the Greek "apoluo" and "apostasion" is critical. "Apoluo" indicated that women were enslaved, put away, with no rights, no recourse; deprived of the basic right to monogamous marriage. "Apostasion" ended marriage and permitted a legal subsequent marriage. The paper makes a difference. "Let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife" (Deut. 24:2). That was the law. There are passages, other than Luke 16:17-18 (above) where Jesus spoke on this matter. They include Matt. 19:9, Mark 10:10-12 (where Mark records that Jesus laid down the same law for women as for men), and Matt. 5:32. Jesus used a form of the word "apoluo" eleven times in these passages. In every passage he forbade "apoluo," putting away. He never forbade giving "apostasion," written divorce, required by Jewish law. Should the Greek word apoluo be translated divorce? Kenneth S. Wuest in The New Testament, an Expanded Translation always translated it "dismissed" or "put away,” never "divorced." The old, and very literal American Standard Version always translated it "put away." The King James Version translated it "put away" ten out of the eleven times Jesus used it. That eleventh instance seems to be the source of the problem. In 1611, in ONE place the King James translators wrote "divorced" instead of "put away." In Matt. 5:32, they wrote, "and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." The word is not the Greek word "apostasion" (divorce), but is a form of that same Greek word "apoluo," which did not include a writing of divorce for the woman. She, technically, would still be married. (Quote of Walter Callison) www.tellingthetruth.info/publications_index/callisonwalter.php
|
|
|
Post by l on Apr 23, 2009 10:34:56 GMT -5
Yes CHERIE I agree one needs the bill & make it all legal just goes to show we ain't interpitting things rightly So with a bill of D they had to give the dowery back Cherie? allowing a bill of D for burning a biscut is a bit harsh ain't it I would forgive the poor gal for burning the biscut
|
|