Divorce: is it a sin?

[1adam12]

How did we go from discussing divorce to discussing homosexuality again? Oh yeah, nurfe joined in the discussion. Your posts, nurfe, tend to make me think that you are a very angry, negative, person, and if others don't agree with you, then they are wrong. Lighten up, and let's STAY on the subject of divorce.

[nurfe75]

I was on the subject of divorce. But once again you IGNORE everything I say and go on the personal attack. I am simply stating that if you believe the bible to be an absolute, then you CAN'T justify divorce. The homosexuality issue is just a good illustration of that.

If you can't actually add to the discussion then go to another thread. Over and over and over I make good, well thought out points and you guys simply dismiss them.

It makes it obvious you don't have any point to make.

[nurfe75]

And please point to the direct evidence that my posts are negative and angry. You're the one going on the defensive, dude.

[mranderson]

I was on the subject of divorce. But once again you IGNORE everything I say and go on the personal attack. I am simply stating that if you believe the bible to be an absolute, then you CAN'T justify divorce. The homosexuality issue is just a good illustration of that.

If you can't actually add to the discussion then go to another thread. Over and over and over I make good, well thought out points and you guys simply dismiss them.

It makes it obvious you don't have any point to make.

With the lifestyle choices you have made with your life, what makes you qualified to speak about divorce between man and woman?

[nurfe75]

I've obviously hit a nerve, here. You guys want to go out of your way to attack other people's sins, but when it comes to a sin YOU'VE committed, you're quick to justify it. There is nothing Christian about that.

[nurfe75]

I'm going to say this one last time. Then I'm leaving this posting board completely. There is nothing Christian about the way any of you are behaving. Mr. Anderson: I don't think you're even making an attempt to see the point I've made--which is that NO ONE is qualified to speak about ANYONE elses sins. That is between someone and his or her God. Guys like you want to go on and on about the sins of others (such as how sick homosexuality is) but then you go out of your way to justify your own sins--even if the reasoning is outside the realm of what the bible actually says. The bible is just as clear on divorce as it is on homosexuality. You can't use the bible to declare a moral absolute on homosexuality but then ignore what it says on divorce. Its pretty much a package deal. Got it? You want to think homosexuals are all a bunch of godless sickos? Fine. But then you also have to understand that the bible clearly states ANYONE married to anyone other than their original spouse is committing adultury. God--according to your fundamentalist view of the bible--DOES NOT recognize 2nd and 3rd marriages. Stop thinking you're superior and that you have the right to rain down judgment on other people. Your attitudes disgust me.

[mranderson]

Here is my reply.

[nurfe75]

No, Your reply is this:

"Nyah nyah nyah nyah--I'm not listening I'm not listening I'm not listening." Are you 5?

You're simply ignoring the valid point that your own mistakes in life are just as sinful as anyone else's.

[Underling]

Simple point folks, if you believe in the bible as the inerrant word of God, the furthest you can go with divorce is that God will allow it in the case of spousal infidelity. However, once divorced, if you choose to remarry anyone other than your original spouse then you are living a life of fornication and sin. A life that you made the choice to live in.

If you Divorce for a reason other than what Jesus stated was allowable, you are a sinner and any relationship you engage in will be fornication.

Once you are divorced, it would appear, based on what Jesus himself had to say, it is your spiritual duty to remain single and celibate.

If you want to justify divorce under any other circumstance, please, offer me a scriptural passage to support it.

Divorce is wrong folks. Plain and simple, state as clear as could be in the "words of Christ."

[mranderson]

Simple point folks, if you believe in the bible as the inerrant word of God, the furthest you can go with divorce is that God will allow it in the case of spousal infidelity. However, once divorced, if you choose to remarry anyone other than your original spouse then you are living a life of fornication and sin. A life that you made the choice to live in.

If you Divorce for a reason other than what Jesus stated was allowable, you are a sinner and any relationship you engage in will be fornication.

Once you are divorced, it would appear, based on what Jesus himself had to say, it is your spiritual duty to remain single and celibate.

If you want to justify divorce under any other circumstance, please, offer me a scriptural passage to support it.

Divorce is wrong folks. Plain and simple, state as clear as could be in the "words of Christ."

Underling: I will pose to you the same question I posed a couple of days ago. If you think divorce is a sin no matter what (The impression I get from your post) then if a goon beats his wife so bad she looks like he put her face though a meat grinder, then should she stay married to him because divorce is a sin?

[Midtowner]

Simple point folks, if you believe in the bible as the inerrant word of God, the furthest you can go with divorce is that God will allow it in the case of spousal infidelity. However, once divorced, if you choose to remarry anyone other than your original spouse then you are living a life of fornication and sin. A life that you made the choice to live in.

If you Divorce for a reason other than what Jesus stated was allowable, you are a sinner and any relationship you engage in will be fornication.

Once you are divorced, it would appear, based on what Jesus himself had to say, it is your spiritual duty to remain single and celibate.

If you want to justify divorce under any other circumstance, please, offer me a scriptural passage to support it.

Divorce is wrong folks. Plain and simple, state as clear as could be in the "words of Christ."

Is your religion worshiping God, or is it worshiping the Bible?

[Floating_adrift]

Is your religion worshiping God, or is it worshiping the Bible?

Worship God, just don't worship what He says?

[Midtowner]

Worship God, just don't worship what He says?

Haven't we been down this? Any serious historical study of the Bible will show that it has been rewritten by Kings and Emporers at the very least 4 times.

It was apparently a wonderful tool to control and pacify a populace.

Remember, the first Bible was assembled under the supervision of Constantine. He wasn't even Christian until his deathed conversion near the end of his life.

Also, during the canonization process, many books that were just as worthy as those that were canonized were turned down for whatever reason because they contradicted things that the assemblers felt were true.

Why should we worship something made by man? The Bible is a not the end-all, be-all of the Christian religion. It's a part, but it's only a part.

It's foolish to study words in a book without understanding where those words came from.

[Underling]

Midtowner: I was restating the point that if you want to buy into the bible as the inerrant word of god, then you have to follow all the rules. Not just the ones that don't apply to you anyway.

MrAnderson: Based on a strict reading of the text of the bible, which I know you all are fond of around here, based on other threads my answer is this: No, the woman who's husband beats her face to a pulp does not get to have a divorce. Do I think that is okay? Not really, but it's not my rule. Jesus was the one who said it, not me.

If you want to be more permissive of divorce you have to begin to accept that all biblical pronouncements are not a black and white matter. A woman who's husband beat her would have had no standing to get a divorce in biblical times. She would have had no legal standing, aside from the fact that she was basically little more than her husband's property.

Do I think a woman today who's husband beats her should have a divorce? Absolutely!

But I'm not one of the one's here who want to apply the bible in a strict rigid manner as it relates to modern life.

You, however, have taken up the cause of defending strict interpretation time and time again.

So, if you want to try and force others to adhere or agree to other scriptures, you're gonna have to deal with the fact that scripture does NOT give an out to a woman simply because she gets beaten up by her husband every now and then.

[Floating_adrift]

The original was written by man as well. Doesn't matter who re-wrote it. If the omnipotent God didn't make sure that what we see today is a true representation of His word, then yeah, I suppose we can pick and choose what rules we want to adhere to. The scriptures that don't make sense to us in today's society were most likely the things that were re-written without God's consent, right?

Hey, just do whatever is most convenient.

[Midtowner]

Midtowner: I was restating the point that if you want to buy into the bible as the inerrant word of god, then you have to follow all the rules. Not just the ones that don't apply to you anyway.

MrAnderson: Based on a strict reading of the text of the bible, which I know you all are fond of around here, based on other threads my answer is this: No, the woman who's husband beats her face to a pulp does not get to have a divorce. Do I think that is okay? Not really, but it's not my rule. Jesus was the one who said it, not me.

If you want to be more permissive of divorce you have to begin to accept that all biblical pronouncements are not a black and white matter. A woman who's husband beat her would have had no standing to get a divorce in biblical times. She would have had no legal standing, aside from the fact that she was basically little more than her husband's property.

Do I think a woman today who's husband beats her should have a divorce? Absolutely!

But I'm not one of the one's here who want to apply the bible in a strict rigid manner as it relates to modern life.

You, however, have taken up the cause of defending strict interpretation time and time again.

So, if you want to try and force others to adhere or agree to other scriptures, you're gonna have to deal with the fact that scripture does NOT give an out to a woman simply because she gets beaten up by her husband every now and then.

Sorry for misinterpreting the context of your post.

I do, however agree with your second point!

It disgusts me that "fundamentalists" make the claim that their religion is 100% based on the Bible. Even so, they take some parts too far, and ignore others completely! There is a point at which religion becomes an ugly and evil thing. Fundamentalists who selectively follow the Bible and claim to uphold it are liars to themselves and to others.

In trying to uphold what they think is "good", they don't seem to be bothered by the fact that their interpretation has no solid logic or historical evidence behind it. It almost smacks of a preacher "controlling" his flock and their thoughts/mindsets than helping them to understand the mysteries that religion seeks to explain.

[Midtowner]

The original was written by man as well. Doesn't matter who re-wrote it. If the omnipotent God didn't make sure that what we see today is a true representation of His word, then yeah, I suppose we can pick and choose what rules we want to adhere to. The scriptures that don't make sense to us in today's society were most likely the things that were re-written without God's consent, right?

Hey, just do whatever is most convenient.

Well, you see the point hammered constantly that the Bible was "divinely inspired" (debatable), I believe it was men writing about things they had seen.

Even if it was indeed divinely inspired, it doesn't matter a bit. The rewriting and corruption over the centuries has left us with a shell of the original. Is it something that we should still consider as worthy of being read for its historical value? Yes.

Is it something that should be worshipped and venerated? No.

[Floating_adrift]

If not divinely inspired, then it's just another story made up by man, in the same way the nordic, greek, egyptian, etc mythologies were. All of which are the same thing - do good and believe and you will live a peaceful eternity, do wrong and do not believe and live in an eternal hell. Which could lead one to the idea that God does not exist except for what we have created in our mind.

If it was divinely inspired, then it surely would have been that way through each re-writing. Unless He just chose to let his word get corrupted...

[Midtowner]

If not divinely inspired, then it's just another story made up by man, in the same way the nordic, greek, egyptian, etc mythologies were. All of which are the same thing - do good and believe and you will live a peaceful eternity, do wrong and do not believe and live in an eternal hell. Which could lead one to the idea that God does not exist except for what we have created in our mind.

If it was divinely inspired, then it surely would have been that way through each re-writing. Unless He just chose to let his word get corrupted...

Well, it has been shown that the rewritings as well as the original canonization produced very different results than what could be found in the original text/what was left out.

If it was divinely inspired, why would it have to continue to be that way each time? If the suggestion is that each revision was also divinely inspired, it sounds a lot like someone who is trying to change the facts to prove the truth of something.

[Keith]

Guys, you are beating a dead horse. We have been down this road before, so let's get back to the subject of divorce. There is another thread that debates the Bible, so if you want to continue the debate, follow the link below.

http://www.okctalk.com/t776-what-doe...eally-say.html

[Midtowner]

Guys, you are beating a dead horse. We have been down this road before, so let's get back to the subject of divorce. There is another thread that debates the Bible, so if you want to continue the debate, you can find the thread.

I disagree.

The discussion cuts to the heart of the issue. Do we in fact have the ability to sit here and say that it's a sin or not a sin just because of what some book written and rewritten many times throughout history says? Please, if you disagree, simply state so, do not attempt to censor the conversation simply because you disagree.

Someone brought up the point as to whether it was a sin or not, we think it's valid to debate whether the question can be asked at all.

[mistipetal]

Well, I'd actually left the board, (yeah, i can hear you guys cheering out there) I came back because I was directed to this thread. I'd like to start with, I'm divorced and have not married or been involved since said divorce,( for his adultery among other things) so I'm a lot more "Christian" that some of you multiple marriage sorts. so..nyah, nyah ,nyah. That being said...the fact is, the bible was written by men. For men. Controlled by rulers of men. Just look at the way people here pick and choose which parts of the bible are for real, you think that thru the ages it's been different? If it's divinely inspired, is the lesbian bible, where all characters have become women divinely inspired? If not, why not? It's the word of god, just names changed. It comes from on high right? It ought to be as valid as the King James version. And note that name folks. KING JAMES VERSION. As in different from the original. I'm not like some of the people here who can argue bible verse. I've read and studied parts of the bible. But I'm not an expert on the bible. I don't care enough to be.

I'm against forms of organized religion. That's my personal belief. I'm right with my god. I don't hurt others, I don't whore around, I treat my child with care and love, I keep to myself. I flat out refuse to believe in any god who thinks that loving and living a good life isn't enough to reward you. I can't see someone like my grandmother, who was as perfect and loving being as I've ever known and a christian, be denied heaven. Likewise, I'm not so closed minded that I believe that there are not wonderful people of other religions, who are not christians, but live good lives. Should they be damned? I think not. I think "sins" are really all out of order anyway. Treat people with love and respect, that really ought to be what matters. And if god is all that, well then, what's to worry about?

[Keith]

I disagree.

The discussion cuts to the heart of the issue. Do we in fact have the ability to sit here and say that it's a sin or not a sin just because of what some book written and rewritten many times throughout history says? Please, if you disagree, simply state so, do not attempt to censor the conversation simply because you disagree.

Someone brought up the point as to whether it was a sin or not, we think it's valid to debate whether the question can be asked at all.

You can disagree all you want to with my statement, however, many of your posts on this thread are basically stating that you believe the Bible is nothing but a historical book, written by man, yada yada yada, and all you do is repeat yourself. You have said it many, many, times in different posts, so, yes, you are basically beating a dead horse. I have not and will not censor anything (even if I disagree), if the debate is healthy, however, as I said, and I'll say it again for those who didn't catch it the first time, there is another thread that you can go to to discuss your different ideas about the Bible.

Ok, MidTowner, you gave your opinion, over and over again, so I know we all know where you stand, but give it a rest, and go on. If you have a problem with that, send me a PM. I think I only posted once on this subject because it is a personal issue for me, however, the debate is fine, you just need to stay on the subject, instead of beating the Bible debate to death.

And please, everybody, let's leave off the so..nyah, nyah ,nyah. Only children still say that. I would think that in 47 posts on this subject, that everyone knows where everyone else stands. Keep the debate going, just stay on the subject.

[Midtowner]

You can disagree all you want to with my statement, however, many of your posts on this thread are basically stating that you believe the Bible is nothing but a historical book, written by man, yada yada yada, and all you do is repeat yourself. You have said it many, many, times in different posts, so, yes, you are basically beating a dead horse. I have not and will not censor anything (even if I disagree), if the debate is healthy, however, as I said, and I'll say it again for those who didn't catch it the first time, there is another thread that you can go to to discuss your different ideas about the Bible.

Ok, MidTowner, you gave your opinion, over and over again, so I know we all know where you stand, but give it a rest, and go on. If you have a problem with that, send me a PM. I think I only posted once on this subject because it is a personal issue for me, however, the debate is fine, you just need to stay on the subject, instead of beating the Bible debate to death.

And please, everybody, let's leave off the so..nyah, nyah ,nyah. Only children still say that. I would think that in 47 posts on this subject, that everyone knows where everyone else stands. Keep the debate going, just stay on the subject.

A debate is a series of statements and counters. My point stands and is just as valid the 20th time as it was the first time. It's not like I'm cross posting or cutting and pasting.

Again, I will say it is on subject. We can debate that issue also if you want to, of course, that would be a case of you taking this thread completely off the subject.

How am I supposed to "debate" the subject if I limit myself to speaking new truths and facts every time I respond to someone else's remarks?

[dkaye2005]

Just about everyone at one time in their lives have sinned, not becuse they had to, but because they wanted to.
To divorce someone that has changed drastically since you married, such as physical abuse, drug/alcohol abuse, refusing to assist with family finances when they are in perfect physical condition to work, not considering themselves as married (emotional abuse) is an excusable sin to me. Times have changed since the Bible was written, if not, we should be able to just tie them up and stone them to death without any legal repercusions. All these things really sounds like sins to me, so if the other allows it to continue, they teach their children that it's okay. Let's be honest, which one do you want your children to learn. Would you want your beautiful little girl to grow up, end up in an abusive relationship of her own and because of the Bible and what you may think of her, and stay with that person. You never know, the person she ends up with could be far more evil than what you had experienced and endured. A person that stays in an abusive relationship for the will of God, will grow bitter toward God and that too will bleed to the minds of the children.

I belive that God gave us a mind to think for ourselves, we can use this for good or evil, Jesus gave us that choice. God made everyone special, what you become in the course of your life, you decide. Sometimes in the course of our lives, I do believe we are tested, but I don't believe that all the answers are within one single book, there's alot there to get you started, the rest are tests that you can't find in ANY book, there within ourselves.

I know that divorce should be a last resort by any means and if it comes to a divorce, you should know that God is good and wants you to do what's right....
VEGGIE TALES 101 !!!!