It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can a 'True Follower of Jesus' be Divorced / Re-married & still call himself a 'Christian' ?

page: 5
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: redoubt
a reply to: windword



This thread is directed at Christians, right?


ALL Christians? I mean, all the many, many variations?
Even those who are Christians without any official connectivity to a religion?
Even those who dare step outside the arena?

Just curious, is all.


What he is not getting is that What Jesus said was to make a POINT and not to be decreed as law. check my link in my reply to him for a better explanation.




posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs




You ignore the massive difference of a woman in sin divorcing and remarrying over and over.


Oh. I Didn't realize that there were massively different levels to sin when it comes to gender! Especially so since, at the time of said decree, men could marry as many women as they like, so long as they weren't divorced, that is.

So, again I strongly disagree with Jesus, especially more so now that I understand how much more sinful it it for a woman to remarry than it is for a man!




posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: windword

No, I really don't mind the description coming from you. Is it projection of self? Is there anything else you would like to throw at 'us christians'. Please, be honest. No holding back. Maybe when you've exhausted yourself, you might think about addressing your personal insecurities.


Oh I'm being honest. How could you miss that?

I think that you're playing the hypocrite. I'm honest in saying that I disagree with Jesus. You aren't.



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

so, if a man had been beating his wife, she should stay married to him? even if he does not change? i feel that jesus would rather the woman be free of the abuse and healed than to suffer.



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: windword




So, again I strongly disagree with Jesus, especially more so now that I understand how much more sinful it it for a woman to remarry than it is for a man!


Dishonest and disingenuous



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: blackthorne

Immorality is grounds for divorce. That includes; adultery, abuse, hatred, etc. I initially said only adultery, but I was thinking off the top of my head. But don't take my word for it, look it up yourself.



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: blackthorne
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

so, if a man had been beating his wife, she should stay married to him? even if he does not change? i feel that jesus would rather the woman be free of the abuse and healed than to suffer.


Remember its better or worse. She can seperate but in the eyes of God she apparently can not marry another or it IS adultry. Winword is PArtially right from what I have read. there are rare exceptions where divorce will not lead to adultry such as the death of one. If she is divorced just in mans eyes she is not in Gods eyes.

Even the sexual immorality clause/verse does not change Gods view on it. Once you are married its FOREVER or until one of you die some way.



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

and yet, it was allowed in moses' time mainly because husbands were just up and abandoning their wives and leaving them without any support in a culture that well, the women needed the man's support. why did he do this if not so the women was free to find another man to marry and be supported by? To me, it's like saying it's better than once married the man and women stay together, as one... but in reality, well, it just doesn't happen that way sometimes, and in some cases when it doesn't happen that way, well, it's better to divorce and be free to seek another. God would rather see the women remarry and taken care of than left alone in the hostile environment prevented from fending for herself as well as prevented from remarrying so she had someone to fend for her.



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Ok, I'm correcting myself here:


Matt 5:32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.


Here it is for you all to stop bitching at me since some people are too damn lazy to google "biblical divorce".

There two classes of divorce:

1) True divorce with remarriage: Sexual adultery or death are the only justification for this.

2) Separation with no remarriage: this is not a true legal divorce, since the husband and wife still have the right to reconcile and rejoin (given that neither party commits adultery or remarries contrary to scripture).

So, death of spouse or adultery allows for remarriage.

An abusive relationships is grounds for indefinite separation, but is not a true divorce, so no remarriage.



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest




So, death of spouse or adultery allows for remarriage.


Nope!


whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.


Period!

Just admit that you disagree with the scripture.




edit on 24-1-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Again you are wrong.




Matt 19:9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”


"Except for sexual immorality"

Jesus made an exception.
edit on 24-1-2016 by BELIEVERpriest because: typo



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

So, if you want to refine your previous argument to Jesus' logic; "tit for tat", that one person's adultery justify's the adultery of another, well okay.

But, I disagree with Jesus, and so do you when it comes to abuse, for example.

So now, do you also require adulterous Christians in 2nd marriages, because of reasons other than "sexual immorality", to "go and sin no more" by separating and committing themselves to celibacy?



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 03:37 PM
link   
if the higher power that authorized your relationship strikes down your significant other, then you may take it as their blessing. if they do not, then you must abide by the oath you took in their name. otherwise you took their name in vain, and im told that is a sin.

of course, there is also the consideration that in those days, people only lived long enough to get married once, maybe twice if someone died. but why would you want to get married, divorced, married, divorced, married, divorced, when you were allowed multiple spouses?

maybe we should have a look at a picture of the typical household in that era. i recently read such exercises are quite clarifying.



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Like I said, its about violation of a contractual agreement. That simple.

When it comes to abuse, separation (with the option of reconciliation) is justified so long as neither party commits adultery.

This is not a complicated concept, and I would appreciate your honesty in debating these issues. It seems to me that you are more interested in twisting scriptures to back Christians into a corner with circular logic. I find it very distasteful.



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: windword

Like I said, its about violation of a contractual agreement. That simple.


Like I asked before, "a contract between whom?"


Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."



When it comes to abuse, separation (with the option of reconciliation) is justified so long as neither party commits adultery.


Now you're deflecting. We're not talking about separating when it comes to abuse, we're talking about divorce and remarriage.

You disagree with Jesus and believe that he should have added the above qualification, regarding abuse, to his commentary on the subject.


This is not a complicated concept, and I would appreciate your honesty in debating these issues. It seems to me that you are more interested in twisting scriptures to back Christians into a corner with circular logic. I find it very distasteful.


I find your flip flopping and dishonestly pretending to be steady on the subject quite distasteful!
edit on 24-1-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: windword
A contract between husban and wife. Who else? God is the attorney.

My conversation with you ends here.



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Attorneys facilitate divorce. Since when do attorneys join two people together creating one flesh?


edit on 24-1-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

That is what I always thought, although I am divorced and remarried now for 45 years, I always was sad about this, but I think of myself as a Christian.

I have screwed up a lot in my life time, I have to wonder why knowing man is imperfect and in need of a savior, God would not forgive us all.
edit on 24-1-2016 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 04:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
The marriage ritual back in Jesus's day was totally different than today's ritual. Basically the husband to be would enter a marriage contract with the bride's father. This is where we get the tradition of the groom asking for the father's blessing for the marriage. Then after a specified amount of time the couple would have sex and the husband would present a bloodied cloth to the family to show the bride was a virgin. At this point the family would celebrate the union.

Regardless if the couple had sex there was a marriage based on contract, but the union was given more importance. They also had marriages to more than one wife. They made three copies of the contract, one for the father of the bride, one for the husband and another sealed contract that the priests in the temple held on to to prove the validity of the original contract.

Based on this, I would say that what is considered a common law marriage is most like the original marriage back in Christ's day. Based on this understanding then, the first time a man dated a virgin and had the approval of both families and then had sex with her was a marriage with the most similarity to what was common back in those days.

Given all that, I doubt that 99% of today's marriages can be considered valid to the standards that Christ would have when he walked the earth. This also makes a couple living together without a legal marriage seem more inline with what was considered a marriage under God.


This is so interesting, it changes everything.



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 05:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

That is what I always thought, although I am divorced and remarried now for 45 years, I always was sad about this, but I think of myself as a Christian.

I have screwed up a lot in my life time, I have to wonder why knowing man is imperfect and in need of a savior, God would not forgive us all.


And He has if you accept the means. Too many do not because they resent the idea that they need to admit they did things they shouldn't.

I don't think you have much to worry about when it comes to that. We know the score and we know we're not perfect and have done things we shouldn't have. It's part of life and part of why we ask Him for forgiveness.
edit on 24-1-2016 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join