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

a reply to: randyvs

Hey that's where the subject matter led Buzzy. God is the way he is
so take that up with him sweets. Don't shoot me I'm just the
piano player?

Yeah, well - the piano player doesn't go around calling people "abominations."

I didn't "shoot" you, either. I just sighed and felt sad about the judgmental thing you said.

a reply to: TrueBrit

The law itself, and the consequences of breaking the laws as prescribed by man is sufficient for judgment between individuals.

Spiritual Judgment or "Condemnation", is assuming the mind and authority of God. Jesus came to save the sinners, not to judge them. Even the Son of God left Spiritual judgment to his father.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

I'm content to know that you're always there for my crap eruptions.

Not always there.....

I'm not "God."

(you might reconsider using the word "eruptions," though, considering the sensitivity of the subject matter, you know)

a reply to: TrueBrit

I'm surprised by the knowledge you express in these deep subjects
true. It's often made very tuff by some members to walk that line
between the truth as I know it to be without sounding judgemental.

But I do try to keep that forward minded.

a reply to: windword

Hi Windword -

You referenced a QUOTE of mine from my opening Post on this Thread: "We are talking about divorce and re-marriage, without retribution from the church, while it clearly goes against the teachings of Jesus..." UNQUOTE

Thanks very much for hanging in there on this hot-topic. You've hit the nail on the head hard several times in this discussion in bringing out into the open the thorny subject of 'disagreeing with Jesus' which persons who style themselves "Christians" are very reluctant to do, even in private. Why can't they just admit that not everything the good Rebbe said applies to the complex 21st century we live in today?

An African American friend of mine stated that he couldn't bring himself to 'follow Jesus' (or 'Paul' for that matter) because 'neither person came out against the injustices of slavery', but both seemed to have accepted it as a reality of their day. My friend disagreed with 'Jesus' and 'Paul' on this one issue, but still lives a clean & sober life which would shame many persons who style themselves 'Christians' who attend 'Church' every Sunday.

I asked him if he was a 'Christian'; he responded that although he sometimes goes to the local gospel church to hear the choir sing, after he went to college and started thinking more deeply about life's core issues, he decided the church was not representing what he believed 'in his heart', and among other things he noticed a lot of divorces and flagrant adulteries in the congregation. He asked me what Jesus taught on the subject, and I told him that 'Jesus' had taken an extremely reactionary stance on Divorce which was possibly unheard of in those days.

Rabbi Shammai in the 1st century CE was normally more conservative on these issues, but he listed several conditions when a man might divorce his wife; and Rabbi Hillel who was Shammai's contemporary took a more liberal stance on Divorce that most Rebbes today follow in the US. But R. Yehoshua bar Yosef's stance on Divorce is something of another animal altogether: in effect Jesus said "No Divorce, Ever."

And moreover 'Jesus' said, in effect, "he who is separated from his wife, let the wife be reconciled with the husband...." and "what the Most High has joined together let no son of man separate;" and other sayings about the male and the female becoming one flesh, &tc. and that Mosheh allowed for wrote Divorce proceedings 'out of your hard-heartedness...' Ὅτι Μωϋσῆς πρὸς τὴν σκληροκαρδίαν ὑμῶν = מתוך קשיות לב שלך - the words 'heart-hardened' in Hebrew (=לב קשיות) is the same phrase that is used to describe Pharaoh's 'hardness of heart' in disallowing the Israelites passage out of the country which resulted in the plague of the first born sons.

And did not the Torah explicitly state 'you shall not harden your heart against your poor fellow Israelite"? (Deut 15:7)
It seems to me that it would be a lot easier for people to say, I try to follow Jesus' teachings but in the 21st century, his outdated stance on Divorce is just no longer tenable, and I disagree with him on that point. He spoke and taught others for his own time..."

But modern day Protestant Christians seem to just go ahead and do what they want to do when it comes to this one subject, in effect wiping their behinds on Jesus' words, as Anita Bryant did when interviewed a decade ago admitting that her first marriage failed in 1980 (to Bob Green, but resulted in 4 children) and ended in divorce and 'the Lord' led her to her second husband Charlie Hobson Dry in 1990. First husband Bob Green refused to accept the divorce on religious grounds (he read his bible, he said) claiming that his fundamentalist religious beliefs did not recognize civil divorce and that she was still his wife "in God's eyes."

Recently, Anita Bryant had to admit defeat when she said "The church needs to wake up and find some way to cope with divorce and women's problems these days..."

So even Anita Bryant is disagreeing with 'Jesus' although I doubt she'd admit as much !

a reply to: Sigismundus

after he went to college and started thinking more deeply about life's core issues, he decided the church was not representing what he believed 'in his heart',

Yeah, that happens.
Education, you know.

a reply to: Isurrender73

And there you have it.

At the end, there is only the beginning, and the end. God. Our lives are lived between our petty mortal considerations, and the judgement when we are done. There need be nothing else. Those who believe in God, and follow Jesus, do not need to sit in judgement, because we know that judgement is coming, that we are not fit to provide it to others ourselves, that we have no agency or understanding of the motivations which might lead God to accept one of us sinners to heaven, and which might lead him to abandon our damnable souls to hell.

All we have permission to do, is look to our conduct and ensure that we do our best with the time we have, that we love people, help the needy, tend to the sick, stand for the oppressed, and don't screw folk over along the way if we can possibly help it, given the fact that we are by definition, flawed mortal persons, imperfect in our nature since the fall. Although we must never let it consume us, we should remember first, above all things, that we will be judged, and this alone ought to give us the required pause which would prevent us daring to judge another.

Many these days believe it is acceptable to cast judgement, both of a mortal kind, and of a spiritual kind, believing certain folk to have dirty souls, so utterly corrupted that only the work of a named saint, or a clergyman of storied potency, might have any hope of helping that individual achieve redemption. To those people I must urge the greatest caution. We are not fit to even THINK such thoughts, and they are as dangerous as any sin we could imagine, or witness, or hear of, or come to know of through other means.

We may help those who require it, be the hand that opens the knocked door, the cloth across the brow, the water that bathes the feet. But we have no right to be the stake driven into the wrist, or the cross upon which a person is staked. Once was enough, and never again.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Even the Quran accuses the Catholics/Christians of wrongly placing men in the seat of God. Claiming that the Church had authority over forgiveness and condemnation.

Of course Muslims don't listen anymore then Christians, since both books make it clear judgment lies with the Father alone.

Teachers may warn against sin, but only in conjunction with Grace.

Add - As a matter of Fact, none of the religious texts give man the right to judge, except according to the written law. Is anyone listening?

a reply to: Sigismundus

I wonder how many children with divorced parents would
disagree with Jesus.

a reply to: randyvs

Let's ask one who happens to be a member here..

Q: TrueBrit, your mother was married twice, correct?

A: Technically speaking, she was only truly married once. The first one was annulled, which is to say that it might never have happened at all, for all that it makes a difference to anything. The first marriage was annulled because her "husband" refused to consummate the marriage, or indeed have anything to do with her physically. A strange duck to be sure, and an unkind one.

Q: Right... So what happened with the second marriage?

A: Well, that was to my father, who was only ever that in the most biological sense of the word. He was a chameleon, a shiftless, horrid, manipulative creep, who had just about the motivation necessary to erect a facade, of which myself and my sister, and his marriage to my mother, were vital cornerstones. However, every chance he got to be away from us, he took. Every chance he had to connect with myself and my sister in any meaningful way, he either avoided, or ruined in a passive aggressive manner. That says nothing of the fact that he left my mother after fifteen years of marriage, with the words to the effect that he never wanted her, he never wanted his children, and the whole business had been not only an awful mistake, but a drain on time that he could have been using having fun. I should point out, that for many years, he used to preach in Methodist churches in the local circuit, and was, and as far as I know, still is very well thought of by all his staunch churchman friends. The things I know about being a man, I learned by avoiding his example entirely, and the same can be said for the way I learned my faith.

This is like asking "can a true believer of Cinderella wear a leather shoe vs a glass slipper"?

I guess in make believe stories you can do what you like.

a true follower of Christianity and The Bible cannot divorce and still claim to stay in good moral and ethical standing.

It boggles the mind how Evangelical Christians are following Donald Trump (on his third wife) and the likes of Sarah Palin and her family.

However, when you believe in make believe, I guess you can suspend all moral and ethical standing when it comes to actually living your life the way your Good Book tells you.

a reply to: TrueBrit



Thanks for sharing. My faith mirrors my mother's.

She says Love is unconditional, or it's not Love. I could have become anything or nothing and she would love me all the same.

a reply to: Sigismundus

after he went to college

Oh you mean that place that teaches people they don't need God?
And some people would call that an education. Self demeaning and
dismal, party up! you are your own God. and a production line for
atheism. Perpetuation of the broken home at its best, for the
worst possible outcome. I'd rather be poor and uneducated.
At least my parents lived and died together. How sad that most
of the college educated will never know what that's about.
No way in hell could i disagree with Jesus.

a reply to: Sigismundus

Thanks for the acknowledgement and commentary! I alway appreciate your threads, even if I don't always post in them!

I guess the next thread should be something like "Is it ever okay to disagree with Jesus?"

a reply to: babybunnies

Life is only linear in one key aspect.

It has a beginning, and as far as the flesh goes, an end. How you respond to the things going on around you at a given moment between those two points, what your intentions were both conscious and unconscious, can only ever be a matter between yourself and God. It is not the appearance the totality of ones life presents, but the detail of each and every moment comprising that life, that will determine things in the hereafter. What is more, only God knows the weight of each errant thought, deed, and word.

We cannot know his mind, or even guess at how he passes the judgement upon us, only that he does. We have to make our peace with that some way, and the sooner the better. The less we terrorise ourselves with meeting rigid models, the less likely we are to err, or become soured by life, both of which can lead to darkness as readily as total abandon can.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Q: Right... So what happened with the second marriage?

Not sure what you are actually saying there Brit.
But I'm sure you would rather have had a Father who was
opposite of the the one did have. And it isn't my place to judge
him or label him in any way. And I still agree with Jesus. I can't
picture a God who allows the sanctity of marriage to be like
a revolving door. Nope marriage is entered into to damn
lightly in the modern age. That's our fault not Gods.

Jesus was all about love and forgiveness.

People sometimes marry the wrong person. Is it a sin to correct that mistake? Is it a sin to then marry someone you love.

I don't think that Jesus would condemn a person for either action.

It seems that people like to pretend that they know the mind of God and then go about condemning others.

originally posted by: ArcAngel
This is like asking "can a true believer of Cinderella wear a leather shoe vs a glass slipper"?

I guess in make believe stories you can do what you like.

Your comprehension of the subject is stunning.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

A sin is drinking Old Granddad. An abomination is drinking Pappy Van Winkle and putting ice in it.

Alright, I'll take DisgustusMasonicus for the win and I'll agree?