Jesus said, NO DIVORCE: so how did Stripper/Actress Meghan Markle get a ‘Christian’ Wedding ?

It would seem that the Royals have always been purely White with no other racial interruptions. As for your comment, I imply nothing, I observe.

originally posted by: Violater1
Try this on for size.
Matthew 19:9
9 I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except on the grounds of sexual immorality, and marries another commits adultery.

That's true he said that, he also said that whoever believes in him will be forgiven of all their sins. If you were an adulterer and non Christian I think you would have reason to worry, but if you believe that Christ died for your sin, pretty sure you are ok. It also is written that we should not judge others.


Basically the reason He said a lot of the things He said was not to condemn people, it was to illustrate that you cant save yourself by simply following the letter of the law. Everyone falls short. Like when the rich man asked Him how to get to heaven, and he told him to sell all that he owned and to become a follower. He knew the man would never do this, he was illustrating that we cant save ourselves, only He can.

a reply to: Plotus

Which is why I asked if I was possibly misunderstanding you. I didn't want to assume an incorrect intent

a reply to: Sigismundus

Deut 24 1_2
Ezra 9 1_2

Matt 19 3-9

See above verses....divorce was allowed.
Why does it bother you.
Do you subscribe to divine right of Kings?

BTW Jesus didnt start any religion
That came later by the jewish Roman loving traitor Paul. If you are a Christian dont use the Royals as models to follow

Your forgetting Repentance. Continuing in Sin is not repentance but instead putting no value on Christ's sacrifice. Somehow, I don't think it works that way.

a reply to: openminded2011

originally posted by: Plotus
Your forgetting Repentance. Continuing in Sin is not repentance but instead putting no value on Christ's sacrifice. Somehow, I don't think it works that way.

a reply to: openminded2011

You forget that as long as you are ACTUALLY TRYING to not sin thats ok as well because we are not perfect.

originally posted by: Plotus
Your forgetting Repentance. Continuing in Sin is not repentance but instead putting no value on Christ's sacrifice. Somehow, I don't think it works that way.

a reply to: openminded2011

Do you know the meaning of the word repentance? It means to regret doing something and feel remorse for it. Its totally possible she feels this. Do you know if she regrets it? Unless you know you are judging her, which is also a sin, as greivous as adultery.

You can write it any way you wish, but if you divorce for anything but spousal adultery, you are to remain single through out your remaining life.

Matthew 19:3-12 3Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?" 4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate." 7"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?" 8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

Who cares? Is this what you're really concerned about? If so you need hobbies or something. This is just pathetic.

a reply to: trustmeimdoctor

Some people have no recourse but to complain about others in order to bolster their own fragile sense of self worth.

oh my god, who cares

a reply to: fiverx313

Busybody fundamentalists with absolutely nothing better to do with their lives, apparently.

a reply to: Plotus

Matthew 5:32
But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

considering that at this time, the only divorces that were recognized as legal were ones that were initiated by the husband...
christ seems to be saying that maybe, just maybe the men, the husband who divorced the women, as well as the man that married her, a little more guilty than the women who finds herself in an unworkable situation because of the actions of others..

so, I have to women, is she really deserving of all this guilt you are trying to pile onto her? do you know for sure that it wasn't her first husband who walked out of the marriage?

ya know, it's my understanding that diana's marriage was pretty much arranged by the royals, placing prime importance on what was appropriate and acceptable for an up and coming king. from what I understand, it was kind of disastrous wasn't it? maybe the queen just didn't want to involve herself to that extent this time around and was more willing to accept her grandson's desire. and, well, like quite a few of us have pointed out. the church of england came into being because of a king's stubborn desire to divorce and remarry when he tired of his wives. to us in the states, to claim that a divorce should be reason to reject someone with that kind of history behind yous seems rather nutty.. unless, of course, you are like christ's disciples and think that women have to live by a higher, more strict standard than men should have to...

and both the verses you are bringing up and the one I did clearly point out that christ did not see it that way!! matter of fact, he is kind of saying that if you leave your wife in a position where there is no way that she could fend for herself in the world created by men, then her sin of adultery is more on you than it is on her because you were the cause of her actions!

a reply to: dawnstar

Well said

a reply to: pfishy

pharisees, saducees, vipers, sitting at the city gate, debating the laws of god as understood by men.
with hearts hardened so hard that some would probably try to condemn someone for pulling a danged child out of the raging river on the sabbath, which isn't really the sabbath, but, don't tell them that, or they will just find another thing to argue with each other about.

a reply to: dawnstar

Well, it IS the sabbath, after all. Kids have terrible timing

originally posted by: Plotus
You can write it any way you wish, but if you divorce for anything but spousal adultery, you are to remain single through out your remaining life.

Matthew 19:3-12 3Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?" 4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate." 7"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?" 8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

So let me ask you something, what if a lesbian pretends to be heterosexual and marries a guy but then gives him no love or sexual faithfulness after having children with him? Then he finds out about the deception and then divorces her, he is an adulterer? This happened to someone I know, and there is no way the guy is an adulterer over something like that.

originally posted by: Sigismundus
If the Christian Founder (‘Jesus’) said, ‘There Shall Be No Divorce—EVER’ then WHY was ex-Stripper (& B-Actress) Rachel ‘Call me Meghan’ Markle allowed to be married (in white !) in a ‘CHRISTIAN’ Royal Wedding ?

To quote the Queen herself on many earlier occasions, ‘There’s Something Wrong There…’

Did the Royal Family of Britain wipe their Royal Behinds with the words of ‘Jesus’ by allowing a divorced ex-stripper and mildly talented B-actress/model marry into The Firm? Shouldn’t Prince Harry have been married in a (non-Christian) Civil Ceremony ?

It seems to me that many modern persons who style themselves ‘Christians’ suddenly (and conveniently) get ‘Amnesia’ when it comes to following certain specific apodeictic commands placed into the mouth of ‘Jesus’ in the canonical council-approved Greek Gospels, especially when it comes to inconvenient little things like…well, Divorce for one (to say nothing about his command for Christians to sell all of their material assets and hand them all over to the Ebionim in order to take upon their shoulders the ‘yoke of the Kingdom’ to ‘follow’ him…)

Here are some of the apodeictic (‘Thou shalt never…’) commands placed into the Greek-speaking ’Jesus’ of the canonical Gospels, which are exceptional in his overall teaching elsewhere in that he rarely issued ‘negative’ Thou Shalt Not commandments.

See Mark 10:2ff

’And the Pharisim come to him asking, Rabbi, is it lawful for a man to divorce this wife or is it not?’
And [ho Iesous] spake unto them saying, ‘[Why don’t you] tell me what Mosheh wrote on that subject.’
And they spake unto him saying, ‘Rabbi, Behold, is it not written in the Law that a man is able to issue a Certificate of Divorce in order that he might separate from her legally?’
And he responded to them saying, ‘[Thou hast spoken well], but, behold, it was from hardness of their hearts that Mosheh wrote this precept for Yisro’el. For is it not written in Beresht, in the Account of Creation [of Mankind], that the Most High created them male & female and does not a man leave [the house of] his Father and Mother and join to his Wife, so that the two become one bone [with each other]? And because [they have become one bone] what the Most High hath woven-together, let no son of man unravel.’

And when he had entered into his [own] house, [some of] his disciples asked him privately, Rabbi, tell us further about your teaching on Divorce.’
And he spake unto them, saying, Any son of man who [issues a certificate of Divorce] to abandon his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her. And if any woman who is divorced from her husband, and marries another [man, not her husband] commits adultery against him.’

[Admittedly there have been doubts that the last phrase couldn’t possibly have come from R. Yehoshua himself as in Palestine in the 1st century CE, females could not ‘legally’ initiate a divorce, although Roman women (and Rome was where the Gospel of Mark was written) could do so legally. But it could be referring to already-divorced women re-marrying another man after her husband had previously divorced her…]

But perhaps what is even more telling about ‘Jesus’ stance on ‘No Divorce Ever’, is yet another stipulation placed into the mouth of the Greek speaking ‘Jesus’ in Paul’s letters (and he rarely ever quotes ‘Jesus’ words or commands overtly/directly) see 1 Ciorinthians 7:10-12

‘To the married I give this command (this is not from me, but comes from our Lord):
‘A wife must never separate from her husband. But if she is divorced [already], she must remain unmarried or she must be reconciled to her husband. And he said furthermore that a husband must never divorce his wife.’

So the ‘good-Rebbe’ seems to have had quite a bug up his arse when it came to this thorny subject, possibly a result of his own dysfunctional family, especially with regards to the (ostensibly) sordid events surrounding his birth; at any event, the figure of ‘Joseph’ seems to have disappeared fairly early from the Gospel-narratives, and there does not seem to be any further mention of a living Joseph being around after the age of 12 (if you believe the words of the canonical 3rd Greek Gospel, ‘according to Luke’ whoever he was, which seems to be describing some kind of early 1st century bar-mitzvah ceremony in the partially-built Jerusalem Temple…).

The fact that most Greek MSS of the 1st Gospel add [‘except for ‘porneia’] as the only thing allowing a divorce is telling—the additional phrase is curiously absent from Mark and Luke and may have been an scribal gloss (addition by a copyist) added at a later date. The technical Greek term ‘porneia’ can mean ‘non-virginity’ or ‘unchastity’ and refers to the inability of a bride to spill ruptured-hymen-blood on the marital cloth on the wedding night, as ‘tokens of virginity’ (Heb. Dam bethulim) see Deut. 22:17

Now I for one cannot understand why the good-Rebbe seemed so bloody-minded on this whole subject of divorce; and I personally see no reason why two mis-matched persons should not separate by divorce for the sake of everyone incvolved. My only issue here is when the ‘Supreme Head of the Christian Church in England’ (in this case, The Queen) allows an ex-stripper to dress-up in white and then allows her to parade down the middle aisle of a ‘sacred’ Christian chapel as some kind of viregin-bride, we are here dealing with the issue of Ecclesiastical hypocrisy.

Perhaps The Queen, as the titular Head of the Church, and Justin Welby (the present Archbishop of Canterbury) should have allowed only a civil-ceremony (not a Christian style Church-wedding ‘on holy ground’) as was the case a few years ago with Camilla Parker-Bowles and the current Prince of Wales.

Otherwise how on earth could the Church condone such a modern-day sacrilege—when even the Queen’s own sister (Margaret Windsor) was refused her burning desire to marry Peter Townsend (‘for love’) following his messy 1952 divorce, or King Edward VIII was forced to abdicate the throne because his fiancee Wallis-Simpson was already twice divorced?

Tennis, anyone?

Honestly, who cares? It's just a show with the exact same theme that Americans deal with on a daily. Those incestual pigs you call royalty are nothing but petty crooks and murders playing King Arthur, and have no conceivable clue about honor, dignity, fair play, honesty, nor simple human decency. What can you expect from a bunch of blue blooded baby eaters?

You fools let them rule over you because you still think "divine right" is real. This step away from the church is one in the right direction, because it may just open the peasants eyes to how badly they are getting reemed by their so call royalty. Pish posh, and balderdash. Chuck the tea over the rails and be done with them.

I stand with my reply, you can fabricate scenarios, you can run the discussion off into a ditch, I could scarcely care less, as I discern that many here are atheist and only come to mock and debate, for that I could not care less either. They make much noise with little content of value, but they do walk away pleased with themselves.

Again I couldn't care less. If my comments and opinion offend or anger you...... again.......... you guessed it, I couldn't care less.

In the end, you will have to account for your actions and nobody else's. Just as the Royals will. And in their claim to be Gods Church, I fear they will be judged more harshly.

Luke 12:48 48But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

Simply I stated I was surprised that Megan was a porn entertainer, and that the Queen sanctioned the wedding, and my skepticism of a long and fruitful wedded life, and that perhaps there might be something to him following his mothers lead as far as the preservation of an all white lineage. It seemed odd to hop the fence at this juncture. And now you want to deflect and wander into a different debate. Very well, but I'v no interest in participating. Good Day.

originally posted by: Plotus
Simply I stated I was surprised that Megan was a porn entertainer

is there any ACTUAL proof of that?

i'm not seeing any proof.