Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Are divorced Christians condemned to hell?

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
You are forgiven as long as you believe in Jesus and repent for your sins. At least, that's how I've always understood it.


Let me repeat.

I see.

So you, if you are divorced, can knowingly live in sin for years and years and on your death bed ask for forgiveness ---- even as you know you do not repent, or you would have stopped your ways years in the past, ---- and God will forgive you.

How droll.

Regards
DL




posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Greatest I am
 



Originally posted by Greatest I am

Yet --- "Whoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, commits adultery against her. 12And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she commits adultery. "



I think that speaks more to the fact that non-virgins are engaging in sexual activity with new partners, which is frowned up in the OT, but none of the OT rules still apply, hence the New Covenant.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Garkiniss
Religion itself is a damnable offense in my opinion. ]


I believe that we all have a spiritual side but agree that religions have done a poor job of giving us a home for them.

Religions, as you imply, fosters more on the hate side than the love side.

Regards
DL



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Garkiniss
reply to post by Greatest I am
 



Originally posted by Greatest I am

Yet --- "Whoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, commits adultery against her. 12And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she commits adultery. "



I think that speaks more to the fact that non-virgins are engaging in sexual activity with new partners, which is frowned up in the OT, but none of the OT rules still apply, hence the New Covenant.



Really?

Hebrews 8; 7
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.

So you see fault in God's word do you?

This last says that the old covenant is still in place.
Right?

Psalm 89 ;34 My covenant I will not break,
Nor alter the word that has gone out of My lips.

Regards
DL



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Greatest I am

So you see fault in God's word do you?



No, I see fault in man's word. God didn't author the bible.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Well, from what I've seen Christians tend to describe certain "lifestyles" as sin.

Divorce is allowed if the woman commits fornication.

However, if divorced people remarry on that premise then they are living a sinful lifestyle.

Just like Christians say gays cannot live their lives by repenting once, divorced partners must become celibate or go back to their original spouses.

They cannot repent once and then just continue the lifestyle.
They need repentance and therapy to make them normal married couples again.
That's how evangelical Christians apply the Bible to gay people, so I suppose they must be consistent.

In fact, Jesus specifically dotes on divorce in the New Testament.
See Matthew 5:31.

He even includes "mind crime" in the teaching.
If a married man even thinks of another woman with lust he has committed adultery in his heart.
So involuntary heterosexual feelings are very sinful according to the Bible.

St. Paul even urges celibacy between married partners, rather than the enjoyment of sexuality.
See 1 Corinthians 7:29.

Well, I'm often judged by the Bible as a gay person, and that's what the Bible actually says on heterosexual relationships.

Although Jesus condemned only the Pharisees (religious teachers), He clearly did not like divorce.
edit on 1-2-2013 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Are divorced Christians condemned to hell?,

Only if those who practice birth control are too (onanism), and those who eat lobster ... etc etc.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 02:48 PM
link   
"let no man put asunder"

Presumably, either it is ok for a woman to dissolve a marriage (put it asunder), or, there will surely be an interpretation to include women...

Condemnation, hell...sound like a god of love to you?...or a stupid interpretation?

A99



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by akushla99
 



Condemnation, hell...sound like a god of love to you?...or a stupid interpretation?


The whole Bible is 95% stupid interpretation and 5% stolen philosophy.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by akushla99
 



Condemnation, hell...sound like a god of love to you?...or a stupid interpretation?


The whole Bible is 95% stupid interpretation and 5% stolen philosophy.


Agreed


...although the percentage split is more like 60% stupid, 40% stolen...

A99
edit on 1-2-2013 by akushla99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Greatest I am

Yet --- "Whoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, commits adultery against her. 12And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she commits adultery. "

This indicates that to remarry brings condemnation.

Is that how you read it and if so, is it a just policy?

Regards
DL


Ah the politics of religious precepts. It can get a bit tedious and trivial, but the truth is very simple, we just make it to be convoluted. Let me share my reasoning with you. Yes, I still think it is adultery in the Judeo-Christian perspective if a married couple divorces and goes on to marry other couples for any other reason other than sexual immorality. However, we live in a very different world and times are a changing so this may not apply to everyone, so let me preface the above with the assumption that we are speaking strictly from a religious background.

Matthew 19:

19 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 2 Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.

3 Some 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,’[a] 5 and 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’? 6 So 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?”

8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”


Listen and read the conversation.

Jesus is telling what happened in the beginning of mankind and made this message easy to relate to in the minds of the people receiving the word, the Pharisees. The Jews have their account of creation and they best know it to be Adam and Eve so Jesus even rhetorically questions them:


“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and 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’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”


With that idea in mind, Jesus goes on to explicate marriage with what they have read and familiar with, which is the story of Adam and Eve. The Pharisees, with the mindset of trying to find the holes within Jesus's message, tried to rebuttal Jesus saying that Moses commands "man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away."

Jesus never chastised Moses, he is chastising the people that claim to be part of what Moses is part of.

Jesus goes on to say that it was never intended for divorce to be, but because of the actions of their collective hearts, divorce was to be allowed, but never encouraged or a command. Jesus goes on to say that if a man goes onto divorce his wife for any reason other than sexual immorality, which again I must repeat is a very broad Greek term, that man is still committing adultery. It makes sense... I can picture in my mind people wanting to divorce a woman for not bringing about male children, cooking good meals, and basically superficial reasons.

Does this imply that they are condemned?

The adulterer was being tried in front of people when Jesus said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
Of course, whoever is sinless should cast the first stone but Jesus didn't throw a stone. He even went on to say that not even he that is without sin condemns her.


Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by akushla99
 



Condemnation, hell...sound like a god of love to you?...or a stupid interpretation?


The whole Bible is 95% stupid interpretation and 5% stolen philosophy.


Hehe, in my perspective, it technically is 100% truth... It's the interpretations and thoughts of both the reader and the writer that are mistaken, but as when one makes a mistake, there's so much room for improvement.
edit on 1-2-2013 by DelayedChristmas because: (no reason given)
edit on 1-2-2013 by DelayedChristmas because: (no reason given)
edit on 1-2-2013 by DelayedChristmas because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Garkiniss
 


Let's not forget the 10 commandments are in the OT.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Are divorced Christians condemned to hell?

One of God’s main rules is on divorce and his policy is ---- let no man put asunder.
bibleapps.com...

IOW, there are no excuses for divorce and it is a sin to do it.

This view is enforced by Jesus and he chastised Moses for adding terms for divorce.

Divorced Christians, ---- statistics show up to 60% of all Christians, ---- are thus living in sin and I wondered if Christians thought that they were condemned because of their choice to divorce.

If you are a divorced Christian, do you think God’s policy just and if not, why do you remain a condemned Christian?

Regards
DL


Here's some info I think would help:


What may appear as a loophole is a consequence of misinterpretation or mistranslation. The King James Version and others translate the passage into English words that appear to say fornication, unchastity, or adultery are exceptions that allow a divorce.

The constant teaching of the Church has been that a valid sacramental marriage can not be broken, even if one party sins. As Matthew 19:6 says, "Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate." Biblical scholars, such as J. Bonsirven, have pointed out that the Greek word that is pivotal here is "porneia," which means unlawful sexual intercourse. The Gospel does not use the Greek word "moicheia," which is the ordinary Greek word for adultery.

The intent appears to be to distinguish a true marriage from concubinage. What is being said is that if a man and a woman are in fact married, the bond is inseparable. But if they are not married, just "living together," then there is no lawful marriage and there can be a separation or annulment. The wording of the New American Bible for Matthew 19:9 is a translation that gives us this sense.


Found here.

That help?



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by IsidoreOfSeville
reply to post by Garkiniss
 


Let's not forget the 10 commandments are in the OT.


If people want to limit their lives, that's fine. Personally, I could give a damn about the OT or NT. The golden rule (which is far older than Christianity) seems to work fine as a logical moral code. I'll stick with that.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Garkiniss

Originally posted by Greatest I am

So you see fault in God's word do you?



No, I see fault in man's word. God didn't author the bible.


Correct. It was Rome.

I will add these clips to the mix for your consideration. They show who put what in Jesus' mouth and how Christianity has been manipulated. The first which is part of the second speaks to my Gnostic Christian label and the second shows my view of religions overall and the Noble Lie that I think we and our governments should rescind. The third clip speaks to the reason that religions were invented in the first place as it shows why social control was required for city states that had to deal with the reality of finite resources. I see these city states as led by a timocratic king who through the religion that he would have created, also realized that there had to be a tyrannical part to his benevolent duty and created a religion to be just that.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

I see the King/God as having to have the morals shown in the Haigt clip.

blog.ted.com...

He would have to create his religion as expressed through his high priest/tyrant who would live by the first commandment of God, place no one above me as the enforcer of his King/God's rules and laws while still obeying his King. The larger Roman system would later assume the same system through the Noble Lie. First through Flavian and later through Constantine.

www.simchajtv.com...

Regards
DL



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Greatest I am
 


Flavian was during the time of Jesus, Constantine was after. See, in the end, Constantine was just reacting to this new religion sweeping the empire. Why everyone was switching over, I really can't say. But he was a pagan until the end, when he was baptized on his death bed. He pretty much took the remaining piece of paganism and shoved them into Christianity like a wasp lays eggs in a frog. Much as I hate to use that analogy, it does fit. The intention, he said, was to prevent future wars based on religion. He wanted spirituality to unite, not divide.

But he underestimated the power of money. *evil laugh*



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
Well, from what I've seen Christians tend to describe certain "lifestyles" as sin.

Divorce is allowed if the woman commits fornication.

However, if divorced people remarry on that premise then they are living a sinful lifestyle.

Just like Christians say gays cannot live their lives by repenting once, divorced partners must become celibate or go back to their original spouses.

They cannot repent once and then just continue the lifestyle.
They need repentance and therapy to make them normal married couples again.
That's how evangelical Christians apply the Bible to gay people, so I suppose they must be consistent.

In fact, Jesus specifically dotes on divorce in the New Testament.
See Matthew 5:31.

He even includes "mind crime" in the teaching.
If a married man even thinks of another woman with lust he has committed adultery in his heart.
So involuntary heterosexual feelings are very sinful according to the Bible.

St. Paul even urges celibacy between married partners, rather than the enjoyment of sexuality.
See 1 Corinthians 7:29.

Well, I'm often judged by the Bible as a gay person, and that's what the Bible actually says on heterosexual relationships.

Although Jesus condemned only the Pharisees (religious teachers), He clearly did not like divorce.
edit on 1-2-2013 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)


True. As with gays, Jesus, or better said, the church, is anti-love.

Have a look at the face that this woman gives her bishop and what she has to say to him.

www.cnn.com... eed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_latest+%28RSS%3A+Most+Recent%29

I give her thinking an A but a c- for staying and supporting an anti-love church.

Regards
DL



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by akushla99
"let no man put asunder"

Presumably, either it is ok for a woman to dissolve a marriage (put it asunder), or, there will surely be an interpretation to include women...

Condemnation, hell...sound like a god of love to you?...or a stupid interpretation?

A99


Ask a Christian here.

It is likely all of the above but they will bob and weave a good yarn.

Regards
DL



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Greatest I am

Correct. It was Rome.



Well technically it's origins can be traced back to at least the Middle Kingdom of Egypt (2040–1650 BCE) back before it was called the Golden Rule and was known as a variation of the "ethic of reciprocity."



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by DelayedChristmas
[
Let me share my reasoning with you. Yes, I still think it is adultery in the Judeo-Christian perspective if a married couple divorces and goes on to marry other couples for any other reason other than sexual immorality. ]


We all know what Christianity thinks. Mostly garbage.

Your view is what I focus on as there are many Christian ones and your brush is too wide.

If you agree with that view, knowing that Christianity brags that God is love, how do you justify denying people the right to find a loving partner to go through life with by branding them sinners if they do?

Regards
DL






top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join