Are divorced Christians condemned to hell?

Originally posted by Greatest I am
I have no more time for a stupid girl.

Regards
DL

Don't like challenges?

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Correct. And the Scriptures also say that it is not good for man to be alone, and it's better for a person to marry than to burn with lust as Paul said. Likewise goes for divorced people. It's not good for them to be alone" and it's better they remarry so they don't burn with lust and sin in other areas of their lives.

Paul actually says that is better for the unmarried and widows to remain unmarried, but if the person can't handle it without sinning, it is better to marry.

Not many can handle remaining unmarried though. Not to turn this into a thread about the Catholic Church, but their rule of no priest can marry is the cause of some problems. The question of to marry or not marry should be a personal choice not one forced on someone.

Exactly, considering their "first pope" Peter had a wife.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Greatest I am
I have no more time for a stupid girl.

Regards
DL

Don't like challenges?

The true great I AM created time and has plenty of it for those who truly seek Him.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Greatest I am
I have no more time for a stupid girl.

Regards
DL

Don't like challenges?

The true great I AM created time and has plenty of it for those who truly seek Him.

Exactly and that is partly why I leave it to his time and not mine.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Greatest I am

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Greatest I am
I have no more time for a stupid girl.

Regards
DL

Don't like challenges?

The true great I AM created time and has plenty of it for those who truly seek Him.

Exactly and that is partly why I leave it to his time and not mine.

Regards
DL

Although His true followers would never take His name for their own and would take the time for others.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Not to turn this into a thread about the Catholic Church, but their rule of no priest can marry is the cause of some problems. The question of to marry or not marry should be a personal choice not one forced on someone.

Exactly, considering their "first pope" Peter had a wife.

Celebacy doesn't cause someone to turn gay or become a pedophile. It doesn't work that way. And no one says that people who chose family life are somehow 'dirty' or something. And no one is 'forcing' them to be celebate. If a person doesn't want to live a celebate life, then they don't become a priest or a nun. No one is 'forced' to do anything. They know the rules going in and they agree to them before hand. If they can''t take it ... or don't want to take it anymore .. they can leave. Very simple.

reply to post by FlyersFan


I didn't claim any of that. The rule against marriage is about preventing wealth to be inherited to the siblings of priests when they die.

It's about money for the Vatican.

Originally posted by Greatest I am

Originally posted by IsidoreOfSeville


So, the answer is, I think, if the marriage is not valid to begin with, and they divorce, then remarry someone else, then they are fornicating (from a religious standpoint). But condemned? Only the good Lord knows.

Of course not everyone on this board is Christian so I'm sure there'll be folks that will disagree.

edit on 2/1/2013 by IsidoreOfSeville because: (no reason given)

So a man and wife having sex is fornication to you.

Sorry to have disturbed you.
I thought I was speaking to a moral man.

Regards
DL

No, you misunderstand me.

Firstly, your argument centers around belief or disbelief in the Bible, and by extension, the Church.

What I'm saying is this, notice I said valid, in italics to emphasize my point. Perhaps this can clarify:

When Jesus came, he elevated matrimony to the same status it had originally possessed between Adam and Eve—the status of a sacrament. Thus, any valid marriage between two baptized people is a sacramental marriage and, once consummated, cannot be dissolved. Jesus, therefore, taught that if anyone so married divorces and remarries, that person is living in perpetual adultery, a state of mortal sin.

He said, "Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery" (Luke 16:18; cf. Mark 10:11–12).

Paul was equally insistent on this fact, declaring, "Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives. . . . Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive" (Rom. 7:2–3).

This applied, of course, only to sacramental marriages—those between baptized people. For marriages involving an unbaptized party, a different rule applied (1 Cor. 7:12–15).

In the midst of the Greco-Roman culture, which allowed for easy divorce and remarriage, the early Church Fathers proclaimed Christ’s teaching on the indissolubility of marriage—just as the Catholic Church does today in our modern, secular, easy-divorce culture (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church 1614–1615). Other denominations have modified their teachings to accommodate the pro-divorce ethos that dominates modern culture, but the Catholic Church preserves the teaching of Jesus and the early Christians.

While their ex-spouses are alive, the only time that a baptized couple can remarry after divorce is when a valid sacramental marriage never existed in the first place. For example, for a marriage to be contracted, the two parties must exchange valid matrimonial consent. If they do not, the marriage is null. If the competent authority (a diocesan marriage tribunal) establishes this fact, a decree of nullity (commonly called an annulment) can be granted, and the parties are free to remarry (CCC 1629). In this case there is no divorce followed by remarriage in God’s eyes because there was no marriage before God in the first place, merely a marriage in the eyes of men.

If, however, the parties are genuinely and sacramentally married, then, while in some cases there may be good reasons for them to live apart and even to obtain a legal separation, in God’s eyes they are not free to remarry (CCC 1649).

This is not a commandment of men, but one that comes directly from Jesus Christ. As Paul said, "To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband)—and that the husband should not divorce his wife" (1 Cor. 7:10-11).

Fortunately, God will ensure that the sacramentally married have the grace necessary to live out their marriage vows and either stay married or live continently. The sacrament of matrimony itself gives this grace. Whenever we face a trial, God ensures that we will have the grace we need. As Paul elsewhere says, "No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your strength, but with the temptation will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it" (1 Cor. 10:13).

Again, if you aren't Christian, then I suppose these rules do not apply.

I might add however, you have no idea regarding the state of my morals, as you would have no idea who I am if you saw me on the street. Let's keep the discussion on the topic at hand, and stop the personal attacks.

Thank you.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by Greatest I am

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Greatest I am
I have no more time for a stupid girl.

Regards
DL

Don't like challenges?

The true great I AM created time and has plenty of it for those who truly seek Him.

Exactly and that is partly why I leave it to his time and not mine.

Regards
DL

Although His true followers would never take His name for their own and would take the time for others.

Not quite biblical.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

If he had any true followers then we would all know it.

John 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Not to turn this into a thread about the Catholic Church, but their rule of no priest can marry is the cause of some problems. The question of to marry or not marry should be a personal choice not one forced on someone.

Exactly, considering their "first pope" Peter had a wife.

Celebacy doesn't cause someone to turn gay or become a pedophile. It doesn't work that way. And no one says that people who chose family life are somehow 'dirty' or something. And no one is 'forcing' them to be celebate. If a person doesn't want to live a celebate life, then they don't become a priest or a nun. No one is 'forced' to do anything. They know the rules going in and they agree to them before hand. If they can''t take it ... or don't want to take it anymore .. they can leave. Very simple.

edit on 2/5/2013 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)

I read an autobiography of an ex seminarian. When he joined the stats said that about 1/3 were gay. He put the number closer to 1/2. Granted that most were not pedophiles but the priesthood seems to draw them.
It is all about power and access.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by IsidoreOfSeville
[

Again, if you aren't Christian, then I suppose these rules do not apply.

I might add however, you have no idea regarding the state of my morals, as you would have no idea who I am if you saw me on the street. Let's keep the discussion on the topic at hand, and stop the personal attacks.

Thank you.

Nice that God would ignore those not in his flock. I great incentive to not be in it.

As to my personal comments. I do not attack. I just say what I see.
Your reply was ambiguous and I went by what I read.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Greatest I am

Originally posted by IsidoreOfSeville
[

Again, if you aren't Christian, then I suppose these rules do not apply.

I might add however, you have no idea regarding the state of my morals, as you would have no idea who I am if you saw me on the street. Let's keep the discussion on the topic at hand, and stop the personal attacks.

Thank you.

Nice that God would ignore those not in his flock. I great incentive to not be in it.

As to my personal comments. I do not attack. I just say what I see.
Your reply was ambiguous and I went by what I read.

Regards
DL

I must ask, if you don't believe God exists anyway (you haven't specified), why does that even matter? He doesn't ignore those not in His flock, in fact He would like all of humanity to be in His flock! But, that I'm sure would be a whole other thread's worth of discussion!

I have a belief but not in the type of God Christianity is selling. That one's morals I could never follow and I am not as good a man as I would like to be.

The Godhead I know in a nutshell.
I was a skeptic till the age of 39.
I then had an apotheosis and later branded myself an esoteric ecumenist and Gnostic Christian. Gnostic Christian because I exemplify this quote from William Blake.

“Both read the Bible day and night, But thou read'st black where I read white.”

This refers to how Gnostics tend to reverse, for moral reasons, what Christians see in the Bible. We tend to recognize the evil ways of O T God where literal Christians will see God’s killing as good. Christians are sheep where Gnostic Christians are goats.
This is perhaps why we see the use of a Jesus scapegoat as immoral, while theists like to make Jesus their beast of burden. An immoral position.

During my apotheosis, something that only lasted 5 or 6 seconds, the only things of note to happen was that my paradigm of reality was confirmed and I was chastised to think more demographically. What I found was what I call a cosmic consciousness. Not a new term but one that is a close but not exact fit.

I recognize that I have no proof. That is always the way with apotheosis.
This is also why I prefer to stick to issues of morality because no one has yet been able to prove that God is real and I have no more proof than they for the cosmic consciousness.

The cosmic consciousness is not a miracle working God. He does not interfere with us save when one of us finds it. Not a common thing from what I can see. It is a part of nature and our next evolutionary step.

I tend to have more in common with atheists who ignore what they see as my delusion because our morals are basically identical. Theist tend not to like me much as I have no respect for literalists and fundamentals and think that most Christians have tribal mentalities and poor morals.

I am rather between a rock and a hard place but this I cannot help.

I am happy to be questioned on what I believe but whether or not God exists is basically irrelevant to this world for all that he does not do, and I prefer to thrash out moral issues that can actually find an end point. The search for God is never ending when you are of the Gnostic persuasion. My apotheosis basically says that I am to discard whatever God I found, God as a set of rules that is, not idol worship it but instead, raise my bar and seek further.

My apotheosis also showed me that God has no need for love, adoration or obedience. He has no needs. Man has dominion here on earth and is to be and is the supreme being.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by IsidoreOfSeville

Originally posted by Greatest I am

Originally posted by IsidoreOfSeville
[

Again, if you aren't Christian, then I suppose these rules do not apply.

I might add however, you have no idea regarding the state of my morals, as you would have no idea who I am if you saw me on the street. Let's keep the discussion on the topic at hand, and stop the personal attacks.

Thank you.

Nice that God would ignore those not in his flock. I great incentive to not be in it.

As to my personal comments. I do not attack. I just say what I see.
Your reply was ambiguous and I went by what I read.

Regards
DL

I must ask, if you don't believe God exists anyway (you haven't specified), why does that even matter? He doesn't ignore those not in His flock, in fact He would like all of humanity to be in His flock! But, that I'm sure would be a whole other thread's worth of discussion!

If God wanted all peoples in his flock, why did he order the ancien Jews to do so much killing instead of just facilitating the conversion and assimilation of the other tribes?

Why did he take the moral low ground instead of the moral high ground?

Regards
DL

reply to post by Greatest I am


I see nothing in your Bible quotes that teaches that it is ok to call yourself God.

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

I see nothing in your Bible quotes that teaches that it is ok to call yourself God.

Ps 82:6 I said, "You are gods, And all of you are sons of the Most High.

Hosea 1:10
Ye are the sons of the living God.

Just two of many.

Want more?

Meet me here. But not if you want to retain your slave mentality.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Greatest I am

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

I see nothing in your Bible quotes that teaches that it is ok to call yourself God.

Ps 82:6 I said, "You are gods, And all of you are sons of the Most High.

Hosea 1:10
Ye are the sons of the living God.

Just two of many.

Want more?

Meet me here. But not if you want to retain your slave mentality.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Regards
DL

Those Scriptures say "sons of the Most High" and "sons of the living God", not take God's place by taking His name.

I've met you here and you have provided me with nothing to interest me and you are in error. I will therefore not follow you to the other thread like a slave would. I serve God alone and you are not Him.

You guys are making a great case for fornication. Why damn your soul with divorce when you can just live together. At least that way the damnation is not for eternity.

Jesus spoke in ideals. He said that if your eye offend you pluck it out, but I've not heard of anyone plucking out their eyes recently! There seems to be a lot of rock throughing from people who may live in glass houses.

reply to post by MrBigDave


Exchanging one sin for another is not a proper solution.

Originally posted by MrBigDave
You guys are making a great case for fornication. Why damn your soul with divorce when you can just live together. At least that way the damnation is not for eternity.

Jesus spoke in ideals. He said that if your eye offend you pluck it out, but I've not heard of anyone plucking out their eyes recently! There seems to be a lot of rock throughing from people who may live in glass houses.

It's a metaphor. It means cut out the thing in your life that enables you to sin.