Divorce Vs Homosexuality

It seems endless this homosexuality and Christian war, I think its been blown out of proportion,
not a lot of Christians are that active in the issue.
Though there are many loud church goers who are.

Anyway, I plan to put a little spin and possibly find a reasonable answer to an issue I have

Whats worse, the sin of homosexuality or the sin of remarriage in Christians, in light of
Christ's teachings
Matthew 5:31-32: "It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery."

Paul makes comments to the unmarried in Corinthians 7:8-9 and then the married 7:10-11. If married Christians separate, they cannot remarry.

So in all fairness do Christians judge a husband and wife who have been divorced in the church, the way they would treat a practising homosexual in the church?

I know Christians who have divorced and remarried another spouse who was a Christian, the church doesnt seem to see the sin the same way they see the sin of homosexuality.

Now to any Christian who reads this and thinks I am judging them, no.
I am interested in hearing reasoning and thought.

To any atheists who want to say that the Bible is fiction and a fairytale, why, we already know your opinion, over and over and over.

originally posted by: borntowatch
It seems endless this homosexuality and Christian war, I think its been blown out of proportion,
not a lot of Christians are that active in the issue.
Though there are many loud church goers who are.

Anyway, I plan to put a little spin and possibly find a reasonable answer to an issue I have

Whats worse, the sin of homosexuality or the sin of remarriage in Christians, in light of
Christ's teachings
Matthew 5:31-32: "It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery."

Paul makes comments to the unmarried in Corinthians 7:8-9 and then the married 7:10-11. If married Christians separate, they cannot remarry.

So in all fairness do Christians judge a husband and wife who have been divorced in the church, the way they would treat a practising homosexual in the church?

I know Christians who have divorced and remarried another spouse who was a Christian, the church doesnt seem to see the sin the same way they see the sin of homosexuality.

Now to any Christian who reads this and thinks I am judging them, no.
I am interested in hearing reasoning and thought.

To any atheists who want to say that the Bible is fiction and a fairytale, why, we already know your opinion, over and over and over.

Why would you want to believe any of this? Why do you need the bible to tell you which people to condemn? why can't you just get your nose out of other peoples business and just let them do what they want with their time here? why do you read a rule book written thosands of years ago? The game has changed many times since then.

Can we talk about it without bringing in "The Bible"? Many of us do not claim to be "Christian", but certainly stand for what Jesus himself is recorded as having said. The Golden Rule, namely.

(I'm not an atheist, I am an "unaffiliated" spiritual person - will that do?)

My opinion: it's no one else's business whether people choose to end a non-functioning relationship and try another - nor what they do in their bedrooms.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

My opinion: it's no one else's business whether people choose to end a non-functioning relationship and try another

It's a matter of trust. I consider vows and oaths to be pretty serious commitments.

I don't always believe my kids when they tell me something ... even when they say, "I promise." How should I perceive the words of a person who has committed themselves to marriage and then breaks their vows?

Interesting question, borntowatch. It'll certainly be interesting to see where this thread goes.

a reply to: Snarl

It's a matter of trust. I consider vows and oaths to be pretty serious commitments.

You do know it takes MANY YEARS to really know another person, right?
And even when you do know them, they will likely 'change' (continue becoming who they really are) with time, experience, and life in general.

What worked at one time doesn't necessarily work 'forever'.

a reply to: borntowatch

It's a great question. I've often wondered what makes homosexuality the ONE "sin" that's seemingly worse than all the others.

Do we see Christian groups protesting because a football team signs a divorced player? No!
Do we see Christian businesses turning away the business of divorced people? No!
Do we see them protesting or turning away liars, adulterers, blasphemers, fornicators or women who cut their hair??? No.

Here is how it goes.

Rape = More evil than Divorce.

Divorce can be more evil than Homosexuality couples.

Homosexual or Divorced is still considered as a raper if they decide to rape someone.

Therefore anyone who rapes is consider a raper.

Divorce is being abuse today as a tool mostly by women.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Marrying a divorced is consider a possibility of stealing other peoples future husband and wife.
Why?
People Divorce and Remarry.
That is like taking 1 person who might marry someone else who were unmarried.
This can go for both Men and Women.

But, not everything can go by the law, like people stealing women to forcefully marry to be wives is considered Rape(unless those couples were on a run and loved each other that is fine). Like how the past was when Colonial Age happened, all over the place mostly Europeans stealing women/and making people slaves.

Many American Christians are corrupt and may have rape like those corrupt church. Married Homosexuality is just disinformation. But, promoting Homosexuality is no good. They need to keep it to themselves.

rationalwiki.org...

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

What worked at one time doesn't necessarily work 'forever'.

Then why make a vow? Why not follow through on the "'Til death do us part." thingamajiggy?

If my wife and I can make it three decades ... anybody can ... if they keep putting forth the effort every day.

I think too many people who commit believe that a marriage is only a 50/50 proposition. If their parents told them it takes 100% commitment from both sides they may be able to judge for themselves if they're getting in over their heads.

-Cheers

a reply to: borntowatch

Genesis 19:4-5
4 Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, ALL THE PEOPLE FROM EVERY QUARTER, surrounded the house. 5 And they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally.”

Romans 1:24-27
24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their (STRAIGHT) women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the (STRAIGHT) men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

In Sodom we can see this is not about homosexuality but in fact this is an entire city who wishes to rape 2 travelers.

The reason for identifying Romans as a prophecy against STRAIGHT men and STRAIGHT women only is this.

Their are some who believe in "material enlightenment", within that group their are those who also believe in "sexual enlightenment". This "sexual enlightenment", causes men and women to become sexually perverse and accept homosexuality even though they were never previously attracted to the same sex.

Because of this "sexual enlightenment" God causes them to burn in lust for sexual pleasure of any and every kind.

A man who claims to be born gay and is only attracted to males, is neither a rapest, nor a sexual pervert. Most gays I've met believe in monogamous relationships. So clearly neither of these verses pertain to those born gay.

This leaves only the livitical code. I believe it possible for God to insure that all Israelite males born between Moses and 70 A.D. were born straight. If we can give God the power to accomplish this, than we can see that this teaching was never intended for the gentiles, but was rather part of a law that ended with the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D.

To me the bible makes no mention of homosexuality as sin after Christ. But it does make mention of material and sexual perversion, from those who refuse the Holy Spirit.

In the Koran, homosexuality is only vaguely mentioned. And in each it claims that someone has left something natural to themselves because of sexual lust. Since those born gay are only doing what is natural for them, the verses in the Koran do not pertain to those born gay either.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs red rover red rover can jesus come over

I think homesexuals should not get divorced.

It is easy to see what breaks the golden rule and you only need logic to be able to yourself figure out what is objectively good or bad. Symbiosis is the good where people create something that bring good to all. Ego selfishness is bad since it hurts one for the sake of other.

Therefor love between two symbiotic equal partners cannot be wrong since it is symbiotic in nature.

And a marriage can be wrong on objective judgement even if it is hetrosexual if one part is selfish destroying the life of the other. There is nothing wrong with not being with a person who choose to be a wolf in sheep skin in behaviour if they refuse to change or have fooled you by deceit.

a reply to: sacgamer25

So the city was full of women ready to pounce on the men? Were they Amazons?

And rape is rape even when it is homosexual rape. What was it about the two MEN that had the city full of MEN that made them want to have intercourse with them?

Notice what the Bible actually says "That we may KNOW them", that phrase is used exclusively in the Bible to denote sexual relations that are consensual. Otherwise, if "to know" meant to rape, then Adam raped Eve three times, Abraham raped Sarah and Hagar, Isaac raped Rebecca, Lot's daughters raped him (well, kind of technically they did, because he was drunk and went to sleep), Jacob raped Leah, Rachel, Bilhah and Zilpah.

"To KNOW" in the Biblical sense has always meant sexual relations.

i see what your tryng to do, borntowatch. i see what you are trying to do here, and i appreciate it. small steps will hopefully lead to large steps though, right?

a reply to: WarminIndy

Have you actually read the story about sodom and Gomorrah? Are you saying it's ok for an entire city, everyone young and old, to want to have sex with two travelers?

Lot is afraid for the two travels safety, begging the rest of the city not to do what hey we're planning.

In no way does the story suggest anything is being done in mutual agreement. I'm pretty sure the two travelers were not looking to be sexual partners to everyone living in Soddom.

And I've never heard anyone make the claim you are making about this event. I suggest you go back and read the story, Genesis 19, before you continue to spread falsehoods about what was taking place.

The only consensual relationship allowed in any of the religious text is between no more than 2 people. So an entire city of people trying to have sex with 2 travelers is perverse no matter what you think about the meaning of words.

I wish I understood your point, but since you don't appear to have a grasp on scripture it is hard for me to understand what you are trying to say.

I'm divorced and, now I think marriage is a scam.

Not only that the misery of marriage had me wishing for death to part us.

Divorce was a much better option.

originally posted by: sacgamer25
a reply to: WarminIndy

Have you actually read the story about sodom and Gomorrah? Are you saying it's ok for an entire city, everyone young and old, to want to have sex with two travelers?

Lot is afraid for the two travels safety, begging the rest of the city not to do what hey we're planning.

In no way does the story suggest anything is being done in mutual agreement. I'm pretty sure the two travelers were not looking to be sexual partners to everyone living in Soddom.

And I've never heard anyone make the claim you are making about this event. I suggest you go back and read the story, Genesis 19, before you continue to spread falsehoods about what was taking place.

The only consensual relationship allowed in any of the religious text is between no more than 2 people. So an entire city of people trying to have sex with 2 travelers is perverse no matter what you think about the meaning of words.

I wish I understood your point, but since you don't appear to have a grasp on scripture it is hard for me to understand what you are trying to say.

No, I have never read the Bible.....no, wait.. I HAVE.

NOOO, I am not saying that. What I am saying is what the text says.."That we may KNOW them". Of course it was not consensual but it has nothing to do with one, two, three or 20 partners.

Please, read the whole text first before making assertions. And saying I don't have a grasp on scripture, man, I just told you the names of the two handmaidens of Leah and Rachel.

Lot immediately offers his daughters to the men of the city, but they refused the daughters, who at that time were virgins (or maybe Lot was just saying that to appease the men). Then Lot was told to go get his sons-in-law to go with them out of Sodom, but the young men refused.

So here, a city full of men who wanted to have sex with the guests in Lot's house. Lot offered the men his two daughters, they didn't want the girls, they wanted the men. Then his own sons-in-law refused to go with their wives. And yet Lot says that his daughters had never KNOWN any man, (again, the term "to know" in the consensual sexual context). So how is it I don't know the Bible, and what am I saying here?

The men of Sodom wanted sex with men, refused the women offered to them. Why did Lot offer his daughters? As sexual appeasement. It had nothing to do with violating some ancient code of hospitality. Why didn't Lot's sons-in-law want to go with their wives? They weren't even in the house that night, they were carousing out on the town with men.

originally posted by: sacgamer25
........................

In Sodom we can see this is not about homosexuality but in fact this is an entire city who wishes to rape 2 travelers.
.................

.....

This is VERY, VERY, VERY incorrect .The "entire" city was NOT "wanting" to rape the travelers(there were women and children) nad thats only the begining of the "disinformation" of the incident at Sodom.This is the type of perverted extrapolation hyperbole that most people believe of the scripture.This is the "only" incident recorded of the city of Sodom and the incident of the two travelers(angels) is focused on.The angels (messengers ..sent ones) specifically said that these cities “iniquities’ had been going on for a long time.It says NOTHING of it being “sexual rape” .

It is even an extrapolation that from one statement.”Let them come out that we may “know them”(in Hebrew the word... yada)”.A sexual act is only one of the meanings of yada…“to know” yet the religious carnal mind “immediately” assumed as did many of the translators to make it fit their agenda.The power of belief makes many, many false assumptions.Man's faith in their religion “believes” what it wants to believe “regardless” of Truth.

Isaiah the prophet railed on Israel for being “as Sodom”rebelling against God, lacking in knowledge, deserting the Lord, idolatry, engaging in meaningless religious ritual, being unjust and oppressive to others, being insensitive to the needs of widows and orphans, committing murder, accepting bribes, etc. yet “homosexuality" is not included.Yahoshua railed on Sodom but not about the incident...and on and on...

Fomenting Sodom as a defense against homosexuality is a knee jerk reaction for some (many) to believe what they want to believe however the scriptures do not support it nor does it support the discrimination and condemnation of homosexuals.It is ALL formed then believed in the carnal religious mind(..the adversary…satan) of man.

a reply to: Rex282

Nope, just the guys banging on the door.

But it does say that the entire quarter had come to see the men. Why didn't the rest of the city just say that the guys were out of line? Not a single other person tried to stop them.

Hmm, men banging on a door for Lot to send out the angels, for sex. Lot offering daughters instead. The men refusing the women...then the very husbands of the women refusing to leave the city with Lot and their wives....

Yes, it was all about being inhospitable.

Why weren't the husbands in the house with their wives? Why were they outside watching the men bang on the door of the house where their wives were inside? Seems to me a loving husband doesn't do that to his wife while men are banging on the door demanding that other men be tossed out, for sex.

Egads, fail all around.

But divorce, the only reason the Bible condones it, adultery, and only after that couple can't seem to work it out. Can you show us examples of gay rabbis in those days? Yes, yes, today you can, but not then.

Remember that one passage about King Josiah? He went and tore down the houses of the Sodomites. Do you mean he tore down the houses of inhospitable people?

II Kings 23:4 And the king commanded Hilkiah the high priest, and the priests of the second order, and the keepers of the door, to bring forth out of the temple of the Lord all the vessels that were made for Baal, and for the grove, and for all the host of heaven: and he burned them without Jerusalem in the fields of Kidron, and carried the ashes of them unto Bethel.

5 And he put down the idolatrous priests, whom the kings of Judah had ordained to burn incense in the high places in the cities of Judah, and in the places round about Jerusalem; them also that burned incense unto Baal, to the sun, and to the moon, and to the planets, and to all the host of heaven.

6 And he brought out the grove from the house of the Lord, without Jerusalem, unto the brook Kidron, and burned it at the brook Kidron, and stamped it small to powder, and cast the powder thereof upon the graves of the children of the people.

7 And he brake down the houses of the sodomites, that were by the house of the Lord, where the women wove hangings for the grove.

8 And he brought all the priests out of the cities of Judah, and defiled the high places where the priests had burned incense, from Geba to Beersheba, and brake down the high places of the gates that were in the entering in of the gate of Joshua the governor of the city, which were on a man's left hand at the gate of the city.

9 Nevertheless the priests of the high places came not up to the altar of the Lord in Jerusalem, but they did eat of the unleavened bread among their brethren.

Here it is associating Ba'al worship with sodomites. What did Ba'al worship entail? It included homosexual temple prostitution. If you say that the two were not associated, then that would be denying history. The Ras Shamra texts shine light on what was happening at that time, and yes, homosexuality was prevalent and so was sacred prostitution of men and women.

While one may say the Bible has nothing to say (yet it does), the Ras Shamra texts are parallel in that the Canaanites were Ba'al worshipers and their actions were recorded, including male homosexual practices. If one wants a religion that is accepting, then Ba'al worship is just one such religion.

The Ras Shamra texts place no moral injunction against it. The Hebrew Bible does.

That is why Isaiah was condemning them, because of the practices in Ba'al worship.

a reply to: Rex282

I am not sure what those of you who say I am wrong are reading. So here is Genesis 19.

19 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 “My lords,” he said, “please turn aside to your servant’s house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning.”

“No,” they answered, “we will spend the night in the square.”

3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”

6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.”

9 “Get out of our way,” they replied. “This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.” They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.

10 But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. 11 Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door.

12 The two men said to Lot, “Do you have anyone else here—sons-in-law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here, 13 because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the Lord against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it.”

14 So Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were pledged to marry his daughters. He said, “Hurry and get out of this place, because the Lord is about to destroy the city!” But his sons-in-law thought he was joking.

15 With the coming of dawn, the angels urged Lot, saying, “Hurry! Take your wife and your two daughters who are here, or you will be swept away when the city is punished.”

16 When he hesitated, the men grasped his hand and the hands of his wife and of his two daughters and led them safely out of the city, for the Lord was merciful to them. 17 As soon as they had brought them out, one of them said, “Flee for your lives! Don’t look back, and don’t stop anywhere in the plain! Flee to the mountains or you will be swept away!”

18 But Lot said to them, “No, my lords, please! 19 Your servant has found favor in your[d] eyes, and you have shown great kindness to me in sparing my life. But I can’t flee to the mountains; this disaster will overtake me, and I’ll die. 20 Look, here is a town near enough to run to, and it is small. Let me flee to it—it is very small, isn’t it? Then my life will be spared.”

21 He said to him, “Very well, I will grant this request too; I will not overthrow the town you speak of. 22 But flee there quickly, because I cannot do anything until you reach it.” (That is why the town was called Zoar.)

23 By the time Lot reached Zoar, the sun had risen over the land. 24 Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the Lord out of the heavens. 25 Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, destroying all those living in the cities—and also the vegetation in the land. 26 But Lot’s wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.

It is obvious that the sins of the city were sexual perversion.

The sexual perversion, is not homosexuality. Every MALE in the city wanting to have sex with the two travelers is not the behaviour of homosexuality, but rather depraved minds.

The men are trying to break down the door to get to the 2 travelers. This can in no way be interpreted as the acts of people who were looking for consensual sexual relations.

Even Lots son-in-laws were part of the group of men trying to beak into Lots house to have forced sex with the 2 travelers.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Baal worship was much more than homosexuality. The type of homosexuality that is found in Baal worship still has no bearing on those who were born gay.

The men became sexually perverse because they worshipped Baal. They did not worship Baal because they were born gay.

Baal worship also includes human sacrifice and temple prostitution like you stated.

Those who are born homosexual and sexual perversion, simply have no link.

The one born straight that gives himself to homosexuality because of Baal worship is perverse, not the one born gay who is only doing what is natural for him.