Andylusion
Platinum Member
Right, and I agree with that. It says you committed adultery. Yes. You did. But does that mean that you must divorce again, which is another sin? Does sinning twice, somehow cancel each other out?
And what if the other person has already remarried? Then what?
The Bible even says, that because of sexual sin, each person should have their own husband and wife.
But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.Telling someone to stay single because of a divorce years ago, means that now they would be tempted into immorality. And we've seen this by the way, even in the church. Where a pastor says he'll just stay single, and then years later you find he's screwing someone from the church. Why? Because he tried to stay single, and was tempted into immorality.
1 Cor 7:2
So I am not of the opinion, that if you sin, and you end up marrying some girl who was divorced, that this means you are now required to sin yet again, by divorcing again. That just makes no sense to me.
Now ideally you should not marry a woman who divorced her husband without cause. I agree with that. On that point, your post is accurate and true.
But I do not believe in the catch 22 version of Christian, where you are damned to hell if you don't, and damned to hell if you do.
Doesn't mean you can go marry women who divorced without cause. But it also doesn't mean that those who have committed sin, are now doomed to hell no matter if they repent or not. I reject that ideology.
Your input serves to explain why there are so many different variations of Christianity.
However, I am curious about your last post.
You write only of marrying a woman who divorced without cause, but say nothing about a man who divorces a wife without cause. What if he is the one who has committed adultery?What if he divorces his innocent wife in order to marry the woman with whom he committed adultery? I would think that his second marriage would be invalid at its inception, as would the second marriage of a woman who divorced her first husband without cause, so there would be no second "sin" of divorce.
Is Newt Gingrich actually married? Is trump? Did each divorce his previous wife, or wives, because they committed adultery? Either both guys' first wives were adulterous hussies, or these two guys committed adultery, divorced innocent spouses, and then entered into sham "marriages," more than once.
So I tend to put myself into the example, and obviously I am not going to marry a man. However, I see nothing in scripture that somehow the rules are different between genders.
You are getting deeper into the weeds of this particular topic, and I'll openly admit to you that I am not a Ph.D in theology.
However, here is my best understanding:
The only time there is no sin of divorce, is when you divorce with cause. The man is sleeping around with other women, and has no intention of stopping. That is divorce with cause, and I believe the woman can walk away utterly blameless.
Another example, would be if you married under false pretense. So if the guy says he has never been married before, and the woman finds out he was married before, and divorced.... I believe that the woman can have the marriage annulled, and I believe the woman can walk away utterly blame before G-d.
However, if there is no cause... if the man loves his wife... and the man has no relations with any other woman (barring polygamy obviously), and he has remained faithful and true to his wife....
Then I do not believe that it is Biblical to divorce. Regardless of whatever mistakes and sins were committed prior to the marriage.... at the point of marriage did the person make a vow
"With this ring I thee wed, and all my worldly goods I thee endow. In sickness and in health, in poverty or in wealth, 'til death do us part."
If you made a vow, you should keep it. If you divorce, without cause, then there is sin. The solution to a first sin of divorce, is not a second sin of divorce.
The Bible does state when it is allowable to divorce. Even then though if you remarry or marry someone who has divorced you are committing adultery.
Is Newt Gingrich actually married? Is trump? Did each divorce his previous wife, or wives, because they committed adultery? Either both guys' first wives were adulterous hussies, or these two guys committed adultery, divorced innocent spouses, and then entered into sham "marriages," more than once.Well first, Newt Gingrich is not Jesus Christ. Donald Trump is not Jesus Christ. There is only one pure model for what a Christian is, and how they should live. That's Jesus Christ.
But yet that is exactly what you expect out of Pete.
Second, I was never convinced that Donald Trump was even a Christian. I have no idea about Newt at all.
As far as, are they married? It seems to me that they are both married.
Whether their marriage is a sham or not, is impossible for me to say. I have no idea what their marriages are like, and I don't trust the opinion driven media to give me an answer in either direction.
Lastly, everyone knows Trump is bad with women. This was well established decades ago.
The difference between Trump and Pete, is that Trump isn't saying "I'm a Christian, and the Bible says what I'm doing is fine".
If Trump did say something as ridiculous, then I would be just as much a critic of that. Nor is Trump making up stuff like, salvation depends on being useful. Which I would also be critical of.
Again, Pete is speaking about himself. You can not in any way comment on what Pete says God has placed on him. He places different things on different people.
In fact, you could say that Trump even knows what he did was wrong, or he would not have tried to pay off the porn star. That's still leagues better than Pete saying it is not wrong, and he's proud of it.
Noted, committing adultery and then paying off a porn star is not as bad as Pete being in a loving committed relationship.
But yet that is exactly what you expect out of Pete.
Again, Pete is speaking about himself. You can not in any way comment on what Pete says God has placed on him. He places different things on different people.
No that is not exactly what I expect out of Pete.
There is a huge difference between a man who does what is evil, are not Christian.... verses a man who does what is evil, and tells everyone that G-d says it's fine.
Huge massive difference. I don't see Newt or Donald saying "Yeah I did this, and Jesus Christ is fine with it". Do you have any quotes like that? I will criticize either or both for that.
I have heard Trump for example post that people in power do this all the time. I thought he was an idiot when he said that, and still do.
But Trump did not say "yeah I screwed Stormy, and Jesus said that's ok". If he had said that, then I would clearly have a huge issue with that, just as much as Pete saying he's a gay Christian, and salvation is by deeds.
Let me give you another example from the other side:
If you go back and look at all my posts about Barnie Frank, the nearly all of them are about bad policies, and maybe a few referring to a prostitution ring he operated out of his Washington apartment.
However I never really cared that he was gay. I didn't care he had a male lover. In fact, I think this post right here, could be the first time I ever mentioned it. Why? Because I don't expect people who do not believe in the Christian faith, to follow the Christian faith.
Barnie Never claimed to be Christian, so I wouldn't expect him to follow a code of conduct he doesn't believe in.
Pete claims to be Christian, and he's very open about it, which is why he even said something like "salvation" is through being "useful". Salvation is not exclusively a Christian term, but pretty close.
When Pete claims to be Christian, but directly contradicts fundamentals of Christian faith, it is our duty to mark them and oppose them.
Noted, committing adultery and then paying off a porn star is not as bad as Pete being in a loving committed relationship.
If you do not claim that Christianity condones adultery and paying off a porn star, but you do claim that being in a loving committed homosexual relationship is acceptable to Christianity...... then the answer absolutely yes.
It is way worse to claim something is not sin in the Christian faith, than to do something that is sinful, and NOT claim Christianity accepts it. Way worse... by a wide margin.
One person is merely doing something that is wrong.
The other person is directly undermining the Christian faith. That is a million times worse. Yes, absolutely. You are entirely correct.
The bible is not infallible or inerrant. It is a collection of selected ancient works that reflect of opinions of a small group of people who were lucky enough at the time to be literate. There is nothing to support the idea that being heterosexual is an essential tenet of the Christian faith or that Buttigieg's marriage undermines the Christian faith. Our understanding of humans and of this world has grown over the centuries.
Moreover, "Christianity" is an umbrella term. There is not one set of beliefs that is universally held.
But if we do not stray from the legalistic confines of your view of Christianity, your comments that you can't tell whether Gingrich's and trump's marriages are a sham, that you
have no idea what their marriages are like, that you don't trust the media, that you don't know how the current "wives" of these two feel about them are irrelevant. By "biblical" analysis, no valid marriage exists in either case because the husband is still married to his first wife, unless she died before he "married" again. He has not been released from his initial vows and so was not free to marry again. One cannot "divorce" someone to whom one was not married in the first place.
And this is where you and I will disagree Lysistrata. And that's ok. I do not expect you to follow a G-d you do not believe in. To us, in the Biblical Christian faith, the Bible is not only infallible and inerrant, it is the words of G-d himself.
Now I get that the translations are not perfect, and that is why Christian pastors are trained to read and understand the original texts, and those pastors teach people like me, as best they can, what the texts mean.
There is nothing to support the idea that being heterosexual is an essential tenet of the Christian faith or that Buttigieg's marriage undermines the Christian faith.
When Pete says that Salvation is by being useful, he is undermining the Christian faith.
When Pete Says he is a Christian, and openly homosexual, he is undermining the Christian faith.
Both of those, undermine clear Christian Biblical doctrine.
By "biblical" analysis, no valid marriage exists in either case because the husband is still married to his first wife, unless she died before he "married" again. He has not been released from his initial vows and so was not free to marry again. One cannot "divorce" someone to whom one was not married in the first place.
I do not know why either of those people divorced their first wives. They may have divorced with cause, and they may not. I don't know that.
Moreover, I don't even believe that Donald is a Christian. I have very little expectation that Donald follow Christian morals, anymore than I expect you to follow Christian morals.
Donald is not portraying himself as a devout Christian either. If he did, then I would be far more critical of his actions, given they do not follow Christian doctrine.
That said, you seem to be implying something in the scriptures, that I personally don't see.
You seem to be implying that if a couple should not get married, that this means if they do, then their marriage does not exist, or is a sham, or is invalid.
I don't see that in the scriptures. I don't see that it says somewhere, that if it is a sin to marry someone, that if you do marry that person, that your marriage is annulled, or that you are required to divorce.
Now if you can find any part of scripture that says that, I would agree with you.
The closest thing to a answer to this discussion is this:
And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him.
-1 Cor 7:13
-1 Cor 7:13
Now this is applicable because a Christian is forbidden from marrying a non-Christian.
So if a Christian woman marries a non-christian man, this is sin. The woman should not marry the man.
Nevertheless, the passage above, indicates clearly that they are in fact married, even if the marriage was sin. Not only that, but it specifically says if the non-christian spouse is willing to live with them, that they should not divorce.