Divorce+replacement spouse=adultery?

[Fireinfolding]

Angelmom and Sherman I would "rep" you both but I have turned off that feature for myself for fear of reputation

Enjoyed your both your posts

Peace

Fireinfolding

 

[Celticflower]

Angelmom and Sherman I would "rep" you both but I have turned off that feature for myself for fear of reputation

Enjoyed your both your posts

Peace

Fireinfolding

I did it for you!!

 

[ShermanN]

BIBLE][/BIBLE]Good morning everyone,

Another very interesting thing to consider when looking at Mt.19.9 and related passages, specifically considering the part that's traditionally and errantly interpreted "whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery" is polygamy. In Jewish culture of the 1st century, NT biblical days, polygamy was still practiced, though there was a growing push towards legislating monogamy. I believe it wasn't until the 1100's that Jewish Rabbis actually forbid polygamy.

Knowing that polygamy was still practiced, the common errant translation "whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery" makes absolutely no sense. Taking this errant interpretation literally, what would keep a man from first marrying another wife being polygamy was legal and then divorcing his first wife. That way, if this was a correct translation, then he could still marry another woman and divorce his current wife and yet not commit adultery because polygamy was legal. I point this out just to show how ludicrous and irrational are the traditional errant "word for word" interpretations of this passage and related passages.

The concept of remarriage after a legal divorce was never an issue. Jesus did though point out that remarriage after "separation without divorce" was wrong, illegal, and immoral.

Jesus did not disagree with Moses or intend to repudiate, reject as invalid, the Mosaic bill of divorce. Rather, He affirmed and endorsed the Mosaic Law repeatedly and specifically; and concerning the bill of divorce, Jesus explained that Moses was inspired to institute it in order to legally free women who had been "put away," as in expelled or abandoned by their husbands. The bill of divorce was meant to bring a proper legal end to otherwise broken relationships.

Sadly, the Jews did not fully apply this law of liberty according to the spirit of the law and only gave men the perogative/power of divorce; women in the Jewish community to this day struggle under this bondage.

What's even worse is the traditional "Christian" doctrine of MDR completely rejects common sense and sound biblical exegesis and repudiates the "bill of divorce" and try to say that marriage is a "sacrament", "indissoluble", and "under ecclesial authority." Each of the previous principles are errant and evil.

Marriage is not a "sacrament". A sacrament is a means of grace, the undeserved favor and blessing of God; and, unless a man is marrying a woman named Grace, then marriage is not a means of grace! If so, then unmarried people would not be as "holy" as married folks.

Furthermore, marriage is not indissoluble. Marriage is very breakable. Which do you treat with more honor, respect, and care, a common cast-iron unbreakable pot or a priceless China vase? The China vase of course! In the same way, we need to recognize and teach that marriage is breakable and priceless and do what we can to protect and strengthen our marriages.

Furthermore, marriage is not under ecclesial, church authority. It is under civil authority as recognized in scripture and delegated by God. Moses established both civil and religious authority structures for Israel. Issues concerning MDR was handled by judges, not priests. Furthermore, a proper understanding of what Jesus and Paul say regarding MDR both recognize that issues concerning MDR are under civil authority.

Well, I had better go for now. It's my prayer that that church will repent from the destructive evil traditional doctrine of MDR, forsake trying to control people and instead focus on empowering people to lead godly, Spirit-filled lives!

Sincerely,
Sherman Nobles
author "God Is A Divorce' Too!"

 

[Celticflower]

DP Sorry

 

[~Nikki~]

I didn't call anyone who accepted anything Jesus said clueless.

I implied anyone who supposes the act of remarriage is an act of adultery is clueless.

Oh, and while you think that includes Jesus, I don't.

As for the definitions of adultery--I gave none--I only pointed to some of the attributes of adultery, maybe I'll give a simple definition later.

But in the meantime, do try to find the wickedness in remarriage, do try to liken it to adultery--I'd love to see the spin on that one.

One final note, when I was a kid a teacher asked me, "is that clear as mud?" to my embarrassment I replied, "Mud isn't clear!"

Remarriage is adultery because it's sex with someone other than the original marriage partner, and therefore adultery against them.

God said marriage is a covenant breakable only by death, so when divorce occurs, the covenant is still in place and therefore the divorcee is not free to make another covenant (remarriage). If they do, and the first covenant is still in place because the original spouse is still alive, then to sleep with a new person is to commit adultery against the spouse of the first and still valid covenant.

 

[Celticflower]

Remarriage is adultery because it's sex with someone other than the original marriage partner, and therefore adultery against them.

God said marriage is a covenant breakable only by death, so when divorce occurs, the covenant is still in place and therefore the divorcee is not free to make another covenant (remarriage). If they do, and the first covenant is still in place because the original spouse is still alive, then to sleep with a new person is to commit adultery against the spouse of the first and still valid covenant.

But what if it is the marriage that dies? If the covenant is broken by one and cannot be "fixed" is the other doomed to a lonely life without the love of a spouse? Seems rather harsh to punish the one who has tried to remain faithful, has been walked out on or has been abused to the point that they can no longer live with the one they married.

 

[Fireinfolding]

I did it for you!!

You rock sis!!


Thanks!!!!!

Nothing like pulling together huh?



Peace

Fireinfolding

 

[ShermanN]

Remarriage is adultery because it's sex with someone other than the original marriage partner, and therefore adultery against them.

God said marriage is a covenant breakable only by death, so when divorce occurs, the covenant is still in place and therefore the divorcee is not free to make another covenant (remarriage). If they do, and the first covenant is still in place because the original spouse is still alive, then to sleep with a new person is to commit adultery against the spouse of the first and still valid covenant.

Hello Northstar,

The concept that "marriage is a covenant breakable only by death" is not true. God did not say it and neither does the Word teach it. The marriage covenant is breakable, terminated by death or by divorce. Jesus said, "What God has joined together, let not man put assunder." The command to not do something implies that it's possible, not impossible. We are commanded not to murder, why? Because it is possible for us to commit murder, and if we commit murder, the person is dead. In the same way, the command to not put assunder or tear apart what God has joined together implies that it is possible, we shouldn't, but it is possible for us to break marriage covenants.

If a person divorces his/her spouse, the marriage covenant is broken and the marriage is over, dead, kaput. Of course, the other way a marriage covenant is broken is by death. Sadly, people often misinterpret the passage in Rom.7.1-8 where Paul uses marriage as an analogy to explain the concept of being freed from the legalism.

Just like when a woman is freed from the law or rule of her husband if she dies, we are freed from legalism because we are dead in Christ who fulfilled the law. Paul is not saying that death is the only way to break a marriage covenant. Marriage covenants are broken by either divorce or death.

Thus if a couple gets a divorce, their marriage is over, the covenant is broken and no longer valid or binding, the marriage union has been broken. Marriage is non indissoluble, but is very breakable and should be treated as such.

Jesus was addressing the motives of the heart that led to divorce, declaring selfish motives for divorce as adultery. Adultery is far more than sex outside of marriage. Adultery is radically sinning against a valid marriage covenant, whether it's lust, abuse, neglect, or divorce to position yourself so that you can marry someone else. Remarriage after divorce is not an issue biblically speaking; in fact, the purpose of the bill of divorce was so that an abandoned/expelled wife could remarry legally by having her previous marriage covenant terminated.

I know this is difficult to accept because it has been taught errantly for generations in the church, but I do hope thay you'll reconsider your position.

Sincerely,
Sherman Nobles

 

[WildHeart75]

IMO people change and so does relationships. If you can no longer get along with your spouse or have any intimate feelings for your spouse then I don't think God expects you to stay with that person and live a very unhappy, unhealthy life. You should put every effort into your marriage and ask God for guidance and help concerning it but if it is no longer salvagable then why continue on? If a husband and wife can no longer stand by one another and be intimate with one another it will cause them both to fail and commit adultery, so why not disolve the marriage before it tempts you to sin? Like the parable Yahshua spoke of "if your eye causes you to sin then pluck it out".

That is just my 2 cents.

 

[scr]

Mr. Nobles,

I have read several of your posts on this site. Let me see if I can summarize the holy doctrine of Sherman Nobles in his own words:

• You state that you don't care if you give a liberal (read: broad, sloppy, loose) interpretation of scripture.
• You claim no motive to suppress the truth, yet receive financial benefit from book sales touting this ear-tickling new interpretation you have of scripture - after centuries of scholars have "unfortunately gotten it wrong."
• You are not divorced yourself, yet feel compelled to 'rescue' those with which you cannot possibly have proper sympathy or empathy - with this amazing message that, fortunately for you, you yourself do not need to bother your conscience with.
• You provide no documentation as to your background information on Jewish Social Life of the time.
• Your 'expert' (ex/eis)egesis refers to the passages you dispute, yet you provide no substantiation of your claims with conventional, accepted interpretation of passages elsewhere in the scripture except to, 'buy my book'.
• Your 'by the way' argument about polygamy is hogwash. Polygamy was practiced by the Greeks of the time, but not the Jews. Jesus never preached to the Greeks. The context of all of the passages you dispute are spoken to a Jewish audience.
• You have yet to respond to my contention that you grossly misinterpret 1Cor 7:27-28 by stating in your post that somehow you see the word, 're-married' in there.

I stand by what I say, Mr. Nobles. I hope the fire is exceedingly hot for profiteering sugar dealers such as yourself. The people that are dealing with these questions are struggling with moral truth and conscience. You are quite simply cashing in on their weakness with a clever s(p)in of your own.

scr

 

[helenofbritain]

But what if it is the marriage that dies? If the covenant is broken by one and cannot be "fixed" is the other doomed to a lonely life without the love of a spouse? Seems rather harsh to punish the one who has tried to remain faithful, has been walked out on or has been abused to the point that they can no longer live with the one they married.

Exactly where did you hear that life was supposed to be fair? Life is a struggle. Following God is a struggle. Becomming divorced and not remarrying is a struggle. But it is though our suffering that we can become more closely united to Christ. He have everythign for us - He carried His cross for us. And what does He ask of us?

Mark 8: 34 He called the crowd with his disciples, and said to them, "If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. 35 For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake, and for the sake of the gospel, will save it. 36 For what will it profit them to gain the whole world and forfeit their life? 37 Indeed, what can they give in return for their life? 38 Those who are ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of them the Son of Man will also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels."

He didn't say 'do whatever makes you happy'. He didn't say 'this is going to be easy.' But He did say we should 'take up our cross.' Being divorced by your spouse and remaining chaste for the rest of your life will be a cross for many. But their reward will be great in heaven.

 

[helenofbritain]

The concept that "marriage is a covenant breakable only by death" is not true. God did not say it and neither does the Word teach it.

Thus if a couple gets a divorce, their marriage is over, the covenant is broken and no longer valid or binding, the marriage union has been broken. Marriage is non indissoluble, but is very breakable and should be treated as such.

Well, I don't know about you, but when I got married I made a promise TO my spouse, and BEFORE God that went something like this:

Origianlly posted by me on my wedding day: I, Caitlin, take you, Ben to be my husband. I promise to be true to you in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health. I will love you and honour you all the days of my life.

Even if, God forbid, Ben and I were to break up, I promised, with God as my witness, that I would remain true to him for life. That precludes me from getting remarried while both of us are alive.

You can spin the Gospel any way you like, you will still be wrong. And even if you were right, that would not change the promises that people make when they get married - to stay married "until death do us part" or "all the days of my life."

Wanna talk about bearing false witness???

 

[ShermanN]

Mr. Nobles,

I have read several of your posts on this site. Let me see if I can summarize the holy doctrine of Sherman Nobles in his own words:

• You state that you don't care if you give a liberal (read: broad, sloppy, loose) interpretation of scripture.
• You claim no motive to suppress the truth, yet receive financial benefit from book sales touting this ear-tickling new interpretation you have of scripture - after centuries of scholars have "unfortunately gotten it wrong."
• You are not divorced yourself, yet feel compelled to 'rescue' those with which you cannot possibly have proper sympathy or empathy - with this amazing message that, fortunately for you, you yourself do not need to bother your conscience with.
• You provide no documentation as to your background information on Jewish Social Life of the time.
• Your 'expert' (ex/eis)egesis refers to the passages you dispute, yet you provide no substantiation of your claims with conventional, accepted interpretation of passages elsewhere in the scripture except to, 'buy my book'.
• Your 'by the way' argument about polygamy is hogwash. Polygamy was practiced by the Greeks of the time, but not the Jews. Jesus never preached to the Greeks. The context of all of the passages you dispute are spoken to a Jewish audience.
• You have yet to respond to my contention that you grossly misinterpret 1Cor 7:27-28 by stating in your post that somehow you see the word, 're-married' in there.

I stand by what I say, Mr. Nobles. I hope the fire is exceedingly hot for profiteering sugar dealers such as yourself. The people that are dealing with these questions are struggling with moral truth and conscience. You are quite simply cashing in on their weakness with a clever s(p)in of your own.

scr

Good evening scr,

I'm sorry that you think so evil of me because I disagree with what you believe. And I encourage you to do some research before you make such outlandish and unjustified claims.

To start off with you're definition of "liberal" is incomplete. "Liberal" comes from the Latin word liberalis meaning "suitable for a freeman, generous, befitting of a man of free birth, marked by generosity and openhandedness (a giver). It also means, one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional or established forms or ways." On the other hand it can mean "loose, lacking moral restraint, or even licentious."

So when I used the word "liberal" in regards to what I shared I meant the positive uses of the word, but when you use the word "liberal" in regards to me, you mean the negative side of things. Of course, that's just a pointless and useless personal attack not worth addressing.

Concerning the financial benefit of my book, if you knew how much time I spent researching and writting the book, how much money I invested in it myself, and how little I've made on it, and how many free copies I've given away you'd laugh at your own false accusation of me

Concerning me disagreeing with centuries of scholars, so did the Puritans. In fact, they taught the same thing that I present on this issue. Just because something is traditional doesn't make it right. In our deliberations on any issue, we should seriously consider what is traditionally taught, but ultimately our beliefs should be based upon the Word (at least, that's what I believe). You wouldn't be of the belief that tradition trumps the Word would you?

Concerning me "feeling compelled to rescue ... and not having proper sympathy or empathy". I suppose if you're looking for some selfish motive on my part, you'll grasp at anything. And frankly, I don't understand what point you're trying to make with this statement.

Concerning what I've shared on Jewish Social life, what specifically are you asking for documentation on? Most of what I've shared can be found in any good biblical encyclopedia. Another very good book that I highly recommend for any serious student of this subject is Dr. David Instone-Brewer's book, "Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible; The Social and Literary Context."

Concerning my exegesis of scripture and not providing substancial support for such, which verses and statements are you refering to? If you're refering to "put away and marries another" being in the Subjunctive Mood in the Greek and thus meaning "put away in order to marry another", anyone who understands or can research NT Greek grammar can verify this interpretation. Some modern translations and commentaries even translate it that way.

Concerning your statement that the Jews did not practice polygamy during the time of Christ, again any good biblical encyclopedia will verify that they did practice polygamy in NT times. In fact, the Jews did not forbid polygamy as a people until the 1100's.

Not only that, but there was actually a debate among the 1st century rabbis concerning polygamy and monogamy. This debate was alluded to in the Mt.19 passage. I believe I referenced this in my other posts. If anyone is interested in it I can review it again though.

Concerning 1 Cor.7:27-28 it says, "Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed. Are you loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife; But even if you do marry, you have not sinned. And if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Nevertheless such will have trouble in the flesh, but I would spare you."

I readily admit that a word-for-word translation of this passage does not have the word re-marries in it, but the word re-marries is appropriate in a thought-for-thought translation.

First of all I believe that we can all agree on the meaning of "Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed." A thought-for-though translation of this would be "If you are married, do not seek a divorce."

Secondly, I believe most would readily agree based on the immediately preceeding phrase "seek not to be loosed" meaning divorce that "Are you loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife." means "If you are divorced, do not seek to get married." If the scripture stoped there, adherants of the traditional doctrine of MDR would rejoice, but it continues with "But if you do marry, you have not sinned." A good thought-for-thought translation of this would be "But it's not wrong for you to remarry."

So a good thought-for-thought translation of this scentence would be, "If you are divorced, don't seek to remarry; but if you do remarry, it's not wrong or sinful." But of course, some will refuse to admit this, and others are so bound by the traditional doctrine that it's impossible for them to understand this passage this way.

Paul writes all of this in the context of encouraging all singles (whether they are virgins, widowed, or divorced) to remain single because of the troubles of married life, the present struggles of the day, and so that they can more fully devote their lives to the Lord. But he is careful to say that it's not wrong for them to marry.

Concerning your apparent desire to see me burn in hell, well, I'm sorry you feel that way because Jesus did not come to condemn people to hell, but to seek and save those who are lost, even me. He even forgave those who were crucifying Him on the cross.

SCR, such flaming unreasonable judgemental personal attacks do no one any good and only make you look foolish. I'll gladly continue to study this issue with you and look at scripture and provide further documentation if you wish, but I won't get caught up in personal attacks. And if you continue to just attack me personally, I'll just ignore your posts.

I pray that God blesses you and brings more of His freedom into your life and mine! We serve an awesome and liberal (as in generous) God, freely giving salvation to those who will receive!

Sincerely,
your brother in Christ
Sherman Nobles

P.S. Before I submitted my book to be published, I gave it to many theologians and pastors from a wide range of denominations for them to critique and refute my work. I value what others have to say and I wanted to be sure that my exegesis of scripture was sound and my contextual analysis was thorough and well substantiated. Almost all ended up endorsing it. You can read some of their endorsements on Amazon if you wish.

 

[ShermanN]

Well, I don't know about you, but when I got married I made a promise TO my spouse, and BEFORE God that went something like this:

Even if, God forbid, Ben and I were to break up, I promised, with God as my witness, that I would remain true to him for life. That precludes me from getting remarried while both of us are alive.

You can spin the Gospel any way you like, you will still be wrong. And even if you were right, that would not change the promises that people make when they get married - to stay married "until death do us part" or "all the days of my life."

Wanna talk about bearing false witness???

Dear HelenofBritan,

I'm very glad that you're committed to your relationship, and I agree with you in prayer that your marriage endures and gets better with every day.

The Jews during biblical times had a much more practical and realistic understanding of marriage than what you've mentioned. Marriage was considered an important and even a sacred covenant before God, but they also understood that the marriage covenant had stipulations and expectations of both parties.

They also recognized that marriage covenants were only as strong as the character of the covenantors. In other words, the stronger the moral character is of the husband and wife, the stronger the covenant is. The weaker the moral character, the weaker the covenant.

I agree that marriages shouldn't be broken and do all I can to ensure that my marriage lasts and those of everyone I know. Sadly though, some marriages don't make it, ending in divorce. If they chose to remain single, that's fine; but many want to and need to marry; and if they do they have not sinned or done something wrong.

Concerning me "spinning the Gospel", I'm simply showing what the Bible teaches concerning MDR. If the word says that it's not wrong for a divorce' to remarry, then who am I to disregard that even though it's not traditional. And please, such personal attacks are not warranted.

Concerning what people say when they get married, and what they mean by what they say, these can be two very different things. Most people mean that they intend to stay with that person no matter what obsticles come their way. But they don't mean that they are willing to continue in that relationship if their partner goes of the deep end in adultery, physical, mental, or emotional abuse, or abandonment. And God knows what we mean by what we say.

I hope that your relationship never comes to divorce, or that of someone you love. Sadly, from what I've seen, those who hold a judgemental harsh line on MDR end up having it strike them in their own families; if they themselves do not suffer divorce, their children often do.

I do pray for better things for you and your loved ones though. And I encourage everyone to guard their marriages like they were priceless fragile China vases, for surely they are both priceless and fragile!

Sincerely,
your brother in Christ,
Sherman Nobles

 

[helenofbritain]

I hope that your relationship never comes to divorce, or that of someone you love. Sadly, from what I've seen, those who hold a judgemental harsh line on MDR end up having it strike them in their own families; if they themselves do not suffer divorce, their children often do.

I do pray for better things for you and your loved ones though. And I encourage everyone to guard their marriages like they were priceless fragile China vases, for surely they are both priceless and fragile!

From what I've seen, people who enter marriage considering it to be indissoluabe stay married a whole lot more than people who o in promising to stay together "as long as love lasts."

I thank you for your good wishes.

As-salaam-alaikum!

 

[~Nikki~]

But what if it is the marriage that dies? If the covenant is broken by one and cannot be "fixed" is the other doomed to a lonely life without the love of a spouse? Seems rather harsh to punish the one who has tried to remain faithful, has been walked out on or has been abused to the point that they can no longer live with the one they married.

I *know* it seems terribly harsh and unfair...and I know you say it's unfair to punish the one who has tried to remain faithful. However if the 'innocent' one gives up on the marriage and remarries, then they are also just as guilty of violating their marriage covenant are they not?

The Bible says that marriage is a covenant.

There is a BIG difference between a covenant and a contract.

A contract means that you can get out of it if the other party doesn't meet the conditions of the contract.

A covenant is not breakable until death. You can violate it but never break it. And also, a covenant is not dependent on the other person's behaviour. By this I mean that even if the covenant gets violated it still stands. It means that no matter what happens it's still in operation until one of the spouses dies. So there's no saying 'well they did such and such, so that frees me'. That would be a contract. A covenant says, 'even though you did such and such, I'm still here because I made a covenant'.

And marriage IS a covenant. The Bible says that.

And yes it's hard, but as HelenofBritain said, life is hard. God is more concerned with our holiness than with our happiness, though happiness and joy generally follows on after holiness. It's doing things our way and trying to pursue happiness that brings misery and confusion...but doing things God's way, though usually the harder path, is what brings long and lasting joy - and reward in heaven.

God bless you...

 

[JoshuaM]

i find it interesting that many people are coming here to argue against what the Bible says and push other agendas on us that agree and saying we are condemning for agreeing, etc, and taking many verses out of context, even going to the extent of saying that not all Jesus' teachings apply to real Christians, and when I leave valid information that exposes these hidden agendas and using the Bible wrongly etc, I am ignored, and this entire thread people are turning into something other than what it is. The fact remains, the woman at the well is explained as Jesus called her lovers husbands as it says there in the passage, and also marriage is not a game, and it is a commitment and grace thing God blesses us with that we should not take lightly as stated in Matthew and Mark. Also, Jesus did not teach his disciples the same things he explained to the Pharisees to tell us they don't apply to us. They apply to us, whether we admit it or are too stubborn to admit it.

 

[seanHayden]

Mr. Nobles,

I have read several of your posts on this site. Let me see if I can summarize the holy doctrine of Sherman Nobles in his own words:

• You state that you don't care if you give a liberal (read: broad, sloppy, loose) interpretation of scripture.
• You claim no motive to suppress the truth, yet receive financial benefit from book sales touting this ear-tickling new interpretation you have of scripture - after centuries of scholars have "unfortunately gotten it wrong."
• You are not divorced yourself, yet feel compelled to 'rescue' those with which you cannot possibly have proper sympathy or empathy - with this amazing message that, fortunately for you, you yourself do not need to bother your conscience with.
• You provide no documentation as to your background information on Jewish Social Life of the time.
• Your 'expert' (ex/eis)egesis refers to the passages you dispute, yet you provide no substantiation of your claims with conventional, accepted interpretation of passages elsewhere in the scripture except to, 'buy my book'.
• Your 'by the way' argument about polygamy is hogwash. Polygamy was practiced by the Greeks of the time, but not the Jews. Jesus never preached to the Greeks. The context of all of the passages you dispute are spoken to a Jewish audience.
• You have yet to respond to my contention that you grossly misinterpret 1Cor 7:27-28 by stating in your post that somehow you see the word, 're-married' in there.

I stand by what I say, Mr. Nobles. I hope the fire is exceedingly hot for profiteering sugar dealers such as yourself. The people that are dealing with these questions are struggling with moral truth and conscience. You are quite simply cashing in on their weakness with a clever s(p)in of your own.

scr

"I hope the fire is exceedingly hot for profiteering sugar dealers such as yourself."

I'm afraid to even say how angry this comment makes me. I'm afraid that my anger will only encourage you. I'm afraid you'll see my anger as justification. "See Lord, the truth does hurt!" I'm so sick of these comments, these attacks against people who disagree, "those wicked men who twist scripture.", bah! it's annoying.

 

[JoshuaM]

There are people twisting scripture in this thread. People that want to turn a simple discussion about Jesus' commands into a hate-inspired political debate. The words are in the Bible and it's true, many people do not accept the Bible fully. But that doesn't take away the importance of what is said, especially by Jesus. And taking verses out of context is never anything substantiating reasons to argue. But we get right down to it, and it that some people do not want to accept that Jesus strongly discourages divorce, and specifically says he doesn't have a problem with it under certain circumstances. Because of that, there are cases in which divorce and remarriage is okay. It is sad that people are offended that marriage is not a game or dating, that it is hard-work combined with grace and commitment. And it is often taken for granted how much of a blessing a marriage is because there are many people never married, who would like to get married. Nobody says marriage is easy, only that it is something God created. It is meant to honor God.

 

[seanHayden]

There are people twisting scripture in this thread. People that want to turn a simple discussion about Jesus' commands into a hate-inspired political debate. The words are in the Bible and it's true, many people do not accept the Bible fully. But that doesn't take away the importance of what is said, especially by Jesus. And taking verses out of context is never anything substantiating reasons to argue. But we get right down to it, and it that some people do not want to accept that Jesus strongly discourages divorce, and specifically says he doesn't have a problem with it under certain circumstances. Because of that, there are cases in which divorce and remarriage is okay. It is sad that people are offended that marriage is not a game or dating, that it is hard-work combined with grace and commitment. And it is often taken for granted how much of a blessing a marriage is because there are many people never married, who would like to get married. Nobody says marriage is easy, only that it is something God created. It is meant to honor God.

I haven't seen a single person treat marriage as a game. Is that a fear of yours?