Divorce

[Garyzenuf]

atheism is a belief system.

If it is, then at least it's based on facts.

*

 

[True_Blue]

If [atheism is a belief system], then at least it's based on facts.

*

So you think that atheism, the disbelief in an invisible, all-powerful entity that created the entire universe, is based on facts? What facts are those? Your statement reminds me of this quote from The Dark Knight:

"Let me get this straight: You think that your client, one of the wealthiest, most powerful men in the world, is secretly a vigilante who spends his nights beating criminals to a pulp with his bare hands. And your plan is to blackmail this person? Good luck." - Lucius Fox

 

[CreedIsChrist]

If it is, then at least it's based on facts.

*

And what presupposition do you base that one on?

 

[Garyzenuf]

And what presupposition do you base that one on?

I don't believe atheism is a 'belief system' as I'm only an atheist when I'm around Christians, sort of like I'm only "not" a stamp-collector when I'm around stamp-collectors. The facts are varied, but they're scientific in nature (as far as I'm able to understand them) and they would discount many of the claims made in the bible. (6000 year-old earth, the flood, the often talked about 'miracles' etc). The other 'facts' I suppose are more personal in nature; I've never noticed a difference in the outcome of my prayers when I've prayed to a generic god, as opposed to a specific God, I've never expierenced a miracle first hand or have seen evidence of called ones having happened somewhere else, and I've yet to see any evidence at all for a life after death, but I can understand how one could really really want it to be so.


Sorry I seemed to have russled a few peoples feathers, I guess I just don't have enough faith to be religious.

*

 

[Archer93]

What is marriage to you then?

What do you believe it is?

In order to determine if animals have marriage

To jump in- when I was little I had a Jack Russell terrier named Bran. When he was about 2, he met a female Jack Russell called Sally who belonged to a family who lived nearby. They grew very close- he would sneak out of the back garden and go to her house. We would find them, Bran rearing up on his hind legs, Sally looking down out of an open window, for all the world like a canine Romeo and Juliet. Sally was generally not in heat at the time.
Another time we found the pair of them trotting down the road back to my house, noses together, as if they were eloping. Again, Sally was NOT in heat at that time.
In Saxon culture, there were a number of forms of 'marriage, ranging from rape to the father of the bride giving a great feast for the couple. Elopement was one form as well.
I would say, for all intents and purposes, Sally and Bran were married.
Saxon marriages, btw, were about the couple declaring publically their union. There would probably be some sort of blessing from the Gods requested, but it wasn't the key part of the matter.
Marriage, as in the officially recognised union of two people, has not always been religious in nature.

To return to the OP- as far as I can see there's no scriptural backing for remarriage after divorce while the first spouse is still alive.
This was the reason for the abdication crisis in this country before WW2 (Mrs Simpson had been divorced TWICE. Just the once, and it might have been okay, as it was...) and why there was absolutely no question of Prince Charles marrying Camilla while Diana was still alive.

For those who aren't going to be the head of the church, however, there is more leeway. Not exactly scripturally backed, but then again, circumstances have changed, haven't they...?

 

[andross77]

I don't believe atheism is a 'belief system' as I'm only an atheist when I'm around Christians, sort of like I'm only "not" a stamp-collector when I'm around stamp-collectors. The facts are varied, but they're scientific in nature (as far as I'm able to understand them) and they would discount many of the claims made in the bible. (6000 year-old earth, the flood, the often talked about 'miracles' etc). The other 'facts' I suppose are more personal in nature; I've never noticed a difference in the outcome of my prayers when I've prayed to a generic god, as opposed to a specific God, I've never expierenced a miracle first hand or have seen evidence of called ones having happened somewhere else, and I've yet to see any evidence at all for a life after death, but I can understand how one could really really want it to be so.


Sorry I seemed to have russled a few peoples feathers, I guess I just don't have enough faith to be religious.

*

You never seen a baby being born or witnessed a cut on your hand heal up? Your hardness of heart is what will separate you from God eternally. Open your eyes and witness the miracle that creation is. Blessings.

 

[DD2008]

I agree with R.C. Sproul on this topic.

Grounds for Divorce: http://www.ligonier.org/questions_answered.php?question_id=65

Remarriage after Divorce: http://www.ligonier.org/questions_answered.php?question_id=66


I'm divorced and remarried.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

I don't believe atheism is a 'belief system' as I'm only an atheist when I'm around Christians, sort of like I'm only "not" a stamp-collector when I'm around stamp-collectors. The facts are varied, but they're scientific in nature (as far as I'm able to understand them) and they would discount many of the claims made in the bible. (6000 year-old earth, the flood, the often talked about 'miracles' etc). The other 'facts' I suppose are more personal in nature; I've never noticed a difference in the outcome of my prayers when I've prayed to a generic god, as opposed to a specific God, I've never expierenced a miracle first hand or have seen evidence of called ones having happened somewhere else, and I've yet to see any evidence at all for a life after death, but I can understand how one could really really want it to be so.


Sorry I seemed to have russled a few peoples feathers, I guess I just don't have enough faith to be religious.

*

that is fine. But I have a problem with you claiming that you believe "only the facts"..If you base facts on scientific evidence, you have a problem, considering science falls very short on many things(creation of the universe, the unmoved mover, the uniformity of nature, the uniformity of natural causes, the problem of infinity and the infinite regress, entropy, controlled chaos, the one and the many, the problem of matter coming from nothing, etc.

So in reality you believe in the cause and effect that you witness, and hence you box yourself. But without any understanding in its connection with God, providence, and the uniformity of nature you can't really claim you know "the facts" in its fullest truest sense. If you wanna learn more read about Van Tillian presuppositionalism to help in at least creating a presuppostional identity that you can claim truth is from.

presuppositionalists would ask for a justification for the belief in the uniformity of natural causes in a closed system, given the worldview of the opponent, attempting to show that such a belief presupposes the Christian worldview and is ultimately incompatible with the opposing worldview. Van Til summarized the main drive of his apologetic thus: "(T)he only proof for the existence of God is that without God you couldn't prove anything."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presuppositional_apologetics

 

[Garyzenuf]

You never seen a baby being born or witnessed a cut on your hand heal up? Your hardness of heart is what will separate you from God eternally. Open your eyes and witness the miracle that creation is. Blessings.

I watched both of my daughters being born, and as I used to help my father when he was a butcher, I am also well versed in watching my hands heal from knife wounds. As wonderful as the births were, and as remarkable as the bodies ability is to heal itself is, I see these as naturally accurring events as appossed to supernatural.

My heart is not hard, only skeptical, but thanks for the insult.

*

 

[andross77]

I watched both of my daughters being born, and as I used to help my father when he was a butcher, I am also well versed in watching my hands heal from knife wounds. As wonderful as the births were, and as remarkable as the bodies ability is to heal itself is, I see these as naturally accurring events as appossed to supernatural.

My heart is not hard, only skeptical, but thanks for the insult.

*

You just prove my point. To view the birth of a human being and NOT call it a miracle and be in awe of it, that is the definition of a hard heart. Romans tells us that God is not without a witness. You have creation around you CONSTANTLY singing praises to the Father. You choose to ignore it. I hope you have people in your life praying for a change of heart.

I was not insulting, just making statements. Telling you you have a hard heart is not an insult. It's a statement and warning. Thanks for twisting my words though.

 

[Belk]

You just prove my point. To view the birth of a human being and NOT call it a miracle and be in awe of it, that is the definition of a hard heart. Romans tells us that God is not without a witness. You have creation around you CONSTANTLY singing praises to the Father. You choose to ignore it. I hope you have people in your life praying for a change of heart.

I was not insulting, just making statements. Telling you you have a hard heart is not an insult. It's a statement and warning. Thanks for twisting my words though.

Miracle
1. an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause. 2. such an effect or event manifesting or considered as a work of God. 3. a wonder; marvel. 4. a wonderful or surpassing example of some quality: a miracle of modern acoustics.

I believe they working off definition 1 here.

 

[Garyzenuf]

that is fine. But I have a problem with you claiming that you believe "only the facts".

Actually I said 'based on facts' and I'm agnostic, so I don't believe only in the facts, I readily agree that there is more going on in this life than I am aware of, but the facts (such as they are) the probabilities to religion being 'correct', the supernaturalness of events as oppossed to a natural explanation, and my own life lessons have for good or bad pretty well made up my mind that the whole of religion maybe nothing more than humanities attempt to explain the unexplainable.

.If you base facts on scientific evidence, you have a problem, considering science falls very short on many things(creation of the universe, the unmoved mover, the uniformity of nature, the uniformity of natural causes, the problem of infinity and the infinite regress, entropy, controlled chaos, the one and the many, the problem of matter coming from nothing, etc.

And how would a God explain any of these things CiC? You can say God did them, but no one knows how, he just did, it's really no explanation for anything as far as I see it, it seems more like we can't figure out right now how some of these things came about, so we'll all just agree it was this God spoken of in an ancient holy book, and stop looking for any other less supernatural explanations. You may well be right in the end CiC, but what evidence I've been able to gleem in this world about the nature of a personal God would lead me to believe that as described, he does not exist.

"(T)he only proof for the existence of God is that without God you couldn't prove anything."

Which is as I just stated (for me at least) no proof at all.

*

 

[Open]

Hi DD 2008,
Thanks for your input. The first article was interesting.
If see this post, can you post the second link again please? Seems to load as an 'error page'.
Thanks