divorcing a bipolar

[janman345]

We are not worse off now, but more is definitely demanded of us, because we are now empowered in a way they weren't in the OT. We are now houses, or temples, of the Holy Spirit which enables us to walk in newness of life. The OT was in waiting, and while the law was harsh, we are expected to not need the law now, because we are expected to bear the fruit of the Holy Spirit, which needs no law. Jesus brought the very definition of marriage back from God's original intention. He stated that while Moses gave them permission to divorce at will, that was not how God originally intended it. His disciples asked who could live up to this, and Jesus stated that not everyone could. However, if you are His, and you are empowered by the Holy Spirit, you absolutely can. This doesn't mean perfection, but in many ways the bar has been raised for standards of character.

We are not more or less sinful than thoes before us, so what good does it do to belabor mathew 19 to the point that its a club. Our pastor did a sermon on a book of the NT way later than romans about it boiling down to doing your best.

That being said I dont think the bar has really been raised only shown us what the original intentions were, we obviously could not meet them then we are not going to be any different now, only now churchs and other christians use mathew 19 as a blugon to litterally beat into submission people that really should not stay married. If your first marriage is awesome that kudos to you but some people make mistakes in who they marry and they may need to divorce and clean up their lives, this process shoudl not put them in a no mans land of rigid legalism espeically if one is working towards joy AND whats right, not just living in "longsuffering" so they can boast that they "suffered to the end".

There is such a skewed emphisis put on the topics of divorce, sex and relationships that I had to leave my last church, the drama was unbelievable. The catholic church is so bad about it that they suggest that remarriage is perpetual adultry, I have news for them anyone who has had sex before marriage is married to that person and they are commiting perpetual adultry with their wife, but guess what thats ultra legalism and an irresponsible inturpretation of Jesus words.

Look back at the posts made to me on this one topic and you cant tell me that some christians are not way out of hand

 

[Created2Write]

We are not more or less sinful than thoes before us, so what good does it do to belabor mathew 19 to the point that its a club. Our pastor did a sermon on a book of the NT way later than romans about it boiling down to doing your best.

There's nothing in Matthew 19 that insinuates divorcing your spouse because of "unhappiness" is okay. All Jesus said was that some men would not be able to live up to the standard. That is NOT a condoning of divorce, though. The Pharisees had said that, judging by the standard, it would be better to not marry. Jesus said many wouldn't be able to keep to the standard, but it was not a justification for it. Not at all.

That being said I dont think the bar has really been raised only shown us what the original intentions were, we obviously could not meet them then we are not going to be any different now,

This is border lining as a potential attempt to justify sinful behavior. Will we sin? Yes. But as Christians we are to strive to be better. The Bible even says not to use Grace as a free ticket to partake in sin.

only now churchs and other christians use mathew 19 as a blugon to litterally beat into submission people that really should not stay married. If your first marriage is awesome that kudos to you but some people make mistakes in who they marry and they may need to divorce and clean up their lives,

This takes away from the original intention for marriage. EVERY couple has bad times. EVERY couple goes through phases of sadness. EVERY couple has trials that cause them question their decisions. That's what the marriage commitment is for. That's why we say vows. If you fall back on, "Well we're unhappy so we should just divorce", then you'll be divorcing every spouse you have, because you're never going to be 100% happy 100% of the time.

this process shoudl not put them in a no mans land of rigid legalism espeically if one is working towards joy AND whats right, not just living in "longsuffering" so they can boast that they "suffered to the end".

Whatever happened to WORKING on your marriage? Happiness in marriage takes work. That's why we say, "For better or worse, in sickness and in health"; marriage is not always going to be butterflies and sunshine with an angel chorus singing in the background. Sometimes there's great pain and suffering. If you just cop out and divorce because you're unhappy you've missed the point entirely.

There is such a skewed emphisis put on the topics of divorce, sex and relationships that I had to leave my last church, the drama was unbelievable. The catholic church is so bad about it that they suggest that remarriage is perpetual adultry,

That's because it IS under certain circumstances.

I have news for them anyone who has had sex before marriage is married to that person

Where is THIS biblical? Show me in the NT, please.

and they are commiting perpetual adultry with their wife, but guess what thats ultra legalism and an irresponsible inturpretation of Jesus words.

Thank the Lord God Almighty I don't serve your god. My God has common sense. Yours doesn't, apparently.

Look back at the posts made to me on this one topic and you cant tell me that some christians are not way out of hand

No idea what this last statement means, unless of course you're referring to yourself. Then I'd agree.

 

[janman345]

There's nothing in Matthew 19 that insinuates divorcing your spouse because of "unhappiness" is okay. All Jesus said was that some men would not be able to live up to the standard. That is NOT a condoning of divorce, though. The Pharisees had said that, judging by the standard, it would be better to not marry. Jesus said many wouldn't be able to keep to the standard, but it was not a justification for it. Not at all.



This is border lining as a potential attempt to justify sinful behavior. Will we sin? Yes. But as Christians we are to strive to be better. The Bible even says not to use Grace as a free ticket to partake in sin.



This takes away from the original intention for marriage. EVERY couple has bad times. EVERY couple goes through phases of sadness. EVERY couple has trials that cause them question their decisions. That's what the marriage commitment is for. That's why we say vows. If you fall back on, "Well we're unhappy so we should just divorce", then you'll be divorcing every spouse you have, because you're never going to be 100% happy 100% of the time.



Whatever happened to WORKING on your marriage? Happiness in marriage takes work. That's why we say, "For better or worse, in sickness and in health"; marriage is not always going to be butterflies and sunshine with an angel chorus singing in the background. Sometimes there's great pain and suffering. If you just cop out and divorce because you're unhappy you've missed the point entirely.



That's because it IS under certain circumstances.



Where is THIS biblical? Show me in the NT, please.



Thank the Lord God Almighty I don't serve your god. My God has common sense. Yours doesn't, apparently.



No idea what this last statement means, unless of course you're referring to yourself. Then I'd agree.

Hmm I think you just like to be contrary, from all your replys it feels like you are messing with me.

If you read in the OT sex = marriage and there is nothing in the NT to suggest otherwise. Also when you piece apart my post you take it out of context. I thought you were catholic for a min and had to go back and look at your icon because as far as I know only catholics believe that remarriage is an unpardonable sin (perpetual adultry). They dont like the OT scriptures that basicly stated that sex = marriage because then unless you married as a virgin you were committing perpetual adultry.

I agree you dont use grace to keep on sinning but I also dont believe in perpetual adultry. If Jesus admitted that most would not be able to keep that original idea of marriage then why would he make it the unpardonable sin? You seem to like to tip toe around the root of these issues and never really debate the overall point of my posts.

I agree marriage is not going to be a cake walk 100% of the time, but where do you draw the line (50, 40, 30%)? Lets say it was your best friend, if 90% of her married life sucked and every time you had coffee with her it was a drag and she was down and wanted to divorce but nebulus posts like yours was keeping her down, what would you say what would you do, you see you like to engage me with harsh legalism but how would you deal with the real human factors, after all Jesus died to save human beings not robots.

Would you just tell her oh im sorry but since he does not beat you or has not cheated on you then I guess you just have to suck it up until one of you dies to avoid the perpetual adultry (which insinuates its the unpardonable sin since it implys you would be using grace as an excuse to sin so the perpetual adultry argument is a control tactic) if/when you remarry, so anyways im getting a capachino how about you, do you realize how absurd this scenario is, she would probably not be your friend very long. I am also not going to reply to your posts very much longer if you keep posting in a condesending manner, I realize that im not perfect but I have also learned to flush out crafty biblical intrupretations that people use as control tactics, I once thought why am I even a christian these people are so harsh and legalistic and it kind of sucks (why would I want to do something that sucks my whole life), but Jesus stayed with me and I realized that I just need to read what is actually writen in context in its entirety and that I should not let my salvation be stolen by wolves in sheeps clothing in the church, you are shaping up to be one of them.

 

[Created2Write]

Hmm I think you just like to be contrary, from all your replys it feels like you are messing with me.

Nope. I'm not messing with you. I just disagree with absolutely everything you say.

If you read in the OT sex = marriage and there is nothing in the NT to suggest otherwise.

Actually, there is. The Bible talks about following the laws of our land. In this country you aren't recognized as a married couple until you have a legal marriage license signed by the judge or Pastor who married you, as well as two witnesses. In OT times, yes, it certainly looked like sex made them married. But Jews have their own marriage ceremonies; maybe the performed them and it just wasn't listed? The point is, any sex outside of a legal married couple is fornication. It doesn't make you married to God. Yet again, you're trying to justify sinful behavior.

Also when you piece apart my post you take it out of context.

I don't see that I have.

I thought you were catholic for a min and had to go back and look at your icon because as far as I know only catholics believe that remarriage is an unpardonable sin (perpetual adultry).

I don't believe remarried is an unpardonable sin. The Bible only mentions one unforgivable sin, and it's not remarriage. However, depending on the circumstances, I do believe remarriage can be adultery.

They dont like the OT scriptures that basicly stated that sex = marriage because then unless you married as a virgin you were committing perpetual adultry.

The fact that you believe to OT insinuates that sex equals marriage indicates that you've missed the point of those scriptures entirely. The fact you believe those scriptures apply today indicates it even more so.

I agree you dont use grace to keep on sinning but I also dont believe in perpetual adultry.

That's your belief. I don't think the Bible says anywhere that remarriage is an unforgivable sin, but I do know that even Jesus warned against it. Therefore, it must be important.

If Jesus admitted that most would not be able to keep that original idea of marriage then why would he make it the unpardonable sin?

It's not the unpardonable sin. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the unpardonable sin. It is the ONLY sin that is unforgivable. And Jesus didn't say MOST would not keep to the standard, he said MANY. That certainly doesn't mean most.

You seem to like to tip toe around the root of these issues and never really debate the overall point of my posts.

Okay. What is your overall point? How have I missed it? Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I've missed your points.

I agree marriage is not going to be a cake walk 100% of the time, but where do you draw the line (50, 40, 30%)?

That's a good question. The answer, for me, is that you don't. Ever. Unless a spouse commits adultery, or unless there is physical, mental or emotional abuse upon a spouse and/or children, I don't believe divorce should ever become an option. I think a temporary separation might be understandable, but not divorce.

Lets say it was your best friend, if 90% of her married life sucked and every time you had coffee with her it was a drag and she was down and wanted to divorce but nebulus posts like yours was keeping her down, what would you say what would you do,

This is entirely contingent on why her marriage sucks. If it sucks because her husband is a fool with money and goes out and gambles more than he has every night, or if he's a raging alcoholic, or if he's more caught up with work than he is working on their marriage, then I would suggest major counciling, even if only for her. If the marriage sucks because he's emotionally, mentally and/or physically abusive, then I would suggest she leave him. However, if the marriage sucks because she wants him to perform rim jobs, and he doesn't want to, I would tell her to stop acting like a spoiled child, and get over it. Rim jobs aren't necessary.

Of course, the marriage COULD suck because of HER. If that's the case, depending on what it is she does to make the marriage hell for herself, I'd suggest serious counciling for the both of them. It's really simple: either you can sit and complain about not being happy, or you can actually put some effort into working towards the happiness that's been lost.

you see you like to engage me with harsh legalism but how would you deal with the real human factors, after all Jesus died to save human beings not robots.

I just told you up above, what I would do. Here are a couple examples I'd like to share:

My mom worked with a gal who'd been dating this guy for about a year. They got engaged, and spent thousands(and I mean thousands) on their wedding. They flew over to Ireland and had the ceremony inside a castle, the theme was a modern Renaissance, they flew the entire wedding party, and all of the guests, over there, and then went on a massive, massive
European trip for their honeymoon.

Problems hit after a year, and they were so busy complaining about it, that they decided to call it quits without even trying to make it work. And all because "they weren't happy" anymore. That is a cop out.

Second example:

I used to babysit for a Christian couple. The mom's name was Andrea, the dad's was John. They both had come from previous marriages. (Her ex husband had been abusive, so had John's ex wife.) After about six year, Andrea became very depressed. She was a drama Queen to the extreme, and nagged him constantly. All she did was nag and complain about him and the things he did. For years this went on, and got worse. Finally, John had it and left her and their four kids. They divorced, and are both starting to date people.

Now, was it wrong for him to leave? Absolutely. Can I blame him? No. She's a weird woman. I'd even say she was more wrong than he was. But the point is, John didn't make any efforts to WORK on the marriage. He just left. No counciling, no prayer support from friends, he just left. I don't blame him for leaving, but he still should have gotten professional help, for the kids' sakes.

Will these people go to heaven when they die?(In the second example, that it.) I believe they will, yes. Divorce and remarriage are not unforgivable. They're not even always a sin. But John and Andrea still did wrong. Honestly, I think the lack of work on the marriage was more of a sin than the actual divorce.

Would you just tell her oh im sorry but since he does not beat you or has not cheated on you then I guess you just have to suck it up until one of you dies to avoid the perpetual adultry

No, I would not say that. The choices are not that bleak. I would ask her what it is she's unhappy with, and then respond accordingly.

(which insinuates its the unpardonable sin since it implys you would be using grace as an excuse to sin so the perpetual adultry argument is a control tactic)

This statement makes no sense.

if/when you remarry, so anyways im getting a capachino how about you, do you realize how absurd this scenario is, she would probably not be your friend very long.

You are making a lot of assumptions about me. I would not respond in the ways you've listed at all. In fact, you might be surprised what I'd tell my friends.

I am also not going to reply to your posts very much longer if you keep posting in a condesending manner,

My intentions are not to be condescending.

I realize that im not perfect but I have also learned to flush out crafty biblical intrupretations that people use as control tactics,

More control tactics; more interpretations; this is crazy. And all because we put more value on a spouse than we do rim jobs and oral sex?

I once thought why am I even a christian these people are so harsh and legalistic and it kind of sucks

Some are, yes. But just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're being legalistic. That's very harsh of YOU, don't you think?

(why would I want to do something that sucks my whole life)

Not everything in life is about happiness.

, but Jesus stayed with me and I realized that I just need to read what is actually writen in context in its entirety and that I should not let my salvation be stolen by wolves in sheeps clothing in the church,

But when what YOU read goes against other scriptures in the Bible, it gives cause for questioning. Moreover, when YOUR interpretation goes against the teachings of people who've spent decades studying the Bible in its original languages, it gives even more of a cause for questioning.

Also, if your salvation is such that can be stolen by people, then it's not much of a salvation. No one can steal your salvation away. That last sentence is unfounded.

you are shaping up to be one of them.

I'm sure I am. Your last sentence there is quite judgemental. Not very Christ-like, in my opinion. Now, I know I've asked you some difficult questions, but that's only because I do not find that your beliefs are anywhere close to Biblical at all. Your beliefs seem to contradict themselves, and I can not accept a belief that confuses me. God even says in His word that he is not the author of confusion.

I have not meant to offend you at all. My only intentions have been to try and better understand you. But your views have many, many holes in them, they contradict themselves, they go against the very nature of the core of scripture, and on top of everything, don't make a bit of sense. I can not accept them as truth for those reasons. You don't have respond to me if you don't want to. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other.

 

[bliz]

Some would see grounds for annulment IF you niece did not know he was bi polar at the time of the wedding or if she did not fully realize the implications of his having that disease.

 

[janman345]

Nope. I'm not messing with you. I just disagree with absolutely everything you say.



Actually, there is. The Bible talks about following the laws of our land. In this country you aren't recognized as a married couple until you have a legal marriage license signed by the judge or Pastor who married you, as well as two witnesses. In OT times, yes, it certainly looked like sex made them married. But Jews have their own marriage ceremonies; maybe the performed them and it just wasn't listed? The point is, any sex outside of a legal married couple is fornication. It doesn't make you married to God. Yet again, you're trying to justify sinful behavior.

Being legally married is not legally requried though, its optional so its not a law of the land. I personally feel OT is very relavant and to dismiss it is to take the bible out of context.

I don't see that I have.



I don't believe remarried is an unpardonable sin. The Bible only mentions one unforgivable sin, and it's not remarriage. However, depending on the circumstances, I do believe remarriage can be adultery.



The fact that you believe to OT insinuates that sex equals marriage indicates that you've missed the point of those scriptures entirely. The fact you believe those scriptures apply today indicates it even more so.



That's your belief. I don't think the Bible says anywhere that remarriage is an unforgivable sin, but I do know that even Jesus warned against it. Therefore, it must be important.



It's not the unpardonable sin. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the unpardonable sin. It is the ONLY sin that is unforgivable. And Jesus didn't say MOST would not keep to the standard, he said MANY. That certainly doesn't mean most.



Okay. What is your overall point? How have I missed it? Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I've missed your points.



That's a good question. The answer, for me, is that you don't. Ever. Unless a spouse commits adultery, or unless there is physical, mental or emotional abuse upon a spouse and/or children, I don't believe divorce should ever become an option. I think a temporary separation might be understandable, but not divorce.



This is entirely contingent on why her marriage sucks. If it sucks because her husband is a fool with money and goes out and gambles more than he has every night, or if he's a raging alcoholic, or if he's more caught up with work than he is working on their marriage, then I would suggest major counciling, even if only for her. If the marriage sucks because he's emotionally, mentally and/or physically abusive, then I would suggest she leave him. However, if the marriage sucks because she wants him to perform rim jobs, and he doesn't want to, I would tell her to stop acting like a spoiled child, and get over it. Rim jobs aren't necessary.

Of course, the marriage COULD suck because of HER. If that's the case, depending on what it is she does to make the marriage hell for herself, I'd suggest serious counciling for the both of them. It's really simple: either you can sit and complain about not being happy, or you can actually put some effort into working towards the happiness that's been lost.

Sometimes the other partner refuses to work with you and the situation can become bleak. If the counseling has failed would you just tell them to deal with it?

I just told you up above, what I would do. Here are a couple examples I'd like to share:

My mom worked with a gal who'd been dating this guy for about a year. They got engaged, and spent thousands(and I mean thousands) on their wedding. They flew over to Ireland and had the ceremony inside a castle, the theme was a modern Renaissance, they flew the entire wedding party, and all of the guests, over there, and then went on a massive, massive
European trip for their honeymoon.

Problems hit after a year, and they were so busy complaining about it, that they decided to call it quits without even trying to make it work. And all because "they weren't happy" anymore. That is a cop out.

Second example:

I used to babysit for a Christian couple. The mom's name was Andrea, the dad's was John. They both had come from previous marriages. (Her ex husband had been abusive, so had John's ex wife.) After about six year, Andrea became very depressed. She was a drama Queen to the extreme, and nagged him constantly. All she did was nag and complain about him and the things he did. For years this went on, and got worse. Finally, John had it and left her and their four kids. They divorced, and are both starting to date people.

Now, was it wrong for him to leave? Absolutely. Can I blame him? No. She's a weird woman. I'd even say she was more wrong than he was. But the point is, John didn't make any efforts to WORK on the marriage. He just left. No counciling, no prayer support from friends, he just left. I don't blame him for leaving, but he still should have gotten professional help, for the kids' sakes.

Will these people go to heaven when they die?(In the second example, that it.) I believe they will, yes. Divorce and remarriage are not unforgivable. They're not even always a sin. But John and Andrea still did wrong. Honestly, I think the lack of work on the marriage was more of a sin than the actual divorce.



No, I would not say that. The choices are not that bleak. I would ask her what it is she's unhappy with, and then respond accordingly.

How can you say in one breath that you dont blame them and in another say its wrong. If they had got counseling and all that and it still resulted in a divorce from your inturpretations of the bible your core assertions would not be any different because failed counseling in your book would not change it from unjustifiable to justifiable, so would it just change it from you not blaming him to you not blaming him less yet still not being "justified" to me that is pretty bleak.


This statement makes no sense. Hmm this is what I was most looking forward to you responding to, becusae cults do things like this to control people, when you use perpetual and sin in the same phrase it insinuates that you are abusing grace therefore morphing it into a form of an unforgivable sin even if you dont come right out and say it.



You are making a lot of assumptions about me. I would not respond in the ways you've listed at all. In fact, you might be surprised what I'd tell my friends.



My intentions are not to be condescending.



More control tactics; more interpretations; this is crazy. And all because we put more value on a spouse than we do rim jobs and oral sex?



Some are, yes. But just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're being legalistic. That's very harsh of YOU, don't you think?



Not everything in life is about happiness.



But when what YOU read goes against other scriptures in the Bible, it gives cause for questioning. Moreover, when YOUR interpretation goes against the teachings of people who've spent decades studying the Bible in its original languages, it gives even more of a cause for questioning.

Also, if your salvation is such that can be stolen by people, then it's not much of a salvation. No one can steal your salvation away. That last sentence is unfounded.

I agree with you here that was my bad.


I'm sure I am. Your last sentence there is quite judgemental. Not very Christ-like, in my opinion. Now, I know I've asked you some difficult questions, but that's only because I do not find that your beliefs are anywhere close to Biblical at all. Your beliefs seem to contradict themselves, and I can not accept a belief that confuses me. God even says in His word that he is not the author of confusion.

I have not meant to offend you at all. My only intentions have been to try and better understand you. But your views have many, many holes in them, they contradict themselves, they go against the very nature of the core of scripture, and on top of everything, don't make a bit of sense. I can not accept them as truth for those reasons. You don't have respond to me if you don't want to. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other.

In red and bold above.

 

[janman345]

Some would see grounds for annulment IF you niece did not know he was bi polar at the time of the wedding or if she did not fully realize the implications of his having that disease.

How long do you have before you can do an annulment, sometimes the implications of these issues dont manifest themselves for some time until the person is comfortable behaving poorly in front of you. Very few behave poorly in the courtship process or early part of the marriage becuase they know they will be dumped.

 

[Created2Write]

Being legally married is not legally requried though, its optional so its not a law of the land. I personally feel OT is very relavant and to dismiss it is to take the bible out of context.

To be viewed as an actual married couple in this country, YES, a legal marriage is required. That's why homosexuals are so anxious to legalize homosexuality, so that they can partake of the benefits of a legitimately married couple. DMV doesn't allow a woman to change her last name on her license without a marriage license. Judge's won't view a couple as married unless they have a marriage license. To be viewed as a married couple, a legal marriage is required. So, you're wrong.

And as to the OT, "dismissing it" is not what I said. Believing that it's laws are relevant to today is immature. Firstly, we have a different culture than they did then. Polygamy was accepted as the norm back then. Concubines were accepted as the norm back then. Stoning was accepted as the norm back then. Circumcision was accepted as the norm back then. The fact is those things aren't relevant in this society. Therefore, looking at what "marriage" was back then, and applying it to today, makes no sense whatsoever.

Sometimes the other partner refuses to work with you and the situation can become bleak. If the counseling has failed would you just tell them to deal with it?

This is very vague, but I will try my best to answer. If my friend is in a marriage that is not healthy, but does not involve abuse, neglect of her or their children, or adultery on either side; if they have gone to counciling and her husband refuses to put effort into the marriage, I would encourage her to seek personal council with someone other than the marriage councilor they went to. Honestly, if he is THAT dead to their marriage, I would suspect something else was going on, and she should know what to do. If the only thing going on was that he was not interested in having a healthy relationship, then I would encourage her to pray. It's a tough decision, one that can't be made lightly.

Would divorce be justified in that instance? Maybe. Again, it would depend on the details.

How can you say in one breath that you dont blame them and in another say its wrong.

Understanding WHY he would make that decision is NOT the same as condoning that decision.

If they had got counseling and all that and it still resulted in a divorce from your inturpretations of the bible your core assertions would not be any different because failed counseling in your book would not change it from unjustifiable to justifiable,

WHY did the counciling fail? Failed counciling does not merit a divorce, necessarily.

so would it just change it from you not blaming him to you not blaming him less yet still not being "justified" to me that is pretty bleak.

Look, I don't make the rules. God does. If you have a problem with it, take it up with Him. All I can say is that I do not find Biblical grounds for divorcing over a lack of happiness, nor of failed counciling. If someone divorces because they're unhappy, will they go to hell? If they're saved, no. I do not believe divorce constitutes a loss of salvation. But that doesn't mean it isn't a sin.

This statement makes no sense.

Hmm this is what I was most looking forward to you responding to, becusae cults do things like this to control people, when you use perpetual and sin in the same phrase it insinuates that you are abusing grace therefore morphing it into a form of an unforgivable sin even if you dont come right out and say it.

Okay....perhaps if you made your points a little clearer, I could respond? I'm still not sure what you're saying here. I don't believe divorce is ALWAYS a sin or ALWAYS adultery. There are cases when it's not. Divorce certainly isn't an unforgivable sin. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the only unforgivable sin. However, divorcing someone because you're no longer happy, is still a sin, it's not just unforgivable.

 

[bliz]

How long do you have before you can do an annulment, sometimes the implications of these issues dont manifest themselves for some time until the person is comfortable behaving poorly in front of you. Very few behave poorly in the courtship process or early part of the marriage becuase they know they will be dumped.

True - which, in some minds, leaves room for annulment. If a union was not made, two people with like goals and values, then it can be erased. There is a long history of abuse of this option - "After 20 years of marriage and 6 children I realize I never knew my spouse!" - especially in the USA, many still see it as a viable option.

 

[janman345]

To be viewed as an actual married couple in this country, YES, a legal marriage is required. That's why homosexuals are so anxious to legalize homosexuality, so that they can partake of the benefits of a legitimately married couple. DMV doesn't allow a woman to change her last name on her license without a marriage license. Judge's won't view a couple as married unless they have a marriage license. To be viewed as a married couple, a legal marriage is required. So, you're wrong.

And as to the OT, "dismissing it" is not what I said. Believing that it's laws are relevant to today is immature. Firstly, we have a different culture than they did then. Polygamy was accepted as the norm back then. Concubines were accepted as the norm back then. Stoning was accepted as the norm back then. Circumcision was accepted as the norm back then. The fact is those things aren't relevant in this society. Therefore, looking at what "marriage" was back then, and applying it to today, makes no sense whatsoever.

What im saying is you dont have to have a "marriage licence" to live as a married couple in the USA, you may not get some tax benifits but thats about it and one could still legally change there name without a marriage licence, people do it all the time.

[/b]

This is very vague, but I will try my best to answer. If my friend is in a marriage that is not healthy, but does not involve abuse, neglect of her or their children, or adultery on either side; if they have gone to counciling and her husband refuses to put effort into the marriage, I would encourage her to seek personal council with someone other than the marriage councilor they went to. Honestly, if he is THAT dead to their marriage, I would suspect something else was going on, and she should know what to do. If the only thing going on was that he was not interested in having a healthy relationship, then I would encourage her to pray. It's a tough decision, one that can't be made lightly.

Would divorce be justified in that instance? Maybe. Again, it would depend on the details.



[/b]Understanding WHY he would make that decision is NOT the same as condoning that decision.

I think its kind a crumby deal that OT people could have 100 wives and now we have to jump through our own back sides to get rid of one quarlsome wife if it does not meet some legalistic, narrowly defined set of critera as defined by the opinion of others (because the bible is not super clear) then its sin? the fact that polygamy was never condemnd in the OT says alot.

WHY did the counciling fail? Failed counciling does not merit a divorce, necessarily.

Does it matter why it failed, I would have a hard time suggesting to someone they have to live such a life when soloman had hundreds of wifes, in fact when a wife was quarlsome he just put her and her kids in another house and locked them up and had 99 other wives to sleep with that were amicable to him, and now because of really loose intrupretation of ONE scripture some must live there lives in a miserable existance, hmm sounds like a cult to me. If you look at the context of Jesus speach to the pharisies they were trying to trap him logiclly and he was putting them in their place becuase they wanted to divorce over burned toast (my opinion based on the circumstances of his speach). It just cant be validated to suggest such suffereing over nothing but church opinion, in fact its down right foolishness, you only have one life to live you might as well live as close as you can to soloman or king david, they were in fact men of God, its pretty self righous of some christians to think that we are up on a raised bar all high and mighty above david or soloman because we tolerate stuff in marriage that was never meant to be tolerated nor was in in OT times.

Look, I don't make the rules. God does. If you have a problem with it, take it up with Him. All I can say is that I do not find Biblical grounds for divorcing over a lack of happiness, nor of failed counciling. If someone divorces because they're unhappy, will they go to hell? If they're saved, no. I do not believe divorce constitutes a loss of salvation. But that doesn't mean it isn't a sin.



Okay....perhaps if you made your points a little clearer, I could respond? I'm still not sure what you're saying here. I don't believe divorce is ALWAYS a sin or ALWAYS adultery. There are cases when it's not. Divorce certainly isn't an unforgivable sin. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the only unforgivable sin. However, divorcing someone because you're no longer happy, is still a sin, it's not just unforgivable.

I thought my point was clear, when you say something is "perpetual sin" it is phycologcily implying that you are using grace to justify sin because no second married couple is going to get on their knees and ask for forgivness for every sexual act they engage in because its their second marriage and the catholic church (or churchs that act like catholics) did not sanction their first divorce.

I guess if Math 19 is to be taken litterally then most of use are pretty much screwed but in a double standard kind of way because soloman got to have hundreds of wives. I personally dont think it is to be taken litterally because it would be both cruel and a double standard and God is neither. It may not have been the original intention but neither was eve eatting the apple but it happened.

If something is either sin or not sin then it has to consistantly be sin from OT to NT because God does not change, the atonement Jesus made was that we no longer had to sacrafice animals and the gospel was extended significantly more to gentiles but to suggest that new marriage laws and sins have been introduced would suggest that God adds different behaviors to the sin list over time and that is inconsistant with Gods charachter.

 

[Created2Write]

What im saying is you dont have to have a "marriage licence" to live as a married couple in the USA, you may not get some tax benifits but thats about it and one could still legally change there name without a marriage licence, people do it all the time.

To be RECOGNIZED as a legal couple, you MUST have a marriage license. Sure, you can live together and "say" that you're married, but no legal system, no judge, no DMV, no court is going to view you as such. It goes beyond just taxes. And, by the way, your view on sex equaling marriage is not biblical. Fornication means sex outside of the bonds of marriage. So, if a couple has sex and thus are "married" fornication couldn't exist, accept in cases of adultery. But fornication doesn't just encompass adultery, but rather all sex outside of marriage. And fornication is listed in the NT many times as a sin, SEPARATE from adultery. Hence, having sex CAN NOT equal marriage. Period.

I think its kind a crumby deal that OT people could have 100 wives and now we have to jump through our own back sides to get rid of one quarlsome wife if it does not meet some legalistic, narrowly defined set of critera as defined by the opinion of others (because the bible is not super clear) then its sin? the fact that polygamy was never condemnd in the OT says alot.

Good grief. You missed my entire point. If all you're going to do is ignore my points and bring up things that don't matter, I won't keep talking to you. I didn't mention polygamy to debate it, I mentioned it to point out the DIFFERENCES between THEN and NOW. Polygamy doesn't apply to our society these days, nor does stoning, or circumcision, or offering sacrifices for our sins, or not eating pork, or the bride price; ALL of those things were mandatory in the OT law, and they are not relevant to today. THAT is my point. So, looking at what marriage was in the OT, and trying to apply it to today, makes no sense. Period.

Does it matter why it failed, I would have a hard time suggesting to someone they have to live such a life when soloman had hundreds of wifes, in fact when a wife was quarlsome he just put her and her kids in another house and locked them up and had 99 other wives to sleep with that were amicable to him,

Oh really? He did that, did he? By all means, show me where in the OT it says this. I am very curious to know where this is mentioned in the Bible.

and now because of really loose intrupretation of ONE scripture some must live there lives in a miserable existance,

I'm assuming you mean Matthew 5? That is most difficult to find a "loose" interpretation, as they were Jesus' words exactly, and very clear cut.

hmm sounds like a cult to me. If you look at the context of Jesus speach to the pharisies they were trying to trap him logiclly and he was putting them in their place becuase they wanted to divorce over burned toast (my opinion based on the circumstances of his speach).

So burnt toast is frivolous, but "happiness" isn't? Right.

It just cant be validated to suggest such suffereing over nothing but church opinion, in fact its down right foolishness, you only have one life to live you might as well live as close as you can to soloman or king david,

So lusting after another man's wife, and murdering said man to take a woman who doesn't belong to you, is what we should strive after? David did that because he lusted after Bathsheba; he did it out of a fleshly desire for "happiness". Sin, often, makes us happy. "We only have one life to live" is used so often as a justification for sin, and pursuing things that are not of God. I can not accept what you say, as there is no Biblical support of it whatsoever.

they were in fact men of God, its pretty self righous of some christians to think that we are up on a raised bar all high and mighty above david or soloman because we tolerate stuff in marriage that was never meant to be tolerated nor was in in OT times.

This statement is ridiculous, and proves to me that you simply don't get it. Or perhaps you refuse to get it. Either way, it's clear to me that you just want to do what you want to do, and will jump at every opportunity to find ANY scripture to back your beliefs. But you contradict yourself so much, as well as go against the very core of Jesus' ministry, that I simply must disagree. There is no truth in what you say. None at all. Even Jesus' words go against yours.

I thought my point was clear, when you say something is "perpetual sin" it is phycologcily implying that you are using grace to justify sin because no second married couple is going to get on their knees and ask for forgivness for every sexual act they engage in because its their second marriage and the catholic church (or churchs that act like catholics) did not sanction their first divorce.

Okay. I don't believe that divorce and remarriage are unforgivable. I don't believe that all divorce and all remarriage are sins. Many are though. Not unforgivable, but many are still sin.

I guess if Math 19 is to be taken litterally then most of use are pretty much screwed but in a double standard kind of way because soloman got to have hundreds of wives.

Just because Solomon "got to" do something, doesn't mean it was the way God intended things to be. The NT (in 1 Cor. 7 I believe) says that each man is to have his own WIFE(as in one) and each wife is to have her own HUSBAND(as in one.) When God made Adam, he didn't create twelve women for him, he created ONE; Eve. God's intention for marriage was for one man to marry one wife. I do not believe he condones polygamy. Not at all. Society was very, very different back then, but that doesn't mean the choices they made were of God.

I personally dont think it is to be taken litterally because it would be both cruel and a double standard and God is neither.

It's not a double standard. It's black and white. Right and wrong.

It may not have been the original intention but neither was eve eatting the apple but it happened.

Again, you are trying to justify sinful behavior. Just because she sinned, doesn't mean we should just accept that she sinned, and go on sinning ourselves. As Christians we are to strive to be BETTER. We aren't to just get as much fun and happiness as we can before we die, and hope Jesus forgives us of all the sin we committed. We are to live a life of morals, values; we are to be DIFFERENT than those in the world. Which is why we should take Jesus' commands literally.

If something is either sin or not sin then it has to consistantly be sin from OT to NT because God does not change, the atonement Jesus made was that we no longer had to sacrafice animals and the gospel was extended significantly more to gentiles but to suggest that new marriage laws and sins have been introduced would suggest that God adds different behaviors to the sin list over time and that is inconsistant with Gods charachter.

OR it could mean that Moses gave a law that went against God's original design? Moses was a human. Just because he wrote it, doesn't mean it's what God wanted. And it obviously wasn't, since Jesus CORRECTED that law when the Pharisees came to question Him. We know that many things Paul wrote were his own opinion, as he himself said so. I would much rather take Jesus' words, than Moses' or Paul's.

The bottom line is that you can not back your statements with scripture. Hence, I can not and will not agree or accept them.

 

[janman345]

[/b]To be RECOGNIZED as a legal couple, you MUST have a marriage license. Sure, you can live together and "say" that you're married, but no legal system, no judge, no DMV, no court is going to view you as such. It goes beyond just taxes. And, by the way, your view on sex equaling marriage is not biblical. Fornication means sex outside of the bonds of marriage. So, if a couple has sex and thus are "married" fornication couldn't exist, accept in cases of adultery. But fornication doesn't just encompass adultery, but rather all sex outside of marriage. And fornication is listed in the NT many times as a sin, SEPARATE from adultery. Hence, having sex CAN NOT equal marriage. Period.



[/b]Good grief. You missed my entire point. If all you're going to do is ignore my points and bring up things that don't matter, I won't keep talking to you. I didn't mention polygamy to debate it, I mentioned it to point out the DIFFERENCES between THEN and NOW. Polygamy doesn't apply to our society these days, nor does stoning, or circumcision, or offering sacrifices for our sins, or not eating pork, or the bride price; ALL of those things were mandatory in the OT law, and they are not relevant to today. THAT is my point. So, looking at what marriage was in the OT, and trying to apply it to today, makes no sense. Period.



[/b]Oh really? He did that, did he? By all means, show me where in the OT it says this. I am very curious to know where this is mentioned in the Bible.



I'm assuming you mean Matthew 5? That is most difficult to find a "loose" interpretation, as they were Jesus' words exactly, and very clear cut.



So burnt toast is frivolous, but "happiness" isn't? Right.



So lusting after another man's wife, and murdering said man to take a woman who doesn't belong to you, is what we should strive after? David did that because he lusted after Bathsheba; he did it out of a fleshly desire for "happiness". Sin, often, makes us happy. "We only have one life to live" is used so often as a justification for sin, and pursuing things that are not of God. I can not accept what you say, as there is no Biblical support of it whatsoever.



This statement is ridiculous, and proves to me that you simply don't get it. Or perhaps you refuse to get it. Either way, it's clear to me that you just want to do what you want to do, and will jump at every opportunity to find ANY scripture to back your beliefs. But you contradict yourself so much, as well as go against the very core of Jesus' ministry, that I simply must disagree. There is no truth in what you say. None at all. Even Jesus' words go against yours.



Okay. I don't believe that divorce and remarriage are unforgivable. I don't believe that all divorce and all remarriage are sins. Many are though. Not unforgivable, but many are still sin.



Just because Solomon "got to" do something, doesn't mean it was the way God intended things to be. The NT (in 1 Cor. 7 I believe) says that each man is to have his own WIFE(as in one) and each wife is to have her own HUSBAND(as in one.) When God made Adam, he didn't create twelve women for him, he created ONE; Eve. God's intention for marriage was for one man to marry one wife. I do not believe he condones polygamy. Not at all. Society was very, very different back then, but that doesn't mean the choices they made were of God.



It's not a double standard. It's black and white. Right and wrong.



Again, you are trying to justify sinful behavior. Just because she sinned, doesn't mean we should just accept that she sinned, and go on sinning ourselves. As Christians we are to strive to be BETTER. We aren't to just get as much fun and happiness as we can before we die, and hope Jesus forgives us of all the sin we committed. We are to live a life of morals, values; we are to be DIFFERENT than those in the world. Which is why we should take Jesus' commands literally.



OR it could mean that Moses gave a law that went against God's original design? Moses was a human. Just because he wrote it, doesn't mean it's what God wanted. And it obviously wasn't, since Jesus CORRECTED that law when the Pharisees came to question Him. We know that many things Paul wrote were his own opinion, as he himself said so. I would much rather take Jesus' words, than Moses' or Paul's.

The bottom line is that you can not back your statements with scripture. Hence, I can not and will not agree or accept them.

I am not going to go fish for you, you have a bible. King david did not sin until he went after another mans wife, there is no condemnation for all the wives and concubines he already had.

As far as the "perpetual sin" argument I am refering to thoes divorces that you would deem to be invalid (everyone gets it that there are SOME divorces that the catholic church condones, I am refering to the ones that they would not) does that mean that each sexual act with their new parner they should feel shame and have to repent (or just the first act as that would break the marriage), that is absurd but if we are to take Jesus statement in mathew litterally thats what it would mean and not only would that be cruel but inconsistant with what was allowed during OT times. Just because you dont like the OT does not mean that they are invalid (other than animal sacrifices). I dont think Jesus meant for that single verse to be blow so far out of proportion as to use it as a club to beat people up over which is what the catholic church does, people can be excommunicated if they did not get an "approved" divorce and they remarry but of course if they remarry then in the eyes of the catholic church wouldent that be adultry so the marriage would be over anyways. When you bring real life situations and circumstances into the mix the entire philosophy goes down the toilet because it does not work.

It is a shame that mathew 5 or 19 or which ever it is was not more carefully recorded (I am guessing there was more to the discussion than what was writen down), either that or we are just all screwed (well at least anyone that has been remarried for "invalid" reasons).

 

[Created2Write]

I am not going to go fish for you, you have a bible.

That's what I thought.

King david did not sin until he went after another mans wife, there is no condemnation for all the wives and concubines he already had.

And you know this....how? I know you don't want to "fish for me", but if you can't provide the scriptural evidence to back your posts, then I have nothing further to say.

As far as the "perpetual sin" argument I am refering to thoes divorces that you would deem to be invalid (everyone gets it that there are SOME divorces that the catholic church condones, I am refering to the ones that they would not) does that mean that each sexual act with their new parner they should feel shame and have to repent (or just the first act as that would break the marriage),

This is what Jesus said. So my answer would be that, yes, the sexual acts within that marriage could be adultery. Only God would know for sure, as we are not to cast judgements. However if Jesus said it(which He did) then I think it's safe to say that's what He meant.

that is absurd but if we are to take Jesus statement in mathew litterally thats what it would mean and not only would that be cruel but inconsistant with what was allowed during OT times.

Just because it was "allowed" doesn't mean it's what God wanted. Why do you think Jesus made the correction in the first place? Because Moses gave no indications as to what merited a divorce. Obviously what Moses wrote wasn't what God originally intended, hence Jesus' correction. You might find that cruel, I do not. I'm sure people who've divorced over frivolous reasons would agree with YOU. Doesn't mean they're right, especially since Jesus' own words go against it.

Just because you dont like the OT does not mean that they are invalid (other than animal sacrifices).

I love the OT. Some of my favorite books are Psalm and Proverbs. But that doesn't mean the laws are to be applied to today. And why should the animal sacrifices be left out? If consistency is what you want, then all of the laws should be applied to today. We should still stone people if they commit adultery. We should still offer sacrifices for our sins. We should honor the feasts. Women should cover their heads. Men should be circumcised. You can't pick and choose which laws apply.

I dont think Jesus meant for that single verse to be blow so far out of proportion as to use it as a club to beat people up over which is what the catholic church does, people can be excommunicated if they did not get an "approved" divorce and they remarry but of course if they remarry then in the eyes of the catholic church wouldent that be adultry so the marriage would be over anyways.

I am not Catholic, so I can't comment as to why they believe what they do. I do not believe that divorce and remarriage are unforgivable. I do believe that divorce can be a sin, as can remarriage. Not unforgivable(how many times do I have to say this? I'm beginning to think you're not listening.), but still a sin.

When you bring real life situations and circumstances into the mix the entire philosophy goes down the toilet because it does not work.

Does it really? Fascinating.

It is a shame that mathew 5 or 19 or which ever it is was not more carefully recorded (I am guessing there was more to the discussion than what was writen down),

This is rather ridiculous. All you have are opinions and guesses. I am having a hard time taking you seriously, because this is just silly. If you don't have a case that can be backed by scripture, why debate it?

either that or we are just all screwed (well at least anyone that has been remarried for "invalid" reasons).

Divorce and remarriage are not unforgivable. Period. I doubt they would keep you out of heaven. But denying that they're sins is foolish. Going to the lengths you have to try and justify it is foolish. Jesus' statement is very clear. If you can't accept His own words as truth, then nothing anyone says is going to get through to you.

I have provided scripture to back my beliefs. You haven't. You've even refused to offer scripture when I asked for it, which proves to me you're just spouting off whatever sounds good. You don't have scriptural support. None.

Once again, I rest my case.

 

[janman345]

I offered scripture in a PM to you. Never the less what is written is what is written and what it boils down to is I have failures in my life and all we can do is move forward the best we can. To microanalyse this to the nth degree is not doing any good.

I guess thats why its called grace because there is something writen we are all guilty of, otherwise Jesus would not have had to die.

 

[JanniGirl]

You obviously feel the need to try to justify the decisions you've made in the past that contradict what the Bible says. God hates Divorce. This is true. Divorce for anything other than adultery is sin. True. God also forgives the repentant sinner. That's the message that Jesus brought to us. All you have to do is humble yourself enough to admit that divorcing your ex-wife because she wouldn't perform sexual tricks for you was sin. Sin. Then ask forgiveness for that sin from God. He'll grant you forgiveness if you believe in him. After that, move on, and realize that the sin of divorce does not hallmark your life. Try to be the best husband that you can to your current wife. Don't sin in that way again (divorcing due to perceived defects of your spouse). That's it. It's not complicated.

BTW -- I'm divorced and remarried (my ex-husband divorced me because he was "unhappy" -- poor guy appears to still be unhappy, this time with a live-in girlfriend instead of his wife of 16 years and mother of his children (that'd be me). I'm remarried and though that was a sin (sorry, but it was) I've been the best wife to my second husband that I can be (just as I was to my first husband).

 

[janman345]

You obviously feel the need to try to justify the decisions you've made in the past that contradict what the Bible says. God hates Divorce. This is true. Divorce for anything other than adultery is sin. True. God also forgives the repentant sinner. That's the message that Jesus brought to us. All you have to do is humble yourself enough to admit that divorcing your ex-wife because she wouldn't perform sexual tricks for you was sin. Sin. Then ask forgiveness for that sin from God. He'll grant you forgiveness if you believe in him. After that, move on, and realize that the sin of divorce does not hallmark your life. Try to be the best husband that you can to your current wife. Don't sin in that way again (divorcing due to perceived defects of your spouse). That's it. It's not complicated.

BTW -- I'm divorced and remarried (my ex-husband divorced me because he was "unhappy" -- poor guy appears to still be unhappy, this time with a live-in girlfriend instead of his wife of 16 years and mother of his children (that'd be me). I'm remarried and though that was a sin (sorry, but it was) I've been the best wife to my second husband that I can be (just as I was to my first husband).

Good point you dont want it to be the hallmark of your life, whats in the past is in the past. Ultimatly my ex left me becasue she was ragefull towards me because I was unhappy, I guess my unhappyness made her unhappy so she left.

My marriage now is much better.

 

[EverlastingBond]

Was she aware of the illness before the marriage? By my conscience, ignorant of that fact
does not even provide for a divorce. So they have no scripturally justifiable basis for divorce ...in my own opinion.