Is divorce a sin?

[msjones21]

I think some people need to read the book Broken and Battered: A Way Out for the Abused Woman. It is a Christian book and it shows you that the Scriptures can be misinterpreted, especially by people who are always looking to nitpick and make abused women feel like they didn't do enough to make their marriage work. One of the women in the book, whose story is told from her perspective, was abused by her husband (who was also a pastor) and she divorced him and remarried later in life. The other woman was almost killed by her husband and her church turned a blind eye.

How nauseating it is that the church condemns the woman when she divorces an abusive husband! The church takes pity on the abuser while the woman is scorned for being the one who wasn't "good enough" to make her marriage work. And to whoever it was that said that it is better to be killed and go home to the Lord than to violate God's commands needs to get a bit deeper into the Scriptures. I would rather be safe than be a Pharisee.

 

[SirKenin]

Yeah ......we know the story.......everythings ALWAYS ''out of context'' when the barrel is pointing at you, isnt it

Cute, son, but the barrel isn't pointing at me here.

 

[Follower of Christ]

Cute, son, but the barrel isn't pointing at me here.

Sure it is.........youre just too blind and arrogant to see it......

I told you......Ive dealt with your arrogance before.
I know what you do, how you act, what your doctrine teaches.


And again, out of controlling ME, i find myself in a position to not make that list.

I really hate this.........I can show you are nothing but pompous, arrogant, self-righteous Pharisee............but in order to do so, I feel like i have to drag myself to your level of unforgivness and pride........

I have walked away from that as much as I am able to do.

Ill give YOU something....and again, go ahead and jabber on about how OUT OF CONTEXT it is..........we all expect that from your type of ''brother''.......
We know you can use scripture to judge others but not yourself........

Some folks here have divorced for some reason other than what Jesus said was allowed.............Jesus never approached the topic of abuse among MANY others ............YOU seem to set YOU up as judge, jury and executioner..........you are not.


I find it odd that Jesus defended David here.......

But He said to them, Have you not read what David did, when he and those with him hungered? How he entered into the house of God, and he ate the Loaves of the Presentation, which it was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those with him, but for the priests only?
(Mat 12:3-4)

Mat 12:3 - Have ye not read what David did - And necessity was a sufficient plea for his transgressing the law in a higher instance. -Wesley

You can whine ''OUT OF CONTEXT'' till youre blue in the face if you please.
But even our Lord showed that there are sometimes cases where the Law is broken and CAN and WILL be forgiven..........

You judge all you want to ''brother''..........

I pray that these folks, especially these young women here, see thru your tripe and leave this forum where they get advise, not from folks who read and understand the WHOLE bible, but from internet whackos with nothing better to do than to pass judgement on our Lords precious children.


Remember this while you judge............it will be judged back to YOU as YOU judge others.............is THAT scriptural ?

and remember Jesus Himself shows that sometimes we break the Law and eat forbidden bread because we hunger.............but of course YOU are beyond that I take it.........

But He said to them, Have you not read what David did, when he and those with him hungered? How he entered into the house of God, and he ate the Loaves of the Presentation, which it was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those with him, but for the priests only?
(Mat 12:3-4)

Mat 12:3 - Have ye not read what David did - And necessity was a sufficient plea for his transgressing the law in a higher instance. -Wesley

Read that passage..........the Pharisees were doing the SAME thing YOU are.
Using the Law and the bible to condemn only instead of to uplift and direct.
Im not just talking about THIS thread........but the others as well......

BUT......something tells me that you and a couple other judges I could name here in this part of the forum will just blow past with your OUT OF CONTEXT trash..........

The disciples were trangressing the Law.........the Pharisees knew and so did Jesus...........and His defense of them was David example of the Showbread.....It was not lawful for David to eat..........but of ''necessity'' he took it.........

Some folks divorce.........not within the requirement laid out..........but of necessity.........
Whine Out of Context all you please............that fact that Christ defended Davids disobedience to the law out of ''necessity'' shows the even He knew there were times when we do what we can with what we have and we call on God to help and forgive

I take that some here are beyond that......well, in YOUR minds your are......I see it as you havent grown to be a mature man yet in Christ....
Some here can only see the surface of scripture, just as the Pharisees.
They only see the letter of the Law... and nothing beyond.

But if you had known what this is, "I desire mercy and not sacrifice," you would not have condemned those who are not guilty.
(Mat 12:7)

 

[Follower of Christ]

.

 

[Salsa_1960]

A person very close to me was shot by her husband. They were divorced soon after. They both belonged to the Catholic church. This was in the 1960s. As I understand it, she was at that time told that she would not be able to ever be buried in a Catholic cemetary because she was now divorced.

Views within the Catholic church have since changed and she was indeed able to be buried in a Catholic cemetary after all when she died about 25 years later, but this is the same silly reasoning that I am seeing on some of the posts in this thread. Her life was in danger and she needed to get out.

 

[SirKenin]

FoC, you went through a lot of effort for nothing.

You're out of context reference was in regards to giving away your possessions. It had nothing to do with David. Plus, David turned from his sins when he realized he had done wrong, and he was forgiven although he had to pay the price. Another issue you've failed to address.

Anyways, I'm not saying divorce is bad. I've never said that. Quite the opposite. Get out of a dangerous situation. There's no question that you have to do that. What I'm saying is that the Bible's issue is with remarriage, and you can't get around that. It came straight from Jesus' mouth in response to the Pharisees

edit: I guess what I'm saying is that you are deliberately misleading people, giving them a false sense of security, all the while calling me a Pharisee for reiterating the words Jesus spoke, and falsely accusing me of being judgemental. I'm not sure which is worse.

 

[Follower of Christ]

FoC, you went through a lot of effort for nothing.

You're out of context reference was in regards to giving away your possessions. It had nothing to do with David. Plus, David turned from his sins when he realized he had done wrong, and he was forgiven although he had to pay the price. Another issue you've failed to address.

Anyways, I'm not saying divorce is bad. I've never said that. Quite the opposite. Get out of a dangerous situation. There's no question that you have to do that. What I'm saying is that the Bible's issue is with remarriage, and you can't get around that. It came straight from Jesus' mouth in response to the Pharisees

edit: I guess what I'm saying is that you are deliberately misleading people, giving them a false sense of security, all the while calling me a Pharisee for reiterating the words Jesus spoke, and falsely accusing me of being judgemental. I'm not sure which is worse.

......with every post you SHOW you know NOTHING about our Lord.

ALL you can do seemingly is parrot scripture you apparently cannot understand anything of beyond the simple letters of the Law.

David DOES apply, out of necessity and not greed or desire he ate forbidden bread...........youre so blind you cant even SEE your blind.

Your arrogant, self-righteous type never ceases to amaze me.
All these years later and NOTHING has changed......

False sense of security THATS a laugh .......... better they face their Lord with a good reason for having doing what they did (remarrying a good man after divorcing a tyranical madman) than to face an judgemental arrogant pharisee.......


Tell me do YOU and YOUR church follow ALL scripture to the LETTER as you seem to say you do, or are you exmept from that which you wish to ignore for some reason.........?


DO YOU follow this to the letter, brother, or are you a hypocrit??

1Co 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

Ive a feeling you'll ''out of context'' your way right out of that as well......
Or is not as important, is it ok to ignore that which changes YOUR life?

Maybe YOU will get to stand before our beloved Lord and explain to Him why YOU did not stifle the women of your church.........why YOU permitted them to speak in the church as is so clearly FORBIDDEN here........

 

[Follower of Christ]

A person very close to me was shot by her husband. They both belonged to the Catholic church. This was in the 1960s. As I understand it, she was told that she would not be able to be buried in a Catholic cemetary because she was now divorced.

Views within the Catholic church have since changed and she was indeed able to be buried in a Catholic cemetary after all, but this is the same silly reasoning that I am seeing on some of the posts in this thread. Her life was in danger and she needed to get out.

Im so sorry to hear about your friend....

Youll have to forgive our more zealous brethren here who have learned the letter of the law, yet not one ounce of the spirit of it, it would seem.

We all know that it is our Lords wishes to see a marriage stay together thru ALL adversity.........even in the case of adultery..........but we also know that he is able to forgive anyone of ANY sin or disobedience except blaspheming the Spirit of our God......

Some of these fine folks here have again made our Lord out to be a decree pushing madman as the pharisees did.
Failing to see that He is Love incarnate and would not have tolerated the man who ever stuck his wife......

Sometimes I wonder what Jesus Himself would have done if He had walked into a home where a man was savagely beating his wife.........
I think some of our brothers here are so ignorant as to think He would have told her to ''WORK IT OUT, DAUGHTER'' and then walked away.......

 

[SirKenin]

DO YOU follow this to the letter, brother, or are you a hypocrit??



Ive a feeling you'll ''out of context'' your way right out of that as well......
Or is not as important, is it ok to ignore that which changes YOUR life?

Maybe YOU will get to stand before our beloved Lord and explain to Him why YOU did not stifle the women of your church.........why YOU permitted them to speak in the church as is so clearly FORBIDDEN here........

rofl That passage has been abused so much it's crazy. I'll just add you to the list (incidentally that passage referred to a select few women causing trouble in the Corinthian church. Not all women. lol)

 

[Follower of Christ]

rofl That passage has been abused so much it's crazy. I'll just add you to the list (incidentally that passage referred to a select few women causing trouble in the Corinthian church. Not all women. lol)

As I thought.......it doesnt apply to you...

Paul didnt make any distinction there at all DID he?

READ it again brother.......then make more excuse so we can ALL observe YOUR blatant hypocracy in the matter.......

Let your women be silent in the assemblies, for it is not allowed to them to speak, but to be in subjection, as also the Law says.
(1Co 14:34)

Oh, Im sorry........maybe the law ONLY applies the the church at Corinth

well, what say ye........ARE you a hypocrit, brother?

 

[SirKenin]

As I thought.......it doesnt apply to you...

Paul didnt make any distinction there at all DID he?

READ it again brother.......then make more excuse so we can ALL observe YOUR blatant hypocracy in the matter.......


Oh, Im sorry........maybe the law ONLY applies the the church at Corinth

well, what say ye........ARE you a hypocrit, brother?

No, we're just to say that you don't know what you're talking about. You don't know the history surrounding that passage, and that's why you're misapplying it in yet another attempt to corner me.

It wasn't a law. It was Paul's instruction to the church in Corinth in direct response to a problem that had arisen there. A select few women that were standing in the back of the church being raucous and loud, causing trouble and disrupting the services there.

 

[Follower of Christ]

No, we're just to say that you don't know what you're talking about. You don't know the history surrounding that passage, and that's why you're misapplying it in yet another attempt to corner me.

It wasn't a law. It was Paul's instruction to the church in Corinth in direct response to a problem that had arisen there. A select few women that were standing in the back of the church being raucous and loud, causing trouble and disrupting the services there.

ahhhhhhhhhh..........now we getting somewhere.........finally........
I have to admit, youre a bit tougher to corner than most Ive dealt with

Tell me brother.......DO YOU know the history enough to tell me WHY Jesus had to lay down the law as to the divorce issue ?

DO YOU know WHY our Lord said NO MORE easy divorces ?

Youre EXACTLY right...........Pauls words were to correct the folks who were getting out of line in Corinth..........and we BOTH know some churches have taken things so far as to stifle their women.........

Jesus words were to STOP easy, hard-hearted divorce.........THATS ALL.

It was NOT to allow for a man to mislead and lie to some young woman to get her to marry him for easy sex then to beat her when hes tired of her.

It was NOT to judge a precious young girl who made the mistake of marrying some freak of nature who lied and deceived her into marrying him.

Brother, we know what Christ says about all this.
We also know that Paul said he would rather we not marry at all.

But we're dealing in real life here.............these young women did NOT divorce over hardness of heart...........and they did NOT remarry to disobey God............they only wanted to be happy with a godly man and live their lives........

If you or any feels you are able to judge them, cast the first stone then.
And please.......cast a few my way......as I am far worse than any girl who has remarried and I admit it openly......
If you will pass judgement on anyone here, then pass it on me.........




I have to apologize to you.
I have examined myself and I know why I am coming against you so hard in this.
I look at your callousness and I see a reflection of myself.

I look back just a short time in my walk and I see myself using Gods word TO THE LETTER to strike down all who did not meet its strict requirements.

Well, I had not been broken yet...........God had not yet destroyed that part of me that wanted to be right and wanted to judge my brethren with His word instead of working with them to help them to WANT to live pleasing to Him.

I pray that you find a way to see past the letter and into the spirit of WHY Jesus said what He did...........or I fear that if you are serious with our Lord, that He may break you as He did me a few years back.

 

[SirKenin]

Jesus made it very clear that running off and marrying another man or woman was unacceptable in all but one circumstance. He didn't leave it ambiguous. He wasn't vague. He couldn't be. The Pharisees were a very demanding, intelligent group of Jews (one of four sects of Palestinian Jews) exceedingly well-versed in the Law. They granted authority to both oral tradition and the written Word. They were looking to corner Jesus on any slight that he may have made. The Pharisees had the support of the greatest majority of the Jews at the time. If they could corner Jesus on any technicality, they had a considerable say in the land and had the ability to seriously hamper Jesus' mission. However, they needed something tangible, and they took every opportunity to find it.

They didn't like Jesus' message. It was a threat to their "stranglehold" on the Jews (and exactly one of Jesus' missions here on earth) because it contradicted their own message.

Jesus satisfied their demands for a clear, concise, perfect answer. One that was infallible. One that left absolutely no room for interpretation, stretching, imagination or an opening for accusations.

As for being broken, I have been brought to my knees more than once. I've lost everything I had. Everything. I have turned my back on organized religion. I have set out to find my own faith with fear and trembling and I have done a considerable amount of research to get to the point I'm at now.

The problem I have is in my presentation. That in no way alters the facts, however.

 

[FOC]

Jesus made it very clear that running off and marrying another man or woman was unacceptable in all but one circumstance. He didn't leave it ambiguous. He wasn't vague. He couldn't be. The Pharisees were a very demanding, intelligent group of Jews (one of four sects of Palestinian Jews) exceedingly well-versed in the Law. They granted authority to both oral tradition and the written Word. They were looking to corner Jesus on any slight that he may have made. The Pharisees had the support of the greatest majority of the Jews at the time. If they could corner Jesus on any technicality, they had a considerable say in the land and had the ability to seriously hamper Jesus' mission. However, they needed something tangible, and they took every opportunity to find it.

They didn't like Jesus' message. It was a threat to their stranglehold on the Jews (and exactly one of Jesus' missions here on earth).

Jesus satisfied their demands for a clear, concise, perfect answer. One that was infallible. One that left absolutely no room for interpretation, stretching, imagination or an opening for the Pharisees to accuse him of heresy.

As for being broken, I have been brought to my knees more than once. I've lost everything I had. Everything. I have turned my back on organized religion. I have set out to find my own faith with fear and trembling and I have done a considerable amount of research to get to the point I'm at now.

The problem I have is in my presentation. That in no way alters the facts, however.

fine......you win...........

Jesus was crystal clear and unforgiving in His words.......

Just as Paul was in his words that women were NOT to speak in the Church.

Sorry pal........you cant have it both ways.........both mens word are not allowing for compromise or argument.....

either you accept the PLAIN direction of both men or you find yourself a hypocrit as I suspect you are........

 

[SirKenin]

fine......you win...........

Jesus was crystal clear and unforgiving in His words.......

Just as Paul was in his words that women were NOT to speak in the Church.

Sorry pal........you cant have it both ways.........both mens word are not allowing for compromise or argument.....

either you accept the PLAIN direction of both men or you find yourself a hypocrit as I suspect you are........

It's not about having it both ways. I know and addressed the issue head on about the women in Corinth. You're misinterpretting the passage. That's what I'm trying to help you understand. Paul's words were very literal, but what was his audience? What is the story behind the passage? Was it all women in all Christian churches? No, absolutely not. It was a struggling newly founded Gentile Christian church in Corinth, Paul's pet project, that were seeking his advice on what they should do with the troublemakers in their new church.

Many churches have abused that passage, as I've said before, so don't feel bad. It's a common problem.

 

[FOC]

It's not about having it both ways. I know and addressed the issue head on about the women in Corinth. You're misinterpretting the passage. That's what I'm trying to help you understand. Paul's words were very literal, but what was his audience? What is the story behind the passage? Was it all women in all Christian churches? No, absolutely not. It was a struggling newly founded Gentile Christian church in Corinth, Paul's pet project, that were seeking his advice on what they should do with the troublemakers in their new church.

Many churches have abused that passage, as I've said before, so don't feel bad. It's a common problem.

I see......

So youre saying that if its directed to the Corithians, then the rest can ignore it then...........ok........makes sense.............let me see if I can apply that nonsensical tripe elsewhere to dodge scripture I want to ignore.......



Hmmm..........heres on written to the Hebrews..........i guess THIS only appies to those who were falling away who were Hebrew by your standards then?

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
(Heb 6:4-6)

and here again in James, which is written to:

James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.
(Jam 1:1)

He writes........

If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain.
(Jam 1:26)

yes, i see brother, youre right..........that ONLY applies to James immediate audience. ''the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad''.........how foolish f me to think I should have applied that to myself.........

Shall I go on???

face it........you take what YOU want and cast aside the rest.......

 

[SirKenin]

If all women in the church were to keep silent, Paul would be contradicting himself in 1 Corinthians 11:4-16.

Here, I have some excerpts from some commentaries for you to read:

The men and women were separated and seated on either side of the assembly during services. The women were calling to their husbands to ask questions during the service. so Paul asked the women to wait until they were home to discuss the message.

Women's shouldn't be judging prophecy or disrupting meetings


a. Paul has already assumed the right of women to pray or prophecy publicly (11:1-16); here he probably is emphasizing the right of women to judge prophecy, something restricted to the male leadership of the church b. As well, women (or men for that matter) shouldn't be disrupting meetings with questions or chatter

Here's a document establishing the context of the word "silence"

http://www.christiancourier.com/notes/silentWomen.htm

This document focuses on what women in the church were being addressed

http://www.born-again-christian.info/woman.questions.htm

 

[FOC]

Honestly, I dont need your commentaries.........thanks for putting them up for me.........
I prefer to read my bible thank you very much and not a thousand different ideas on what it says.....


I guess what youre saying is you not going to address my issue with the James passage that was CLEARLY aimed at a specifc group in both the addressing verse and then clarified in the individual verse......

The Corinthians passage nowhere states that it is limited to the Corinthian church........in fact the wording seems to plainly imply that it is a given that it should be obeyed by all.....

Its amazing the hoops youre jumping thru here....

 

[SirKenin]

and here again in James, which is written to:



He writes........



yes, i see brother, youre right..........that ONLY applies to James immediate audience. ''the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad''.........how foolish f me to think I should have applied that to myself.........

Shall I go on???

lol. You're just like every literalist I've ever met. Throwing pound upon pound of trash on without ever addressing the issue and facts at hand, rather waving them off because they don't agree with your teachings. You test me, as the Pharisees tested Jesus, looking for a loophole. Looking for something to wave to the masses. "Look everybody, Dr. Feelgood made a mistake. This invalidates his entire message". This is evident by your many attempts at confusing the issue with various passages. "Why then, did James say this?" "Why then did Moses permit this?" Do you see the parallel?

Anyways, in James (James was the leader of the head church in Jerusalem and the half-brother of Jesus), James is addressing a wide variety of people. He's addressing believers and non-believers alike. The rich and the poor. His audience is as diverse as his message. The book of James is often referred to as the "Proverbs of the New Testament" with over 50 direct commands written in a very concise fashion.

In the opening verse, which you so handily pointed out, he gives special recognition to his many brothers scattered abroad due to persecution, living in poverty (Romans 15:26). The descendants of the 12 sons of Jacob. He takes the opportunity to greet them with a joy found only twice in the Bible. These "brothers" look to his church in Jerusalem for leadership and guidance.

Again it's important to note that James is the half-brother of Jesus. His whole life was spent around Jesus, although he did not convert until Jesus' resurrection. Therefore, he knew an awful lot about the teachings of Jesus, and most likely wrote the book of James not long after Jesus was preaching the Sermon on the Mount (There are more than a dozen direct parallels to the Sermon on the Mount, and James uses a particular style that Jesus did, that of using examples from nature).

So, now we can establish his audience. At the time of writing, the Gentiles had not been brought into the church yet. Christianity was still limited to Jewish converts. It wasn't until much later that the Apostle Paul embarked on his mission of bringing the Gospel to the Gentiles.

Does this make the message any less applicable to the Gentiles? Certainly not. Is Solomon's wisdom in the book of Proverbs any less applicable to our daily living today? If the Gentiles were part of the church and thus part of James' audience, James, as leader of the church, would have addressed them too. Therefore, it's only logical to conclude that a well versed Gentile would follow the guidelines as set out by James, if for no other reason than that they adhere to the teachings of Jesus.

 

[SirKenin]

Honestly, I dont need your commentaries.........thanks for putting them up for me.........
I prefer to read my bible thank you very much and not a thousand different ideas on what it says.....

Literally translated:

I'd rather preach my own stories, giving people false hope, all the while failing to address the facts or outright ignoring them because they don't adhere to my teachings. I don't want to lose face with my followers. I'd rather continue to throw irrelevant out of context Bible Bullets at Dr. Feelgood to try and trip him up.

Sound familiar. It should.