Why I love divorce

[God's Truth]

Taking the text seriously it never once has Jesus saying anything about guidelines or "New Covenant." These phrases have been added to the Word.

You are badly mistaken not knowing the scriptures.

Jeremiah 31:33 "This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.

Hebrews 8:10
This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.

Mark 14:24 "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many," he said to them.

It is listed as an abomination, as are many other instances we follow and commit in modern times.

Where on earth do you get the theology of giving thanks for food makes it clean?

1 Timothy 4:4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving,

Romans 14:6
Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God;


1 Corinthians 10:30
If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?

That assertion sounds suspiciously like your own opinion that you are trying to pass off as biblical.

You should be more wise and refrain from passing judgment too quickly. lol

 

[God's Truth]

I agree, and Jesus was not teaching "the law" here. He ignored their implicit demand to side with either the Rabbinical school of Shammai or Hillel in how He understood God's will for marriage. Instead He said, "it was not so from the beginning." He looked to a time before the law to the Creator who designed man. The institution of marriage was God's invention not man's and not any court no matter how "supreme" it may think itself to be. Divorce was made legal only to keep (particularly women) from being abandoned without legal rights and recourse.

When Paul wrote on the subject, he first acknowledged Jesus view of marriage calling it a "command." Then he added a provisio of his own which did not in any way undermine Jesus' original teaching.

10 To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband

11 (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.
(1 Corinthians 7:10)

If peace was not possible a married couple could live separately but they would have to remain celibate. The only other alternative was reconciliation.

Personally I hate divorce. My mother has been divorced four times but married six (figure that out) nevertheless she got her life straightened out and is now married to a godly man. My father has been married four times. It seems our amoral culture has convinced Christians that divorce is not so bad, or, that it is better than staying married and unhappy. The maxim is "After all, doesn't God want me to be happy?" Well, the whole world wants to be happy. The Devil wants to be happy and one thing that makes him happy is divorce.

Divorce is devastating to adults and especially to children which is why the Father hates it. We Christians, to be in the image of God must come to see it the same way as He does.

I am glad you agree. It is good to hear that someone else knows the truth.

 

[God's Truth]

The issue for me came down to which was the greater sin... and I believe I chose the best given the situation.

1.) Do I support the wife that turned her back on her family by paying her health insurance and $2000 a month for the rest of her life, thereby enabling her sinful behavior or do I turn it off.

2.) My church and lawyers told me that divorcing her (cutting off the source of her lifestyle) was the proper thing to do.

And I am totally prepared to be accountable for my actions.

...but are you prepared to repent?

 

[God's Truth]

Prove to me Jesus spoke in English and that the meanings of words do not change.

From now on, you will be referred to as the 'Village Idiot'

You are ready to make people distrust the written Word of God in English, just so that you do not have to admit you are wrong.

 

[God's Truth]

Taking the text seriously it never once has Jesus saying anything about guidelines or "New Covenant." These phrases have been added to the Word.

Lol 'New Testament' means New Covenant.

 

[serpentdove]

My church and lawyers told me that divorcing her (cutting off the source of her lifestyle) was the proper thing to do.

2 Ti 3:13, Ro 1:32

See:

Divorce & Remarriage: A Position Paper by John Piper

 

[serpentdove]

1837 Sermon on Marriage :straight:

 

[Shasta]

This tired argument.... Men were allowed multiple wives back then and most early christian men were polygamists.

Hence the requirement that an elder only have ONE wife. Every Jewish patriarch had multiple wives too. So the two become one is kind of a stupid example to use... and soul angle.. seriously?

Trying to apply your 21st century world view as the framework for interpreting what Jesus and the Apostles said back there is doomed to failure.

I assume you are a women.. correct?

I think you misunderstood me. Jesus teaching on marriage transcended social custom (including polygamy) and Rabbinical tradition (including divorcing for any reason). His blueprint was based on the first union in the Bible in which one man and one woman entered into covenant union for life. "Becoming one" referred literally to sexual union, the act which brought the two souls together. On one hand it was a strong bond meant to last a lifetime, On the other hand it could be easily broken through sexual immorality.

This view was older than those of Jesus' own time and, as such, was not at all compatible with the 21st century or, I should say, it was as anachronistic then as it is now. Sex to most people is often a merely physical thing, little different than a recreational sport. Marriage is based on "love" which is emotional, romantic and sexual. In the 21st Century it is not "as long as you both shall live" but"as long as you both shall love" a certain recipe for adultery and divorce.

Jesus' doctrine of marriage was based on the original blueprint of scripture. When his own disciples heard it they thought it was radical. "If that is so then it is good for a man not to marry" they replied.

BTW I am a man - not sure what your point was about that

 

[meshak]

I think you misunderstood me. Jesus teaching on marriage transcended social custom (including polygamy) and Rabbinical tradition (including divorcing for any reason). His blueprint was based on the first union in the Bible in which one man and one woman entered into covenant union for life. "Becoming one" referred literally to sexual union, the act which brought the two souls together. On one hand it was a strong bond meant to last a lifetime, On the other hand it could be easily broken through sexual immorality.

This view was older than those of Jesus' own time and, as such, was not at all compatible with the 21st century or, I should say, it was as anachronistic then as it is now. Sex to most people is often a merely physical thing, little different than a recreational sport. Marriage is based on "love" which is emotional, romantic and sexual. In the 21st Century it is not "as long as you both shall live" but"as long as you both shall love" a certain recipe for adultery and divorce.

Jesus' doctrine of marriage was based on the original blueprint of scripture. When his own disciples heard it they thought it was radical. "If that is so then it is good for a man not to marry" they replied.

BTW I am a man - not sure what your point was about that

One man and one woman was the original God's will for marriage. Men lowered standards to selfish desires.

Jesus fulfilled God's original standards by changing back. There are many more that men lowered God's original standards.

 

[serpentdove]

[Defenders of the beauty and sanctity of marriage: one man one woman until death do us part in covenant displaying Christ and the church :straight: Matt. 19:6, Rom. 7:2, 3] They are willfully ignorant.

:yawn: Mt 10:25 You're projecting again (Eph 4:14). :noway:

Ro 8:13, Heb 12:14, 1 Co 6:9-10 :burnlib: Heb 10:34 :straight:

See:

Divorce & Remarriage: A Position Paper by John Piper

 

[serpentdove]

[Put wife away, serial adulterer Matt. 19:6, Rom. 7:2, 3] PneumaPsucheSoma-Thanks for your support...

Jn 3:20, Heb 13:4

 

[Lazy afternoon]

"Becoming one" referred literally to sexual union, the act which brought the two souls together. On one hand it was a strong bond meant to last a lifetime, On the other hand it could be easily broken through sexual immorality.

The desire for sex has permeated all modern society, instead of the desire for children and family.

Mal 4:5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:
Mal 4:6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

LA

 

[Lazy afternoon]

2 Ti 3:13, Ro 1:32

See:

Divorce & Remarriage: A Position Paper by John Piper

Piper is wrong.

Those the Lord has joined together does not refer to the marriage ceremony or the sexual act.

Pipers conclusions are silly. Religious men so often regard all marriage as being Holy when it is not.

]Those who are already remarried:
1.Should acknowledge that the choice to remarry and the act of entering a second marriage was sin, and confess it as such and seek forgiveness
2.Should not attempt to return to the first partner after entering a second union (see 8.2 above)
3.Should not separate and live as single people thinking that this would result in less sin because all their sexual relations are acts of adultery. The Bible does not give prescriptions for this particular case, but it does treat second marriages as having significant standing in God's eyes. That is, there were promises made and there has been a union formed. It should not have been formed, but it was. It is not to be taken lightly. Promises are to be kept, and the union is to be sanctified to God. While not the ideal state, staying in a second marriage is God's will for a couple and their ongoing relations should not be looked on as adulterous.

LA

 

[serpentdove]

...Pipers conclusions are silly. Religious men so often regard all marriage as being Holy when it is not.

They believe that joy is found apart from God. We do not. Eccl 10:2, Jn 10:10

"Sin is the glory of God not honored, the holiness of God not reverenced, the greatness of God not admired, the power of God not praised, the truth of God not sought, the wisdom of God not esteemed, the beauty of God not treasured, the goodness of God not savored, the faithfulness of God not trusted, the promises of God not believed, the commandments of God not obeyed, the justice of God not respected, the wrath of God not feared, the grace of God not cherished, the presence of God not prized, the person of God not loved." ~ John Piper Ro 1:18–32

As a reminder Lazy Afternoon is number 11 on Satan, Inc. (TOL Heretics list) in "The 'Jesus is not God' people (Non-trinitarians) category. :burnlib:

See:

Divorce & Remarriage: A Position Paper by John Piper

 

[God's Truth]

They believe that joy is found apart from God. We do not. Eccl 10:2, Jn 10:10

"Sin is the glory of God not honored, the holiness of God not reverenced, the greatness of God not admired, the power of God not praised, the truth of God not sought, the wisdom of God not esteemed, the beauty of God not treasured, the goodness of God not savored, the faithfulness of God not trusted, the promises of God not believed, the commandments of God not obeyed, the justice of God not respected, the wrath of God not feared, the grace of God not cherished, the presence of God not prized, the person of God not loved." ~ John Piper Ro 1:18–32

As a reminder Lazy Afternoon is number 11 on Satan, Inc. (TOL Heretics list) in "The 'Jesus is not God' people (Non-trinitarians) category. :burnlib:

See:

Divorce & Remarriage: A Position Paper by John Piper

Are you a Catholic? If not, did you know you are on their heretic list?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

:yawn: Mt 10:25 You're projecting again (Eph 4:14). :noway:

Ro 8:13, Heb 12:14, 1 Co 6:9-10 :burnlib: Heb 10:34 :straight:

See:

Divorce & Remarriage: A Position Paper by John Piper

Jn 3:20, Heb 13:4

Piper's an idiot and so are you, pseudo-law-monger. No need to post his fallacious paper link a bazillion more times.

Put away (G630 apoluo) is not divorce. Put away is a verbal loosing without a (required) writ.

Both the OT and NT requirement is to give a writ rather than to merely put away a spouse. A spouse put away without a writ was considered an adulteress/adulterer, and divorce was not to be for "any cause".

The only exception is porneia wives, such as in Ezra 10. Since they are not recognized marriages in God's eyes, they could be verbally put away without a writ. And that's what the entire nation did.

There is no modern equivalence for what Jesus was addressing, as recorded in Matthew and the Mark and Luke parallels. Paul was later addressing the similar issue of Roman verbal putting away with no writ.

Go learn hermeneutics, you loveless condemnational legalistic moron. Divorce is permitted with a writ.

 

[serpentdove]

[Ro 8:13, Heb 12:14, 1 Co 6:9-10] "Piper's an idiot and so are you, pseudo-law-monger."

:yawn: You're going to die reprobate (Ro 8:13, Heb 12:14, 1 Co 6:9-10).

See:

What Is Sin? The Essence and Root of All Sinning by John Piper

Understand the difference between moral law and ceremonial law. :dizzy:

Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled (Mt 5:17–18).

See:

The Plot by Bob Enyart

"No need to post his fallacious paper link a bazillion more times."

Wouldn't want anyone believing you (2 Pe 2:1). :idunno:

They did not approve of having God in their knowledge--I don't want you in my knowledge--I will not have you in my knowledge (Ro 1:28, Piper). :sozo2:

"...Put away (G630 apoluo) is not divorce. Put away is a verbal loosing without a (required) writ. Both the OT and NT requirement is to give a writ rather than to merely put away a spouse. A spouse put away without a writ was considered an adulteress/adulterer, and divorce was not to be for "any cause". The only exception is porneia wives, such as in Ezra 10. Since they are not recognized marriages in God's eyes, they could be verbally put away without a writ. And that's what the entire nation did. There is no modern equivalence for what Jesus was addressing, as recorded in Matthew and the Mark and Luke parallels. Paul was later addressing the similar issue of Roman verbal putting away with no writ. Go learn hermeneutics, you loveless condemnational legalistic moron. Divorce is permitted with a writ."

Put away is divorce (Piper) [2 Pe 3:16]. :dizzy: Toss a few bucks on the nightstand for your garbage (aka wife)? :Shimei: Mal 2:14-15

And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”

He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.” Mt 19:4–9

See:

Divorce & Remarriage: A Position Paper by John Piper

 

[meshak]

Piper's an idiot and so are you, pseudo-law-monger. No need to post his fallacious paper link a bazillion more times.

Put away (G630 apoluo) is not divorce. Put away is a verbal loosing without a (required) writ.

Both the OT and NT requirement is to give a writ rather than to merely put away a spouse. A spouse put away without a writ was considered an adulteress/adulterer, and divorce was not to be for "any cause".

The only exception is porneia wives, such as in Ezra 10. Since they are not recognized marriages in God's eyes, they could be verbally put away without a writ. And that's what the entire nation did.

There is no modern equivalence for what Jesus was addressing, as recorded in Matthew and the Mark and Luke parallels. Paul was later addressing the similar issue of Roman verbal putting away with no writ.

Go learn hermeneutics, you loveless condemnational legalistic moron. Divorce is permitted with a writ.

Divorce should not be taken lightly. Jesus did not.

It is serious offence. If you divorce, you should not get remarried unless your ex is deceased.

According to the report, Christians divorce rate is worse than non-believers.

 

[meshak]

Hey serpentdove,

Your tin friends are speaking against you.

You cannot use your mantra; "You are unsaved and cult".

 

[serpentdove]

Divorce should not be taken lightly.

Didn't you kick your military husband to the curb? Heb 13:4

As a reminder meshak is number 17 on Satan, Inc. (TOL Heretics list) in "The 'Jesus is not God' people (Non-trinitarians) category. :burnlib: