Does God Hate Divorce?

Yesterday while downloading some free music from Don Francisco's website I came across this article that he had written. I wonder what y'alls spin on this is. I disagree with this completely... but wonder what everyone else thinks. Point of interest: Don Francisco has been thru a divorce. (Thats not a judgement against him! It's merely a fact that you should know when reading this because I think it sheds light on his own perspective.)

Krispy

[b]Does God Hate Divorce?[/b]

[i]Of course, marriages are intended to be lifelong. But in this imperfect world divorce can sometimes be lifesaving. (Even God has been through a divorce. That's right, click on the above link, "Is Divorce A Sin?") The widely used verse in Malachi, where God seems to state that He "hates divorce", is mistranslated. What God hates is literally "the putting out" of a woman.

Putting out is altogether different than divorce in Jewish culture. A man would permanently kick his wife out, denying her the Jewish divorce certificate. This woman would still be legally married, but with no home. Her dowry and children would be retained by the husband. She would have already surrendered her virginity to him. She would be ineligible to remarry, since technically, she was still legally bound to her husband. Further, her culture would label her as an adulteress since she did not have a valid divorce certificate. And this lady couldn't just rent an apartment and get a job teaching kindergarten - there was no place for a put out woman in Jewish culture of that day except prostitution. Since the marriages were most often arranged, this whole horrible chain of events would have been completely out of her control.

The husband, however, was free to marry again and to do this as much as he liked. That is why Moses required a divorce certificate to be given... so that the marriage was legally, fairly, and religiously terminated and the woman would be free to remarry and go on with life.

For more info about this topic, do a search on the word "agunah". That means "chained women". The act of putting a woman out is still happening and today there are 1000s of "chained women" in Israel! A Jewish divorce certificate is so valuable that often after a man puts out a woman, he will legally obtain the certificate and then sell it to the highest bidder. "Agunah" is one of the greatest problems faced by orthodox Judaism today.

All over the Bible we have ignorantly and clumsily translated "put out" as "divorce". This has caused many errant doctrines to be formed and made a terrible mess out of millions of people's lives. The toll in human suffering because of our ignorance is overwhelming. The Bible simply does not say that God hates divorce. It says that God hates the putting away.

In the New Testament, Jesus continues to address this cruel breach of human rights. Nearly all of the verses translated "divorce" in the Gospels actually say "put away". It is a completely different situation which we have no equivalent for. Knowing this makes a world of difference. For instance, many believe that Christian remarriage is adultery. But Jesus did not say that if a man marries a divorced woman, he would be committing adultery. He said that if a man married a "put out" woman, he would be committing adultery. This is because she was technically still married! In Israel, putting a woman out is a devastating, intentional ruination of a woman's life. God still hates it.

We have mangled the meaning of what is going on here and used it to place people under a different type of legalism. The worst result of this mistake is that when a marriage does break down, people will often believe that God rejects them, and they will lose their faith just when they need it the most.

There are myriads of reasons why marriage relationships break down. God hates it when a heavy, inflexible grid of legalism is imposed on people and they are broken and turn away from Him as a result. It is obvious that marriages are intended to be lifelong and that every attempt should be made to reconcile and to recapture the first love that founded the relationship. But in this imperfect world, God's provision of divorce is sometimes vital, and can be lifesaving.[/i]

Hi Krispy,

Before this thread gets off the ground, I would like to refer you to Don's Live Concert, in which he makes a comment about divorce before he sings Love Is Not A Feeling.

Also, I'm going to own up to asking Jordan to post the thread about Don's music, because it had helped me immensely at a deeply spiritual level both before and after I left my husband, and certainly not only because of that circumstance in which I found myself.

I know you know a bit about my personal story..... well, as it happens (seeing you've posted this thread), I know a bit about Don's. I've met him three times. The first time, he prayed for me, and God really touched something of my inner-man numbness, and healed it. The second time, I (with two other Christians) prayed for him - at his request specifically pertaining to his marriage. (I have no intention of being drawn to discuss those details either here in public, [u]or privately[/u].) The third time, I met his second wife briefly, and testified to them both of God's healing work in my life.

You will know I've contributed extensively to a different thread on this subject (divorce), and have not completed all which should be answered there (as I intend to).

I would like to point out that Romans 7:1 - 3 has the roles reversed regarding the possibility of a second marriage [b]while a first one is still in force[/b]. I feel this backs up Don's main point - that [u]a divorce certificate[/u] sets a person free to remarry.

As I've said in other threads, this does not, of itself, put a person's [b]heart[/b] right with God over any sin (sexual or otherwise) which they may have committed (related or not to their marriage); therefore, it is necessary clearly to separate in one's thinking the difference between marriage being a matter of the flesh, and sin being a matter of the spirit.

Hold on... before we get off the ground, let me state emphatically that this is [b]NOT[/b] about Don Francisco! This is about what was written in this article, which is not a new argument. I've heard this before. I posted this article because it was articulate, to the point and brief.

My hope is that this thread focuses on this teaching, and not the person who wrote it.

Don has been gifted by God, and I have been very blessed by his music. I dont consider him to be a false teacher just because I disagree with this article. I'm sure I'm off base in some of my theology too. Don has written many good articles to which I say a hearty amen.

So lets discuss this article, and not Don. As far as I know Don is not an elder or pastor... he is a minstrel. There is nothing in scripture that says he can not minister in that vein.

Krispy

I gotta get a young man squared away for travel, so I cant really....engage, but i wlll say this, as the Lord leads:

Grace is grace, and God is love, now if that is a "touchy-feely" Gospel, (and people have made that reference before) so be it.

so be it.

neil

God is love, of that I am sure. And God is merciful and full of grace.

But God will not do anything that contradicts His Word.

Krispy

Jordan... the Bible says God hates divorce. It doesnt attempt to qualify that statement. It says "God hates divorce". It's pretty dangerous to not just take the Word at face value, but instead attempt to make it mean something that it's not saying.

Krispy

Seems to me that they are talking divorce, divorce, divorce. Why would the Pharisee's be talking about something and Jesus about another matter almost entirely. I would think that Jesus would confront putting away if that really wasn't divorce.

Bingo! Great observation. Now that is seeing it in context.

Jordan, I dont think the Spirit is going to reveal to me that what you're saying is truth because I dont believe it is. God holds us accountable for sin regardless of where we are in maturity. If I took what you're saying out to it's logical conclusion, then we'd have to say that the unrepentant sinner will go straight into heaven because he had no Spiritual maturity (since he was never saved), and God will not hold him accountable.

I dont know where you found this theology of your's, but I think now would be a good time to show us in scripture where you're coming from. There is a saying in law enforcement: Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Granted, we do go thru a maturation as we walk with Christ. I've been a Christian for a little more than a decade, and I'll make mistakes that someone who has been walking with Him for 40 years probably wont make. But no where in scripture do I see that God will hold me less accountable. Sin is sin. Instead of a death sentence for our sins, we get chastised. Spanked, if you will.

But I'm no less accountable.

By the way, claiming that I've taken something out of context as a way of debating an issue is not a good way to debate. You offer no example of what I've taken out of context, and no scripture to back your thoughts.

Jordan... I'm [b]NOT[/b] upset, or chewing you out. I want to better understand your position, and see if maybe I'm not understanding something. Dont bail on me, bro...

Krispy

How many times are we going to have this argument on this forum about divorce and remarriage?

and I say "argument", coz its a not a discussion, you said you "totally disagree" with what this man wrote, and then you want "comments". You don't want want comments, you want argument, face it, be real.

So i ask again, HOW MANY TIMES ARE WE GONNA HAVE YET ANOTHER TEDIOUS BORING NEO-PHARIASICAL THREAD ON THIS FORUM ABOUT DIVORCE/REMARRIAGE?

Krispy wrote to you:

Dont bail on me, bro...

bail....have no part in this tedious unedifying rehash of an argument that has been held over and over and over and over again on this forum.

Its is of NO PROFIT.

and Krispy, this is a young man in the Lord, he's not one of the football players you coach where you teach him to "hit them right underneath their pads". Don't do this, don't bait him. If you do, you will be in sin.

and Krispy, this is a young man in the Lord, he's not one of the football players you coach where you teach him to "hit them right underneath their pads". Don't do this, don't bait him. If you do, you will be in sin.

You minunderstood or misinterpretted my intent... I'm not trying to beat Jordan down. I'm attempting to help him think through what he is saying. If you re-read what I posted in light of that, perhaps you will see it.

Everyone is free to challenge me on anything, thats how I learn. Hopefully Jordan isnt afraid to be challenged either.

As for this topic... no, we will discuss it if anyone wants to. :-) Just cuz you're tired of it doesnt necessarily mean others are. I cant think of a single topic that hasnt been beaten to death on here. If someone doesnt want to participate, then dont participate. There are plenty of topics on here that either dont interest me, or I'm tired of... and I choose not to participate.

Love ya Neil...!

Krispy

Hi Krispy,

In your words below, you clearly state that you believe Don's Bible study and article were influenced by his experience. That's what you said, right?

'Point of interest: Don Francisco has been thru a divorce. (Thats not a judgement against him! It's merely a fact that you should know when reading this [b]because [u]I think[/u] it sheds light on his own perspective[/b].)'

Did it cross your mind that his Bible study may have preceded his divorce?

Then you say

Hold on... before we get off the ground, let me state emphatically that this is NOT about Don Francisco! This is about what was written in this article,

Further, for avoidance of doubt, I posted what I did to [i]challenge[/i] your inference that anything Don wrote about divorce must [i][b]necessarily[/i][/b] have been modified by your inference that any justification of divorce on his part, somehow contradicts the commonly held assertion that 'God hates divorce'.

So, I just did a quick word search for a text which supports 'God hates divorce' and I couldn't find one either under 'divorce' or 'put away'.

This surprised me so I'd be grateful if you could post the scripture you have in mind?

I hope you will also post the scriptures covering where God divorces Israel, and where He breaks His covenant with them. Thanks. :-)

jordan said

I could be wrong of course but that's just what I think God means when he says he hates divorce. He doesn't hate all divorces,

I think Jordan is tuning into the fact that marriage is a matter of the flesh, and pointing out that spiritual immaturity may contribute to a lack of what the Bible calls 'understanding', in general.

It is clear from scripture that divorce itself is not a sin and that God forgives sin, therefore, I'm not sure how you or anyone can make - as Don Francisco would put it - 'a second unforgivable sin' - of divorce.

God still loves and uses divorced people. We are in danger of making a god out of marriage - or divorce - if we do not [i]see[/i] that God is above holding a divorce against a person.

That doesn't mean we should not aspire to a world where all marriage is exactly as God desires, but, we have to be realistic and take [i][b]the rest[/i][/b] of His (written) word into our spiritual intelligence as well, or the world will simply be fuller of broken people than it is already.

The fact is, God has made a way of escape from sin and some people need to admit they are living in sin, not 'marriage' and they need to get out [u]in order to save their souls[/u].

Actually, this article was part of a series of articles on divorce that he wrote, all about the same time. In one of the other installments he mentioned he had been thru a divorce, so these were written after that had happened.

Now I stated that he had been divorced because I hear these arguments more from people who have been thru it than those who have not. I'm not trying to suggest that people who have been thru divorce are trying to justify it by twisting scripture, but I do think knowing that the author had had this awful experience helps us to understand his perspective. I'm actually trying to be fair to Don... not knock him.

I mentioned it in the interest of full disclosure. I pondered the idea of not revealing who had written, but I knew someone would ask so I decided to disclose it.

Even tho I disagree with his position, he is a brother in Christ, and God has used him mightily. In one of the articles he argues that divorce does not disqualify one from leadership in the church. I believe he is wrong, and in fact Don's own ministry prooves that God DOES use divorced people to minister... but not from a leadership position such as elder/pastor.

Be careful saying that God broke His covenant with Israel. He didnt break it... Israel did. Once one party breaks a contract, the other is no longer bound by it.

My God has never broken a covenant.

Krispy

NLONG wrote

Jesus and his earliest followers taught it was indeed sin

Sorry if this post seems a bit inconclusive. I agree with Krispy that one need not post if one is not interested any more in a topic, but this subject [i]has[/i] been extensively covered on SermonIndex already. Please use the search facility to see what has already been written, bearing in mind that God's word is often (if not always) counterintuitive to the carnal mind and the traditions and doctrines of men.

Many of us have spent much more than hours - literally years - coming to an understanding of God's heart on these matters, and we conclude that He is merciful, gracious and forgiving. His kindness extends to remarriage for some, often against the background of the parties being more than willing to remain single.....

Hi Krispy,

I appreciate your wider explanation.

But, you didn't include any scripture to support that God hates divorce. I'm serious about asking you to do this.

Also, as you know, I've studied this for a good many years on and off, so I have to say I thought Don's fine tuning on the matter of 'putting away', was excellent, and I have no idea how you can disagree with it. Just exactly what do you disagree with here?

Lastly, you said

My God has never broken a covenant.

Zec 11
7 And I will feed the flock of slaughter, [even] you, O poor of the flock. And I took unto me two staves; the one I called Beauty, and the other I called Bands; and I fed the flock.

{even...: or, verily the poor} {Bands: or, Binders}

8 Three shepherds also I cut off in one month; and my soul lothed them, and their soul also abhorred me.

{lothed...: Heb. was straightened for them}

9 Then said I, I will not feed you: that that dieth, let it die; and that that is to be cut off, let it be cut off; and let the rest eat every one the flesh of another.

{another: Heb. his fellow, or, neighbour}

10 [b]And I took my staff, [even] Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people[/b].

11 [b]And it was broken in that day[/b]: and [u]so the poor of the flock that waited upon me knew that it [was] the word of the LORD[/u].

{so...: or, the poor of the flock, etc. certainly knew}

NLONG... You're absolutely right.

But then folks come along and claim that the word divorce is not translated correctly. So then the question comes in... what greek are we looking at? And if this is true, since there is a new modern version coming out at the current rate of one every six months, why hasnt one picked up on this and changed the rendering?

It's people who are making this teaching difficult to understand, not God. I think the Bible is very clear, and what Jesus said makes perfect sense. One man, one woman, for life until one of them dies. There are two situations in which remarriage after divorce is ok, and that is if the divorce is because of adultry or if an unbeliever leaves a believer.

Jesus did not forbid divorce. But if one divorces for any other reason than the two I listed above, remarriage is not an option.

Personally I dont think any man who has been divorced for any reason can be an elder... thats my conviction. But I extend grace to those who would disagree and believe certain situations would not render someone inelligible. I tend to lean a little conservative in that because I believe Paul was insisting on purity in eldership. He even explains why when he spoke of how an elder/pastor should conduct his family.

And a woman can not be an elder/pastor of a local church, nor does scripture allow women to teach or usurp authority over a man within the Body of Christ.

Thats not sexist, it's just God's order.

Krispy

Hmm in my bible it says in the case of fornication only, could one of the greek scholars out there please clarify this as some bibles, quoted in other posts, use the term sexual immorality, which covers a lot of stuff.

Yea... well, then we get into the whole Bible version debate... so many Bibles... so much confusion. Wait! God is not the author of confusion, is He!?

Krispy

There is. My question is how can a born-again child use such filthy language? It would do you good, brother, to quickly edit your post and repent before God. Have you no shame?

I deleted this profanity. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. This type of language that does not behove the one that calls himself a [b]Christ[/b]ian! May all our talking and communication be worthy to be brought before the throne of God in that great day!

you want my thoughts?

welcome to the forum, first of all. You have of this moemnt 62 posts, and I will tell you that this topic has been argued and discussed over this forum over and over and over gain....to abosolutely NO PROFIT.

I am still cutting up a large buck,so I'm gonna try and be brief. I believe in one Gospel, the Mattian Gospel , Jesus says divorce is permissible in the case of marital infidelity, adultery.

Now I going to share a bit of my own personal testimony, my unsaved wife divorced me, AFTER I was saved.My pastor and I talked and prayed many hours about this and I did not contest, argue or fight over it, she has since remarried.

Since I became a follower of Jesus, I have remained single, simply because God has not brought anyone into my life. Am I lonely? sure.
Am I disappointed? not at all, His will, not mine.
Do I anticipate a Godly woman coming into my life to share a wedded union? Sure, but His will, not mine. But if He sends this woman into my life, and we marry, do you think for instant, that I care if anyone calls me a "sinner"?

I don't care at all, its between me and Jesus, and any neo-pharisee can get up on any discussion forum and shriek and rave all they want, and to me, its white noise, sqeauky wheels.

when I see quotes like this:

how long will the church tolerate sin and teach it as correct doctrine?

I don't care WHAT the "church tolerates", and I'm going to tell you why, the "church" lower case "c" like you use is just another man-made religionist country club full of well-mannered neo-pharisees, that know NOTHING of the Spirit of Jesus. I belong to the Church, that is the Body of Christ, and if the Lord deigns to send a woman into my life as a mate, I will marry her, and not give one whit of thought what is "tolerated" by a bunch of religionists and their "doctrine".

To me the word "doctrine" is just a New Testament code word for "Law".

Forgive me, if what i wrote seems harsh, but maybe while you are so worried up about what the church tolerates,and how you suggest one should break a union cause they wouldnt want to lose their soul, might I suggest YOU take a walk to nearest mirror and take a long hard look for any sawdust in your eyes.

Now I am going to ask this question again:

HOW MANY TIMES ARE WE GOING TO HAVE THIS "DISCUSSION/ARGUMENT" on divorce and remarriage?

hmmm? how much longer? 100 posts with 2500 page views? That sounds about right.

I last had time to read this thread when there were 15 posts, and coming back to it, I find this response to my post to NLONG, to which I'm now replying. Sorry that it probably breaks into where the thread is at this moment, but, I will lose track completely, if I don't answer the points as I come to them. So, to NLONG:

You said

Adultery is sin no doubt.

If you re-read your post to which I am referring, you will see that you had stated that He and they had said [i]remarriage[/i] is a sin.

I was disputing that Jesus and the disciples had said 'remarriage is a sin'.

In fact, you refer to Matt 7. I think you may find it is in both Matt 5 and Matt 19 that the verses are found which support the exception you quote in your post to me.

This means, of course, that Jesus DID accept remarriage if this exception was met by the individual circumstance of that failed marriage. Doesn't it?

JesusIsMyLrd on 2006/11/29 18:56:12 said

Are there scriptures that say divorce is right??? that you should do it? [b]None that i have read.[/b]

Did you ever read these verses before?

allhavesinned, please bear with me being so far behind in this thread. I'm answering the points I come to as I come to them. Now, (p3) you said:

As for Don Francisco's article, I tend to disagree because the logical conclusion is that we can get married many times, each time making some excuse, and as long as it's a legal divorce then we have God's blessing.

My reading of Don's article is that he is discussing the issue with which Moses dealt in the desert..... of women being put away [i]without[/i] a 'writing of divorcement'. He is not even the teaching of Jesus Christ, which we all agree is very clear, and has been outlined by Krispy in an earlier post.

EDIT: Krispy replied to you

Yea... well, then we get into the whole Bible version debate... so many Bibles... so much confusion. Wait! God is not the author of confusion, is He!?

The word which is translated 'fornication' in older English versions, and 'sexual immorality' in newer versions, is the same Greek word, adjusted only for the gender of the fornicator.
It appears 18 times in the New Testament, and it always means ANY sexual sin, including perversions. (Anyone who is unclear, see idolatry, Lev 18, for an exposition of some perversions.)

Another EDIT: allhavesinned said (p3)

and to those who are divorced / remarried, all I can say is to talk to God about it and not worry about what people say.

ginnyrose wrote

Dorcas, I fear for you....I plead with you to please submit to this teaching. This is not man's teaching....it is God's!

Thank you. I believe I DO submit to all that I see in scripture.

However, I note you [i]never[/i] quote Matthew's 5:32, 19:9 or John 8.

Also, the forgiveness of God for sexual sin is received by many single people.

Even the woman in John 8, may not have been married..... (The Greek word can include virgins.) So, having committed adultery should an [i]unmarried[/i] woman [i]ever[/i] be allowed to marry?

And if you would concede that she should, please explain to me why a [u]forgiven[/u] [i]married[/i] woman who has been divorced, should not remarry..... Seriously?

All authorities agree that when a person has broken wedlock, there is a need for repentance on the breaker's part, and reconciliation on the faithful spouse's part, for that 'marriage bond' as you call it, to be restored.

Note it is JESUS Himself - who does not even [i][b]mention[/i][/b] reconciliation - who in His answer to the Pharisees, GIVES the offended spouse permission to divorce the unfaithful spouse - or this [u]restoration[/u] cannot be found by the parties involved, then JESUS is saying that HE cannot endorse the 'marriage', as if it had remained intact.

God CANNOT bless a 'marriage' in which one spouse (or both) are cheating on the other all the time.

Further, it is not possible to call oneself a Christian (meaningfully), and remain with a spouse whom one [u]knows[/u] is sexually abusing children, mainly for making any sense out of the concept of a 'marriage bond'.

People who do have a 'marriage bond' with their spouse, seem to have very little concept of what it is like to be in a legal arrangement in which no such thing may have ever existed, let alone [i]per[/i]sisted.

This is also an indication of the state of heart of the parties who got themselves into this predicament at all, and I will maintain that sometimes there is [u]no way[/u] God can make them [i]one[/i] because of their sins.

Maybe when they divorce legally, some people would prefer to kid on they were never [i]really[/i] 'married'. But the law regards the marriage certificate as if it is as good as having been made 'one' by God.

That's why it IS 'divorce'. As I see it, this [u]legalises[/u] an existing state of heart of at least one of the parties, if not both.

Thank you for the reference to Malachi. I have no idea why it didn't come up. I've read it before, of course, but couldn't recall it. I will read it again, also, and look forward to your considered responses to my questions (both stated and implied).

ginnyrose, you said

that death is the only thing that will dissolve the marriage bond.

Btw, Krispy, what did Don Francisco say which is not in line with either scripture or your understanding of it? I don't 'see' how he disagrees with your stated position.

In the translating of the KJV, the word "Wife", is understood by us to mean already married.

I think you're correct, but you're giving undo credit to the KJV. That wife was in all of the English translations before the KJV.

Everyone wants to "blame it on the KJV" (altho I dont think you were meaning that in a negative way), yet the translators who preceeded the KJV also translated many things the same way.

Krispy

lastblast wrote:
He doesn't when one has a LIVING covenant spouse. That is perfectly reflected in Paul's teachings in Rom. 7:2-3, I Cor. 7:39.

If one has not yet "married" (but are betrothed), they ARE free to marry as are those who have forsaken unlawful marriages not joined by God.

lastblast wrote:

you're words are right and of a very noble spirit i believe. but what if while you are waiting on her she re-marries then in order to come back to you it would require her to divorce?

Hello searchin,

Well, one would need to ask themself this: Does God hate ALL divorce---even those which are acts of repentance from adultery?

In my opinion, to return to one's covenant spouse (the one God joined as ONE), a divorce would be more akin to an annulment, since the Lord in His Word views the second relationship as adulterous----meaning it was not a lawful marriage to begin with. It matters not how the law of the land views a marriage, if those laws are in opposition to the Lord's Word on the matter.

Did God Threaten to Sin Against Israel ?!?

Assertions of this article.
We will show briefly here that divorce is not always sin.

Supporting Evidence.

Some say that divorce is always hardhearted and 'sin' by default.
The problem with this logic is that God Himself threatened Israel with divorce...to put her away....for her sins against Him...for breaking His covenant.

Here we see that He actually has given her a bill of divorce...

And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.
(Jer 3:8 KJV)

Now, if we are to believe that divorce is ALWAYS sin, then we have no choice here but to declare that God Himself has just taken a sinful step in giving this bill of divorce to Israel.

Now, lets look at what God ACTUALLY said about putting away/divorcement.

For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.
(Mal 2:16 KJV)

God hates putting away (divorce).
Now why would God do what He hates? Why would He threaten to do something that He Himself finds detestable?

He did it because His covenant was being continually broken by Israel. In their own hardheartedness, they made idols to worship and followed after strange gods, they committed great fornicaitons with each other, and defiled His covenant of marriage.

So even though God does hate divorce/putting away, He Himself not only threatened it, but also ended that covenant with Israel that He made with the forefathers out of Egypt.

The fact is, if some erroneous doctrines were right, then we would also have to accuse God of being 'hardhearted' as well, since some also believe that ALL divorce is hardheartedness. We know that God is not hardhearted.

God did not threaten to sin against Israel. His threat of divorce and subsequent ending of that covenant was for onging trespasses committed against that covenant by a hardhearted and obstinate people.

Peacemaker wrote:
I struggled with that issue when my wife left me for another man and because she was afraid that I was going to kill her. I saw real miracles occur as I know God was doing things in time and space in my life. I learned to forgive her as Christ had forgiven me. I knew I could and should wait for her to come back I was now was a Christian - she wasn't - I knew that anything was possible. I was willing to trust God for whatever he wanted with my life. She disappeared from town one day without telling me. I knew clearly in my spirit that I wasn't supposed to go looking for her and after her - I haven't heard from her ever again in 25 years.

I remarried to a wonderful Christian woman, have 4 beautiful children, and wonderful life, peace, hope, love, 23 years of marriage - I hate divorce and God does too.

23 years....thats really fantastic brother... :-)

allhavsinned wrote:
I love my wife, if she sleeps with the whole Wigan rugby team, as a Christian I must forgive her or else I am in a position where God won't forgive me. If I remarry then I make the situation worse by causing this new 'innocent' woman to end up in a position where, if my first wife want's to come back, she must then work out what is the Christian thing to do, to divorce me and let me go back to my original spouse, or to stay married to me leaving the first wife thinking 'he promised to love me until I died, he's broken his marriage vows' even though she broke them first.

this will be 86 and counting.

I surmised that this useless and unprofitable thread will hit 100 posts and 2500 page views, I might be right.

Good job Krispy, you call it "discussion", but all it is, is really strife and contention.

You know, every time I begin to feel that this forum is a special place for Christ-like discussion and unveiling of the Word, along comes yet another unprofitable thread on either "divorce/remarriage", or "different Bible translations"......and usually your the one that initiates them.

what does that say to you?

"Scripture is black and white" huh?

None of this "fuzzy and soft" stuff huh?

like love?

I guess love is "fuzzy and soft", isnt it?

Some of you posters on this thread, who are so self-righteous, who fling around bits of Scripture like a child tosses about a ball, you have no idea the Mind and Heart of God, you have no idea about Grace, and what Grace means, you're wrapped up in DOCTRINE, which is a just a "christian" version of the word "Law".

You use and quote the King James Version just to show how holy and righteous you all are, and I bet half of you, can't even divine what the words REALLY mean. You have no idea what messiah meant by the Word, GRACE.

Neo-pharisee's, white washed tombs, hypocrites, you belong to the church of i hate you. Thats your "church".

am I being harsh?

yes I am.

coz there is no smell so odious as that of the self-righteous. humble yourselves, repent now.

You got a good marriage? Have you accepted that Jesus is Lord? good. Thank God.

Other people arent as blessed as you all, life is messy, and we're all just trying to work out our Salvation with fear and trembling as best as we can, as the last thing a beleagured saint needs is a bunch of anonymous posters calling down hellfire and wrath upon their heads using the Provisions and the Word of God.

"black and white".

I'm just disgusted with this whole thread.

I'm not angry, I'm impatient and disgusted, because this is the umpteenth time a long tedious thread on divorce and remarriage has reared its ugly head on this forum to absolutely no profit.

Did you read my personal testimony?

my unsaved wife divorced me, I have been alone for 4 years. If God sends me a woman, a mate, and i marry, Do you say I am in sin then?

and please Cindy don't lecture me on the economy of Grace. If so, can I lecture you on the Wind of the Spirit?...oh wait, i couldn't do that, because no mam can tell from whence the Wind of the Spirit blows, so it is with Grace.

If I sound angry, its because I get very impatient with neo-pharisee's, and have no hesitation in calling them for what they are, nice looking white washed tombs, with dead stinky bones inside, all too ready to heap hellfire, and judgement and condemnation on others, they got their stones out, except now they're called keyboards.

so.....i ask you, if God sends me a mate, and i marry, am i in sin? am i an adulterer?..even though i didnt initiate or want the divorce?

hmm? what proclaimeth thou?

and God bless you.

I guess I got my Elijah coat on today.

I come to the forum seeking fellowship, and Grace, and instead I read the dross of neo-pharisees, regurgitating and rehashing discussions (arguments) that have been coverd and re-covered over and over again.

has the fig tree of this forum born much fruit today? Jesus had a Heart of Love, but He cursed that fig tree........was that love? I'm not putting the barren fig tree curse on the forum, just getting impatient with neo-pharisees.

But God bless you for your prayers, dear sister.

bartle

ginnyrose,

Thank you for your long reply.

I read Jesus' words in Matt 19:9, which seem to be a fuller exposition of Matt 5:32, in the context of the Pharisees' question -

Matt 19:3
And the Pharisees came near to him, tempting him, and saying to him, `[b]Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife [u]for every cause[/u]?[/b]'

In His response, Jesus clarifies Gen 2:24 (YNG):
therefore doth a man leave his father and his mother, and hath cleaved unto his wife, and they have become one flesh.

and then He he give ONE REASON which He allows for divorce - fornication..... which includes every kind of sexual sin, including adultery.

Thus, if we re-arrange the clauses in the English translation with reference to 'for every cause' (which was the Pharisees' main point.... [b]Please note[/b] there was no dispute about whether divorce was lawful..... Divorce was and still is lawful, even after Jesus pronouncement) - Jesus said:

Original order of clauses Matt 19:9
`And I say to you, that, whoever may put away his wife, if not for whoredom, and may marry another, doth commit adultery; and he who did marry her that hath been put away, doth commit adultery.'

Order of clauses re-arranged:
'And I say to you, that, whoever may put away his wife and may marry another, doth commit adultery and he who did marry her that hath been put away, doth commit adultery [b]if not for whoredom[/b].

Matthew 5 also reads (I have put the exception clause at the start.)
32 but I--I say to you, [b]save for the matter of whoredom[/b], that whoever may put away his wife, doth make her to commit adultery; and whoever may marry her who hath been put away doth commit adultery,

The state of a person marrying a 'put away' woman, who was put away for whoredom, is not specifically addressed by Jesus. The Pharisees, we know, are tempting Him, and we accept that they knew 'the Law'.

Under the Old Covenant, the person committing whoredom would have been stoned, setting the spouse completely free to remarry.

Thus, under the New Covenant, and in the light of John 8, I believe the 'put away' woman is eligible for forgiveness and remarriage.

I cannot find any reason - especially amongst unbelievers - to make remarriage illegal, or to insist on reconciliation where there is no faith.

We can only say the standard for believers who marry should be higher, because we believe they have access to the grace of God for each other. We assume they are living free from sin, under the power of regeneration by the Holy Ghost.

Rearranging the clause regarding the exception for whoredom (idoltatry/fornication/adultery), one can see that the man whose wife (or the wife whose husband) has committed whoredom, IS FREE TO REMARRY, even though he or she has INSTIGATED the divorce proceedings.

Looking again at the person who committed whoredom, I can see no reason why, if God can forgive fornication and adultery in a single person, and, if the woman in John 8 was married - a married person - [b]and can permit the remarriage of one whose ex-spouse is still living[/b] - He is not also able (at least), to forgive the whoredom of the divorced party.

I know the last sentence is long. Sorry. But, I believe ALL sin is forgivable under the New Covenant. It becomes a matter of the heart before God, privately with Him, and not a matter for others to judge - especially if all the scripture relating to this subject is taken into account.

I accept that the person committing whoredom is the one who broke their marriage vows, but it is this which set the OTHER party free to instigate a divorce.

I would add to this, that I KNOW God took Israel back after almost all of her whoring, but, He did not have to, and in the end He called time on it. Still, He plans for us to be forgiven for all our idoltary (spiritual whoredom) that we may be married to His Son. This implies a state of spiritual purity in believers, which blots out ALL of our sin, and a power which is ABLE to blot out all of our sin.

Now, you might think I don't believe a marriage should be 'till death do us part', but I do. I understand completely that this is what God intends, and that many non-Christians enjoy long and faithful marriages.

However, it takes two. It is only when [u]both[/u] spouses are faithful to each other, that a marriage (wedlock) can be said to be in force.

Also, I recognise that broken marriages can be restored, and this is a Christian ideal. However, it is not a foregone conclusion, and Jesus (as I mentioned in my earlier post), does not imply that it should be.

Simply by making an exception at all, He is acknowledging the place of divorce in the experience of some people. Please accept this.

This is why I don't agree that remarriage is necessarily adultery in all circumstances, and I certainly don't agree that remarried people should divorce their subsequent spouse for the purpose of becoming single again, or returning to their first spouse. (Deu 24:4)

But, in the same way as I believe the Lord is able (and willing) to forgive the whoredom of both single and married people, I believe He may also be able and willing to restore marriage relationships which were once broken, despite a remarriage in between. I don't say this lightly and I know there are many reasons this may be an unlikely occurrence, but, we [b]are[/b] under the New Covenant now.

Divorce 'for every cause' apart from whoredom, may be a sin, but divorce in the circumstance Jesus allowed it, [u]cannot[/u] be a sin.

ginnyrose, do you see how this makes much more sense of Jesus willingness to forgive the woman in John 8 who was taken in adultery?

I notice you did not reply to my question about how you would view her marriagibility, [b]had she been unmarried when she committed adultery[/b]....? I hope you will consider this question and answer it if possible.

I never said I was a "different" kind of Christian, those are your words about what you purport I said, or even implied. I dont think like that. I esteem others much more than my self.

Its not that I believe that "those who view marriage as lifelong" are neo-pharisees", I view those who are neo-pharisees AS neo-pharisees.

Let me tell you something, you speak of "Christian dialogue", or "Christ-like" posts, when you read the Gospels notice who the Lord reserved his worst ire for: the religious of His day, the pharisees and their Law, their "doctrine"...they knew the Letter of it and they had no concept of its Spirit, and that is why you don't comment on MY personal situation; because I have clearly and transparently testified that SHE divorced me, and YOU (correctly) stated that it is "my meaning yours) views".....it's not God's.

That's why these threads on divorce/remarriage are a sham, a farce, a bunch of self righteous religionists pronouncing THEIR views on others, misappropriating Scripture to buttress THEIR views, and thats where my ire comes in.

In a perfect world (Heaven) marriage would be lifelong, but this is a fallen world, with fallen bent broke hurting people, and sometimes a broken hurting woman will divorce a man, who's prayer was that the marriage heal in the Name of Jesus, but that wasn't to be.

So of course, I'll be impatient with those who make pronouncements and brand them as "the word of god", and heap condemnation upon others who might have a different walk than you do.

You feel animosity?, take a walk thru the Gospels, and check out the red letter parts when Jesus is talking about and to the pharisees.

"RESPECTFUL RATIONAL Christian dialogue"?

what does that mean to you?

To me it means Grace and love. But I've begun to notice these words coming in this forum when you talk about Grace and love....."God hates.....(insert whatever the writer determines God "hates)......"warm and fuzzy"....."soft and fuzzy"

and tell ya what Cindy, in closing, two things, you don't know me, you havent prayed with me, you don't know my heart, and secondly, (and I'm not accusing you of this) their is such a spirit of religion over some posters on this forum, it takes my breath away, and makes me want to flee from the so-called lower case "c" church.

flee and flee far. Nor from Messiah, not from God, but from the "church".

neil

I gotta say this:

You speak in ignorance, you don't know me.

If you did, you would see the tattered Copy of my Bible that I read everyday, first thing in the morning. In the last four years, I have read thru it,seven times Genesis to Revelations, BECAUSE MY LIFE DOES DEPEND ON IT....and probably thru the Gospels alone, twenty times, over and over

When I was a child, brought up in the synagogue, I read thru the Torah, as a child, then 4 years ago, I began to read thru it every single day, over and over, cover to cover.

You think I'm "angry" because I'm "alone"?

You don't know me. I get impatient because I read posters pronouncing their religiostic self-righteousness on a cyber forum, and terming this "Christian dialogue", and I might even get impatient with a well-meaning Gentile woman lecturing me on how to think like a "Biblical Jew"...but I'm not going to.

I'll let my testimony lay there.

bartle

and ps: "this "biological Jew" was brought up in the synagogue from a little boy went thru Hebrew and Torah school and was bar-mitzvahed in front of the whole assembly, thats where a young man takes the place of the rabbi, and reads from the Torah scroll...is that "Biblical"?

That post, your post, is an edifying loving testimony as to the Workings of God.

Not because it jibes with what I feel, but because it reveals Christ thru the love and testimony of an older brother in the Lord, and I thank you for that cool drink of Living Water, and I pray for your marriage, and send my love in Christ, however low and pitiful my prayers may be.

May God bless you is my prayer, off to work I go.

neil

this will be 86 and counting.

I surmised that this useless and unprofitable thread will hit 100 posts and 2500 page views, I might be right.

lastblast:
"I know many divorced people who will not remarry due to the belief that they ARE married in God's eyes and not free to enter into another union"

If Jesus said a particular relationship was adultery to enter into, that is something serious to consider.

You still need to PROVE your case, Im afriad.
I have your own quotes clearly stating that you dont acknowledge Jesus exception, even tho He HImself says 'except'.
Its not too hard to figure out that this doctrine simply closes its eyes to any details that it doesnt want to see.

Did God Threaten to Sin Against Israel ?!?

Assertions of this article.
We will show briefly here that divorce is not always sin.

Supporting Evidence.

Some say that divorce is always hardhearted and 'sin' by default.
The problem with this logic is that God Himself threatened Israel with divorce...to put her away....for her sins against Him...for breaking His covenant.

Here we see that He actually has given her a bill of divorce...

[b]
"And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also"
(Jer 3:8 KJV)
[/b]

Now, if we are to believe that divorce is ALWAYS sin, then we have no choice here but to declare that God Himself has just taken a sinful step in giving this bill of divorce to Israel.

Now, lets look at what God ACTUALLY said about putting away/divorcement.
[b]
"For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously"
(Mal 2:16 KJV)
[/b]

God hates putting away (divorce).
Now why would God do what He hates? Why would He threaten to do something that He Himself finds detestable?

He did it because His covenant was being continually broken by Israel. In their own hardheartedness, they made idols to worship and followed after strange gods, they committed great fornicaitons with each other, and defiled His covenant of marriage.

So even though God does hate divorce/putting away, He Himself not only threatened it, but also ended that covenant with Israel that He made with the forefathers out of Egypt.

The fact is, if some erroneous doctrines were right, then we would also have to accuse God of being 'hardhearted' as well, since some also believe that ALL divorce is hardheartedness. We know that God is not hardhearted.

God did not threaten to sin against Israel. His threat of divorce and subsequent ending of that covenant was for onging trespasses committed against that covenant by a hardhearted and obstinate people.

Assertions of this article

That the hardheartedness Jesus spoke of was not 'divorce', but that frivolous (for every cause) divorce was tolerated BECAUSE of this 'hardheartedness' of the Jews.

Supporting evidence

When asked whether they could divorce 'for every cause', Jesus said that this divorce had been suffered by Moses from them only because of their hardness of heart.

Moses knew the cruelty of these men, and as such permitted them to frivolously cast a wife aside who had done no real wrong to him.

In Deut 22:13-21 we look at Gods judgment on a betrothed wife who had committed adultery against her covenant husband.
[b]
If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him; And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days. But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:

Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die:

because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
(Deu 22:13-21 KJV)[/b]

Death was surely the penalty.
But what we're drawing attention to is not simply the death penalty, but the manner in which it is carried out.

Remember, the father is the man who pretty much married off his daughter then. He was very active in making this wedding happen, so its not like his daughter just ran off and married someone he didnt approve of. This husband would have had to have dealt directly with the father in taking this young woman as his bride.

Now, knowing that, look at what her punishment is.
She is taken directly to her fathers doorstep where the father who helped her marry this man, where her mother and her brothers and sisters all could watch on as a group of men slowing tortured their own sister and daughter to death.

Can you imagine your own little girl being beaten to death with big rocks right on your doorstep? Watching on in horror. Even if your little girl were a prostitute, she STILL is that little one that you raised and loved thru her childhood. Holding her in your arms when she was scared at night, running and playing thru the house and yard with her as she grows year by year into a young woman.

Now this daughter of yours that you love dearly is married the very man that YOU helped to arrange and approved upon is having her flesh and bones torn and broken by a mod who is like a pack of animals at your own doorstep.
How will you ever walk out that door again without seeing her blood stains and hearing her screams...."MOM....DAD....HELP ME PLEASE !!!"

Now I ask you all....WHICH do you find more 'hardhearted".....that above or simply quietly putting this woman away as Joseph was about to do with Mary?

The facts and evidence show that it wasnt divorce that was the hardheartedness, otherwise in comparison wed have to say that Gods treatment of this woman was MUCH more hardhearted than what man might do in divorcing her. Divorce was permitted BECUASE of their hardheartedness..not the same at all.

No, the hardheartedness is clearly shown in what Jesus was asked by the pharisees...."can we put her away FOR EVERY CAUSE....for ANY reason they wanted to, not for anything that was a real offense.

THAT is hardheartedness. This callous, uncaring, hateful spirit that would cast an innocent wife out for no just cause....just because we want to...or just to take another bride.

We see this very thing with Herod and Herodias.
These two met and conspired to put away their own spouses for no just cause at all simply to marry one another.

THIS is what Jesus and Moses were both dealing with.
THIS is the context of the Jews and divorcement.

*IF* hardheartedness is defined strickly by the actions of the person who is taking action against a spouse(divorce, punishment, etc) then I personally would say that the bibles punishment is FAR more hardhearted than any divorce could ever be. Tormenting not only this woman to her death, but also her WHOLE family who might watch and listen...her screams that they would never forget.

Is God hardhearted?
Or is this hardheartedness NOT about the punishment inflicted upon the GUILTY, but only about callouslessly, hardheartedly punishing the INNOCENT ?

Jesus was asked...'can we divorce for EVERY cause'. Precisely what was going on.

ginnyrose wrote:
Dorcas wrote:

If this is so, why does Jesus EVER permit remarriage?

He only does if the first spouse has died. Read Romans 7:3.

When we 'marry another' and the previous marriage was not ended for this breach that Jesus listed, then 'adultery' is committed against the other spouse.

The writer Paul is using this as an illustration to make another point...using a principle understood by the readers.

1. this 'law' of the husband is mentioned nowhere in Mosaic Law.
2. The law (Mosaic economy) he is using in his explaination there contains law showing a way out of marriage WITHOUT the death of the spouse.

He said being married the second time is ok if the first spouse has died, otherwise - if the first spouse is still living - it is adultry.

Simple.

ginnyrose

The wife is bound by law until the husband is dead
(Romans 7:2-3, 1 Cor. 7:39)

In Romans Paul was speaking to those who knew the law (Romans 7:1)
The law reigned over a man all his days.
Paul uses this analogy of marriage, the wife being bound to her husband all his days, to represent that it was the same.

What Paul didn’t state, and those knowing the law would know this, is that there was provision in the law for a husband to put away his wife while he was alive . (Deut 24:1-4 )

This shows conclusively that Paul was not laying out the whole scope of rules on marriage in Romans 7 but was using one aspect of it to explain our relationship to the law and to the new covenant.

This idea is presented again in 1 Corinthians 7:39.
The wife is bound to the husband until his death.
The only problem is that Paul isn't dealing with adultery from his words to the church there in that chapter, but frivolous divorce.
Seemingly he is presenting his instruction to those in that were leaving and divorcing a spouse for no scriptural reason .
Which can be seen by merely looking at the environment of the city of Corinth.

Verse 7:39 states that, again, the wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives.
Again we have the issue that Paul isnt telling the whole story here as the very law he seemingly keeps speaking of, made provision for divorce (Deut24:1-4).
Deut 24 had given a man the authority to divorce for just about any reason.

Paul cannot be stating that MOSIAC law is what bound a wife to her husband because from Adam to Moses there was no law. What ‘’ law’’ bound a wife to her husband then?
So we see that this ‘’law of the husband’’ is simply the rule of marriage that says a man and woman are married for life........’’Except’’.

This "law" cannot be absolute, without condition, as we see that one of the greatest prophets of God ever to live, Moses, permitted this law to be easily broken to protect the innocent wife from her tormenting husband.
Jesus also, in allowing ANY sort of exception shows again, that this law IS indeed conditional.
Paul making his concession that we are not bound to the deserting UNbeliever clearly makes it known that we are NOT in bondage to that law if deserted by our spouse.

Jesus, did away with frivolous divorce (for any cause) and returned things to their original state.
The ‘law’ that bound a woman to her husband is not Mosaic law but a ‘’law’’ of the husband or Gods ‘’rule’’ for marriage that it is for life.
A wife must break the covenant or she cannot just be cast away.
To do so, then to remarry, would be to commit adultery against that union.
There is a reason our Lord says ‘’except for harlotry" to man. Gods marriage union is still holy.

to add....
When the union is 'dissolved' is defined in Deut 24:1-4.
Jesus never altered that definition, He merely reigned in the allowances FOR the divorce.
When a divorce is filed for the reasons Jesus (GOD) has excepted for, THAT is when the marriage is 'dissolved'.

AshleyJnr wrote:
1 Corinthians7
10And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
11But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

From reading Mat 5 and mat 19, it doesn't seem to me that Jesus is endorsing remarriage to a different spouse.

This 'law of the husband' was from the beginning, meaning that NO person should have been permitted to EVER remarry while the former spouse lived since the very FIRST marriage.

And yet we see that only the priests are forbidden from such...and in Deut 24:1-4 Moses clearly presents that this woman is allowed to remarry without the death of the husband.

This leaves some with some serious issues such as asking WHY this godly prophet Moses, Gods chosen vassal to bring the law to the Hebrews, would DEFY this 'law of the husband' and then even add to Gods law that the woman could indeed REmarry while her first husband lived.

Also the issue of her never being permitted to return to this first husband causes terrible contradictions to those of this doctrine if they are being honest with themselves.

As I said, this 'law of the husband' was in place from the first couple. How is it that this prophet of God tells this woman she CAN remarry supposedly in defiance to this law...and THEN Moses declares that no matter what happens this first man can NEVER be the husband of this woman again....

Something those of this doctrine need to start getting into focus is that this law of the husband was put into place in the BEGINNING, as Jesus has shown.
*IF* it were UNconditional then Moses is the greatest lawbreaker of all time for letting men defile it so.

ginnyrose wrote:
Dorcas wrote:

So, I just did a quick word search for a text which supports 'God hates divorce' and I couldn't find one either under 'divorce' or 'put away'.

Dorcas, I found the verses - read Malachi 2. In v. 16 "For I hate divorce" says the LORD, the God of Israel.....(NASB) Read this entire chapter...If you will notice God used the OT prophet to prepare the people for the teaching which Jesus taught concerning divorce/remarriage years later: that death is the only thing that will dissolve the marriage bond. Luke 16:18: Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery. (KJV) The NASB uses the word 'divorce' here instead of the term 'put away' as the KJV does. According to Strongs 'put away' means divorce. The word "whosoever" is all inclusive; the same word that appears in John 3:16.

This is God's idea and not mine... and it will be to our benefit to uphold what God has said, believe it and act on it. Consider 1 Cor 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
1Co 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners,shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Dorcas, I fear for you....I plead with you to please submit to this teaching. This is not man's teaching....it is God's!

ginnyrose

God hates divorce, He never says He hates remarriage.
He hates ANY tearing of His covenants.

And as you pointed out in another post, I encourage ALL here to read Numbers.
Especially Numbers 30 where we see the true nature of our God.
A God who can forgive even vows made directly to Him when the person is made unable to fulfull these vows by someone else (as this wife with her father or husband was forgiven when prevented from carrying out her vows made to Him)

Please readers....DO go read Numbers 30...its VERY enlightening concerning our vows.....

sir, you said it a lot better than I ever could when you wrote:

(and I might add a pretty heartfelt confession based in transparency)

I am somewhat bothered by this verse. I have come to realize that much of the disputing that I have done in the past over the Word with people was nothing more than flesh. Much of the strictness that I have walked in was through pride and didn't involve the Spirit at all.

as being fairly new to the Gentile New Testament church I see and hear this a lot, and for such a confession to come from you, is quite heartening, and encouraging.

Frankly put, I can't stand the "church", its the Church I seek and yearn for.

Cindy, in all due respect you knew exactly what Gary meant when he referenced 2 Cor 3:6, then why did you ask him for an "interpetation"?

I know the answer, and you know the answer, thats why this whole thread is entirely unprofitable.

Thank you Gary, and may God bless you is my prayer.

neil

AshleyJnr wrote:
Hmm.. I don't really know where I stand in this topic anymore.
Some things I am considering though

Take a brief look at this article:
[url=http://divorceandremarriage.bravehost.com/evidences.html]Evidences of remarried divorcees in the church[/url]

One person of that doctrine has tried to refute that article. It was a completely vain attempt.
They usually will say that these put away these marriages, but there isnt a single shred of evidence in scripture to show as much.
Dont we believe if there had actually been a mass putting away of second marriages that this event would have been recorded just as the same type of mass putting away is recorded in Ezra 10?
Surely that great an event would have at least been mentioned.

But all we see is that these who had not been of one spouse were restricted in the church...not having lived exemplary lives.

Mark 10
11And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
12And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

[url=http://divorceandremarriage.bravehost.com/markmattsame.html]Matt 19 and Mark 19 are the same event[/url]

The account in Mark 10 is the very same as in Matt 19. What was said in Matthew was said in Mark, even if both did not record all the details.
See this article on that issue:

[url=http://divorceandremarriage.bravehost.com/mattjewdiffmatter.html]Matt written to Jews, do the differences matter?[/url]

and
Luke 16
18Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

If you read the one article, I presented where there is seemingly a contradiction right in Acts.
One account says they saw, but did not hear, another says the heard, but did not see...so which is it?
Does it HAVE to be ONE or the other?
If so, we have a HORRIBLE contradiction in the bible...and one presented by a single writer...hes not contradicting someone else, but HIMSELF.

So we understand that BOTH passages are equally true and BOTH are to be harmonized together.

In doing this we see that they did 'hear' something, but probably could only make out garbled sounds or similar, but didnt actually hear what was being said.

As for what they saw, it seems to have just been a light of some sort.

That is how we harmonize scripture.
We NEVER allow one side of a matter to rule our doctrine while ignoring the other side that adds so much more to the story.

So we take your passages above and add them to similar passages to see the WHOLE picture.

2 points that are on my mind.
The first is that - there is no clause or exeptions made for divorce in these two accounts?

Second - Mark seems to suggest that it is possible for a woman to "put away her husband".

Understand the context in which Jesus is speaking to the Jews.
Do we actually believe He just decided one day to go around teaching against divorce for no real reason at all?
No.
Jesus is dealing with the same thing that Moses was in the desert...men wanting to end their marriages "for every cause" (just any 'uncleaness they determined in her).
If you read Matt 19s account you will see 'for every cause'..this is also not recorded by Mark (mark wasnt usually to good about filling in the details as I presented in the one article)

This "for every cause" matter is this divorce for "some uncleaness" that is dealt with here:
[url=http://divorceandremarriage.bravehost.com/ervah.html]See here[/url]
That is the issue they are asking him about. The frivolous putting away that Moses had permitted them.
See, the law of the husband is til death, as Paul clearly states. So what better way to end the marriage than for ones wife to just 'die' somehow?
These men were so hardhearted that they might just do as much. So Moses permitted them to divorce without any justification whatsoever so that these innocent wives might not be harmed.

But what we see here is a divorce for no justification whatsoever.

Later on we see a man who had justification to put away his wife...or so he thought...Joseph.
This divorce Joe was about to carry out was completely justified (*IF* it were true that Mary cheated on him) and was putting her away privately so we see that divorcement is not always 'hardhearted as some try to say...

Whatever you do, do not fall for this fabrication that "betrothed = engaged"
Betrothal was nothing like our engagements. Once betrothed this woman WAS the lawful wife of her husband. She was simply given a year with her family before hometaking if she was a virgin (widows and such would have had less time before homtaking).

Betrothal was a lawful marriage for all legal and religious purposes.

Either something has been muddled in translations somewhere, or Don Fransisco's study has missed the mark. lol. (Sorry, not laughing at Don, just the lame Pun)

AJ

[b]Mat 19:3 \t {Some} Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, "Is it lawful {for a man} to divorce his wife for any reason at all?"[/b]

The way that is so poorly worded compared to MOST other versions, including the KJV, a person could literally take that as meaning something it does not mean in the original texts.

Here are a few others, including the KJV that will show you why that version can lead to wrong conclusions.
[b]
"The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
(Mat 19:3 KJV)

"Mat 19:3 The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?"

"And the Pharisees came near to Him, tempting Him, and saying to Him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every reason?
(Mat 19:3 LITV)

"And there came to him the Pharisees tempting him, saying: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
(Mat 19:3 DRB)

"And the Pharisees came to Him, tempting Him and saying to Him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
(Mat 19:3 MKJV)
[/b]

The NASB worded that just poorly enough that one cant tell what the exact question is that Jesus is answering. Thus my belief is that those who only use this version are possibly not understanding the question that Jesus is being asked.

He is being asked about this putting away that Moses had permitted since at least Lev 21 that was for no real reason at all. Most of the time the Jews wanted to divorce simply to marry another person. Doesnt that sound very similar to what Jesus keeps saying to the Jews in the Mark and Luke passages you presented? :-)

in Matthew, Jesus adds something else to this....

"except for........"

Do you know what else I read in the first 7 chapters of Matthew today....."The Kingdom of [b]Heaven[/b] is near you......whereas in Mark and Luke, its refered to as the "Kingdom of [b]God"[/b].....

I've been pondering that all morning.

[b]Kingdom of Heaven[/b]

[b]Kingdom of God[/b]

"near you"

near us.

how does that walk itself out?

I have an idea, but couldnt explain it in mere human words.

tell you what I do know, in the Kingdom of Heaven the word "hate" does not exist.

In that Kingdom it CANNOT exist, it would have no air to live, hence it perishes.

God bless you down under.

neil

That is why I believe God hates divorce because generally speaking except for very limited circumstances it wrongly divides - since oneness and unity is what it is all about - this is very serious to God - but also perhaps is his greatest blessing to mankind - I don't think it was an accident that Jesus's first miracle was to help CELEBRATE MARRIAGE!!!!

It surely was breaking Gods heart, and we see this in Malachi and Hosea, to have to deal with Israel in the manner He was.
It had to be breaking His heart that He was actually having to come to a point where He would even speak of giving His beloved a bill of divorce.

Clearly God loves His covenant of marriage... :-)

I am quite confused on how people believe the WORD of God is "the letter of the law"....and use such a phrase in a negative way.

There are those who use parts of scripture, not accepting the whole....oh, such as things like 'except for whoredom'...these use bits a pieces of 'law' that do not reflect the whole 'spirit' of the law, but only a one-sided, partial truth that when used alone is merely giving the "letter" (of the part) without understanding the "Spirit" that is clearly present in the whole.

Im quite sure we could think of other examples where one might damn a thief to hell an torment because stealing is sin. But we might not want to accept the fact that this man isnt stealing out of contempt for Gods law, nor from coveting his neighbors property....but only because he has 3 starving children and a hungry wife at home and can no longer bear to see them suffering.

Our Lord understood Davids need to take bread that was not lawful for him to have, but only for the priests.
The "letter" stood against David, but our Lord, knowing his need, defended his taking of forbidden bread.

I think some here can easily see this without a bit of confusion...

GaryE said

I once met an unbeliever that had read the whole way through the bible cover to cover and told me he was an atheist. [b]By the epistle of his life, I know he was telling the truth about his unbelief[/b].

The stunning thing which hits us as we begin to connect with God about our areas of unbelief, is that He has been more than content - delighted, even - to [b]bless[/b] us [u]while we were in that condition[/u], not only by meeting our physical needs and answering prayers, but even enabling us to move in the gifts of the Spirit as you mention.

Once that truth - which is dissonant with legalism - begins to percolate through our understanding, we start to grasp what grace is about - and that it is not about the perfection of the law, or the security which comes from trying to put it into practise in 3D.

In fact, I am slowly realising that Romans 10:4 covers everything, including the sins of our unbelief.

We have to 'get' that our righteousness (the righteousness of Christ) DOES exceed that of the scribes and the Pharisees, or we shall in no case, enter the kingdom of heaven.

(For the record, I take the kingdom of heaven to be the area of influence which comes under 'the kingdom of God' (which is within us). This can include ministering the gifts to those outside the church - such as prophecy, healing, charitable service etc. as much as being a dweller in the kingdom of heaven myself, [i]because[/i] the kingdom of God is within me.)

Matthew 5:20
For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed [the righteousness] of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Romans 11:6
And if by grace, then [is it] no more of works: [b]otherwise grace is no more grace[/b]. But if [it be] of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

something it seems like we are loathe to do sometimes because it can get so messy!

I believe some of us have moved on from the understanding we had at that time, so it may be profitable to look again.

However, as woman who knew the Lord, and eventually divorced for reasons I've written elsewhere, the first thing which cropped up for me in my understanding, was the matter of whether a spiritual woman has authority over a man. This matters immensely within any church which does not admit the ministry of women, or, where there is a definite belief that the maleness of man (rather than his submission to the Lord (Eph 5:21 - 33, 1 Cor 7:15) qualifies him to be [i]over[/i] the woman.

1 Cor 11:3
But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman [is] man, and the head of Christ [is] God. (NKJV)

This removes the [i]leaving[/i] of a spouse from the [i]sin[/i] which has been committed and thumps it straight back into the realm of doctrine and theology, which can be totally removed from being 'practical' with the issues in hand.

The matter of the man's submission to Christ, is central to making sense of the guidance offered in scripture.

You can easily see that if a man is [i]not[/i] submitted to God, but the woman is expected to submit to him anyway, that something similar to the old 'divine right of kings' is being enacted in microscopic scale, because the woman is made to feel she is [i]disobeying [b]God[/i][/b] if she leaves him, even though it may be the very thing which God requires of her, for [i]her[/i] obedience to Him.

Peacemaker wrote:
PaulWest/Photobybake/Dorcas

Continued interesting discussion about the theoretical and doctrinal, but I don't see how this addresses my question. Who decides on an actual case by case basis. I submit that the local church has a role to play, and something to say - specifically, and if they don't, we are not doing what God intended to take care of His body - a little leaven leaventh the whole lump.

What if the woman is being beaten by this 'professing' christian husband of hers, he refuses to quit, so after steps one and two of the Matt 18 process, she goes before the church who, sadly enough, is one of those erroneous congregations who believes that the wife can NEVER separate from her husband....even if abuse is present....and should literally DIE at the hands of this infidel so that she doesnt supposedly disobey 'god' in the matter ?

A person should seek the churches council regardless, but many times the churches are so spiritually immature that they cannot even discern a problem, let alone make a godly judgment in the matter.

Ideally tho, if BOTH are claiming christianity, then the offending spouse SHOULD respond to step one of the Matt 18 Process.
If they dont, then they SHOULD respond to step two of the process.
If they still havent, then the real christian SHOULD respond to step three of the Matt 18 process.

If they havent responded to a valid accusation by step three, at this point we know what scripture says to do....

Married or not, NO professing believer is exempt from the Matt 18 process.
Anyone claiming they are exempt just because it is their spouse accusing them had better start looking for chapter and verse to back the assertion because Ill be asking for it in my next post...

FOC wrote:
Did God Threaten to Sin Against Israel ?!?

Assertions of this article.
We will show briefly here that divorce is not always sin.

Supporting Evidence.

Some say that divorce is always hardhearted and 'sin' by default.
The problem with this logic is that God Himself threatened Israel with divorce...to put her away....for her sins against Him...for breaking His covenant.

Here we see that He actually has given her a bill of divorce...

[b]
"And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also"
(Jer 3:8 KJV)
[/b]

Now, if we are to believe that divorce is ALWAYS sin, then we have no choice here but to declare that God Himself has just taken a sinful step in giving this bill of divorce to Israel.

Now, lets look at what God ACTUALLY said about putting away/divorcement.
[b]
"For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously"
(Mal 2:16 KJV)
[/b]

God hates putting away (divorce).
Now why would God do what He hates? Why would He threaten to do something that He Himself finds detestable?

He did it because His covenant was being continually broken by Israel. In their own hardheartedness, they made idols to worship and followed after strange gods, they committed great fornicaitons with each other, and defiled His covenant of marriage.

So even though God does hate divorce/putting away, He Himself not only threatened it, but also ended that covenant with Israel that He made with the forefathers out of Egypt.

The fact is, if some erroneous doctrines were right, then we would also have to accuse God of being 'hardhearted' as well, since some also believe that ALL divorce is hardheartedness. We know that God is not hardhearted.

God did not threaten to sin against Israel. His threat of divorce and subsequent ending of that covenant was for onging trespasses committed against that covenant by a hardhearted and obstinate people.

I am praying for the health of your marriage, May God heal and fix the wholeness of this union, In Jesus Name, amen,

neil

PaulWest/Photobybake/Dorcas

Continued interesting discussion about the theoretical and doctrinal, but I don't see how this addresses my question. Who decides on an actual case by case basis. [b]I submit that the local church has a role to play[/b], and something to say - specifically, and if they don't, we are not doing what God intended to take care of His body - a little leaven leaventh the whole lump.

I was not attempting to be cover the entirety of the gauntlet you threw down, or to be impractical, in my last post..... the reverse.

In fact, my point is extremely practical, if [i]you[/i] want every potentially divorcing church-goer to be counselled by the motley crew who present themselves as church leaders?

Remember that 'the church' had nothing directly to do with marriages, until the Council of Trent made its many erroneous pronouncements on the matter, in 1563.

The idea that the eldership has, or should have, a role to play in the lives of [b]people who have their own access both to God and the scripture[/b], follows on from the practice of church weddings, but it is not [i]directly[/i] scriptural, even though Paul covers most of this topic in detail.

FOC said

[b]A person should seek the churches council regardless[/b], but many times the churches are so spiritually immature that they cannot even discern a problem, let alone make a godly judgment in the matter.

How is it their business?

dorcas wrote:
FOC said

[b]A person should seek the churches council regardless[/b], but many times the churches are so spiritually immature that they cannot even discern a problem, let alone make a godly judgment in the matter.

Even if the eldership is full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, why should all crumbling marriages be discussed with them?

How is it their business?

A christian spouse is not exempt from the process, but the marriage covenant adds another aspect to the situation where VOWS of faithfulness, etc, have been made to each other before God.

The church pretty much cannot refuse a spouse who is filing divorce for a justifiable cause. They had no such authority as the marriage covenant is between the husband, his wife and God alone.

Where the church might step in is if a believing spouse is choosing to live in open sin. The church does have the authority to deal with those sort of situations.

lastblast wrote:
If one is considered a "heathen", then the above scripture applies to the marriage partner.

There are different rules for the person who was NEVER a christian who sins, as opposed to a person who IS a believer and lives in the same sin.

You and I already covered this on another forum and I believe you rejected Gods word there as well.

READERS SEE the proof here that BELIEVERS who turn to sin are not the same as UNBELIEVERS who live in that very same sin.

I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:

Yet [b]not altogether with the fornicators of this world[/b], or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.

But now I have written unto you [b]not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother[/b] be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

[b]For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?[/b]

But them that are without God judgeth.

Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
(1Co 5:9-13 KJV)

Careful how you answer...

FOC said

Where the church might step in is if a believing spouse is choosing to live in open sin. The church does have the authority to deal with those sort of situations.

lastblast wrote:

I believe you rejected Gods word there as well.

Yes, William, YOU believe I reject God's Word because I do not agree with you.

I believe Peter spoke truth in regards to a marriage with one who does not OBEY the Word.

You choose to believe that the Mt. 18 process can be used to destroy a marriage.

As I said sis, *IF* you say that a professing believer who is a spouse is EXEMPT from the Matt 18 process, put your money were your fingers are and PRESENT chaper and verse.

Jesus shows no exception whatsoever in Matt 18, does He....

.......I do not see that as God's intention for the correction/restoration process.

You can run on about this all you want here...by all means present your 'interpretation' of Matt 18, but until you SHOW PROOF that two believing spouses are exempt from the process, all you are giving here us UNfounded opinion.

In a marriage, believers who are married to those who do not "obey" the Word of God are not told to dispose of such, they are told to LIVE in CHRIST, so the spouse will be won.

Readers see this article.
[url=http://divorceandremarriage.bravehost.com/divorceforabuse.html]Divorce for Abuse[/url]

Paul absolutely shows that there is condition to not putting away a spouse. Even if some reject that fact.

We all can choose the path we will take in regards to those who offend us----I choose to follow the Words of Christ and what I understand the kingdom principles to mean in order that the offender be won to Christ.....I understand my role on this earth is to be His vessel. I am no longer my own-----

When I fight for that which I think is mine/my rights, I am fighting for flesh to prevail over spirit..........

CHAPTER and VERSE please, that EXEMPTS a believing spouse from the process.
As soon as you provide it, then Ill concede this point.
Ill have no other choice, will I? :)

The difference between you and I, in my opinion, is I dont run to Peter or one other letter and adhere to that one item. We are to use the whole council of Gods word, in context and in harmony, not pick out 3 passages that we like and run with them while ignoring the whole.

lastblast wrote:

In a marriage, believers who are married to those who do not "obey" the Word of God are not told to dispose of such, they are told to LIVE in CHRIST,[b] so the spouse will be won.[/b]

SO THEY WILL BE WON...isnt that what you said?

Now, isnt this talking about a believing spouse with a NONBELIEVING spouse?

Did we not just show that Matt 18 and the process there is for a case where BOTH are BELIEVERS ?

Apples and oranges, cindy.
The rules are different with the church when we are dealing with a sinnng believer and a NONbeliever in the very same sin.

I did prove my case on that point already.

Edit....before we go there, heres what is said by scholars about 1 Peter 3:1

[b]that if any obey not the word;[/b]
any husband who is an unbeliever, has no love for the Gospel, and gives no credit to it, but despises, disbelieves, and rejects it, the word of truth, of faith, of righteousness, reconciliation, and salvation.
-Gill

===================================
1Pe 3:1 - If any - He speaks tenderly. Won - [b]Gained over to Christ[/b].
-Wesley

===================================

1Pe 3:1 -
Ye wives, be in subjection - Consider that your husband is, by God’s appointment, the head and ruler of the house; do not, therefore, attempt to usurp his government; for even though he obey not the word - [b]is not a believer in the Christian doctrine[/b], his rule is not
-Clarke

===================================

1Pe 3:1 - Likewise, (1) ye wives, [be] in subjection to your own husbands; (2) that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

(1) In the third place he sets forth the wives' duties to their husbands, commanding them to be obedient. (2) [b]He speaks namely of those who had husbands who were not Christians[/b], who ought so much the more be subject to their husbands, that by their honest and chaste conversation, they may win them to the Lord.
-Geneva

lastblast wrote:
Foc,

If you are going to quote me, please don't do it in part and parcel--- making it appear I said something VERY different than I said. I said the above quote in regards to Mt. 18, which very clearly shows that I DO believe the Mt. 18 process IS for the purpose of ultimate restoration, not the destruction of Christian relationships.

The very big diff between us is in the "time limits"...........You seem to think we can put a time limit on restoration.

Gods word sets no time constraints...YOU do.
If Im erroneous in this, Im quite sure your next post will include chapter and verse to correct me :-)

I believe the door should be left open for restoration to occur----until the death of one of the spouses, if Mt. 18 is used in a marriage.

You also believe that if ones were to divorce for adultery that we must remain celebate or reconcile to this marital apostate, even tho nothing in Jesus exception says that either.

I believe your problem is that you believe that just because God created this 'law of the husband' to be until death, that you erroneously add the idea that it is also UNconditional.

Ive presented enough to show that that isnt the case already.

It is for life, and it ISNT UNconditional.
Apostate yourself from this covenant and your spouse has the right to end it with you.
Just as Jesus' own exception presents.

We could also touch on the fact that the believing spouse is not in bondage, thus FREE, in situations with a NONbelieving spouse where the marriage is ended.

Shall we? :-)

Cindy quoted I Pet. 3:1

Likewise ye wives, be in subjection to your husbands, that, if any obey not the Word, they also may without the word, be won by the conversation(behavior) of the wives..

If one is considered a "heathen", then the above scripture applies to the marriage partner.

1 Corinthians 7:13
And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

lastblast wrote:
That's not the passage I was connecting it to. We were speaking about the Mt. 18 process and due to a professed believer not submitting to correction, them being treated as an infidel/tax collector. Some believe if there is a lack of repentance----quick enough----that frees them from the marriage bond. I disagree.........and I gave I Pet. 3 as a reference to that as to how a wife is to treat a person who is disobedient/unbelieving towards the Word of God.

She uses the process with her believing husband, he rejects the process AS A BELIEVER and as such is to be treated as a heathen, then you try to bring in a passage that ONLY APPLIES to one who was NEVER a believer to begin with.

Ive shown you about 25 times now, here and elsewhere, that the rules for a professing believer who turns to sin are NOT the same as one who was NEVER a believer to begin with.

Reject that fact all you wish in this, but Im certain that the readers can see for themselves what 1 Cor 5 presents.

Personally, Im even more convinced that youre going to distort what you need to to make your doctrine work

The passage in 1 Peter is NOT for a woman married to man who IS a christian...or WAS a christian (even worse) but is refering to a woman who is married to a man who has NOT YET come to Christ...and as such is NOT applicable to that situation no matter how much you try to make it so.

I really would love for someone to address I Cor. 7:10-11.

If a woman departs from her husband (Paul spoke this to believers) and they DON'T reconcile, doesn't that mean someone in the marriage is in sin?

Its not the divorce that is automatically the sin...it is the CAUSE of the divorce that is the sin.
If she commits whoredom, then THAT is the sin that causes the divorce. If a spouse divorces for no just cause, then like the Jews, it is 'hardheartedness' that is the sin causing the divorce.
Divorce is not sin by default...otherwise God Himself was sinning against Israel by threatening divorce and actually giving her a bill of divorce.

None of this is making sense, is it?

Divorce itself, is not 'hardhearted' by default, or again, we must say God is hardhearted when He gave Israel a bill of divorce (whether or not the covenant was ended then or not..the point is His word does show Him threatening divorce).

Jesus doesnt say that divorce is hardhearted. Jesus said that Moses suffered divorce BECAUSE of their hardheartedness.

[b]He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
(Mat 19:8 KJV)
[/b]

We see that this divorce is 'for every cause' (ie. for 'some uncleaness') as proven in Matt 19 and NOT for a valid reason such as both God had and Joseph believed he had with Mary.

Divorce 'for every cause', frivolous divorce such as the Jews were used to for centuries *IS* hardhearted. And it was for hardhearted reasons that Moses originally had to allow these 'no fault' divorces to protect a wife.

What then, apply Mt. 18 to the one who will not reconcile?

If that is the case, and many people say that they are free to label the disobedient spouse an unbeliever, then that frees them according to I Cor. 7:15---how do they reconcile Paul's(actually the LORD'S command) to remain unmarried or be reconciled?

The believer who had run the process would not be bound to this person who supposedly was a believer but then rejected the faith by refusing to reconcile themselves thru the process...unrelated scriptures do not apply...

EDIT: color added.

Cindy,

Even if another person (an elder or a spouse or both) will not forgive a person's sin - for instance, a believer whose spouse has cheated on him or her, thus [i]choosing[/i] [b]not[/b] to be reconciled as husband and wife - the 'sinner' (cheater) still has access to the throne of grace. God Himself can forgive them. And, the person cheated on is NOT sinning, for choosing to separate/divorce.

Also, there is no [i]obligation[/i] on a spouse to [u]become[/u] a Christian, no matter how much the believing spouse wishes or prays for it; furthermore, the Spirit is able to give to the believer how they should pray. Sometimes the Spirit does not endorse the prayers for conversion......! Shocking, isn't it?

In other words, if there is no scriptural compulsion on a believer who has been cheated against to receive back the cheater, there certainly is none on the believer to [i]keep[/i] the unbeliever. EDIT: (The unbeliever must choose to stay, and one assumes they would do so for [i]love[/i].) EDIT end.

As for the church thinking it has a right to compel a believer to reconcile where there has been no sexual infidelity, I think that is erroneous, too, because it fails to acknowledge the [i]meaning[/i] of intimacy within a marriage.

If two people no longer want to be intimate, surely that is their business and no-one else's?

Why should they go through some charade of pretending they are really as 'married' as they were once? How does this serve either their relationship with God, or their ability to function as individual Christians? Remember, Christ also said

Mark 10
28 Then Peter began to say unto him, Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee.

29 And Jesus answered and said, [color=000099]Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, [b]or wife, or children[/b], or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's,

30 But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, [b]with persecutions[/b]; [u]and in the world to come eternal life[/u].

31 But many [that are] first shall be last; and the last first. [/color]

Matthew 19:12
[color=000099]For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from [their] mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive [it], let him receive [it]. [/color]

But, if you're talking about a partner in a marriage being dealt with through Matt 18 provisions, for something unrelated to their marital status, that I can go with - as long as it is not related to forcing a sexual relationship upon them, or, does not address their violence adequately, before insisting they be taken back into the relationship in which it occurred.

These things are NOT easy to deal with, and the victim(s) should not be put in a position where they are being asked to forgive an unrepentant sinner. Even God doesn't do that.

Another question......
Isn't it time 'the Church' accepted that Jesus gave options to people in certain well-defined circumstances, and stopped criticising those who take the most extreme course in His service?

repetition deleted

repetition deleted.

Dear Cindy,

As you may have gathered, I don't find any of God's word in opposition to itself in spirit.

And, I do believe that its application is situational. Just like you wouldn't take out a person's appendix, who needed their broken leg to be set in plaster [i]instead[/i], and you wouldn't take out a healthy kidney, leaving the diseased one untouched.

In my first example which you quote, I agree completely that if the cheater is repentant, their estranged (now ex-)spouse should forgive them if possible. However, that might take a while.

My point is more that, [u]even if the now estranged ex-spouse does forgive them[/u], he or she has the option to sue for divorce AS WELL, and, FIRST.

Those who understand the meaning of the word 'except', make sense of Jesus' words in Matt 19:9 and Matt 5:32 this way, the more, because HE makes no specific mention of reconciliation. He was answering a question about [u]divorce[/u] and HE [i]stuck to the issue[/i] in His reply.

The difference, therefore, between your position and mine, is, that you believe reconciliation at a marital level is a [u]necessary[/u] part of forgiveness. But the Lord didn't say that, even though it is obvious to Christians this might be possible, the Lord didn't say it was the [u]only[/u] way out for the one who did not sin.

It is also clear, therefore, that when the ex-spouse (who had not sinned), chooses to divorce the sinner (whether the sinner is repentant or not), that ex-spouse [u]is not[/u] sinning, [i]no matter how disappointed his or her local assembly may be[/i]. This is what we all call 'a matter of the heart', and we don't judge them for it. God will do that.

Nevertheless, I agree wholeheartedly about how significant a choice marriage is, but I don't think the seventy times seven commandment, (which Jesus speaks to 'brothers'), also applies to spouses.

This is because after the [u]first[/u] infidelity, [u]the vows of one to the other have been broken[/u], and even if that is the [i]last[/i] time, a very serious betrayal has been brought to bear on [u]both[/u] people, which affects not only each person's physical integrity, but their psychological, emotional and spiritual health.

I believe Jesus understood ALL the [u]real[/u] implications and that's why His word includes the exceptions and callings which it does.

Please remember we are sure Peter was married. He said 'We have left all and have followed Thee', [i]to Jesus[/i]. My point is more that there is [i]liberty[/i] ..... which is hard to discover in your thesis.

Jesus also states that one's [i]children[/i] are not to stand in one's way of the service to which He calls some men. There is an assumption the man will go and serve the Lord, but the way you speak, you would not be able to believe that God had called your husband in such a way, leaving you without his support and conjugal comforts. However, this is not scripture.

As was ascertained in the previous thread on this topic Dorcas, we are miles apart on our views of marriage.

dorcas asked
Isn't it time 'the Church' accepted that Jesus gave options to people in certain well-defined circumstances, and stopped criticising those who take the most extreme course in His service?

Cindy replied
No, I don't believe it's time to accept what many of us believe is sin.......a little leaven and we have what we now see in the "church"----a big mess which noone wants to touch.

GUILT is a very real state of being in a person, but it is not obviated by [i]anything[/i] other than being washed in the blood of the Lamb. Only then can a person walk in holiness under the provisions of the [u]New Covenant[/u].

Any return to Old Covenant thinking, attracts a return of condemnation, [i]and guilt[/i], not letting the life of Christ take over. Stating this reminds me of freecd's excellent thread called RESTING IS THE REQUIRED OBEDIENCE.

Really, we [i]must[/i] rest in the fulness and efficacy of Christ's death, and be raised with Him to walk in newness of life. As witnessed in 1 Cor 7, if this doesn't happen to both in a marriage at the same time, the [i]believer[/i] is free to let the unbeliever go, for the sake of the peace to which Christ has called us. (I gather you find this a mysterious concept of which you would deny the outworking to those who [i]should[/i] lay hold on it.)

So, as far as I can ascertain from your posts, it seems you don't believe God EVER forgives people for divorce, (that is, what [i]scripture[/i] would define as divorce leading to adultery), [i][u]or[/u] for remarriage[/i] (because you believe these both ALWAYS lead to adultery), regardless of His written word or His word to their hearts. [b]Is this correct?[/b]

And [u]people who have been forgiven[/u] - for fornication, adultery, divorce, remarriage - [b]their testimony[/b] - you dismiss those too, (as liars and deceived). Is this correct?

[b]By the way, I checked up the meaning of the word used for 'woman' in John 8, and it [u]does[/u] include virgins, so, I wonder if you would share your thoughts now, on whether if Jesus forgave a single woman for adultery, she would have been free to get married for a [u]first[/u] time?[/b]

(This is the same word Jesus uses in Matt 19:9 and Matt 5:32, which means He is speaking as much to those in consummated marriages as He is to those so far only espoused under Jewish law, which law (Rom 7:1 - 3) both on marriage and divorce has been changed by Him, for both Jewish and Gentile [i]Christians[/i].)

dorcas wrote:
[b]By the way, I checked up the meaning of the word used for 'woman' in John 8, and it [u]does[/u] include virgins, so, I wonder if you would share your thoughts now, on whether if Jesus forgave a single woman for adultery, she would have been free to get married for a [u]first[/u] time?[/b]

(This is the same word Jesus uses in Matt 19:9 and Matt 5:32, which means He is speaking as much to those in consummated marriages as He is to those so far only espoused under Jewish law, which law (Rom 7:1 - 3) both on marriage and divorce has been changed by Him, for both Jewish and Gentile [i]Christians[/i].)

The twist that is used in this is to say that the pharisees are asking Jesus about putting away and He is 'correcting' their interpretation concerning Deut 24 by stating that Moses hadnt intended for divorce to be used EXCEPT in casees of whoredom.

But see, the problem there is that Deut 22 had already covered this issue just two chapters prior. The law prescribed the death penalty, not divorce, for fornication (harlotry, illicit sex)

Deuteronomy was given over ~ 40 days and is pretty much a repeating of the law. It has a few additions, Deut 24:1-4 being one of those.

This means that *IF* Deut 24:1-4 were actually an 'amendment' to Deut 22, as many of this doctrine erroneously believe, that it came within DAYS of Deut 22:13-21 !

Does ANYONE here actually believe God and Moses were so absent minded that they AMENDED laws for sexual sins that quickly?

The fact is, as proven by Lev 21, that putting away had been going on for quite some time before Deut was given.

What 'fits' here is not that Deut 24 is an amendement to Deut 22:13-21 (which leaves the absurd contradiction that ANYONE other than the husband could STILL have the cheating espoused wife put to death, btw, see Deut 22:22-24 :-? ).....but is Moses attempt to REGULATE this "putting away" that we see evidence of in Lev 21 (the priests could not marry a woman put away from her husband).

Deut 22 is about sexual sins of the wife.
Deut 24 is about this 'for every cause' (some uncleaness) divorce that Moses had permitted but was now trying to regulate.

It gets no simpler than that, and that is what the evidence as a whole presents.

To cindy can company, there is no 'immorality clause' in the Law. Sexual sins were handled with the death penalty under the Mosiac economy.

To interested READERS of this thread, please check out my studies on these pages.
(some of them are very brief)
http://divorceandremarriage.bravehost.com/backgrnddivorce.html
http://divorceandremarriage.bravehost.com/ervah.html
http://divorceandremarriage.bravehost.com/deut24.html
http://divorceandremarriage.bravehost.com/divrempredeut.html

One thing becomes clear after studying out the details, Deut 24:1-4 is NOT about sexual sins.
This means that Matt 19 is not about sexual sins either, but this 'for EVERY cause' divorce Jesus was being asked about...

repetition deleted...

a 157 posts and counting, and I believe 3300 odd pages views. I thought this thread was gonna die the death it so richly deserves at 100 posts and 2500 pages views. guess I was wrong.

all I can say, Cindy is "wow".

arguing about religion is fun, aint it?

neil

more than sad.

"Jesus wept".

neil

Cindy, Ive been polite, sister. Is there a reason you refuse to answer this one silly little question? :-(

FOC wrote:
Hi Cindy.
Just whenever you have a free moment.
I know you get busy at times during these discussions. Ill make sure that the question doesnt get left too far behind so we dont forget about it :-)

[b]Lastblast/Cindy, [/b]
(actually, lets make this to ANY of Cindys MDR views)

Id like to ask a simple yes or no question.
[b]
"Is ALL divorce, regardless of who is initiating it and for whatever cause, defined as 'sin' and 'hardhearted' by default" ?
[/b]

This can be answered with a yes or no.
My answer is obviously 'no'.

Please answer with yes or no, then if you feel to explain, do so. I'd like to see a the clear answer firstly tho, if you dont mind.

If your answer is 'yes', I have some questions.
If your answer is 'no', I have some altogether different questions.

lastblast wrote:
Mt. 19:9----"except for" we disagree on. You think because I disagree with your rendering of it, that I am ignoring Jesus'Word. Yet, I see the exception clause as pertaining to either betrothal marriages in which the two have not yet come together (as in Mt. 1:18-24) or it regards UNLAWFUL unions in which the Lord did not join those together(adulterous, homsexual, incestual).

Its funny but you make the exception apply to ANY situation...just as long as 'adultery' isnt included in there ;-)

Ive refuted this nonsense that it is about some mythical 'immorality clause' that doesnt exist...that idea was slain quite a while back. This betrothal marriage error is your own. The text as a whole proves that, as I have shown already here and elsewhere.

And so youre saying that in Acts 15 where porneia alone is used to tell the gentiles what to stay away from as far as sexual sins, that the council DIDNT mean that the gentiles were to abstain from Adultery, but only unlawful marriages and betrothal sex?
That makes no sense whatsoever...ALL sexual sins were prohibited in Acts 15 in the letter to the Gentiles church.

READERS SEE...
http://divorceandremarriage.bravehost.com/porneia.html

Those and those alone are the only ones Jesus allows the putting away of.

You believe it to mean sexual immorality within the marriage that God joins together. I do not---- and the reason I do not see it as such is because of Rom. 7:2-3 and I Cor. 7:39 as well as the other gospel teachings on divorce/remarriage (Mk. 10, Lk 16).

To take it to mean what you believe it to mean would be to do the opposite of good hermeneutics (to take the CLEAR and use those to determine the meaning of a seemingly contradictory single passage).

We take in ALL of the relevant information as a WHOLE, then once it all is accounted for, we look at what is being said to whom and for what reason...what is being dealt with.

I have to ask cindy....WHY are you ignoring my question

lastblast wrote:
Neil,

Would you rather me ignore Dorcas?

I didn't notice a rebuke to her or any other posters. Are your rebukes only towards those of a different mindset than you hold?

Its a simple yes or no. :-)

Ongoing question to those who believe dont permit remarriage while the first spouse lives...
[b]"Is ALL divorce, regardless of who is initiating it and for whatever cause, defined as 'sin' and 'hardhearted' by default" ?[/b]

searchin wrote:
Moses in the Law (which the new testament refers to on many occasions to establish Doctrine) in the Book od Duetronomy said that a divorce could be granted in the case of unfaithfullness on the part of the spouse.

Deut 24 isnt about sexual sins, but about the frivolous (for every cause/some uncleaness) divorce Moses had permitted on account of the hardheartedness of the Jews in the desert since at least the time of Lev 21.

Deut 22, among others in leviticus, show that once married, the adulteress' punishment was death...not divorce.

and Moses went further to say that if the wife that is divorced goes on to marry again then...gets a divorce from the second husband..the first husband can not take her back because she is polluted. and that would be an Abomination to God!

God through the old testament prophets even alluded to this passage when refering to the Backslid nation Israel...and said, "you are polluted but if you repent....i'll take you back!"

God seems to allow divorce (and remmarriage) in the case of any sexual sins...that is sex with any one else other than your spouse is grounds for divorce...(and remarriage)

I'm not rebuking.

its a waste of time, this thread.

I don't hold a "mindset", I read the Gospel of Matthew, period, and I read what the Lord said, and as I testified to you about myself, SHE divorced me after I was saved.

Now if God leads a mate my way, I will thank God and marry, and if a poster by the moniker of "lastblast" says I'm in...I forgot how you put it...I think you said "remarriage adultery"..."remarriage sin".....say what you want to say. You can even come at me with the same tired old "Those are not my words, they're God's Word" argument, and frankly as the Lord leads me to say, you're wrong.

hence, there is no more discussion, just the same rehashing and waste of bandwidth, you either have posters slamming and tearing apart people in the name of "discernment", or you have long turgid threads, such as this one on divorce/remarriage.....I'll believe we're now at post 169.....who knows...maybe we'll hit 200.

thats great.

neil

lastblast wrote:[b]
The "uncleanness" being adultery is very debatable[/b], searchin. God commanded adulterers/adulteresses to be stoned to death. Death dissolves the covenant of marriage in the case of adultery.

If you dont believe absolutely that "some uncleaness" in Deut 24:1 is about sexual sins of the betrothed, then WHAT is your basis for Matt 19 even remotely being about sexual sins of the betrothed?

Wouldnt you HAVE to be absolutely firm that Deut 24:1-4 is about sexual sins of the betrothed for your doctrine to work?

This is why Sealedeternal says as much. He knows for his veiw to make sense, Deut 24:1-4 MUST , and without ANY 'debate' on the matter, be about sexual sins of the betrothed wife.

If it isnt, then Jesus is 'correcting' nothing in Matt 19, right?

searchin wrote:
i believe Jesus was refering to Duetronomy 24 in Matthew 19 when he interpreted the scripture as refering to a divorce on the ground of "Fornication"....which is sexual immorality of any kind....which includes adultery.

Deut 24, what is being discussed in Matt 19, isnt about divorce for sexual sins that were already punishable by death just two chapters prior and mere days earlier.
Deut 24:1-4 is about 'for every cause' (some uncleaness) divorce/putting away.
The phrase is not confined to sexual sins in deut 24:1 at all, but includes a very broad range of possible 'uncleaness' instead.

What Jesus has done in Matt 19 is in THIS covenant done away with this frivolous allowance given to the Jews in the desert over their hardheartedness.

Taking all things together and in harmony, Deut 24:1-4 cannot be about sexual sins since those were already covered, and Ive presented the terrrible contradiction that is left in that Deut 22:23-24 would STILL have been in effect in the OT meaning ANY Israelite other than the husband could STILL have had this woman put to death.
that makes no sense at all :-)

bartle wrote:
I'm not rebuking.

its a waste of time, this thread.

Marriage is a picture of Christ and the church, yet you believe continual forgiveness does not apply in marriage............

Until the marriage bond has been re-constituted, the 'marriage' is in limboland...... waiting for repentance on the part of the unfaithful partner.

Of course, in every non-sexual matter, seventy times seven applies to all believers, whether they are married to each other or not.

But, it is misunderstanding what the marriage union is supposed to [u]be[/u] to put forward, Cindy, that a faithful man or woman is failing as a Christian, if they refuse to take back a departed (however temporarily) unfaithful spouse.

I recognise, now, that you are not interested in seeing the meaning of scripture as a whole, and I guess you must have some investment in misreading it and translating this misunderstanding to others.

[b]Just remember, I am not in dispute about marriage being for life between those who remain faithful to each other[/b].

But, scripture DOES offer provisions for various other outcomes, in the event of infidelity, or, the call of God. These provisions include for divorce, remarriage, celibacy and leaving to serve the Lord.

timmyjones wrote:
Reading all these threads is so scary!!

Am I in adultery by being in a 2nd marriage????

:cry: :cry:

lastblast wrote:

i believe Jesus was refering to Duetronomy 24 in Matthew 19 when he interpreted the scripture as refering to a divorce on the ground of "Fornication"....which is sexual immorality of any kind....which includes adultery.

What does Rom. 7:2-3 mean to you?

Too bad Paul didnt actaully state that he was laying out the conclusive rules for marriage, and the Law he is comparing this 'law of the husband to...the Mosaic economy, or he would have had to have mentioned that Mosaic Law allowed for divorce without the death of the husband.

Cindy, when exactly do YOU believe that this 'law of the husband' clearly put into place 'from the beginning' became 'for life' ?

Do you say that God wasnt really meaning 'for life' until Christ came? Why then does Jesus go back to the beginning when speaking to the Pharisees if this 'law of the husband' was not 'for life' from tha beginning ?

How also could MOses EVER permit men to divorce *IF* this 'law of the husband' that was 'from the beginning' was UNconditionally FOR LIFE?

That would make Moses the lawbreaker by ever permitting divorce, wouldnt it?
READERS SEE...
http://divorceandremarriage.bravehost.com/moseslawbreaker.html

Remember what I said to you earlier about not revolving our views around ONE verse but to take ALL of the relevant data together and HARMONIZE it?
Your failing to do that is why you are stuck on Romans 7 and 1 Corinthians 7:39.

Ive asked you a quiestion a few times now and I think its quite apparent why you are refusing to answer it.
Ive been polite enough, so lets not blame my 'tone' to get out of a response, ok?

Please answer the question in my signature with yes or no, if you would. :-)

Lastblast.

[b]"Is ALL divorce, regardless of who is initiating it and for whatever cause, defined as 'sin' and 'hardhearted' by default" ?[/b]

I have some questions for you after you answer :-)

Cindy.
Id also like to pursue your comment earlier a bit more, if you dont mind. :-)

You said
[b]"lastblast wrote:
The "uncleanness" being adultery is very debatable, searchin.[/b]

Now, this was clearly refering to 'some uncleaness' from Deut 24:1..something we all seem to revolve around in one way or another.

You didnt reply to my post on this before, but you have posted since, so Im wondering what your position is on this.
I mean, you DO have an absolute stance on this very critical/pivotal passage (Deut 24:1), correct?
It seems to be a requirement for those of both your point of view and and mine.

Not being convinced one way or another on Deut 24:1 and 'some uncleaness' means that we cannot back any assertions as to the intent of Matt 19 which is DIRECTLY speaking about what is going on in Deut 24, correct?....and DIRECTLY related to what Jesus is actually speaking against in Matt 19...isnt that also correct?

If it were true that Deut 24 *IS* about divorce for adultery, then it would be agreeable that Jesus is 'correcting' the Pharisees incorrect understanding of Deut 24, no?

But *IF* it is as the Jews asked, that Moses had permitted them to divorce frivolously in the desert, putting away their wives 'for EVERY cause' (some uncleaness in her as determined by the husband), then Jesus isnt correcting their interpretation of 'some uncleaness' at all, but only explaining WHY this had been permitted in the first place (huh...isnt that just what Jesus does in Matt 19..explains WHY it was suffered by Moses?)

Then the Lords closing statement would make perfect sense as well...only if she breaks the covenant can she be divorced and a remarriage take place without adultery being committed against her.

So what is your official position on 'some uncleaness' (bearing in mind what your quotes say above)?

Gary, love the post, but Im not exactly sure of your point :-) couldy you explain a bit more? I love those passages :-)

MrBillPro wrote:
I have probably only read about 10 posts here on this thread and I may be a dumb old Country boy from Texas but God did Bless me with an abundant of common sense and I don't know if it's just me that recognizes this here, but I see either a small debate or battle between a couple folks here and I just don't know why this is, if this is being Christ like I have really be let down in my expectations of what the definition of Christ like is. It looks like you have two folks that believe their right in their interpretation of what the Bible says about Divorce, I think you might be putting the cart before the Horse here maybe we should see what the Word might say about carrying on like this first and get that set in our Spirit first and then this might get back to a unified debate. As long as this thread is carrying on in the state it's in I personally see a dead end that might result in some long term animosity. Sorry if I see it like this and no one else does, but I have tried to look at it in many different ways before this post and I keep coming back to this. Trust me I am not mad or judging anyone here "I say all this in Love" this is not my intentions, my intentions were to just try and figure what seems to me headed south here.

Well, the alternative is for one side to not say a word and let the other preach what they believe unhindered.
Lets say I do just that...and so does Dorcas and the others on my side of the tracks.

To be 'brotherly' we'll just shut our yaps and let those who teach ALL remarried brethren (while the former spouse lives) that even tho theyve were cheated on by their ex hundreds of times, that they now, after 40 years of faithful and godly marriage, have to put aside this adulterous affair or burn in hell.

If the side that is in error, and one side here IS in error, and that side is the only one heard...havent we failed to do our job in teaching sound doctrine...and this possibly to the destruction of someones marriage here?

This error has torn apart marriages of our brethren and that is because we did not take it upon OURSELVES to make sure those brethren were armed with their own defense from His word.
It is our OBLIGATION as christians who ARE studied to make sure that error is exposed for all to see.

Aside from that, Im quite sure we can ALL behave as adults here, you know? :-)
And as long as we're doing so, lets leave the moderating to the moderators. If they feel we are out of control, attacking each other, etc, Im quite sure they will come by and ask us to maintain ourselves. :-)

As for long term animosity, that depends.
Did Peter have 'animosity' for those false teachers he said were 'brute beasts fit for destruction' ?
Im not sure of his emotional state...I am sure of what he said.

So animosity or not, we are called to preach the truth. Wouldnt you agree?

Sorry I did not mean to step on any toes I was just posting what was on my heart, carry on solders.

I hope I didnt offend you with my last post, that wasnt the intent, but only to show that while error is being pushed, someone must stand against that error to expose it. :-)

Question deleted, already presented

Question deleted, already presented

Crschk.
You may have to itemize each thing in my 'tone' that is in breach of the rules here so that Im VERY clear as to what is and isnt permitted. Your post was just vague enough as to leave one believing that if you dont agree with them, that they arent permitted to speak. sorry, I know you didnt mean it that way, but thats how I take it since you didnt actually show me what my 'tone' was :-)

Ive been very polite, smileys and all this time, and either this forum allows just what you stated, or it does not...debate. So does it or not?

The only thing that Ive done with lastblast, if this is your point, is ask a couple questions of her 4 or 5 times now. Ive been VERY polite in doing so.
The questions I asked her need to be answered BY her in order for this discussion to go anywhere.

So are you saying that Im asking too often ?
If thats the case, Ill put some more space between my posts before I repeat the question to abide by your wishes.

And I didnt say anything about moderating other than to let the moderators do their jobs. *IF* I actually am in breach of the rules here, then someone could point out which one exacty, or contact a mod and bring them into the discussion.
But writing up a post that didnt really point any rule breach out, but instead seemed to want to just shut down the whole 'debate' here, seemed to be more about just being sick of the topic and not so much in being worried about the rules here.

It would be a help to me if you would possibly PM me the exact rule Im in breach of concerning my tone, or at least list something specific that you are saying is an offense, otherwise you leave me in the dark here as to what precisely needs to be changed. :-)

Lastblast.Cindy.
Ive deleted the last couple posts presenting my questions to you so it doesnt seem like Im "hounding" you (if that was crsschks point).

When you have the time, it would be nice if you could take a moment and answer those questions so that this discussion might actually go beyond the incessant repetition of 4 passages given and instead become a fruitful discussion that the readers might want to take part of instead of just wishing the topic would die a quick death.

wm :-)

crsschk wrote:
This is a warning FOC. Stop editing and delting your posts or you will be removed. Read the guidelines ... I cannot even respond fast enough to your last post, are you wishing for a fight here?

HI agian Crsschk
I reread the rules and will comply.
If you see anything else in my behavior that needs modified, please point it out and Ill correct that as well.

:-)