The Church has lost its voice in the US

[Jedidiah]

Bottom line is that the Church has not lost it's voice simply because society is no longer listening.

[themuzicman]

Bottom line is that the Church has not lost it's voice simply because society is no longer listening.

Actually, that's the clearest indicator that it has.

[themuzicman]

You are being inconsistent. You make accusations about marrying people who were married and divorced as unbelievers, but allow repentant (celibate) homosexuals to hold important positions in churches (not The Church). You can not have it both ways.

Divorced people who remarry are committing adultery.

Homosexuals who are celibate are not sinning (at least committing homosexual sins.)

[themuzicman]

"Gay marriage" is a declaration that "we intend to continue to rebel against God".

I guess the bottom line, Muz -- do you consider homosexuality a sin?

But isn't "We will do 2nd marriages for divorced people" a declaration that "we intend to continue to rebel against God", too?

Homosexual ACTS are sin, yes. So is adultery, which is what happens when a divorced person remarries.

[themuzicman]

That's interesting, albeit, in my opinion, irrelevant.

Are these some of the people we're supposed to be reaching with the gospel?

[themuzicman]

So is this whole thread about divorce?

No, the thread is about the Church losing its voice in our culture, because it's no different than our culture. Marriage is just the current example.

[Cow Poke]

But isn't "We will do 2nd marriages for divorced people" a declaration that "we intend to continue to rebel against God", too?

Perhaps if anybody is claiming that.

Homosexual ACTS are sin, yes. So is adultery, which is what happens when a divorced person remarries.

Good seeing you again, Muz.

[Jedidiah]

Divorced people who remarry are committing adultery.

Homosexuals who are celibate are not sinning (at least committing homosexual sins.)

Divorcees who divorce for non Biblical reasons are committing adultery. Celibate homosexuals are not committing sexual sins. Homosexuals who wish to marry and live as such are unrepentant continuing sinners. No comparison here.

[Catholicity]

But isn't "We will do 2nd marriages for divorced people" a declaration that "we intend to continue to rebel against God", too?

I don't think so. Abuse, ( a type of unfaifulness) marital unfaithfulness, and marital abandmonment leave a person no longer bound, especially if their spouse abandons God or isn't a believer in the first place. Paul makes it clear. The believing spouse simply isn't bound to the other spouse in anyway. The marriage is nullified. I do believe a Biblical marriage ought be reconciled, and the spouse isn't free to remarry, however, your on quite a slippery slope in certain cases. Then again I'd hope you don't beat your wife.

[apostoli]

Where did Jesus say that marrying a divorced person stops being adultery at some point?

In the original Greek, Mt 5:31-32.

The KJV and like falsify vs32 which while mentioning "porneia"="adultery/fornication" does not mention divorce (apostasion)! Twice the verse refers to a wife being "put away"="apolyō". The KJV (for obvious reasons dealing with the British crown) spuriously renders the word "divorce" in the 2nd instance of the Greek word "apolyō".

In vs31 Jesus relates the then current Rabbinical law which allowed a man to "put way" his wife for any trivial reason, including burning his dinner.

At the time, under the law, a husband could "put away" his wife without giving her a bill of divorce (see below). If so, the wife under Rabbinic law would remain the husband's chattel (possession). Under such a circumstance the wife would be required to either finish her days in celibacy or should she be found with another man (or woman) in a compromising situation she and her friend would be convicted of "porneia" and stoned.

Whilst the Rabbi were somewhat liberal in their provision for "putting away" one's wife they at least preserved part of Moses' ordinances which allowed the husband to issue his wife with a bill of divorce. A fair call by Moses and the Rabbi. At least such laws helped to prevent uxoricide="murder of one's wife" (a regular occurrence in the middle east, and the sub continent even today - usually to avoid repaying a dowry).

Once the husband issues the wife a bill of divorce her legal binding to her husband was dissolved and she would be free to remarry (mind you, like any free damsel of the time, if she had a casual affair she'd still be stoned for fornication).

So, as even a blind man can see, in the original Greek, Jesus never said that a divorced woman who remarries commits adultery, nor did he say that any man who marries her commits adultery.

Just as an aside: I vaguely recall that in the OT it is prohibited for a man to remarry a former wife if he had given her a bill of divorce. Also, working from memory: it would seem that YHWH never "divorced" Israel but he definitely "put her away" for a time. Just something to think about...

Several things you should also contemplate. In old times...

* a man could not be charged with adultery/fornication (only rape, and that was near impossible to prove).

* a woman was merely the chattel of her father and/or spouse. She could not own property.

* a woman had no civil rights of any type. She could not legally divorce her husband, and even if she was powerful enough (usually through her family) to force the issue, chances are she'd lose a good part of her wealth.

Thankfully mankind (since of enlightenment of civilized societies) is gravitating away from the thuggery and barbarity of the past that was imposed by various religionists (which is probably why religion is in the decline in the modern world - My God, the godless countries even allow women to vote and own property!!!)
_______________

I'm RCC so by rule of thumb divorce and remarriage aren't options - I can put myself away living a life of celibacy or to satisfy legal issues arrange a civil divorce but unless my partner dies I cannot remarry.

In the RCC marriage is viewed as sacerdotal, God binds the couple for life.

The RCC does allow annulment of marriage if it is deemed not to have been sacerdotal - a very complex provision, which might only be found successful if coercion is proved (for a marriage to be sacerdotal the couple must have been freely willing to marry).

[apostoli]

Divorcees who divorce for non Biblical reasons are committing adultery. Celibate homosexuals are not committing sexual sins. Homosexuals who wish to marry and live as such are unrepentant continuing sinners. No comparison here.

Marriage does not require sexual activity nor the issue of offspring. If anything it is a symbol of natural affection where two people put the interest of their partner above their own (I know heaps of "married" couples that fail this test).

I know couples, male/female & same sex who have been in long term committed relationships who have for a long time been sexually abstinent - sometimes by choice, sometimes because of health or injury (war victims), sometimes otherwise. In Christian conscience I see no reason to deny them, or anyone else, the protection of the civil law via the rules of marriage.

Just as an aside: I vaguely remember reading that divorce rates have accelerated all over the western world, formal marriage is on the decline and de facto marriage (living in sin) is the norm. So it appears to me that the gays etc are bucking the trend in their pursuit of a bonding under the law (think marriage act).

[KingsGambit]

Here is a paper from a very conservative scholar that (in my view, persuasively) argues that remarriage and adultery are not a state of continual sin and that the initial action are what constitutes the adultery. Some of the points he considers are the OT prohibition on remarrying someone you previously divorced, and the fact that in John 4:16-18, Jesus recognized the multiple marriages of the woman he met at the well:


http://www.academia.edu/2996952/Mist...dersgate_Forum

[Jedidiah]

Marriage does not require sexual activity nor the issue of offspring. If anything it is a symbol of natural affection where two people put the interest of their partner above their own (I know heaps of "married" couples that fail this test).

I know couples, male/female & same sex who have been in long term committed relationships who have for a long time been sexually abstinent - sometimes by choice, sometimes because of health or injury (war victims), sometimes otherwise. In Christian conscience I see no reason to deny them, or anyone else, the protection of the civil law via the rules of marriage.

I certainly agree with this part of your post. It is my view that it is the act of divorcing that is sin, not the state of being divorced. On the other hand divorcing one wife or husband to move on to another is adding adultery to the mix. Even then confession and repentance does lead to forgiveness. This means a new start where you are.

[Jedidiah]

Here is a paper from a very conservative scholar that (in my view, persuasively) argues that remarriage and adultery are not a state of continual sin and that the initial action are what constitutes the adultery. Some of the points he considers are the OT prohibition on remarrying someone you previously divorced, and the fact that in John 4:16-18, Jesus recognized the multiple marriages of the woman he met at the well:

I should have read this before I made my post.

[apostoli]

It is my view that it is the act of divorcing that is sin, not the state of being divorced.

My original training was in corporate law, economics & corporate administration, so I consider myself as having been guided to a pragmatic view of organized society = "dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations, philosophical/theological presumptions or tribal/religious traditions and prejudices.

Possibly I'm just a dreamer, but I don't think I'm the only one - eliminate prejudice and inequity from society and there is a good chance we can all live in harmony and peace. For instance: as little as 40 years ago, in my country, it was common to read in the adverts for job vacancies "Jews and Catholics need not apply", homosexuals lived in the cupboard (making the control of STDs and their spread difficult), divorced people, unwed mothers and children born out of wedlock continued to be stigmatized and were often on the poverty line, if not destitute. All that is now largely water under the bridge thanks to various anti-discrimination laws passed since the mid 1970s, these laws continue to evolve and at times are forced upon us via International Treaty that our government/s have endorsed. Our citizens are free to appeal to the World Court of Human Rights. Such successfully ocurred in the 1990s when Tasmania was forced to decriminalise homosexuality between consenting adults (those 18yo or older) - Tasmania was the last of our states and territories to do so. Our general experience is that the deciminalising of homosexuality has had economic & social benefits (it costs about $40k a year to keep someone in prison plus additional cost in the legal & health care of the prisoner, plus police can be deployed to combat serious criminality, plus the management of STDs has become cheaper, given suffers can now openly access health services, etc etc etc).

I'm of the persuasion that unless aid is sought, people (friends, neighbours, clergy, government, society in general) should butt out of other peoples' business. As a rule of thumb, if someone's activity does not endanger life or property, what happens behind closed doors between consenting adults (those 18yo or older) is no one's business but those behind the doors - basically it is between them and God. This view is supported by "The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights" and becomes an obligation upon those countries that have subscribed to it.

You stated "It is my view that it is the act of divorcing that is sin...", if so then biblically only the husband is guilty of sin as it is he that does the act of divorcing. Biblically, a woman has no rights, she cannot divorce her husband!

Under the ordinances of Moses (Deut 24:1-3) and the pagan codes (eg: the Code of Hammurabi) and some modern societies a woman had/has no say in the matter of divorce - at least Moses gave the woman some moral protection in requiring the husband give his wife a written bill of divorce (which prevented him from accusing her of adultery should she tie up with another fellow - if her family can't take her in, it was a necessity for her to attach herself to another man if she wanted food in her belly and a roof over her head).

Imu, in pagan law a husband simply had to say "I divorce you" (publicly or privately) and throw his wife out of his household, ignoring the fact that she may become destitute (Imu, Muslim law is similar. A few years ago Malaysian courts upheld the legality of a husband texting his wife via mobile phone, messaging "I divorce you").

Imu, Moses was remiss in not making provision for the maintenance of the wife after divorce. Given, Moses considered the woman always at fault she automatically forfeited her right to any form of charity from her husband. Such a view persisted in most societies into modern times and has only been resolved by those societies that have implemented no-fault divorce.

Of interest, the Code of Hammurabi (1754 BC) seems to have been more practical and charitable, declaring that a man must provide sustenance to a woman who has borne him children, so that she can raise them:

137. If a man wish to separate from a woman who has borne him children, or from his wife who has borne him children: then he shall give that wife her dowry, and a part of the usufruct of field, garden, and property, so that she can rear her children. When she has brought up her children, a portion of all that is given to the children, equal as that of one son, shall be given to her. She may then marry the man of her heart.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alimony

On the other hand divorcing one wife or husband to move on to another is adding adultery to the mix.

I think you are reading modern American trends into the mix. Some societies still take marriage seriously, so serial monogamy is frowned upon (well at least people that have been married multiple times are stigmatized).

In my country, I observe that serial monogamy outside of marriage is common (possibly, in my country we approach relationships the same way we approach sport, they both take a lot of practice and commitment ;-)

That said: in my observation, in my country, once a couple decides to marry it is intended to be for life (nb: in my country, the age of people getting married for the first time is getting older and older. My sister recently went to a wedding where the couple were in their late forties. It was the grooms first marriage, and he had never lived with a woman (had never been in a de facto relationship) though apparently he had had children by someone or other).

Even then confession and repentance does lead to forgiveness. This means a new start where you are.

It is my observation that the most despicable and immoral people we encounter in the Bible are held up as examples to us: Abraham was married to his sister, Sarah. Attempted to prostitute her three times to save his own skin (which required the direct intervention of YHWH). Committed adultery (well having sex with the slave of one's wife must be OK if the wife is agreeable to it). King David is depicted in scripture as even worse, and must be considered a most despicable person by the standards of most judgmental protestants...

In the OT the solution to preventing divorce was to allow polygamy, the use of concubines and slavery (well all women at the time were effectively slaves to the whim of their master/husband). The fact is that until the age of enlightenment, only a woman needed to have confession and repentance for heterosexual excesses. A man was expected to sow his wild oats (eg: under the laws governing serfdom, the landlord was expected to take the virginity of his tenants, on her marriage night.)

Imo, we need to be pragmatic when viewing the excesses and/or constraints of society. Check out the beam in your own eye before you point out the spect of dust you might view in another's eye.. Imo, take care of your own soul and just maybe there will be positive ripple effects...