And that is good. But . . . at some point we should probably recognize that virtually no one is getting anywhere on sites like these. No one is changing . . . we're all just biting at each other and it's horrible.
Is it Biblical to marry a divorced person?
- Thread starter Naamini
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Divorce is allowed under adultery, if the unbelieving spouse leaves, or the contract ends in death.
To remarry is allowed if the spouse dies, a divorce due to adultery, or if the spouse leaves (abandons the marriage).
You can not remarry if you are the adulterer or the other individual was is an adulterer. Or if you are not the one to leave your spouse.
But here is a debated verse that seems to also suggest if the man divorces the women, he makes her commit adultery.
but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
Not sure why, needs more research.
Biases, presumptions, and arrogance will halt anyone from learning.
But ironically the Rabbi would often teach his disciples how to logically debate and ask good questions.
Debate if done Biblically can provide learning and growing. But both sides must be totally in agreement to search for truth.
The Socratic method is a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presuppositions
Socrates (470-399 BC) was a Greek philosopher who sought to get to the foundations of his students' and colleagues' views by asking continual questions until a contradiction was exposed, thus proving the fallacy of the initial assumption.
This method probably should be named after Jesus or Paul as they had great debates and asked really good questions to often expose assumptions, biases, arrogance, and falsehoods.
1. Ask that person if he or she is a genuine Christian.
2. Ask that person whether he or she was unfaithful and caused the divorce.
3. If the answer is "Yes" then simply move on. Keep it simple.
This is what I have always hoped for, and in fact, I think that you and I have accomplished this in the past. More than anything, I always hoped that I could come here, share what I feel has been given to me, and then listen to the thoughts of others that would either demonstrate me to be correct or false . . . but when false, I hoped that my gentle opposition would show me, clearly, as to why. And if we couldn't find an agreement, my hope was that we could remain friendly and come together again at another time but over a different idea. Rarely does this happen and it's heartbreaking.
There must be a clear distinction between marriage and sexual immorality. Like below verses. Marriage is good. Promoting sexual immorality is not good.
For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you should abstain from sexual immorality; that each of you should know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, not in passion of lust, like the Gentiles who do not know God; ... For God did not call us to uncleanness, but in holiness. Therefore he who rejects this does not reject man, but God, who has also given us His Holy Spirit. (1 Thessalonians 4:3-5,7-8|NKJV
For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you should abstain from sexual immorality; that each of you should know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, not in passion of lust, like the Gentiles who do not know God; ... For God did not call us to uncleanness, but in holiness. Therefore he who rejects this does not reject man, but God, who has also given us His Holy Spirit. (1 Thessalonians 4:3-5,7-8|NKJV
from what I observed, if marriage is good and stops people fornicating, why are some christians then opposed to same sex marriages. At least those same sexes are marrying each other meaning they wont be fornicating with everyone else. Then those that prohibit their marriages are the ones going against the Bible...is it not?
plus those of the opposite sex who just live together as a couple without bothering to marry, what is the point of that?
couldnt they just be friends and live as celibate singles do?
plus those of the opposite sex who just live together as a couple without bothering to marry, what is the point of that?
couldnt they just be friends and live as celibate singles do?
Do you? Really? Did you not read what I previously wrote. I could not have left her in my own strength
People have freewill to choose from accepting the Truth taught in the Bible.. In the end, everyone will be judged according to his/her deeds. (Thoughts, actions, spoken words,)
Who will inherit the kingdom of God?
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10|NKJV
soemtimes you just got to let the unrighteous be unrighteous and let the righteous be righteous rather than impose rules on everyone. Those that are righteous will follow God and those that arent will go their own way you cant force them to follow God.
As Ive observed nobody really forces homosexuals to marry each other they just wanna do it of their own free will. But there are always homosexuals who marry the opposite sex (or they actually turn gay /come out AFTER being married and have had children) cant really say they are forced to marry, or their wives were forced to marry them.
You can only say that of child brides perhaps.
Its not translated accurately... according to tradition AND Christian Political Correctness.
A Put Away wife is talked about in the famous passage in Micah where God is quoted as saying "I hate divorce". In fact Putting Away wives is the focus of the prophecy.
Women and especially wives could not access the courts in Jewish culture. There was no Judge/Rabbi/Levite who would listen to her whatsoever.
So, often a husband who was displeased by his wife would just kick her out of the house. He wouldn't actually properly divorce her.
Women didn't have jobs...there was no place a woman could get regular employment and earn a living. Especially if she was married...
So women would either be prostitutes or move to another town and pretend to be a "widow" to get a chance at getting a new husband. If she got caught she would get stoned to death. If she did nothing she would die of starvation and exposure.
Enter the opportunists.
There are many guys who would take advantage of the situation. They were taking advantage of these obviously distressed women and marry them. Then a few weeks later divorce them. Where someone else would agree to marry them for a while. (Wife swapping) The successive marriages wouldn't have a dowry or bride price like the first marriage. Wouldn't have much of a ketubah either.
But the practice of putting away wives was extremely common.
Joseph was going to Put Away Mary privately because he believed that she had cheated on him. (Let him have her but answer to God for their crimes) Most did it publicly to shame her and possibly get her stoned to death. But most had a good idea as to what was going on
Then you have Greek/Roman society. Paul wrote to them in his letters. Completely different culture which believed polygamy was disgusting...but they believed in having a consort or two if married. It was an elevated social status to be the consort of someone powerful. A consort might even live in the same house as the wife. (Kinda common too)
I read two books that have helped me tremendously to speak to people. The first is called Tactics by Gregory Koukl and Being Logical: A Guide to Good Thinking by D.Q. McInerny
No one on this site compares to the debates with atheists on other sites or real life. So many have responded with hate, slander, reducule and mock.
It takes a lot of practice and patience to resist attacking back. I just try to ignore it and stay promoting facts or asking questions which often gives them the floor to speak. With speaking it shows you care to listen. Then after awhile, you will see good questions to ask that may show an error in thinking or their conclusion.
In doing this, you without saying your wrong have walked them into where they admitting or not have to question their own belief or conclusion.
A lot less confrontational.
I also try to stay away from the you or your words that are often felt confrontational. I want them to think and not go on the defense.
We all know the psychology of cognitive immunology, confirmstion bias, and belief enforcing techniques.
(Cognitive immunology (CI) is the science of mental immunity. It’s a field of research that goes back to the 1950s and continues in the work of experimentalists like Sander Van Der Linden. The premise is that our minds have immune systems, just as our bodies do. But where bodily immune systems protect us from infectious microbes, mental immune systems protect us from infectious ideas.
Cognitive immunologists study how mental immune systems work. They seek to understand common mental immune disorders and reveal the root causes of mental immune collapse. (A mind’s capacity to distinguish fact from fiction—and good ideas from bad ideas—can deteriorate rapidly.)
Research suggests that we employ five major belief-enforcing techniques:
- We isolate ourselves from people who hold outside beliefs in order to shield our ideas from even the possibility of contrary voices and arguments. Forms of isolation play a role in most group memberships, ranging from strong examples such as military basic training to subtle examples such as a spouse who tries to exclude one of his or her partner’s unappreciated friends.
- We try to reduce our direct exposure to other beliefs and ideas that might challenge our own. We can see stronger examples in hardline nation-states with totalitarian regimes that ban media and free speech. At the same time, all forms of education use similar principles, whether in selecting appropriate texts for the classroom or in prescribing the best nutritional advice.
- We connect our beliefs to powerful emotions. One approach involves anchoring negative emotions to belief failures. The obvious example is the fear of an unpalatable afterlife as a result of non-compliance to a religious doctrine. On the other hand, we also scare our kids deliberately in order to shape their behaviors and steer them away from risk, whether in the form of electricity or pools, or both at the same time.
- We associate with like-minded groups in which we work together to undermine rival beliefs and the groups proposing them. Targeting competing beliefs is common in politics, especially along party and ideological lines. Academics have also made this into a fine art under the rubric of the scientific method by highlighting the weaknesses in theoretical adversaries’ arguments while ignoring their strengths.
- A final technique for immunizing our beliefs relies on repetition. Repetition is, of course, the backbone of all learning (for better and worse), including the essentials, such as grammar; the extraneous, such as sporting allegiances; and the repugnant, such as racism.
Of course, the Christian can also fall into this if we are not careful to always look for truth. It is easy to do especially when our perceived bad ideas—can deteriorate rapidly.
Putting people on the defense immediately starts this psychological warfare. So in order for people to hear what we say, we need to be careful how we speak.
This is why it is always evident that the best evangelist tool is creating a good relationship. Trust bridges the gap to allow what they may have once believed as a bad idea, now to be at least worth listening to.
Another reason this is important is because for those who are married, there is a moral obligation to have sex with one's spouse as we see in I Corinthians 7. Presenting sex as a bad or sinful thing... across the board... could deter married people from being obedient in that area of their life.
If we have to worry about every decision we make...ie overeating, smoking, cussing, remarrying after divorce, gossiping or whatever, then is following Christ really freeing? I'm not saying go out and act a fool, but for Pete's sake, are we free from the bondages of sin or not? Many in this site worry more now than before they became a believer, and I am pretty sure Christ was saying that's silly when He said something about the birds not worrying when they fly, so why do we worry?
Keep your heart focused on Christ, and the rest will work for good.(just like it says in the Bible)
Keep your heart focused on Christ, and the rest will work for good.(just like it says in the Bible)
The wives put away with a divorce certificate were 'put away' wives also. in fact, in Matthew 19, the topic the Pharisees were asking Jesus about was about when one could 'legally' put away a wife--- with a certificate.
7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and [quoto put her away?
8 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.
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
Look at the topic they brought up,
3 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?
You can find articles on the Pharisaical debate on the 'any cause' divorce. In the generation before Christ and around the time of his birth, the 'nasi' or prince of the Sanhedrin, the most prominent scholar was Hillel. The second most influential leader was Shammai. Their students disagree with each other. The Jerusalem Talmud even says some of the Shammai school killed off some of the Hillel school. I hear this was at a Bible study.
But they also debated about a number of things. Hillel was more friendly toward Gentile conversion to Judaism and made it easy. Modern Orthodox Judaism evolved out of Hillel Phariseeism. The Shammai folks were in power for much of the New Testament. The idea that going into a Gentile's house was unlawful might have been a House of Shammai decision.
When it came to divorce, Shammai interpreted Deuteronomy 24 to allow for a divorce certificate if some form of uncleanness were found in a woman-- adultery or maybe something a bit less extreme than that, but still serious. Hillel allowed for divorce 'for any cause.' if a woman burnt the bread, he thought a man could give her a divorce certificate.
So when we read about 'divorce for every cause' or for any cause in the passage, we should think of the debates referred to in their own literatura, written down later of course as a record of their 'oral law' in the Mishneh or Talmud.
Here is a quote about three falsely so-called 'rabbis'-- one of them who supported a false Messiah after Christ. The first two speaking before Matthew 19 was written. This is a quote from a Jewish site: https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2285/jewish/When-to-Get-Divorced.htm
At the time Matthew 19 happened, the first two opinions were being debated.
I am not sure if this is where you are going, but I have seen a whole website and a number of posts on Internet forums defending the idea that a Christian man can divorce his wife for any reason if he gives her a divorce certificate. That is completely contrary to Christ's teaching in Matthew 19. If all he were saying was, "You had better give her a piece of paper that says you are divorced", that was already proper doctrine the Pharisees would have agreed on, and the apostles would not have responded, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better for a man not to marry." Giving a woman divorce certificate was already accepted practice.
Those who did not do so were not following the Pharisees prescriptions. They were trying to get around the law.
This trend toward interpretation Matthew 19 relies on ignorance of the historical setting and also seems to be an attempt to lower the bar of Biblical morality to conform with the rampant disobedience to the teaching of Christ and Paul on the matter that we see in so many churches today.