The real fatal blow to the family

[wingnut-]

I hear this come up a lot on this forum, in daily life, and inside church walls. Everyone seems to have a finger pointed at who is to blame, but are they truly pointed in the right direction? The most common direction to point in recent times is at the homosexual agenda. I think we can all agree that homosexuality is a sin, as has been so often pointed out scripture is crystal clear in regards to this, it's not even debatable. But does that equate guilt in the destruction of the family unit? I think not.

Homosexuality is a modern movement, back in the eighties it was still frowned upon and shunned, even today it is still unaccepted by the majority, despite the medias best efforts to convince people otherwise. Considering this is a new issue, to point the finger at homosexuals is the same as saying marriage was in good shape prior to this movement. Anyone who claims that is not being intellectually honest.

Heterosexuals are to blame for the destruction of the family unit, make no mistake about that. Divorce has dealt the crippling blow to the family, and more specifically, the church itself. Why the church? That's easy, divorce within the church has surpassed divorce outside of it. Where are the vast majority of wedding ceremonies held? That's right, within a church.

The bible addresses this issue as well, Jesus Himself spoke directly on the matter (Matthew 19:1-12, Mark 10:2-12). In those verses Jesus does not call divorce itself a sin (although it is clearly discouraged throughout scripture), but what follows divorce is where things go astray. Except for instances of adultery, remarriage is not permitted, period. There is no fine print, there are no other exemptions, there are no excuses. To say otherwise is to imply that Jesus was unaware of other possibilities that might compel someone to seek divorce, and that is no different than claiming He is not the Alpha and Omega.

Yet the church continues to marry people within its walls that choose to violate their covenant, in spite of our Savior's words. Why? Where is the outrage? Where was the outrage for the family when this became acceptable? I think it is easy to point a finger of blame at a sin we do not personally struggle with and say, "See, it's all your fault!" It may be convenient, but it doesn't make it right or true. Look around your congregation, more than likely half of the married couples are living in sin, products of a church generation that embraced and endorsed it. When you point at homosexual sin, four fingers are pointed back at you, and statistically that is probably an accurate ratio.

In closing I would like to point out one thing that is never brought up in regards to sexual sin, the Ten Commandments. I don't see homosexuality addressed, I do see adultery.

[Shimshon]

In closing I would like to point out one thing that is never brought up in regards to sexual sin, the Ten Commandments. I don't see homosexuality addressed, I do see adultery.

You should see the word 'covet' there too. Did you know the word covet comes from the latin word 'cupid' which means to desire.

from Vulgar Latin *cupidietare, from Latin cupiditat-, cupiditas desire, from cupidus desirous, from cupere to desire

Some synonyms for covet are; ache for, desire, crave, long for, lust for or after, pant after, pine for, salivate for, sigh for, yern for....

So when the text says;

¹⁷ “You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's.”

Would you not think that if coveting your neighbor's wife also means seeking to have sex with her? And if so, why wouldn't the same apply for 'his male servant? Understanding this, you find the command against not only desiring 'things' but also lusting after people and animals. So in fact the 10 commandments do command us NOT to commit homosexuality and beastiality. Do not covet or lust after male workers, or female workers, nor his animals. "You shall not (lust for or after, pant after, pine for, salivate for and yern for).....your neighbors wife, nor his male workers, nor his female workers (for the women), or his work animals, nor anything that is his. So if he has a son, and you think your attracted to him as a male. Are you allowed to covet him? And if he has a daughter, and you think your attracted to her, as a male. Are you allowed to covet her? NO! if you lust after her in your heart you are gulty as if you actually did the actions.

Marriage, as defined by God is holy. It is described as 'man and woman' being one. As God is one with Yeshua, as we are one with God through Yeshua. If we find an attractive woman we want to marry, we don't fantasize about her, coveting her in any way. We love her, and honor her. We keep the marriage pure by NOT coveting her at all. We know God works together for the good of all things. And we let God move and place us together. We wait for the proper time to 'know' each other intimately.

My point is, you'd say; 'but desiring a female as a male is o.k.'. Yes, it is, but it's not o.k. to 'covet' her at any time in your 'relationship'.

In this way, the command not to covet our neighbors employees and animals very well can imply 'sex' with them too. And as such, homosexuality and beasiality is included in the commandments. As coveting can imply sexual intentions.

[wingnut-]

In closing I would like to point out one thing that is never brought up in regards to sexual sin, the Ten Commandments. I don't see homosexuality addressed, I do see adultery.

You should see the word 'covet' there too. Did you know the word covet comes from the latin word 'cupid' which means to desire.

from Vulgar Latin *cupidietare, from Latin cupiditat-, cupiditas desire, from cupidus desirous, from cupere to desire

Some synonyms for covet are; ache for, desire, crave, long for, lust for or after, pant after, pine for, salivate for, sigh for, yern for....

So when the text says;

¹⁷ “You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's.”

Would you not think that if coveting your neighbor's wife also means seeking to have sex with her? And if so, why wouldn't the same apply for 'his male servant? Understanding this, you find the command against not only desiring 'things' but also lusting after people and animals. So in fact the 10 commandments do command us NOT to commit homosexuality and beastiality. Do not covet or lust after male workers, or female workers, nor his animals. "You shall not (lust for or after, pant after, pine for, salivate for and yern for).....your neighbors wife, nor his male workers, nor his female workers (for the women), or his work animals, nor anything that is his. So if he has a son, and you think your attracted to him as a male. Are you allowed to covet him? And if he has a daughter, and you think your attracted to her, as a male. Are you allowed to covet her? NO! if you lust after her in your heart you are gulty as if you actually did the actions.

Marriage, as defined by God is holy. It is described as 'man and woman' being one. As God is one with Yeshua, as we are one with God through Yeshua. If we find an attractive woman we want to marry, we don't fantasize about her, coveting her in any way. We love her, and honor her. We keep the marriage pure by NOT coveting her at all. We know God works together for the good of all things. And we let God move and place us together. We wait for the proper time to 'know' each other intimately.

My point is, you'd say; 'but desiring a female as a male is o.k.'. Yes, it is, but it's not o.k. to 'covet' her at any time in your 'relationship'.

In this way, the command not to covet our neighbors employees and animals very well can imply 'sex' with them too. And as such, homosexuality and beasiality is included in the commandments. As coveting can imply sexual intentions.

Fair point, and I do concede that it is referenced, but not specifically mentioned, adultery however is a commandment unto itself.

[wingnut-]

The bolded text is false, and even so depends on an interpretation which does not hold up to hard examination.

One sin is not relative to another. The fact that divorce occurs in the Church does not equate to homosexuality being given a free ride. The fact is, humans, all humans are flawed, and as a result, many marriages will fail simply because of the fact that people make mistakes. The entire attitude of people within the church, in cases of divorce, that "they made a mistake and now they have to pay for it the rest of their lives" is not found in the Bible, and it is not an attribute of God that I can find anywhere, that when one of His makes a mistake, they are punished for it by Him their entire lives.

We say we want drug addicts, prostitutes, liars, thieves, and even homosexuals to enter a relationship with Jesus, be changed and we will forget about their past mistakes like they never happened. But when it comes to those who have been divorced, we see a different attitude, which the OP illustrates clearly. In this special case, those who have been divorced and then *gasp* had the temerity to remarry can go to church, but in most churches, they are viewed as damaged goods, seen as people who are marked and can never remove the stigma of divorce from their lives, and pretty much condemned to holding down a pew at the back of the church. And the others in the church treat them this way with absolutely no basis for doing so, and while they claim to love Jesus so much. And we see posts like this all over every Christian boards condemning divorce and telling those who have been divorced that they have to hang their head in shame forever as second class citizens who have no value. It's 100% hypocrisy.

So while you are busy treating divorce like the cause of every ill in society, and the people who have been involved in it like a pariah, congratulations, you are treating everyone who has been divorced exactly the same way you imply that others in the church treat homosexuals.

Matthew 19:9 "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

That is what Jesus said, if you have a differing opinion from a higher authority please share it. To say it is false simply because it doesn't say what you want to hear is no different than homosexuals dismissing what they don't like.

Secondly, they are both sexual related sins so I disagree they are not related.

Thirdly, I happen to be divorced myself, so your false assumption pretty much falls flat there, unless you think I'm beating myself up on a consistent basis. What the OP illustrates your post confirms, you will look the other way on something that affects you personally while ranting about a sin you do not struggle with. You're right, that is 100% hypocrisy, and I congratulate you for demonstrating my point.

Lastly, I did not say divorce was the cause of all the problems, as the title of the OP states, it is the fatal blow to the family unit, not the only blow.

I completely disagree that the church shuns those who have been divorced, I find the opposite to be true, which was one of the points I was making in the OP. The church not only embraces it but endorses it, I speculate the reasoning behind that is financially motivated.

I also specifically pointed out in the OP that I do not believe divorce in itself is a sin, the issue is with remarriage, and scripturally speaking I have found nothing that refutes what Jesus said. If you have something to share, please do, I have wrestled with this problem myself.

So while you are busy making assumptions, dig into your bible and show me where in scripture remarriage is permissible, in the meantime I'll hope someone else comes up with something helpful.

[wingnut-]

I understood the post just fine, and there are a few things wrong with it. For one thing, homosexuality is not a "modern" movement. It has been around since man sinned.

People should not get divorced at the drop of a hat. God takes covenants very seriously. But the fact remains that not all marriages are going to succeed. And even though the OP states that all divorce outside 'of the grounds of adultery' are not allowable, that is false, and adultery covers a much wider range than sexual infidelity.

The OP also implies that divorce is always sought by both parties, but in reality, it is usually not. But the church does not differentiate between the party who instituted the the divorce and the innocent victim of the divorce. They paint both victims with the same broad brush of condemnation and punish both in the same way.

So the church condemns homosexuality. And it condemns divorce. Both are wrong. But neither one are an unforgivable sin if one repents of the sinful behavior, turns it around and seeks forgiveness and neither one is s sin that each person should pay for for the rest of their life.

It is easy for people to rail against homosexuality when they have never struggled with it. And it is also easy for people to condemn dicorce and those who have been through it when they have never experienced it themselves.

You thought you understood it, but you did not, you jumped to conclusions. I am divorced, it ruined my life, and I see the irreparable damage it has inflicted on my daughter as well. This is a personal issue for me, homosexuality is not, so your conclusions are based on false assumptions.

[wingnut-]

I have researched it, I have discussed it, and after years of struggling with it, The Lord has given me peace on the matter. I realize what Paul says on the matter of unbelievers, I apologize for not being clear on the fact I was referring to marriage regarding two believers. That being said, Paul also says that we should not divorce them unless they are not willing to stay, he does not promote divorce even in that situation. I went through a number of churches following my divorce before I found the one I attend now. Not one of them shunned me for being divorced, they were quite welcoming. I am more shunned in the world than at church for being divorced, so via my personal experience I disagree with that.

I am not condemning anyone, I am asking why others are so quick to condemn a person who struggles with a different sexual sin. Do we not tell homosexuals that they cannot continue to live in sin? What's the difference? If that is considered condemnation then I guess we should just zip our lips and say nothing at all.

[wingnut-]

You thought you understood it, but you did not, you jumped to conclusions. I am divorced, it ruined my life, and I see the irreparable damage it has inflicted on my daughter as well. This is a personal issue for me, homosexuality is not, so your conclusions are based on false assumptions.

I understood it. I have been divorced as well. It could have ruined my life, but I didn't let it. It hurt. It cost me a lot, emotionally, but something can only ruin someone if they let it. And as for damage, it can cause just as much, or more to stay when the marriage is broken beyond repairing. When a marriage is broken, there is nothing positive that can be done at all. And I won't punish myself for it, nor will I let others punish me for it.

As I stated several times, divorce is not a sin, the issue is remarriage. I'm not attempting to punish anyone, I want to know what the difference is between a heterosexual and a homosexual.

[wingnut-]

You thought you understood it, but you did not, you jumped to conclusions. I am divorced, it ruined my life, and I see the irreparable damage it has inflicted on my daughter as well. This is a personal issue for me, homosexuality is not, so your conclusions are based on false assumptions.

Where do you stand when it comes to legalism and/or forgiveness?

Well I knew that was coming Just because we don't see eye to eye does not make me a legalist. We are saved by grace through Jesus Christ our Lord, no amount of good deeds or works will save us, just Gods amazing grace.

[nebula]

Hey guys -

Would you take a look at this video I posted a couple days ago? Pariticularly, I would like for you all to hear the words of the opening preacher.

Yes, sexual sin within the church is a problem - but is that the disease? Or is it symptoms of the disease?

[wingnut-]

As I stated several times, divorce is not a sin, the issue is remarriage. I'm not attempting to punish anyone, I want to know what the difference is between a heterosexual and a homosexual.

I would think that the difference would be obvious. Heterosexual sex is condemned outside of any relationship other than a marriage between a man and a woman. The sex is wrong and a sin in any other case, but it isn't un-natural. The homosexual act is un-natural and there is nothing that can ever be done to make the sexual act right, i.e., unsinful. Monogamy won't do it. Marriage won't do it. A Civil Union won't do it.

I will ask again: If God is love as everyone constantly repeats, and forgiving, He will punish a person for a lifetime because of a mistake by prohibiting them from re-marrying ever again? You talk as if someone who re-marries is in a constant state of sin, and that is false.

You seem to see all divorce as a result of some kind of sexual infidelity. Sexual adultery is not the only way to ruin a marriage. Adultery can take on many forms. Once a spouse becomes physically abusive, the marriage vows are broken. If they choose a drug or alcohol addiction over the other spouse, the vows are broken. The term adultery is not limited to sexual sin. Divorce is not always about some sexual sin. That mindset is misguided.

As for condemnation for those divorced, it is rife within certain denominations. Been there, done that. The AoG is full of it.

None of the people we are discussing need either condemnation, or a legitimizing of what they do. Homosexuals don't need people pointing to them telling them they will burn in hell if they don't change their ways, and neither do they need another group of people telling them that what they do is OK, because it isn't. Same thing for those who have been divorced, but condemnation for those who have remarried is wrong, and always will be unless they are changing spouses like they change socks. Those who have been divorced have been through enough. They don't need more grief heaped upon what they already have by the Church. If there was a homosexual who joined the church and eliminated that sin from their life, would we constantly remind them of that sin, or rejoice that they left it? You keep saying divorce isn't a sin. And yet divorce is the sin that the church keeps condemning people for, over and over again.

God is more than just love, I don't put Him in a box and try to confine Him with a one word definition. It wasn't love raining down on Sodom and Gomorah, nor is it love in Revelation. I also recall a scripture that specifically states "Esau I hated" attributed to God.

Now that I understand your definition of adultery, do you think people guilty of that are in the same boat as someone caught in homosexual sin?

As to your broad definition of it, could you explain how if someone divorces for reasons outside of what Jesus said was permissible, that it reflects on the other individual. For example, if the issue was drug abuse, how is the person they remarried now guilty of drug abuse?