another_poster Posted September 28, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 336 Content Per Day: 0.09 Reputation: 129 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/14/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted September 28, 2014 Are you reiterating your comparison? It's not in the Bible...it may be your personal belief, but it is not in the Bible. That comparison is not in the Bible. and so on Oh, I use scripture all the time....but I prefer to keep it in context BTW, I am not angry or hurt or offended...not all all... Good point Seven. "We must not seek to bind the consciences of other Believers with the private convictions that arise out of our personal walk with God. Even if you believe God has led you in developing those convictions, you still must not elevate them to the level of spiritual principles for everyone else to follow." - Jerry Bridges actually I think Seven has misunderstood what faith pleases God was saying. She was not saying they are the same kind of relationship. She clearly explained her view. For seven to then ask if she is making the comparison again is to not have read properly what she said. I disagree with faith pleases God's understanding but I do not wish to see her misrepresented. say what??? +1 to "say what" comment. Whatever you were trying to communicate was lost in translation Another Poster... Lol. If that is the case then I've misunderstood what Faith Pleases God was saying too. I don't think he was being misrepresented here. Faith Pleases God was comparing masters/slaves to husbands/wives. The Bible never makes that comparison. It's really that simple. Faith Pleases God is a guy btw. God bless, GE No Golden Eagle he did not. Sure it looked that way but then he made the post saying he did not mean they were the same. To then claim they are is accusing them of lying. Is that really what you want to do? Slaves and masters are not one flesh but the slave can not leave if being abused. husband and wife are on flesh. Faith Pleases God is of the opinion that if two people who are not one flesh must stay together in the case of abuse then surely two people who do become one flesh should stay together. That is not saying they are the same or similar. As I already said I disagree as I think he ignores certain other factors but still is not comparing them as being the same or similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firestormx Posted September 28, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 62 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,113 Content Per Day: 0.26 Reputation: 442 Days Won: 3 Joined: 06/06/2012 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/17/1975 Share Posted September 28, 2014 I have stayed away from this thread because it is personal for me. However, it seems that people love talking in hypothetical situations these days. But this is real and affects real people with real feelings. So let me put a face to this conversation so people don't have to use a hypothetical. My situation with this is simple. When me and my now ex-wife got married she was following no religion and I was a satanist. During our marriage I got saved, she did not. Long story short, she left me telling me she had been sleeping with other people and wanted to be with one of them and also she didn't agree with Christianity, she wanted to follow Wicca or witchcraft as most would call it. I begged her to stay and she would not. After a few years, she decided she wanted to marry another guy she had hooked up with, which meant she needed to divorce me. I fought the divorce but she went through with it and divorced me against my will. I am a single Father of 2 kids ( yes I got the kids ) if I was to find someone and remarry, would it be a sin? Why or Why not. I ask for responses but I am not sure if I will respond much because of this being so personal for me. I hope everyone understands. First of all I am very sorry that happened to you, and yes, it is even harder when children are involved. But I thank God that He saved you out of that past dark path you were on and brought you into the Light. To briefly answer your question, as I already did several times in my prior posts (if you care to read or reread), because it is also especially for people like yourself that I made this post, to ask for truth to make it known and provide answers that will bring people into the right walk with God or keep them on it. Since your ex-wife was unfaithful in this case scripture states that you are free to remarry since she had broken the marriage covenant. Especially in your case I have to say, if your ex-wife was not interested to accept Jesus even any time down the road and leave the occult ways, it would have been extraordinary hard to continue this relationship, since there would have been a lot of spiritual issues, more so than with an unbeliever who just doesn't believe, without being into the occult. +1 I too sympathize. So sorry this happened. Firestormx you are loved brother! God bless, GE Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdemoss Posted September 28, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 59 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 4,402 Content Per Day: 0.99 Reputation: 2,154 Days Won: 28 Joined: 02/10/2012 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/26/1971 Share Posted September 28, 2014 I have stayed away from this thread because it is personal for me. However, it seems that people love talking in hypothetical situations these days. But this is real and affects real people with real feelings. So let me put a face to this conversation so people don't have to use a hypothetical. My situation with this is simple. When me and my now ex-wife got married she was following no religion and I was a satanist. During our marriage I got saved, she did not. Long story short, she left me telling me she had been sleeping with other people and wanted to be with one of them and also she didn't agree with Christianity, she wanted to follow Wicca or witchcraft as most would call it. I begged her to stay and she would not. After a few years, she decided she wanted to marry another guy she had hooked up with, which meant she needed to divorce me. I fought the divorce but she went through with it and divorced me against my will. I am a single Father of 2 kids ( yes I got the kids ) if I was to find someone and remarry, would it be a sin? Why or Why not. I ask for responses but I am not sure if I will respond much because of this being so personal for me. I hope everyone understands.Joseph, my brother, sin is always done based upon desire. The corruption that is in the world is there because of the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh and the pride of life. When I made the decision to marry again it was made based upon how I believed I could be of maximum service to God in light of my own limitations. I am not the type of person who can make himself a eunuch for the kingdom of heaven and I don't care to be driven mad by a desire to fornicate. After much prayer and time I took a wife. Was it sin? Some would say yes and others no but in truth it is between God and I. Given all the circumstances involved I believe without a doubt that I did what God would have had me do. To my own master I stand or fall. A man who can become a eunuch for the kingdom of heavens sake ought to do so. If not he should take a wife rather than fornicate. If a man be married then every possible option to restore the marriage should be made. If after honestly finding out that divorce be the only option for peace then he ought to divorce. We need always remember that God made marriage to be a permanent union between a man and a woman and anything less misses the mark. Each of us to an extent suffers from hardness of heart and can only bear so much. My poor ex-wife did not have what it took to remain married unto me. God bless her. As I mature in my faith things progressively get easier. My heart has softened alot. I can do more than before. Only you can decide what is best Joseph by using what God has provided you with. The bible, the Holy Spirit and counsel of other Christians should help immensely to open your eyes to the next step in your walk with God. Be blessed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faith pleases God Posted September 28, 2014 Group: Senior Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 653 Content Per Day: 0.11 Reputation: 189 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/18/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/26/1977 Share Posted September 28, 2014 Are you reiterating your comparison? It's not in the Bible...it may be your personal belief, but it is not in the Bible. That comparison is not in the Bible. and so on Oh, I use scripture all the time....but I prefer to keep it in context BTW, I am not angry or hurt or offended...not all all... Good point Seven. "We must not seek to bind the consciences of other Believers with the private convictions that arise out of our personal walk with God. Even if you believe God has led you in developing those convictions, you still must not elevate them to the level of spiritual principles for everyone else to follow." - Jerry Bridges actually I think Seven has misunderstood what faith pleases God was saying. She was not saying they are the same kind of relationship. She clearly explained her view. For seven to then ask if she is making the comparison again is to not have read properly what she said. I disagree with faith pleases God's understanding but I do not wish to see her misrepresented. say what??? +1 to "say what" comment. Whatever you were trying to communicate was lost in translation Another Poster... Lol. If that is the case then I've misunderstood what Faith Pleases God was saying too. I don't think he was being misrepresented here. Faith Pleases God was comparing masters/slaves to husbands/wives. The Bible never makes that comparison. It's really that simple. Faith Pleases God is a guy btw. God bless, GE No Golden Eagle he did not. Sure it looked that way but then he made the post saying he did not mean they were the same. To then claim they are is accusing them of lying. Is that really what you want to do? Slaves and masters are not one flesh but the slave can not leave if being abused. husband and wife are on flesh. Faith Pleases God is of the opinion that if two people who are not one flesh must stay together in the case of abuse then surely two people who do become one flesh should stay together. That is not saying they are the same or similar. As I already said I disagree as I think he ignores certain other factors but still is not comparing them as being the same or similar. Thank you. I feel like my words were misunderstood even after I clearly explained that a slave/wife is different. I was explaining that if a slave cannot leave their master for abuse... then how much more can a spouse not leave the other for abuse. I have re explained that multiple times over. The point is a good and valid point. It uses a lesser position as an example for remaining. How much more should one flesh remain? The Word only gives 2 reasons for divorce and remarriage. These are being ignored and being added to. I can't help but think some may just want to justify this obvious sin, or the sins of others who remarry without the Lord's blessing. Because no scripture has been given to violate what Christ said regarding remarriage and divorce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justfaith Posted September 29, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 17 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 309 Content Per Day: 0.09 Reputation: 70 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/18/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted September 29, 2014 I have been searching this forum on this topic of remarriage but could not find any discussions or info about it. I have been extensively trying to find the truth about this topic only to end up with several different opinions from people (and many of them are biased also), but actually there can only be one truth. The other problem of this topic is that there are so many different situations one can find themselves in and on the other hand there is not a lot of scripture explaining in detail every situation. The general question is: Can a divorced person remarry? Except what is stated to be obvious in scripture, like if their spouse dies they are free to remarry, let's focus on the situation were one is either divorcing or being divorced and from the viewpoint of a divorced man and then of a divorced woman (there seems to be a difference mentioned in scripture). Can a divorced man remarry? Can a divorced woman remarry? When is remarriage OK, if at all and why or why not, in both situations of a man and a woman being divorced and being the one divorcing. I also don't want to talk about divorce being not the will of God and that God's hates divorce, that is a given. Please back up every comment with scripture, I don't want just your opinion, it has to be based on the word of God. Please do include if possible any cultural background information in light of scripture of the times it was written in that might help to understand the meaning of the scripture and how it applies to the current times (since the Word of God is timeless but it helps at times to know the background info). Also word studies in the original language that help to understand the meaning of a scripture in better detail than the english translation is welcome. God bless! I would ask if the divorced people have left the relationship on Biblical grounds. The only Biblical grounds for a divorce is adultery, without that the divorce is not Biblical. A marriage is a three way covenant between a man, a woman, and God. Just because one of the parties decides to divorce that doesn't mean that God has released that person from the covenant. For someone to remarry they must be released from the covenant by God. I too have been seeking the truth on this subject and gotten different opinions. I could suggest some material for your consideration if you are interested. the covenant is only broken if a mate dies and that person can only remarry someone in the Lord Romans 7 King James Version (KJV) 7 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? 2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. 3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. Are you aware that the "Law" was for the Jews, and came to an end? Romans seven was addressing Jewish Christians. Are you aware that you are twisting the bible to fit your fancies therefore the roamans eight was to the Gentile Christians Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevenseas Posted September 29, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 30 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,373 Content Per Day: 0.76 Reputation: 683 Days Won: 22 Joined: 02/28/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted September 29, 2014 No Golden Eagle he did not. Sure it looked that way but then he made the post saying he did not mean they were the same. To then claim they are is accusing them of lying. Is that really what you want to do? Slaves and masters are not one flesh but the slave can not leave if being abused. husband and wife are on flesh. Faith Pleases God is of the opinion that if two people who are not one flesh must stay together in the case of abuse then surely two people who do become one flesh should stay together. That is not saying they are the same or similar. As I already said I disagree as I think he ignores certain other factors but still is not comparing them as being the same or similar. another poster: regarding your response to GE....faith used the same illustration several times and I asked him why he would do that when scripture provides ample information on the actual marriage relationship faith answered that even if a slave is abused, he is still the slave of his/her master and the wife is still married even if she is abused So, to say that he was misrepresented and for him to jump on board and say thank you for 'sticking up for him' is kind of disingenuous IMO faith explained his position regarding comparing slaves to wives more then once, so let's keep this real I was explaining that if a slave cannot leave their master for abuse... then how much more can a spouse not leave the other for abuse. I have re explained that multiple times over. The point is a good and valid point yes, you did and again, why would you make that comparison? It is NOT scriptural and you are making a comparison that objectifies women and actually puts men in a pretty bad light too Remember, we are discussing Christian marriage....Christian men have a responsibility towards Christ FIRST...and then everything else falls into line If a Christian man is not submitting to Christ, he can certainly become very self righteous but there is no room for that in either a marriage or the body of Christ I would have thought we were past this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
another_poster Posted September 29, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 336 Content Per Day: 0.09 Reputation: 129 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/14/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted September 29, 2014 Thank you. I feel like my words were misunderstood even after I clearly explained that a slave/wife is different. I was explaining that if a slave cannot leave their master for abuse... then how much more can a spouse not leave the other for abuse. I have re explained that multiple times over. The point is a good and valid point. It uses a lesser position as an example for remaining. How much more should one flesh remain? The Word only gives 2 reasons for divorce and remarriage. These are being ignored and being added to. I can't help but think some may just want to justify this obvious sin, or the sins of others who remarry without the Lord's blessing. Because no scripture has been given to violate what Christ said regarding remarriage and divorce. No worries. Hopefully it is understood. Of course as I said I disagree with your conclusion because of the other factors that I don't feel you have considered in that scenario. There have been some scriptures given that could suggest otherwise although are not clear. However your position still relies on assuming the debate over put away vs divorce has been resolved. I have raised that several times and only one person has responded to it. There is what I believe to be credible evidence that word was wrongly translated as divorce and instead should have been put away which was a practice where a man would basically ignore his wife and refuse to give her a certificate of divorcement which means she could not go back to her parents and would not be having her needs met as the husband is required while the husband goes and gets himself a new wife. It is interesting also that Jesus says there is only one reason for divorce but as you say there are two reasons given. So is Jesus wrong? Or is Paul wrong? The very act of Paul giving another reason contradicts what Jesus said. Jesus said except for this ONE reason. I myself find myself in the category Paul mentioned. Mind you I have no desire to remarry because a part of me will always love my ex wife. Also since things did not work out when I discussed things and compromised on some things (not important things and not my beliefs) then next time I would approach marriage with a my way or the highway approach which simply would not work so no point in trying. Of course legally I am not divorced because I have no desire to be the one to fork out the court fees to process the paperwork. If she wants to remarry then she can pay for that. So I can't actually remarry even if I wanted to! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warrior777 Posted September 30, 2014 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 51 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 19 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/31/2014 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/05/1969 Author Share Posted September 30, 2014 (edited) If scripture gives a specific reason for a matter to be a decisive rule for that matter and no other beyond that, then we simply cannot make up another reason to decide that matter. Everything else is in danger of walking out of God's will into sin. In this case Jesus Himself even stated explicitly that this is to be the reason that rules to decide this matter and Paul led by the Holy Spirit stated the only other one found in God's word under this New Covenant. And Jesus even gave an explanation to why that is: Because people out of their hardened hearts were giving all kinds of reasons why they wanted to divorce their spouse (under Moses), so He said that this will not work like that anymore and He made a stricter rule, which was even given from the beginning, but temporarily changed under the old Law. Isn't it interesting though that Jesus said this is the ONLY reason and then later Paul gives another reason. Guess Jesus must have been wrong or perhaps it really isn't as clear as people think. Perhaps if you care to re-read my posts you will see a question that nobody has addressed yet in this thread. Edit to add: In the couple of hours between when I wrote this reply and when I actually posted it inchrist has responded to the question Well I get your point somewhat, but just because Paul expounds on what Jesus said and maybe clarifies a case that Jesus did not mention closer, does not mean that it contradicts it. You also have to see that Paul was lead by the Holy Spirit to write this, pretty much God saying it anyways, since it became also scripture. I just wish he would have explained some things even further, but that does not mean that we can go ahead and just make up what we feel like or what seems just plausible to us, without extracting what we know from scripture about a matter and comparing each scripture with it. In any case where scripture is not quite clear, a decision must be made that is in light and principle of scripture nonetheless, in connection with the known will of God and the nature of it. Now my point actually was, in cases where scripture is known we have to abide by it and definitely can't sway outside of it, making up further rules or regulations that scripture therefore does not allow, since it would contradict it. And in the case of what Paul is saying this is also part of scripture that is known. but that is what you are doing. Jesus said there was only one reason for divorce which is adultery. You have decided that since Paul said there was another reason then he is just expanding on what Jesus said! Sorry but no you can not read that into it. As I said it is not as clear as you are making out. You also have not addressed the other question. The very real argument about there being a difference between putting away and divorce. I'm saying scripture is not as clear as one suggests. Others have posted things that are known that have not been addressed and affect this topic. If correct then people need to examine their view. You are essentially approaching this with a view in mind and then reading scripture rather than reading scripture and forming your view. Sorry, could you write your question again, there was a lot to read and I had to respond to many people, if the question wasn't directed to one of my quotes I either did not pick up on it or I might have answered it in one of my posts/answers to other quotes/questions. Did you read all my posts to see if I might have touched your subject you are referring to? If I did, then I most likely have not posted an additional answer to it again. Thanks. with all due respect you should not be telling people to read back through the thread to find things if you are not willing to do so. No you have not addressed it but it is repeated here in this post anyway. I can only tell you what scripture says about the known points, who said what in scripture is actually quite uninteresting for this matter, point is, there is scripture that is known. To come back to your point of Paul, there are people, who just because of what Jesus said and because some of them think it might be a contradiction, are saying that Paul only meant for people not to be bound to a person does not mean at the same time that they are free to remarry at all unless there was also adultery in the mix. So you can take that viewpoint and go from there. For me, it doesn't contradict itself. And just because that there seems to be some issue that people think it's contradicting does not give anybody the right, according to sound scripture interpretation, to throw in all kinds of other scripturally unfounded and made up conditions that the Bible does not give, because one thinks, not everything about it is written in there, when all you can work with are 2 points that state and exception. You have to take these two points and with all known scripture come to an understanding for specific situations that have been left out (the ones that I have posted before). Also you have asked many questions , how am I supposed to know which one is not answered and which one you actually mean? I have many people to answer here and write and read and research, I just do not have the time that I can go all the way back and reread everything and then guess on top of it, when it is of no great time consuming deal for you to just rewrite your question to me, as you now did, thanks. To answer that question you could have just done a quick word study yourself (blueletterbible): "To put away" - apolyō Meanings: To set free, release, to let go, dismiss and it is used here for the meaning of divorce. It is the term the KJV uses to describe divorce in these cases you were questioning, so it's the same meaning. Edited September 30, 2014 by Warrior777 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warrior777 Posted September 30, 2014 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 51 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 19 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/31/2014 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/05/1969 Author Share Posted September 30, 2014 There has been much division in this thread, and it is not surprising. I think this couple needs to turn to God and find the answer. Not the flesh, and not man, but God himself. And he does not leave us void of answers for everything in our lives. This couple ultimately has to make the decision for themselves. And they should ask God's guidance. I have found three verses to help them. 1. James 1:5; "If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you". 2. Psalm 37:4; "Take delight in the Lord, and he will give you the desires of your heart". 3. Proverbs 3:5-6; "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight". Which couple specifically are you referring to? My earlier point was that there has to be a rule that guides this matter one way or another, God is not a respecter of persons. One just can't give their blessing to one couple remarrying and not to another, when their situations are pretty much the same. There is too much at stake, running of finto a direction that easily could be out of God's will and into sin. Then they don't know that they need to repent of it, because it is not seen as sin, since a church gave it's blessings to something they should not have... The couple I was referring to was in the OP. If they cannot be reconciled to their previous marriage and their hearts are right with God, they should be able to marry. This couple knows more about themselves than others. This whole thread sounds more like a group of Talmudic Rabbis than anything else. There is no actual couple really in the OP. It's a question about certain situations of divorce and remarriage that are not quite clear or specifically addressed in the scriptures and the quest for truth of how to deal with that. The one that divorced btw, has NO right to remarry unless their former spouse has committed adultery. This has nothing to do with Talmudic Rabbis, this is a biblical scriptural debate, the Talmud is not part of the Word of God. They are manmade laws, but I for my point want to know the will of God (not man), not only for my life but others that might also benefit about finding the truth, so what is so bad about this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warrior777 Posted September 30, 2014 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 51 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 19 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/31/2014 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/05/1969 Author Share Posted September 30, 2014 (edited) As your wife committed adultery, even the naysayers against divorce would agree you can remarry. In fact many would state adultery is THE reason for being allowed to divorce and remarry. The Bible also states that if the unbeliever wishes to leave...let them...Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace. I Cor 7:15 However, I have no problem with you wanting her to stay...I can understand that. That's the black and white answer...and this is not hypothetical for many here.. Just to quickly interject here, I think you answered you own question/statement here that you stated in the prior post. If scripture gives a specific reason for a matter to be a decisive rule for that matter and no other beyond that, then we simply cannot make up another reason to decide that matter. Everything else is in danger of walking out of God's will into sin. In this case Jesus Himself even stated explicitly that this is to be the reason that rules to decide this matter and Paul led by the Holy Spirit stated the only other one found in God's word under this New Covenant. And Jesus even gave an explanation to why that is: Because people out of their hardened hearts were giving all kinds of reasons why they wanted to divorce their spouse (under Moses), so He said that this will not work like that anymore and He made a stricter rule, which was even given from the beginning, but temporarily changed under the old Law. Uh...no.... I answered fire's post....NOT the op. You are drawing conclusions here and not representing my post I have given my thoughts on the matter throughout this thread. I have not altered my position. I am starting to get irritated by those who want to jam their take on one verse into everyone elses' life. Didn't draw any conclusions that are misrepresenting your post: This was your prior post I was referring to: "I simply no longer believe God expects us to stay with a spouse that is unfaithful to the marriage covenant and I believe there are more ways then one to break that covenant"-- Then you answered fire's post with the truth from scripture, you answered him exactly that what you were saying you didn't believe in that statement you made prior. I have read your thoughts, that's exactly why I posted this. Nobody is jamming their take (especially) on ONE verse down anybody's life. Why would you think that? If at all this is a quest for truth and we are comparing all scriptures with each other (not just one) in light of scripture itself and the principle of it. Reread what I stated, there is only an answer to how scripture is and must be interpreted so that it is not done wrong. There are scriptures that can't be changed into any other meaning, they are self explanatory. If it says, e.g. "you should not lie" one can't go and say well, if it helps someone else, a little lie is not that bad or permissible. That would be altering scripture by adding to it. We just can't do that and still be in God's will. That's what I meant. You are definitely entitled to your own opinion and believe but you have to be aware that it could be out of the will of God to do so, and the example you gave on this topic it just is not supported by scripture, no matter how anybody wants to turn or interpret it, there is just no interpreting that into it there. That's all. Didn't draw any conclusions that are misrepresenting your post: This was your prior post I was referring to: "I simply no longer believe God expects us to stay with a spouse that is unfaithful to the marriage covenant and I believe there are more ways then one to break that covenant"-- Then you answered fire's post with the truth from scripture, you answered him exactly that what you were saying you didn't believe in that statement you made prior. I have read your thoughts, that's exactly why I posted this. Nobody is jamming their take (especially) on ONE verse down anybody's life. Why would you think that? If at all this is a quest for truth and we are comparing all scriptures with each other (not just one) in light of scripture itself and the principle of it. yeah....no, I understood pefectly what you said and why you said it. You consider my statement to be opinion and what I replied to fire as biblical truth. Well, you haven't read my thoughts...or the times I change what I wrote...you have read what I wrote; that's it...that's all. I have plenty more thoughts on the matter which I have not expressed and most likely will not express. FYI, I have already done my quest for truth and agonized over it, so again, you do not know my thoughts. My statement does not contradict anything. I answered fire according to his situation. Nothing more nothing less. There is nothing for debate in his situation because it is simple and involves adultery. Try and hold two thoughts together on that one and you might see what I am getting at. As far as what you state regarding scripture, well I have no arguement with that...but you are not the final authority on all that scripture states...I don't believe anyone is. I believe the Bible is the word of God...but too many people try and make it their own words and then say they speak for God. Been there, listened to that and wish I hadn't. You are definitely entitled to your own opinion and believe but you have to be aware that it could be out of the will of God to do so, and the example you gave on this topic it just is not supported by scripture, no matter how anybody wants to turn or interpret it, there is just no interpreting that into it there. That's all. I disagree. Telling someone they may be out of the will of God and believing they know everything a person thinks because they read a few posts is really stretching things IMO. Really. I meant "your thoughts" as far as you put them down here - the very same words you used -- "I have given my thoughts on the matter throughout this thread." --, please do not twist my words now to mean something else. Of course I don't know your thoughts that are not expressed. You said you replied fire with biblical truth, that's exactly my point. So there is biblical truth, whatever else that is NOT written, you cannot add it in there because you think or believe, it should be in there. That would be NOT biblical truth. Doesn't have anything to do with me being a "final authority" - where do you even get that from and why do you make this personal? I just stated that there are rules by what "authorities", if you want to call them that, agreed upon what are a sound interpretation rules for scriptures, called biblical hermeneutics. If you believe one just can make up other reasons (for whatever), when these reasons are not specifically given in scripture or through comparison with scripture and sound principles, then that is out of context and seen as unbiblical, no matter what you say. That's all I have to say about that. But this is not my point for the OP, to discuss something not biblical and I asked for scriptures, biblical principles in context and or background historical info, etc. so please keep it on topic, thanks. Edited September 30, 2014 by Warrior777 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts