S/O Of Stellavore\'s S/O in General Discussion

The scripture Gary quoted explains what God's actual word is on this. The Bible does list reasons for when divorce is allowable, and IMO those reasons would release a person from their marriage.

We should realize that the laws are much more liberal now than in Biblical times. Back then, a man pretty well ruled his household and his wife too. Unless a woman just disappeared, she was bound to her husband forever and could face punishment if she tried to leave or was unfaithful. Not that way now. Divorce is almost as easy as signing a few papers, and a woman can get out of a marriage as easily as a man can. As a former pastor of mine used to say, "God understands".

I am not an authority on Catholicism, so I won't comment on their beliefs. But in the case of the Protestant ministers mentioned who has a blanket rule against marrying a person who has been divorced; I suspect they are following some of those "laws of men" that fall under the "but we've always done it that way" category. Certainly...a preacher who takes his duties seriously should speak with any couple wishing to get married to try and make sure there is love there and that they are doing it for the right reasons. And when there has been prior marriages, I think it's prudent for a pastor to find out what happened, try and make sure any issues or behavior that might have caused it has been corrected. But IMO, they are picking and choosing in God's word if they ignore Biblical grounds for divorce.

On a related note...In my former church, I was a strong leader there for several years and was instrumental in leading the church in time of tremendous growth. When it came time for Deacon elections, I would get more nominations from the membership than all the other men of the church combined; yet as is fairly typical with many churches, the sitting board of deacons would disqualify me because of (IMO) an incorrect understanding of what 1st Timothy says about a deacon being the husband of one wife. Yes, I had a brief unsuccessful marriage when I was young. We got married at too early of an age, and after a few months my first wife decided she wasn't ready to settle down and she jumped head first into the party and drug scene. I tried to save the marriage, but as I mentioned concerning modern laws, nothing I could really to to fight it.

Under the beliefs of some, I should not have remarried after that, because I would be committing adultery against my first wife. But according to the scripture (as I understand it), I was released from those bonds the night after the first wife left when she bedded another man.

I have often asked myself what kind of a man I would have been had I not remarried. I know that answer...I would have probably been a wild thing, living a life of excessive sin, partying and bedding every pretty face that returned my smile. I would not be who I am today; an active and serving church member who has been faithfully remarried for 31 years and has raised a happy and successful daughter. I probably would not have built a couple of businesses and provided good jobs for a lot of people.

So which route would God have preferred for me? The route I took, which many consider sinful, or the alternative route I mentioned where I probably would have been a much different and less desirable person to His kingdom?

I think I know the answer to that.
 
Guard Dad said:
The scripture Gary quoted explains what God's actual word is on this. The Bible does list reasons for when divorce is allowable, and IMO those reasons would release a person from their marriage.

We should realize that the laws are much more liberal now than in Biblical times. Back then, a man pretty well ruled his household and his wife too. Unless a woman just disappeared, she was bound to her husband forever and could face punishment if she tried to leave or was unfaithful. Not that way now. Divorce is almost as easy as signing a few papers, and a woman can get out of a marriage as easily as a man can. As a former pastor of mine used to say, "God understands".

I am not an authority on Catholicism, so I won't comment on their beliefs. But in the case of the Protestant ministers mentioned who has a blanket rule against marrying a person who has been divorced; I suspect they are following some of those "laws of men" that fall under the "but we've always done it that way" category. Certainly...a preacher who takes his duties seriously should speak with any couple wishing to get married to try and make sure there is love there and that they are doing it for the right reasons. And when there has been prior marriages, I think it's prudent for a pastor to find out what happened, try and make sure any issues or behavior that might have caused it has been corrected. But IMO, they are picking and choosing in God's word if they ignore Biblical grounds for divorce.

On a related note...In my former church, I was a strong leader there for several years and was instrumental in leading the church in time of tremendous growth. When it came time for Deacon elections, I would get more nominations from the membership than all the other men of the church combined; yet as is fairly typical with many churches, the sitting board of deacons would disqualify me because of (IMO) an incorrect understanding of what 1st Timothy says about a deacon being the husband of one wife. Yes, I had a brief unsuccessful marriage when I was young. We got married at too early of an age, and after a few months my first wife decided she wasn't ready to settle down and she jumped head first into the party and drug scene. I tried to save the marriage, but as I mentioned concerning modern laws, nothing I could really to to fight it.

Under the beliefs of some, I should not have remarried after that, because I would be committing adultery against my first wife. But according to the scripture (as I understand it), I was released from those bonds the night after the first wife left when she bedded another man.

I have often asked myself what kind of a man I would have been had I not remarried. I know that answer...I would have probably been a wild thing, living a life of excessive sin, partying and bedding every pretty face that returned my smile. I would not be who I am today; an active and serving church member who has been faithfully remarried for 31 years and has raised a happy and successful daughter. I probably would not have built a couple of businesses and provided good jobs for a lot of people.

So which route would God have preferred for me? The route I took, which many consider sinful, or the alternative route I mentioned where I probably would have been a much different and less desirable person to His kingdom?

I think I know the answer to that.
Nicely stated. I just do not understand why your church deacons would disqualify you when you obviously fell under the category of a spouse leaving and cheating. You are never released (annulled) from that first marriage even though the reasons are in the bible? That is what I asked Fox about earlier. Why is there not a path for that outside of the Catholic church? Protestant, baptist, Methodist, do none of them have anything?
I see very few reasons for divorce. Yours and abuse are just about it. (I am sure if I really thought about it I might could come up with something else :) )
 
I should also mention that this is the kind of crap that soured me on going to church for awhile, and even know I don't have the same respect for organized religion that I used to. Way too many people out there "preaching" stuff that is not Biblical, and that can be very harmful the the very Kingdom they profess to be a part of.

We should all remember some of the crowd that Jesus hung out with. He didn't act like he was above them; he showed them the same love an compassion due all of God's children. And He of all people know that the rest of us fell short of God's glory; that is why he ultimately went to the cross for us.

If you listen to some, there are lots of "sins" that can't be covered by Christ's blood. There was a hateful old woman at my last church that made the statement that "divorced people shouldn't even be coming to church" (RNG knows who she is). What Bible was that crabby woman reading from? It sure wasn't God's word!
 
Guard Dad said:
The scripture Gary quoted explains what God's actual word is on this. The Bible does list reasons for when divorce is allowable, and IMO those reasons would release a person from their marriage.

We should realize that the laws are much more liberal now than in Biblical times. Back then, a man pretty well ruled his household and his wife too. Unless a woman just disappeared, she was bound to her husband forever and could face punishment if she tried to leave or was unfaithful. Not that way now. Divorce is almost as easy as signing a few papers, and a woman can get out of a marriage as easily as a man can. As a former pastor of mine used to say, "God understands".

I am not an authority on Catholicism, so I won't comment on their beliefs. But in the case of the Protestant ministers mentioned who has a blanket rule against marrying a person who has been divorced; I suspect they are following some of those "laws of men" that fall under the "but we've always done it that way" category. Certainly...a preacher who takes his duties seriously should speak with any couple wishing to get married to try and make sure there is love there and that they are doing it for the right reasons. And when there has been prior marriages, I think it's prudent for a pastor to find out what happened, try and make sure any issues or behavior that might have caused it has been corrected. But IMO, they are picking and choosing in God's word if they ignore Biblical grounds for divorce.

On a related note...In my former church, I was a strong leader there for several years and was instrumental in leading the church in time of tremendous growth. When it came time for Deacon elections, I would get more nominations from the membership than all the other men of the church combined; yet as is fairly typical with many churches, the sitting board of deacons would disqualify me because of (IMO) an incorrect understanding of what 1st Timothy says about a deacon being the husband of one wife. Yes, I had a brief unsuccessful marriage when I was young. We got married at too early of an age, and after a few months my first wife decided she wasn't ready to settle down and she jumped head first into the party and drug scene. I tried to save the marriage, but as I mentioned concerning modern laws, nothing I could really to to fight it.

Under the beliefs of some, I should not have remarried after that, because I would be committing adultery against my first wife. But according to the scripture (as I understand it), I was released from those bonds the night after the first wife left when she bedded another man.

I have often asked myself what kind of a man I would have been had I not remarried. I know that answer...I would have probably been a wild thing, living a life of excessive sin, partying and bedding every pretty face that returned my smile. I would not be who I am today; an active and serving church member who has been faithfully remarried for 31 years and has raised a happy and successful daughter. I probably would not have built a couple of businesses and provided good jobs for a lot of people.

So which route would God have preferred for me? The route I took, which many consider sinful, or the alternative route I mentioned where I probably would have been a much different and less desirable person to His kingdom?

I think I know the answer to that.

I'm no expert, but, from what you describe, I believe your first marriage would be a very good candidate for annulment by the Catholic Church. It sounds as though it could be argued that there were circumstances that limited your free decision to enter into it.
 
Genevieve said:
Guard Dad said:
The scripture Gary quoted explains what God's actual word is on this. The Bible does list reasons for when divorce is allowable, and IMO those reasons would release a person from their marriage.

We should realize that the laws are much more liberal now than in Biblical times. Back then, a man pretty well ruled his household and his wife too. Unless a woman just disappeared, she was bound to her husband forever and could face punishment if she tried to leave or was unfaithful. Not that way now. Divorce is almost as easy as signing a few papers, and a woman can get out of a marriage as easily as a man can. As a former pastor of mine used to say, "God understands".

I am not an authority on Catholicism, so I won't comment on their beliefs. But in the case of the Protestant ministers mentioned who has a blanket rule against marrying a person who has been divorced; I suspect they are following some of those "laws of men" that fall under the "but we've always done it that way" category. Certainly...a preacher who takes his duties seriously should speak with any couple wishing to get married to try and make sure there is love there and that they are doing it for the right reasons. And when there has been prior marriages, I think it's prudent for a pastor to find out what happened, try and make sure any issues or behavior that might have caused it has been corrected. But IMO, they are picking and choosing in God's word if they ignore Biblical grounds for divorce.

On a related note...In my former church, I was a strong leader there for several years and was instrumental in leading the church in time of tremendous growth. When it came time for Deacon elections, I would get more nominations from the membership than all the other men of the church combined; yet as is fairly typical with many churches, the sitting board of deacons would disqualify me because of (IMO) an incorrect understanding of what 1st Timothy says about a deacon being the husband of one wife. Yes, I had a brief unsuccessful marriage when I was young. We got married at too early of an age, and after a few months my first wife decided she wasn't ready to settle down and she jumped head first into the party and drug scene. I tried to save the marriage, but as I mentioned concerning modern laws, nothing I could really to to fight it.

Under the beliefs of some, I should not have remarried after that, because I would be committing adultery against my first wife. But according to the scripture (as I understand it), I was released from those bonds the night after the first wife left when she bedded another man.

I have often asked myself what kind of a man I would have been had I not remarried. I know that answer...I would have probably been a wild thing, living a life of excessive sin, partying and bedding every pretty face that returned my smile. I would not be who I am today; an active and serving church member who has been faithfully remarried for 31 years and has raised a happy and successful daughter. I probably would not have built a couple of businesses and provided good jobs for a lot of people.

So which route would God have preferred for me? The route I took, which many consider sinful, or the alternative route I mentioned where I probably would have been a much different and less desirable person to His kingdom?

I think I know the answer to that.

I'm no expert, but, from what you describe, I believe your first marriage would be a very good candidate for annulment by the Catholic Church. It sounds as though it could be argued that there were circumstances that limited your free decision to enter into it.

In a lot of the "old school" Protestant churches, divorced people are second-class citizens. Looked down upon, never quite forgiven in spite of what God's word says, not allowed to hold certain offices or positions in the church.

Divorce rates what they are in this day and time, individuals who have not had multiple marriages have become the minority. And the beliefs that many churches have toward divorce has limited their choices for certain church leadership positions.

In my former church, there weren't very many younger or middle aged men who hadn't been divorced. So they ended up either putting the same older guys back in as deacons, or else "settled" for younger men who were hadn't been divorced but really didn't qualify in other areas either. The other qualifications didn't seem to matter; IE: must be willing to teach, must have family under control, must not be a drunkard, WIFE MUST NOT BE A MALICIOUS TALKER (NIV), etc. Being a former axe murderer was OK, but evil divorced men shouldn't apply.

A lot of churches have lost a lot of good Godly men because of these attitudes.
 
Guard Dad said:
Genevieve said:
Guard Dad said:
The scripture Gary quoted explains what God's actual word is on this. The Bible does list reasons for when divorce is allowable, and IMO those reasons would release a person from their marriage.

We should realize that the laws are much more liberal now than in Biblical times. Back then, a man pretty well ruled his household and his wife too. Unless a woman just disappeared, she was bound to her husband forever and could face punishment if she tried to leave or was unfaithful. Not that way now. Divorce is almost as easy as signing a few papers, and a woman can get out of a marriage as easily as a man can. As a former pastor of mine used to say, "God understands".

I am not an authority on Catholicism, so I won't comment on their beliefs. But in the case of the Protestant ministers mentioned who has a blanket rule against marrying a person who has been divorced; I suspect they are following some of those "laws of men" that fall under the "but we've always done it that way" category. Certainly...a preacher who takes his duties seriously should speak with any couple wishing to get married to try and make sure there is love there and that they are doing it for the right reasons. And when there has been prior marriages, I think it's prudent for a pastor to find out what happened, try and make sure any issues or behavior that might have caused it has been corrected. But IMO, they are picking and choosing in God's word if they ignore Biblical grounds for divorce.

On a related note...In my former church, I was a strong leader there for several years and was instrumental in leading the church in time of tremendous growth. When it came time for Deacon elections, I would get more nominations from the membership than all the other men of the church combined; yet as is fairly typical with many churches, the sitting board of deacons would disqualify me because of (IMO) an incorrect understanding of what 1st Timothy says about a deacon being the husband of one wife. Yes, I had a brief unsuccessful marriage when I was young. We got married at too early of an age, and after a few months my first wife decided she wasn't ready to settle down and she jumped head first into the party and drug scene. I tried to save the marriage, but as I mentioned concerning modern laws, nothing I could really to to fight it.

Under the beliefs of some, I should not have remarried after that, because I would be committing adultery against my first wife. But according to the scripture (as I understand it), I was released from those bonds the night after the first wife left when she bedded another man.

I have often asked myself what kind of a man I would have been had I not remarried. I know that answer...I would have probably been a wild thing, living a life of excessive sin, partying and bedding every pretty face that returned my smile. I would not be who I am today; an active and serving church member who has been faithfully remarried for 31 years and has raised a happy and successful daughter. I probably would not have built a couple of businesses and provided good jobs for a lot of people.

So which route would God have preferred for me? The route I took, which many consider sinful, or the alternative route I mentioned where I probably would have been a much different and less desirable person to His kingdom?

I think I know the answer to that.

I'm no expert, but, from what you describe, I believe your first marriage would be a very good candidate for annulment by the Catholic Church. It sounds as though it could be argued that there were circumstances that limited your free decision to enter into it.

In a lot of the "old school" Protestant churches, divorced people are second-class citizens. Looked down upon, never quite forgiven in spite of what God's word says, not allowed to hold certain offices or positions in the church.

Divorce rates what they are in this day and time, individuals who have not had multiple marriages have become the minority. And the beliefs that many churches have toward divorce has limited their choices for certain church leadership positions.

In my former church, there weren't very many younger or middle aged men who hadn't been divorced. So they ended up either putting the same older guys back in as deacons, or else "settled" for younger men who were hadn't been divorced but really didn't qualify in other areas either. The other qualifications didn't seem to matter; IE: must be willing to teach, must have family under control, must not be a drunkard, WIFE MUST NOT BE A MALICIOUS TALKER (NIV), etc. Being a former axe murderer was OK, but evil divorced men shouldn't apply.

A lot of churches have lost a lot of good Godly men because of these attitudes.

I'm very sorry. Those are frustrating ironies to have to live with. :(
 
A lot of churches focus on what people WERE, rather than what they ARE.

2 Corinthians 5:17 (NASB)
"Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come."

The Scripture in 1 Timothy 3 clearly states what a man "must be" (not "should have always been.")

When the church penalizes a man for his past, it devalues the purpose of the Cross and the blood that our Savior shed.
 
I'm Floored said:
A lot of churches focus on what people WERE, rather than what they ARE.

2 Corinthians 5:17 (NASB)
"Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come."

The Scripture in 1 Timothy 3 clearly states what a man "must be" (not "should have always been.")

When the church penalizes a man for his past, it devalues the purpose of the Cross and the blood that our Savior shed.

:thumbsup
 
I'm Floored said:
A lot of churches focus on what people WERE, rather than what they ARE.

2 Corinthians 5:17 (NASB)
"Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come."

The Scripture in 1 Timothy 3 clearly states what a man "must be" (not "should have always been.")

When the church penalizes a man for his past, it devalues the purpose of the Cross and the blood that our Savior shed.

Amen - and I think the Apostle Paul would agree!! :cheer1
 
I'm Floored said:
A lot of churches focus on what people WERE, rather than what they ARE.

2 Corinthians 5:17 (NASB)
"Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come."

The Scripture in 1 Timothy 3 clearly states what a man "must be" (not "should have always been.")

When the church penalizes a man for his past, it devalues the purpose of the Cross and the blood that our Savior shed.

:CLAP
 
I'm Floored said:
A lot of churches focus on what people WERE, rather than what they ARE.

2 Corinthians 5:17 (NASB)
"Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come."

The Scripture in 1 Timothy 3 clearly states what a man "must be" (not "should have always been.")

When the church penalizes a man for his past, it devalues the purpose of the Cross and the blood that our Savior shed.

Wait a minute, though. We can't throw out the baby with the bath water.

Christ Himself said that."It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce. But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery." (Matthew 5:31-32)

In the case of divorce and remarriage, we are not talking about a person's past. We are talking about something very seriously wrong--committing adultery--that he is presently doing. We need to take Our Lord's clear words seriously.

Annulment is really the only way out of this conundrum.
 
Genevieve said:
I'm Floored said:
A lot of churches focus on what people WERE, rather than what they ARE.

2 Corinthians 5:17 (NASB)
"Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come."

The Scripture in 1 Timothy 3 clearly states what a man "must be" (not "should have always been.")

When the church penalizes a man for his past, it devalues the purpose of the Cross and the blood that our Savior shed.

Wait a minute, though. We can't throw out the baby with the bath water.

Christ Himself said that."It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce. But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery." (Matthew 5:31-32)

In the case of divorce and remarriage, we are not talking about a person's past. We are talking about something very seriously wrong--committing adultery--that he is presently doing. We need to take Our Lord's clear words seriously.

Annulment is really the only way out of this conundrum.

But, again, I counter to you....the Scripture (our Lord's Sacred words) here are from Matthew....before the crucifixion. Read further in Scripture. The Law exists only to show our need for grace. Christ's work on the Cross COVERS our sin, and makes us whole again. What Satan meant for destruction, Christ defeats through His death!
 
Guard Dad said:
A lot of churches have lost a lot of good Godly men because of these attitudes.

Amen. The words "legalism" and "traditions of men" come to mind. Evil, all. I haven't commented in this thread, because don't even get me started.
 
I'm Floored said:
Genevieve said:
I'm Floored said:
A lot of churches focus on what people WERE, rather than what they ARE.

2 Corinthians 5:17 (NASB)
"Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come."

The Scripture in 1 Timothy 3 clearly states what a man "must be" (not "should have always been.")

When the church penalizes a man for his past, it devalues the purpose of the Cross and the blood that our Savior shed.

Wait a minute, though. We can't throw out the baby with the bath water.

Christ Himself said that."It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce. But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery." (Matthew 5:31-32)

In the case of divorce and remarriage, we are not talking about a person's past. We are talking about something very seriously wrong--committing adultery--that he is presently doing. We need to take Our Lord's clear words seriously.

Annulment is really the only way out of this conundrum.

But, again, I counter to you....the Scripture (our Lord's Sacred words) here are from Matthew....before the crucifixion. Read further in Scripture. The Law exists only to show our need for grace. Christ's work on the Cross COVERS our sin, and makes us whole again. What Satan meant for destruction, Christ defeats through His death!

Which of Christ's pre-Resurrection words do you heed? Any of them...?
 
Okay let me toss this into the mix, say you are forgiven for the divorce, you are not committing adultery and you are looked at for what you are now and not what you have been....what about those that have been divorced numerous times? God just looks past it again? I am not sure what the answer is here. (I know my answer and G.'s but I would like to know of other faiths.)
 
ShoeDiva said:
Okay let me toss this into the mix, say you are forgiven for the divorce, you are not committing adultery and you are looked at for what you are now and not what you have been....what about those that have been divorced numerous times? God just looks past it again? I am not sure what the answer is here. (I know my answer and G.'s but I would like to know of other faiths.)

I'll take a swing...

As with any sin, if you continue to commit the sin, there has probably not been repentance. Without repentance, there is no forgiveness.

Do I get a cookie? ;D
 
I wanted to point out that both Catholicism and Protestantism are both Christian faiths. We have some differences, mostly in how we get from point A to point B, but in the end we both believe what really matters, that Christ died for our sins and rose again 3 days later to be our living savior.
 
Guard Dad said:
ShoeDiva said:
Okay let me toss this into the mix, say you are forgiven for the divorce, you are not committing adultery and you are looked at for what you are now and not what you have been....what about those that have been divorced numerous times? God just looks past it again? I am not sure what the answer is here. (I know my answer and G.'s but I would like to know of other faiths.)

I'll take a swing...

As with any sin, if you continue to commit the sin, there has probably not been repentance. Without repentance, there is no forgiveness.

Do I get a cookie? ;D

Personally I believe that answer warrants a cookie, perhaps even an organic, grass-fed cookie.
 
Back
Top