• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth etc. Marriages. Are they valid?

Are multiple marriages valid? Where is gay marriage mentioned in scripture?

  • Yes. In the OT only.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No. In the OT only.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes. In the NT only.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No. In the NT only.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No. In both OT and NT.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    4
  • Poll closed .
Cool. Then you shouldn't have any problem pointing out my flawed interpretation. :thumbs: Begin!

I don't even know what scripture you think you are quoting. Paleocon is the only one who has quoted any scripture. So tell me what "scripture" you think you are quoting and I'll pick you apart after that.
 
So divorce is not permissible in the case of physical and emotional abuse, non-support, or any other reason 21st century people run into?

Yes or no?

No

Still waiting for an answer from Mr. Glib....

See above post and the note at the bottom of this post.

So you are okay with spouses beating each other half to death, or perhaps completely to death?

No

No answer...

See above post and the note at the bottom of this post.

I want to know because you seem to like to cherry pick scripture. This very thread was occasioned by your comment in the gay marriage thread about the Anglican Priest who would no longer sign marriage licenses and you accused him (with no proof whatsoever) of performing second, third, and fourth marriages.

So if divorce is okay due to spousal abuse then the ex-spouse can get married again? Yes or no?

I never said divorce was okay due to spousal abuse thus your follow up question is irrelevant.

If we are going to have a "serious discussion", you need to get serious first. If you can't follow what I am saying maybe you don't belong in this discussion.

I have posted all of your comments in this thread right here and have addressed all of them.

I don't even know what scripture you think you are quoting. Paleocon is the only one who has quoted any scripture. So tell me what "scripture" you think you are quoting and I'll pick you apart after that.

Fair enough. I'll agree with you on that. You probably don't know.

On a side note: I don't always respond immediately. It may take me a day or two to respond. Don't assume that I am ignoring you unless 3 days pass. If 3 days have passed it is then a safe bet that I am ignoring you. Otherwise I just haven't got around to it yet.
 
Last edited:
Valid ? In what respect ?
Legally sure. Appropriate in a Judeo Christian sense possibly.
As legally is all that matters, the rest is moot.
The definition of marriage has always been a matter of community standard. The community may draw its reasoning from shared religious thought (and shared will suggest compromise which one could sense as inconsistancy). That the world has been consistantly agreed that at least man+woman is the model simply acknowledges the obvious factor of an orderly perpetuation of the community.
Marriage is about priviledge not right and because of that the priviledge is bestowed on the model that best supports and perpetuates the community.
 
I never said divorce was okay due to spousal abuse thus your follow up question is irrelevant.

No, it isn't. I you don't think divorce is appropriate in the case of spousal abuse you need to explain why.

Fair enough. I'll agree with you on that. You probably don't know.

In fact, I DO know, I just wanted to know if you do. Evidently not.

On a side note: I don't always respond immediately. It may take me a day or two to respond. Don't assume that I am ignoring you unless 3 days pass. If 3 days have passed it is then a safe bet that I am ignoring you. Otherwise I just haven't got around to it yet.

If you don't answer I will know you were just trolling and you have nothing.

You'll have to excuse me, I am used to dealing with kids who want nothing else but to simply argue, this is how I screen them out. If they know what they are talking about, I answer them. If even THEY don't know what they mean, they get the old heave ho.
 
Last edited:
No, it isn't. I you don't think divorce is appropriate in the case of spousal abuse you need to explain why.

I never said that divorce was appropriate in the case of spousal abuse. NEVER! In my tradition we quote the following lines: "Until death do us part." "What God has joined together let no man put asunder." I take those things very seriously and I don't think there are any grounds for divorce whatsoever. This does not mean you can't move 3,000 miles away from the person if your safety is in question. It just means that you shouldn't get married again. The only benefit of divorce is the opportunity to marry again. You should never get the privilege to remarry. You already did a poor job picking a spouse. You will do a horrible job the second, third, fourth and fifth time too. (Side note: Second marriages are more likely to fail than first marriages.) This strict prohibition of divorce will encourage unmarried persons to choose wisely. A loose allowance for divorce encourages unmarried persons to choose recklessly because it really doesn't matter anyways. Why bother with the agony of screening a potential spouse for quality when it's ok to do that the first few years of marriage with little effort? You can always divorce if the person sucks. I am against divorce for any reason whatsoever because I think the wedding vows should be taken seriously or they should be changed. I suppose I should allow a little leniency for people who did use edited, re-written or abridged wedding vows that remove the lifelong commitment. The vows at my wedding were lifelong and contained no loopholes for spousal abuse. The Bible contains no loopholes for spousal abuse.

it's just me said:
In fact, I DO know, I just wanted to know if you do.

Matthew 19:9 HCSB And I tell you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.
Matthew 5:32 HCSB But I tell you, everyone who divorces his wife, except in a case of sexual immorality, causes her to commit adultery. And whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
1 Corinthians 7:15 HCSB But if the unbeliever leaves, let him leave. A brother or a sister is not bound in such cases. God has called you to peace.

it's just me said:
If you don't answer I will know you were just trolling and you have nothing.

In the future you should just make that assumption from the start. It would save you some time and frustration.

I'm sure you will disregard everything I just said. Shame on me for wasting my time. Perhaps I shouldn't have taken the bait.
 
Last edited:
I never said that divorce was appropriate in the case of spousal abuse. NEVER! In my tradition we quote the following lines: "Until death do us part." "What God has joined together let no man put asunder." I take those things very seriously and I don't think there are any grounds for divorce whatsoever. This does not mean you can't move 3,000 miles away from the person if your safety is in question. It just means that you shouldn't get married again. The only benefit of divorce is the opportunity to marry again. You should never get the privilege to remarry. You already did a poor job picking a spouse. You will do a horrible job the second, third, fourth and fifth time too. (Side note: Second marriages are more likely to fail than first marriages.) This strict prohibition of divorce will encourage unmarried persons to choose wisely. A loose allowance for divorce encourages unmarried persons to choose recklessly because it really doesn't matter anyways. Why bother with the agony of screening a potential spouse for quality when it's ok to do that the first few years of marriage with little effort? You can always divorce if the person sucks. I am against divorce for any reason whatsoever because I think the wedding vows should be taken seriously or they should be changed. I suppose I should allow a little leniency for people who did use edited, re-written or abridged wedding vows that remove the lifelong commitment. The vows at my wedding were lifelong and contained no loopholes for spousal abuse. The Bible contains no loopholes for spousal abuse.

Wow, that's harsh.

Of course, Jesus forgave everyone who asked him, and commanded us (his body) to forgive every time we are asked. If we, as a body, cannot forgive someone for the actions of their (badly chosen) spouse, that's not being very forgiving. The RCC won't even serve you the Eucharist. In my reading of the Bible there is only one sin that cannot be forgiven by God, and it's not divorce, it's blaspheme of the Holy Spirit. That said, I think the Church is being incongrouous is she says "we can forgive you for divorce but if you get married again we are going to say you are committing adultery". There are many, many cases in which a divorce that occurred BEFORE anyone was a Christian comes back to haunt them, especially in the RCC, and the RCC is reconsidering that even now. But even the RCC will annul a marriage if the parishioner was not Christian or did not know what marriage was. A lot of people don't. Some think it's like dating, if it doesn't work out, you break up.

Matthew 19:9 HCSB And I tell you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.
Matthew 5:32 HCSB But I tell you, everyone who divorces his wife, except in a case of sexual immorality, causes her to commit adultery. And whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
1 Corinthians 7:15 HCSB But if the unbeliever leaves, let him leave. A brother or a sister is not bound in such cases. God has called you to peace.

Let me explain what the conversation in Matthew was about: The Pharisees asked Jesus the question about divorce because they knew very well there were differeing opinions when it came to divorce among the Jews, and they wanted to see which side he was going to come down on. Jesus reminded them of what Deuteronomy 24:1-4 said:

“When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house, and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man’s wife, and if the latter husband turns against her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife, then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the Lord, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the Lord your God gives you as an inheritance."

Moses permitted this type of divorce, because, as Jesus said, he knew that men's hearts were hard, and indeed they are. BUT, Jesus' view of divorce had to do with God's original view of marriage, which, incindentally, was not only between a man and a woman only, but it was that the two should become one flesh. Since divorce is against God's original ordinance of marriage, to do so is evidence of hardness of heart and sin. That said, is there anything more sinful than spousal abuse, incest, or any other sin that I could name between husband and wife? I am sure there are people who have been beaten by their spouses who would rather have had the abusive spouse just leave and go to another.

So the conversation between Jesus and the Jews had more to do with their opinion of divorce vs. his opinion of divorce. But let's get back to the whole subject of sin in the first place. In my church we believe we are commanded to forgive every time we are asked. We serve them the Lord's Supper because if we do not, they will "not have life within them". (John 6:53)

If you can find a scripture that says we should not forgive a repentant sinner, I'd like to see it.


In the future you should just make that assumption from the start.

Probably.
 
Wow, that's harsh.

Of course, Jesus forgave everyone who asked him, and commanded us (his body) to forgive every time we are asked. If we, as a body, cannot forgive someone for the actions of their (badly chosen) spouse, that's not being very forgiving. The RCC won't even serve you the Eucharist. In my reading of the Bible there is only one sin that cannot be forgiven by God, and it's not divorce, it's blaspheme of the Holy Spirit. That said, I think the Church is being incongrouous is she says "we can forgive you for divorce but if you get married again we are going to say you are committing adultery". There are many, many cases in which a divorce that occurred BEFORE anyone was a Christian comes back to haunt them, especially in the RCC, and the RCC is reconsidering that even now. But even the RCC will annul a marriage if the parishioner was not Christian or did not know what marriage was. A lot of people don't. Some think it's like dating, if it doesn't work out, you break up.



Let me explain what the conversation in Matthew was about: The Pharisees asked Jesus the question about divorce because they knew very well there were differeing opinions when it came to divorce among the Jews, and they wanted to see which side he was going to come down on. Jesus reminded them of what Deuteronomy 24:1-4 said:

“When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house, and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man’s wife, and if the latter husband turns against her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife, then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the Lord, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the Lord your God gives you as an inheritance."

Moses permitted this type of divorce, because, as Jesus said, he knew that men's hearts were hard, and indeed they are. BUT, Jesus' view of divorce had to do with God's original view of marriage, which, incindentally, was not only between a man and a woman only, but it was that the two should become one flesh. Since divorce is against God's original ordinance of marriage, to do so is evidence of hardness of heart and sin. That said, is there anything more sinful than spousal abuse, incest, or any other sin that I could name between husband and wife? I am sure there are people who have been beaten by their spouses who would rather have had the abusive spouse just leave and go to another.

So the conversation between Jesus and the Jews had more to do with their opinion of divorce vs. his opinion of divorce. But let's get back to the whole subject of sin in the first place. In my church we believe we are commanded to forgive every time we are asked. We serve them the Lord's Supper because if we do not, they will "not have life within them". (John 6:53)

If you can find a scripture that says we should not forgive a repentant sinner, I'd like to see it.




Probably.

Would you mind loaning me a million dollars, and then "forgiving" me if I decide not to pay it back?
 
Genesis makes it clear that one man, one woman, for life, is the ideal. In the rest of the OT it is seen that the real world is a bit more muddy and unclear than that ideal, and sometimes we have to work with what we've got. :)


Matthew 19:9 HCSB And I tell you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.
Matthew 5:32 HCSB But I tell you, everyone who divorces his wife, except in a case of sexual immorality, causes her to commit adultery. And whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
1 Corinthians 7:15 HCSB But if the unbeliever leaves, let him leave. A brother or a sister is not bound in such cases. God has called you to peace.


These scriptures define exceptions to the marriage bond. When one partner cheats, the sacred bond is broken, because they have given to another what was supposed to be for their spouse only. The wronged spouse MAY forgive the one who wronged, but are not required to. The phrasing indicates that the wronged spouse is free to remarry, because sexual immorality is an exception, because it breaks that bond, as does abandonment by a non-believing spouse.

It could also be argued that sexual immorality could include other things besides adultery, such as porn addiction or cutting your spouse off without a compelling justification.

The following scripture seems indicative that it is better to remarry than to risk immorality, given the temptations involved.



1 Corinthians 7:2

But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.


Some denominations don't see it that way, of course.


As for whether it is a matter for law.... the US legal system certainly has Christian roots, but is secular and not theological. You'd have to convince a large majority to agree to get it codified into law.


Personally, I tend to hold to what I said above... but I'll add that I'm not going be judgmental towards someone who bailed out of an abusive relationship, as I would not tolerate being treated that way for very long either.
 
The Bible is inconsistent on plural marriage:




and yet....



I don't think gay marriage is mentioned at all.

You're not going to find much of anything supporting polygamy or divorce outside of the Old Testament.

In the New Testament, however, Christ makes it rather clear that a lot of things that were accepted in the Old Testament will no longer be allowed under the new law.

Matthew 19:8 -

“Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

If God himself in human form says no divorce (unless you have a damn good reason for it) and no polygamy, I'm inclined to take his word for it. :shrug:
 
Last edited:

Where do I begin? Baptists certainly disagree with Catholics on many points of doctrine, neither agree with Mormons, Lutherans, Seventh Day Adventists, you name it. Many churches, many sets of doctrine.
 
You're not going to find much of anything supporting polygamy or divorce outside of the Old Testament.

In the New Testament, however, Christ makes it rather clear that a lot of things that were accepted in the Old Testament will no longer be allowed under the new law.


If God himself in human form says no divorce (unless you have a damn good reason for it) and no polygamy, I'm inclined to take his word for it. :shrug:

So, we're going to dismiss the Old Testament entirely? That would simplify things a bit.
 
Where do I begin? Baptists certainly disagree with Catholics on many points of doctrine, neither agree with Mormons, Lutherans, Seventh Day Adventists, you name it. Many churches, many sets of doctrine.

God founded only one of those.
 
According to my understanding of scripture, divorce is only permissible (not mandatory) if the spouse has committed adultery or if the spouse is a nonbeliever. It is also my understanding of scripture that remarriage is only permissible once the original spouse is no longer living.

With this information, which you are welcome to disagree with*, Should clergy or government officials be required to grant marital status to these applicants even though it is a direct violation of scripture?

Follow up question: Where is gay marriage mentioned in scripture?

*I will likely dismiss your argument if it is your opinion based upon popular culture without a scriptural basis. To minimize this risk use quotes from the Bible to make your case.

Your conflating a religious ceremony with a civil one. To answer your question clergy shouldn't be required to grant marital status to applicants who violate their interpretation of scripture. Government officials on the other hand are charged with complying with the current law and if the current law says same sex couple and multiple divorcees can get married/remarried they damn well better do it or find another line of work.
 
Would you mind loaning me a million dollars, and then "forgiving" me if I decide not to pay it back?

Sure, but you'll have to foirgive me for not lending it to you in the first place.
 
Where do I begin? Baptists certainly disagree with Catholics on many points of doctrine, neither agree with Mormons, Lutherans, Seventh Day Adventists, you name it. Many churches, many sets of doctrine.

Mormons are not Christians, SDA's are barely Christians, depending on what it is they really believe, which doesn't leave you with much.
 
Jesus forgave ..... commanded us (his body) to forgive ...... If we, as a body, cannot forgive someone .... that's not being very forgiving .... only one sin that cannot be forgiven .... "we can forgive you .....

If you can find a scripture that says we should not forgive a repentant sinner, I'd like to see it.

Forgiveness is not a doctrine. Forgiveness is something you do when somebody screws up. Forgiveness isn't the standard that we are supposed to strive for.

Let me give you a couple of scriptures to make my point:

2 Timothy 3:16 HCSB All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness,

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. If you are taught properly, rebuked properly, corrected properly and trained properly in righteousness then you won't need any forgiveness.

Romans 6:1-2 HCSB What should we say then? Should we continue in sin in order that grace may multiply? Absolutely not! How can we who died to sin still live in it?

That's pretty self explanatory.
 
So, we're going to dismiss the Old Testament entirely?

You can when it comes to doctrinal issues. It's still important to know about the Old Testament. You can't really argue with someone unless you both accept the same premise. Most Christians reject the Old Testament as doctrine. It's probably best to dismiss the Old Testament if you want to have a fair debate. If you don't want a fair and logical debate then you are free to bring up things from the Old Testament.
 
Forgiveness is not a doctrine.

Huh? Does the name Jesus of Nazareth mean anything to you?

Forgiveness isn't the standard that we are supposed to strive for.

My God in Heaven, kid, forgiveness is why Jesus came and died...

Just what kind of church is this that you go to?

You'd better hope Jesus forgives you when your turn comes.
 
I mean, surely you have heard of the Lord's Prayer: "Forgive us our tresspasses as we forgive those who tresspass against us....."
 
To answer your question clergy shouldn't be required to grant marital status to applicants who violate their interpretation of scripture.

In my tradition that is a sound statement. I grew up Baptist. Their doctrine promotes individual church autonomy. In my tradition it's 100% reasonable to refuse to marry someone because they wore white sandals one time 25 years ago or because the person has brown eyes or because the person refused to sell you a car a few years back or any other reasonable or unreasonable reason, etc, etc.. You get the point. In some traditions clergy aren't allowed the autonomy to pick and choose which wedding ceremonies that they will perform. Military chaplains are one example but those are arguably government officials. I think some Clergy members may be required to marry all members of their congregation without any personal input.

You are kind of right though. Good post.
 
You can when it comes to doctrinal issues. It's still important to know about the Old Testament. You can't really argue with someone unless you both accept the same premise. Most Christians reject the Old Testament as doctrine. It's probably best to dismiss the Old Testament if you want to have a fair debate. If you don't want a fair and logical debate then you are free to bring up things from the Old Testament.

You DO know that the way of salvation is found in both the OT and the NT, don't you?
 
My God in Heaven, kid, forgiveness is why Jesus came and died...

Just what kind of church is this that you go to?

You'd better hope Jesus forgives you when your turn comes.

I don't agree with you. If our goal as Christians is to be forgiven as much as possible then we don't need a Bible or a church. We can sin, get forgiveness, sin, get forgiveness, sin, get forgiveness and repeat indefinitely. Why would a group of people who believe that bother to organize? Those kind of morals require no teaching or training. You are advocating hedonism. I don't see the benefit in that kind of theology. Who benefits when society is reduced to the standard of hedonism?
 
You DO know that the way of salvation is found in both the OT and the NT, don't you?

I do know that Christians are terrified of Leviticus and Deuteronomy. If you want to have a discussion with a Christian it is best to ignore the Old Testament because they will.
 
Back
Top Bottom