Can a 'True Follower of Jesus' be Divorced / Re-married & still call himself a 'Christian' ?

originally posted by: Sigismundus
Can a 'True Follower of Jesus' be Divorced / Re-married & still call himself a 'Christian' in the 21st Century ?

Of course!
According to Jesus, the ONLY identity by which his followers can be known is by their unconditional Love!
It has nothing, necessarily, to do with clothes or sexual orientation or what you do or don't 'believe' or what your marital state is or isn't, or how often...
Unconditional Love transcends all Pharisaical rules and rituals and laws and ignorance!
That was the entirety of Jesus' message!

And as far as displaying the vanity and arrogance of declaring oneself a 'Xtian';

True, unconditional Love is ALWAYS recognized by It's unconditional Virtues; Compassion, Empathy, Sympathy, Gratitude, Humility, Charity (charity is never taking more than your share of anything, ever!), Honesty, Happiness, Faith...
ALWAYS!

Please note 'Humility' and 'Honesty'!
Calling oneself a Xtian, as per Jesus' definition, is to look in the mirror and declare oneself "unconditional Love"!
That act is a most clear act of vanity and self-righteous presumptuousness, and clearly not 'Humble'!
I would think that the truly Humble merely goes about his life shining!
Being unconditional Love, displaying it in every word and deed!
The proof is in the puddin'! *__-

All the true follower of Jesus would need to know is that Jesus will recognize him if and when the time comes!

a reply to: randyvs

What I am saying, randyvs, is that divorce, despite the negative biblical connotations involved, and the struggles that can be left behind, like financial concerns, a lack of one or another gender role model during a kids formative years and pubescence, not to mention the ugly business legally that such things have the potential to become, was the very best thing that ever happened to my family unit.

Father remarried, mother has not. Father still does the rounds at church, mother has kept her Bible between her self, her God, and those she can still trust. And yet, in all the ways that matter, our lives themselves have been better without his tendency to fail to give a damn for a single one of us, yet blow up at the slightest noise while his rugby, cricket or some athletics event happens to be on the box, or his failure to be there for any one of us when the fan has connected with the dung pile.

I am quite sure that my father has some laudable qualities, but he withheld them from us our entire lives, me and my sister, and drove my mother half mad. It took an awful lot of therapy, a few years of medication, and some fairly substantial collections of life affirming moments, for her to gain a measure of her strength back. We hold one another together as a unit now, with greater cohesion than we ever did when he was a part of our life. Myself and my mother actually organise things, and get stuff done in life, in order that it can be lived. I cannot begin to express the difference that is made by all units pulling in the same direction, rather than a house being divided against itself.

In a world where everyone marries for the right reasons, as I mentioned already, then there would be no need for divorce. But forcing a person to stay in a psychologically toxic environment was not the design of the "No Divorce" policy. And as it happens, marriages often turn out to be little more than power plays on the part of one spouse or another. Trophy wives, trophy husbands, punching bags, dominated, broken psyches... Marriage was not supposed to create the circumstances by which a person was legally obligated to be subjugated, demoralised, and forced to consider suicide rather than withstand another day of it. There are many routes by which a person could arrive at that sorry state of affairs, without being in the wrong at all, and I think that failing to respond to the needs of people in such desperate suffering as a result of their spouses, by allowing some measure of capacity to have the arrangement bought to a legal close, and to free the individual who entered into marriage for the right reasons to find someone worthy of that love and respect they were offering, cannot be against the wishes of Christ.

It was never intention to utter in such a way as to break a person down, crush their spirit, and make them seek and wish for death. He loved us too much to wish that on any one of us.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Having exceeded the edit window, I realise that this paragraph:

There are many routes by which a person could arrive at that sorry state of affairs, without being in the wrong at all, and I think that failing to respond to the needs of people in such desperate suffering as a result of their spouses, by allowing some measure of capacity to have the arrangement bought to a legal close, and to free the individual who entered into marriage for the right reasons to find someone worthy of that love and respect they were offering, cannot be against the wishes of Christ.

Contained a critical error. It should have read:

There are many routes by which a person could arrive at that sorry state of affairs, without being in the wrong at all, and I think that failing to respond to the needs of people in such desperate suffering as a result of their spouses, by allowing some measure of capacity to have the arrangement bought to a legal close, and to free the individual who entered into marriage for the right reasons to find someone worthy of that love and respect they were offering, cannot fail to be against the wishes of Christ.

Ergo, it was never his intention in uttering as he did, to shackle traumatised persons to the source of their trauma.

a reply to: TrueBrit

And again, this also comes back the reoccurring theme of the thread that none of us is blameless and all can be forgiven.

I guess we could also go back to the infamous verse where woman are told to submit to their husbands, but everyone conveniently leave out the second part where the husband is to be as Christ to his wife and family. Was this person teaching you and yours the way Christ would? Doesn't sound like it. In such a case, the marriage was flawed in that he was not upholding his end.

Reading throughout scripture, Christ is the perfect bridegroom, and the church is supposed to be the perfect bride. The two unite in a perfect marriage.

Our earthly institutions are somewhat designed to mirror this. And we should keep that in mind also when we discuss the idea of divorce.

a reply to: ketsuko

Indeed!

In the case of the Church and its marriage to Christ, I believe that the Church could easily be accused of behaving in a manner which has caused irreconcilable differences between the two, over the centuries since its conception, and many of those behaviours relate to treating people poorly by judgement of them, either implied or explicitly detailed!

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Sigismundus

after he went to college

Oh you mean that place that teaches people they don't need God?
And some people would call that an education. Self demeaning and
dismal, party up! you are your own God. and a production line for
atheism. Perpetuation of the broken home at its best, for the
worst possible outcome. I'd rather be poor and uneducated.
At least my parents lived and died together. How sad that most
of the college educated will never know what that's about.
No way in hell could i disagree with Jesus.

i dont know what college you went to, but ive never met anyone who went to such a class. i dont think atheism is even a subject in most colleges, except as a topic in theology.

and speaking of self demeaning...i distinctly recall a user who posted the other day "i deserve death for being human"...

a reply to: Sigismundus

This a a joke thread, right? When someone sincerely comes to Jesus and believes in Him and accepts Him any previous sins are thrown out.

A better question would be, why is someone currently living a Christian life who knows the teachings and values of the Bible end up in circumstances such as these?

originally posted by: jjkenobi
This a a joke thread, right? When someone sincerely comes to Jesus and believes in Him and accepts Him any previous sins are thrown out.

Just like Jeffery Dahmer.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: jjkenobi
This a a joke thread, right? When someone sincerely comes to Jesus and believes in Him and accepts Him any previous sins are thrown out.

Just like Jeffery Dahmer.

To be fair to Jeff, the only thing that we KNOW got thrown out of him, was a significant amount of his brain matter... It was, so I heard, a barbell which did for him in the end, or some other bit of exercise equipment, wielded by a fellow inmate?

As for whether his sins were forgiven in the end, whether his repentance was genuine, no mortal man can attest to it.

a reply to: TrueBrit

He was baptized and he and his reverend claimed he had repented.

So Jeffy accepted children into his belly and then the Holy Spirit into his heart. Now he gets to dine with the J-Man in Heaven because all is forgiven.


Thanks Obama!!!!

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Thanks Obama!!!!

A) you have been doing that a lot lately.
B) I laugh EVERY time.
C) the clergy have no say in whether a person has truly repented. Final judgement rests with the Almighty alone. We cannot know, and will not, until we see the other side for ourselves.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
C) the clergy have no say in whether a person has truly repented. Final judgement rests with the Almighty alone. We cannot know, and will not, until we see the other side for ourselves.

With that I agree with you but the above poster feels otherwise.

Thanks Truebama!!!

a reply to: Sigismundus

Within the historical context of the period I think it was an attempt at social sanctions so that people wouldn't abandon their wives for boredom, or an argument, or some other trifling thing. At the same time, all they had to do was accuse her of adultery and get a few buddies to back him up, and *poof* no more nagging wife, problem solved in the most absolute of terms. Tough time to be a woman.

My paternal grandparents were of a very strict Christian sect and they certainly believed that divorce was a terrible sin; so some of your quoted scripture is familiar (ish, it was a long time ago) to me. Not only that, but if your spouse died you couldn't even remarry. That's it. Done. And plenty of people followed it. My paternal great uncle lost his wife when he was in his late 30's and never remarried. Of course, sex out of wed-lock was a sin as well, so... just a really miserable existence. I sure couldn't do that. You also couldn't have a television in your home, that was a sin too, if that gives you an idea. My aunt (married into the family) now calls it a "cult", and I can't blame her.

a reply to: TrueBrit

I've shown why I believe divorce is a sin and I don't disagree
with that.

What I am saying, randyvs, is that divorce, despite the negative biblical connotations involved, and the struggles that can be left behind, like financial concerns, a lack of one or another gender role model during a kids formative years and pubescence, not to mention the ugly business legally that such things have the potential to become, was the very best thing that ever happened to my family unit.

In your case you speak only of the opposite effects. But I can't help but feel
you would have some rathers thrown in there. And your case takes nothing
away from the simple fact that most of the time divorce leaves children
damaged. No one can expect a loving God not to hate that.

Well maybe the haters. But they have to lie, set up a straw man, put words
in peoples mouths, take points made way out of context and basically bend over
backwards to be dishonest and disingenuous while failing to make a point.

a reply to: randyvs

Can you tell me with a certainty, that having two parents at war is better than having one parent at peace, in every circumstance?

I doubt you could do that, any more than I could say that every child with badly screwed up parents would be better off with one than two. All I am saying is, that it would be better if fewer people married and then messed up those marriages either way, but if one party is behaving in such a way as to be toxic to the others, they are removing themselves from the family, and a house divided, is a house that falls.

It is better to cut things clean, than leave them to rot. That way gangrene sets in, and the kids end up getting hurt anyway.

a reply to: TrueBrit

It is better to cut things clean, than leave them to rot. That way gangrene sets in, and the kids end up getting hurt anyway.

I think there's a problem you and I must face in this topic.
Of course it's humanly impossible for me to deny the point
you're making but...

We are speaking in terms and from the confines of a world that I
100% do not believe was meant to be or should exist. Of course
divorce is going to happen in a world of totally and completely
screwed up people. So God and Jesus Christ aren't wrong by the
laws that would apply to make a more perfect world.

Do you disagree?

I thank you for your patience with me BTW.

You said it pretty much right here.

In a world where everyone marries for the right reasons, as I mentioned already, then there would be no need for divorce. But forcing a person to stay in a psychologically toxic environment was not the design of the "No Divorce" policy.

a reply to: randyvs

If the fall had never happened, then I would agree with you.

Unfortunately, human kind failed when Adam and Eve got a gobfull of the forbidden fruit, and so we are left in this bizarre hinterland, where we must aspire to come as close as we each can get, to obeying the word of our Lord in Heaven, despite the fact that we will almost certainly fail as spectacularly as a thermonuclear Hindenburg.

Our sins may have been washed away by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross, but our imperfections have not. The world you are looking for, one in which divorce is not only not done, but not needed, is the same one upon which there is no war, no murder, no crime and therefore no jail, no suffering and therefore no need for medicine, doctors, or healers, no deaths and therefore no need for a graveyard.

If we are mortal things though, still beholden to our flesh, we are flawed and will never succeed in the way that Jesus did, in being a total legend all of the time. Instead, the best we can hope for is that when we throw ourselves on the mercy of God, that our voices are heard and our souls judged fit.

And look... You don't need to thank me for anything. We are just a pair of spirits riding the blue marble through time and space, shooting the breeze a little and cogitating on the deeper meaning of marital affairs. Its a sharing experience, and the better for it.

a reply to: randyvs

We are speaking in terms and from the confines of a world that I
100% do not believe was meant to be or should exist. Of course
divorce is going to happen in a world of totally and completely
screwed up people. So God and Jesus Christ aren't wrong by the
laws that would apply to make a more perfect world.

Did you know that ancient Jewish tradition holds that Adam was divorced before God created him a helpmate in Eve, from Adam's rib?

According to the Alphabet of Ben Sira, Lilith was Adam’s first wife but the couple fought all the time. They didn’t see eye-to-eye on matters of sex because Adam always wanted to be on top while Lilith also wanted a turn in the dominant sexual position. When they could not agree, Lilith decided to leave Adam. She uttered God’s name and flew into the air, leaving Adam alone in the Garden of Eden. God sent three angels after her and commanded them to bring her back to her husband by force if she would not come willingly. But when the angels found her by the Red Sea they were unable to convince her to return and could not force her to obey them.
judaism.about.com...

originally posted by: windword

According to the Alphabet of Ben Sira, Lilith was Adam’s first wife but the couple fought all the time. They didn’t see eye-to-eye on matters of sex because Adam always wanted to be on top while Lilith also wanted a turn in the dominant sexual position.

He should have considered himself lucky that he was married and still getting any action.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Heck yeah! Women! And that was, supposedly, in Paradise, before the fall! How can we be expected to have perfect marriages when God couldn't even get it right when he first invented marriage, in the Garden of Eden?