Christian Divorce

[Zzyzx]

.
The bible appears to disallow divorce except for sexual impropriety / adultery and prohibits remarriage under most circumstances.

Yet, Christians divorce at rates as great or greater than Non-Christians and often remarry. When they remarry they are committing adultery according to the bible – and many continue the adulterous relationship until death.

If a person persists in their "sin" (adultery by remarriage), does not ask forgiveness and does not REPENT (but blatantly continues the adultery) then dies in that state, they are evidently an unrepentant sinner. Should they, therefore, be denied access to "heaven?"

[connermt]

[Replying to post 18 by bluethread]

It is acceptable to have unlawful acts prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Acceptable by whom, exactly? God? Society?

Are you saying that the idea of taking back Europe from the NAZIs was just a slogan on D-Day...

I mentioned nothing about Nazis in this post.

Should we have questioned the loyalty of all Frenchmen during the the time of Vichy France?

I said nothing about France in that post.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 19 by 1213]

I honestly don't see how that verse does anything to absolve an unrepentant sinner from the confines of hell.

Anyone* who remarries after a divorce is committing sexual sin. Just as the homosexual is committing sexual sin. In both cases hell would be their destination. I don't see how you can condemn one but not the other...

[Zzyzx]

.

If a person persists in their "sin" (adultery by remarriage), does not ask forgiveness and does not REPENT (but blatantly continues the adultery) then dies in that state, they are evidently an unrepentant sinner. Should they, therefore, be denied access to "heaven?"

Adultery is wrong like other things that are told to be wrong in the Law. However it does not necessary mean that person can’t go to heaven, because:

… For most assuredly, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even one smallest letter or one tiny pen stroke shall in any way pass away from the law, until all things are accomplished. Whoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and teach others to do so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but whoever shall do and teach them shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.
Mat. 5:17-19

Are you saying that a person can live in sin (and perhaps enjoy doing so) without repentance, continue to "sin" by remarrying after divorce, die in that state -- and still go to heaven?

If so, can a person continue other "sins" without repentance and be admitted to heaven? Serial murder comes to mind.

What is the criteria for admittance to "heaven" -- just believe in god and Jesus -- then do whatever you like?

[connermt]

[Replying to post 21 by DanieltheDragon]

I don't see how you can condemn one but not the other...

It's easy, really. You just pick one that suits your needs. Does it make sense/is it logical? I suppose it depends on whom is asked.
Probably, for the same people who say "the OT isn't relevant today" when questioned about shell fish & the like, it would make perfect sense.
To the rest of us, probably not very sensible or logical.

That happens when people use man made concept and promote them as divine and infallible when it's clearly not.
Personal interpretation devoid of personal responsibility: "well, god says..."

[KCKID]

What is the criteria for admittance to "heaven" -- just believe in god and Jesus -- then do whatever you like?

Pretty much, it would seem. But only if you're heterosexual.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 18 by bluethread]

It is acceptable to have unlawful acts prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Acceptable by whom, exactly? God? Society?

Are you saying that the idea of taking back Europe from the NAZIs was just a slogan on D-Day...

I mentioned nothing about Nazis in this post.

Should we have questioned the loyalty of all Frenchmen during the the time of Vichy France?

I said nothing about France in that post.

It is acceptable to both.

I guess you didn't get the connection. The battle against no fault divorce(invasion of France), at least in Washington state, was lost long ago. Before one can have much effect on limiting divorce in any way(take back Paris), one must establish that marriage is more than just temporary domestic partnership(establish a beachhead in Normandy). Also, just because some christians accept serial adultery (Vishy France) does not mean that everyone who promotes biblical values(Frenchman) is a hypocrite(German sympathizer).

[Zzyzx]

.

I guess you didn't get the connection.

I didn't get the "connection" either. That was quite a creative hop-skip-and-jump maneuver.

Why fight no-fault divorce? Should the law be used to force people to stay married even though they both want out?

In reality, speaking from experience, requiring "fault" in divorce simply means that one or the other must come up with "grounds" that are easily manufactured. "Indignities" is a favored loophole.

So what is accomplished besides a failed attempt to inflict religious opinions on others?

[bluethread]

.

I guess you didn't get the connection.

I didn't get the "connection" either. That was quite a creative hop-skip-and-jump maneuver.

Why fight no-fault divorce? Should the law be used to force people to stay married even though they both want out?

In reality, speaking from experience, requiring "fault" in divorce simply means that one or the other must come up with "grounds" that are easily manufactured. "Indignities" is a favored loophole.

So what is accomplished besides a failed attempt to inflict religious opinions on others?

To hold adults accountable for their actions and minimize the transfer of costs associated with those actions to innocent third parties.

[Zzyzx]

.

.
So what is accomplished besides a failed attempt to inflict religious opinions on others?

To hold adults accountable for their actions

The "action" discussed here, marriage, is a contract between two people. When they decide to dissolve the contract how does a legal speed bump (that does not prevent the action) "hold adults accountable?"

An unintended consequence of inflicting religious preferences on people by making divorce cumbersome could be to encourage young people to live together without being married (which seems to be increasing).

and minimize the transfer of costs associated with those actions to innocent third parties.

What, "transfer of costs" to "innocent third parties" do you refer to here?

[connermt]

[Replying to post 25 by bluethread]

I guess you didn't get the connection.

Lackluster connection really.... but I try not to assume with certain individuals here. It tends to cause them confusion over the matter discussed.