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?"

[1213]

[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...

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

If person doesn’t reject God, he has no sin, in my opinion. It may be possible that person continues to do wrong thing, but has no sin.

�All things are lawful for me," but not all things are expedient. "All things are lawful for me," but I will not be brought under the power of anything.
1 Corinthians 6:12

"All things are lawful for me," but not all things are profitable. "All things are lawful for me," but not all things build up."
1 Corinthians 10:23

Obeying the law is not the reason for salvation. But person, who loves God, wants to do God’s will. And I think if person loves God, he don’t want to do for example adultery. But if he does, it is not necessary the reason for hell. If person is not righteous, that is the reason. And I think righteousness is more than actions.

For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. His commandments are not grievous.
1 John 5:3

And the Law is according to the Bible fulfilled in this:

Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not give false testimony," "You shall not covet," [TR adds "You shall not give false testimony,"] and whatever other commandments there are, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love doesn't harm a neighbor. Love therefore is the fulfillment of the law.
Romans 13:8-10

He who does righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. To this end the Son of God was revealed, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whoever is born of God doesn't commit sin, because his seed remains in him; and he can't sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are revealed, and the children of the devil. Whoever doesn't do righteousness is not of God, neither is he who doesn't love his brother.
1 John 3:7-10

[McCulloch]

If person doesn’t reject God, he has no sin, in my opinion. It may be possible that person continues to do wrong thing, but has no sin.

I have not rejected God, therefore I have no sin. Yeah! I only reject the self-appointed spokesmen for God: Moses, David, Isaiah, Daniel, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, James, Paul, Mohammed, Smith, ...

Obeying the law is not the reason for salvation. But person, who loves God, wants to do God’s will. And I think if person loves God, he don’t want to do for example adultery. But if he does, it is not necessary the reason for hell. If person is not righteous, that is the reason. And I think righteousness is more than actions.

1. If a person loves God, he does not want to commit adultery.
2. Fred has divorced Wilma and is now in an adulterous relationship with Betty.
3. Fred wants to remain in the relationship with Betty.
4. Therefore, Fred does not love God.

[bluethread]

.

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

The costs of raising and caring for other peoples children.

[Zzyzx]

.

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

The costs of raising and caring for other peoples children.

The costs of raising children are considered by divorce courts under the term "Child support" and are strongly enforced by court action. That is independent of fault vs. no-fault divorce.

Quite often, however, there are no children involved with either type of divorce, so the "argument" against no-fault divorce fails on at least two counts.

Is there any valid justification -- something beyond personal and religious preference?

To those who oppose no-fault divorce I say "Don't get one -- but don't attempt to inflict your preferences on others" and I say the same to those opposed to abortion. Mind your (generic term) own business -- which should be enough to keep you occupied

[1213]

I have not rejected God, therefore I have no sin. Yeah! I only reject the self-appointed spokesmen for God: Moses, David, Isaiah, Daniel, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, James, Paul,

"Most assuredly I tell you, he who receives whomever I send, receives me; and he who receives me, receives him who sent me."
John 13:20

1. If a person loves God, he does not want to commit adultery.
2. Fred has divorced Wilma and is now in an adulterous relationship with Betty.
3. Fred wants to remain in the relationship with Betty.
4. Therefore, Fred does not love God.

Or he loves more what he gets from Wilma than God.

[Zzyzx]

.

1. If a person loves God, he does not want to commit adultery.
2. Fred has divorced Wilma and is now in an adulterous relationship with Betty.
3. Fred wants to remain in the relationship with Betty.
4. Therefore, Fred does not love God.

Or he loves more what he gets from Wilma than God.

According to the scenario Fred rejected Wilma in favor of Betty.

It is rational of him to "love more what he gets from Betty than god" because Mary is real and their interactions are real whereas "god" can't be shown to be anything more than imaginary.

Many people choose a relationship with a real person over a "relationship" with an invisible, undetectable, proposed, supernatural entity.

[McCulloch]

I have not rejected God, therefore I have no sin. Yeah! I only reject the self-appointed spokesmen for God: Moses, David, Isaiah, Daniel, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, James, Paul,

"Most assuredly I tell you, he who receives whomever I send, receives me; and he who receives me, receives him who sent me."
John 13:20

I have not rejected anyone that I know of that God has sent. Only those who have made the unsubstantiated and unverified claim that God has sent them. Both Paul and Joseph Smith claim to speak for God. Both Daniel and Guru Nanak claim to speak for God. Both Jesus and Mohammed claim to speak for God. Why would anyone accept one of these claims and reject the other.

1. If a person loves God, he does not want to commit adultery.
2. Fred has divorced Wilma and is now in an adulterous relationship with Betty.
3. Fred wants to remain in the relationship with Betty.
4. Therefore, Fred does not love God.

Or he loves more what he gets from Wilma than God.

Yes, that is the point. Fred loves the sin of adultery more than he loves God.

[OnceConvinced]

.
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?"

When I was a Christian I actually seriously considered the possibility that the act of sexual intercourse was what caused a couple to be married. After all Adam and Eve would not have had a marriage ceremony. Sex for the first time would have been the act of marriage.

If that is the case then the first person you have sex with you have "married" and therefore any time you do it with a different person after that you have officially committed adultry. So the majority of Christians will have committed adultry, even those ones currently in committed monogonous relationships.

[connermt]

.
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?"

When I was a Christian I actually seriously considered the possibility that the act of sexual intercourse was what caused a couple to be married. After all Adam and Eve would not have had a marriage ceremony. Sex for the first time would have been the act of marriage.

If that is the case then the first person you have sex with you have "married" and therefore any time you do it with a different person after that you have officially committed adultry. So the majority of Christians will have committed adultry, even those ones currently in committed monogonous relationships.

I have seen christians claim this is the accurate, biblical definition of marriage. This is the first I've seen it mentioned here though. This, I find, exceptionally interesting....

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 38 by connermt]

That is partly the reason why I stayed in a very unhealthy and unhappy relationship for so long. It was more about my commitment to god than for love.