:thumbsup: OK...that was reallya very good reply!!! And pretty humerously done I might add.
Printable View
This is a great question that hi-lights the Church's inconsistency. The Bible is clear that God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16). Jesus speaks to divorce in Matthew 19. That's the passage that provides the oft mentioned (at weddings), "What God has joined together..."
There is an "exception" clause that allows a divorce between believers in the instance of infidelity (though it is not commanded, but allowed). Scholars are NOT in agreement on the implications of this verse (some say this refers only to the betrothal period).
Marriages between believers and non-believers are handled differently. If a nonbeliever wants to leave a believer, the believer can let them go, but the believer is not to seek out a divorce from an unbeliever.
These passages are ignored because divorce is wide-spread and a difficult issue because there are many texts that play into a "biblical theology of divorce", but it is without a doubt that God's design is that marriage is to last until the death of one of those who have entered the covenant. When a non-biblical divorce takes place, adultery is the result. It should be noted that this is not usually considered a "perpetual" sin. Once the covenant is broken, it is broken.
Churches that harp on gay marriage but neglect to address the deterioration of marriage in the heterosexual community is just picking on an easy target.
(preparing for backlash and red-dots)
God set his laws/rules a LONG time ago. These rules are clear. Just because 99.9% of all people choose to selectively live by them, doesn't render them invalid. Just means that 99.9% of us are sinners and need to ask for forgiveness, and to accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior.
I don't even know if there are .1% sinless folks, but I thought I'd throw it out there, just in case.
Why would you expect that? That was accurate and well stated. Church inconsistencies are regrettable but unavoidable since churches are populated by fallible and inconsistent human beings. Those hostile to religion, and particularly Christianity, with both glee and malicious intent, label those inconsistencies as hypocrisy, which in the strictest sense they are, but more often in the vein of falling short of the ideal rather than hypocrisy foisted for personal gain.
Tyler, you might notice that the questions I ask you are rhetorical in nature. It is extremely unlikely that anyone on this board is unsure of your stance on anything.
You might also note in my posts that I don't feel the need to insult. I refrain from "spoon feeding" or asking people to read things "ssssllllowwwwlllyyyy" because I believe that you and others, despite having very different opinions from those I hold, are intelligent, nice guys. I learned, I guess in elementary school, that I didn't have to build myself up by putting others down. I respect you and other posters and I don't have to bolster my own opinion by belittling the opinions of others.
Finally, you might notice in my posts that I repeatedly uphold others' right to have and share their opinions. I enjoy hearing others' perspectives, particularly when they differ from mine. I don't share my opinions because I am trying to persuade others to "my side." I share them because I believe most people can consider other perspectives without seeing them as propaganda or part of an agenda.
In your posts, I notice you tend to demean (telling me to read "ssssllllowwwwlllyyy,") call names (e.g., libtard, lefty loon), and encourage others' in their general nastiness. I don't think you do this because you are a mean person; I think you do it because you are passionate and have an unswerving allegiance to your causes. Good for you.
I also notice in your posts that when you ask me a question and I answer in a way that does not suit your preconceived notion, you simply start responding to other posters and ignore my responses that don't support your biased attribution. I don't think you do that because you back down from a genuine challenge. I think you do it because of your single-minded passion makes it difficult for you to understand someone who doesn't look at everything through the same lens.
Just a few thoughts I wanted to share.
And??? Duly noted. Gee, thanks for our "share time" together maverick.
UN: 200,000 Syrians flee fighting in key city
Thousands of Christians run for their lives
http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/thousands...cat_orig=world
Who will take in faithful fleeing violence of Syria's Arab Spring?
Published: 18 hours ago
Various quotes from the article.
Dykstra compares the Syrian Christians’ plight to the Iraqi Christians who fled Iraq after Saddam Hussein was overthrown.
“In Iraq hundreds of thousands Christians left that country due to all the violence targeting them. But where will a Syrian exodus lead to? Which country will welcome hundreds of thousands Christian refugees in a period where borders seem to become more and more closed borders?” Dykstra asked.
The Open Doors report also says that while Assad is unpopular, Christians aren’t supporting Assad’s overthrow.
“While the defeat of Assad and the military would be welcome news to most, the sizeable Christian community of over 1.5 million is fearful for its future,” the Open Doors report said.
“Under Assad, Christians enjoyed a measure of freedom to worship in Syria, which is 90 percent Muslim. In fact, Christians were granted a degree of religious freedom not seen in most other Middle Eastern countries – before and after Arab Spring,” the Open Doors report also said.
“If Assad falls, Christians in Syria are fearful of what will happen when a new government – probably a radical Islamic one – will come into power,” says Open Doors USA President and CEO Dr. Carl Moeller,” the report said.
“Will their freedom to worship end? Will persecution increase? Will they have to flee Syria with their families as have thousands of believers in Iraq?” the report asked, quoting Moeller.
Reports of an end to Assad’s regime, however, may be premature. Janssen reports from Jordan that Assad still controls Damascus.
“Currently the situation in Damascus seems to be under the control of the Syrian army despite some fighting in certain neighborhoods,” Janssen said.
More
http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/thousands...cat_orig=world
Is this a form of persecution....you bet it is.
Obamacare Now Forces Some Americans to Violate Their Religious Beliefs
2:59 PM, AUG 1, 2012 • BY JOHN MCCORMACK
http://www.weeklystandard.com/sites/...s/rss-icon.gif
Today is the day when the Obamacare mandate forcing employer-provided health insurance plans to provide "free" abortion pills, contraception, and sterilizations kicks in.
Most religious charities, hospitals, and universities have been granted a one-year reprieve from the mandate. "In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences," as Cardinal Timothy Dolan put it in January when the administration decided there would be no exception for religious institutions that employ or minister to people other than coreligionists.
But some religious institutions, such as evangelical Wheaton College in Illinois, do not even have the benefit of Obamacare's one-year reprieve. Today, the Becket Fund announced that is has filed a lawsuit on behalf of Wheaton College asking for emergency relief from the mandate:
Some actual persecution.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19161082