Is Jesus' divorce law anti-love?

[Gnostic Bishop]

Is Jesus' divorce lawanti-love?

Jesus agreed with the O.T Godon divorce. Let no man break that union or let no man put asunder.

I see that as anti-love. IfJesus is wrong about such a fundamental issue, then what else was he wrongabout?

If a Christian, even if youbecome convinced that Jesus was indeed wrong, it would not make any differenceto you because you actually follow tradition, culture and your family’sinherited traditional God. Not really a God that you selected through trials ofhis moral character. Right? Shame on you for neglecting the most importantdecision of your life.

I think that the moral reasonall divorce pleas should be granted is that no one, gay, straight and allconditions in between or over, should be denied the ability to seek a lifetimeloving partner, wife or husband, for any reason. I see being able to seek aloving mate or partner as a fundamental human right.

Do you agree?

Regards
DL

 

[rickolasnice]

Yes. I agree

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

Yes. I agree

The first discerning mind. Sweet. Now we are two and God makes three.

Regards
DL

 

[Shrooms00087]

Let no man break that union or let no man put asunder.

Let us break this apart to where it makes sense.

God "exists as love". However the romantic aspects of Christianity don't come until later basically the doctrine was by breaking the union with God (the service of love) you split bank accounts. Later on you get more romantic versions of Christianity. Because it's an Eternal Dialectic. The only problem is we let institutions render our translations.

You see the problem with God as love, is it fits quite perfectly. God can sometimes be jealous, demanding, etc, but ultimately what distinguishes this from a man split asunder is actually an Arab proverb about the devil.
That the Devil loved God so much that it drove him to violence, the love was corrupted, split, torn asunder.

So to answer your question, of what period do you speak? If we speak of modernity the Christians have been pretty flexible. Not as flexible as Christians should be --but what can you expect from institutions. Most progress comes from readings of the Bible through various strata of people who then redefine what the Word means to them and it is either accepted by the authorities or flatly rejected as blasphemous (which is the ultimately irony).

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

Let us break this apart to where it makes sense.

God "exists as love". However the romantic aspects of Christianity don't come until later basically the doctrine was by breaking the union with God (the service of love) you split bank accounts. Later on you get more romantic versions of Christianity. Because it's an Eternal Dialectic. The only problem is we let institutions render our translations.

You see the problem with God as love, is it fits quite perfectly. God can sometimes be jealous, demanding, etc, but ultimately what distinguishes this from a man split asunder is actually an Arab proverb about the devil.
That the Devil loved God so much that it drove him to violence, the love was corrupted, split, torn asunder.

So to answer your question, of what period do you speak? If we speak of modernity the Christians have been pretty flexible. Not as flexible as Christians should be --but what can you expect from institutions. Most progress comes from readings of the Bible through various strata of people who then redefine what the Word means to them and it is either accepted by the authorities or flatly rejected as blasphemous (which is the ultimately irony).

Did you say sense?

Try a yes or no to the O.P. and we can go from there.

Regards
DL

 

[Shrooms00087]

Sense: a feeling that something is the case.

I do not answer "yes" or "no" to a "discussion" otherwise this would be a "vote" to which I would not cast any vote because your information isn't informative. You haven't told me what period you speak of? You haven't told me what sect of Christianity follows these 'biblical laws' or split therefrom. Sorry, discussions require a lot of work.

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

I do not answer "yes" or "no" to a "discussion" otherwise this would be a "vote" to which I would not cast any vote because your information isn't informative. You haven't told me what period you speak of? You haven't told me what sect of Christianity follows these 'biblical laws' or split therefrom. Sorry, discussions require a lot of work.

Sure but I cannot deal with objections when you do not name them or show the direction of your thinking.
I will not waste time on filling in unrequired details.

Best to ignore me then.

Regards
DL

 

[Shrooms00087]

I did, I typed out "What period of Christianity" because you know, you can get a divorce, and STILL be buried in consecrated ground. What about Lutherism? Again, I don't know how to run your threads for you, I'm just saying I require more information.

 

[rickolasnice]

I took it as he was talking about Matthew 19:6

4“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’a 5and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’b ? 6So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

Not necessarily any Christian denominations views on it, but the quote from Jesus himself (or the bible, anyway).

It then goes onto say:

8Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Which coincidentally is the only verse outside of the writings of Paul that *could* be a mention of homosexuality.

Although as far as i can tell the only "sin" that homosexuality could fall under is fornication. Ipso facto - Gay marriage should be welcomed by the Christian community.

But back on track.. This is what i believe Gnostic Bishop was talking about, in which case, i agree with the OP.

 

[Shrooms00087]

Ah thank you.

Yes let us get to Paul. He actually persecuted Christians until his "conversion" (as it came to power). Furthermore I'll take Jesus's saying and say that, sure, he's correct. It'd be sexually immoral to continue a relationship of service to fostering a love than it would be to fake it letting the more sinful natures come into play. Wrath, Envy, Jealousy, Coveting, etc, etc. I'm with Jesus here, let no person be split asunder for attempting to fake piety!

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

I did, I typed out "What period of Christianity" because you know, you can get a divorce, and STILL be buried in consecrated ground. What about Lutherism? Again, I don't know how to run your threads for you, I'm just saying I require more information.

Every period where they use and or have as dogma, let no man put asunder. I think it has always been in scriptures so all periods is what it looks like. I am not going to look at how, what, 3,000 sects use it.

Is it immoral and anti-love or hot.

Get in or get out.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

I took it as he was talking about Matthew 19:6



Not necessarily any Christian denominations views on it, but the quote from Jesus himself (or the bible, anyway).

It then goes onto say:


Which coincidentally is the only verse outside of the writings of Paul that *could* be a mention of homosexuality.

Although as far as i can tell the only "sin" that homosexuality could fall under is fornication. Ipso facto - Gay marriage should be welcomed by the Christian community.

But back on track.. This is what i believe Gnostic Bishop was talking about, in which case, i agree with the OP.

Correct and thanks for this.

I am not always as forthcoming as I perhaps should be but I am used to Christians trying to get me to do their work just to say it is out of context before they run and hide.

Regards
DL

 

[Shrooms00087]

Every period where they use and or have as dogma, let no man put asunder. I think it has always been in scriptures so all periods is what it looks like. I am not going to look at how, what, 3,000 sects use it.

Is it immoral and anti-love or hot.

Get in or get out.

Regards
DL

Hey you're the one who wanted a discussion. You can't just throw out 3,000 sects and counting just because you want a binary answer. Bishop, you most surely are not.

 

[rickolasnice]

Ah thank you.

Yes let us get to Paul. He actually persecuted Christians until his "conversion" (as it came to power). Furthermore I'll take Jesus's saying and say that, sure, he's correct. It'd be sexually immoral to continue a relationship of service to fostering a love than it would be to fake it letting the more sinful natures come into play. Wrath, Envy, Jealousy, Coveting, etc, etc. I'm playing devils advocate here, let no person be split asunder for attempting to fake piety!

Fixed

 

[Shrooms00087]

I am a Christian-Atheist. If I were to play the devils advocate, I would advocate divorce! I would say --sure there's no meaning in the service of love, don't work through your problems, get divorced. Instead I like the phrase "let no person be split asunder". Why would love separate if not for the fact they are faking their true emotions. Fake piety. If love has stopped and you both equally want to split, but do not, in the wrongful act of making another person suffer on your behalf (which would go equally for both people) then what purpose would religion solve outside of medieval banking? Naturally if God is love as John states in 1 4:8 then divorce is nothing more than a symbolic rebirth. One could easily imagine losing sight of love if you're in a forced relationship. Again, this would make God out to be some kind of childish imp instead of an omnipotent, omnipresent, Watchmaker.

My beliefs are real. Well, I mean, I say belief but really just mean...I find Christianity fascinating. It occupies a lot of thought.

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

I am a Christian-Atheist. If I were to play the devils advocate, I would advocate divorce! I would say --sure there's no meaning in the service of love, don't work through your problems, get divorced. Instead I like the phrase "let no person be split asunder". Why would love separate if not for the fact they are faking their true emotions. Fake piety. If love has stopped and you both equally want to split, but do not, in the wrongful act of making another person suffer on your behalf (which would go equally for both people) then what purpose would religion solve outside of medieval banking? Naturally if God is love as John states in 1 4:8 then divorce is nothing more than a symbolic rebirth. One could easily imagine losing sight of love if you're in a forced relationship. Again, this would make God out to be some kind of childish imp instead of an omnipotent, omnipresent, Watchmaker.

My beliefs are real. Well, I mean, I say belief but really just mean...I find Christianity fascinating. It occupies a lot of thought.

Yes. Especially to oppressed women who seek the equality that the church denies them.

He shall rule over you and he can divorce you but you have to take whatever shit he gives you.

Regards
DL

 

[Shrooms00087]

He shall rule over you and he can divorce you but you have to take whatever shit he gives you.

You seem to have conflated God and an actual divorce proceeding. I've never seen God divi-up shit before...But I mean I guess he does have just one guy at the gates checking people in, His intelligence can't be fathomed.

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

You seem to have conflated God and an actual divorce proceeding. I've never seen God divi-up shit before...But I mean I guess he does have just one guy at the gates checking people in, His intelligence can't be fathomed.

Correct but we can fathom how immoral the prick is if it is the bible God we are talking about.

Regards
DL

 

[Shrooms00087]

No. You can not fathom God. Now I am starting to believe you're not even a Gnostic.

 

[rickolasnice]

Are we talking about the God you believe in (well, entertain the idea of) or the God from the bible?

I'm almost certain they're not one and the same.