Jesus's statements on marriage

[Kenngo1969]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

... Yes.  But hey, I am gay, so the Celestial Kingdom is not in my future anyway is it.

That's almost entirely up to you.

[california boy]

17 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

That's almost entirely up to you.

Well not really. I would still have to marry a woman for eternity.  Not to excited by that.  Eternity is a long time. It is not hard to want to be somewhere else for eternity. 

[Gray]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

So there was a revelation correcting the teachings of Christ on divorce as part of the restoration?  I think I missed that one.

Well here's the thing  - straight people understand and can easily empathize with a straight person who is divorced. The law of chastity (concerning adultery) is interpreted very loosely for straight members. We can go ahead and get remarried as many times as we like, there will be no consequences from the church. It's not encouraged or anything, but there are no consequences. That would be serial adultery according to Jesus, but I guess it's not a problem?

But for gay people I guess the law of chastity is just unchangable. Sorry folks, our hands are tied! Maybe because it's been much harder, historically, for straight members of the church to empathize with gay people.

Oh, also we can't do anything to change our ways on women and the priesthood. Sorry, the 12 apostles were male, that means definitely our hands are tied on this one too - not because of a commandment, but just because of precedent (let's ignore Junia and Deborah I guess). But divorce is okay because....?

Sorry, feeling a little sarcastic today.

 

Edited November 15, 2017 by Gray

[Kenngo1969]

Quote

But hey, I am gay, so the Celestial Kingdom is not in my future anyway is it.

 

5 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

That's almost entirely up to you.

 

4 hours ago, california boy said:

Well not really. I would still have to marry a woman for eternity.  Not to excited by that.  Eternity is a long time. It is not hard to want to be somewhere else for eternity. 

Not necessarily.  You could ask yourself, "Do I have enough faith in a God who [purportedly] is Omniscient, Omnipotent, and All-Loving to believe that He wouldn't have to tell any of His Children who are faithful, 'I know you were expecting something more, or something better, or at least something ... different ... and I know this means that it sucks to be you, but ... sorry.  This is the best I could do'?"  I find it revealing that even though no one else is certain how s/he's going to feel or what s/he's going to believe after the resurrection, or after the first few aeons of Eternity, anyone whose sexuality falls far enough outside where most sexuality falls on the continuum purporting to measure such things is absolutely certain that nothing on that score is going to change.

In contrast to you, I have absolutely no idea, given the limits of human perception, cognition, reasoning, and so on, what it's going to be like to be resurrected or what life will be like after the first few aeons of Eternity, and I think that's rather the whole point.  Yes, I realize it's rather like comparing apples to Buicks, but, like you, I have my own reasons for wondering, "Lord, why has Thou thus dealt with me?"  In contrast to you, however, I don't have all of the answers yet.  The only thing I know for sure is that, "They shall not be ashamed that wait for me" (Isaiah 49:23).

For whatever reason, you seem to be fond of kicking me in the teeth, metaphorically speaking, when this subject or similar subjects come up, so I won't be surprised if it happens again.  Because of that, however, if I were you, I wouldn't be surprised if this is my only reply to you.

Have a lovely day.

Edited November 15, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[RevTestament]

On 11/12/2017 at 10:44 PM, kryoung1983 said:

I have some very close friends that are German Baptist. Essentially Anabaptist group and a very devout family. The father is a far better man then me, but over and over again the topic of remarriage has come up. (even though I am 34 and haven't been married once!) The topic has come up in numerous conversations in which he has stated that remarriage is adultery and it has always been viewed this way including within early Christianity. He quotes such scriptures as Mark 10:11-12 "

"And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.

 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery."

The topic on this has come up literally more times then I can count since it somehow comes  up every time I visit the family. I have known them a few years. I figured I should probably come to some understanding of how I can give an intelligent response to this. Does anyone have any ideas. Both in terms of the scriptures and in terms of early Christianity. 

This troubled me for a long time, but I have recently come to a new understanding.

If a man put away his wife, he is breaking his covenant to her is he not? Assuming she is not breaking her covenant, Yeshua is saying he is committing adultery against her. He is violating her trust. He is the covenant breaker. What if it is mutual? Will God step in to protect "the righteous" side? There is none. They both agree.

What about the case of a woman who goes home to a husband who severely beats her? I've seen Catholics say to send her back home, and they have been doing that for years because of these scriptures. But has not the husband broken his vow to love and cherish her? Is she really relegated to a life of misery? No. The husband became an abuser and abused his covenant to her. Thus, her covenant no longer is binding. That's why Yeshua said if he cheated on her, she can divorce him. He made her covenant no longer binding. If he decides to kill her, her covenant is no longer binding. 

We need to remember in the Jewish society the man was supposed to protect the woman. The woman was always under a protector whether her father, priest or husband. If they violated that trust however, she was no longer bound. If he puts her away because he doesn't like her looks, that is a violation of her trust. The relationship is comparable to the relationship between the Church and its members. The Church is forbidden from persecuting its members. For the Church to excommunicate someone because they decide they don't like him anymore, is a no no.  For the member to say, well I'm going to go to a different Church, because I don't like the way that couple looked at me is also a no no.

[california boy]

11 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

 

Not necessarily.  You could ask yourself, "Do I have enough faith in a God who [purportedly] is Omniscient, Omnipotent, and All-Loving to believe that He wouldn't have to tell any of His Children who are faithful, 'I know you were expecting something more, or something better, or at least something ... different ... and I know this means that it sucks to be you, but ... sorry.  This is the best I could do'?"  I find it revealing that even though no one else is certain how s/he's going to feel or what s/he's going to believe after the resurrection, or after the first few aeons of Eternity, anyone whose sexuality falls far enough outside where most sexuality falls on the continuum purporting to measure such things is absolutely certain that nothing on that score is going to change.

In contrast to you, I have absolutely no idea, given the limits of human perception, cognition, reasoning, and so on, what it's going to be like to be resurrected or what life will be like after the first few aeons of Eternity, and I think that's rather the whole point.  Yes, I realize it's rather like comparing apples to Buicks, but, like you, I have my own reasons for wondering, "Lord, why has Thou thus dealt with me?"  In contrast to you, however, I don't have all of the answers yet.  The only thing I know for sure is that, "They shall not be ashamed that wait for me" (Isaiah 49:23).

For whatever reason, you seem to be fond of kicking me in the teeth, metaphorically speaking, when this subject or similar subjects come up, so I won't be surprised if it happens again.  Because of that, however, if I were you, I wouldn't be surprised if this is my only reply to you.

Have a lovely day.

Well then I won't comment.  The last thing I want to do is metaphorically kick anyone, including you, in the teeth.  That is not my intention

[california boy]

16 hours ago, Gray said:

Well here's the thing  - straight people understand and can easily empathize with a straight person who is divorced. The law of chastity (concerning adultery) is interpreted very loosely for straight members. We can go ahead and get remarried as many times as we like, there will be no consequences from the church. It's not encouraged or anything, but there are no consequences. That would be serial adultery according to Jesus, but I guess it's not a problem?

But for gay people I guess the law of chastity is just unchangable. Sorry folks, our hands are tied! Maybe because it's been much harder, historically, for straight members of the church to empathize with gay people.

Oh, also we can't do anything to change our ways on women and the priesthood. Sorry, the 12 apostles were male, that means definitely our hands are tied on this one too - not because of a commandment, but just because of precedent (let's ignore Junia and Deborah I guess). But divorce is okay because....?

Sorry, feeling a little sarcastic today.

 

This is EXACTLY why divorce is allowed in the church even though it directly violates the teachings of Christ.  And it is exactly why Mormons can go on for pages attacking gay rights and how it is perfectly ok to refuse to baptize their children while they are growing up.  Yet when the subject of divorce and remarriage being adultery and condemned by Christ. . . crickets.