|
|
|
|
|
| Dating a seperated person
Posted: 3/22/2005 9:46:44 PM | Question for you Orphes: If you define yourself as a 'Christian' as stated in your profile, then from what you've been saying all along should apply to you. Your profile states that you are divorced ... but you're still married! You're looking for a Christian woman ... maybe you should add ... 'a never married' Christian woman. But hey! I guess that wouldn't matter because whether she's single/separated/divorced ... she'd be committing adultery either way because you're still married.  | |
|
| Dating a seperated person
Posted: 3/22/2005 9:51:43 PM | well put, duckie.
loren, you're on my last nerve. and, if you're going to be a pompous ass, and try to show off by typing in other languages, can you at least get the languages right?
it's not ciao amigo.
italian: ciao amico
spanish: adios amigo
get it right. and stop bringing religion into this!
and, so you know...amico/amigo mean "friend". you should look that word up sometime, as i'm sure you have none of your own to act as a point of reference. | |
|
| |
| Dating a seperated person
Posted: 3/22/2005 11:27:25 PM | I've read some of the threads. It seems now days to justify relationships outside marriage, just about everyone wants to put their shine on what is right and what is wrong, THEIR IDEA OR RATHER, THEIR JUSTIFICATION. If you are a Christian, even to look upon another woman or man with lust is a sin. If you are a true literal New Testament doctrine Christian, there is NO SEX WITHOUT MARRIAGE.
And just because, to quote Sarita, "Nowadays, divorce is commonplace. No Christian believes that divorce is evil.", and regardless of any fact that "Not long ago results of a study on divorce were published, which indicated that the rate of divorce among Christians, was higher than among those who did not consider themselves Christians.", if you have sex without marriage it is a sin. If modern day Christians and others want to re-write the New Testament to fit their circumstances, why bother even having a New Testament? Why not just throw it away and write their own scripture so they can have everything they want their way? Burn the Bible because it is too restrictive about "What I want to do!" Isnt that what all of this is about?
If you want to be a true Biblical Christian and not develop your own opinions to satisfy your own lust or right to have sex without marriage, then SEX WITHOUT MARRIAGE IS A SIN. LOOKING ON ANOTHER IS SIN IN YOUR HEART.
And finally, divorce MAY be greater among devout Christians because they, for the most part, do not have as many LIVE TOGETHER relations as those who are not so devout or those who are non-Christians. Legally entered into Divorce should not be the criteria as a guideline for our not being able to get along with each other. Living together relations, including marriages, should. If you count living together relations and marriages as being in the same category, then divorces (and estrangements to living together) are not only far more prevalent today, they are at A GREATER MAGNITUDE THAN EVER KNOWN IN UNITED STATES HISTORY. Broken relationships are EPIDEMIC!
I don’t know why we are having a debate over this. If you want to call yourself a Christian, follow the New Testament teachings. If you don’t want to follow the New Testament teachings and want to develop your own, don’t call yourself a Christian; call yourself a New Ager or whatever you desire. But don’t try to justify actions that are considered sins in the New Testament just because you want to do them. Sorry folks, but that is the way it is. | |
|
| |
| Dating a seperated person
Posted: 3/23/2005 12:08:44 AM | RonSanLeandro-
I don’t know why we are having a debate over this.
Because the thread was high-jacked to spread bigotry and intolerance.
Back on topic?
Dating a seperated person
Posted: 3/9/2005 2:42:36 AM
Would any of you date soemoen who is seperated with a divorce pending? I know of some peole that have, actually carried on full relationships...while seperated, usually do to the fact they are not affording the legal fees or some other stuff.
In case anybody has been fooled by this thread's highjacking by the intolerant, here is the question:
"Would any of you date soemoen(sic) who is seperated(sic) with a divorce pending?"
The OP also states that: " I know of some peole(sic) that have, actually carried on full relationships...while seperated(sic), usually do to the fact they are not affording the legal fees or some other stuff."
This establishes that the separated individual(s) in question (divorce pending), are intending to carry through with finalizing the divorce. There is not even a hint in the OP, that the dissolution of the marriage in regards to the separated individual is in doubt.
Here's the kicker, slow kids ......
This thread's subject is NOT:
"What is the christian perspective on separation and divorce in regards to dating separated or divorced individuals?"
If that's the "debate" you're looking for, ......it's right here.
http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts558798.aspx
Or by all means, continue to highjack this thread and show the world what kind of âssclowns you really are. | |
|
| |
| Dating a seperated person
Posted: 3/23/2005 1:16:57 AM | Mai Plasir Ron
Late, what up?
Doesn't it seem that if the subject drifts toward the religious aspect of it all, that it must weigh heavily upon some people's minds? Isn't it fair to regard others opinions and ideals too, just the same as our own? America is a Republican society, with overtones of democracy. In a democratic society, it is the right of an idividual to have his or her own say, without undue harrassment or unnecessary negative criticism from others, or am I wrong?
If someone came on here with a Satanic view on the subject, I certainly wouldn't be putting him down for his views on the subject. I would tell him mine though, but I wouldn't ridicule or try to exclude him or her from their particular presentation. I do recognize that you are far from an unintelligent man, but wouldn't it serve others better to present your own opinions instead of merely criticising others? I know you have it in you, so what can you offer in terms of giving others the benifit of your own knowledge? Let's hear it.
As for me, I appreciate a man for having given his own ideas much better than for him to criticise others ideas. Don't you think?
Loren | |
|
| Dating a seperated person
Posted: 3/23/2005 1:43:57 AM |
so what can you offer in terms of giving others the benifit of your own knowledge? Let's hear it.
msg -
12
85
182
197
205
Doesn't it seem that if the subject drifts toward the religious aspect of it all, that it must weigh heavily upon some people's minds?
When it drifts to the point of off-topic re: OP (msg 1), a new thread in a suitable forum is considered apropos.
http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts558798.aspx | |
|
| Dating a seperated person
Posted: 3/23/2005 9:57:09 AM | Late
May I make a suggestion;
In psychology there are what is referred to as "verticle thinkers" and "horizontal thinkers".
The former always have one goal in mind, and seemingly put on blinders when it comes to subjects of intercourse, debate, and discovery. The latter do not have the blinders on, and they percieve a discussion (argument) as fair game for all related criteria and info regarding the subject in question.. To them, it seems absolutely fair that ; green is related to grass, and grass is related to earth, and earth is related to gardens, etc. It is very similar to the same philosophy of Taoism; I know this because I studied it while doing Sogo Kempo and Juijitsu for many years. It works like this; One thing is connected to the next, the next, and the next... In other words, everything is connected to everything else. the skin touches the air, the air touches the sky, the sky touches the trees, etc.
I would suggest that we regard everyone's opinions and not try to, or wish to, gear them towards a verticle method of discussion or argument that better fits our own ideology or methods of communication. If we didn't have horizontal thinkers (such as myself and others) the world would still be living in the dark ages. Whadya think? | |
|
| Dating a seperated person
Posted: 3/23/2005 11:16:00 AM | Ron says:
I don’t know why we are having a debate over this. If you want to call yourself a Christian, follow the New Testament teachings. If you don’t want to follow the New Testament teachings and want to develop your own, don’t call yourself a Christian; call yourself a New Ager or whatever you desire. But don’t try to justify actions that are considered sins in the New Testament just because you want to do them. Sorry folks, but that is the way it is.
The reason we're having a debate over this is because this is a forum for debate. doh!
Yes, i you want to call yourself a Christian, you could follow the New Testament teachings to the letter, but what are those teachings, and which interpreation to follow? There are so many interpretations of Christianity within Christianity, that it's not even funny. It's the reason there are so many Christian religions, Christian churches and Christian denominations. All of these call themselves Christians despite the fact that you could actually place these along a spectrum and have opposite extremes not resembling one another except for the fact that they both denominate themselves as Christian. Let's go further and admit that some Christian religions call one another non-Christian for not following Christianity according to one particular interpretation or another, that's how extreme the differences are. I'm sure that each Christian religion believes it's got the right interpretation.  | |
|
| Dating a seperated person
Posted: 3/23/2005 12:00:14 PM | Sarita,
you are right about most of it, but there is a part left unsaid.
Christianity is not a denomination or an interpretation, nor a certain type of building, otherwise we would have only one of them, all alike. Truth is exactly what it is supposed to be, one specific result. How can there be 357 "truths" about the same subject? Christianity is a belief, a lifestyle. It is not dogma, nor is it a building. It is something that is completely individualistic. Organized religion is not individualistic, it can't be. So organized religion is not Christianity, nor is it the objective, or the truth.
The only true Christianity is the one that is between one's maker and her or himself. The rest is just an organization, having nothing to do with the purpose of Christianity, that being, to accept Jesus as the Savior, God as his Father the creator, and the Holy Spirit. Nothing else. Most Christian "Churches" today are more designed as social outlets than anything else. The real "Church" can be found within a person, even if there are no other people left on the planet, or if he or she is left on an island somewhere, alone.
Loren | |
|
| Dating a seperated person
Posted: 3/23/2005 12:37:29 PM | In psychology there are what is referred to as "verticle thinkers" and "horizontal thinkers".
Larry:
There are reasons for certain (POF) rules concerning posting content, ignore these if you will ...but don't expect me to validate every straw man you produce, however painstakingly you think you have crafted it.
Observing these rules is a matter of courtesy and decorum, despite your claims to the contrary or self-deluded attemps at psycho-analysis.
BTW, there is a *specific* reference to POF's commitment to courtesy and decorum at the top of every "post reply".
Please see:
"Chatting back and forth with someone and hijacking a thread is not allowed........."
On-topic/ OP -
Would any of you date soemoen(sic) who is seperated(sic) with a divorce pending?
Many wouldn't consider dating a "separated" person who's divorce is pending, even when they can demonstrate that they are commited to the "pending" divorce.
There are those who would dismiss and marginalize individuals obligated to finalizing a divorce because they (those that dismiss and marginalize), are "vertical thinkers", incapable of seeing each person's situation as having unique circumstances.
Those that attempt to marginalize are often driven by other agenda than that which is germane to the "separated individual" in question.
...........Or maybe they're NOT EVEN looking for a potential mate in the first place, "divorce pending" or otherwise.
A reasonable individual with an open mind, who is capable of lateral thinking, .....would consider the specifics of each person's situation before passing judgment on others. | |
|
| Dating a seperated person
Posted: 3/23/2005 1:27:56 PM | Just a comment or two, so as to not become one who "chats back and forth";
As we have so diligently discussed (even to the point of nauseum) that the three obvious parts to this discussion clearly demonstrate themselves; One, that there is a social aspect to it, two, that there is a legal aspect to it, three, that there is a religious aspect to it. If we defer to another level, omitting one of these very essential parts, we are no better of than if we just made these rules;
"Thou shalt not talk about anything except for one of the three parts considering this discussion" or,
"Though shalt not speak or write of anthing more than 2/3 of it". or,
"Though shalt not do any of the above, since it is not quite well-designed for this agenda". And in fact, maybe we shouldn't twrite at all, because it may offend someone.
Even considering the pre-empted rules, we still have the freedom to express ourselves, or is tyranny alive and doing well here, or possibly dictatorship?
If the immediate above is the case, I want the heck out of Dodge--- right now!
As for me, I really enjoy the input of others, even if I may totally disagree with them, even if they get off target a bit now and then. It's what makes for interesting conversation, at least to me...
| |
|
| Dating a seperated person
Posted: 3/23/2005 3:36:13 PM | As we have so diligently discussed (even to the point of nauseum) that the three obvious parts to this discussion clearly demonstrate themselves; One, that there is a social aspect to it, two, that there is a legal aspect to it, three, that there is a religious aspect to it.
To those that aren't religious there is NO religious aspect to the question, none whatsoever.
Zip
Ziltch
Nada
End of story.
....until you show your intolerance for other's views by pressing your beliefs in a self-serving, self-aggrandizing way. This oppressive attitude is illustrated by your statements that: others that don't share your view are "socio-paths", "morons" or just plain amoral.
Deny this all you want, ....but, it's a matter of record for all (even those taken in by your rhetoric), to see.
It's no surprise that you defend this bigotry by invoking yet another straw man fallacy. That you now try to hide your intolerance behind a smoke-screen of "freedom of expression" is no surprise either.
It is also no surprise that you dismiss the idea of respect and dignity for others by continuing to ignore the spirit of decorum that is intended here, or that you seek to misrepresent it as being "tyrannical".
There IS a thread that exists on the "religion" forum that includes the aspect that you seek to press on others, yet ....you do not post there.
This speaks volumes. | |
|
| |
| Dating a seperated person
Posted: 3/23/2005 4:21:57 PM | As for me, I come with a letter of reference from my soon to be ex.
While I'm sorry that your marriage had to end because of forces beyond your control. I can't help but think that you and your ex are lucky for being able to be supportive of each other, so as to and breech the outside forces that would seek to keep you in limbo,
........ by not allowing you to separate or divorce from a marriage that for whatever reason, ....cannot continue.
Good luck my friend.
My marriage was over long before my separation was a legal reality, my ex and I have been "separate" for much longer (5 years) than the date on the agreement implies. The delay of the final divorce by reasons of legislation and/or circumstance has been nothing less than torture for both of us.
I waited 5 years and took time to heal emotionally from this dissolution and now, out of sheer desparation and lack of funds for a lawyer I am filling the final divorce papers myself.
The biggest aggravation in all this? The obstacles in legally resolving what we already know to be fact, and getting some closure.
ALL of these obstacles have nothing to do with, or have any regard for the fact that, for my ex and I, ......this marriage was over 5 years ago. | |
|
| Dating a seperated person
Posted: 3/23/2005 6:06:06 PM | Larry:
Christians all seem to share a belief in a person they call Jesus, as a form of, part of, or expression of, God, and they appear to share a compilation of speeches by a dude named Paul, and a couple of repetitive stories about how Jesus allegedly was born, and all sorts of other factoids or pseudo-facts, assembled by the Catholic Church, and which, today, is called New Testament. The similarity ends there.
What the mythical or real Jesus may or may not have said no one knows, but even those quotes attributed to him which may seem pretty standardly found throughout all types of Christianity, are almost never adhered to by Christians, regardless of which Christian group you look into.
As for Christianity being a personal relationship with God, how about if we say that Buddhism is a relationship with God? Or Hinduism? Or Islam? Or Judaism? Or Wicca? All are relationships with a higher power or entity.
I say believe whatever the hell you want and leave everyone else alone to believe what they wish, or not believe in anything at all. That, is the very essence of freedom and I love it.
(Ricardito es un sol.  ) | |
|
| Dating a seperated person
Posted: 3/23/2005 6:31:08 PM | Late, my references to sociopaths and morons was about their behavior in society, not about their religion. These two terms society and religion, are not interchangeables.
And every person I've ever met has a "religion" no matter how you describe it. I even know a person who worships his 1965 Mustang, another who worships his girlfriend. Not my cup of tea, but if that's what turns him on.... And as Pavlov once said; "Man is a worshiping creature"...
Peace brother
Loren | |
|
| Dating a seperated person
Posted: 3/23/2005 6:50:16 PM | Yes, Sarita
I agree with you on almost all counts. As a matter-of fact, I once told a Muslim that he and I shared the same God, but that we worship him differently. He agreed. The main difference between he and I was that he had a different go-between. His was Muhhamud, I believe.
As you may have noticed, I have put down my religious inferences and depositions, and instead, I repeatedly answer questions regarding it, whenever someone asks or projects.
My interest now rests in the social, practical, rational aspect of it all. The former discussions I presented, were merely intended to show the religious and legal aspect of it, and the differences thereof, not to fuel the fires of a marathon of heated, emotional debate. That being done, isn't it time to move onward with other philosophies and facts now?
I'll still answer any questions that people care to ask, but it is now quickly becoming redundancy and a bit boring, and as for myself, I can learn more by listening or reading others input. Right?
Thanks for the info Sarita.
Loren
:-) | |
|
| Dating a seperated person
Posted: 3/23/2005 7:45:59 PM | I suggest you read a bit further into it. According to scripture, If a man commits adultery, the marriage is broken. They are already divorced. He's broken his covenant, breaking the marriage vows. Hence the law, thou shalt not commit adultery.
Even in the ten commandments:
This Lord's word explained bible study document, will be the Ten Commandments. The ten commandments were given to Moses by God, on God's holy mountain. - from Exodus 20:3-17
All text taken from the King James Bible.
Thou shalt have no other gods before thee (before God the Father, or, as a stumbling block before you).
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy.
Honour thy father and thy mother.
Thou shalt not kill.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Thou shall not steal.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
Thou shalt not covet any thing that [is] thy neighbour's.
These are the commandments of God!
Now, if you care to alter that by taking those commandments and changing them, that's your choice. As for me, I know better:
Mark 7:7 - Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men.
There is an exception clause in the Matthew 19 passage that we will discuss later in the paper. However, unless the marital situation is related to that exceptional situation, Jesus tells us that we are not, as third parties, to encourage the break up of marriages.
Matthew 5:31-32
It has been said, "Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce." But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to commit adultery
Why not take a look at it, for what it is.
Jesus changes this, saying there is only one legitimate ground for divorce and subsequent remarriage, namely, marital unfaithfulness on the part of the spouse. The emphasis in His statement is not on the exceptive clause (except for the case of unchastity), but on the idea that a husband should not divorce his wife. The only legitimate grounds, in God's eyes, for doing so, would be porneia, a Greek word that refers to any kind of illicit sexual intercourse (Arndt and Gingrich, 1952, pp. 699; Boettner, 1976, pp. 9; Brown, 1975, pp. 497; Carson , 1984, p. 414; Heth and Wenham, 1985, p. 176.). This can include incest (1 Cor. 5:1), premarital intercourse (1 Cor. 7:1-2), homosexuality (Jude 7), or adultery (Jer. 3:8-9) or bestiality (Lev. 18:23, 20:16).
However, it should be noted that a husband is not obligated to put away his wife, even in this case. It only says that if he does so, he is not involved in the sin mentioned, that of making her commit adultery. This raises the question "Why would divorcing his wife cause her to commit adultery?"
In that time and culture it was nearly impossible for a formerly-married single woman to survive socially or economically (Ellisen, 1977, pp.64). By divorcing her illegitimately, her husband was thus virtually forcing her to remarry in order to live, causing both she and her new husband to be involved in adultery in God's eyes.
Jesus makes two modifications of the Deuteronomic law code--one relaxation and one intensification. The relaxation is that He substitutes divorce for the death penalty as the punishment for adultery. The intensification has to do with the grounds on which one might sue for divorce. The Deuteronomy 24 passage permitted divorce suits on the grounds of ervat-dabar (some gross indecency as perceived by the husband), the meaning of which had been significantly liberalized by centuries of male rabbis. Jesus circumscribes this legislation, saying that the only legitimate ground for divorce in God's eyes is sexual immorality on the part of the spouse. The reasons for this are given in Jesus' fuller treatment of the marriage and divorce issue found in Matthew 19.
Matthew 19:3-12
3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?" 4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5 and 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'? 6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
7 "Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?" 8 Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
angel | |
|
| Dating a seperated person
Posted: 3/23/2005 7:49:53 PM | Isn't is special that King James has his own scribes rewrite the Bible as a wedding gift for his new bride? ANd he made sure to pay em extra to take out all the parts about women being equal to me...
That is why I AM NOT CHRISTIAN
Squeak | |
|
| Dating a seperated person
Posted: 3/23/2005 7:55:27 PM | Some denominational groups, and Heth and Wenham in their book Jesus and Divorce (1985) have taken the stance that the exceptive clause allows the innocent partner of an adulterous spouse to divorce their spouse but not to remarry. Four considerations argue strongly against this interpretation:
First, both Jesus and his audience understood the right of divorce to automatically include the right to remarry. The Jewish bill of divorce, which had been used for many centuries prior to the time of Christ and was in use during His time, read as follows:
On day of the week day of the month in the year I who am also called son of of the city of by the river of do hereby consent with my own will, being under no restraint, and do hereby release, send away, and put aside thee, my wife who is also called daughter of who is this day in the city of by the river of , who have been my wife for some time past. And thus I do release thee, and send thee away and put thee aside that thou mayest have permission and control over thyself to go to be married to any man that thou mayest desire; and that no man shall.hinder thee from this day forward, and thou art permitted to any man, and this shall be unto thee from me a bill of dismissal, a document or release, and a letter of freedom, according to the law of Moses and Israel.
the son of Witness
the son of Witness
(Jewish Encyclopedias, cited in Duty, 1967, pp. 34-35).
As can be seen, this bill explicitly spelled out the assumption that the right to divorce carried with it the right to remarry. In the Jewish, Greek and Roman culture of this time, the right to divorce automatically implied the right to remarry (See Duty, 1967, pp. 17, 18, 23, 24, 32, 34-44, 69, 130, 132, for a thorough historical and grammatical substantiation of this fact). A primary canon of hermeneutics is that we must understand these words as the author intended, rather than through the lens of our own culture.
Secondly, Murray (1975, pp. 39-43) and Duty (1967, pp. 45-51) show that grammatically the exceptive clause refers both to the right to divorce and to remarry. Heth and Wenham (1984) disagree, but the majority of Greek scholars appear to agree that the exception clause refers to both the right to divorce and to remarry.
Thirdly, at the time of Christ, and for many centuries prior to Him, the Greek word apoluo (put away) had the meaning of complete disolution, of causing all obligation and responsibility to cease (Abbott-Smith, n.d.; Vine, 1948; Liddell and Scott, 1940; Moulton and Milligan, 1949).
Fourthly, as can be seen from the above, when Jesus in these passages talked about divorce, He and His hearers automatically understood this to imply the subsequent right to remarry. If Jesus had intended that marital unfaithfulness allowed the innocent spouse to divorce the guilty spouse but not remarry, He would certainly have clarified this in either in Matthew 5 or in this passage, but He does not.
We should always remember that the main thrust of this passage is not the legitimacy of divorce for sexual immorality, but the illegitimacy of divorce for any other reason (Murray, 1975, p. 99). In our teaching about marriage we always need to emphasize that God intended the marriage commitment to be permanent, and this is His primary teaching. However, both the historical and grammatical data indicate that Jesus' secondary teaching in these verses is that if one's spouse is involved in sexual immorality, divorce and subsequent remarriage by the innocent party is legitimate. | |
|
| Dating a seperated person
Posted: 3/23/2005 8:11:23 PM | | Since there is not a question (among conservative evangelicals) about the authenticity of either Matthew 5, Matthew 19, or 1 Corinthians 7, then it seems that the most biblically sound method is to affirm the validity of both the general principle (marriage is intended by God to be a lifelong commitment), but also affirm that there are God-given exceptions to this general principle, including death of one of the partners, sexual infidelity, and desertion. There are other situations, particularly those mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5, where God gives permission to separate from an abusive spouse. If both the general principle and the exceptions are taught in Scripture, then as counselors seeking to inform our counseling stance from God's Word, we also need to affirm both the principles and the exception. It would be as much a denial of the totality of God's truth to deny the exceptions as to deny the general principle. | |
|
| |
|
| Page 9 of 14
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 |
|
Home
login 
