>>18585192
Then can you explore exactly what circumstances those are?

>>18585224
They are most certainly living in sin. I've spent the last couple days watching other pastors' views on this and they fall apart one way or another. When you remarry you deprive your ex of the chance of reconciling with you and you're giving conjugal rights to someone God has not approved. The fact you're sleeping with someone that's not the one you originally married is why it's called adultery.

Pastors are too terrified to tell people they need to dissolve their second marriage, that divorce is unlawful and remarriage is a sin that will send you to hell. I just finished watching a 3 hour and 1.5 hour follow up response to a pastor jumping through hoops to come up with justified divorces so he can counsel and advise to allow them to remarry. But the fact that he says his words can be abused and exploited exposes how weak his points are without you even listening to it. He even brings up first 1-4th century church fathers and finds points he disagrees with to justify ignoring the resounding consensus that you're not supposed to remarry. Why would you even take a chance in digging for scenarios to justify contradicting Jesus? If your interpretation is wrong, you're convincing a bunch of other people to go to hell.

>>18587996
>When you remarry you deprive your ex of the chance of reconciling with you and you're giving conjugal rights to someone God has not approved.

Jeremiah 3:1
>“If a man divorces his wife and she leaves him and marries another man, should he return to her again? Would not the land be completely defiled? But you have lived as a prostitute with many lovers— would you now return to me?” declares the Lord.

Once another man has touched her you cannot touch her ever again.

File: PepeSittingNextToTheWay.jpg (13 KB, 270x380)

13 KB JPG

>>18588035
We now live under Jesus' laws. The man who married the divorced wife has committed a grave sin in adultery. We're called to be like Christ and forgive 7x70 times over. And ultimately marriage is supposed to mirror the new covenant between Christ and the church where no matter what, Christ will be there for the church, always.

This is truly what it means to be a Christian man, a man who recognizes himself as a dearly beloved child of the creator of the universe, someone who treats everyone as though they are himself, someone who will die for his friends, someone who walks the path of light and seeks the truth and is the salt of the earth.

Come anon, let us aspire to be this kind of Christian man and build a world for him to thrive.

>>18587995
Pay attention, if you're really interested in Christianity:

The Bible contains Jesus' teachings, but also the disciples' memories, interpretations, translations, and editorial changes.

>>18587995
I’m the poster that brought up the little boy and girl promising to marry each other story.
I saw her staring and hiding from me looking through the leaves at me while I was sitting in the garden patio chairs the very day I posted that. It’s rare for her to actually stare at me for a long period of time. She even put her phone down, which is even more of a shock. 100% of the time she has it to avoid talking to me (she isn’t allowed to). She was also deep in thought after I acted like I don’t see her peering through the leaves. I wear glasses for seeing far away, so I can see quite perfect with them on. She was walking very slowly to make sure I saw her.
The next day, my dad made a reference to sweetypie. Sweetypie was a reddish cat that used to come over from our neighbor’s house and we’d feed her. My papa named her even though the neighbors named her something else, but she wanted to be our cat and live with us. They would have to come get her from us. After not seeing her all day, though our dads have done stuff together for the past two days, she suddenly showed up over there before bedtime. And my dad said “there’s your sweetypie!”
I acted like I was sweeping the barn and feeding the goats and donkeys hay but I was really trying to see her. We actually have the same exact name, me and her, and we are thirdborns in our families of 3 boys and 3 girls. I told her I wanted to marry her when I was six years old. We grew up together and across the street. I’m keeping it simple and sparing any identifiable info. I spent Christmas with her two years ago for the first time in less than 33 years. We both realized we are a lot alike. Like I found my twin wife and we aren’t related. I call her my mirror, my match, my white dove because she is my first in heart and therefore I am her’s, my 33, my honeybee (honeyBEE = 1333). My entire life I have lived in faith and faithfulness to our promises, when she told me her promise again, I received.

>>18588329
Pay attention: you’re a false teacher and you’re acting as an agent of Satan.

>>18588035
>Once another man has touched her you cannot touch her ever again.
Bro read the book of Hosea God literally has a prophet tolerate his wife becoming a streetwalking prostitute and him being seen as a cuck by everyone in town it's blackpilling af

“If we don't, then someone will remarry cause they got divorced and they'll be sinning.”
I tried to help you understand. You posted a crusader with glowing red eyes jokingly referring to that you pretend to going to create a court that is going to make everyone marry who they were supposed to marry.
In case you forgot what I said, I basically said that it’s left up to faith and you can’t force it you can only pray for people to do the right thing.
In fact if you will just pray with me right now that will help. And pray to the Lord Jesus that God will help people keep their promises, marry who they said to marry, and serve each other in peace, humility, love, and purity. And then we can all be happy that we are letting true love blossom in all of our hearts and have the dreams of our hearts / desires of our hearts be fulfilled by the one and only true living God.
Does that help? I hope it does. Thanks. Good luck with your court idea.

When I was little, I also accepted Jesus Christ as my lord and savior into my hear also at 6 years old. So my decision to marry her was just as serious to me as when I got saved and baptized.
Also when I was little,my friend told me to hide under the stairs under some rubber and my Sunday school class couldn’t find me. I didn’t mean to disappear like that to everyone, but I did. But in the Song of Solomon, I then found out 33 years later that the verse says “O my dove, who art in the clefts of the rock, and *the secret places of the stairs*, let me see thine countenance, and let me hear thine voice. For thy countenance is comely, and thy voice is sweet.”
I will never forget. And I believe that God literally writes our heart and our faith even when we think we are fighting God or not even knowing where we are going. Most of my life btw I minded my own business playing computer games or hanging out with my irl friends.
>>18588494
I’m not him, but Hosea ends up buying her out of slavery and then she gives him a son named Jazreel. Jazreel becomes a name of a valley, and then God used that same valley to kill Jezebel, one of the most evil ladies in the Bible who killed God’s prophets and used idols. You can probably look into more if you dig deeper by that information alone on the Bible. But the most important thing is that it points to Jesus Christ being the giver of a prudent wife, a virtuous woman to be a man’s crown, which we cast back at the king of king’s feet, because we know that our wife isn’t ours , she was created by God for us and only while we maintain that humility (keeping pride out), God continues to give us a satisfying wife and life. According to God’s Word, living with your parents is called biblical stewardship. It isn’t required that you leave your house unless you get married. The Bible tells us not to worry about raiment, shelter, money or any provision, even your wife. Spiritual needs are met differently than carnal ones.

The commandment:
Share the gospel. And leave people alone who don’t receive it.
The gospel = “Do you know Jesus Christ as your savior?” (More details as needed)
That’s it. That’s all it takes to be able to talk to the God who can do anything.

>>18588533
>And leave people alone who don’t receive it.
(note: stated nowhere in the bible)

>>18588533
>The gospel = “Do you know Jesus Christ as your savior?”
That’s also incorrectly subjective. The gospel is who Jesus was, with all He did, and what God promises to those who trust in His perfect work.

>>18588535
Actually it was commanded to wipe the dust off your feet and do not return to their house.

>>18588540
That doesn’t mean “leave them alone”, as though they ceased to exist, it means they are not to be given the gospel message any longer and the meaning of this command is substantially the same as Matthew 7:6. This is not a blessing for them, it is a curse, and as it directed against those which are “dogs and pigs” it is not to be applied universally to any which reject the gospel, but only those which obstinately and hatefully oppose it, as the pharisees did. Those which disbelieve with appropriate civility and respect are to be offered mercy again, and their salvation is to be prayerfully and earnestly strived for.

>>18588537
No, starting off with a simple question to someone if they will accept the gospel is about their soul accepting it. Not about what Jesus did. What Jesus did is for that person to receive or not. It’s a simple yes or no question for them.
God’s Promises and Jesus’ work is different from the gospel slightly, the Word is God’s Promises. The gospel means “the good news.” The good news is Jesus died for you on the cross,shedding his own righteous blood of the only son of God so you can be one too. The gospel IS the kingdom of God. Those who reject it are basically rejecting everything good from God for free. If you attempt to one-up me again I will take it as you rejected it from me to take it to your own institution to a pope-like or other master for your world, and so you are just another groupie in the world thinking you have the exclusive church.
The gospel is universal, and there is salvation outside of the Catholic Church found in that universal gospel. But not in rejecting or forbidding it to others like you have shown. Like I said, if you continue to do that then you already lost. God bless. I pity you, because I currently have everything , including the victory.

>>18588546
>No, starting off with a simple question to someone if they will accept the gospel is about their soul accepting it
Why in the world would you start off by asking them if they would accept something they don’t know of yet?
>Not about what Jesus did. What Jesus did is for that person to receive or not. It’s a simple yes or no question for them.
This is dangerously erroneous and constitutes material heresy. The direct implication of this is that it is not what Jesus did, but what the *sinner* does that is the ground of their justification (i.e., whether they choose to believe or not). The biblical teaching is that the sole ground or basis of justification for anyone is what Christ did on behalf of everyone who believes, namely fulfilling the law for them and suffering the penalty of their sins in their place upon the tree.
>The good news is Jesus died for you on the cross,shedding his own righteous blood of the only son of God so you can be one too.
That is false. Scripture nowhere speaks of Christ dying on the cross for a generic “you”, nor did He die for everyone in general, but He died for the people of the covenant of promise. The message of the gospel is not, Jesus died for you, therefore something or other (for I do not see how Jesus having died for them as unbelievers is supposed to imply anything for them), but that Jesus the God-man died for the sins of everyone who believes, therefore God has promised to forgive every believer, therefore believe, lay hold of the promise and dare not be moved from it, believe and you will be saved. There is another error here, in that the gospel should always be accompanied by the law so that unbelievers can see that they are condemned by God and need Christ to begin with.

>>18588546
>If you attempt to one-up me again I will take it as you rejected it from me to take it to your own institution to a pope-like or other master for your world, and so you are just another groupie in the world thinking you have the exclusive church.
You are very proud and unwilling to hear advice; repent
>But not in rejecting or forbidding it to others like you have shown. Like I said, if you continue to do that then you already lost. God bless. I pity you, because I currently have everything , including the victory.
I don’t even know what you’re babbling about

>>18588296
God never changes. The land will become polluted and has already become so polutes God has sent the hordes of invaders to oppress you as punishment to punish theand, which is the first sign of God's wrath, after the crops get hit by plagues and now you've made many poisonous insecticides to try to revert God's wrath which is useless because it will only get worse. Soon the loctus will eat it all and famine will eat you up.
>>18588494
Only because she was a representation of Israel whorong with other gods. Not because that is his command for us to follow.

>>18588487
You married? Congrats anon.

>>18588499
>I tried to help you understand. You posted a crusader with glowing red eyes jokingly referring to that you pretend to going to create a court that is going to make everyone marry who they were supposed to marry.

You're conflating things. The court is supposed to be designed to help resolve marital disputes. But since you brought that up

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-heart-balm-racket-convinced-america-women-were-no-good-180968144/
https://www.aaml.org/wp-content/uploads/Belleau.pdf

Allow me to introduce to you laws that most infact
> make everyone marry who they were supposed to marry.

We used to have such laws called Heart Balm Tort laws. If you promised to marry someone you could get sued if you don't follow through. If someone homewrecks your marriage, you can sue them even if they weren't intimate with your wife. We need them back. But our government isn't on our side anymore. Thus the church needs to step in to cover to protect their congregation.

>>18588494
>Bro read the book of Hosea God literally has a prophet tolerate his wife becoming a streetwalking prostitute and him being seen as a cuck by everyone in town it's blackpilling af
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1125/2740/files/the-official-365-day-reading-plan-for-the-bible-in-a-year_2.pdf

I'm on day 21 (I've resolved to do 3 days worth a day) on the book of Genesis and it'll be a while before I reach that book. A reminder that we're in the New Covenant and God allowed and permitted things to lead us to that moment. But eyeballing (since I don't spoil myself just yet), we are called to be ever reliable and ever available for reconciliation. We have to play by God's rules. This means we can't be hanging out with a den of thieves as we're far more likely to become a reliable thief than to transform that place into an underground church of saints. And we have to be far far far discerning on who we choose for a wife. This means we have to crack down on what women are free to do

“Early Christian writers — often referred to as the church fathers — almost universally rejected remarriage after divorce.3 Among Greek-speaking fathers there was total unanimity. The earlier writers (Hermas, Justin, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen) all explicitly condemned remarriage after divorce or clearly presupposed this view. The Constantinian settlement that made Christian ity the official religion of the empire (ca. AD 312) might have encouraged Christian writers to identify imperial legal practice, which permitted divorce and remarriage, with Christian values. But there was no sign of that happening.

Later Greek theologians such as Basil, Gregory Nazianzus, Apollina-rius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and John Chrysostom all maintained the traditional Christian position that the Gospels do not permit remarriage after divorce. These theologians regarded the exception clause as authorizing or requiring separation, not permitting remarriage afterward.4 That this was the way native Greek speakers understood our Lord’s teaching surely indicates it is the most natural interpretation.”

>Excerpt From Remarriage After Divorce in Today's Church: 3 Views (Counterpoints: Church Life) Gordon J. Wenham

> “The evidence of the Latin fathers is equally impressive. Among those who condemned remarriage after divorce were Tertullian, Ambrose, Innocent, Pelagius, Jerome, and Augustine. There was only one dissenting voice in the West, namely, Ambrosiaster, who wrote between 366 and 383. His views on marriage and divorce were strongly influenced by Roman law. For example, he regarded adultery by a husband as much less serious than that by a wife. This inequality put him at odds with both the New Testament and the general attitude of the early church, which always insisted on mutual fidelity. Little wonder that Ambrosiaster was ignored by subsequent fifth-century Latin writers.
The witness of the early church thus points unequivocally to a no-remarriage understanding of the gospel divorce texts. Since no modern New Testament scholar can ever hope to approach the Greek fathers’ grasp of their mother tongue and its nuances, dissenters will have to have extremely powerful arguments to show that the understanding of the Greek fathers is not the natural understanding of the texts.”

This is getting ridiculous now. I'm getting really pissed at Protestants, how did they let such a critical teaching slide under the table?

>>18589621
Also a bit of an error, Constantine legalized Christianity (aka no more persecution of Christians), not made it an official state religion.