Why haven't Christians attempted to ban divorce?

[RLeVan]

Is that proven unfaithfulness or suspected unfaithfulness. Pardon the vulgarity, but once you stick your wang-wang in her hoo-hoo, the marriage is consummated. Alright, now for all those protestors saying they didn't know what they were getting into. Well, at the point of consummation, you certainly knew what you were getting in to. Well, I certainly hope you know what you were getting into. We have a word for that, lust. Hail marries abound, but don't worry it's all okay because your more righteous than thou. This isn't directed at Catholics that kept their vows, but towards those that preach Catholocism an turn a blind eye to suit their needs.

[AJ_Skins]

For anyone who is actually interested in the answer, I'll try to lay it out. First of all, with regard to divorce, the New Testament gives two valid reasons. One is if one of the parties commits adultery. The other is if one of the parties is a Christian and the other is not. In that case, the one who is a Christian should try to make it work and bring the other around, but if the one who is not a Christian wants to leave, the one who is should let them go.

Divorce laws in the United states have changed significantly. It used to be much harder to get a divorce. Now you can do it at the drop of a hat, with no repercussions.

As for the issue of homosexuality, and/or gay marriage, it is not a correct analogy to talk about "banning divorce". You could make that argument with regard to banning sodomy, but you could make the same argument with any law, including laws against murder.

What the Bible teaches is that it is not our place to pass judgment on people for their sins. On that basis, you could argue that any law which results in a criminal penalty goes against Christian teaching. However, the Bible makes it clear that government has a job to do, and people should obey the law. What this issue comes down to is something else the Bible teaches, which is that if you approve of and/or encourage others to sin, it is as if you have committed the sin yourself.

What makes this issue unique is that it is not merely a case of banning or permitting a particular behavior. It is a matter of granting affirmative legal status, and all the consequences that derive from it. If homosexuality and/or gay marriage are enshrined in law as a "protected class" against which it is illegal to discriminate (and there are some ways in which this has already happened), it leads directly to a situation where anyone who is a Christian will have to choose between following the Bible and following the law. The chain of events that would be set off would ultimately result in people being fired, fined and possibly imprisoned for staying true to their beliefs. Tax exempt status for churches would have to go. I'm sure all of that would make some of you very happy, but I think you can understand why it would be extremely worrisome to Christians, in a way that other issues are not.

"Live and let live" is one thing. This would be "either repudiate your beliefs or suffer the consequences".

[AJ_Skins]

1) You are not talking about "Christians", you are talking about the "Christian Right". These are two different, yet sometimes overlapping groups.

I don't think anybody who is a member of the "Christian Right" would accept that analysis. It seems more like a way for certain people to shield themselves from criticism by saying "I'm not one of them".

2) The "Christian Right", as the name implies, is not a religious organization. It is a political organization made up of religious people. There is a difference.

There is no political organization called "the Christian Right". There are numerous groups, many of which hold the same views, but there is no centralized organization as you suggest.

3) As a political group, the Christian Right follows political objectives and uses political techniques. Part of politics is knowing how to pick battles. Gay Marriage is a good choice for them because many people oppose it. They have a chance of winning on this issue.

As I explained in my above post, the general push for affirmative legal status for homosexuality is a direct threat to the free exercise of religion. In that sense, it is unique, and represents perhaps the gravest threat to religious freedom in this country since its founding.

4) Following that point, it is very likely that the Christian Right would try to ban divorce if they thought they could manage it. This is supported by the concept of "Covenant Marriage", an idea proposed in several places that would create another type of marriage with more restrictions, among other things, upon divorce. Political groups focus on what they think they can get done.

That idea, as it has been proposed, is totally voluntary. In any case, divorce laws have been relaxed significantly in the U.S. They used to be far more restrictive.

But hey, don't let me break up a good bash session with inconvenient realities. Carry on...

No offense, but I think you're trying to take the easy way out. It's harder to stand up for your beliefs and face criticism than it is to deflect it off to somebody else.

[RLeVan]

Great post AJ but I don't exactly follow your giant leap from gay marriage as a sin to divorce as a sin. It appears to be more of a do what I say not what I do sort of issue. I'll agree that most Christians follow their secular beliefs when it comes to marriage, and the minority do not.

The real question is how Christians feel they are affected and excuse their personal sins and dress it up to be a gay problem. Does gay marriage affect Christians outside of the church? Will the Christian world fall apart if gays are allowed to marry? If anything, it's the Christian church imposing their will upon others instead of the other way around.

I suppose that the answer to my questions have already been answered, that more churches are being built then schools, that more money is being put into the churches than public school system. I apologize for taking this thread off topic.

[G-Prime]

I wonder how many jews supported allowing it in Moses's day LOL

It was certainly not Gods idea

It was the Arch Angel Michaels idea.. He said "Hey...lets have a ceremony".

It might have been John Travolta thou ;p

[Beaudry]

I don't think anybody who is a member of the "Christian Right" would accept that analysis. It seems more like a way for certain people to shield themselves from criticism by saying "I'm not one of them".

AJ Skins - Just because you feel a certain way, please don't speak for all christians. I know I disagree with just about everything that you say.

There is no political organization called "the Christian Right". There are numerous groups, many of which hold the same views, but there is no centralized organization as you suggest.

And your point is? These collection of these groups make the "Christian Right".

As I explained in my above post, the general push for affirmative legal status for homosexuality is a direct threat to the free exercise of religion. In that sense, it is unique, and represents perhaps the gravest threat to religious freedom in this country since its founding.

This is just your opinion on what may happen and it is a stretch at best.

No offense, but I think you're trying to take the easy way out. It's harder to stand up for your beliefs and face criticism than it is to deflect it off to somebody else.

Do you realize that it is possible for another Christian to not have the same political beliefs as you? I would go so far as to say that your intrepretation of information has been poor in the past *cough* Patrick Ramsey sucks and will be a 3rd stringer for life *couch*

[Zguy28]

I think many of you guys need to pause the snickering at the "stupid hypocrite Christians" and patting each other on the back for your cleverness in skewering the "Christian menace" and consider what's actually going on here.

1) You are not talking about "Christians", you are talking about the "Christian Right". These are two different, yet sometimes overlapping groups. Examples: Destino is a liberal and a Christian. I am a liberterian and a Christian. Neither of us would fit in the group of "Christians" you are all batting about for amusement. Judging from his writing, ZGuy28 might.

2) The "Christian Right", as the name implies, is not a religious organization. It is a political organization made up of religious people. There is a difference.

3) As a political group, the Christian Right follows political objectives and uses political techniques. Part of politics is knowing how to pick battles. Gay Marriage is a good choice for them because many people oppose it. They have a chance of winning on this issue. Banning divorce, on the other hand, is obviously a non-starter. Who'd support it? For a political group to spend it's resources on issues which have no chance of passing is foolish. They focus instead on issues they can pass. It is for this reason that gun control groups, for instance, although perhaps desiring the total ban of all firearms, limit themselves to proposing restrictions like the assault weapons ban and the Brady Bill. Are they hypocrites? No, they're in politics. (Although many would argue that the two are synonomyous )

4) Following that point, it is very likely that the Christian Right would try to ban divorce if they thought they could manage it. This is supported by the concept of "Covenant Marriage", an idea proposed in several places that would create another type of marriage with more restrictions, among other things, upon divorce. Political groups focus on what they think they can get done.

But hey, don't let me break up a good bash session with inconvenient realities. Carry on...

I think you are pretty accurate here. I am somewhat "the Christian right" , although of late I am of the mind to "make the world Christendom" through straight-up evangelism instead trying to make people moral without God.

We can't expect people to live by Biblical mandates when the Bible holds no authority for them.:2cents:

[MikeInJc aka M.I.A.]

Divorce may be a sin, but if it is eliminated, the murder rate explodes, which would create a bigger sin. :laugh:

You beat me to it...... The murder rate would sky rocket if divorce was banned. Which is 100% true and sad at the same time.

[twenty-eight]

"***** set me up!!"

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

[Hokieskin]

I just figured out what this thread is about. You mean to tell me there are religious hypocrites in the world today? Frankly, I am amazed by this news. Next you will be telling me politicians are corrupt and lawyers lie. I don't know if God has ever seen hypocrisy like this in the history of man?

This could mean people are sinful, even Christians. I don't know for sure but I will do more research.

BTW, didn't the leader of the Christian movement say that 'anyone who is angry with with his brother is subject to judgement' which I understand he meant anyone who is angry is committing murder? And he said that ' anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery in his heart.'

Why aren't Christians trying to outlaw anger and looking lustfully at women?

[techboy]

Seriously... All the sudden you don't want to be associated with as you call them "The Christian Right" just like Virginia didn't want to be associated with what they call "The Virginia West" or the USA didn't want to be associated with what they called "The Brittish Right"

What I wrote had nothing to do with a desire to disassociate myself from the Christian Right. I have a great deal of respect for many of the people in that movement. Most of my best friends would fall into that category, which is why I understand their way of thinking. My status as an evangelical Christian and a Liberterian is somewhat unusual, though not unique. It stems from my belief that it is impossible to legislate morality, and also my position that the best government is the least government.

I'm certainly not trying to avoid taking unpopular positions, here. If I was, I wouldn't talk about Christ at all. "Nice Christians" are given a pass, but those of us who present the truth of the Bible, that Christ is the only way to Heaven, aren't generally received so well.

I'm sorry, but I've been a Liberterian since college.

[techboy]

I don't think anybody who is a member of the "Christian Right" would accept that analysis. It seems more like a way for certain people to shield themselves from criticism by saying "I'm not one of them".

You think wrong.

There is no political organization called "the Christian Right". There are numerous groups, many of which hold the same views, but there is no centralized organization as you suggest.

It's not a centralized formal group, but if you don't think the various organizations like Focus on the Family and such network and share strategy, then I don't know what to tell you.

As I explained in my above post, the general push for affirmative legal status for homosexuality is a direct threat to the free exercise of religion. In that sense, it is unique, and represents perhaps the gravest threat to religious freedom in this country since its founding.

Maybe. My solution would be to completely remove the government from any role in marriage at all. I see no reason they should even be involved. With the government out of it, people who want to get married in a church can, and people who want to make other arrangements can as well. (Yes, I am aware that there are many ways marriage is written into the law now that would have to be unentangled, but most could be done with contracts, and no, I don't really want to discuss this further).

The government is involved in marriage now because it has been decided that society benefits by encouraging marriage. I don't think that's a legitimate role of the government, which should exist pretty much only to prevent force and fraud, and enforce contracts.

That idea, as it has been proposed, is totally voluntary. In any case, divorce laws have been relaxed significantly in the U.S. They used to be far more restrictive.

Yes, I know. As I said, it's all about politics. Voluntary "Covenant Marriage" can garner enough support to pass. "Banning Divorce" can't. I'll say it again. Although I am myself far too Liberterian to fit into the category of Religious Right, I am pretty much immersed in the culture, and I can tell you that if Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell thought they could ban divorce, they'd probably try.

No offense, but I think you're trying to take the easy way out. It's harder to stand up for your beliefs and face criticism than it is to deflect it off to somebody else.

No offense, but one needs not be a hard right conservative to be a Christian. And for you to imply that I don't stand up for my beliefs and accept criticism probably just means you've never read where I've asserted the historicity of the Ressurection and the reliability of Scripture.

[techboy]

I think you are pretty accurate here. I am somewhat "the Christian right" , although of late I am of the mind to "make the world Christendom" through straight-up evangelism instead trying to make people moral without God.

We can't expect people to live by Biblical mandates when the Bible holds no authority for them.:2cents:

This is pretty much exactly why I'm a Liberterian. We can't make sinners stop sinning by passing laws, and even if we could, without their knowing Christ, it woiuldn't help anyway.

[AJ_Skins]

This is pretty much exactly why I'm a Liberterian. We can't make sinners stop sinning by passing laws, and even if we could, without their knowing Christ, it woiuldn't help anyway.

While I don't entirely disagree with what you're saying, I have to point to a big irritation of mine...the phrase "legislating morality". All laws are a legislation of morality. Stop and think about it for two seconds and you'll realize it's true.

[TradeTheBeal!]

They should add it as a last-minute rider on the comprehensive "Anti-Impure Thoughts" legislation.

[techboy]

While I don't entirely disagree with what you're saying, I have to point to a big irritation of mine...the phrase "legislating morality". All laws are a legislation of morality. Stop and think about it for two seconds and you'll realize it's true.

Yes, and you'll note they don't work on that front. Stealing is illegal. Do we still have theft? Murder is illegal. Do we still have murder? Prostitution is illegal in most localities. Have we stamped out the sex industry?

Government is a necessary evil in that a bare minimum of laws are needed to maintain order and hopefully protect the innocent (the "force and fraud" I referenced earlier), but don't think for one second that our laws against stealing make anybody reconsider the morality of theft.

Laws against force and fraud are acceptable because they deter others from damaging me or my rights. Laws which attempt to make children more religious by forcing every school in the State of Virginia to have a placard with the phrase "In God We Trust" somewhere in the building in plain view are stupid, ineffective, a waste of money, and a ridiculous and unnecessary expansion of the minimally neccessary evil that is government.

Zguy28 is right. Change the heart, and the law won't be necessary.

[AJ_Skins]

Yes, and you'll note they don't work on that front. Stealing is illegal. Do we still have theft? Murder is illegal. Do we still have murder? Prostitution is illegal in most localities. Have we stamped out the sex industry?

Government is a necessary evil in that a bare minimum of laws are needed to maintain order and hopefully protect the innocent (the "force and fraud" I referenced earlier), but don't think for one second that our laws against stealing make anybody reconsider the morality of theft.

Laws against force and fraud are acceptable because they deter others from damaging me or my rights. Laws which attempt to make children more religious by forcing every school in the State of Virginia to have a placard with the phrase "In God We Trust" somewhere in the building in plain view are stupid, ineffective, a waste of money, and a ridiculous and unnecessary expansion of the minimally necessary evil that is government.

Zguy28 is right. Change the heart, and the law won't be necessary.

Like I said, I don't totally disagree. I agree that people have to change, and they can't be made to change. On balance, I share your views.

However, taking your example of schools and religion, don't you think a far better solution would be to have school choice, using vouchers, which would allow people to send their kids to any kind of school they want? In the absence of that kind of freedom, can you totally blame one side in trying to adjust the schools to their priorities?

I guess you probably believe school should not be publicly funded at all, if you hold strictly to the libertarian point of view.