The story so far:

Quote:

Wow, I'm surprised this isn't called the "Random Debate Thread!"  Originality is good!

-b0b
(...THIS IS.... MY POST!)

Quote:


If he's a non-believer then the Bible says you can divorce.  However if he is a Christian than I would suggest that woman get out of the house PDQ an pray hard.  You should never put yourself or your kids in danger, whether you are male or female.  However, because of the pact you made not with man but with God, you must either wait until one of three things happens.  He dies, he cheats on you, or he repents.

Quote:


It doesn't matter if you rushed into it or not.  The Bible says that even if you have sex before marriage it's best to get married right away so that you do not live in sin.

1Co 7:8  I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
1Co 7:9  But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

If we are to be Christians and children of God then we must trust His Word, the Bible.  Divorce is only offered under two instances.  Sexual infidelity and one spouse being a non-Christian.


Quote:


This is true.  We should not judge people for all have sinned.  And no one should ever look down on anyone.  I should never look down on a man who has murdered and become a Christian for I am as guilty as he is in the judgment of God.  However I do want to make it clear that if you are a Christian and you do not try and help your fellow brothers and sisters turn away from sin than you do not truly love them.  So if someone came to me asking if they should remarry and they tell me that their husband/wife hasn't remarried, cheated on him/her sexually, or is a Christian I would tell them not to get remarried because it violates God's Wishes.


Quote:


If they were all Christians back when the first "messed up" then I would say you're wrong.  They should be paired with someone who they choose.

Gal 6:7  Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

If you make a mistake you must live with that mistake.  If you lie in a court of law you will be arrested because you broke your word that you'd tell the truth.  There is no do overs there, no reset button.

I may not understand that part of your statement so if I'm misunderstanding it please tell me and clarify. 

Quote:


I agree with your first sentence.  However I'm not quite sure I can agree or understand your second.

Are you saying that there are no absolutes?  If that is true than what does it matter if I don't do anything God says because I'm saved.

Joh 14:23  Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
Joh 14:24  He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.
Joh 14:25  These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.
Joh 14:26  But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

A sign of salvation is leaving your old life behind and becoming that new creation in Christ.  The way for this to show itself is to do what God says.

Let's use a different subject than divorce.  Let's say I tell you I'm a Christian and I go to church and am involved in a whole slew of stuff in the church and I'm even an elder.  Now let's say that for the past 3 years I've killed 7 people.  I'm not following what God says but I keep telling you that I'm a Christian.  From my actions it doesn't sound like I'm on based on John 14.

Now let me put this up to clarify.  Divorced people can be Christian...even if they don't do it right.  If you are truly saved and you get divorced the wrong way it's not a damnable offense.  Even believers still sin.  However if you negate God's commandments for either your personal beliefs or because you think salvation is a free ride to sinning (and divorce done incorrectly IS a sin) then you are going against God and against what He gave freely to you when He selected you to be a child of God.

*ADDED*

Quote:


You made me think of something here, Bob.  If we are suppose to set our sites on being like Christ as much as possible then shouldn't that show us why divorce is wrong in this "bad marriage" deal.  That would mean every time we sin against God, He would "divorce" us from salvation.  I for one am glad God doesn't do that so I can be secure in my salvation.  If your spouse isn't as "spiritually sound as you" that's a perfect way to grow closer together...by growing closer to God.

X

Also, this should be a moot point to Christians, because we should be paying attention to God's wishes here. He wants a personal relationship with us and to guide us. If we stick to the Word, and our conscience (made pure by becoming saved because the Holy Spirit is in us) we as Christians wont have this problem. We will marry the correct person for us, and have a pure and sanctified marriage.

I was just speaking for those that have gotten themselves into abusive relationships, etc.

I for one am against giving women the right to vote.  Scientists have proven their brains are half the size of a mans....Figured I would post this since if bob come to a conclusion I figured the debate was over.



That's how science works!

Ya know I could list all the things wrong with the theory of GW...but there's a great movie called GLOBAL WARMING OR GLOBAL GOVERNANCE that is just perfect.  I have it if anyone wants it, although it's a file that's about 700 megs and I don't think the FTP is up anymore.  I know it's on some bit torrent sites:

http://www.demonoid.com/files/details/1350552/402744/ (only if you're a demonoid account holder)

so that'd prob. be your best bet.

If not I can always file transfer it over to people.  There's this great prob called Hamachi that Briney, Eric, and I have been using to set up mini LANs over the net that also helps in file transfers...a bit slow but not too bad.

X

If heat transfer were that simple, the ocean would have boiled off long ago.

-b0b
(...must be missing something.)

I think we're overlooking the obvious answer.  Global Warming is very real, and it's caused by Briney's computer.

-b0b
(...wonders what would happen without the Super Cooler?)

We should just start taxing concrete.  That will fix the problem.

-b0b
(...runs.)

Yeah, this is bullshit.  And I hate that more states are thinking of doing emissions testing.  I say we nuke California before it corrupts more of the country.

I just hope that if/when this thing becomes "law" it's one of those things you have to send in like income "tax".  I'd like to see the UN try and break down my door to get me to pay my $5!

X

Shoot I'm still ticked that I have to pay 25 cents to support the UN (that's what they take out of everyone's checks to pay for the land and maintenance and all that fancy wine and dine stuff they do there)

X

Well the problem with our tax system (and a bit of your scenario) is what should the size of our federal government be.  If this were a monarchy all power would reside with me and I would be the decider of all things...however I think you were using the kingship more as the "if you had the power" type so I won't go there.

Now if you believe the federal government should take care of everyone's stubbed toe and every other little problem...then your best system of taxing would be a fair type tax.  That would mean taking the same % of money away from everyone poor, middle class, and rich so that you "redistribute wealth" or as it is called in economics...communism at worse, socialism at "best".

Now if you think the federal government has a horrible track record and notice that every time they get involved they make things worse then you need a different plan.  I figure...why not go back to that pesky problem of having a Constitution to tell us what to do.  We can also look at what we did before 1913 and Congress gave up control of coining money to private bankers who you can't find anything about.

If that's the case then you want to severely limit the size of government so they wouldn't need to tax you a lot.  In fact, if you were to leave most of the taxing power and money at a more local level then you would have a more prosperous nation and one where local needs are met better.

With the system today it's the trickle down system.  The funny thing is that the water in the trickle starts with the bottom end...the people.  The government says "oh no we need more money for stuff we have no business in.  The tax the people.  The money gets to the feds, they take their cut.  Then the money gets to the special interests, they take their cut.  It goes to the states which forces them to adopt federal plans for the money which consolidates power, and they take their cut.  Then it reaches the local level and by the time it reaches there you wind up with less money than if the local or state level, who know the areas needed affecting a whole lot better, would have taxed you.

So that still leaves how should the fed govt, who I have severely limited, would raise money for the small amount of money it needs.  I think what would be best is that the have a budget hemmed out before they collect one cent.  Then they publicly release it so we know what they're spending our money on.  Then they collect taxes based on a fair tax system.  That way the rich pay their equal share as the poor pay it.  I don't think too many people would complain about the big chunk they take and you wouldn't need a lot of tax rebates or deductions (at least on the federal level).

Also with 300 million people in America, say if you taxed everyone $100 then that'd be more than enough, I think to run the government.  And if you say, "oh airplanes cost $300 million per...there's no way they could afford it".  Well then you don't understand what business taxes do.  They pay for the military.  You also don't realize when we send in our taxes every April (or whenever) we are really just paying interest of the national debt.  Of course that would be taken care of by kicking out the federal reserve, giving money control back to Congress, and I think having a gold standard under our money.

Now I know Bob says we needed to get off the gold standard but I don't care if you back our money with bottle caps...we need something to control how much money we can print.

Anywho...that's a big rant already so I will zip it up now and let others have their say and/or respond.

X

Not policing the world would cut most of that 51% and limiting the size of government would cut maybe half of the other 49%.

So let's say that bringing all troops home and just maintaining the size we have now. Would be 25% of the total military.  That's 307 billion.

Then let's take half of non-military.  That's 580 billion.

Total That's only 887 billion.  That's being really shaky on what I would want to get rid of.  However, that coming from that "fiscal conservative" Bush...I'm a pauper compared to King George.

X