Do they refuse people who have been divorced?

(10-24-2014 10:14 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  Do they refuse people who have been divorced?

I think you mean divorced without death or adultery.

But if they have a religious objection, the same rules should apply.

There are some ministers who will not remarry divorced people unless there was death/adultery.

Agreed, I should have given those exceptions. I gave one on the first page that no one responded to.
I find it hard to believe they havent married people who have been divorced for reasons other than those 2 (although death really isn't divorce).

(10-24-2014 11:22 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  Agreed, I should have given those exceptions. I gave one on the first page that no one responded to.
I find it hard to believe they havent married people who have been divorced for reasons other than those 2 (although death really isn't divorce).

Who knows.

Some will, some won't. Much like marrying gays.

Yeah, hard to claim religious rights if they have married divorcees (with exceptions) in the past.

(10-24-2014 11:40 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  Yeah, hard to claim religious rights if they have married divorcees (with exceptions) in the past.

No it's not. Just as some denominations have come out in support of gay marriage, others can continue to refuse. Their positions on adultery on completely irrelevant to the court's analysis.

(10-24-2014 11:40 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  Yeah, hard to claim religious rights if they have married divorcees (with exceptions) in the past.

lol

Totally irreverent.

You don't get to decide how they interpret their religion. There is a split in some quarters of Christianity on both these issues.

Swing and a miss there, bro.

(10-25-2014 12:06 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 11:40 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  Yeah, hard to claim religious rights if they have married divorcees (with exceptions) in the past.

lol

Totally irreverent.

You don't get to decide how they interpret their religion. There is a split in some quarters of Christianity on both these issues.

Swing and a miss there, bro.

Jesus was pretty specific in Matthew 19. Hard to change His words.

(10-25-2014 12:19 AM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  

(10-25-2014 12:06 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 11:40 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  Yeah, hard to claim religious rights if they have married divorcees (with exceptions) in the past.

lol
Totally irreverent.
You don't get to decide how they interpret their religion. There is a split in some quarters of Christianity on both these issues.
Swing and a miss there, bro.

Jesus was pretty specific in Matthew 19. Hard to change His words.

Courts don't interpret religious works (not even the plain meaning) in cases like this.

(10-25-2014 12:19 AM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  Jesus was pretty specific in Matthew 19. Hard to change His words.

Meaningless and you already knew that before you posted it.

Lets not waste each others time with nonsense.

There is a split in some quarters of Christianity on both these issues.

I was responding to this.

(10-25-2014 12:49 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(10-25-2014 12:19 AM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  Jesus was pretty specific in Matthew 19. Hard to change His words.

Meaningless and you already knew that before you posted it.

I see your on empty here.

Jesus's words are meaningless?

(10-25-2014 12:51 AM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  Jesus's words are meaningless?

Troll time huh?

lol

We both know it has zero legal bearing on anything here.

Haha trolling, no.
How in the world could there be a split on Jesus' word?
He is pretty specific.

(10-25-2014 11:48 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  Haha trolling, no.
How in the world could there be a split on Jesus' word?
He is pretty specific.

Yeah, you were trolling.

We were discussing a legal matter and you posted "Jesus' words don't matter?" in an obvious troll attempt.

You brought up an irrelevant point that you already knew was legally irrelevant to the case beforehand. Now your asking someone who isn't even a christian about the history of scriptural disagreements in Christianity, as if it has anything to do with any of this. lol

How you personally interpret their books is meaningless in this case and will not be an issue for the courts. We both know this.