Monday, October 17, 2005

"Unforgivable, that's what you are...."

This is something that actually bugs the heck out of me. And it is not because it affects me or hits close to home, just confuses me more than anything.

We in the church hear so much about divorce and remarriage. Most of us have the rules down pat I would assume. That isn't the problem. The problem is when we hear a sermon about it and we are told that divorcing someone for reasons not stated in the Bible, are pretty much unforgivable (At least this is the impression I get.)

Murder, forgivable. Adultery, forgivable. Lying, forgivable. Divorcing someone for the wrong reason and remarrying someone else later, hell-bound.

Okay, I understand if you cheat on your spouse, repent, and change your life, you are good to go. Kill someone, repent, change your habits, then you are forgiven. But preachers say things to the effect that if, for example, a man cheats on his wife and they divorce and the dude gets married years later then hs is living in sin. So, the guy can’t move on?

What if someone is not a Christian, and goes through the whole cheating thing, divorces his wife, marries the chick he was cheating on her with, then find Christ and becomes a Christian... even though he is still living/married to this woman, is he still living in sin?

I can understand if someone is shacking up with someone else, and they get baptized and saved and all that they are doing wrong if they CONTINUE to shack up with the boyfriend/girlfriend. But is a man/woman supposed to divorce their new spouse after getting saved?

Why can’t this be forgiven like th other sins? I have no plans on divorcing, but it just bothers me a bit, the unforgivable impression I get...


bigsip said...

Oh boy, this is a tough one, man.

We had this discussion at Lincolnton once with Leroy (guy who preached there).

He thought that you could move on and I didn't.

My view is that the sin is the problem. This is where it gets difficult and nearly impossible to get past.

If someone is married and cheats, then finds Christ, that person is going to have a tough time with what the Bible says concerning marriage/divorce/remarriage in the first place.

If he/she still wants to give Christianity a shot, they're gonna have to make some tough choices.

This is gonna sound crazy, but here's how I see it:

God never recognized the second marriage because He only recognized the first so the adulterer has to either go back to his/her wife/husband or stop having sex with his/her current partner. Unless the former wife/husband has moved on (which he/she has every right to do) then the latter circumstance is all they can do.

See I told you it would sound crazy.

While I see this as the only course of action based on scripture, I kow it is a nearly impossible and seemingly insane way to look at it.

Pretty much what it comes down to for me is that the person who has committed the sin of adultery, alway has a chance to make up for it (unless his/her spouse dies).

Someone who murders someone else can't bring that person back, but someone who sins against someone else can always try to correct their mistake.

I just think that people continually go into marriage not considering what a HUGE committment they've made. When we make a committment like that, we've made an agreement with God and the other person to be held to a higher standard.

Becoming a Christian is even more that way. Neither means being perfect, but both require not only repentence when one has done wrong, but also making right the wrong that was done.

How should that be done? The person, in the end, has to figure that one out based on what God says in the Bible.

I personally think it takes an extremely high level of effort and correction to get past it, but it's not my call when it comes down to it.

Wow, all that typing just for that!

Jamison said...

So, Christ's blood washes all sins away from us and is all clensing. And God is all forgiving and merciful...

...unless we marry someone after we get a divorce...

see how I am confused?

Diana said...

The whole divorce thing has always really confused me too. I sort of understand it like Josh explained and how others have explained it.

What sort of annoys me though is that it seems like people get so fired up about the remarriage thing that they fail to recognize the divorce itself as a sin. In our church, we have quite a few elder's children who have gone through divorces for reasons not in the Bible. But everyone makes it seems like since they're not going to remarry, it's ok. I’m not going to chase divorced people with torches, or anything, I just feel like it gets ignored.

Diana said...

I think it's another one of left up to God things.
How I understand it, is just because God "forgets" you got divorced for the wrong reasons, he still remembers you were married. And, in a sense, if you're remarried, every night (if you're lucky enough to get it that much), you're cheating on your first spouse.

Jamison said...

two comments...

funny image of Di running around an old german town at night with a torch in her hand, chasing divorsed people...

...every night? Where is thie magical dream world and how much are homes going for in it? (hading over wads of cash)

Diana said...

I almost fell off my chair from laughing so much. You crack me up!

bigsip said...

Diana, I'm extremely impressed with your clarity on this.

You put it way better than I did.

I think it really does come down to how committed you are to:

a. God
b. your spouse

God is the only one who can wash the sin away, but you are the only one who can keep the sin from occurring after that point.

It's like if you kill someone and ask forgiveness and God grants it. If you don't go about trying to get forgiveness from others affected by it, did you fully repent?

If you go out and kill someone else, it's a new sin all over again.

With divorce/remarriage I see it the same. If you don't ask your spouse's forgiveness and continue sinning with the person or someone else, you're just renewing the sin and not truly, fully repenting.

That's the only way I know to look at it, but yes, it's very difficult, hardline,and confusing.

Jamison said...

despite all my mispellings? Im flattered Di!

im actually more flattered that anyone can make you laugh considering you live with a comedy master.

Jamison said...

But, I am of the school of thought that says that God would not have made his commandments burdensome, or confusing...

Diana said...

Thank you, Professor Sipper *beams*.

Yes, I do, but there's plenty of room in my heart for the rest of you jokesters. I think our marriage can be summed up (if you can do such a thing to a marriage) by saying 'He loves to make me laugh.' When he makes me laugh, he just gets excited hands all over the place.

bigsip said...

So am I, my friend, so am I.

God didn't make anything burdensome or confusing, we did.

God says in His Word that we are supposed to get married and stay together till death.

It's all the stupid humans going out, screwing around, being selfish, etc. that makes everything so messed up.

So, the issue then becomes about how do we become reconciled to God once we've totally jacked everything up by doing everything He told us NOT to do.

That's where it gets confusing. It started out very simple, though. God just said, "Get married if you want and stay that way, but if someone breaks the committment through having sex with another, you can move on but they can't."

So, the impetus isn't on God, but on us.

tnmommieof2 said...

ok, i'm gonna play devil's advocate for a bit...i mean, hey, i do live with mullins, right?

what if a woman is in a relationship where she is getting beaten up every day, constantly getting emotionally battered, and her so-called husband goes out every nite and leaves her at home..

now, she doesn't KNOW he's cheating, she has no proof... but he treats her terribly. is she supposed to never remarry if she gets the courage to leave????? b/c she can't prove he's been unfaithful, just abusive.

i understand completely about the reasons to divorce and remarry...

i've just always had a problem with it when it comes to abuse...

any thoughts my wise friends????

Jamison said...

there is a passage that talks about you being able to leave a mate if they pretty much say "You can keep worshipping God or you can stay with me, but you can't have both..."

Pretty much, if you cant get him to be converted or something like that...

Id say, trick him into saying that... then, you are free

bigsip said...

Rachel and I were talking about this the other day.

She said something like "if she's being abused, she has every right to get divorced from the man" and I said "well, if she (or the children) are being abused, they have every right to be separated from that man".

In this case, either the man will wake up and try to reconcile, thereby making the marriage whole again or he'll go on and do the whole deed and leave his wife and children forever.

I know it's not really that simple. But, the Bible doesn't give legal advice or play around with what "could" happen.

So, when it comes down to it, a woman or man can leave under abusive circumstances and then reunite over time, if both people will see their way clear to help that happen.

bigsip said...

You're free to leave, but you're still married...

bigsip said...

I also thought that passage said "if the unbelieving mate wants to leave, let them leave" not that you can leave if they won't be converted.

Check this:
1 Cor 7:10-16

But to the married I command-not I, but the Lord-that the wife not leave her husband (but if she departs, let her remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband not leave his wife. But to the rest I-not the Lord-say, if any brother has an unbelieving wife, and she is content to live with him, let him not leave her. The woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he is content to live with her, let her not leave her husband. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. Yet if the unbeliever departs, let there be separation. The brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us in peace. For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

Anonymous said...

I think this discussion is interesting. I would love to know your thoughts on plural marriage considering all the annointed men in the Bible who had more than one wife. I am interested because a lot of the new testament talks about marriage between one man and one woman, but that is not the case with the old testament.

bigsip said...

When Jesus mentions marriage, he refers back to the original example of Adam and Eve:

Matt 19:4-8 gives a good break down of this:

He answered, "Haven't you read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said,'For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall join to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh?' So that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, don't let man tear apart." They asked him, "Why then did Moses command us to give her a bill of divorce, and divorce her?" He said to them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it has not been so.

From this passage, Jesus shows that God's original plan was and continues to be one man for one woman for life.

Hope this helps!

mullinz8 said...

Perhaps Anonymous is posing the question as what made all those “righteous” in Gods eyes folks still hook up with multiple wives in spite of the singular nature confirmed in Matthew 19? Did God bless those “unions” diverting from his original plan?

I’m not sure if I’m playing devils advocate correctly or not but it popped into my head this way.

Welcome Anonymous, feel free to stick around.

Rachel said...

To me, what it comes down to is this: unscriptural remarriage is what I call a lifestyle-sin. Another lifestyle-sin is homosexuality. One has accepted that particular sin and integrated it into his life.

There aren't many of these types of sins because most sins are considered wrong in society as a whole. Many are illegal. But our society has accepted some sins as normal and embraced them, sometimes even glorifying those who practice them.

In my own struggles to develop my own faith, these "unforgiveable" sins have given me a lot of grief. How can a God of grace and love condemn a "good" person for the way he lives his life? What if that person gets everything else right?

Each individual must decide whether he is willing to change his life to obey God. That's been easy for me because I haven't had to make any life-altering changes. It will be extremely difficult for some because to obey God may mean a true life upheaval. I don't have the answer to that.

As for the rare case in which a non-Christian couple has been remarried, and later decides to become Christian. If we say that they should be allowed to continue a normal marriage, mustn't we also say that for a previously non-Christian gay couple? What is the difference?

A final note. It is not for us to deny membership in the Church, as far as I know. We should make it known what the Bible says and that we stand by it. But we as members do not have the right or duty to "punish" those who choose to live in sin. A sin that has become a part of one's daily life (and does no harm to others) is between that person, anyone else directly involved in that sin, and God.

Rachel said...

Josh mentioned to me that if a person's sinful lifestyle brings reproach on the Church then we do have a responsibility to deny them fellowship. Of course I agree with this. I'm just saying that we shouldn't give people the third degree just to join a local church, or weed out people to label them sinners.

Brewster said...

Big question, tough answers.

I remember Martel Pace once saying that he wished the Bible just had one more sentence on this issue.

It gets very complicated very fast.

Um, honestly Im a little too frazzled to get into all the issues already talked about. Maybe tomorrow...

To clarify though: sipper you're saying if I divorce my wife, remarry have 12 children and then repent. I have to leave my wife and 12 kids and try to get amy back? Or if she won't take me I still support wife number 2 but don't have sex with her? Which means I'm on the street because the marriage isn't going to last if I'm refusing to sex her up.

What if Amy remarries? At that point isn't she then cheating on me which clears me up?

>"Get married if you want and stay >that way, but if someone breaks the >committment through having sex with >another, you can move on but they >can't."

Where is the scripture for that,please. I really would like the BCV for my records.

Abusive is different. Ultimately that person needs to get out, get away. But I don't believe abuse only allows the spouse to remarry

bigsip said...

There is no one verse that says that, of course. I was speaking, as usual, from a holistic perspective.

My above post shows Jesus saying, "What therefore God has joined together, don't let man tear apart."

That tells me that divorce isn't supposed to happen. God would rather people stay married to each other.

In Matt 19, Jesus makes the famous "Only because of adultery" speech. So, if you look at the wholeness of scripture along with those two verses, you get:

"Get married if you want and stay that way, but if someone breaks the committment through having sex with another, you can move on but they can't."

How do you see it and why? Have I missed some unknown BCV?

Jamison said...

rachels explanation made the most sense to me, 'bout the gay stuff and all...

bigsip said...

Yeah, it's a good explanation.

She didn't even have to quote BCV. Actually, does anyone have BCV that say homosexuality is wrong?

Gee, seems pretty unclear to me.

Brewster said...

Let's boil it down a little. Lets say I have an illicit sexual affair. Amy, rightfully so, divorces me, but never remarries, never has sex again. Am I still bound by God to also never have sex again?

What if she does remary? Does her sexual relationship with someone else then allow me to remary?

Josh said that God does not recognize the second marriage. Why?

These things seem to me to be the heart of the matter. I'd like to hear some answers to these things before I throw out a lot of complications.

bigsip said...


Here's my take on the plural marriage thing. I could try and dig out lots of BCV for it, but it honestly would take all day, so here goes.

God said "be fruitful and multiply" and "bring the earth under your submission". I think He allowed plural marriage for this purpose.

At the same time, scripture shows again and again that plural marriage doesn't work.

Abraham sleeping with Hagar turned out bad...Sarah got mad and had her and her infant thrown out into the wilderness. Then Ishmael winds up being Israel's arch-nemesis (some think even today)

Jacob (Israel) suffered much strife because of the arguments between the daughters of Laban.

David underwent great strife because of his multiple wives (see Bathsheba).

Solomon's kingdom eventually crumbled because he was led away by his many wives.

There's a pattern here...

Every person I've seen in scripture who had many wives suffered because of it and it is documented IN scripture.

Therefore, my opinion is that God finally said, "Enough is enough! Jesus, tell them to get back to the way it was with Adam and Eve."

Pretty much, though. I believe that God knew one man for one woman for life was the best way to go.

There are other scriptures, specifically in the NT that discuss husband and wife in singular terms, too, which leads me to believe that's the way God wanted it.

A side note as well. Jesus' father and mother were in a monogamous relationship, Peter had a (singular) wife, and singular husband and wife is used in every instance where they are mentioned in the NT as well.

I suppose you just have to look at the whole of scripture and take it all in!

Hope this helps!

bigsip said...

OK, I believe that when Jesus says, "let no man put assunder" he means it. So, if we can't sunder marriage and God won't, then it's by definition an eternal union. Therefore, they're only married to the first person.

I also believe when he says "except for fornication/adultery" he means it. So, if the offender continues in the "lifestyle sin" as my intelligent wife so amply explained, he's committing a new sin each time and will never be justified unless he stops it.

Other verses where marriage and the church are compared shed light on this, too.

It's about taking committment seriously and living to a higher standard.

That's what the whole of scripture is about.

God gives commands and people either follow his commands or not. God will judge each of us accordingly.

Brewster said...

But when fornication has entered in and God allows the divorce, is the fornicator not also released from the marriage or is this person still bound to it, even though the cheated upon may divorce and remarry?

bigsip said...

I think the one who wronged the other made a decision to break faith and committment.

After that point, he/she has the responsibility to not only make his/her life right with God, but with his/her spouse/ex-spouse.

So, if the sin continues, even after the offended party has moved on, the offender is still wronging the other person and God since God (as Diana so amply put it) forgets the sin, but not the fact that you were married.

If the offender is truly penitent, he/she will spend the rest of his/her life assuring that he/she is not continuing to do wrong against the offended and God.

It's a tough situation for the offender. But, when we sin, it doesn't mean we don't have to suffer the consequences.

If the same person murdered someone and repented, they'd still go to jail for life or be put to death, thus suffering the consequences.

In this circumstance, the consequences are life without sex and companionship. Two sins, two very difficult consequences.

Brewster said...

But if the spouse divorces you, you are no longer married. How can you then continue to wrong the ex-spouse when he/she is no longer your spouse?

I'm not really making a hard line point here, I don't know the answers, but I'm asking to get further info.

tnmommieof2 said...

so just to clarify for me, if i committ adultry and matt leaves me, he can get re-married and it's ok. but i can't ever remarry, even if i repent and ask for forgiveness from the affair.

i have always believed that is the way it is, but it got me to sister was married to someone who didn't support her, beat her up, and basically didn't care about her well-being. she stayed with him for about a year, then decided she had had enough. they subsequently divorced.

now, there were rumors to the fact that he had cheated on her while they were still married as well as after they split up. but they were never proven.

my sister has part of me wants to think that it is a scriptural marriage due to the fact she is almost 99.9% sure he cheated. but then a bigger part of me says that it isn't because she has no concrete evidence to say he did cheat. i realize this is a touchey subject, but i can take it if you all think she's in the wrong.

i guess my question would then be in order for her to be forgiven, if the marriage is indeed "not scriptural" does she have to leave her 2nd husband and repent, and never remarry again?

heavy subject..but enlightening as well....

mullinz8 said...

It’s taken me years to train Jules and I’m far from done.

If anything happens why would I ever want to try and break in someone else…

I mean really these are supposed to be my golden years. What makes anyone think that breaking some 25 year old, silicon endowed, pole dancer, sound like fun to an old man? I’ve taken “care” of my self from 13 until, well never mind. I can do it again.

I love my wife but if she goes for any reason I’m hitting the road and won’t have time for chicks.

tnmommieof2 said...

hunny i'm so pleased to know that i am soooo wonderful that no one can ever replace me....i'm not sure if you meant to make my day by that comment, but you did.

i love you

bigsip said...

I'm just saying that, in God's eyes, you're still married. So, the sin, although the spouse may stop caring, still offends God.

Marriage isn't just between two people, it's between 3 (husband, wife, God). That introduces an eternal element into the relationship that shouldn't ever dissolve.

Diana said...

Get a room!!!!
No, I'm kidding, you guys are so cute!
Rachel, you're explanation was fabulous and made a lot of sense. I understand the whole concept more.
Jules, the only person who knows if your sis's marriage is unscriptural is God and her ex hubby, I"m afraid. If she's really concerned, maybe she can talk to one of his friends or something. But really, are women ever 100% sure if their man cheats? Unless he admits it?

mullinz8 said...

Honey with a commitment like that, a freighter trip doesn’t sound too bad does it now. Who loves ya baby!

I think we all know that I have zero recall for BCV but I do think that I remember verses talking about a man being responsible for his wife for fear of God or something like that. Hitting your wife is not acceptable and I don’t think Jesus would support this type of action especially if this action was on a continual and exponential increase. The acceptance of such violence is found in no gospels I’ve ever read and runs contrary to the teachings of Christ.

Yeah, I’ll forgive you and please hit me in the stomach a few more times…

How about this: Matthew 5:28, "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Is this a good enough qualifier for divorce…? If this is the case EVERY one of the men on this list can now be divorced by his wife under Gods good graces.
Don’t tell me you couldn’t because not one of use lives in a cave.

Topic segue...
On the subject of lust and its subsequent cause and effects. I do not want a shameful show of hands of those who engaged in and a haughty hand of those who didn’t engage in premarital sex but if we’re going to get nitpicky about this.
Half of this group engaged in various sexual acts if not full intercourse then other “satisfactory” engagements long before their marriages. Are those simple sins wiped away because those individuals chose to engage in those acts because they are not married?
Ladies I'll tell you this, if a name gets recalled from the deep dark past the second or third thought is, "that person was a great..." Aha Lust again, Mrs. Mullins then says, "Sign here, I'll half of the nothing you have."
but isn't it true the ladies do the same thing.

Statistically, thought I’m sure this wouldn’t apply to all the prudent wives connected to this list, women are just as physicially “active” as males.

Brewster said...

>I'm just saying that, in God's eyes, >you're still married. So, the sin, >although the spouse may stop caring, >still offends God.

Where is the scriptural references for this. I'm not saying your wrong, but I want to see the "proof" as they say.

mullinz8 said...

I think this one of those verses out of the new SRHB or Sipper Revised Holistic Bible.

I think God enjoys paraphrasing, it’s sort of like mad libs.

mullinz8 said...

Matthew 19:4-10 “4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and 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'[b]? 6So 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?" 8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." 10The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."

So what is the definition of a hardened heart and is it still applicable?

mullinz8 said...

Slapping someone around sounds pretty hardened to me.

bigsip said...

9 "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

Jesus says this right after the Moses and hard heart thing, thus trumping the whole "divorce for every reason" argument.

Brewster said...

Interesting use of sex in that verse. "If anyone divorces his WIFE." Does that mean the woman cannot divorce her husband?

Ultimately I ask my same question. Where is the scripture that says that the cheater is still bound to the marriage, thought the cheated is free to marry?

I don't see that in the verses quoted.

Brewster said...

>I think God enjoys paraphrasing, it’s >sort of like mad libs.

That, my friend, is classic.

bigsip said...

You can't see that the marriage is NEVER dissolved in God's eyes from "what God hath joined together, let no man put assunder"?

it just makes sense to me that God looks at marriage as a life-long union that is inviolable.

i'm afraid that culture has been so saturated with the idea of marriage being optional that it has infiltrated the hearts and minds of everyone to the point that we can't see how much the union and consequences of breaking it matter.

i know y'all are playing "try to upset Sipper" and "Devil's advocate" but, hey read for yourselves and show me something that says marriage IS NOT supposed to be eternal.

bigsip said...

eternal's the wrong is better.

anyway, i'mnot mad or anything. i'm just kind of tired of this conversation. i know how i feel about it. everyone else has to make up their own minds.

mullinz8 said...

Come on Sipper the mad lib comment was pretty funny.

I don't think getting the s#it beat out of you is worthy of staying married to anyone and I guess that's something I'll have to deal with God on, well actually I won't because it's not part of my person and spiritual philosophy. The unrepentant abuser will hopefully have bigger issues to deal with on his or her judgment.

Now do I advocate jumping into another marriage, no I don’t. I think that society has conditioned the people into thinking they need to be married to be happy. Why else would there be so much talk about taking care of the widowed and aged.

I was blessed far more than I deserve in finding Jules but I could have been a happy bachelor. I might have felt that I’d be missing out of those special moments in life especially in hind sight of our years together and those two beautiful boys but staying content would have been manageable.

My point is this, some people feel like they need someone else to complete themselves. I think the Biblical text points to the idea that if you’ve not found happiness with someone you married and sought it somewhere else maybe a little time in marital timeout is needed. Like I’ve said to people for years if you can’t make your self happy, no one else will.

For me it’s really simple if you mess your life up over a piece of tail then your stupid.

As far as someone else’s spiritual walk I can only fall back on various text and the most sound and potent cop out of all time, No one can know the true will of God and how you stand in that light but you and God. Funny enough though that feeling will usually fall back on the first point.

bigsip said...

Oh, the "madlib" comment made me laugh!

I understand how you'd misconstrue my use of hermeneutics, but I wasn't paraphrasing. I was just using several different sriptures that support the ideas and philosophies we were discussing.

That's what hermeneutics is all about.

Anyway, it's been an interesting discussion.

mullinz8 said...

Still I’m disappointed there is no other discussion of the lust issue. If you’re lusting you’ve already committed adultery. Adultery is the reason for divorcing thusly pressing the issue that lust is an acceptable scapegoat as any for the motivations of ones heart.
Maybe not though…

I don’t know, I guess no one else has an opinion. These three sided conversations are hard. Sipper I never want you to feel like you’re being ganged up on. I recently found out that Brew and I have taken the same Sally Struthers correspondence courses in Devil’s Advocacy. Where is Chuck, I know his work isn’t that busy… Why does Stubbs hate us again and why does Diana always jump out half way through, you’ve still got an opinion in spite of BCV. If Rachael chimes in I’m never really sure if it’s her or BigSip trying on her clothing and pretending (scary thought). Jules throws a few in but she’s also under a constant barrage of people all day.

I'll tell you this, Sipper you're a good a discusser you might have lasted at least a good week at home.
The rest of ya’ll gotta throw down some more.

bigsip said...

Jesus was all about guarding your heart, man.

He was all about love. I think he was just trying to tell us to not just restrain ourselves physically, but in every way from sin.

Where the mind goes, the body usually follows.

Jesus knew this and he let us know it so we don't let those desires eat at us till we break.

Jamison said...

Mullins, in all honesty, once we passed like 35 comments and I had been away from the blog for 24 hours, I was lost and stopped reading them all... but thats my fault, I didnt wanna take the time to catch up, but the lust factor is a good un... start another blog on it!

mullinz8 said...

Jules started reading half way through the hearing prayers posting where I said something about God not hearing Diana because he didn't like her and all I heard was "Matt Mullins get in here right now!" while I was in the garage. I was on the cusp of a lecture until I asked her if she'd read the whole thing.

She admitted she hadn't. I told her to finish it and then get back to me. Afterwards she had nothing to say about my comment.

About the lust, I'll have to think of a new angle and post it fresh down the line. I'm not sure if that pov is good as a natural starting point since so much of the context is built into the divorce postings.

Jamison said...

at least with lust, only one sinner is involved, where as with the actual act of sex, two have been involved... neither are any better thank the other, but at least you arent pulling anyone else down the other way.

can you imagine if we didnt have this blog and were still emailing each other all this stuff???

bigsip said...

I don't want to imagine that, man.

Blogging is WAY better, IMO.

mullinz8 said...

Copy that Red 5. I don't want to go back to endless strings of emails again.

It's funny because in emails people respond in different sequences to different posts on this blog everything stays pretty uniform, thank Heavens.

Diana said...

The day my professors let us email our buddies during class time will be the day I'll be able to discuss with you guys every five seconds. Geez. I have a LIFE!
No, I'm kidding, I love you. I had been sort of thinking to myself different things related to the discussion. There's a time to speak and a time to shut up.

Charlie's the busiest guy in the world right now. His last day of Cuckoo is Sunday.

Oh, and I found out last night I'll be able to keep the key holder title and pay until February.

bigsip said...

"I am the Gatekeeper!"

"Are you the Keymaster?"

Lines from Ghostbusters...I probably have it wrong or backwards...Anyway, your "key holder" thing made me think of it.

Diana said...

I guess this makes me Rick Moranis!! YAY, Sipper made a funny!

Jamison said...

GB was my first DVD

Brewster said...

It's funny because I see no difference in blogging and e-mailing, but thats probably because I get all the blog stuff in an e-mail.

Although I probably prefer real e-mailing because its easier to reply to specific remarks

bigsip said...

Blogging is about a million times better in my opinion.

Everything stays organized and archived. And the discussions flow much better, too.

Email's good for some things, though.

mullinz8 said...

Please allow a moment of perspective.

Diana Ghostbusters came out in 1984, how old were you?

I saw the movie six time in the theater paying about $2.50 each time.

Geez how old am I...?

bigsip said...

Me, too!!! You're just a year older than me. Our teeth are getting out there, bro!

Di's what, 21? That'd make her birth year 1984, wouldn't it?

Brewster said...

My problem with blogging is that I don't do it at work. So I come home after a lot of the discussion is done. Its hard for me to chime into the discussion because many points are long gone. Whereas in e-mail I could just reply to the specific points.

No big deal though.

bigsip said...

Speed read!

I actually like it that way, though. Then, I just read everyone's stuff and make all of my comments at once.