They are the line to which Christ was to come from. Satan seduced Eve, giving rise to his child Cain, trying to stop Christ from being born.

Not just 'sorry', but "LORD in the name of Jesus Christ please forgive all my sins". Being actually sorry instead of just saying it. When God forgives sins, they don't exist anymore, so they're no longer divorced or married and as such are free to marry again (or have sex without committing adultery as well).

What did I reword? How do you define fornication? I define it as 'wanton sex' or sex based on lust instead of love. Do you define all non married sex as fornication? If you do, I feel sorry for you. In the bible, the Hebrew and Greek words used for fornication are translated as first 'adultery' and second 'harlotry'. Does having sex with someone you love count as either of those to you?

I believe it's quite obvious that Biblically speaking "sexual immorality" is essentially all sex outside of marriage. (There are odd exceptions that allow a person to impregnate his widowed sister-in-law, etc.)

Why should you feel sorry that I don't feel compelled to twist the Bible to satisfy me? Or do you feel sorry that I don't think I have to follow it?

The doctrine that a person can be pardoned from future adultery is simply a doctrine you are making up yourself based on your own personal assumptions. That is the hypocrisy that I am speaking of.

Sure one could say "sorry" and get forgiven for past adultery, but they are still breaking Jesus' teachings the next time they have sex.

The burden of proof is on you to show that the Bible allows that, given that Jesus expressly forbids it. But you piece this from here and that from there to come up with a doctrine that makes you comfortable with Christianity.

Except for the most devout of scholars, this is what every Christian does (i.e., justify one's own belief in a certain thing by piecing together arbitrary concepts, while not applying that same sort of logic when it forms a contradiction to a belief). To write off those who believe that pre-marital sex is wrong as some people making up anti-Christian doctrines is not as clear cut as you believe.

Now the burden of proof is on your shoulders. Where does the Bible say that? Your current (previous) church may teach that, but I don't believe the Bible does. Where does the Bible say get married before having sex? Where?

I'm not twisting the Bible at all, you're the one twisting my words into something they're not.

I'm not making anything up. When God forgives sins, they don't exist (they are blotted out). So when you get a divorce and you repent, you are no longer married or divorced, you have a clean slate. If you get married again, and commit adultery, it's still a sin and I never said otherwise. There's no hypocrisy involved here.

They are no longer married, so they are not committing adultery. Even God himself divorced Israel. Is God a sinner? I think not.

Divorce is frowned upon in the Bible, but also sometimes allowed for, given adultery has taken place and possibly at other times, but I don't care to research that for you at the moment.

Adultery is a sin, yes, so is divorce (sometimes, not always), but the blood of Christ washes away sins upon repentance. They don't exist anymore, and you are free to remarry if you wish. Would you call God an adulterer if he chose to remarry? I don't think so.

There is no direct verse that will say exactly that. You'd have to go back and look into Jewish customs and laws at the time and what would be obviously assumed when (e.g.) Paul wrote about sexual immorality.

So there's no way one could ever prove to you that the Bible is against sex before marriage because:

1. You don't believe it's wrong, and

2. There's no direct verse to disagree with you.

However, there's no way one could ever prove to you that the Bible is against repentant, divorced people from having sex because:

1. You don't believe it's wrong, and

2. There's an indirect way to support your beliefs, despite there being a direct verse that disagrees with you.

My point, which you refuse (and will probably always refuse) to acknowledge, is that given a personal belief about moral topics, you will make sure to find a way to justify your beliefs.

Yet you think your indirect support is valid, but other people's indirect support is not. It's equivalent to the old "he's not a true Christian" line people like to use when a Christian does something that others are critical of.

Ever hear of a analogy? Your reasoning with that one is beyond hilarious.

I do it (figuratively, since he doesn't exist) all the time. Even more nothing happens.

Why not?

If the goal of invoking religion is to prevent unsupported children, then the logical thing to make up would be that all children born out of wedlock are to be sacrificed to God.

No need to spoil the fun.

I'm quaking in my boots NOT!

And my mom told me if I ate all those peanut butter sandwiches, I'd get constipated. When I pointed out that it wasn't happening, she said "Wait til you're older". I'm older now and still nothing.

And you get these facts where?

1000 years - look up the Lord's day.
Wrong side of heaven - read Luke.
Lake of Fire - read Revelations.

So why did Jesus sacrifice himself then? For nothing? Or for forgiveness of sins and to defeat the power of Death (Satan's power, sin). If your sins no longer exist, how can they be held against you?

What sin did the unjustly divorced women commit that she could possible ask forgiveness for?

Does it go like this?:

1. man divorces wife

2. she remarries

3. has sex

4. asks for forgiveness for having sex while being divorced

5. she is no longer divorced

6. 

7. profit

That's ridiculous.

Or is it more like:

1. man divorces wife

2. she asks for forgiveness for getting married in the future

3. she remarries

4. has sex

5. it's not a sin because she already asked for forgiveness

6. 

7. profit

If it's this one, then I apologize in advance for all my future sins. Now I'm free to do anything I want, and I'm all golden.

Or simply is nothing we do sinful any more since Jesus already died?

By the way, note that when Jesus rescued the adulterer from getting stoned by a crowd, he told her to "Go and sin no more." He didn't say, "Congrats, whore, you can now have all the sex you want because I just forgave you for the last time you were sinning!" She was told to stop what she was doing; not that she was free to continue on sinning because Jesus had forgiven her.

• 1) Man divorces wife unjustly

• 2) Woman is still married to man because the divorce was not just in the eyes of God.

• 3) Woman repents to God, asking to be released from unjust marriage

• 4) God sees that she has done no wrong and forgives her and allows her to remarry

• 5) Woman is free to remarry

Of course not, but that doesn't undo the power of repentance and forgiveness.

I highly doubt that God will pre-forgive anyone.

As he was right to do so. Would it make sense to tell her to commit more adultery?

Repents for what? She hasn't sinned by getting divorced. You are inventing this notion of being released from an "unjust" marriage. Why proclaim something to be immoral (getting remarried) if one can preemptively ask for forgiveness? It'd be less paperwork to just not call it immoral to begin with.

But that's all I have to say on this topic. Feel free to have the final word, and know in advance that I will be humored with whatever it is.