Can Divorce Actually Be A Bit More Complicated?

[JesusIsAll]

I know of someone that this happen to, of course after she got what she wanted about 90 days after the marriage she divorced him.

At least it ended mercifully for him, she culpable of the divorce action, he good riddance. I wonder what of the woman, though, who can't get a permanent restraining order? She must forever remain the victim, because this is immutable Christian letter of the law? Is this walking in the light of love?

Note I'm just asking questions, really wonder what other Christians think, not trying to debate or foist some personal convictions on anybody else.

 

[JesusIsAll]

At least it ended mercifully for him, she culpable of the divorce action, he good riddance. I wonder what of the woman, though, who can't get a permanent restraining order? She must forever remain the victim, because this is immutable Christian letter of the law? Is this walking in the light of love?

Note I'm just asking questions, really wonder what other Christians think, not trying to debate or foist some personal convictions on anybody else.

Sorry. This is a redo of a window that got lost, a reply I didn't think was submitted, but was, PC got fuzzed up, probably with some help...

 

[JesusIsAll]

I'll have to go with what the Word says everytime.

This is always the approach, it's just I've seen some things, where evil had its way, where I couldn't say that marriage was God's will.

 

[JesusIsAll]

but i am trying...

On second thought, stop trying. I think you're fine the way you are, and you could wind up a bleach blonde, with Hebrew roots showing, around here!

 

[Kaycie]

To reiterate a question, and expand on it,

Suppose one of the parties to a marriage is innocent, of good faith, but the other is lying when they take their vows, are marrying for sheer lust, or for money, the vows not meaning a word of it to some hedonistic charmer? Is this really a valid marriage? Before answering, perhaps consider a little whether any two party covenant or contract is valid, when one party is defrauding the other and careless of the terms of the agreement, as a matter of fact, intends not to fulfill word one.

Hmm. Well I guess that depends. For example, if someone is forced against their will, their mind will be as far away from what they're being forced to do as possible- like only touching it with a ten foot pole cause they have to. In this case the contract was not in agreement with their mind- therefore they were not of sound mind.

But if someone is thinking in their head about what the words mean and plans not to go by them just so they can deceive in order to get something they want- they are of sound mind- cause you have to think in order to deceive.

I guess in this case it comes down to intentions- which the bible says does play a role in the matter of right and wrong.

For example, if a hungry two year old was standing in the checkout lane with his mom, and he grabbed a candy bar and started eating it- he is not stealing- he doesn't even know what stealing is.

But if a twenty-two year did that, one of sound mind and body, then they know better.

However, if they had a gun pointed to their head and said "Do this or I'll kill you and your family," the mind's focus is on his family- not on stealing.

There is a difference between deceiving and reacting. In order to deceive you have to be thinking (sound mind). But if someone jumps out from behind a door and yells "Surprise" and I get startled and jump- I didn't make a decision to jump- it was a reaction. So (and this is where it gets complicated) a decision can be a reaction. "Yes I'll take this candy bar so you don't kill me and the ones I love."

So, it comes down to the person's state of mind.

I think if you don't really know the person you are marrying, but you marry them being of sound mind, I think the marriage is still valid. In Genesis Jacob worked seven years to get Rachel, and the father tricked him and he married her sister instead.

 

[gzusfrk]

At least it ended mercifully for him, she culpable of the divorce action, he good riddance. I wonder what of the woman, though, who can't get a permanent restraining order? She must forever remain the victim, because this is immutable Christian letter of the law? Is this walking in the light of love?

Note I'm just asking questions, really wonder what other Christians think, not trying to debate or foist some personal convictions on anybody else.

If she is being abused, she could have him thrown in jail, that could constitute abandonment, which would be biblical for divorce. Everyone will stand before Him to give an account of what they have done, I cant tell another person what they should or shouldn't do. Also I think everyone has a right to defend them self, tho not all can. I remember years ago a woman that was severely abused over a long period of time, she shot her husband while he slept, she will stand before Him on judgement day, I will not say what she did was right or wrong, she did what she thought she needed to do. I will not judge her. I will let the Lord do that.

 

[presidente]

Yes for our Lord said that divorce is acceptable if done because of sexual immorality.
If the woman is being abused, chances are 9 times out of 10 if not 10 out of 10 she is being sexual abused to.
There will be no true love in that relationship, and the woman would feel forced to have sex out of fear of what would happen if she doesn't.

How do you equate 'porneia' with a woman feeling forced to have sex in her own marriage? I once encountered someone who tried to say that people could divorce if their spouse refused sex since that is a sin.

This is one of the problems with a sloppy translation like the NIV and various other translations who translate porneia as 'sexual immorality.' Feeling forced to have sex in marriage is not porneia. Neither is sexual refusal. It's a sin to defraud one's spouse of sex. But that doesn't mean it's porneia, traditionally translated 'fornication.'

It seems like on the subject of divorce, interpretations get very elastic.

It seems like people also argue for divorce based on abandonment and say things like, "He/she abandoned me in his/her heart years ago."

If a woman leaves an abusive man to save her own life, I understand that. I dont' believe that gives her grounds to marry someone else, though.

I also notice that 'abuse' gets defined rather elastically. Some of the radical feminists in the domestic violence industry think that abuse includes a man giving a woman a look of displeasure, quoting scripture to her, or not giving her money, based on some of the web sites. 'Verbal abuse' is a term that gets used quite a bit.

A woman reads a radical feminist 'abuse' website and sees that her husband quotes scripture to her about submission and gives her a look if he is unhappy with her and doesn't always give her money that she wants. He yelled at her a couple of times during an argument, which she considers verbal abuse.

Then she hears a preacher say that if her husband abuses her, she can divorce and remarry someone else (based on a verse from the Book of Opinions, no doubt.) So she concludes that it is okay to leave her 'abusive' husband and marry someone else.

 

[JesusIsAll]

Hmm. Well I guess that depends. For example, if someone is forced against their will, their mind will be as far away from what they're being forced to do as possible- like only touching it with a ten foot pole cause they have to. In this case the contract was not in agreement with their mind- therefore they were not of sound mind.

But if someone is thinking in their head about what the words mean and plans not to go by them just so they can deceive in order to get something they want- they are of sound mind- cause you have to think in order to deceive.

I guess in this case it comes down to intentions- which the bible says does play a role in the matter of right and wrong.

For example, if a hungry two year old was standing in the checkout lane with his mom, and he grabbed a candy bar and started eating it- he is not stealing- he doesn't even know what stealing is.

But if a twenty-two year did that, one of sound mind and body, then they know better.

However, if they had a gun pointed to their head and said "Do this or I'll kill you and your family," the mind's focus is on his family- not on stealing.

There is a difference between deceiving and reacting. In order to deceive you have to be thinking (sound mind). But if someone jumps out from behind a door and yells "Surprise" and I get startled and jump- I didn't make a decision to jump- it was a reaction. So (and this is where it gets complicated) a decision can be a reaction. "Yes I'll take this candy bar so you don't kill me and the ones I love."

So, it comes down to the person's state of mind.

I think if you don't really know the person you are marrying, but you marry them being of sound mind, I think the marriage is still valid. In Genesis Jacob worked seven years to get Rachel, and the father tricked him and he married her sister instead.

I agree, that very much depends on the context of situations as to moral culpability, that walking in the light of Christ, by the Holy Spirit, is a living situation, such that, as our Lord pointed out, let the one without sin cast the first stone, though it was His word in the Old Testament, for that time, that said she must be stoned. Our Lord has taught us the precept that there is a time and place for everything, that ink on paper may not be absolutely immutable, in the light of love. This I believe, only speaking for myself and my experience as a Christian, though.

 

[presidente]

If she is being abused, she could have him thrown in jail, that could constitute abandonment, which would be biblical for divorce.

That is twisted thinking, not the part about someone going to jail for an assault. But the part about her getting him thrown into jail so she can claim abandonment and claim she has grounds for divorce. It reminds me of some of the Pharisees logic about swearing oaths and getting out of supporting parents.

On one occasion in scripture, Paul says that he is giving his own opinion, not the Lord's, and says that if an unbeliever depart, the believer is not under bondage.

The wife having someone cart her husband away is not his abanoning her. It's her having someone cart the husband away. If he were innocent, that would be a really rotten thing to do, too.

I remember years ago a woman that was severely abused over a long period of time, she shot her husband while he slept, she will stand before Him on judgement day, I will not say what she did was right or wrong, she did what she thought she needed to do. I will not judge her. I will let the Lord do that.

You won't say it's wrong to shoot someone and kill him, her own husband?

 

[JesusIsAll]

I will not judge her. I will let the Lord do that.

Amen! All I can say is the Lord bless you in that, perhaps also that He's righteous and just, in loving compassion and mercy, I believe much more so than we, as there are some here who would have insisted the woman caught in adultery be stoned, by the letter of the law. Yet we know this is not what happened, surprise, surprise, and praise His Holy Name, Jesus!

 

[presidente]

Suppose one of the parties to a marriage is innocent, of good faith, but the other is lying when they take their vows, are marrying for sheer lust, or for money, the vows not meaning a word of it to some hedonistic charmer?

IMO, you are operating under an unbiblical assumption that is all too common these days. The idea that a marriage is based on vows is NOT a Biblical teaching. It's an aspect of Roman culture. The Romans used to have a wedding ceremony involving a priest and the bride and groom standing before the priest and the woman consenting by saying, "Where you are Gaius, I am Gaia." The groom carried the bride away with her relatives chasing to re-enact the traditional story of how early Romans stole their wives. They also had a custom of wearing a ring on the ring finger.

Fast forward a few hundred years and there is a Christianized ceremony performed before a church elder/priest instead of a pagan one with couples reciting pre-written vows.

We don't see this in the Bible. In the Old Testament, the father of the bride received a bride price for a virgin bride. At some point, the groom collected and the custom was to throw a feast. When Boaz married the widow Ruth, he called elders as witnesses to a transaction, not to a ceremony. He redeemed property and announced that he was taking the former property owner's widow as wife. There is no mention of vows or a ceremony.

We are obligated to obey God's laws and commandments for marriage apart from whatever we vow at our wedding ceremony. If someone breaks a vow, for example doesn't cherish his wife enough one day, he may be guilty of not keeping his word given during a wedding ceremony, but that doesn't mean he isn't married anymore or that his wife is justified in disobeying the commandment of the Lord not to depart from her husband.

The marriage isn't based on vows.

 

[presidente]

The mosaic law made it acceptable to stone a woman to death for adultery, the Lord Jesus says no....

No He didn't. His words implied they were to go ahead and stone her. He didn't contradict Moses. He just said for the one without sin to cast the first stone, and He wrote on the ground.

I don't see anything in the Bible that supports this idea that some sins aren't worse than others. I see plenty of evidence that some sins are worse than others. Penalties for example. High handed sins could not be sacrificed for like unintentional sins.

 

[gzusfrk]

That is twisted thinking, not the part about someone going to jail for an assault. But the part about her getting him thrown into jail so she can claim abandonment and claim she has grounds for divorce. It reminds me of some of the Pharisees logic about swearing oaths and getting out of supporting parents.

On one occasion in scripture, Paul says that he is giving his own opinion, not the Lord's, and says that if an unbeliever depart, the believer is not under bondage.

The wife having someone cart her husband away is not his abanoning her. It's her having someone cart the husband away. If he were innocent, that would be a really rotten thing to do, too.



You won't say it's wrong to shoot someone and kill him, her own husband?

1 Corinthians 7:15 read it ,, and just to get someone thrown in jail just so they can claim abandonment would be wrong, To have someone thrown in jail because they are beaten is different.

 

[presidente]

The wife of Moses, Zipporah was the daughter of the Median Priest Jethro. The Midianites, are one of this first African-Arab people who lived in desert areas as there in the Sinai. Yes, Zipporah was a black woman. God found no issues with who Moses married. The sister and brother of Moses did have issues with his wife being black.

Moses married a Midianite.
Moses married a Kenite.
Moses married a Cushite.

Moses' father-in-law was Reuel.
Moses' father-in-law was Jethro.

Maybe Moses was a polygamist. Or maybe, since he lived to be a really old man, he was a widower who remarried. I suppose we could say that Jethro had anothe rname, Reuel, and somehow he was a Midianite, and a Kenite, and a Cushite. Midianites and Kenites seem to be distinct people-groups. If Midianites were descended from Abraham's son Midian, why would they be Kushites instead of Semites?

 

[presidente]

1 Corinthians 7:15 read it ,, and just to get someone thrown in jail just so they can claim abandonment would be wrong, To have someone thrown in jail because they are beaten is different.

It doesn't make it abandonment. Would you have every wife married to a man put in prison or drafted to fight in a war divorce her husband over abandonment? Or would you limit it to Christian wives whose husbands are unbelievers who get drafted or imprisoned?

 

[JesusIsAll]

On one occasion in scripture, Paul says that he is giving his own opinion, not the Lord's, and says that if an unbeliever depart, the believer is not under bondage.

And it has always been my opinion, in light of good conscience, the Lord did not intend we check our brains at the door. The worst of our Lord Jesus' day were the biggest keepers of what was on ink and paper, but with hearts far removed from being alive in love and righteousness, rather so bad as to be "offspring of vipers," per our Lord Jesus. Again, the Lord Jesus, by letter of the law of the Old Testament, His law for that time, said the woman should be stoned, and He roundly overturned that verdict, in love and mercy. Paul did not think it wrong to offer his opinion of righteous conscience, as a man of God. These are things to ponder, perhaps to ponder for the woman who's in terror and pain, a woman, a victim, mind you, I've been referring to, who pious, armchair rulings from ink and paper are no love and comfort to.

Matthew 5:7-8 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

 

[gzusfrk]

It doesn't make it abandonment. Would you have every wife married to a man put in prison or drafted to fight in a war divorce her husband over abandonment? Or would you limit it to Christian wives whose husbands are unbelievers who get drafted or imprisoned?

So then a truck driver that is gone months at a time, the woman could claim abandonment, REALLY, com on man.

 

[presidente]

So then a truck driver that is gone months at a time, the woman could claim abandonment, REALLY, com on man.

You come on man. Your the one with the idea that a woman can call the cops to arrest her husband and then claim abandonment because he is in prison.

 

[presidente]

About the abuse and rape topic. If an abused woman lives in fear and fears fearful when she has sex, that doesn't mean her husband is raping her. She could be in fear because of some other form of abuse.

Some emotionally messed up woman whose husband is not abusive (but who had an abused past) could also agree to have sex with her own husband out of fear or with a fearful attitude without her husband raping her. Her feelings don't define his actions.

 

[presidente]

And it has always been my opinion, in light of good conscience, the Lord did not intend we check our brains at the door. The worst of our Lord Jesus' day were the biggest keepers of what was on ink and paper, but with hearts far removed from being alive in love and righteousness, rather so bad as to be "offspring of vipers," per our Lord Jesus. Again, the Lord Jesus, by letter of the law of the Old Testament, His law for that time, said the woman should be stoned, and He roundly overturned that verdict, in love and mercy. Paul did not think it wrong to offer his opinion of righteous conscience, as a man of God. These are things to ponder, perhaps to ponder for the woman who's in terror and pain, a woman, a victim, mind you, I've been referring to, who pious, armchair rulings from ink and paper are no love and comfort to.

Matthew 5:7-8 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

People can be full of love, compassion and mercy towards those who are abused and still not want them to commit adultery.