Abusive Relationships and Religion this subject may be taboo but it happens
- Thread starter jenniferand2
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I'm terribly sorry for your situation, and I am in no way saying that verbal or psychological abuse isn't abuse, but I was wondering if this involves physical abuse. The other 2 are bad, but they may allow you the time you need to get a place and finances straight. But I agree with the others, if you are talking about physical abuse then I don't think you should stay another minute. May God's peace fill your heart.
K
God never intends for a woman to stay in an abusive marriage,not ever. I'm sorry you have suffered abuse but you need not feel like a failure. The wrong is his and he will answer to God for every tear you have shed. I hope you are able to leave this relationship very soon. When you do,go with a clear conscience.
We live in a culture nowadays where people divorce for much less than this, so of course, many people will be supportive of divorce whenever there is abuse.
But I think we need to keep in mind that there are different types of abuse. There is physical abuse. There is verbal abuse and various types of emotional abuse. Are there every situations in which God may want a believer to stay in an abusive situation? I believe there are. Certainly if we are talking about situations where one's life is not in danger, I think its different from a situation where one's life is in danger.
We also have to realize that a lot of married people, including Christians, have done things that might rightly be called 'abusive' if we get into the area of verbal and emotional abuse. Jesus said that that he that calls His brother 'Thou fool' shall be in danger of Hell fire. Most of us don't go around calling other people 'fool', aside from Mr. T. But people use other names like 'idiot' or use cuss words. My wife and I have had some heated arguments. Fortunately, it's not a regular occurrence, but I can't remember a time either of us called the other a name like 'idiot' or 'stupid' or yelled a cuss word at the other. We both know not to do that sort of thing. But there are other things that are abusive. Someone who thinks he or she is always knows the right way to do things, is always more holy than the other, and has a critical tongue can heaps some emotional abuse on their partner. I think a lot of couples have been involved in 'emotional abuse.' If someone has done this to their spouse or someone else, they need to repent and reconcile.
As far as repeated patterns go, I would suppose there are some people who do follow this kind of abuse cycle. It may not just be physical abuse, but also emotional abuse. But couples who fight and have difficulty getting along can also go through these kind of cycles. It may not be that one is the evil monster abuser and the other is the innocent victim. This book isn't about abuse, but Eggerich's book 'Love and Respect' talks about the 'crazy cycle' where he says something that she perceives as unloving, and she responds saying something he perceives as disrespectful, and they go on and on doing that, sometimes without realize they are stepping on each other's proverbial 'air hose.' (She needs love, the book argues, and he needs respect.)
After fighting, a couple can go through a Honeymoon phase. If fighting gets nasty and 'abusive', verbally, one person could pick up some 'abuse' literature and see their own relationship in that. The reader forgets about stepping on the other partners air hose with things perceived as disrespect and lack of love, sees oneself as the victim and the other as a perpetrator. That can happen, too. It's not always the case that one is the innocent victim.
I can also see how someone in a marriage where the couple doesn't get along and it's very tiring and wearisome might want to call it a 'cycle of abuse' and tell that to others. Plenty of Christians, especially online, will give support and affirmation and say, 'get a divorce' and if the individual is wanting to divorce, this can be very affirming.
If the couple are both believers, it sure makes a lot more sense to try to get the church leadership or other members of the body involved. The spouse that is being verbally abused can point it out. "You are calling me names. That's abusive. Jesus said...." Maybe it works better right after the argument is over depending on the nature of the argument. Some marriages can be saved. And there are some people who belittle, demean, insult, who will repent. Not everyone is a pre-programmed abuser robot. The gospel is powerful enough to deliver verbal abusers, even physical abusers.
If a man is abusive to his wife and he took the traditional wedding vows, you might argue that he has broken his vows. In addition to getting married, he made vows.
But that doesn't mean a wife is free to remarry. If a man calls his wife a 'stupid monkey head', and based on that, she divorces him and marries another man, she commits adultery.
If a man punches his wife in the eye, and because of that, she divorces him, and she marries another man, she commits adultery.
If a man points a gun at his wife and stabs her with a knife, and she divorces him, and she marries another man, she commits adultery.
The Bible says for the wife not to depart from her husband, but if she departs to remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband.
Not all verbally abusive people are physically violent toward their partners. Not all those who are physically violent are men either. I've read that 40% are women. And if women under-report abuse, it stands to reason that men certainly would. Men who report abuse may be laughed at, ignored, or hauled off to jail in handcuffs and charged with domestic violence. And there aren't the support networks and organizations set up to help them in a lot of cases.
Because men are usually physically stronger, some people think that abusive females are not a problem. But there are knives in the kitchen and a man has to sleep some time. Having a person who is smaller than you, weaker than you, but angry and violent in the home is still a big problem for the individual in that situation, as well.
But if a man's wife hits him, stabs him, shoots him, and he divorces her and marries another woman because of that, he commits adultery.
Abuse doesn't change what the Bible says about adultery. If someone broke into an abusive man's house and stole $100 out of his wallet, it would still be stealing whether he was abusive or not. If a neighbor of an abusive man reported him for drug dealing, even though he didn't do it, and testified against him in court, the neighbor would still be guilty of bearing false witness against his neighbor. The man being abusive doesn't change that.
But that doesn't mean a wife is free to remarry. If a man calls his wife a 'stupid monkey head', and based on that, she divorces him and marries another man, she commits adultery.
If a man punches his wife in the eye, and because of that, she divorces him, and she marries another man, she commits adultery.
If a man points a gun at his wife and stabs her with a knife, and she divorces him, and she marries another man, she commits adultery.
The Bible says for the wife not to depart from her husband, but if she departs to remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband.
Not all verbally abusive people are physically violent toward their partners. Not all those who are physically violent are men either. I've read that 40% are women. And if women under-report abuse, it stands to reason that men certainly would. Men who report abuse may be laughed at, ignored, or hauled off to jail in handcuffs and charged with domestic violence. And there aren't the support networks and organizations set up to help them in a lot of cases.
Because men are usually physically stronger, some people think that abusive females are not a problem. But there are knives in the kitchen and a man has to sleep some time. Having a person who is smaller than you, weaker than you, but angry and violent in the home is still a big problem for the individual in that situation, as well.
But if a man's wife hits him, stabs him, shoots him, and he divorces her and marries another woman because of that, he commits adultery.
Abuse doesn't change what the Bible says about adultery. If someone broke into an abusive man's house and stole $100 out of his wallet, it would still be stealing whether he was abusive or not. If a neighbor of an abusive man reported him for drug dealing, even though he didn't do it, and testified against him in court, the neighbor would still be guilty of bearing false witness against his neighbor. The man being abusive doesn't change that.
Last edited:
Something to keep in mind is that some models of domestic abuse aren't really that consistent with the Bible. Some of them are based on feminist philosophy as well.
Here is an example of a model of domestic abuse, the 'Power and Control Wheel' http://www.ncdsv.org/images/powercontrolwheelnoshading.pdf
First of all, the language is a bit sexist in a way since it's about men abusing women. There are women who break stuff, threaten divorce and suicide, use the kids, threaten to take the kids, etc. as well. Btw, putting threatening suicide down as abusive behavior is a bit concerning because advocates who deal with suicide say to always take such threats seriously.
Some of these behaviors are abusive or just plain messed up-- abusing pets to intimidate someone. One section is 'male privledge'. The words ooze with radical feminist indoctrination.
Treating a wife like a servant, yeah, sure, that's a problem. But some of the things in that section along with 'Economic abuse' aren't necessarily abusive behaviors. One hundred years ago, lots of women probably had to ask for money. In a lot of cultures, the man controls the purse. In families like the Duggars, which are really traditional, the man might give his wife an allowance. She might have to ask him to get money. (I don't know how the Duggars divide their money). Plenty of Christians believe that the wife is supposed to submit to the husband and that the husband is the head of the wife, since the Bible teaches this. But I'm sure there were plenty of households in the US 100 years ago that weren't abusive. Traditional conservative Christians aren't all abusive. Marriages in cultures where men control the money. A man isn't abusive for acting like the head of the wife, the leader in the home, etc. If he starts calling her bad names, putting her down, demeaning her, or of course hitting her, then that gets into the area of abuse.
Some of these models call using 'male logic', an abusive behavior. I've even seen 'quoting scripture' about wives submitting to husbands listed as abusive behavior. Some of the domestic violence centers are run by Feminists, and it can show up in their literature. Also, some of the models aren't really that scientific. An abusive man gets worse and worse and kills his wife, and that man's profile is used to extrapolate how abuse occurs in general.
I've also seen literature and heard arguments that once a man is abusive, he is always abusive. And there is the slippery slope reasoning that if he's verbally abusive, it will eventually turn violent. That sort of thinking could scare a bride whose having some arguments and marital problems where they are both having trouble getting along. He, wrongly and sinfully, starts calling her names. Then she's told there is no hope. He'll get worse and worse until he kills her and she'd better leave him.
Also, the idea that people can't ever change is contrary to the teachings of the Gospel.
Here is an example of a model of domestic abuse, the 'Power and Control Wheel' http://www.ncdsv.org/images/powercontrolwheelnoshading.pdf
First of all, the language is a bit sexist in a way since it's about men abusing women. There are women who break stuff, threaten divorce and suicide, use the kids, threaten to take the kids, etc. as well. Btw, putting threatening suicide down as abusive behavior is a bit concerning because advocates who deal with suicide say to always take such threats seriously.
Some of these behaviors are abusive or just plain messed up-- abusing pets to intimidate someone. One section is 'male privledge'. The words ooze with radical feminist indoctrination.
Treating a wife like a servant, yeah, sure, that's a problem. But some of the things in that section along with 'Economic abuse' aren't necessarily abusive behaviors. One hundred years ago, lots of women probably had to ask for money. In a lot of cultures, the man controls the purse. In families like the Duggars, which are really traditional, the man might give his wife an allowance. She might have to ask him to get money. (I don't know how the Duggars divide their money). Plenty of Christians believe that the wife is supposed to submit to the husband and that the husband is the head of the wife, since the Bible teaches this. But I'm sure there were plenty of households in the US 100 years ago that weren't abusive. Traditional conservative Christians aren't all abusive. Marriages in cultures where men control the money. A man isn't abusive for acting like the head of the wife, the leader in the home, etc. If he starts calling her bad names, putting her down, demeaning her, or of course hitting her, then that gets into the area of abuse. Some of these models call using 'male logic', an abusive behavior. I've even seen 'quoting scripture' about wives submitting to husbands listed as abusive behavior. Some of the domestic violence centers are run by Feminists, and it can show up in their literature. Also, some of the models aren't really that scientific. An abusive man gets worse and worse and kills his wife, and that man's profile is used to extrapolate how abuse occurs in general.
I've also seen literature and heard arguments that once a man is abusive, he is always abusive. And there is the slippery slope reasoning that if he's verbally abusive, it will eventually turn violent. That sort of thinking could scare a bride whose having some arguments and marital problems where they are both having trouble getting along. He, wrongly and sinfully, starts calling her names. Then she's told there is no hope. He'll get worse and worse until he kills her and she'd better leave him.
Also, the idea that people can't ever change is contrary to the teachings of the Gospel.
Anyone can change with Jesus. Unfortunately many people don't avail Him. Narrow is the path. But the general statement about once an abuser, usually always an abuser, is sadly true.
And, yeah, woman are not snow white in this either. They are right there in the mud pit with men. They may not do it as often, but they do it enough, and usually in more subtle, but just as devastating, ways.
Like Jesus said, don't be worried about they can to to the body, be more concerned about your soul.
How about all the woman who drive men to drink, or drugs? Or whatever? I am not suggesting that, in no way, that it is acceptable for a man to lay hands on a woman, it is not.
Nor am I saying that just because a wife treats a husband badly he has a excuse to drink or drug. But abusive behavior by a woman can have just as many negative implications as the opposite.
It's all sin.
And, yeah, woman are not snow white in this either. They are right there in the mud pit with men. They may not do it as often, but they do it enough, and usually in more subtle, but just as devastating, ways.
Like Jesus said, don't be worried about they can to to the body, be more concerned about your soul.
How about all the woman who drive men to drink, or drugs? Or whatever? I am not suggesting that, in no way, that it is acceptable for a man to lay hands on a woman, it is not.
Nor am I saying that just because a wife treats a husband badly he has a excuse to drink or drug. But abusive behavior by a woman can have just as many negative implications as the opposite.
It's all sin.
[FONT=Trebuchet, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]To the woman he said, "I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Women desire to control. The ways in which they ravage a mans soul is devastating to a man who tries to submit and love them like Jesus loves the church. I've picked some doozies. Psychological abuse is far worse than physical in [/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]many ways. Many men who I have known who get only emotionally abusive with their wives are told by their wives that they would rather be hit by them. I've lived with two emotionally abusive [/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]women and it wrecked me both times. I've never in all my 44 years have laid a hand on a woman...but I have been abused by them plenty and it will take a one of kind woman to ever have my trust..... if ever. And I'm not looking. [/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Women desire to control. The ways in which they ravage a mans soul is devastating to a man who tries to submit and love them like Jesus loves the church. I've picked some doozies. Psychological abuse is far worse than physical in [/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]many ways. Many men who I have known who get only emotionally abusive with their wives are told by their wives that they would rather be hit by them. I've lived with two emotionally abusive [/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]women and it wrecked me both times. I've never in all my 44 years have laid a hand on a woman...but I have been abused by them plenty and it will take a one of kind woman to ever have my trust..... if ever. And I'm not looking. [/FONT]
you as well as the rest of us are given the choices to choose and of course from these we learn,
sometimes good and sometimes to total destruction. hopefully after several mistakes,
even when carnal, at least some of us will try to make better choices, if not for ourselves, then for
our children.....
this, I call hope,..because when He does call us, we are taught brand new ways to overcome,
but we soon find that nothing will ever truly change unless we actively use the Faith we have been given,,,,,
otherwise, the outcomes will always bear witness of our truth and sincerity,..
through the trials and tribulations that I have been through, even though with no true understanding
at the beginning, of what Jesus was offering to me, He did stand beside me, guide me, and I did
eventually learn, through much trial and error, that 'only because of Him, and His precious, forgiving Love',
did I make it, and overcame it, and live it, through His Sacrifice and Grace...
sometimes good and sometimes to total destruction. hopefully after several mistakes,
even when carnal, at least some of us will try to make better choices, if not for ourselves, then for
our children.....
this, I call hope,..because when He does call us, we are taught brand new ways to overcome,
but we soon find that nothing will ever truly change unless we actively use the Faith we have been given,,,,,
otherwise, the outcomes will always bear witness of our truth and sincerity,..
through the trials and tribulations that I have been through, even though with no true understanding
at the beginning, of what Jesus was offering to me, He did stand beside me, guide me, and I did
eventually learn, through much trial and error, that 'only because of Him, and His precious, forgiving Love',
did I make it, and overcame it, and live it, through His Sacrifice and Grace...
Something to keep in mind is that some models of domestic abuse aren't really that consistent with the Bible. Some of them are based on feminist philosophy as well.
That is worrying, that you are going to dismiss some forms of abuse because you don’t consider them consistent with the Bible. Also, you are dismissive of feminist philosophy as a whole. Another red flag, especially considering the underlying message of feminism (even if it has been corrupted by some) is that men and women should be equal in social, political and economic spheres.
Here is an example of a model of domestic abuse, the 'Power and Control Wheel' http://www.ncdsv.org/images/powercon...lnoshading.pdf
First of all, the language is a bit sexist in a way since it's about men abusing women. There are women who break stuff, threaten divorce and suicide, use the kids, threaten to take the kids, etc. as well. Btw, putting threatening suicide down as abusive behavior is a bit concerning because advocates who deal with suicide say to always take such threats seriously.
The language does seem exclusionary. Perhaps it is reactionary to when ‘he/him/his’ was used as a neutral term, perhaps it is because they often deal with more female abuse victims (which is problematic because it suggests men who are in abusive relationships are unrecognised/ don’t seem to report it). Either way, I agree that it should be changed so that we aren’t ignoring male victims.
Using suicide to force someone to stay with you is emotional abuse, and extreme emotional abuse at that. You should try to refer them to a suicide hotline or call for help, but don’t stay with someone who is manipulating you.
Some of these behaviors are abusive or just plain messed up-- abusing pets to intimidate someone. One section is 'male privledge'. The words ooze with radical feminist indoctrination.
The section should have been named ‘male chauvinist/ man who believes in male superiority’.
Treating a wife like a servant, yeah, sure, that's a problem. But some of the things in that section along with 'Economic abuse' aren't necessarily abusive behaviors.
I’m not so sure you know what economic abuse is.
Wikipedia:
Economic abuse in a domestic situation may involve:
I hope that you would consider these things serious problems.
One hundred years ago, lots of women probably had to ask for money. In a lot of cultures, the man controls the purse. In families like the Duggars, which are really traditional, the man might give his wife an allowance. She might have to ask him to get money. (I don't know how the Duggars divide their money).
Cultural norms hundred years ago should not affect our thoughts on abuse now. It wasn’t that long ago that marital rape wasn’t recognised as a crime.
We have to deal with the current situation. Being financially dependent on your spouse does not mean they are abusive. However, if they are engaging in the behaviours I listed earlier they certainly are abusive.
Plenty of Christians believe that the wife is supposed to submit to the husband and that the husband is the head of the wife, since the Bible teaches this.
It’s frightening this mind-set still exists.
But I'm sure there were plenty of households in the US 100 years ago that weren't abusive. Traditional conservative Christians aren't all abusive. Marriages in cultures where men control the money. A man isn't abusive for acting like the head of the wife, the leader in the home, etc. If he starts calling her bad names, putting her down, demeaning her, or of course hitting her, then that gets into the area of abuse.
Acting superior to one’s spouse in the first place seems to allow for abusive behaviours. Two people should come into a relationship as equals with open and encouraged communication. If one person cannot do those things, the relationship should end.
Some of these models call using 'male logic', an abusive behavior. I've even seen 'quoting scripture' about wives submitting to husbands listed as abusive behavior. Some of the domestic violence centers are run by Feminists, and it can show up in their literature. Also, some of the models aren't really that scientific. An abusive man gets worse and worse and kills his wife, and that man's profile is used to extrapolate how abuse occurs in general.
No idea what ‘male logic’ means, but again it could be something that was inappropriately named again.
Repeatedly trying to enforce demeaning sexist ideas is abusive. Submission is something that can be asked for (by the person doing the submitting) as in a consensual D/s relationship, but it should never be forced upon a person. Many people are not naturally submissive, and to try to force this upon them contradicts their free will.
I don’t think the models are based on one man. They are likely patterns that are seen in abusive relationships as reported by victims; most victims will experience many different abusive behaviours while in their relationship. Perhaps it doesn’t always get worse, but is it worth the risk? What level of abuse is acceptable to you? At what point are we telling the person to get out of the relationship; when abusive behaviours are first experienced, or when the person’s mental health has deteriorated and/or their body is covered in bruises?
I've also seen literature and heard arguments that once a man is abusive, he is always abusive. And there is the slippery slope reasoning that if he's verbally abusive, it will eventually turn violent. That sort of thinking could scare a bride whose having some arguments and marital problems where they are both having trouble getting along. He, wrongly and sinfully, starts calling her names. Then she's told there is no hope. He'll get worse and worse until he kills her and she'd better leave him.
Again, risk prevention. Some people believe they can change abusers if they submit a little more, if they pray a little harder, if they work a little harder. They believe in change to an absurd degree, and it is hurting them.
I’m not saying abusers can’t change. But the victim being safe would be my priority before trying to change the abuser.
Verbal abuse is more worrying when it is a continuous behaviour that the abuser shows no remorse for; if he/she threatens, shouts, makes demeaning comments etc. repeatedly. It is not always just a worry that the abuse will become physical, either, but that this will be damaging to the mental health of the victim.
Also, the idea that people can't ever change is contrary to the teachings of the Gospel.
Give people a chance to change. But let them do it at a distance from the person that they’re hurting.
That is worrying, that you are going to dismiss some forms of abuse because you don’t consider them consistent with the Bible. Also, you are dismissive of feminist philosophy as a whole. Another red flag, especially considering the underlying message of feminism (even if it has been corrupted by some) is that men and women should be equal in social, political and economic spheres.
Here is an example of a model of domestic abuse, the 'Power and Control Wheel' http://www.ncdsv.org/images/powercon...lnoshading.pdf
First of all, the language is a bit sexist in a way since it's about men abusing women. There are women who break stuff, threaten divorce and suicide, use the kids, threaten to take the kids, etc. as well. Btw, putting threatening suicide down as abusive behavior is a bit concerning because advocates who deal with suicide say to always take such threats seriously.
The language does seem exclusionary. Perhaps it is reactionary to when ‘he/him/his’ was used as a neutral term, perhaps it is because they often deal with more female abuse victims (which is problematic because it suggests men who are in abusive relationships are unrecognised/ don’t seem to report it). Either way, I agree that it should be changed so that we aren’t ignoring male victims.
Using suicide to force someone to stay with you is emotional abuse, and extreme emotional abuse at that. You should try to refer them to a suicide hotline or call for help, but don’t stay with someone who is manipulating you.
Some of these behaviors are abusive or just plain messed up-- abusing pets to intimidate someone. One section is 'male privledge'. The words ooze with radical feminist indoctrination.
The section should have been named ‘male chauvinist/ man who believes in male superiority’.
I’m not so sure you know what economic abuse is.
Wikipedia:
Economic abuse in a domestic situation may involve:
- preventing a spouse from resource acquisition, such as restricting their ability to find employment, maintain or advance their careers, and acquire assets
- preventing the victim from obtaining education
- spend victim's money without his or her consent and creating debt, or completely spend victim's savings to limit available resources
- exploiting economic resources of the victim
I hope that you would consider these things serious problems.
One hundred years ago, lots of women probably had to ask for money. In a lot of cultures, the man controls the purse. In families like the Duggars, which are really traditional, the man might give his wife an allowance. She might have to ask him to get money. (I don't know how the Duggars divide their money).
Cultural norms hundred years ago should not affect our thoughts on abuse now. It wasn’t that long ago that marital rape wasn’t recognised as a crime.
We have to deal with the current situation. Being financially dependent on your spouse does not mean they are abusive. However, if they are engaging in the behaviours I listed earlier they certainly are abusive.
Plenty of Christians believe that the wife is supposed to submit to the husband and that the husband is the head of the wife, since the Bible teaches this.
It’s frightening this mind-set still exists.
But I'm sure there were plenty of households in the US 100 years ago that weren't abusive. Traditional conservative Christians aren't all abusive. Marriages in cultures where men control the money. A man isn't abusive for acting like the head of the wife, the leader in the home, etc. If he starts calling her bad names, putting her down, demeaning her, or of course hitting her, then that gets into the area of abuse.
Acting superior to one’s spouse in the first place seems to allow for abusive behaviours. Two people should come into a relationship as equals with open and encouraged communication. If one person cannot do those things, the relationship should end.
Some of these models call using 'male logic', an abusive behavior. I've even seen 'quoting scripture' about wives submitting to husbands listed as abusive behavior. Some of the domestic violence centers are run by Feminists, and it can show up in their literature. Also, some of the models aren't really that scientific. An abusive man gets worse and worse and kills his wife, and that man's profile is used to extrapolate how abuse occurs in general.
No idea what ‘male logic’ means, but again it could be something that was inappropriately named again.
Repeatedly trying to enforce demeaning sexist ideas is abusive. Submission is something that can be asked for (by the person doing the submitting) as in a consensual D/s relationship, but it should never be forced upon a person. Many people are not naturally submissive, and to try to force this upon them contradicts their free will.
I don’t think the models are based on one man. They are likely patterns that are seen in abusive relationships as reported by victims; most victims will experience many different abusive behaviours while in their relationship. Perhaps it doesn’t always get worse, but is it worth the risk? What level of abuse is acceptable to you? At what point are we telling the person to get out of the relationship; when abusive behaviours are first experienced, or when the person’s mental health has deteriorated and/or their body is covered in bruises?
I've also seen literature and heard arguments that once a man is abusive, he is always abusive. And there is the slippery slope reasoning that if he's verbally abusive, it will eventually turn violent. That sort of thinking could scare a bride whose having some arguments and marital problems where they are both having trouble getting along. He, wrongly and sinfully, starts calling her names. Then she's told there is no hope. He'll get worse and worse until he kills her and she'd better leave him.
Again, risk prevention. Some people believe they can change abusers if they submit a little more, if they pray a little harder, if they work a little harder. They believe in change to an absurd degree, and it is hurting them.
I’m not saying abusers can’t change. But the victim being safe would be my priority before trying to change the abuser.
Verbal abuse is more worrying when it is a continuous behaviour that the abuser shows no remorse for; if he/she threatens, shouts, makes demeaning comments etc. repeatedly. It is not always just a worry that the abuse will become physical, either, but that this will be damaging to the mental health of the victim.
Also, the idea that people can't ever change is contrary to the teachings of the Gospel.
Give people a chance to change. But let them do it at a distance from the person that they’re hurting.
H
Jesus says we will be judged by His words. Letting people talk you into doing what they think is permissible is ruin to you... Fast and seek and answer for yourself. Im not assuming you would listen to them im trying to remind you of why you shouldn't..
I'll pray for your answer to get to you.. If its His will its His bill.. He'll provide for your needs..
I'll pray for your answer to get to you.. If its His will its His bill.. He'll provide for your needs..