Divorce?

[posthuman]

Greetings posthuman,

Your first sentence is an incomplete question. Please phrase your complete question.

Your second question is a "what if" I can think of a thousand more what if's, but I see no wisdom in addressing them.

Do you have a point you wish to make regarding my comment?

if the earth is already replenished is a command to replenish it still relevant?
for example by way of analogy: imagine that one day i look in my refrigerator and there is no milk. i reason that i need to replenish my stock of milk in my refrigerator. i buy milk.
the next day again i look in my refrigerator and i have milk in my refrigerator. since the need to replenish my supply of milk is no longer present, does it make sense to go to the store and get some more?
how much milk do i need? what if my refrigerator is so crammed with milk that i cannot put any more in it? do i keep getting milk day after day ad infinitum?
what i am asking is whether what God said to Adam and Eve is really meant to be taken as a commandment to all men and women at all times?



i can think of a thousand more questions too. but you said that the primary purpose of marriage is to produce offspring -- so ((taking for granted for the sake of argument your premise)) if it is the case that a marriage is incapable of doing so is that marriage invalidated, is it unwise, should it be annulled for the sake of a marriage that is capable of fulfilling what you said is the primary purpose?

for example by way of analogy:
(1) you buy a car with the primary purpose of using it for transportation. the car has severe mechanical problems and cannot transport you. should you buy another car?
(2) you buy a sweater with the primary purpose of wearing it and keeping warm. the sweater is 3 sizes too small and the weave is open & doesn't trap heat, so that you cannot wear it and even if you could it would not provide the benefit that you primarily bought it for.
(3) you get a pair of glasses to improve your vision, but they are the wrong prescription -- instead of improving your vision, they impair it. should you exchange them for a different pair of glasses which actually serves the primary purpose for which you are getting glasses?

you will note that the 3 examples above are completely utilitarian in nature and description: there is one purpose of paramount importance and the object acquired for that purpose does not fulfill the purpose.
is it right to look at marriage in the same way: that there is one primary purpose to it, and if that primary purpose cannot be achieved then the marriage is 1:1 analogous to a product or service which has a primary purpose but which cannot possibly fulfill said purpose?

in such a case do you abandon your premise about the primary purpose of marriage, or do you cling to it? what are the implications in either case?

 

[SimpleGardner]

if the earth is already replenished is a command to replenish it still relevant?
for example by way of analogy: imagine that one day i look in my refrigerator and there is no milk. i reason that i need to replenish my stock of milk in my refrigerator. i buy milk.
the next day again i look in my refrigerator and i have milk in my refrigerator. since the need to replenish my supply of milk is no longer present, does it make sense to go to the store and get some more?
how much milk do i need? what if my refrigerator is so crammed with milk that i cannot put any more in it? do i keep getting milk day after day ad infinitum?
what i am asking is whether what God said to Adam and Eve is really meant to be taken as a commandment to all men and women at all times?



i can think of a thousand more questions too. but you said that the primary purpose of marriage is to produce offspring -- so ((taking for granted for the sake of argument your premise)) if it is the case that a marriage is incapable of doing so is that marriage invalidated, is it unwise, should it be annulled for the sake of a marriage that is capable of fulfilling what you said is the primary purpose?

for example by way of analogy:
(1) you buy a car with the primary purpose of using it for transportation. the car has severe mechanical problems and cannot transport you. should you buy another car?
(2) you buy a sweater with the primary purpose of wearing it and keeping warm. the sweater is 3 sizes too small and the weave is open & doesn't trap heat, so that you cannot wear it and even if you could it would not provide the benefit that you primarily bought it for.
(3) you get a pair of glasses to improve your vision, but they are the wrong prescription -- instead of improving your vision, they impair it. should you exchange them for a different pair of glasses which actually serves the primary purpose for which you are getting glasses?

you will note that the 3 examples above are completely utilitarian in nature and description: there is one purpose of paramount importance and the object acquired for that purpose does not fulfill the purpose.
is it right to look at marriage in the same way: that there is one primary purpose to it, and if that primary purpose cannot be achieved then the marriage is 1:1 analogous to a product or service which has a primary purpose but which cannot possibly fulfill said purpose?

in such a case do you abandon your premise about the primary purpose of marriage, or do you cling to it? what are the implications in either case?

Greetings posthuman,

Thank you for clarifying your question.

Is the “if the Earth is already replenished…” another “what if”? Is this tomorrow’s concern or today’s? Matt 6:34

Do you have some proof that the “replenishment” God commanded is complete?

DO you know how many people there “were” prior to whatever happened to bring the Earth’s population down? Was that command given to the men and women “made” (see Hebrew and Paleo Hebrew words for clarification) by the elohim (plural) on the 6th day and the man “created” by The LORD God on the 8th day as well? Many Bible scholars see three separate “making” of men and women in Genesis chapter 1. Were they all given that mandate or just one group?


To your other point about getting rid of an unfruitful wife. Is this your case? Or is this another “what if”? You are beginning to sound like a Pharisee…

 

[posthuman]

Greetings posthuman,

Thank you for clarifying your question.

Is the “if the Earth is already replenished…” another “what if”? Is this tomorrow’s concern or today’s? Matt 6:34

Do you have some proof that the “replenishment” God commanded is complete?

DO you know how many people there “were” prior to whatever happened to bring the Earth’s population down? Was that command given to the men and women “made” (see Hebrew and Paleo Hebrew words for clarification) by the elohim (plural) on the 6th day and the man “created” by The LORD God on the 8th day as well? Many Bible scholars see three separate “making” of men and women in Genesis chapter 1. Were they all given that mandate or just one group?


To your other point about getting rid of an unfruitful wife. Is this your case? Or is this another “what if”? You are beginning to sound like a Pharisee…

do you think there were 8 billion people before Adam and Eve?
you're not answering my question, tho, you're attacking the question. the question is whether it is logical to treat the instruction to 'replenish the earth' as though it is unlimited in scope and universally applicable to all peoples at all times past present and future.


---------------------------------------------------------------------

i'm trying to understand how your position about the primary purpose of marriage plays out in real life.
i don't think that makes me a pharisee. perhaps after you answer my questions you can explain why you have cause to accuse me for asking them. but let's stick to the questions, for now, if that's possible.

 

[SimpleGardner]

do you think there were 8 billion people before Adam and Eve?
you're not answering my question, tho, you're attacking the question. the question is whether it is logical to treat the instruction to 'replenish the earth' as though it is unlimited in scope and universally applicable to all peoples at all times past present and future.


---------------------------------------------------------------------

i'm trying to understand how your position about the primary purpose of marriage plays out in real life.
i don't think that makes me a pharisee. perhaps after you answer my questions you can explain why you have cause to accuse me for asking them. but let's stick to the questions, for now, if that's possible.

Past, Present, Future:

Past - You answered Scripture.

Present - Hinged my answer on "if the Earth is replenished or not." Back on you. if you cannot answer this one then all your other questions pertaining to this are extraneous.

Future - Matt 6:34

I am not in possession of how many people were alive on earth prior to Adam and Eve.

Please let me get one thing out of the way. Are you a lawyer? Are you studying to be a lawyer? Have you ever studied the worlds legal system?

I am not attacking your question, I am trying to point out that you are posing "what ifs" which are not true questions. Let's stick to "today's" actual issues only.

 

[tourist]

Not really sure on this. You don't need to get married to have companionship. And there's nothing wrong with two guys, or two girls, or any number of people, being companions. This also gives those pushing for sodomite "marriage" ammunition. Nothing wrong with two dudes being companions. But if marriage is primarily for companionship, then one might even marry one's dog.

I think if one accepts that the primary purpose of marriage is procreation, then all the other prohibitions around marriage (not marrying the same gender, or one's uncle, or one's dog) make sense. But I do acknowledge that older couples get married.

I guess it depends on whether one values the marriage, or whether one is just trying to maximise the cash payout one can trade it in for. If the latter, then I guess the divorce attorney makes sense. ;-)

Do you believe that older people beyond child-bearing age or even young people who medically cannot have children cast their aspirations to be happily married aside?

As you know, to have children you generally have to have intercourse with the opposite sex. Do you believe that for those that cannot have children should abstain from sex? At the time that God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply there were no other people in the world. He didn't even mention anything about having sex within the boundaries of marriage either.

A lot of young newly married couples realize that it might not be wise to start a family until the finances are stable enough to support such family. Perhaps it would be best to let those that are contemplating marriage to decide for themselves what the primary purpose of such an arrangement would be. I personally have never met anyone who believes that the primary purpose of marriage is for procreation. There certainly is no biblical prohibition against a man and a woman in love with each other to marry.

Yes, you could just get a dog for companionship but that type of arrangement would not be as pleasurable as being married to the one of your heart's desire.

I happen to believe that beyond companionship, the primary purpose is for sex that may, or may not result in a child being born. Of course, you don't really need to be married to have sex, or even to create a child.

 

[tourist]

Marriage is for the purposes of "The State" only! Matrimony is the term for two (man and a woman) to make vows before their community and God that they agree to the terms of His (Gods) order and intention to their union. Be fruitful and multiply being the primary purpose and the companionship that ensues can also be seen as a part of the benifit of the offspring as well as the community that the offspiring florish in as well as service to Gods Kingdom plans. Companionship according to the laws and intent of our Creator is emblematic of His order which the offspring will be immersed in and continue in.

I certainly didn't get married because I thought it would benefit the community. That might make sense if one lived in a hippy commune. Make love, not war is their mantra.

 

[posthuman]

Please let me get one thing out of the way. Are you a lawyer? Are you studying to be a lawyer? Have you ever studied the worlds legal system?

i'm a mathematician.

 

[SimpleGardner]

i'm a mathematician.

Greetings posthuman,

Thank you...it helps to know that. I hope you understand why I will not engage in "what if" questions. Truly, we have many issues that we can apply our energy to today without looking to tomorrow for problems to solve.

 

[posthuman]

Greetings posthuman,

Thank you...it helps to know that. I hope you understand why I will not engage in "what if" questions. Truly, we have many issues that we can apply our energy to today without looking to tomorrow for problems to solve.

I have an hypothesis; it is either because you have never thought through the implications of your statement or that you have and cannot defend them.

 

[he-rat_of_the_circus-mice]

Do you believe that older people beyond child-bearing age or even young people who medically cannot have children cast their aspirations to be happily married aside?

No. But I also believe that even older people beyond child-bearing age can hope- through God - to have children, as can young people who "medically cannot have children". Look at Abraham and Sarah.

As you know, to have children you generally have to have intercourse with the opposite sex. Do you believe that for those that cannot have children should abstain from sex? At the time that God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply there were no other people in the world. He didn't even mention anything about having sex within the boundaries of marriage either.

My view is that sex is marriage (not the governmental certificate, but marriage as God sees it). When you have sex, you enter into a marriage. That is why adultery is unfaithfulness - you are entering into a covenant with someone else, when you already are in an existing covenant. Who is to say anyone cannot have children? Surely only God can determine that?

A lot of young newly married couples realize that it might not be wise to start a family until the finances are stable enough to support such family. Perhaps it would be best to let those that are contemplating marriage to decide for themselves what the primary purpose of such an arrangement would be. I personally have never met anyone who believes that the primary purpose of marriage is for procreation. There certainly is no biblical prohibition against a man and a woman in love with each other to marry.

I guess it depends on whether you are talking about "marriage" as governments see it, or marriage as God sees it. If we let those who are contemplanting marriage decide for themselves what it means, it opens the door for sodomite weddings, beastiality and all manner of abominations. I'm not putting a marriage whose purpose is not children in this category, but am demonstrating how such logic is flawed.

Yes, you could just get a dog for companionship but that type of arrangement would not be as pleasurable as being married to the one of your heart's desire.

Those who prefer the companionship of dogs may disagree.

I happen to believe that beyond companionship, the primary purpose is for sex that may, or may not result in a child being born. Of course, you don't really need to be married to have sex, or even to create a child.

Paul does recommend people to marry rather than to burn with passion. So I believe this view does have some scriptural support. But I also believe that the purpose of sexual relationships is to produce Godly offspring, so my view is still that a healthy marriage should usually focus on producing Godly offspring. You do mention some exceptions due to infertility, which I do concede.

 

[tourist]

No. But I also believe that even older people beyond child-bearing age can hope- through God - to have children, as can young people who "medically cannot have children". Look at Abraham and Sarah.

My view is that sex is marriage (not the governmental certificate, but marriage as God sees it). When you have sex, you enter into a marriage. That is why adultery is unfaithfulness - you are entering into a covenant with someone else, when you already are in an existing covenant. Who is to say anyone cannot have children? Surely only God can determine that?

I guess it depends on whether you are talking about "marriage" as governments see it, or marriage as God sees it. If we let those who are contemplanting marriage decide for themselves what it means, it opens the door for sodomite weddings, beastiality and all manner of abominations. I'm not putting a marriage whose purpose is not children in this category, but am demonstrating how such logic is flawed.

Those who prefer the companionship of dogs may disagree.

Paul does recommend people to marry rather than to burn with passion. So I believe this view does have some scriptural support. But I also believe that the purpose of sexual relationships is to produce Godly offspring, so my view is still that a healthy marriage should usually focus on producing Godly offspring. You do mention some exceptions due to infertility, which I do concede.

Why in the world would most older people hope to have children? Yes, there have been those that were childless still hoping to have children but that would probably be the exception rather than the norm.

I got remarried at the age of 59 to a woman who was also 59 and both of us had neither the desire nor hope to have any additional children other that the daughter that each of us had in a previous marriage and relationship.

I believe that you are correct in that biblically, if you have sex, you are then married to that person. The thing is, based on that, most of us, previous or current, were or are, bigamists and adulterers. Even so, God will forgive any transgressions committed, either willingly or unknowingly.

I believe that the one thing that is sure is that you are not married until the marriage is consummated. I am talking about marriage as God sees it because I believe, based on scripture, that marriage is a contract between the man, woman, and God, is valid untll death of one or the other, and that you are not truly married scripturally unless God did indeed join the two together and no one can put asunder.

 

[inukubo]

Just reaching out to anyone who’s recently divorced or considering it. How do you know it’s the right thing to do? My story is long so I won’t bore anyone but I’m very unhappily married. I don’t believe in divorce but I feel I’ve tried everything to make my marriage work. I’ve placed it in God’s hands at this point but I don’t honestly feel it can be saved. I’m just tired of living a lie, pretending to be happy and being more lonely than if I was actually alone. I miss love honestly.

I haven't read all of the responses, but I can guess what many of them say because I know what that the "Christian" answers are, having been a pastor for a number of years. But being in a very similar situation to yourself, I may be able to bring a little different perspective than those who have not gone through such emotional isolation and abuse. And yes, even if your physical safety may not be in direct danger, emotional and verbal abuse is every bit as dangerous to your life and health as physical and sexual abuse. If you are in such a situation and you have legitimately tried every option available to you to try to improve your relationship, then unfortunately divorce may be your best option -- with the understanding that divorce is better than staying in a situation that will ultimately lead to your death. At least in that situation, a divorce may preserve some semblance of hope for one of you -- and especially for your children if you have any.

 

[inukubo]

I hope EVERYONE ends up in a perfect marriage, but unfortunately, the ideal of perfection in any matter that concerns human beings does not exist.



We are indeed asked to emulate Christ--but don't try to insinuate that Christ didn't tell people the truth, even when it wasn't what they wanted to hear, and even when it wasn't warm and fuzzy.



I can understand why you might want me, but you can pray for me all you like and you still can't have me--I'm taken. Pray like Jesus prayed, to align His mind with the will of God--more "thy will be done" and less "my will be done."

It is not God's will for His children to be miserable, socially isolated, and unproductive for His kingdom. We were created to enjoy intimate connections with others as a reflection of our Creator Himself. While your zeal for the truth is admirable, it might be more effective to show a bit more understanding of others' struggles and refrain from publicly jumping to conclusions and resorting to biting sarcasm when the OP is simply looking for comfort and trying to make sense of her situation.

 

[tjogs]

I haven't read all of the responses, but I can guess what many of them say because I know what that the "Christian" answers are, having been a pastor for a number of years. But being in a very similar situation to yourself, I may be able to bring a little different perspective than those who have not gone through such emotional isolation and abuse. And yes, even if your physical safety may not be in direct danger, emotional and verbal abuse is every bit as dangerous to your life and health as physical and sexual abuse. If you are in such a situation and you have legitimately tried every option available to you to try to improve your relationship, then unfortunately divorce may be your best option -- with the understanding that divorce is better than staying in a situation that will ultimately lead to your death. At least in that situation, a divorce may preserve some semblance of hope for one of you -- and especially for your children if you have any.

I don't consider myself anymore recently divorced and since then I have also remarried and had ups and downs with that one too. My attitude toward Divorces are very similar: generally I'm against divorce unless the marriage is serious threat to ones physical, mental or spiritual health and driving person to his/her end in any of these fields. And even then as God told me forgive. Always forgive the person or you are carrying the burden of failed marriage and divorce rest of your life even to your new marriage and relationship.

 

[Robertt]

Just reaching out to anyone who’s recently divorced or considering it. How do you know it’s the right thing to do? My story is long so I won’t bore anyone but I’m very unhappily married. I don’t believe in divorce but I feel I’ve tried everything to make my marriage work. I’ve placed it in God’s hands at this point but I don’t honestly feel it can be saved. I’m just tired of living a lie, pretending to be happy and being more lonely than if I was actually alone. I miss love honestly.

Gods against divorce. but for Adultery sake he allows it. and only for tht reason

 

[Angela53510]

Gods against divorce. but for Adultery sake he allows it. and only for tht reason

And you don't think controlling and verbally and spiritually and/or emotionally abusing someone, to say nothing of physically damaging a spouse is a special kind of unfaithfulness to their marriage vows and God? Adultery is just a different kind of abuse and unfaithfulness.

God does not want anyone being damaged in an abusive relationship, I am certain! Verse?

"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her," Ephesians 5:25

There are so many more. An abusive husband is directly disobeying this command to all husbands, and it applies to abusive women, too!

 

[Robertt]

And you don't think controlling and verbally and spiritually and/or emotionally abusing someone, to say nothing of physically damaging a spouse is a special kind of unfaithfulness to their marriage vows and God? Adultery is just a different kind of abuse and unfaithfulness.

God does not want anyone being damaged in an abusive relationship, I am certain! Verse?

"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her," Ephesians 5:25

There are so many more. An abusive husband is directly disobeying this command to all husbands, and it applies to abusive women, too!

very true. but jusdt because he breaks the rules does not justify sin in divorce. If husband is phyiscially abusive have him charged. But other than adultery and no it means sex to another when married not the descriptions you gave, then divorce is not of gods plan. So if you being attacked , move to safety. get a church to support you and pray for the abusive person.

But as with all sin, it not worse thasny any other so can be forgiven. so if you get divorced it is forgivble.

 

[tjogs]

1 Cor 7:10-11
To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband
but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband, and the husband should not divorce his wife.

Luke 16:18
18 Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

so if anyone cannot live with his/her spouse they should not but can (so that it's not sin) move separate and promise to live alone without marrying again.

By law (scripture not earthly) they are still married and as long as both parties respect that but if either of them falls for adultery the other is free from the marriage.

Further
1 Cor 7:13-16
13 If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him.

14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

15 But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called youto peace.

16 For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

 

[kaylagrl]

very true. but jusdt because he breaks the rules does not justify sin in divorce. If husband is phyiscially abusive have him charged. But other than adultery and no it means sex to another when married not the descriptions you gave, then divorce is not of gods plan. So if you being attacked , move to safety. get a church to support you and pray for the abusive person.

But as with all sin, it not worse thasny any other so can be forgiven. so if you get divorced it is forgivble.

If you are being abused, divorce, period. God doesn't expect anyone to stay in an abusive marriage in danger. No one should ever tell a person to stay in an abusive marriage.

 

[tourist]

Past, Present, Future:

Past - You answered Scripture.

Present - Hinged my answer on "if the Earth is replenished or not." Back on you. if you cannot answer this one then all your other questions pertaining to this are extraneous.

Future - Matt 6:34

I am not in possession of how many people were alive on earth prior to Adam and Eve.

Please let me get one thing out of the way. Are you a lawyer? Are you studying to be a lawyer? Have you ever studied the worlds legal system?

I am not attacking your question, I am trying to point out that you are posing "what ifs" which are not true questions. Let's stick to "today's" actual issues only.

All questions are 'what ifs' to a certain extent or otherwise there would not be questions to answer.