# Christianity, Divorce and Remarriage



## CraigBesuden

“Evangelicals like to present their position as biblical and therefore immutable. They want us to believe that they have never before adjusted to shifting public sentiments on sexuality and marriage. That is not so. Divorce — and especially divorce and remarriage — was once such an issue, an issue about which evangelicals would brook no compromise. But evangelicals eventually reconfigured their preaching and adapted just fine to changing historical circumstances.

“When I was growing up within the evangelical subculture in the 1960s, divorce was roundly condemned by evangelicals. Jesus, after all, was pretty clear on the issue. “And I say to you,” he told the Pharisees, “whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

“Anyone who was divorced was ostracized in evangelical circles. In some congregations, membership was rescinded, and at the very least the divorcee felt marginalized. Any evangelical leader who divorced his spouse could expect to look for a different job.

“Evangelical culture began to change in the mid-to-late 1970s, when the divorce rate among evangelicals approached that of the larger population. Some studies even suggested that the divorce rate among evangelicals was higher than average, although that claim was a trifle misleading since evangelicals were more likely to marry in the first place.

“The ringing denunciations of divorce emanating from evangelical pulpits abated. No one outright supported divorce, but it became less and less of an issue as pastors found it more and more difficult to judge individuals within their own congregations — or their own families.

“Forced to acknowledge the reality of divorce close to home, pastors responded with compassion rather than condemnation; the words of Jesus were treated as an ideal rather than a mandate. Megachurches provided support groups for divorcees and then, later, those groups functioned for many as the evangelical equivalent of singles clubs.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/theway...become-acceptable-in-evangelical-circles/amp/


----------



## BluesPower

I am assuming that you have a comment or a question about what you posted? 

I will say that some of those quotes are true in some ways, some are BS, and some never were true when people thought them in the 50's and 60's.

But I wonder what your point in posting is?


----------



## personofinterest

Yeeeeaaaaaahhhh


Not taking this bait.

I mean, just read the tenor of the statements.

Not biased AT ALL (that was sarcasm. Jesus said I could)

I am not a rocket scientist, so I don't toss around half-phrase crap from manuals trying to prove something I don't understand.

I don't do gotchas.

That said, I think some people need to learn the difference between a group deciding sin is okay and a group understanding compassion and redemption.


----------



## Cletus

personofinterest said:


> That said, I think some people need to learn the difference between a group deciding sin is okay and a group understanding compassion and redemption.


So, reading between the lines (and with no sarcasm nor ulterior motive...)

Your position is that divorce is still a sin, but like all sin, requires understanding and compassion from other Christians and (presumably) repentance from the sinner, similar to all sin. Is that correct?

I'll preface with this seems to be a perfectly reasonable position to take if your general position on religion is more on the compassion side and less on the punishment side. So what then is the correct repentance for the sin of divorce? What should a believer do differently or do to make amends for violating Jesus' explicit statement here? And should an Evangelical EVER counsel another Christian to divorce?


----------



## MEM2020

Craig,
Since I’m not Christian, I have an outsiders view of this topic. In general I’d say that modern Christianity sets the gold standard for tolerance of people of different religions. 

I have listened to Joel Osteen a bunch of times and generally find him to be helpful. 

I do think the trend towards prosperity preaching isn’t such a good thing. 





CraigBesuden said:


> “Evangelicals like to present their position as biblical and therefore immutable. They want us to believe that they have never before adjusted to shifting public sentiments on sexuality and marriage. That is not so. Divorce — and especially divorce and remarriage — was once such an issue, an issue about which evangelicals would brook no compromise. But evangelicals eventually reconfigured their preaching and adapted just fine to changing historical circumstances.
> 
> “When I was growing up within the evangelical subculture in the 1960s, divorce was roundly condemned by evangelicals. Jesus, after all, was pretty clear on the issue. “And I say to you,” he told the Pharisees, “whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”
> 
> “Anyone who was divorced was ostracized in evangelical circles. In some congregations, membership was rescinded, and at the very least the divorcee felt marginalized. Any evangelical leader who divorced his spouse could expect to look for a different job.
> 
> “Evangelical culture began to change in the mid-to-late 1970s, when the divorce rate among evangelicals approached that of the larger population. Some studies even suggested that the divorce rate among evangelicals was higher than average, although that claim was a trifle misleading since evangelicals were more likely to marry in the first place.
> 
> “The ringing denunciations of divorce emanating from evangelical pulpits abated. No one outright supported divorce, but it became less and less of an issue as pastors found it more and more difficult to judge individuals within their own congregations — or their own families.
> 
> “Forced to acknowledge the reality of divorce close to home, pastors responded with compassion rather than condemnation; the words of Jesus were treated as an ideal rather than a mandate. Megachurches provided support groups for divorcees and then, later, those groups functioned for many as the evangelical equivalent of singles clubs.”
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/theway...become-acceptable-in-evangelical-circles/amp/


----------



## Cletus

MEM2020 said:


> Craig,
> Since I’m not Christian, I have an outsiders view of this topic. In general I’d say that modern Christianity sets the gold standard for tolerance of people of different religions.


Hmm, I would absolutely rank the B'ahai higher on tolerance, and most Buddhists too. Christianity seems to fall somewhere in the middle, depending on the particular flavor. The major Protestant branches like Methodists are very tolerant, Southern Baptists a whole lot less so. Still, I agree that I don't find Western Christianity in general to be overly intolerant of other religions - but by no means the gold standard.


----------



## personofinterest

I do not speak as the arbiter of all truth. I only share what I understand and my experience.

Truth is, even various denominations don't all agree on this. The Old Testament is where the famous "I hate divorce" declaration comes from God. It is there that we find the statement that divorce is a sin unless you divorce for adultery. And that if a man divorces his wife for any other reason and then remarries, he commits adultery.

Notice that when the Bible talks about this, it only talks about a man divorcing his wife. In the times when the OT was written, women didn't have the right to divorce. Women also had no right to property, etc. Everything came through the man. So, if a man divorced his wife, she basically had to hope family would take care of her, or she was destitute.

In the New Testament, when Jesus is "going farther" with certain commands (i.e. hate is like murder, lust is like adultery), he was focusing on the inward motivation. That is failrly easy to surmise (because we don't send people to prison for hating someone in their hearts.) Here, Jesus said that the only reason that adultery was an exception and okayed divorce was because of "the hardness of your hearts."

There are churches and people who think this means that NOW even adultery isn't a reason, and you stay together forever no matter what. I can understand why they might think that, though the original language and taking into account culture....well, anyway....

Most Bible scholars believe that one of the reasons Jesus came down so hard was because the priests and church leaders in particular were marrying, getting tired of their wives or wanting newer models, divorcing, and finding someone new. Again, this left the divorced wife destitute.

The most mainstream belief is that adultery, abandonment, and abuse are all justifiable reasons for divorce. The abandonment comes from a passage where Paul states that if a non-believing spouse abandons the Christian spouse, divorce is permitted. There is some controversy about the abuse reason because it isn't specifically mentioned. A common compromise seems to be "leave and separate, but don't actually divorce. That way you are safe." While I have no biblical backing, I think that is dumb. It keeps the victim tied to the abuser. However, I concede that I can't back that up scripturally.

I sought a lot of council before my divorce. Some people believed that my ex was committing his own sexual sin by withholding when I Corinthians 7 clearly says not to do that. Eh....that seems flimsy to me. I fully understand that to many in my faith, I did not have just cause to divorce. Or remarry. If a church did not want to accept me as a member or allow me to serve, I would understand that. Of course, my ex also went through a porn phase (some of which was gay porn), so it's fuzzy. But I cannot say that I divorced because he cheated. And while he was passive aggressive and unkind, I cannot say I was being abused.

So yes, in many people's eyes, my divorce was a sin. As was my remarriage.

So what now?

Well, currently, the pastor where I go to church is of the mind that when we understand our sin, we repent. And that in the case of divorces with new marriages, we don't upend everyone's current situation. We purpose from today forward to live in accordance with the Bible, try to make amends with those we hurt, and stay in the current marriage faithfully.

Now here's the kicker......that bothers people who don't really understand and haven't experienced salvation because there's no "penance" or "justice" or whatever. Because when Jesus died for our sins, HE took the punishment. Which makes it seem like a free pass. It isn't, but that is a whole other theological discussion. Our sin cost Jesus EVERYTHING, which part of the magnitude of the love involved.

I do not expect someone who is not a believer in God or Jesus to really get or buy into that. If you scrutinize it, it doesn't make the kind of sense we consider logical.

So there. I answered as honestly as possible with no ulterior motive or attempt to proselytize. And with honest respect.

Hopefully it can go both ways.


----------



## CraigBesuden

BluesPower said:


> I am assuming that you have a comment or a question about what you posted?
> 
> I will say that some of those quotes are true in some ways, some are BS, and some never were true when people thought them in the 50's and 60's.
> 
> But I wonder what your point in posting is?


Basically, it started as a tangent to another thread. I thought it was best to put it in a more appropriate sub-forum.

It was suggested that I was misquoting scripture when I indicated that the evangelical teaching on divorce has changed with the times. So I found a source with a Google search making that historical claim.

The Catholic position hasn’t changed in theory (no divorce), but it has changed in practice through easily granted annulments. So if you are Catholic and wish to leave your spouse of 20 years, the Church will investigate and conclude that there never was any actual marriage.

It is one thing for divorce to be a sin and remarriage to be a sin. It is something else entirely if it is impossible to divorce in God’s eyes, and you persist in a state of ongoing adultery with you new “spouse.”

If I were to take the other side, I would focus on Matt 19:3-9 (the “pornea” exception clause), rather than the earlier Mark 10:10-12 (no exception). I’d combine it with lusting in your heart is adultery Matt 5:27-28, and that would permit just about any divorce.


----------



## ConanHub

CraigBesuden said:


> Basically, it started as a tangent to another thread. I thought it was best to put it in a more appropriate sub-forum.
> 
> It was suggested that I was misquoting scripture when I indicated that the evangelical teaching on divorce has changed with the times. So I found a source with a Google search making that historical claim.
> 
> The Catholic position hasn’t changed in theory (no divorce), but it has changed in practice through easily granted annulments. So if you are Catholic and wish to leave your spouse of 20 years, the Church will investigate and conclude that there never was any actual marriage.
> 
> It is one thing for divorce to be a sin and remarriage to be a sin. It is something else entirely if it is impossible to divorce in God’s eyes, and you persist in a state of ongoing adultery with you new “spouse.”


What is your belief system?

You want to toss questions our way just cuz, then the social spot is your flavor.

This forum is for something you are struggling with.


----------



## CraigBesuden

Conan said:


> You want to toss questions our way just cuz, then the social spot is your flavor. This forum is for something you are struggling with.


Fair enough. Wrong forum.


----------



## MEM2020

Cletus,

You are full of mischief today my friend. B'ahai - are so small in number you have no way to gauge how they might act in the majority. 

And prior to the Japanese and Myanmarian aggressions I looked on Budhism more kindly. 





Cletus said:


> Hmm, I would absolutely rank the B'ahai higher on tolerance, and most Buddhists too. Christianity seems to fall somewhere in the middle, depending on the particular flavor. The major Protestant branches like Methodists are very tolerant, Southern Baptists a whole lot less so. Still, I agree that I don't find Western Christianity in general to be overly intolerant of other religions - but by no means the gold standard.


----------



## sokillme

CraigBesuden said:


> “Evangelicals like to present their position as biblical and therefore immutable. They want us to believe that they have never before adjusted to shifting public sentiments on sexuality and marriage. That is not so. Divorce — and especially divorce and remarriage — was once such an issue, an issue about which evangelicals would brook no compromise. But evangelicals eventually reconfigured their preaching and adapted just fine to changing historical circumstances.
> 
> “When I was growing up within the evangelical subculture in the 1960s, divorce was roundly condemned by evangelicals. Jesus, after all, was pretty clear on the issue. “And I say to you,” he told the Pharisees, “whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”
> 
> “Anyone who was divorced was ostracized in evangelical circles. In some congregations, membership was rescinded, and at the very least the divorcee felt marginalized. Any evangelical leader who divorced his spouse could expect to look for a different job.
> 
> “Evangelical culture began to change in the mid-to-late 1970s, when the divorce rate among evangelicals approached that of the larger population. Some studies even suggested that the divorce rate among evangelicals was higher than average, although that claim was a trifle misleading since evangelicals were more likely to marry in the first place.
> 
> “The ringing denunciations of divorce emanating from evangelical pulpits abated. No one outright supported divorce, but it became less and less of an issue as pastors found it more and more difficult to judge individuals within their own congregations — or their own families.
> 
> “Forced to acknowledge the reality of divorce close to home, pastors responded with compassion rather than condemnation; the words of Jesus were treated as an ideal rather than a mandate. Megachurches provided support groups for divorcees and then, later, those groups functioned for many as the evangelical equivalent of singles clubs.”
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/theway...become-acceptable-in-evangelical-circles/amp/


One thing I learned from growing up in the Church. Being around the leadership of the church. There really is no difference then Christians and Non-Christians. There are good and bad every group. Republican, Liberal, Redsox fan, and Yankee fan. Some are hypocrites some are true believers. (Mets fans are generally good but suckers). 

The point is when it comes to Christianity the idea is you become a Christian because you believe you need a savior, not because you are perfect. And if you think it gives you an excuse to hold your "perfection" over everyone else you are not doing it right. 

That being said I think lots of Churches would actually do better to tell their congregation to divorce, and do harm teaching them to forgive the most heinous of acts at least in my opinion.


----------



## Spicy

The verses referred to seem fairly straight forward. 

I agree that marriage (like many other things) has become a disposable item, where it previously was not. Sad really. You can divorce for any reason, or no reason at all, and pretty much nobody cares. It’s just the way it is now. At least back when it was frowned upon more in society, it seemed people tried a little harder to make things work. Now even outside of adultery or abuse, so many don’t even make a decent effort to keep their vows. 



> The Catholic position hasn’t changed in theory (no divorce), but it has changed in practice through easily granted annulments. So if you are Catholic and wish to leave your spouse of 20 years, the Church will investigate and conclude that there never was any actual marriage


Also, is that accurate that the Catholic Church will just claim a 20 year marriage was not real because someone wants a divorce and doesn’t have grounds according to the Bible to do so? IF that is true, how do they justify that before God? :surprise: Plus, if they are trying to justify it, who exactly do they think they are fooling??


----------



## OnTheFly

sokillme said:


> That being said I think lots of Churches would actually do better to tell their congregation to divorce, and do harm teaching them to forgive the most heinous of acts at least in my opinion.


Interesting.

Seems counter intuitive that a religion that is founded on forgiveness for all my sins (past, present, and future, earthly) by the one act of Jesus Christ's work on the cross, would counsel someone to NOT forgive. 

When the Apostle Peter asked Jesus how many times to forgive....7 times? No, 70x7, was the answer. In essence, don't stop forgiving, because it'll bring our mind back to the sweetest forgiveness WE have received. 

Apart from Dexter-ing another person, adultery in my opinion, is about the cruelest thing you can do to another person. 

In the last two thousand years, the shed blood of Christ has washed the sins of countless adulterers away. These are sins committed against a thrice holy God. Yet, I, shouldn't?

The story of the woman caught in adultery is illuminating. Even the sin hardened Pharisees couldn't pick up a rock when Jesus said, ''Let him who is without sin cast the first stone''. 

Finally, the parable of the man who owed the King a sum of money that could not be repaid. The man begged for mercy and the King granted forgiveness. His debt was erased. The man went out in the street and found a man that owed him a days worth of money and demanded to be paid. The second man begged for mercy. The first man refused and had the second man thrown in jail. When the King heard of the actions of the first man......well, you read it, it's not a good ending for the first man. 

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+18:21-35&version=MEV

This is an illustration of the forgiveness of God.

Forgiveness is good for the soul.

Disclaimer: This does not give the WS a free pass.....obviously.


----------



## personofinterest

OnTheFly said:


> sokillme said:
> 
> 
> 
> That being said I think lots of Churches would actually do better to tell their congregation to divorce, and do harm teaching them to forgive the most heinous of acts at least in my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Seems counter intuitive that a religion that is founded on forgiveness for all my sins (past, present, and future, earthly) by the one act of Jesus Christ's work on the cross, would counsel someone to NOT forgive.
> 
> When the Apostle Peter asked Jesus how many times to forgive....7 times? No, 70x7, was the answer. In essence, don't stop forgiving, because it'll bring our mind back to the sweetest forgiveness WE have received.
> 
> Apart from Dexter-ing another person, adultery in my opinion, is about the cruelest thing you can do to another person.
> 
> In the last two thousand years, the shed blood of Christ has washed the sins of countless adulterers away. These are sins committed against a thrice holy God. Yet, I, shouldn't?
> 
> The story of the woman caught in adultery is illuminating. Even the sin hardened Pharisees couldn't pick up a rock when Jesus said, ''Let him who is without sin cast the first stone''.
> 
> Finally, the parable of the man who owed the King a sum of money that could not be repaid. The man begged for mercy and the King granted forgiveness. His debt was erased. The man went out in the street and found a man that owed him a days worth of money and demanded to be paid. The second man begged for mercy. The first man refused and had the second man thrown in jail. When the King heard of the actions of the first man......well, you read it, it's not a good ending for the first man.
> 
> https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+18:21-35&version=MEV
> 
> This is an illustration of the forgiveness of God.
> 
> Forgiveness is good for the soul.
> 
> Disclaimer: This does not give the WS a free pass.....obviously.
Click to expand...

This post is beautiful


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Jesus' words were very clear. I'm not sure how his words can be treated as just 'ideal'istic. It was also not novel, Moses spoke of the same in Deuteronomy.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

personofinterest said:


> I do not speak as the arbiter of all truth. I only share what I understand and my experience.
> 
> Truth is, even various denominations don't all agree on this. The Old Testament is where the famous "I hate divorce" declaration comes from God. It is there that we find the statement that divorce is a sin unless you divorce for adultery. And that if a man divorces his wife for any other reason and then remarries, he commits adultery.
> 
> Notice that when the Bible talks about this, it only talks about a man divorcing his wife. In the times when the OT was written, women didn't have the right to divorce. Women also had no right to property, etc. Everything came through the man. So, if a man divorced his wife, she basically had to hope family would take care of her, or she was destitute.
> 
> In the New Testament, when Jesus is "going farther" with certain commands (i.e. hate is like murder, lust is like adultery), he was focusing on the inward motivation. That is failrly easy to surmise (because we don't send people to prison for hating someone in their hearts.) Here, Jesus said that the only reason that adultery was an exception and okayed divorce was because of "the hardness of your hearts."
> 
> There are churches and people who think this means that NOW even adultery isn't a reason, and you stay together forever no matter what. I can understand why they might think that, though the original language and taking into account culture....well, anyway....
> 
> Most Bible scholars believe that one of the reasons Jesus came down so hard was because the priests and church leaders in particular were marrying, getting tired of their wives or wanting newer models, divorcing, and finding someone new. Again, this left the divorced wife destitute.
> 
> The most mainstream belief is that adultery, abandonment, and abuse are all justifiable reasons for divorce. The abandonment comes from a passage where Paul states that if a non-believing spouse abandons the Christian spouse, divorce is permitted. There is some controversy about the abuse reason because it isn't specifically mentioned. A common compromise seems to be "leave and separate, but don't actually divorce. That way you are safe." While I have no biblical backing, I think that is dumb. It keeps the victim tied to the abuser. However, I concede that I can't back that up scripturally.
> 
> I sought a lot of council before my divorce. Some people believed that my ex was committing his own sexual sin by withholding when I Corinthians 7 clearly says not to do that. Eh....that seems flimsy to me. I fully understand that to many in my faith, I did not have just cause to divorce. Or remarry. If a church did not want to accept me as a member or allow me to serve, I would understand that. Of course, my ex also went through a porn phase (some of which was gay porn), so it's fuzzy. But I cannot say that I divorced because he cheated. And while he was passive aggressive and unkind, I cannot say I was being abused.
> 
> So yes, in many people's eyes, my divorce was a sin. As was my remarriage.
> 
> So what now?
> 
> Well, currently, the pastor where I go to church is of the mind that when we understand our sin, we repent. And that in the case of divorces with new marriages, we don't upend everyone's current situation. We purpose from today forward to live in accordance with the Bible, try to make amends with those we hurt, and stay in the current marriage faithfully.
> 
> Now here's the kicker......that bothers people who don't really understand and haven't experienced salvation because there's no "penance" or "justice" or whatever. Because when Jesus died for our sins, HE took the punishment. Which makes it seem like a free pass. It isn't, but that is a whole other theological discussion. Our sin cost Jesus EVERYTHING, which part of the magnitude of the love involved.
> 
> I do not expect someone who is not a believer in God or Jesus to really get or buy into that. If you scrutinize it, it doesn't make the kind of sense we consider logical.
> 
> So there. I answered as honestly as possible with no ulterior motive or attempt to proselytize. And with honest respect.
> 
> Hopefully it can go both ways.


Very well said. If you believe the Bible is the word on God then the best you can do is live by it. In the end, its not your decision if you lived a life that is worthy of his kingdom. No one can really be sure.


----------



## BluesPower

OnTheFly said:


> Interesting.
> 
> Seems counter intuitive that a religion that is founded on forgiveness for all my sins (past, present, and future, earthly) by the one act of Jesus Christ's work on the cross, would counsel someone to NOT forgive.
> 
> When the Apostle Peter asked Jesus how many times to forgive....7 times? No, 70x7, was the answer. In essence, don't stop forgiving, because it'll bring our mind back to the sweetest forgiveness WE have received.
> 
> Apart from Dexter-ing another person, adultery in my opinion, is about the cruelest thing you can do to another person.
> 
> In the last two thousand years, the shed blood of Christ has washed the sins of countless adulterers away. These are sins committed against a thrice holy God. Yet, I, shouldn't?
> 
> The story of the woman caught in adultery is illuminating. Even the sin hardened Pharisees couldn't pick up a rock when Jesus said, ''Let him who is without sin cast the first stone''.
> 
> Finally, the parable of the man who owed the King a sum of money that could not be repaid. The man begged for mercy and the King granted forgiveness. His debt was erased. The man went out in the street and found a man that owed him a days worth of money and demanded to be paid. The second man begged for mercy. The first man refused and had the second man thrown in jail. When the King heard of the actions of the first man......well, you read it, it's not a good ending for the first man.
> 
> https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+18:21-35&version=MEV
> 
> This is an illustration of the forgiveness of God.
> 
> Forgiveness is good for the soul.
> 
> Disclaimer: This does not give the WS a free pass.....obviously.


While this post is beautiful I believe that the last analogy is incorrect. 

But the thoughts about forgiveness, while well written and pretty, do not really correlate with what @sokillme is saying. 

What I believe @sokillme is trying to say is this... In modern christen churches their manta, or focus, seems to be stay married at all costs. 

Now, you can argue if 1) that is the proper mantra? 2) What does "all costs" mean? 3) is withholding sex grounds for divorce from a biblical perspective and on and on...

But here is the rub... LOTS of messed up, frankly bad, and sometimes just downright sick people, HIDE behind their take on exactly what the bible says, and take advantage of women, and men that do not have the power or decrement to actually understand that what they are going through is abuse at some level and they need to get out...

This is the disservice that some of the modern churches perform on their flock and in my book it is wrong... 

We could debate the elements, or the motivations, or a hundred other things but what we cannot debate is that it happens and it is an anathema not only to the church, but to anyone that has common sense...


----------



## arbitrator

*Being the consummate lifelong New Testament United Methodist, there are scriptural references as to when divorce is permissible!

Those are in the instances of adultery, spousal/child abuse, or abandonment. There are some pointed biblical references, however, to the subject matter of remarriage!

At Judgment, the loving Father may well dispatch one to hell for many sinful things, but the primary reason will undoubtedly be for the sin of non-belief!*


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

BluesPower said:


> Now, you can argue if 1) that is the proper mantra? 2) What does "all costs" mean? 3) is withholding sex grounds for divorce from a biblical perspective and on and on...
> 
> But here is the rub... LOTS of messed up, frankly bad, and sometimes just downright sick people, HIDE behind their take on exactly what the bible says, and take advantage of women, and men that do not have the power or decrement to actually understand that what they are going through is abuse at some level and they need to get out...
> 
> This is the disservice that some of the modern churches perform on their flock and in my book it is wrong...
> 
> We could debate the elements, or the motivations, or a hundred other things but what we cannot debate is that it happens and it is an anathema not only to the church, but to anyone that has common sense...


I think there are some messed up marriages that one spouse's hand is forced one way or another, whether abuse or adultery, and divorce is the only option. A sexless marriage could be included, but on a purely religious basis... I just don't know. 

In many cases though, divorce is treated as a transaction. Your spouse wore out there usefulness, time to trade them in. No wonder why marriage has lost its place in society. If it was seen as a stabalizer some 50 years ago, that you could build a family upon, that value has been depreciated over time by many forces in society. 

Its rather shocking how any problem on TAM, and there are a bunch of posters that launch into a 'you need to divorce their ass' speech. Of course, there is the other side of the story that is never written. 

I would never advise anyone to get married anymore. Its just a risky bet now that divorce is as natural as changing jobs. And if you want the family, you better vet the hell out of that person...live with them, know what you are getting into and what their values are. But its still a high risk situation regardless. People tend to change over time and you may not.


----------



## personofinterest

" In many cases though, divorce is treated as a transaction. Your spouse wore out there usefulness, time to trade them in. No wonder why marriage has lost its place in society. If it was seen as a stabalizer some 50 years ago, that you could build a family upon, that value has been depreciated over time by many forces in society. 

Its rather shocking how any problem on TAM, and there are a bunch of posters that launch into a 'you need to divorce their ass' speech. Of course, there is the other side of the story that is never written. "

So sadly true


----------



## Ursula

Oh goodie, a heated religious thread! I’m not religious, so I’m not going to pretend that I know all about the bible, but will say that a person’s religious beliefs shouldn’t matter. If they’re in an unhappy/toxic marriage, they have every right to change things around and find happiness again. I would think that God would want people to be happy.


----------



## Mr The Other

Cletus said:


> Hmm, I would absolutely rank the B'ahai higher on tolerance, and most Buddhists too. Christianity seems to fall somewhere in the middle, depending on the particular flavor. The major Protestant branches like Methodists are very tolerant, Southern Baptists a whole lot less so. Still, I agree that I don't find Western Christianity in general to be overly intolerant of other religions - but by no means the gold standard.


My own personal UK experience is that Churches, Hindu and Sikh temples and Mosques are generally positively welcoming. Buddist centres are welcoming, but tend to think it is very special of them and Synagogues tend to not be welcoming. 

Then, you go to the USA and things change. I am not sure the actual religion has much to do with it.


----------



## sokillme

BluesPower said:


> While this post is beautiful I believe that the last analogy is incorrect.
> 
> But the thoughts about forgiveness, while well written and pretty, do not really correlate with what @sokillme is saying.
> 
> What I believe @sokillme is trying to say is this... In modern christen churches their manta, or focus, seems to be stay married at all costs.
> 
> Now, you can argue if 1) that is the proper mantra? 2) What does "all costs" mean? 3) is withholding sex grounds for divorce from a biblical perspective and on and on...
> 
> But here is the rub... LOTS of messed up, frankly bad, and sometimes just downright sick people, HIDE behind their take on exactly what the bible says, and take advantage of women, and men that do not have the power or decrement to actually understand that what they are going through is abuse at some level and they need to get out...
> 
> This is the disservice that some of the modern churches perform on their flock and in my book it is wrong...
> 
> We could debate the elements, or the motivations, or a hundred other things but what we cannot debate is that it happens and it is an anathema not only to the church, but to anyone that has common sense...


At least in my experience modern Christians seem to think divorce is worse then adultery or spousal abuse. People will celebrate someone who "repents" from abusing their spouse either physically or by having an affair as someone whom God changed. Those very same people who celebrate the abusers will look down on someone who divorced without even knowing the circumstances. They will also pressure someone who has been abused and is done telling them they need to forgive (meaning stay together) as it is the "Christian" thing to go and God hates divorce. Now I should add the one caveat being that not all Christians do this just to be fair. I would say that is a minority though. 

Often they are told forgive like Jesus forgives the adulterous women, as was brought up above, which is the "He who cast the first stone" story that is often mentioned. But that's a story of someones life being spared, not removing all consequences from her adultery. He never told the guy she was cheating on, "You must stay because God hates divorce", didn't say anything about him. But I believe in the God hates divorce chapter he gives the out for sexual immorality (which I think is very deliberate), I personally believe sexual immorality includes withholding sex, given what Paul said about doing that. 

I am not a fan of free rain divorce though. I think it goes against Christian teaching to divorce because you are bored or your spouse or life doesn't live up to all the expectations that you expected them to. I do think it's OK to do so when it comes to abuse. But even if you don't divorce you don't have to live with them. And it needs to be said Forgiveness != Stay married. 

When it comes to cheating and divorce, all that needs to be said is yes God hates divorce, but up until the new testament he gave the death penalty for adultery, so you tell me what he thinks is worse. Christians should follow suit.


----------



## sokillme

OnTheFly said:


> Interesting.
> 
> Seems counter intuitive that a religion that is founded on forgiveness for all my sins (past, present, and future, earthly) by the one act of Jesus Christ's work on the cross, would counsel someone to NOT forgive.
> 
> When the Apostle Peter asked Jesus how many times to forgive....7 times? No, 70x7, was the answer. In essence, don't stop forgiving, because it'll bring our mind back to the sweetest forgiveness WE have received.
> 
> Apart from Dexter-ing another person, adultery in my opinion, is about the cruelest thing you can do to another person.
> 
> In the last two thousand years, the shed blood of Christ has washed the sins of countless adulterers away. These are sins committed against a thrice holy God. Yet, I, shouldn't?
> 
> The story of the woman caught in adultery is illuminating. Even the sin hardened Pharisees couldn't pick up a rock when Jesus said, ''Let him who is without sin cast the first stone''.
> 
> Finally, the parable of the man who owed the King a sum of money that could not be repaid. The man begged for mercy and the King granted forgiveness. His debt was erased. The man went out in the street and found a man that owed him a days worth of money and demanded to be paid. The second man begged for mercy. The first man refused and had the second man thrown in jail. When the King heard of the actions of the first man......well, you read it, it's not a good ending for the first man.
> 
> https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+18:21-35&version=MEV
> 
> This is an illustration of the forgiveness of God.
> 
> Forgiveness is good for the soul.
> 
> Disclaimer: This does not give the WS a free pass.....obviously.


You're right my quote should read "stay with" not "forgive" See above. Forgiveness is the basic tenant of Christianity.


----------



## MJJEAN

CraigBesuden said:


> The Catholic position hasn’t changed in theory (no divorce), but it has changed in practice through easily granted annulments. So if you are Catholic and wish to leave your spouse of 20 years, the Church will investigate and conclude that there never was any actual marriage.


Not true at all. The reason many, most even, Annulments are granted is that priests screen applicants before they apply and advise them as to whether or not they have grounds. Those who have low to no chance of receiving a Decree of Nullity tend to not apply. Those that have legitimate grounds tend to apply.

I've been through the Annulment process. 

Step 1) Apply. This involves a lengthy and very invasive "questionnaire" asking everything from the family of origin views on marriage and divorce to the marital sex life. Mine was 19 pages, typewritten. If there are any court documents, social services documents, counseling documents or police reports pertinent to the case they are also submitted.

Step 2) The Church sends questionnaires to the ex-spouse and submitted Witnesses who were there around the time of marriage and can testify as to the state of the couple and their union. The Church will also contact Witnesses by phone for a phone or in person interview, same with the spouses. Psychological assessment may be requested.

Step 3) A Defender of the Bond and a Procurator/Advocate read the case file and then argue the case in front of the Tribunal. The Defender argues in favor of the marriage being valid. The Procurator/Advocate argues in favor of the marriage being invalid.

Final Step) The Tribunal makes a determination and the ex-spouses are notified. If either wants to appeal they can appeal all the way to the Roman Rota, if they so please.

Does the Church investigate and approve all applications? Absolutely not.


----------



## CraigBesuden

> I would never advise anyone to get married anymore. Its just a risky bet now that divorce is as natural as changing jobs. And if you want the family, you better vet the hell out of that person...live with them, know what you are getting into and what their values are. But its still a high risk situation regardless. People tend to change over time and you may not.


Divorce rate for college educated women (marriages that fail to last at least twenty years): 22%

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/12/04/education-and-marriage/

Divorce rates are higher if you were previously divorced, had kids from a prior relationship, etc. 

Your career is also a factor. Bartenders, flight attendants, gaming industry and telemarketers have high divorce rates:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/qz.com...es-in-america-by-occupation-and-industry/amp/

Families that attend church weekly have low divorce rates.

I suspect a lot of those divorces were deserved. There are tests you can take that supposedly predict with over 90% accuracy if you’ll divorce. I’d advise taking one before marrying. But I can’t see advising most people against marriage.


----------



## Cletus

CraigBesuden said:


> Divorce rate for college educated women (marriages that fail to last at least twenty years): 22%
> 
> https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/12/04/education-and-marriage/
> 
> Divorce rates are higher if you were previously divorced, had kids from a prior relationship, etc.
> 
> Your career is also a factor:
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/qz.com...es-in-america-by-occupation-and-industry/amp/


Yes. Successful marriage has become a perk of affluence.


----------



## Diana7

Gods ideal is that marriage is for life. He does allow divorce for the most serious things such as sexual sin(not just adultery), and abandonment. 
He always recognises a divorce as ending a marriage in the Bible. If the marriage has ended you are free to marry again as you are single. 
Of course in many cases such as my husbands, people are divorced against their will, so they have no choice. We both have Biblical reasons to be divorced. 

I have never encountered any negativity or condemnation from other Christians about my divorce. 

The RC church forbids divorce and yet allows it by calling it an annulment. As I see it the only grounds for an annulment are if the marriage isn't been consummated.


----------



## arbitrator

Cletus said:


> *Yes. Successful marriage has become a perk of affluence.*


*The sad but unfortunate fact of the matter is that nowadays it seems to take money, and a plethora of it, to make a marriage work! Without it, it is largely doomed to failure!

By the very same token, that plethora of money seems likely to become a catalyst in the marriage, because the non-earner will often feel obliged to go after their "fair share," or even more, in a property division money grab, more especially with procuring the custody of children as a backdrop!

And the purveyor of the income can cheat and then likely use a portion of those aforementioned funds to insulate themselves from the property division process by procurement of an ironclad prenuptial agreement, effectively kicking the betrayed spouse to the curb!

It's a rather sad commentary!*


----------



## sokillme

CraigBesuden said:


> Divorce rate for college educated women (marriages that fail to last at least twenty years): 22%
> 
> https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/12/04/education-and-marriage/
> 
> Divorce rates are higher if you were previously divorced, had kids from a prior relationship, etc.
> 
> Your career is also a factor. Bartenders, flight attendants, gaming industry and telemarketers have high divorce rates:
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/qz.com...es-in-america-by-occupation-and-industry/amp/
> 
> Families that attend church weekly have low divorce rates.
> 
> I suspect a lot of those divorces were deserved. There are tests you can take that supposedly predict with over 90% accuracy if you’ll divorce. I’d advise taking one before marrying. But I can’t see advising most people against marriage.


The problem with studies like this is they operate on the assumption that Divorce is always bad thing when many times it necessary and in extreme circumstances a good thing.


----------



## Cletus

sokillme said:


> The problem with studies like this is they operate on the assumption that Divorce is always bad thing when many times it necessary and in extreme circumstances a good thing.


Huh? These are strictly rate studies. They don't even care if divorce is good or bad, just which career or demographic group to which you belong.


----------



## sokillme

Cletus said:


> Huh? These are strictly rate studies. They don't even care if divorce is good or bad, just which career or demographic group to which you belong.


Maybe not the studies but the presumption is that it's naturally a bad thing.


----------



## OnTheFly

https://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2018/11/24/divorce-part-7-final/

A deep dive into all the relevant passages regarding marriage, divorce, and remarriage from a protestant viewpoint, but the catholic and Eastern Orthodox views are touched upon also.

It's a long read, but worth it. 

The comment section is excellent too, as the author is challenged by opponents. All angles are covered.


----------



## Thound

Man may change (but he really doesn't) but he Word of God remains the same. There's a reason I'm not divorced right now.


----------



## personofinterest

Since we are talking about The Bible and how it never changes, I am going to up the ante a bit. I hear a lot of people talking about not being divorced because of what The Bible says. However, The Bible has more than just that to say about marriage. In if Asians chapter 5, The Bible says that a husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church. That is just one of several verses. So… while it may seem noble for someone to stay in a badd marriage and proclaim that they will not divorce because of The Bible, if you are staying in your marriage because you believe God hates divorce, but you are not choosing to love your wife as Christ loved the church, you are not noble. You are simply a mortar. A man or woman who stays with their spouse in misery because The Bible says they can't divorce, and yet they refuse to follow the bible's instruction to love and serve their spouse, is not pleasing God. They are just being a martyr. If you are going to be married, be married. Don't lick your wounds, don't wallow in your misery, don't make a list of all your spouse's shortcomings. If you are going to remain married to them, then you love them the way God said to love them. Otherwise your just wallowing. So I have no respect for someone who believes themselves to be holy because they refused to divorce and yet they are constantly complaining and miserable about the spouse they refused to divorce.


----------



## Diana7

QUOTE=personofinterest;19934517]Since we are talking about The Bible and how it never changes, I am going to up the ante a bit. I hear a lot of people talking about not being divorced because of what The Bible says. However, The Bible has more than just that to say about marriage. In if Asians chapter 5, The Bible says that a husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church. That is just one of several verses. So… while it may seem noble for someone to stay in a badd marriage and proclaim that they will not divorce because of The Bible, if you are staying in your marriage because you believe God hates divorce, but you are not choosing to love your wife as Christ loved the church, you are not noble. You are simply a mortar. A man or woman who stays with their spouse in misery because The Bible says they can't divorce, and yet they refuse to follow the bible's instruction to love and serve their spouse, is not pleasing God. They are just being a martyr. If you are going to be married, be married. Don't lick your wounds, don't wallow in your misery, don't make a list of all your spouse's shortcomings. If you are going to remain married to them, then you love them the way God said to love them. Otherwise your just wallowing. So I have no respect for someone who believes themselves to be holy because they refused to divorce and yet they are constantly complaining and miserable about the spouse they refused to divorce.[/QUOTE] 

Great point. 
I agree in divorce for the most serious situations, serious abuse of the spouse or children, sexual sins, abandonment etc, but apart from that no.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

personofinterest said:


> Since we are talking about The Bible and how it never changes, I am going to up the ante a bit. I hear a lot of people talking about not being divorced because of what The Bible says. However, The Bible has more than just that to say about marriage. In if Asians chapter 5, The Bible says that a husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church. That is just one of several verses. So… while it may seem noble for someone to stay in a badd marriage and proclaim that they will not divorce because of The Bible, if you are staying in your marriage because you believe God hates divorce, but you are not choosing to love your wife as Christ loved the church, you are not noble. You are simply a mortar. A man or woman who stays with their spouse in misery because The Bible says they can't divorce, and yet they refuse to follow the bible's instruction to love and serve their spouse, is not pleasing God. They are just being a martyr. If you are going to be married, be married. Don't lick your wounds, don't wallow in your misery, don't make a list of all your spouse's shortcomings. If you are going to remain married to them, then you love them the way God said to love them. Otherwise your just wallowing. So I have no respect for someone who believes themselves to be holy because they refused to divorce and yet they are constantly complaining and miserable about the spouse they refused to divorce.


Great post... but the (presumably) autocorrect errors made me chuckle.


----------



## personofinterest

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Great post... but the (presumably) autocorrect errors made me chuckle.


Yeah, autocorrect hates my accent.

I feel about marriage when it isn't great the same way I feel about recovery after an affair.

Simply "staying married" get you no respect brownie points if you choose to wear your misery like a badge.


----------



## Diana7

sokillme said:


> One thing I learned from growing up in the Church. Being around the leadership of the church. There really is no difference then Christians and Non-Christians. There are good and bad every group. Republican, Liberal, Redsox fan, and Yankee fan. Some are hypocrites some are true believers. (Mets fans are generally good but suckers).
> 
> The point is when it comes to Christianity the idea is you become a Christian because you believe you need a savior, not because you are perfect. And if you think it gives you an excuse to hold your "perfection" over everyone else you are not doing it right.
> 
> That being said I think lots of Churches would actually do better to tell their congregation to divorce, and do harm teaching them to forgive the most heinous of acts at least in my opinion.


No one should tell anyone to divorce unless its for the most serious reasons. As for forgiveness, its vital for our well being to forgive and let things in the past go. Holding on to bitterness and anger and unforgiveness is so damaging.


----------



## personofinterest

Diana7 said:


> sokillme said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing I learned from growing up in the Church. Being around the leadership of the church. There really is no difference then Christians and Non-Christians. There are good and bad every group. Republican, Liberal, Redsox fan, and Yankee fan. Some are hypocrites some are true believers. (Mets fans are generally good but suckers).
> 
> The point is when it comes to Christianity the idea is you become a Christian because you believe you need a savior, not because you are perfect. And if you think it gives you an excuse to hold your "perfection" over everyone else you are not doing it right.
> 
> That being said I think lots of Churches would actually do better to tell their congregation to divorce, and do harm teaching them to forgive the most heinous of acts at least in my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> No one should tell anyone to divorce unless its for the most serious reasons. As for forgiveness, its vital for our well being to forgive and let things in the past go. Holding on to bitterness and anger and unforgiveness is so damaging.
Click to expand...

Correct Diana. Because we don't live by pop psychology, feelings, or past experience. We live by the principles of Scripture, which do not change.

To suggest that it will harm a Christian to obey God's Wird is to completely misunderstand Christianity.


----------



## jlcrome

Does God see the heart vs. results? 
I throw this one in there the church and society wants results like being married 60 years until death results first time for both parties. Let's say no adultry was involved sounds good but let's go another notch and say the marriage was a complete misery. Lot's of strife, hostilty, contempt the whole 9 yards but both of them manage to miserbly make it right slap into their graves with a notch on their belt. 
Let's take another couple who is currently married but this is a "remarriage" 2nd or 3rd one. Whether or not if it was on biblical grounds is not the issue but the couple has a sincere heart. Both are christians with a past both seek forgiveness from God from past marital failures both are walking in faith with good fruits. There marriage is full of love and a picture of what it should be. 

Now tell me again which marriage God is more pleased with?? I say this because people want results God see's the heart


----------



## TJW

jlcrome said:


> Does God see the heart vs. results?
> I throw this one in there the church and society wants results like being married 60 years until death results first time for both parties. Let's say no adultry was involved sounds good but let's go another notch and say the marriage was a complete misery. Lot's of strife, hostilty, contempt the whole 9 yards but both of them manage to miserbly make it right slap into their graves with a notch on their belt.


In marriage, "results" are always dependent upon both people. But "heart" only upon one....

Let's take it one more notch.... say one of this couple was a committed christian, who lived life with a spouse who was full of "strife, hostility, contempt"..... but the needs of the vengeful partner were continued, carefully considered, and provided for by the committed christian spouse.....remembering that even a vengeful partner is a person for whom Jesus died.....

What will Jesus say to His "sheep" ? Will the "notch on the belt" suddenly be transformed to "....well done, thou good and faithful servant....." ??


----------



## jlcrome

That really wasn't my point it more along the line of the parable or the pharasee and the tax collector. One was boasting in his own perfections and condemning the obvious sinner who probably didn't have life go his ways. The tax collector walk away more rightous this is what i'm presenting here. This is a good example of inner heart person who may had bad luck in life bad choices maybe including being remarried. The pharasee may be the one married once but at the same token lashing out on others who failed in life like divorce. Just an analogy I use to show that yes the inner heart triumphs over results.


----------



## personofinterest

jlcrome said:


> That really wasn't my point it more along the line of the parable or the pharasee and the tax collector. One was boasting in his own perfections and condemning the obvious sinner who probably didn't have life go his ways. The tax collector walk away more rightous this is what i'm presenting here. This is a good example of inner heart person who may had bad luck in life bad choices maybe including being remarried. The pharasee may be the one married once but at the same token lashing out on others who failed in life like divorce. Just an analogy I use to show that yes the inner heart triumphs over results.


Regardless of your "inner heart," if God calls it sin, it's sin.

Besides, your parable analogy doesn't fly anyway. In the parable, the tax collector humbly confessed and grieved over his sin. You seem to be comparing sins in order to justify some of them. Which would actually make you more like the pharisee.


----------

