# Religious Beliefs and Divorce



## mxpx4182

How have your religious beliefs effected your opinions on divorce?


----------



## Betrayedone

A LOT.....divorce has really re-enforced my beliefs and brought my religion to the surface. That's the up side.


----------



## Married but Happy

Marriage is solely a civil process, and before that a social, community recognition. Marriage only became associated with religion in the twelfth century. If you buy into a particular religion, you may accept marriage as a religious rite, but even as such it was an invention of man. Divorce is therefore no more than dissolving a contract when it is no longer viable, IMO.



> The early church had no specific rite for marriage. This was left up to the secular authorities of the Roman Empire, since marriage is a legal concern for the legitimacy of heirs. When the Empire became Christian under Constantine, Christian emperors continued the imperial control of marriage, as the Code of Justinian makes clear.


... and ...



> Only in the twelfth century was a claim made for some supernatural favor (grace) bestowed on marriage as a sacrament. By the next century marriage had been added to the biblically sacred number of seven sacraments. Since Thomas Aquinas argued that the spouses’ consent is the efficient cause of marriage and the seal of intercourse was the final cause, it is hard to see what a priest’s blessing could add to the reality of the bond. And bad effects followed. This sacralizing of the natural reality led to a demoting of Yahwist marriage, the only kind Jesus recognized, as inferior to “true marriage” in a church.


The Myth About Marriage by Garry Wills | NYRblog | The New York Review of Books

Also: Marriage Equality and Religion: Frequently Asked Questions | CLGS


----------



## jld

I grew up Catholic and the teaching was no divorce. Though, many Catholics even when I was young were divorcing and having no trouble getting annulments.

The real question, though, mx, is what are your beliefs? And how are they changing? Are you struggling with this?


----------



## hawkeye

I have no religious beliefs. I think that religion causes too many people to stay to together who'd be better off apart.


----------



## arbitrator

*Biblically speaking, there are only three acceptable reasons for divorce:


Adultery
Abandonment
Physical or Mental Abuse of a Spouse or a Child
*


----------



## mablenc

arbitrator said:


> *Biblically speaking, there are only three acceptable reasons for divorce:
> 
> 
> Adultery
> Abandonment
> Physical or Mental Abuse of a Spouse or a Child
> *


Can you site them? Please, if you have them on hand.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## mxpx4182

jld said:


> I grew up Catholic and the teaching w
> 
> 
> HTML:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> as no divorce. Though, many Catholics even when I was young were divorcing and having no trouble getting annulments.
> 
> The real question, though, mx, is what are your beliefs? And how are they changing? Are you struggling with this?



Right now I'm trying to figure out what I believe. http://talkaboutmarriage.com/general-relationship-discussion/156857-how-resolve-differences.html Some serious things are going down.


----------



## arbitrator

mablenc said:


> Can you site them? Please, if you have them on hand.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


*Sexual Immorality or Infidelity- Matthew 5:32
Abandonment of Spouse or Children- 1 Corinthians 7:15
Physical/Emotional Abuse of Spouse or Child- 1 Corinthians 4:6*

*I might add that these are the generally accepted reasons for a divorce, at least in the United Methodist Church.*


----------



## Dontknowhow2love

arbitrator said:


> *Biblically speaking, there are only three acceptable reasons for divorce:
> 
> 
> Adultery
> Abandonment
> Physical or Mental Abuse of a Spouse or a Child
> *


I so agree with this


----------



## hawkeye

arbitrator said:


> *Sexual Immorality or Infidelity- Matthew 5:32
> Abandonment of Spouse or Children- 1 Corinthians 7:15
> Physical/Emotional Abuse of Spouse or Child- 1 Corinthians 4:6*
> 
> *I might add that these are the generally accepted reasons for a divorce, at least in the United Methodist Church.*


Matthew 5:32: "but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

I'm unsure how you reconcile that verse with your other valid reasons for divorce.


----------



## arbitrator

hawkeye said:


> Matthew 5:32: "but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, *except for the reason of unchastity*, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."
> 
> I'm unsure how you reconcile that verse with your other valid reasons for divorce.


*Hawk: The way I read into Matthew 5:32 is that it is indeed construed to be adultery if a divorced man knowingly marries another divorced woman who had been divorced by a prior husband for reasons of adultery that she had committed against their marriage.

Anything else would seemingly be legitimate!*


----------



## mxpx4182

Is that sexist? Since it doesn't say anything about women marrying divorced men. Again, I'm sure we could just assume this applies to men too, but male/female relationships were very different then than they are here and now.


----------



## broder62

Married but Happy said:


> Marriage is solely a civil process, and before that a social, community recognition. Marriage only became associated with religion in the twelfth century. If you buy into a particular religion, you may accept marriage as a religious rite, but even as such it was an invention of man. Divorce is therefore no more than dissolving a contract when it is no longer viable, IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> ... and ...
> 
> 
> 
> The Myth About Marriage by Garry Wills | NYRblog | The New York Review of Books
> 
> Also: Marriage Equality and Religion: Frequently Asked Questions | CLGS


Completely wrong. It was created by God in the Garden.


----------



## over20

Married but Happy said:


> Marriage is solely a civil process, and before that a social, community recognition. Marriage only became associated with religion in the twelfth century. If you buy into a particular religion, you may accept marriage as a religious rite, but even as such it was an invention of man. Divorce is therefore no more than dissolving a contract when it is no longer viable, IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> ... and ...
> 
> 
> 
> The Myth About Marriage by Garry Wills | NYRblog | The New York Review of Books
> 
> Also: Marriage Equality and Religion: Frequently Asked Questions | CLGS


Marriage was created by God in the Garden of Eden before the fall of Man. It is a sacred covenant. Marriage is God's idea. A physical, emotional and spiritual union between a man and a woman. I will add I am a Christian that believes the Word of God is holy, without sin.


----------



## hawkeye

over20 said:


> Marriage was created by God in the Garden of Eden before the fall of Man. It is a sacred covenant. Marriage is God's idea. A physical, emotional and spiritual union between a man and a woman. I will add I am a Christian that believes the Word of God is holy, without sin.


More from god's sacred idea of marriage....

" If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

LOL


----------



## Jellybeans

mxpx4182 said:


> How have your religious beliefs effected your opinions on divorce?


Not that I plan on it, but if I ever do remarry, it will not be in the church or get a "blessing." Simply contracts. Romantic, yeah?


----------



## COGypsy

over20 said:


> the Word of God is holy, without sin.


How can words sin? Wouldn't all words be without sin? They're just bundles of letters. How they may be interpreted puts the "sin" on the reader or the writer, but words.....not sentient enough to sin.


----------



## mablenc

I mean no offense to anyone but, it remined me of what my MIL says, "it's one thing to be a Christian, it's another thing to be a doormat."


----------



## Machiavelli

over20 said:


> Marriage was created by God in the Garden of Eden before the fall of Man. It is a sacred covenant. Marriage is God's idea. A physical, emotional and spiritual union between a man and a woman. I will add I am a Christian that believes the Word of God is holy, without sin.


I've never read the words marriage, husband, wife, or marry in the Genesis account of Adam and Eve. However, it is completely wrong to state that there was no religious aspect to marriage prior to the 12th century. The Jewish marriage rites of first century Judea were referred to repeatedly by Jesus in his teachings and the Romans had wedding ceremonies that included religion. 

What is relatively new about marriage is the involvement of the government.


----------



## Machiavelli

arbitrator said:


> *Sexual Immorality or Infidelity- Matthew 5:32
> Abandonment of Spouse or Children- 1 Corinthians 7:15
> Physical/Emotional Abuse of Spouse or Child- 1 Corinthians 4:6*
> 
> I might add that these are the generally accepted reasons for a divorce, at least in the United Methodist Church.


The first two were traditional to Protestants. You might want to double check I COR 4:6.

The English Puritans also considered failure to put out as cause for divorce for both men and women, since they were failing to uphold Paul's marriage directives. People like Sir Thomas More, RCC chancellor for Henry VIII considered the Puritans' interest in marital passion to be hugely wrong, since you really were not supposed to have sexual passion within your marriage; that was supposed to be reserved for one's mistresses.

What almost everyone fails to remember, and some deliberately deny, is that at the time of Christ people were free to practice their traditional marriage customs so long as they did not hold Roman citizenship, which the vast majority of Jews did not hold. The Jews of Judea, as did their Hebrew forebears, practiced polygyny. There was no expectation that a man would limit himself to one woman, whether he was married or not. That really puts a very different spin on things from what the average modern gets when he reads and imagines modern attitudes to marriage among these people.


----------



## over20

Machiavelli said:


> I've never read the words marriage, husband, wife, or marry in the Genesis account of Adam and Eve. However, it is completely wrong to state that there was no religious aspect to marriage prior to the 12th century. The Jewish marriage rites of first century Judea were referred to repeatedly by Jesus in his teachings and the Romans had wedding ceremonies that included religion.
> 
> What is relatively new about marriage is the involvement of the government.


"But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep and while he was sleeping he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh, she shall be called woman, for she was taken out of man. For this reason a MAN will leave his father and mother and be UNITED to his WIFE and they will become ONE flesh. The man and his wife were both naked and felt no shame."

Genesis 2 :20 b-25.

This is the very first marriage. Marriage is a UNION. I think it also significant that God did not take a bone from the foot of Adam (man ruling over woman) or skull of Adam (woman ruling over man). God took bone from a rib, close to the heart area and mid section of man, representing equality in importance but different in function...the beautiful balance between husbands and wives.

On a different note the Song of Songs is a whole book written about King Solomon and his new bride and the early days of their marriage....very explicit and romantic . Also reinforcing the beautiful bond one man and one woman should have with each other created by our very loving Maker  :smthumbup:


----------



## over20

COGypsy said:


> How can words sin? Wouldn't all words be without sin? They're just bundles of letters. How they may be interpreted puts the "sin" on the reader or the writer, but words.....not sentient enough to sin.


I am sorry, I didn't express myself correctly.....I meant that because Holy Scripture is God's Book of Love to us, written by men (that God called), but inspired (God-Breathed) by him it is without error.


----------



## over20

hawkeye said:


> More from god's sacred idea of marriage....
> 
> " If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."
> 
> LOL


You are right it does not seem right. It's actually twisted. Our HUMAN mind cannot see the positive in this. The whole book of Deuteronomy, where you got that verse, Deut 22:28:29, is God trying to purge ALL evil from the children of Israel. God order's the man to NOT dishonor the virgin he raped ANY FURTHER by sending her back to her fathers house. God was holding the man ACCOUNTABLE for his actions by NOT allowing divorce from her. God was also protecting the virgin's honor by commanding marriage. No other man would ever have married that woman because she was damaged. 

If we look at Deut 24:5, we read how God wants a recently married husband to be exempt from war for one year so he can stay home and be with his wife.

"If a man has recently married, he must not be sent to war or have any other duty laid on him. For one year he is to be free to stay at home and bring happiness to the wife he has married"

God is good!:angel3:


----------



## Adeline

mablenc said:


> I mean no offense to anyone but, it remined me of what my MIL says, "it's one thing to be a Christian, it's another thing to be a doormat."


wow, I love that!! I am a Christian, but I suppose not overly conservative... whatever that means. My faith does play somewhat of a role in my views on divorce, but it's not the main reason. I guess it's both a faith thing and a moral thing, more that I'm trying to honor my vows of "for better or worse" by trying everything I can before giving up. It was a promise made, one that can be made whether you are religious or an atheist, and I want to try my best to keep that promise.


----------



## Machiavelli

over20 said:


> "But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep and while he was sleeping he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh, she shall be called woman, for she was taken out of man. For this reason a MAN will leave his father and mother and be UNITED to his WIFE and they will become ONE flesh. The man and his wife were both naked and felt no shame."
> 
> Genesis 2 :20 b-25.


There is no biblical Hebrew word for "wife." It actually says "his woman." בְּאִשְׁתֹּו

Becoming one flesh is coitus.




over20 said:


> This is the very first marriage. Marriage is a UNION. I think it also significant that God did not take a bone from the foot of Adam (man ruling over woman) or skull of Adam (woman ruling over man). God took bone from a rib, close to the heart area and mid section of man, representing equality in importance but different in function...the beautiful balance between husbands and wives.


You're adding a lot of commentary to the text.



over20 said:


> On a different note the Song of Songs is a whole book written about King Solomon and his new bride and the early days of their marriage....very explicit and romantic . Also reinforcing the beautiful bond one man and one woman should have with each other created by our very loving Maker  :smthumbup:


Yes, she was one of many. Solomon was a very busy man.


----------



## over20

2ntnuf said:


> I have a feeling that this guy that rapes her will be taken care of  by her family. He will be shamed and treated poorly. He will have married a woman he does not respect. If he beat her or committed adultery, he would be subject to punishment. It's not a win for her or him. I'm not sure I agree or understand God's thoughts there, but why would I understand God?


The rapist is NOT taken care of by the family. On the contrary the rapist has to PAY the father a certain amount of silver for his crime! Highly unusual for the times! The new bride would have a brought a dowry. Deut 22:28-29.

Do you understand though God is establishing a brand NEW moral compass amongst the Israelite's??? It is not ideal or romantic to our human minds.....but to God, He knows what he is doing with His creation.

Thank you for responding....I know it is very confusing....The whole book of Deuteronomy is a rule book God gave to Moses and his new Elders leaving Egypt to the promise Land..God is trying to PURGE evil amongst His people. God is holding the rapist ACCOUNTABLE for his ACTIONS. The rapist has to pay the father of the woman off and has to marry the woman he raped and CANNOT divorce her, meaning you screwed up, pay off the debt and make amends to the woman you hurt for the rest of your life.....

If we read above in Deut 22:25-27..."But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall DIE. Do NOTHING to the girl, she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders his neighbor, for the man found the girl out in the country and though the betrothed girl screamed there was no one to rescue her."

God is very fair and merciful....


----------



## Machiavelli

2ntnuf said:


> I have a feeling that this guy that rapes her will be taken care of  by her family. He will be shamed and treated poorly. He will have married a woman he does not respect. If he beat her or committed adultery, he would be subject to punishment. It's not a win for her or him. I'm not sure I agree or understand God's thoughts there, but why would I understand God?


While the translation of וְשָׁכַ֣ב in Deut 22:28 is "rape," it's actually "to lie with" and the passage does not include force וְהֶחֱזִֽיק־ like Deut 22:25 which indicates forcible rape. It's possibly a restatement of the seduction rule from Exodus 22:16, which uses the exact same word וְשָׁכַ֣ב but gives it the straight reading of "to lie with." My guess is the translators got the idea to call this rape from the "lay hold" וּתְפָשָׂ֖הּ but it certainly doesn't match the usual punishment for rape given elsewhere in the same passage. The reading is almost the same as the seduction rule, as well, but it adds "no divorce" and omits the father's option to cancel the wedding and keep the bride price. 

Also, a couple of things related to the time and place: in ancient Israel girls and boys were married at or even shortly before puberty. The ancients didn't wait around for nature to take its course and pop out random offspring, so there were not going to be large swarms of pubescent virgins wandering around unchaperoned to be seduced or raped, since they were already betrothed or married.


----------



## over20

Machiavelli said:


> There is no biblical Hebrew word for "wife." It actually says "his woman." בְּאִשְׁתֹּו
> 
> Becoming one flesh is coitus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're adding a lot of commentary to the text.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, she was one of many. Solomon was a very busy man.


Are you a pastor?

Are you a Christian...Father/Son/Holy Spirit...the 3 in 1...Christ is your Redeemer?


----------



## Coffee Amore

over20 said:


> Thank you for responding....I know it is very confusing....The whole book of Deuteronomy is a rule book God gave to Moses and his new Elders leaving Egypt to the promise Land..God is trying to PURGE evil amongst His people. God is holding the rapist ACCOUNTABLE for his ACTIONS. *The rapist has to pay the father of the woman off and has to marry the woman he raped and CANNOT divorce her, *meaning you screwed up, pay off the debt and make amends to the woman you hurt for the rest of your life.....
> 
> If we read above in Deut 22:25-27..."But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall DIE. Do NOTHING to the girl, she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders his neighbor, for the man found the girl out in the country and though the betrothed girl screamed there was no one to rescue her."
> 
> God is very fair and merciful....


Being married to your rapist isn't very fair or merciful to the victim of the rape.


----------



## over20

Coffee Amore said:


> Being married to your rapist isn't very fair or merciful to the victim of the rape.


Have you read the whole book of Deuteronomy? Do you know what God is doing? He is trying to PURGE evil amongst his own people........He is laying down the law basically... and yes a woman who had been taken and thrown away by a man would never have been able to marry again. Even through a rape there can be hope...nothing is impossible with GOD.


----------



## over20

2ntnuf said:


> Actually, I meant and further explained that he was probably treated poorly by her family. Not sure if I explained that well. I never thought he would be treated well by her family.
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's what I meant when I said I didn't understand why He would want the rapist to marry the victim. Why would that be any good for the woman/wife/rape victim?
> 
> I know, like I said, which I don't think was clear, her family would probably treat him with the disrespect and dishonor he deserves, making him a servant to the family and their daughter. However, I mentioned that might lead to abuse or adultery, which would get her away from her rapist/husband. Maybe that clears it up a little? Seems like you thought the woman's rapist/husband would be treated well. Not sure if that was because of the emoticon I used or not, but I meant the victim/woman's family would make her husband's life miserable. Hope you understand that, now.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why I commented that it seemed like, as long as the victim's family is around, his punishment might be carried out by them in some manner. How does that not punish the victim more, by having her sleep with her rapist? Isn't that a law of marriage? A wife was expected to submit? I mean, seems like a punishment for her.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure he should die, since he didn't murder anyone, but I do understand the severity to the families of both betrothed and to the betrothed themselves in dishonor and possible slander. I understand the physical and mental trauma of the rape victim, to some extent. The victim could be ostracized as sometimes happens today. I'm assuming those are the reasons for the death penalty. However, that's neither here nor there. I wonder if that was God's reason or man's? It certainly doesn't seem like something Christ would say when He spoke of forgiveness of sins. Although, the man on the cross hanging next to him, was not freed from his suffering. Only his sins were forgiven. In that case, it was the punishment of Rome and in this rape case above, it was God's chosen people who lived in a country with laws following a religion. So, I'm not so sure they are good comparisons.
> 
> The other case we were talking about was if the woman was not betrothed. As I asked above, what in the world could be the reason they should get married?
> 
> Thanks for taking the time to explain this. I hope you understand I wasn't condoning rape. That wasn't my intention. I think I wasn't clear. :scratchhead:


Your sound very wise and intelligent. You make great points. I have been a believer all my life and topics like this grieve me. I don't understand it but I live my life on Faith. I agree with you, how could any good come out of a situation like this.


It isn't fair that a woman who is raped is bound to the man for life. God's wonderful wisdom is so much greater than my little human mind though..If God commanded the rapist to marry his victim, ideally the couple would be able to work through the pain and heal becoming a strong unit....very, very hard even unimaginable but possible through God's grace and mercy.....

The Book of Deuteronomy is basically a new law for the children of Israel. God's people had no moral compass before this, hard to believe I know.

I also look to King David's story. He committed adultery with Bathsheba while her husband, Uriah, is in battle for King David, they conceive a child, the child dies and King David has the husband Uriah killed!! An innocent man!!

Nathan, David's close friend shows him his sin...David repents and marry's poor stricken Bathsheba. David has been known to be a man after God's own heart!!! All of this is still so foreign to me as a human... I mean if a man can commit adultery, have the husband killed, lose a baby and still be saved by grace......GOD IS A MERCIFUL AND FORGIVING GOD.

God's ways are higher than our way's ....

Blessings


----------



## hawkeye

over20 said:


> Have you read the whole book of Deuteronomy? Do you know what God is doing? He is trying to PURGE evil amongst his own people........He is laying down the law basically... and yes a woman who had been taken and thrown away by a man would never have been able to marry again. Even through a rape there can be hope...nothing is impossible with GOD.


Watching Christians fall over themselves trying to justify passages like this is one of my favorite things to do. Give you the rope and let you hang yourself. One of the many reasons I'm so happy to have left religion. No more trying my brain in knots trying to justify the horrifying crap in the bible.

Yes, god's trying to purge evil, by making rape victims marry their rapist. Brilliant. What a wonderful plan the all-knowing, all-loving creator of the universe came up with.


----------



## hawkeye

over20 said:


> It isn't fair that a woman who is raped is bound to the man for life. God's wonderful wisdom is so much greater than my little human mind though..If God commanded the rapist to marry his victim, ideally the couple would be able to work through the pain and heal becoming a strong unit....very, very hard even unimaginable but possible through God's grace and mercy.....


If there really is evil in the world, this is it. This right here. 



> The Book of Deuteronomy is basically a new law for the children of Israel. God's people had no moral compass before this, hard to believe I know.
> 
> I also look to King David's story. He committed adultery with Bathsheba while her husband, Uriah, is in battle for King David, they conceive a child, the child dies and King David has the husband Uriah killed!! An innocent man!!
> 
> Nathan, David's close friend shows him his sin...David repents and marry's poor stricken Bathsheba. David has been known to be a man after God's own heart!!! All of this is still so foreign to me as a human... I mean if a man can commit adultery, have the husband killed, lose a baby and still be saved by grace......GOD IS A MERCIFUL AND FORGIVING GOD.
> 
> God's ways are higher than our way's ....


Yes, killing an innocent child to teach David a lesson. Only in religion is this a good thing. How merciful.


----------



## Machiavelli

over20 said:


> Are you a pastor?


Why do you ask?



over20 said:


> Are you a Christian...Father/Son/Holy Spirit...the 3 in 1...Christ is your Redeemer?


I'm a Christian, but I'm not a churchian.


----------



## mablenc

Adeline said:


> wow, I love that!! I am a Christian, but I suppose not overly conservative... whatever that means. My faith does play somewhat of a role in my views on divorce, but it's not the main reason. I guess it's both a faith thing and a moral thing, more that I'm trying to honor my vows of "for better or worse" by trying everything I can before giving up. It was a promise made, one that can be made whether you are religious or an atheist, and I want to try my best to keep that promise.


My in laws have been married for over 55 years, very religious but she will not tolorate any disrespect. They still hold hands when they walk together.


----------



## 2ntnuf

mablenc said:


> My in laws have been married for over 55 years, very religious but she will not tolorate any disrespect. They still hold hands when they walk together.


Maybe she forces him? Just teasing, but that was the way I read it. "You better hold my hand, or else." "Ah, yes ma'am." 

I had grandparents that were married a very long time. They died in their late eighties and were never married to anyone else. Grandma was 20 when mum was born, so, you do the math. It doesn't mean my grandparents were happy, just committed and content.


----------



## Machiavelli

2ntnuf said:


> Could it be the lesson is to promote marriage, sex within marriage, and children? Maybe rape and marriage to the woman or death depending on the woman's status, was just a metaphor or some other word I can't think of right now , and so, they wanted everyone to know how important they believed these principles were? Just a little food for thought.


As I said, there is room for discussion about whether "lay hands on" necessarily means forcible rape, since the "force in" from the other verses isn't present, but it certainly may do so, since seduction is covered in Exodus. To understand the milieu of the times, you need to understand there was no real central law authority over the nation other than the Judge over Israel and the priests. The cities were essentially self-governing. At the time, the Bible says, "every man did that which was right in his own eyes." No police, only posses of riled up citizens.

Basically, women were married at puberty, so it's not like there are large numbers of virgin potential rape victims wandering about, especially in the violent times of ancient Israel. Unlike what one poster claimed, a bride-price had to be paid by the groom or his family. In earlier societies where wives were considered low value/status, women brought a dowry to the marriage; basically a payoff to the groom to take her off the family's hands. When women were valued with higher status, as in Israel, then men paid a bride-price to compensate the family for the loss. Naturally, virgins had a higher sexual market value, just as they have today, so families had a keen interest in making sure they were intact on the wedding day. 

As a British judge said 400 years ago, "rape is an easy accusation to make and a hard one to prove." For that reason, discovery in the act or immediately thereafter, was required in all the scriptures referencing rape. In the case of the unbetrothed virgin, per Deut 22:29, 50 shekels of silver was the cash price to the family. Shekels were about 10.5 grams, so this would be 525 grams of silver. At that time, this would be about five years labor. Twenty shekels would be the price of a slave at the time, so this was a pretty good financial hit for the rapist, if this verse is addressing rape.

As for the shotgun marriage with no divorce (actually "put away") by the husband, this was a guarantee of lifetime support. Also, note that the father can veto the shotgun marriage while collecting the bride-price in the case of seduction of a virgin, so this would also be a possibility in this case as well.


----------



## over20

hawkeye said:


> Watching Christians fall over themselves trying to justify passages like this is one of my favorite things to do. Give you the rope and let you hang yourself. One of the many reasons I'm so happy to have left religion. No more trying my brain in knots trying to justify the horrifying crap in the bible.
> 
> Yes, god's trying to purge evil, by making rape victims marry their rapist. Brilliant. What a wonderful plan the all-knowing, all-loving creator of the universe came up with.


With all due respect, please don't judge me or other Christians. We don't fall all over ourselves to justify passages in the Bible. We are believers and are anticipating our death to GO HOME to HEAVEN. We are ALL going to die one day. ..For you to offer a rope to us to hang ourselves is just VERY bad taste and character.. I feel for you, that whatever happened to you in or out of the church or religion as you call it, really scarred you. Most of the time I do not understand it myself....Life and death are so very hard to deal with....sometimes I wonder myself....where is God???

Why do you have such hatred towards Scripture and the Holy Gospel? :scratchhead:


----------



## over20

Machiavelli said:


> Why do you ask?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a Christian, but I'm not a churchian.


I only asked because you sound very well read. Your vocab is extraordinary and you write as if you have a theological background.

I meant it as a compliment

Blessings


----------



## Machiavelli

over20 said:


> I only asked because you sound very well read. Your vocab is extraordinary and you write as if you have a theological background.
> 
> I meant it as a compliment
> 
> Blessings


Thanks very much for those compliments. I'm just a regular Christian who has an interest in knowing the whys and wherefores of my beliefs. I do have formal for-credit instruction in these topics at the post secondary level, strictly for my own knowledge. I'm not nor have I ever been a pastor or any other type of professional Christian.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Machiavelli said:


> As I said, there is room for discussion about whether "lay hands on" necessarily means forcible rape, since the "force in" from the other verses isn't present, but it certainly may do so, since seduction is covered in Exodus. To understand the milieu of the times, you need to understand there was no real central law authority over the nation other than the Judge over Israel and the priests. The cities were essentially self-governing. At the time, the Bible says, "every man did that which was right in his own eyes." No police, only posses of riled up citizens.
> 
> Basically, women were married at puberty, so it's not like there are large numbers of virgin potential rape victims wandering about, especially in the violent times of ancient Israel. Unlike what one poster claimed, a bride-price had to be paid by the groom or his family. In earlier societies where wives were considered low value/status, women brought a dowry to the marriage; basically a payoff to the groom to take her off the family's hands. When women were valued with higher status, as in Israel, then men paid a bride-price to compensate the family for the loss. Naturally, virgins had a higher sexual market value, just as they have today, so families had a keen interest in making sure they were intact on the wedding day.
> 
> As a British judge said 400 years ago, "rape is an easy accusation to make and a hard one to prove." For that reason, discovery in the act or immediately thereafter, was required in all the scriptures referencing rape. In the case of the unbetrothed virgin, per Deut 22:29, 50 shekels of silver was the cash price to the family. Shekels were about 10.5 grams, so this would be 525 grams of silver. At that time, this would be about five years labor. Twenty shekels would be the price of a slave at the time, so this was a pretty good financial hit for the rapist, if this verse is addressing rape.
> 
> As for the shotgun marriage with no divorce (actually "put away") by the husband, this was a guarantee of lifetime support. Also, note that the father can veto the shotgun marriage while collecting the bride-price in the case of seduction of a virgin, so this would also be a possibility in this case as well.


Unless I'm mistaken, that's an affirmative on what I wrote.


----------



## mablenc

2ntnuf said:


> Maybe she forces him? Just teasing, but that was the way I read it. "You better hold my hand, or else." "Ah, yes ma'am."
> 
> I had grandparents that were married a very long time. They died in their late eighties and were never married to anyone else. Grandma was 20 when mum was born, so, you do the math. It doesn't mean my grandparents were happy, just committed and content.


She nags like any wife, but I see them happy actually. They still travel and he's the one that starts to hand holding. You can also hear them talking for hours. Funny thing, he gets jealous if a man says she looks nice.  she just rolls her eyes.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## 2ntnuf

mablenc said:


> She nags like any wife, but I see them happy actually. They still travel and he's the one that starts to hand holding. You can also hear them talking for hours. Funny thing, he gets jealous if a man says she looks nice.  she just rolls her eyes.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Now that's nice. I never saw much of that in my own family. I tried to do that as much as possible with x2. I just loved holding her hand. It's just a feeling of oneness for me and an expression of love. It always felt comfortable to do when walking together. If we didn't hold hands, I felt like something was wrong or missing. 

That's a sweet story. I hope you have taken a few pictures of that. My mum's parents slept in separate bedrooms, ever since I can remember. It was really odd. He was an odd fellow for some reason. He had a fairly high I.Q. I think something happened to him. I never really was told what it was. 

Thanks for sharing that story and you know, I hope, that I was teasing. I think it's sweet.


----------



## hawkeye

over20 said:


> With all due respect, please don't judge me or other Christians. We don't fall all over ourselves to justify passages in the Bible. We are believers and are anticipating our death to GO HOME to HEAVEN. We are ALL going to die one day. ..For you to offer a rope to us to hang ourselves is just VERY bad taste and character.. I feel for you, that whatever happened to you in or out of the church or religion as you call it, really scarred you. Most of the time I do not understand it myself....Life and death are so very hard to deal with....sometimes I wonder myself....where is God???
> 
> Why do you have such hatred towards Scripture and the Holy Gospel? :scratchhead:


Why do I hate it? Read your responses in this thread. I assume you're an intelligent, reasonable person. And yet here you are telling me how all this marry your rapist stuff is actually good. Think about that. 

And for the record, nothing ever happened in my life or in the church that scarred me. I don't know why Christians always immediately jump to that conclusion. The only thing that happened to me was that I decided to apply my logic and reason to everything in my life, not just everything minus god.


----------



## hawkeye

And?


----------



## Wazza

hawkeye said:


> Why do I hate it? Read your responses in this thread. I assume you're an intelligent, reasonable person. And yet here you are telling me how all this marry your rapist stuff is actually good. Think about that.
> 
> And for the record, nothing ever happened in my life or in the church that scarred me. I don't know why Christians always immediately jump to that conclusion. The only thing that happened to me was that I decided to apply my logic and reason to everything in my life, not just everything minus god.


The world is a complex place. People do all sorts of things to survive. I assume you are American, modern urbane and confortable. Even today, there are places in the world where life is not so comfortable, child prostitution is a valid career option (I have seen that with my own eyes, though not used it) and perhaps maiming your child so they have a career as a beggar is the best education you can give (I have seen beggars and been told of this practice by locals).

I have not studied the Deuteronomy passage, I cannot comment on the replies you have received, but it is obvious from my reading that marriage was very different then, as has been discussed, and that there were severe economic consequences to being so used. Consider Stockholm Syndrome, and how it might apply in this context.

If you insist on evaluating everything by modern American standards, even the world today will not make sense, let alone writings that were in very different times. Throwing these sort of passages in is a useful notion if the objective is deep discussion, but some people do it as a cheap trick to win debating points, and that has nothing to do with deeper truth.

It's admirable to aspire to know more and more. It is wise to apply logic. But in my view it is also wise to assume you do not (and cannot) know the whole truth. Which is why there is the need for faith, as we discussed in another thread. It's also wise to recognise that your thoughts are constrained by your cultural blinkers.

Let me throw you an example. What so you think of arranged marriage? How does that fit with your ethos? What changes if you assume marriage because you were told to takes the place of marriage because you were in love? Is it barbaric and cruel, or just different?


----------



## hawkeye

Wazza said:


> The world is a complex place. People do all sorts of things to survive. I assume you are American, modern urbane and confortable. Even today, there are places in the world where life is not so comfortable, child prostitution is a valid career option (I have seen that with my own eyes, though not used it) and perhaps maiming your child so they have a career as a beggar is the best education you can give (I have seen beggars and been told of this practice by locals).
> 
> I have not studied the Deuteronomy passage, I cannot comment on the replies you have received, but it is obvious from my reading that marriage was very different then, as has been discussed, and that there were severe economic consequences to being so used. Consider Stockholm Syndrome, and how it might apply in this context.


Yeah, everyone always says "well, things were different back then." Ok. Was an all-powerful god incapable of coming up with some better solution than "marry your rapist"? Could he not have made the people understand some better way? Is he limited by the culture of his people at the time? 



> If you insist on evaluating everything by modern American standards, even the world today will not make sense, let alone writings that were in very different times. Throwing these sort of passages in is a useful notion if the objective is deep discussion, but some people do it as a cheap trick to win debating points, and that has nothing to do with deeper truth.


I think way too many christians just blow off these passages. I think they need an explanation. And I find "things were different then" and "god is good we just don't understand" to be insufficient. Frankly, I don't think there is a good explanation, outside of admitting that it's not inspired by god and things like "marry your rapist" are the fault of the men who wrote it. But of course admitting that has some bad ramifications.



> It's admirable to aspire to know more and more. It is wise to apply logic. But in my view it is also wise to assume you do not (and cannot) know the whole truth. Which is why there is the need for faith, as we discussed in another thread. It's also wise to recognise that your thoughts are constrained by your cultural blinkers.


We absolutely do not NEED faith for anything. Anything. It's not a virtue. It's believing things for no good reason.



> Let me throw you an example. What so you think of arranged marriage? How does that fit with your ethos? What changes if you assume marriage because you were told to takes the place of marriage because you were in love? Is it barbaric and cruel, or just different?


I think it's barbaric.


----------



## Wazza

Why is an arranged marriage barbaric?

What does "all-powerful God" mean? For example, can God contradict him/her self?


----------



## Coffee Amore

hawkeye said:


> Yeah, everyone always says "well, things were different back then." Ok. Was an all-powerful god incapable of coming up with some better solution than "marry your rapist"? Could he not have made the people understand some better way? Is he limited by the culture of his people at the time?


I agree.

If culture of the times dictates what's acceptable that opens up a whole can of worms. If certain Deuteronomy passages ("marry your rapist") are explained under the notion that things were different back then and we don't do that anymore then that means same sex marriages should be ok too since many people in modern society accept it and certainly several states have legalized it. The things are different now for same sex couples, society is changing. The things are different back then line of reasoning by Christians opens up a can of worms for them if applied to things they oppose like same sex marriage.


----------



## hawkeye

Wazza said:


> Why is an arranged marriage barbaric?
> 
> What does "all-powerful God" mean? For example, can God contradict him/her self?


I guess before we get down in the weeds over arranged marriages, I should clarify I'm talking about ones where one or both parties has no say in the arrangement. Just to be clear. So with that in mind....

Do you think it's possible to make objective determinations on whether an aspect of someone's morality is good or bad? Whether one is better or worse than another? I think we can. I think I can say that not beheading gays is better than beheading them. That freedom is better than slavery. That not marrying your rapist is better than marrying your rapist. Does being in a different time or culture make slavery ok...as long as they think it's ok?

It's why i can't stand the argument that it was just a different time and culture. So what. Why couldn't god straighten them out? Why could he at some point have told them not to own other humans as property? Were the ancient israelites just too stupid to get it?


----------



## Wazza

hawkeye said:


> I guess before we get down in the weeds over arranged marriages, I should clarify I'm talking about ones where one or both parties has no say in the arrangement. Just to be clear. So with that in mind....
> 
> Do you think it's possible to make objective determinations on whether an aspect of someone's morality is good or bad? Whether one is better or worse than another? I think we can. I think I can say that not beheading gays is better than beheading them. That freedom is better than slavery. That not marrying your rapist is better than marrying your rapist. Does being in a different time or culture make slavery ok...as long as they think it's ok?
> 
> It's why i can't stand the argument that it was just a different time and culture. So what. Why couldn't god straighten them out? Why could he at some point have told them not to own other humans as property? Were the ancient israelites just too stupid to get it?


You need to answer the question about whether an all powerful God can self-contradict as a means to consider what God can and cannot do. Glib statements about "surely he can do better" are pretty meaningless otherwise.

I think it is sometimes easy to make objective statements about what is ideal. But the real world is more complex. Slavery is a great example. We abhor slavey, and yet the rich world uses it's power to brutalise those in the third world so we can have cheap consumer goods. Workers kill themselves to escape it. Yet people sign up for those jobs. Why?

Why is an arranged marriage bad if the alternative is starvation?


----------



## arbitrator

2ntnuf said:


> If Christ was the Word of God, and he spoke in parables when he taught the population, public, whatever, was he always the Word of God? Maybe God decided, "hmm. I think I'll make, The Son of God, the Word of God." Did they always exist or were they made? You see, it takes some faith to believe in this. *Christ said something like, "It takes the faith of a child to enter the kingdom."*


*Matthew 18:3*


----------



## hawkeye

Wazza said:


> You need to answer the question about whether an all powerful God can self-contradict as a means to consider what God can and cannot do. Glib statements about "surely he can do better" are pretty meaningless otherwise.


He's not my god. You tell me what he's capable of. I think he did a woeful job with his creation given how powerful and loving he's supposed to be. His word, his truth, the thing that is supposed to spread his message is a convoluted, muddy disaster. I think any one of us could have written a more coherent and effective holy book. Basically, I've found nothing about this being that would make me want to worship him even if someone could prove to me he exists.



> I think it is sometimes easy to make objective statements about what is ideal. But the real world is more complex. Slavery is a great example. We abhor slavey, and yet the rich world uses it's power to brutalise those in the third world so we can have cheap consumer goods. Workers kill themselves to escape it. Yet people sign up for those jobs. Why?
> 
> Why is an arranged marriage bad if the alternative is starvation?


Oh, absolutely the world is more complex. There are matters of morality that will be much more difficult to make distinctions of better or worse about. No doubt about that. I agree. But there are a lot of things I think we CAN make those statements about. Whether it's good or bad to be forced into marrying your rapist seems like an obvious one to me.

Is arranged marriage bad if the alternative is starvation? I don't really see that as a moral decision. A decision of survival, perhaps, but not really a moral one in the sense that it's arranged marriage vs. starvation. The question is arranged marriage vs no arranged marriage. Arranged marriage is bad either way.


----------



## Wazza

hawkeye said:


> He's not my god. You tell me what he's capable of. I think he did a woeful job with his creation given how powerful and loving he's supposed to be. His word, his truth, the thing that is supposed to spread his message is a convoluted, muddy disaster. I think any one of us could have written a more coherent and effective holy book. Basically, I've found nothing about this being that would make me want to worship him even if someone could prove to me he exists.


Not your God yet you insist on throwing around buzzwords about him without delving into what they mean then use them to condemn the notion. Cheap debating trick. You raised the notion of omnipotence. I am trying to engage with it to discuss your ideas. 



hawkeye said:


> Oh, absolutely the world is more complex. There are matters of morality that will be much more difficult to make distinctions of better or worse about. No doubt about that. I agree. But there are a lot of things I think we CAN make those statements about. Whether it's good or bad to be forced into marrying your rapist seems like an obvious one to me.
> 
> Is arranged marriage bad if the alternative is starvation? I don't really see that as a moral decision. A decision of survival, perhaps, but not really a moral one in the sense that it's arranged marriage vs. starvation. The question is arranged marriage vs no arranged marriage. Arranged marriage is bad either way.


Why is arranged marriage bad in absolute terms? I can argue for absolute morality on the grounds that a God imposes it. What grounds have you got? On what basis is arranged marriage morally bad?


----------



## hawkeye

Wazza said:


> Not your God yet you insist on throwing around buzzwords about him without delving into what they mean then use them to condemn the notion. Cheap debating trick. You raised the notion of omnipotence. I am trying to engage with it to discuss your ideas.


I raised the notion of omnipotence since that's a trait he's usually given. What do you want me to answer? Whether he can contradict himself? I would say not. Is he powerful enough to be able to convince people that forcing a raped woman to marry her rapist is not a good idea? I would say yes.



> Why is arranged marriage bad in absolute terms? I can argue for absolute morality on the grounds that a God imposes it. What grounds have you got? On what basis is arranged marriage morally bad?


Again, going back to my earlier point and assuming we're talking people being forced into it....freedom is better than slavery. Period. My grounds for saying so? My brain.


----------



## Wazza

What is freedom?

I have to go to work each day. Am I free? Someone in a third world country has to work in conditions I would not tolerate for a second. Are they free? The slave had choices....they weren't very good. Maybe the third world sweat shop worker has more choices. Why is that acceptable but slavery not? At what point does it toggle from unacceptable to acceptable.

Regarding omnipotence, it is obvious to me that there must be limits on God's power. That's important in understanding why I don't reject the notion of God because of imperfection in our world.

It's nice to know your brain dictates absolute morality


----------



## hawkeye

Wazza said:


> What is freedom?
> 
> I have to go to work each day. Am I free?
> 
> 
> 
> Does someone own you? Are you going to get beaten by a master if you don't go to work?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone in a third world country has to work in conditions I would not tolerate for a second. Are they free?
> 
> 
> 
> If no one owns them and they're working by their own choice, then yes, they're free.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The slave had choices....they weren't very good. Maybe the third world sweat shop worker has more choices. Why is that acceptable but slavery not? At what point does it toggle from unacceptable to acceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good question. Like I said earlier, there's a lot of complexity and nuance to these questions. I'm not saying there isn't. But I don't think it's a stretch at all to say freedom is better than slavery. I'd say the same about killing. Not killing is better than killing, but there's obviously a billion different scenarios you could come up with there too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding omnipotence, it is obvious to me that there must be limits on God's power. That's important in understanding why I don't reject the notion of God because of imperfection in our world.
> 
> It's nice to know your brain dictates absolute morality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't reject god because of that notion either.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## GTdad

2ntnuf said:


> So, Arb, I'd like to ask if Christ is the Word of God, and He spoke in parables while in human form, would much of the Old Testament also be in some sort of parable which makes it hard to understand as my previous post suggests? Not all will understand or be able to accept?


I'd certainly take that position, particularly with respect to the first 10 or 12 chapters of Genesis.


----------



## Wazza

hawkeye said:


> Good question. Like I said earlier, there's a lot of complexity and nuance to these questions. I'm not saying there isn't. But I don't think it's a stretch at all to say freedom is better than slavery. I'd say the same about killing. Not killing is better than killing, but there's obviously a billion different scenarios you could come up with there too.


As a general statement of principle. I would agree freedom is better than slavery. But this is a functioning and complex world. By my values a sweatshop worker with kids to feed or a parent forced to sell their child into prostitution is not much better off than a slave. In some ways worse off maybe. Their choices are awful. 

A government, or a God, is always going to balance moral issues and have to choose the lesser evil. That's the whole point of the notion of fallen humanity. God (constrained by reality) can make you perfect, or make you free. He can't do both.

The bible, and Christian teaching, exists in a social and cultural context. You cannot read it apart from that context.

Bringing it back to marriage...even now in prosperous western countries, there is a debate about the role of marriage. If things get tough can you divorce? Should you stay for the kids? Should you stay for the economic security? These are still hard questions. Many of us here have had to make hard choices. There is a lot more than love to marriage. And maybe if we were a bit less obsessed with what we get from marriage, like some mega consumer transaction, maybe things would be better.

We have more freedom than the ancient Jews had. Marriage was more an economic institution then. Women had less equality. And so on. I don't want to live with ancient Jewish marriage, 15th century roman plumbing, or whatever. That doesn't mean it was a bad idea at the time.


----------



## Wazza

2ntnuf said:


> 3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
> 
> MATTHEW CHAPTER 18
> 
> 
> So, Arb, I'd like to ask if Christ is the Word of God, and He spoke in parables while in human form, would much of the Old Testament also be in some sort of parable which makes it hard to understand as my previous post suggests? Not all will understand or be able to accept?


Christ did not wander around like some parable jukebox.  But I think it's a respected opinion that different parts of the bible are different kinds of literature, and should be read with that in mind.


----------



## Wazza

2ntnuf said:


> I really don't understand this. I thought Christ came, not to change the word, but to fulfill it? He stated he did speak in parables, as I posted.


He spoke in parables sometimes, but not always. For example, the beatitudes, the sermon on the mount, throwing the money lenders from the temple, and his words on the cross were not parables. And I assume he said mundane things like "pass the bread please" or "where is the loo" as well. 

I was responding to the notion that the old testament might also be parables. For example, Pslams and Song of Solomon are poetry, Chronicles and Kings are history, Leviticus is law, and so on. Same applies in the new testament. If you try to read Revelation or Acts with the same mindset as Paul's letters, it doesn't work. Even the logic used in Romans is very different from that in Hebrews, for example...because they were written to different audiences, I understand.


----------



## Sandfly

In reply to 2ntnuf,

You can read the same book at different times in your life, and it means different things.

Long ago I read a religious text called 'Dao de qing' and it seemed to be all contradictory nonsense.

Now it all makes crystal clear sense. Perhaps one day I won't understand it again, or it will have a whole different meaning.

But I think lots of preachers take liberties with interpretation, and, the first time round when we read something, we should read it minus someone else's interpretation.

One example: "father why have you abandoned me?"

Somehow the Trinitarians have interpreted this to mean he was talking to himself, from God the son to God the father.

Much simpler to not 'interpret' and just say that at that point (at the least) he was not 'God'.

Just look at the controversy this one phrase has produced! (bottom of the page) There's no need for it except to justify a church dogma, to dig themselves out of a hole they had made when they declared Arianism a heresy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayings_of_Jesus_on_the_cross


----------



## Sandfly

2ntnuf said:


> So, I always interpreted that passage to mean, at that moment, Jesus took all the sin of past present and future upon Himself. He could not longer see the Father, since the father was light and he was darkness. For Jesus to exist with all darkness upon Him, the Father must not be in that same space at the same time. As hell is an absence of God, so with sin, we can only know it's sin when God is not present. If God were there, we would not know it was sin.
> 
> I'm still fighting though. Still fighting.


It was only my opinion, we won't know what was the correct way to read all our holy books until after we're dead, and then it's too late! We just better hope that Islam is not the true religion, because I don't fancy drinking molten lead and eating thorns for eternity - while suffering eternal hunger and thirst which will drive us to do so. As it happens, it makes little sense for a God to want to punish man eternally for a few decades of disrespect. No point to that. Something a Satan-type would do, not a Creator.

But you can see how complicated the light and darkness explanation is. A guy is dying to death on a cross, and he says something that sounds straightforward, like he's talking to God as you and I might do. Then 325 years later, some bishops who weren't at the scene, get together and decide it means something less obvious, that he's speaking in a one-man code. It just doesn't help things if someone is sending a message which his hearers are incapable of understanding without an enigma device.

I can't remember who wrote it, but someone did, that the story of Jesus would be more powerful if the message was 'here is a good man, who so impressed God with his uprightness, that he became number one in heaven' rather than 'God "had a go" at being a man for a while'. In the first case, it also sends the message: think twice before picking on the small guy - you never know who he might be friends with!

Otherwise, for example, Judas becomes just a puppet playing a pre-ordained part, which kind of turns it into a pantomime. JMO! (Sesame street was brought to you today by the letter 'p')


----------



## Mr Blunt

> How have your religious beliefs affected your opinions on divorce?




My faith tells me that God hates divorce. However, divorce is allowed in certain situations due to mankind’s failures. My faith tells me that the lame excuses that some use to divorce are cop outs. Excuses like “We just grew apart” and “it just happened and I fell in love with someone else, can’t explain it”


My faith tells me that marriage and divorce are serious events and for me not to buy into some of the modern culture’s politically correct cop outs. Divorce almost always hurts incent children and that is probably another reason God hates divorce.


----------



## jld

Mr Blunt said:


> My faith tells me that God hates divorce. However, divorce is allowed in certain situations due to mankind’s failures. My faith tells me that the lame excuses that some use to divorce are cop outs. Excuses like “We just grew apart” and “it just happened and I fell in love with someone else, can’t explain it”
> 
> I hear you, Mr. Blunt. I know it is not popular to say these things, and I feel a lot of compassion for people who are suffering.
> 
> But sometimes I think we humans are just selfish. I think we want our own way and we do not consider the other person. I am like this. I speak from experience.
> 
> And where is the sorrow when we know we have offended our spouse? Where is the repentance, the asking of forgiveness after confessing our lack of caring, our unkindness, our disrespect? Where is the humility?
> 
> My faith tells me that marriage and divorce are serious events and for me not to buy into some of the modern culture’s politically correct cop outs. Divorce almost always hurts incent children and that is probably another reason God hates divorce.


That is how I see this, too. My marriage is sacred to me. I think my dh is the best thing that ever happened to me. I feel so grateful to him. I just feel he has been so kind and patient with me. I feel bad when I am not as considerate in return. 

And I think as long as a woman is with a man worthy of this kind of esteem, she is safe. And that is why I feel like I am always urging men to become secure, to become men worthy of a woman's trust. But then I am accused of "putting all the responsibility on the man."

What do you think of that, Mr. Blunt? Doesn't a real man just naturally take responsibility for his wife and children? Isn't that why they all have his name?


----------



## jld

2ntnuf, I am going to ask my husband to respond to your post. He is very busy, but I hope in the next few days he will be able to. Thank you for your post.


----------



## Lionelhutz

I was raised in a very religious household (Catholic) and as a child I was a true believer. As I true into adulthood my lingering doubts moved me to become non-practising and eventually agnostic. 

Now, if you define "God" as anything resembling the Being envisioned in any of the Western religions then I now consider myself an atheist. My complete loss of faith was at least partially the result of what I see as seemingly irrational and arbitrary rules regarding things like marriage. And perhaps more so, the ability of apparently well-meaning, intelligent and religious people to have fundamentally differing view on such basic issues as pre-martial sex, masturbation, marriage and divorce.

Given the supposed stakes involved, why would a divine being leave any opportunity for doubt about his will? 

I actually believe there is merit in marriage as an institution and I don't think it should ever be left without serious soul searching. I am mindful of the fact that "no matter where you go, you are there." So the problems in your current relationship may very well follow you unless you focus on yourself. People tend to fluctuate around a base level of happiness regardless of the circumstances.

But what does bother me more and more and makes me less tolerant of religion in general is the heartache and misery caused by people staying in dysfunctional marriages for religious reasons with spouses who are obviously abusive or simply sociopathic.


----------



## Mr Blunt

By jld
That is how I see this, too. My marriage is sacred to me. I think my dh is the best thing that ever happened to me. I feel so grateful to him. I just feel he has been so kind and patient with me. I feel bad when I am not as considerate in return. 

And I think as long as a woman is with a man worthy of this kind of esteem, she is safe. And that is why I feel like I am always urging men to become secure, to become men worthy of a woman's trust. But then I am accused of "putting all the responsibility on the man."

What do you think of that, Mr. Blunt? Doesn't a real man just naturally take responsibility for his wife and children? Isn't that why they all have his name?



> By jld
> What do you think of that, Mr. Blunt? Doesn't a real man just naturally take responsibility for his wife and children? Isn't that why they all have his name?


*Right on my sister I agree 100%!*





> That is how I see this, too. My marriage is sacred to me. I think my dh is the best thing that ever happened to me. I feel so grateful to him. I just feel he has been so kind and patient with me. I feel bad when I am not as considerate in return.


What a great attitude! I know lots of men that would love to have their wife have that attitude. You are the kind of woman a good man will fight for. Keep working on any points that you have that you feel you can improve on. You already have one of the biggest battles won, your attitude, gratefulness and appreciation is outstanding!


----------



## jld

Well, that was very kind, Mr. Blunt. Thank you. And I am going to show your post to my dh!

And, believe me, he lets me know where I need to improve. He is not shy about making me aware of my shortcomings. And I do appreciate that . . . even if I am defensive at first.

But he is kind to me, and loving, and can even admit his own shortcomings once in a while.

I just think marriage requires humility on both sides, as in a real willingness to be open and admit when we are wrong. 

I mean, if we want to improve as a couple, we have to listen to each other, right?


----------



## Wazza

Lionelhutz said:


> I was raised in a very religious household (Catholic) and as a child I was a true believer. As I true into adulthood my lingering doubts moved me to become non-practising and eventually agnostic.
> 
> Now, if you define "God" as anything resembling the Being envisioned in any of the Western religions then I now consider myself an atheist. My complete loss of faith was at least partially the result of what I see as seemingly irrational and arbitrary rules regarding things like marriage. And perhaps more so, the ability of apparently well-meaning, intelligent and religious people to have fundamentally differing view on such basic issues as pre-martial sex, masturbation, marriage and divorce.
> 
> Given the supposed stakes involved, why would a divine being leave any opportunity for doubt about his will?
> 
> I actually believe there is merit in marriage as an institution and I don't think it should ever be left without serious soul searching. I am mindful of the fact that "no matter where you go, you are there." So the problems in your current relationship may very well follow you unless you focus on yourself. People tend to fluctuate around a base level of happiness regardless of the circumstances.
> 
> But what does bother me more and more and makes me less tolerant of religion in general is the heartache and misery caused by people staying in dysfunctional marriages for religious reasons with spouses who are obviously abusive or simply sociopathic.


It's a complex discussion, but the older I get, the more I understand of human frailty and heartbreak, the more the Christian teaching on marriage and sex makes sense to me, just as values in themselves, regardless of whether there is a God behind them.

Maybe some parts of the Christian model are less applicable in the modern world. For example, marriage is a balance between emotional and financial imperatives, and we have room to put more emphasis on the emotional. But the basic idea that we will be happier if we think of others, not just ourselves, and control our sexuality more than it controls us, are as current today as they ever were.

As to why a divine being did not make things clearer...the situations are not black and white. How can the instructions for dealing with them be any use if they don't accept there are grey areas in life?


----------

