Divorce

[Autodidact]

Children who do not have a natural mother and father are in a broken family.

Children who grow up in a stable two-parent family of two lesbians are NOT in a broken family, and do at least as well as children in heterosexual families. Better, actually.

It is not the best situation but often it is a reality that can't be helped.

It turns out it is the best situation. You're wrong.

In case you haven't figured out the biology, homosexuals do not produce natural children from their union.

And what does that have to do with anything?

Stability is good for children,

Yup. Stable lesbian families do an excellent job of child-rearing.

sin is not.

So people who divorce and remarry should NOT have children, correct. In fact, divorced parents should not remarry, right?

 

[Kathryn]

Well I don't care for people who don't follow their own religion insisting that I should, and that's what I'm striking back against. I do not include you in that group--I think you know the sort of thing I'm combatting. People who argue against gay marriage on the ridiculous grounds that their religion prohibits it, all the while not caring the least about second marriage, which their religion clearly does prohibit.

Or who vote against and ostracize gay marriages but who throw a white wedding in church for their daughter who's been shacking up with her boyfriend for six years?

Those kind of people? Yeah, they disgust me too.

And how many of them are gluttons as well? One of the seven deadly sins.

That's why I don't mess with other people's lifestyles - though I may disagree privately, or even teach my children my beliefs privately. My beliefs also include respect for all human life, and respect for our freedom from being shackled by others' religious beliefs - in other words, TOLERANCE OF OTHERS.

I am in no position to judge another person's actions before God. God is better at that than I am. I can't get the splinter out of your eye while I've got a log in mine.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

The Bible aside, traditional Christianity has mantained that one cannot obtain a divorce without the authorization of the church. Now when I was growing up Anglican, it might have changed again, you still had to have the church's authorization, but they were a lot more likely to authorize a divorce then a Catholic bishop would be.

 

[Kathryn]

Keep in mind that Jesus' words about divorce were in the context of PRINCIPLES and generalizations. They were also used in the same passages where He says things like "if your right eye offends you, pluck it out." Clearly He doesn't mean that literally.

Jesus' examples of strictly limiting divorce are in PRINCIPLE. I believe His meanings have been adulterated - speaking of adultery. Jesus was very clear with His followers and sermons that He was trying to teach the SPIRIT of the Law - not the LETTER of the Law. And then Christians try to get all legalistic, to the point that some would tell an abused woman that she did not have the right to divorce her husband and remarry! Sheeze, people!

His examples showcase perfection and principle and they point out the sanctity and seriousness of marriage vows and definitely condemn casual marriages and divorces and of course adultery - but I do not believe that Jesus would condemn any abused person to a lifetime of abuse or loneliness (no right to remarry if they divorce).

Abuse and addiction and abandonment are forms of LEAVING the marriage - even if one is not leaving physically. When a man abuses a woman and forces her to leave for the safety of herself and/or her children - COME ON, WHO REALLY LEFT? And then if he won't divorce her or actually move out - she's the guilty party for physically distancing herself for safety purposes? In other words, Jesus allows Himself to be held hostage by His own words? I don't think so.

Look at the SPIRIT of the Law - not the letter of the Law - and you'll make better decisions. At least that's been my experience. Legalism is a surefire way to destroy your life and be miserable and judgmental of others.

I speak from experience on this one.

 

[Walkntune]

Keep in mind that Jesus' words about divorce were in the context of PRINCIPLES and generalizations. They were also used in the same passages where He says things like "if your right eye offends you, pluck it out." Clearly He doesn't mean that literally.

Jesus' examples of strictly limiting divorce are in PRINCIPLE. I believe His meanings have been adulterated - speaking of adultery. Jesus was very clear with His followers and sermons that He was trying to teach the SPIRIT of the Law - not the LETTER of the Law. And then Christians try to get all legalistic, to the point that some would tell an abused woman that she did not have the right to divorce her husband and remarry! Sheeze, people!

His examples showcase perfection and principle and they point out the sanctity and seriousness of marriage vows and definitely condemn casual marriages and divorces and of course adultery - but I do not believe that Jesus would condemn any abused person to a lifetime of abuse or loneliness (no right to remarry if they divorce).

Abuse and addiction and abandonment are forms of LEAVING the marriage - even if one is not leaving physically. When a man abuses a woman and forces her to leave for the safety of herself and/or her children - COME ON, WHO REALLY LEFT? And then if he won't divorce her or actually move out - she's the guilty party for physically distancing herself for safety purposes? In other words, Jesus allows Himself to be held hostage by His own words? I don't think so.

Look at the SPIRIT of the Law - not the letter of the Law - and you'll make better decisions. At least that's been my experience. Legalism is a surefire way to destroy your life and be miserable and judgmental of others.

I speak from experience on this one.

Like usual I have to agree with you again.The Gospels are a message of love , not laws.

 

[Dunemeister]

Like usual I have to agree with you again.The Gospels are a message of love , not laws.

Forgetting for the moment the references to the "law of Christ"....

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

To the OP: I feel like I have seen this somewhere before. [youtube]rhZ8DYrsNtk[/youtube]
YouTube - Man Wants to Ban Divorce in California

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

No, it's about a (nearly) non-existent group of people.

Actually, these non existent group of people managed to pass prop 8 in California. I wonder how something came out of nothing. Oh wait! I think I accidentally discovered how the universe came to be! It was these non existent groups of people! We must worship them, for they are god.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Divorce although not a good thing (a sin) is legitimate in the Bible.

Lol. That cracked me up. Now a sin has become legitimate? How come homosexuality is not legitimate if it is not a sin?

 

[Kathryn]

Even in the bible, divorce is not always a sin - it is, however, always the RESULT of sin.

 

[Dunemeister]

Actually, these non existent group of people managed to pass prop 8 in California. I wonder how something came out of nothing. Oh wait! I think I accidentally discovered how the universe came to be! It was these non existent groups of people! We must worship them, for they are god.

Well, I suppose you could ignore the adverb I included in my comment. That's your right.

 

[McBell]

Even in the bible, divorce is not always a sin - it is, however, always the RESULT of sin.

I agree.
Interesting that a woman cannot Biblically divorce an abusive husband, but can divorce an idol worshiper.

 

[Kathryn]

I believe that a woman CAN biblically divorce her husband for abuse. Look at it this way - in biblical times, and now, if a man beats or injures his wife, he could be arrested and jailed. Knowing that - he does it anyway. If he's jailed for abuse, he has deserted his wife. Desertion is grounds for divorce in the bible.

"If the unbeliever departs, let him depart. A brother or sister is not bound in this case." That's in Corinthians - a very interesting chapter indeed.

The bible teaches that if an unbelieving spouse leaves the marriage, the believer is not bound to that marriage. Now - if a spouse has to actually leave in order to be safe - who REALLY left? If you force someone to leave - you've left. At least that's what I believe. Or - if you're locked up in jail because you've been abusive - uhhh, you've left. Seems like common sense to me.

I believe that Jesus is very clear that we are to live by the SPIRIT of the law, not the LETTER of the law.

 

[McBell]

I believe that a woman CAN biblically divorce her husband for abuse. Look at it this way - in biblical times, and now, if a man beats or injures his wife, he could be arrested and jailed. Knowing that - he does it anyway. If he's jailed for abuse, he has deserted his wife. Desertion is grounds for divorce in the bible.

"If the unbeliever departs, let him depart. A brother or sister is not bound in this case." That's in Corinthians - a very interesting chapter indeed.

IF he is an unbeliever.
*Waits for the No True Scotsman*

The bible teaches that if an unbelieving spouse leaves the marriage, the believer is not bound to that marriage. Now - if a spouse has to actually leave in order to be safe - who REALLY left? If you force someone to leave - you've left. At least that's what I believe. Or - if you're locked up in jail because you've been abusive - uhhh, you've left. Seems like common sense to me.

Better hope you get it right if you're ever in that situation.
Cause I doubt you can fool God.

I believe that Jesus is very clear that we are to live by the SPIRIT of the law, not the LETTER of the law.

I was wondering how long before this particular gem of a cop out was going to be presented.

 

[Kathryn]

IF he is an unbeliever.
*Waits for the No True Scotsman*


Better hope you get it right if you're ever in that situation.
Cause I doubt you can fool God.


I was wondering how long before this particular gem of a cop out was going to be presented.

Actually the New Testament gives us a system to use when we are faced with a person who claims to be a believer but is abusive toward us, either physically, emotionally, financially, whatever. Some churches do use this system, others don't.

Paul tells believers who feel that another believer is abusing them to first of all, go to the person and try to resolve the issue. If it can't be resolved that way, go to one or two elders and get their advice and involvement, privately and still between the one or two elders, you, and the other person. If the issue still can't be resolved, take it before ALL the elders and the pastor or bishop. If the other person is at fault, and it's a serious issue - and they refuse to change, the church (and you) can COUNT them as an unbeliever. This doesn't mean they ARE an unbeliever, but in our dealings with them, we may count them as one.

I was in this very situation. My exhusband claimed to be a Christian, but was physically abusive to me and to our children. At first the abuse was very sporadic, but it became more violent and more extreme over the years, eventually leading to a situation where he held a loaded gun to my head.

I did the whole church/elders/pastor thing. With the help of the elders, I left him for six months, and we enrolled in intensive counseling and finally got back together again. We did ok for a few more years, but eventually it became clear that my husband was dangerous and would not get the counseling/help he needed to change his violent behavior permanently. It was as if he simply couldn't control his "inner demons" or psychoses or whatever you want to call it.

The second time he threatened me with a gun, I left him for good and filed for divorce.

I felt absolutely no guilt in remarrying. I believe that by his actions, he left the marriage when he FORCED me to leave in order to keep our children and myself safe. He may be a Christian - that's between him and God. But I believe I had the right to "count him as an unbeliever" in my dealings with him.

As for living by the spirit of the law, rather than by the letter of the law, I believe that Jesus' teachings are very,very clear on this. This is why Jesus made examples of working on the Sabbath, and critisized the Sadduccees and Pharisees for being legalistic and harsh in their judgments and practice of the letter of the law.

It's not a cop out at all.

 

[Autodidact]

What's interesting about this approach, and Kathryn, I am not accusing you of being one of these hypocrites, but if you took Kathryn's approach to divorce, but still cast gay people out as sinners, you'd be hypocritical in a different, more subtle way. What you'd be doing then would be taking one approach to interpretation with regard to divorce, and an entirely different one with regard to homosexuality. Just want to repeat that I am NOT accusing you of doing this, Kathryn. You'd be saying, "Oh, well you have to interpret these verses (where Jesus explicitly and clearly condemns divorce and remarriage after divorce) to carry out the spirit of the law, and if you follow this chain of reasoning, etc." but when it comes to homosexuality, "Oh no, you have to follow the letter of the Old Testament law, and not just the letter, but the most conservative, possibly incorrect translation, of obscure OT purity laws, from a chapter we generally disregard." With lesbianism, it's even worse, because after asking for a liberal, "spirit" interpretation of Jesus' words, you then ask to apply a commandment that doesn't exist, a commandment against lesbianism, which of course doesn't exist, on the basis of a story that Paul tells in Romans.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Well, I suppose you could ignore the adverb I included in my comment. That's your right.

My point was to show how nonsensical your argument that these views are held only by a tiny minority is.

 

[Kathryn]

Auto - I see no point in Christians rejecting gays. I think it's judgmental and a collossal waste of time and energy.

That being said, I do believe that the bible is pretty clear and consistent on the topic of sex outside of marriage. And here's the sticky point - the definition of marriage, which throughout history, with few exceptions (though there have been a few) is defined as a contract between male and female. So - if a person sincerely believes that marriage doesn't include same sex unions, then LGBT sex is by it's very nature, sex outside the sanctity of marriage. And a long term relationship is planned and unrepentent sex outside of marriage indefinitely.

This is where some Christians have a problem with LGBT relationships - NOT with the PEOPLE but with the very core of their sincere beliefs about what they consider a holy union. How can they say that sex outside of marriage is just - OK? How can they say that marriage isn't only between man and woman? This goes against their devout beliefs.

I see this as a no win situation - because LGBTs will never respect that position, and those devout Christians will never accept the LGBT position. And it's often not out of any sort of hatred, but rather an integral and well thought out belief system.

Both sides demand respect and get none from their "opponent."

 

[McBell]

... the definition of marriage, which throughout history, with few exceptions (though there have been a few) is defined as a contract between male and female.

Really?
Seems to me that you are making a few GREAT BIG assumptions with this particular declaration.


I wonder why the dictionaries of old do not mention gender at all in the definition of the word "marriage"?

I mean, if what you say here is true...