The following it pastor's response to what valid reasons would be for someone seeking a divorce:

"The Lutheran Church teaches that there are two reasons for a Biblical
divorce. The first is marital unfaithfulness [adultery] and the second is
desertion [If I am not mistaken, Paul speaks of that in 1 Corinthians 7]."

Note this is the Biblical perspective. I am sure there are other reasons that are not listed that are viable for someone to divorce their spouse.

But, as usual, I thought I would post the Biblical perspective on RfM.

Because in biblical times it was perfectly acceptable to beat your wife.

Yet some people want to use the standards of those times as a modern moral authority.

return and report my labors of the day. :-)

Prophets back to the Old Testament taught AGAINST divorce...


the Bible language (adultery) is also in the BoMormon (3rd Nephi)... ( 'most correct book'); Mo CLAIM to have a living profit; so: since the BoM (Christ's own words abt divorce) haven't been superceded, it still stands, BUT:

When a TBM divorces an apostate person...Even WITHOUT Adultery... All Bets Are OFF!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/14/2011 11:36AM by guynoirprivateeye.

I am a Lutheran teacher (music and theology) and I have taught extensively on this subject....
When Jesus speaks about divorce, he says that the only reason is "marital unfaithfulness" (The words used in the NIV).

Most churches will teach that the "unfaithful" part refers to the wedding vow...which includes: adultery, physical/mental/emotional abuse, desertion etc. Any time the marriage VOW (that IS the contractual part of marriage, right?) is consistently and willfully broken - that is a Biblical reason for divorce.

No Christian should EVER make the claim that a person should stay in a marriage when abuse of any kind is taking place. That is unbiblical.

The Roman Catholic church created a version, there's another in the Common Book of Prayer, and, of course, there are all the different versions made up by the couples themselves. So while they might have been inspired by biblical principles, or just the wide aura of biblical influence, the vows themselves aren't biblical. So you can't really appeal to biblical authority when the vows are violated.

...and also be more clear in the so-called marriage contract that it's ok to leave if your husband beats you. 'Cause I've never heard a marriage vow that included that verbiage.

They don't have the "Because he's/she's a fucktard" statute? Sad. Being a fucktard is always grounds IMHO.

Just sayin'...

Ron

I'm adding one to my vows. Do you take this woman and promise to love and honor her and try to make her happy without compromising who you are or your own happiness? Do you promise not to belittle her, especially in front of others, but no belittling in general? Do you promise to watch the horrible chick shows she likes with minimal mockery, provided she sits through the weird-ass dark shit you like to watch? Do you promise to support her and encourage her, not because you have to, but because you genuinely think she can do anything? Do you promise not to be a fucktard?

a) divorce in 'Old Times' was Mostly MEN divorcing women...

b) the Adultery thing serves One Purpose: It is a factual BRIGHT LINE that serves as notice to partners: Don't Do This!

"abuse" CAN be slightly subjective... is a raised voice, once spoken, Abuse? How about a TIGHT hug? How tight is 'abuse'?

From the sandpoint of one Wanting to remain in a marriage, avoiding adultery should (GBH parody here) Stand For Something...

Committing adultery is crossing that Line In The Sand, as far as Im concerned... and, It's 'Christ's Words' ... at least as far as 'translated correctly' haha :-)

In the new testament, Jesus actually talks about divorce, but never mentions sexuality...hmm.

He's pretty specific that only adultery is ground's for divorce.

As I recall, the only reason divorce is acceptable is if the partner is guilty of adultery.

But... it goes beyond divorce. Let's say a JW couple decides they can't stay together anymore, so they separate, divorce, whatever. They will each remain celibate, aka "good standing" in the society. When one of them decides to have sex, married or not, adultery has been committed, and the one who waited is now "free" to divorce, remarry. The person who "lost" is just screwed, (pun intended), as far as the Society is concerned.

I've known JWs who divorced, and (probably) remained celibate like their ex-spouse forever....

Religious crap sucks. They try to control every flippin' thing you do with their petty rules and regs.

I like the way the Navajo divorce. The woman puts the guy's stuff outside. He goes home to mom. (matriarchial society)

Me too...back to mom..wow just what jakes mom wants

stormy

OK, with certain exceptions.

But...if his mom were a Navajo, the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.

Financial, emotional/spiritual RAPE;
separation from children & friends

ask me if ur not convinced...

also: I think ppl learn & grow a lot more by working things out; compromise-accommodation, etc. than by being Dictator!

in This Case, the 'party line' that ChurchCo parrots is correct IMHO; divorce should be RARE, it should be the Last Resort.

divorce, contrary to the actual practice of ChurchCo, IS NOT a King's X for hatred, greed, and/or deceit; but that's the way it is today, in too many cases; ChurchCo turns a Blind Eye to it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/14/2011 03:35PM by guynoirprivateeye.