The bible says that with divorce you cannot marry again.
So, why do many Christians do it and think it's okay?
“Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.
1 Corinthians 7:10-11
To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.
Because many like to pick and choose which rules they prefer to follow. Or pretend to.
That is the hypocrisy of religions, it's followers telling everyone else how to live, what to believe and how to behave, yet they themselves don't even follow their own preaching.
Shame on you. I would think divorced believers had enough questions of guilt to deal with, without some random internet persona making jabs...with no knowledge of those she is attempting to bludgeon with a random Bible passage.
Mind your own problems. Each of us has a plate full which should keep us busy for a lifetime. And, remember, of you've never walked in someone else's shoes you have no idea whether they would fit, or not.
Anyway, you've mixed lessons in order to bludgeon. Jesus's point was more in line with showing that all legal actions which harm others emotionally are as sinful as actions deemed illegal at the time. He was showcasing how people hide behind the law in order to not take responsiblity for the damage they do to others.
Shouldn't Christians hold themselves to their own standards?
I personally think a couple should stay together long enough to raise children, and they are out of the house, regardless of their feelings about each other. As long as it's a safe environment for everyone. Families need to stay together.
Then, you should do it. And stay out of other people's business. As I said....they aren't your shoes to walk in.
I've never been divorced. I know plenty of men I would divorce if I was unfortunate enough to have married them. I simply do not understand the philosophy behind being a nose nelly and thinking I know what is best for other people. I assume they know what is best for themselves.
This is a public forum, I'll say whatever I want within the rules.
That's hypocritical of you, as you have an open opinion about every subject under the sun.
And I wasn't in anyone's business. I made a general statement.
You might rethink your position and stop taking things so personally. I was responding to your general statement with a general statement.
You say I have an open opinion on everything under the sun. I suppose, it would please you to consider me close minded. I attempt to avoid such a stance because it puts me into a position to judge others when i don't have that right.
The simplest answer to your question is that many people call themselves Christian while holding very different beliefs from one another, and different denominations interpret the bible differently. Christians are not a homogeneous group. Who's to say that one person is a "real" Christian and another is not based on their actions or beliefs? Like any other broad religious category there are lots of subsets. It doesn't make sense to ask nit-picky questions about Christians as a whole. To this outsider, it seems that if you self-identify as a Christian, then you are one, end of story.
The translations and interpretations through the ages are what is flawed. If you start talking to divorced people, you'll find many perhaps divorced what you any other person may deem as "frivolous" reasons, but I dare you to interview 100 divorced couples and not find their stories compelling and justified, who have gone on to eventually live good lives with other spouses. If that's the case, then it's obviously the writing that's flawed.
What does any of that have to do with biblical instructions/guidance?
The argument is not that divorce is not often sought for a good reason, it is that it is against the edicts of the Bible.
This is an issue of you do not consider the Bible to be "flawed", or more flawed than human understanding.
But apparently the *translation* and/or the *interpretation* in the Bible IS flawed, or it would work to benefit everyone. That is my point about the Bible. One cannot assume the Bible to be perfectly true when it condemns divorce for *any* reason. Hence, my two cents.
I think it's selfish and disruptive to break up a family because two parents don't like each other. I think it's better if they work to make peace for the sake of the children.
And, you should do that... if you think it is best.
Just making a blanket, anthropological statement.
I'm not married, nor do I have children.
You are joking? Right? You have no experience, yet feel compelled to judge. Hmmmm.
I'm not sure that I'm judging. My opinion is a societal point of view. Things go better when families stay together. Things turn to crap when there are broken families. Higher crime rates, issues of poverty, etc. All kinds of things.
Plus, I do have the experience of observation. Such as seeing one sister work things out with a husband she doesn't love, but they make the kids their priority and stick together. They are both relatively happy. The children have a great life. Another sister is the opposite, left two husbands, a few kids with drinking problems etc, shunted from one place to the next, multiple fathers, paternity issues, more expense because there are multiple rents to pay etc, instead of trying to work things out. Seen lots of families like this. It's sad.
So, observing two couples makes you qualified to make sweeping judgments?
Seriously. I see no advantage to staying with an abusive spouse 'for the sake of the kids'. What do they learn? That it is OK to sleep around if it hurts your spouse? That it is OK to hit a spouse? That having two people miserably together is preferable to anything else?
I do think that people probably divorce more frequently than they should; but....I don't live in their houses and I don't bump around in their heads. I don't know what compels them so I can't say whether or not they had compelling reasons for divorce. I do know that there are far worse things than divorce. Women using kids as clubs in order to continue to punish their husbands for not being exactly what they wanted them to be. Men avoiding their kids because they hate the wife. And, a thousand other things. Mature people can divorce and still be responsible parents. Irresponsible people will be crappy parents whether they go it alone or include a village of idiots to help them raise them.
I said those were examples, not the only ones I've observed.
I also said earlier in a post that I think this is a good idea only when there weren't any safety (which obviously includes abuse) issues.
Please try to at least read what I wrote before accusing me of things I didn't say.
I'm not unintelligent, and I do have the right to an opinion even if I don't live with the issue described.
You probably have opinions on abortion. Have you ever had one? (Just want you to realize that you don't have to be in the middle of a problem to have a valid opinion on it.)
No. I've never had an abortion.
The problem with opinions which imply that some things are preferable to others is that voicing them can hurt other people, by saying that one thing is better than another. They did, I'm sure, wrestle with decisions. They were, I'm sure, concerned with the downside of any choice they made.
By voicing an opinion that something is better doesn't imply that the opposite is worse. You are passing judgment. Whether you are honest enough to own up to it, or not. By not owning up to it, you put yourself in the position to dig that knife deeper into the emotional fragility of the person whose actions run at odds with your personal 'preferred' behavior patterns.
Worse, forcing people into behavior patterns and choices through emotional intimidation causes many to make decisions without going through the thought processes necessary to ensure they accept their decisions. Doing what others consider to be the right thing because others consider it to be the right thing is not the right reason to do anything.
I'm more concerned about the kids than the parents. And I have had experience...I've been a child, with parents. I respect people who are mature and think of their kids first.
I may be passing judgment, but so are you. You think it's OK to break up a family in order for one parent or the other to be "happier". I don't. I think the kids come first. I am more concerned with a child's emotional fragility that a grown adult's.
I didn't force anyone into anything, nor did I suggest that anyone force anyone into anything. I just want adults to act like adults.
I've been a kid with an abusive parent. The divorce was the best thing that ever happened to me.
Not making assumptions about the lives of other people works both ways.
Again, I already said in cases where there is no form of abuse.
Not in that post.
But even without abuse I think it is very possible that the single parent scenario may be massively better than the dual parent scenario in many cases. It is case by case.
What about the parent whose manic business plans make the family constantly stressed and broke so the child has no security of health insurance? If the mother thinks she can do better parenting alone, I am not going to assume she is wrong.
Survey level data showed kids did better in happy two parent families. But kids in happy one parents families did significantly better than kids in two parent families with stress and conflict.
That is certainly an interesting personal fact, I would have never guessed. Thanks for sharing.
Part of acting like an adult is giving other adults the benefit of the doubt and assuming they are mature enough to make the right decisions for their lives and those their lives affect.
Is it? I assume most adults are immature, because that is what I observe.
You may be projecting. I don't know.
I see most adults as responsible enough to pay their bills and not be a burden to society. If they do that, then they have the right to be given leeway to make their own decisions and not have to have others second guess them.
That sounds like you're making a judgment about me. I thought you were against judging people.
You second guess people continuously. You have an opinion about everything, it appears. Nothing wrong with that though. So do most people.
Who says people "have a right" not to be second guessed? I don't remember that right in our constitution, or anyone else's.
I suppose you are right. No one can expect others to give them the benefit of the doubt and not negatively judge them. You do have the right to judge. But, what do they say??? Judge not, lest you be judged.
Of course I have an opinion on everything. Who doesn't? I simply attempt to determine how my opinion effects others and if I deem it to be a negative effect I feel compelled to attempt to understand why it is. If the only gain is to make me feel good about myself and think I'm superior, more mature, more concerned about others or (if religious) more pious...what purpose was served? Other than pompous posturing?
If one believes that divorce is bad; one should not do it. That is the extent of the power you have. I may not be religious but I do believe in the saying 'There, but by the grace of God, go I.' I don't attempt to believe that I know the struggles of other individuals and I have compassion enough within me to believe that everyone does the best that they can and that when they stumble, they know it. They agonize over it. They kick themselves in the head because of it. They certainly don't need me to kick them in the head with an uninformed opinion. Divorce can be the right thing. But, if it is the wrong thing for that individual given the opportunity and the moral support of being there for them without judging them, they turn their mistakes into learning lessons and they try harder the next time around.
You simply don't like my opinion. I don't care. I hold to it. Families are more important than selfish wants of adults. Period. I'm done here.
I had to go back and look. The funny thing is that you engaged me in conversation. I didn't engage you. Had I, then you might have a point other than sour grapes simply because I disagree with you.
I think your problem is that you are taking my general, anthropological opinion on a condition of mankind that has been going on for tens of thousands of years, personally. People have had opinions on marriage, divorce,and family structure since they first came into existence. It's not like I pass out flyers urging people to stay with an annoying spouse. I simply voiced a commonly held opinion on a random forum on the Internet. For whatever reason, you are taking it personally. I apologize if I offended you somehow, but that won't make me change my mind, or stop voicing my opinions about everything under the sun. I too, occasionally get passionate about a subject. Why this particular subject you think I shouldn't voice my opinion on, is beyond me. I just assume you must have personal feelings about it, and I pushed a button. It happens.
A condition of mankind that has been going on for tens of thousands of years? Are you serious? Do you have any clue as to the history of marriage?
Obviously not. You take your uninformed opinion to new heights with that post. And, again, you are projecting.
There is no known history as to marriage. Niether you nor I know if there was marriage 30,000 years ago. However, I take the view that humans mated in pairs well into the past.
That's really kind of funny. You not only think what you think is better should apply to others within the society you live in; now you are attempting to pretend that it would have applied tens of thousands of years ago.
Marriage probably didn't exist until agricultural societies came into existence. And, I think ritualized marriage was probably closely followed by rules concerning the dissolution of that state. I realize it is nice to romanticize and believe that humans are, by nature, monogamous and it was, from the beginning, in our nature to mate for life. But, that doesn't look at us for who and what we are. It doesn't take into account our recorded history.
Divorce is not the start of the problem, imo. I could go into a litany of things I think should be done to lower the divorce rate; but I doubt you would approve of them. As women begin to feel more empowered, at a younger age; as things as simple as far and equal wages come to fruition; as women stop using their ability to procreate as a tool to blackmail and terrorize the object of their affection; and when society stops attempting to make us believe that our looks are our greatest asset you will see less, but longer, marriage and less divorce.
I don't "romanticize" anything. I read scientific literature on anthropology on a regular basis.
ANY society has to have rules, and sexuality and mating practices are always at the top of the list. I have no idea where you get the idea that it probably started with agricultural societies. Even religion and astronomy and art started before agricultural society.
You claimed tens of thousands of years. The farthest back we can find evidence of marriage is no where near that. And, I don't know of anywhere I have seen anyone believable make that claim.
Of course there is no proof. I didn't claim proof. Do you honestly think human beings didn't have society before agriculture? Do you think they were rutting in the dirt 50,000 years ago? Cro magnon had bigger brains than modern humans a hundred thousand years ago. They made tools and clothing and other things. Do you think they were any different than we are today in terms of how they lived socially? It's hard for me to look at a cro magnon and think they acted like animals just because they didn't hoe corn or barley.
The discussion was about divorce, so I read the articles to see if they, in any way, supported your stand. I'm afraid I don't see it. If you can show me where ancient man mated for life and never changed partners, it might support your stand.
I would be willing to concede that, even in the most ancient of times, their could have been nosy nellies turning their noses up when partners were changed, or someone left someone else. That only proves that even ancient humanity couldn't grasp the simple concept of mind your own business.
Bottom line. The reason we see rules for separation and divorce in ancient literature was that separation did happen. If it hadn't been something that happened frequently there would be no reason to address how society felt it should be done.
You seem to think that I get into other people's business, which I don't. I write in a forum and that gets in people's business how?
Have you read your posts? I'll recap for you
Because many like to pick and choose which rules they prefer to follow. Or pretend to. Self righteous. No knowledge of what thought processes led them to make the decisions they made. Simply writing them off as hypocritical.
I personally think a couple should stay together long enough to raise children, and they are out of the house, regardless of their feelings about each other. Making sweeping statements as to what others should do, regardless of circumstance. Mainly, out of a lack of respect for the freedom of others to make choices without being shallowly judged and found lacking.
I just want adults to act like adults. Self righteous pomposity.
I just think that ALL parents should think of their children first. What makes you think they don't? Self righteous pomposity.
I assume most adults are immature again, self righteous pomposity.
Families are more important than selfish wants of adult A judgement made without the benefit of knowing the thought processes that lead others to make the decisions they make.
Tell me, which of those statements isn't passing judgment? Which one doesn't imply that if others don't do what you think is best then you are judging them to be selfish, childish, immature and basically wrong for not doing what lines up with your opinion of right?
It amazes me that you can be so obtuse about the fact that you are repeatedly making judgement calls that aren't yours to make, because they involve decisions that are for others to make about their own lives and their circle of family.
I never said my opinions weren't self righteous of pompous (which I don't think they are, that's your opinion.) I'm discussing general family units, in an anthropological view. You are the one who's taking things personally for some reason, not me. I don't care about your business, nothing to do with me.
I said I wasn't getting in people's business. Or being nosey. I never said anything about any specific person, except for my sisters, and I NEVER have gotten into their business. I wrote anonymously on a forum.
I'm surprised you think I am taking this personally. I see no evidence to support your accusation. My point is that those types of statements are personal. Primarily, because they can cause emotional harm to those who have made the decision to divorce and/or separate. The fact that you can't see that is interesting.
And, you are making no anthropological statements. Divorce is simply society's way to set ground rules for separation. As I said, since we have rules for the civil dissolution of a relationship, we obviously first had behavior patterns that caused us to believe we needed them. Those behavior patterns were in place first.
I'm not implying that the family unit isn't important and isn't the preferred model. I'm simply saying that is my opinion. I would probably take offense if people were arguing that by not sticking to that model I was immature, inconsiderate, lacking of concern for my children; or otherwise selfish. If I would be offended by that, why would I not be able to see that arguing in defense of my opinion (with the arguments you have presented) wouldn't be just as offensive to those who didn't agree with me?
The main problem is that religious society does put a stigma on those who divorce, although they fully participate in the divorce process. Why would we not only make inconsiderate statements as you have in this exchange... but also attempt to imply that some deity thinks even worse of it? I don't think the majority of people take their marriage vows lightly. Although, I did meet a girl once who said she only got married so she could wear the gown. People make mistakes. All people. Shallow and negative assumptions concerning actions we observe in others only opens the door for others to make shallow and negative assumptions about us. I'm not sure how that is a benefit to society.
It doesn't bother me if I hurt an adult's feelings in this matter, if it will make them stop and think about what they might be doing to their kids by their selfishness. I don't like to hurt people's feelings, but I'm not going to keep silent if I feel strongly about something.
Just like you.
Why are you overreacting to this? It's a bit odd. The only thing I can think of is that I pushed a button with you on a personal; level somehow. Wasn't my intention. I'm just discussing a societal issue that has been around for a long time. It seems that you don't think I should be talking about it for some reason. Why is that?
If I were obnoxious (even more than you already think I am) I would start pointing out every time I thought one of YOUR opinions was pompous or judgmental. You are far from innocent in that regard. You are a hypocrite, do you realize that?
We are all hypocrites Jane. That is another discussion.
I never implied any of that. Different environmental factors drive different behavior patterns. What you don't accept is that your argument is driven by a moral stand which has evolved as society has evolved.
I see you added some links. I'll check them out, but I don't know of anything which will give me the right to make sweeping negative judgments as you have displayed in this thread.
by richtwf7 months ago
With an increasing number of married couples ending in divorce - Do you think that divorce is a too easy way out and that a couple should work harder to make their relationship work?No marriage is perfect and couples...
by Jyoti Kothari7 years ago
Modern days witness a lot of divorces. This is spreading like an epidemic over the globe. There are many divorces now-a-days even in the countries where family bond was traditionally very strong. It creates a lot...
by Lori Colbo4 years ago
Why is it that when couples break-up or divorce, suddenly they are mean, vindictive, and retaliatory towards each other.They once loved each other passionately and never would have imagined they would behave like that.
by buddingwriter8 years ago
Personally, this is a cruel thing to say. but my husband has his head bent on it. He says that because the Jews were the ones who crucified Christ back then, that the holocaust was karma. He is not excusing hitler...
by kirstenblog6 years ago
Marriages hit rough spots, sometimes long ones too. Put two separate individuals in an intimate relationship and arguments/fights are normal, eventually, even if the love is still strong. The frequency of arguments may...
by alenushka5 years ago
Is that normal for men to be separated (with separation agreement), not to be divorced, saying that for them it doesn't matter, and they can be in another relationship with whole devoted heart..
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.