- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
08 Jul 12
Originally posted by FMFThat might depend on quite what you mean.
'Condemning divorce is not a moral stance.' Thoughts?
It could be argued that atheism is a religious stance, in that the atheists response to being
asked what their religion is they will say none.
"Condemning divorce" could be a moral position in that it's a position adopted because of the
moral system and values of the adoptee...
Or it could be an amoral decision if you don't think morality is a relevant factor...
However I think what you mean is that "Condemning divorce" is morally wrong/bad.
Which is also potentially open to interpretation... Depending on what you mean by condemning...
I thus feel further clarification might be needed before i could comment further...
However talking generally on the subject of divorce/marriage and morality...
This blog post has some interesting thoughts on the topic that I generally agree with...
http://teenskepchick.org/2012/06/28/marriages-decreasing-relevance/
Viewing marriage as a potentially convenient way of defining your relationship to others and
to the state and all the benefits that come with it... it becomes clear that it can't be immoral to end
the marriage if the pro's of being married no-longer outweigh the cons.
The beaten wife trying to escape the abusive husband is the obvious example that springs to mind
but one needed go that extreme.
08 Jul 12
Originally posted by FMFMorality has to do with personal behavior in my opinion.
'Condemning divorce is not a moral stance.' Thoughts?
Divorce, I think, has to do with the dissolution of a relationship intended to last a lifetime. The condemnation of divorce isn't a condemnation of a person, but of the wreck it makes of the lives of those involved. Especially the children.
The bond of marriage is the strongest form of institution know to man. All other institutions are subservient to it, and intended for its(marriage)support.
Divorce is a condemnable thing.
08 Jul 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeCondemning deceit, harming others, or coercion of others, would be moral stances.
I thus feel further clarification might be needed before i could comment further...
Condemning harm done to children caused by the way they are treated by troubled parents would arguably be a moral stance.
Condemning deceit or harm that resulted in a relationship breaking down would arguably be moral stance.
Condemning coercion within a marriage or coercion leading to a marriage is arguably a moral stance.
Condemning the breaking of promises, if it involves deceit of some kind, is arguably a moral stance.
But simply condemning people for getting divorced, in and of itself?
What would be the objective 'moral substance' of such a stance?
08 Jul 12
Originally posted by josephwMorality has to do with the interactions of people, I think.
Morality has to do with personal behavior in my opinion.
Divorce, I think, has to do with the dissolution of a relationship intended to last a lifetime.
Why do you say marriage is "a relationship intended to last a lifetime"? Is it because you see this hope as being true for yourself? If so, why is superimposing this ideal or expectation onto others a "moral stance" regardless of circumstances?
The condemnation of divorce isn't a condemnation of a person, but of the wreck it makes of the lives of those involved. Especially the children.
Well can't the moral condemnation pertain to "the wreck it makes of the lives" if there is such damage? What about marriages that are dissolved with little or no significant damage? What about divorces that result in less harm to children than perseverance with a failing marriage?
The bond of marriage is the strongest form of institution know to man.
How so?
Divorce is a condemnable thing.
Why? What business of yours is the breakdown and ending of others relationships?
08 Jul 12
God's view..... "God's Love" page 220.
What forms a Scriptural basis for divorce?
Well, Jehovah hates adultery and fornication. (Genesis 39:9; 2 Samuel 11:26, 27; Psalm 51:4)
Indeed, he finds fornication so despicable that he allows it as grounds for divorce. (For a discussion of what fornication involves, refer to Chapter 9, paragraph 7, where fornication is explained.) Jehovah grants the innocent mate the right to decide whether to remain with the guilty partner or to seek a divorce. (Matthew 19:9)
Hence, if an innocent mate decides to seek a divorce, that one does not take a step that Jehovah hates. At the same time, however, the Christian congregation does not encourage anyone to seek a divorce.
In fact, some circumstances may move the innocent mate to remain with the guilty one, especially if that one is genuinely repentant. In the end, though, those who have a Scriptural basis for divorce must make their own decision and accept whatever consequences it may bring.—Galatians 6:5.
08 Jul 12
5 edits
Originally posted by galveston75So, galveston75. You appear to condemn deceit. But what about the OP: 'Condemning divorce is not a moral stance'. Do you agree?
God's view..... "God's Love" page 220.
What forms a Scriptural basis for divorce?
Well, Jehovah hates adultery and fornication. (Genesis 39:9; 2 Samuel 11:26, 27; Psalm 51:4)
Indeed, he finds fornication so despicable that he allows it as grounds for divorce. (For a discussion of what fornication involves, refer to Chapter 9, paragraph 7, where ...[text shortened]... e must make their own decision and accept whatever consequences it may bring.—Galatians 6:5.
Originally posted by josephwSo a woman living with a wife beater should remain married to such a creep and then end up getting killed? So marriage is stronger than the need to protect oneself from death?
Morality has to do with personal behavior in my opinion.
Divorce, I think, has to do with the dissolution of a relationship intended to last a lifetime. The condemnation of divorce isn't a condemnation of a person, but of the wreck it makes of the lives of those involved. Especially the children.
The bond of marriage is the strongest form of instituti ...[text shortened]... re subservient to it, and intended for its(marriage)support.
Divorce is a condemnable thing.
It seems to me the morality associated with divorce is exactly the same morality that leads so-called religious men to convince themselves they are superior to women and therefore are the keeper of women and women should be obedient to them in all things.
Another example of the suppression of women in religious societies.
08 Jul 12
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseYou have a point but I don't think we necessarily have to examine this issue through such a dramatic scenario.
So a woman living with a wife beater should remain married to such a creep and then end up getting killed?
Two people who have grown apart as they grew older - unhappy, incompatible, emotionally lonely; for them to divorce is "a condemnable thing"?
08 Jul 12
Originally posted by FMFIn God's eyes, yes. Perhaps these two should have taken the Bible's advice and always put the other mate first and more importantly to have God in their marriage.
You have a point but I don't think we necessarily have to examine this issue through such a dramatic scenario.
Two people who have grown apart as they grew older - unhappy, incompatible, emotionally lonely; for them to divorce is "a condemnable thing"?
“A threefold cord cannot quickly be torn in two.” (Ec 4:12)
If God is in ones marriage the chances of it going bad or very rare....
08 Jul 12
Originally posted by FMFDivorce is a condemnable thing.
Morality has to do with the interactions of people, I think.
[b]Divorce, I think, has to do with the dissolution of a relationship intended to last a lifetime.
Why do you say marriage is "a relationship intended to last a lifetime"? Is it because you see this hope as being true for yourself? If so, why is superimposing this ideal or expectation onto o ...[text shortened]... [/b]
Why? What business of yours is the breakdown and ending of others relationships?[/b]
Why? What business of yours is the breakdown and ending of others relationships?
Good question.
Personally, it's none of my business what goes on between any particular married couple. But the issue goes deeper than that. I doubt seriously whether or not you've thought about it very deeply at all, as I'm sure anything I may say will only serve as fodder for your contrary mindset.
Marriage isn't merely a legal contract with contingencies and obligations. Marriage is a bond of love made in the heart between a man and a woman that cannot be broken, because it is unconditional. It is the bedrock of all relationships. It's fundamental to the continuation of all societal institutions.
Marriage is the union of first priority in all human affairs.
Originally posted by galveston75Your non-interacting god? Give me a break. There has never been a 'god' in marriage. There has never been a god in ANYTHING in man's affairs, only man made fairy tales to induce the weak minded and control them and subjugate women. That is the ONLY function of religion.
In God's eyes, yes. Perhaps these two should have taken the Bible's advice and always put the other mate first and more importantly to have God in their marriage.
“A threefold cord cannot quickly be torn in two.” (Ec 4:12)
If God is in ones marriage the chances of it going bad or very rare....