1 edit
@secondson saidI do understand what you are typing and why you are typing it. However, your reliance on ancient texts and ancient attitudes is making it difficult for you to be coherent.
I know what you're asking, but you don't understand what I'm answering.
1 edit
@secondson saidI understand what you are trotting out. Don't worry.
No, you're obviously not understanding Matthew 19:9.
Don't be so narrow minded. Understand the context, and to whom Jesus was speaking and why.
Look, if you believe that it is morally sound for men and women to get divorced for reasons of domestic violence, then good. I agree.
But for you to pretend that Matthew 19:9 does not contradict you, and that somehow your opinion is the same as that of Jesus, is weak.
If your moral compass, like mine, has you believing that violence in a marriage is morally wrong, I think that is understandable.
But the notion that you have some supernatural or divine underpinning for your view is unpersuasive, especially in light of all the contortions that Matthew 19:9 has you engaged in.
@secondson saidWhat about divorces caused by irreconcilable incompatibility, for example? Do you believe they are morally sound?
In my opinion, I believe Jesus would consider wife beating grounds for divorce.
@bigdoggproblem saidThat's right, but the principles remain the same. Human nature is the same in any context.
Well, this is exactly where I was going. Context matters. And I'm sure this wasn't the only time Jesus talked about the issue of divorce. I don't see how a follower of Jesus can formulate an entire moral position on an issue from just one passage.
Interestingly, the other reasons you listed highlight that the wife's general role at that time was that of a glorified ...[text shortened]... ow. Yet another reason why the old writings cannot be expected to completely apply to the new times.
@secondson saidTalking of violence in the home, what attitude toward beating slaves did the New Testament reflect?
That's right, but the principles remain the same. Human nature is the same in any context.
@secondson saidInterestingly enough, on this very issue, God had previously instructed Moses to give people a pass on divorce because of the "hardness of their hearts". Why do you suppose God made allowance for such a thing?
That's right, but the principles remain the same. Human nature is the same in any context.
@bigdoggproblem saidNo that is not what he was implying. Wouldn't that be a little on the cruel side for that to be a law?
So let me get this straight.
If a husband beats his wife, Jesus said she can't divorce him?
I'm thinking Jesus got that one wrong, if that is indeed what he thought.
But even with a husband beater that is not grounds for divorce as the bible says in the previous scripture. Fornication is the only reason.
But obviously the wife should be all means protect herself and leave if that is what is needed. That would never be looked down on by Jehovah. But if the husband is agreeable for counseling then that should be the first option again as marriage is Jehovah's arrangements. But if all efforts fail the wife should remain away for her safety.
But that is still not spiritual grounds for a divorce. But if the wife can ever prove that the husband is unfaithful to her by adultery in the future, that would now allow her to pursue a legal and spiritual divorce.
@fmf saidI don’t believe that it’s immoral any more or less than marriage...
'Divorce is not morally unsound in and of itself'.
Agree or disagree?
As to whether it is a "sin", that's a matter for those who believe that "sin" is real.
The notion of "sin" aside, the question is whether divorce is, in and of itself, immoral.