Divorce?
- Thread starter MissingLove
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Your definition of emotional abuse contains some (nasty) behaviors that, no doubt, many married individuals have engaged in when they were angry and in an argument. You come off as a little bit censorious and opinionated at times during discussions on this forum, so I am a bit skeptical of the idea that you have never engaged in a single one of those behaviors on your list. They are bad things, but some of those behaviors are also fairly typical of interactions with human beings when they are angry. Why don't you try something and ask your husband to honestly tell you if you have ever displayed any of those behaviors, or even if he has himself. Is there a wife out there who has never held her husband to an unrealistically high standard and criticized him? Maybe one of those shy, silent-as-a-church-mouse demure wives is like that, but I hear they talk at home, too. And you don't seem to be that type, just guessing from your posting style.
If your husband knew you'd serve him papers if he was ever excessively critical of you.... that's something a man (or woman) deserves to know up front. Love is supposed to be long-suffering, and we should tell married couples to be long suffering, not give them a list of unacceptable behaviors and tell them that if their spouse does that, they have a right to divorce. The problem with that, is that it just isn't Biblical.
I've also seen 'abuse' models that included quoting Bible verses and mentioning certain points of Biblical teaching on marriage as part of a pattern of abuse. I suspect these are models of domestic violence developed by feminists. And from what I've researched about it, they do not seem to be based on good social science either.
I know some are and I have seen some of the literature. A realistic understanding of domestic violence takes into account the fact that some women are violent, too, and hit men. Men are taught not to hit back. After several encounters, if a man defends himself and she reports him, he can go off to jail. There are precincts where the cops are mandated to cuff someone and take them off and the man is the preferred for arrest. If the man is arrested, he can be labeled as an abuser. No matter what the story was, the woman could go on an Internet forum or maybe to a pastor and be told she has a right to leave him or divorce him, even if she were the violent offender in the home. I'm not saying this is most cases, but there are different dynamics in every home. I've read that lesbian couples are more prone to domestic violence than hetero couples or even homosexual male couples.
Men hitting women is stigmatized in our culture. That's a good thing, generally. It may make it tough for cops in some situations, but generally it's a good thing. But women hitting men is not equally stigmatized. It should be, especially wives hitting their own husbands. We see women fighting men portrayed in a positive sense in 'girl power' scenes in movies these days. That may not be a good things for minimizing domestic violence either
There is also the flawed reasoning that if a man abuses once, he is always an abuser, a psychopath like the Duluth model suggests. In some cases, the man may have been defending himself. One-off cases of substance abuse can also lead to violent behavior (which is not really a legal defense for anything unless we are talking about unwilful intoxication.)
You should be careful how you use 'you' since I've never beat, choked, etc. my wife. I could start a sentence with, "If you molest a boy...", directed at you, but the third person would be more polite in that case.
No it is not. I did not justify the violent behavior. I pointed out that there are different types of violent people.
You are absolutely reading the wrong ideas into my comments. Your assumptions are in no way justified or reasonable based on what I have written. I do not assume you are a violent person when you post. Why would you assume that I were violent or advocating violence?
The issue I am addressing is the lax attitude believers have toward obeying Jesus when it comes to issues of marriage and divorce. When we are talking about actual violence and preserving someone's life, that is another major ethical issue-- preserving their life. If you are talking about a man, or even a woman, who could potentially turn out to be a killer, that's one thing. But if you are talking about giving a husband or wife permission to leave if their spouse is a little to critical or says mean things when they are angry, this seems to me that it may be another worldly manifestation of a lax attitude toward obeying what the Bible teaches on marriage-- especially as broadly as you are doing in this thread.
I also consider it rather presumptuous to speak on behalf of God if He has not spoken. Paul seemed to imply that bearing false witness of God is a bad thing in I Corinthians 15. I have asked your for scripture to back up your assertions about your broad justification for divorce. How can you reconcile that with Jesus' teachings in passages like Matthew 5, Matthew 19, or Paul's commandments of the Lord in I Corinthians 7?
And practically, why would you advise divorce over such issues as opposed to spending a few weeks and mom and dad's house? In our modern society it would be extremely foolish to jump all the way to divorce if you wanted to eventually reconcile, especially since so many people think that if they get a divorce paper with the government whether or not their actions were in line with the teaching of the Bible, that God somehow thinks it is okay for them to remarry.
If your spouse treats you wrongly, and contrary to scripture, that does not mean God automatically wants you to get a divorce.
The word abused Jesus, and God had Him stay here.
These types of comments aren't fair,
It's like asking 'When did you stop molesting teenage boys?' It is an unfair question.
The word abused Jesus, and God had Him stay here.
These types of comments aren't fair,
It's like asking 'When did you stop molesting teenage boys?' It is an unfair question.
K
I've also seen 'abuse' models that included quoting Bible verses and mentioning certain points of Biblical teaching on marriage as part of a pattern of abuse. I suspect these are models of domestic violence developed by feminists. And from what I've researched about it, they do not seem to be based on good social science either.
Here we go with the feminists again. smh A Christian counselor isn't going to say mentioning Bible verses is abuse. Did the feminists invent the law too?
I know some are and I have seen some of the literature. A realistic understanding of domestic violence takes into account the fact that some women are violent, too, and hit men.
We already covered that and said it was wrong. Why are you bringing it up again?
Men are taught not to hit back. After several encounters, if a man defends himself and she reports him, he can go off to jail.
Well like you said, perhaps he should pray about it. Maybe God will make her stop.
There are precincts where the cops are mandated to cuff someone and take them off and the man is the preferred for arrest. If the man is arrested, he can be labeled as an abuser. No matter what the story was, the woman could go on an Internet forum or maybe to a pastor and be told she has a right to leave him or divorce him, even if she were the violent offender in the home. I'm not saying this is most cases, but there are different dynamics in every home. I've read that lesbian couples are more prone to domestic violence than hetero couples or even homosexual male couples.
I don't know what lesbians do, nor do I care. Can you post facts to back up your claims about certain precincts?
Men hitting women is stigmatized in our culture. That's a good thing, generally.
That's a good thing generally?!
It may make it tough for cops in some situations, but generally it's a good thing. But women hitting men is not equally stigmatized. It should be, especially wives hitting their own husbands. We see women fighting men portrayed in a positive sense in 'girl power' scenes in movies these days. That may not be a good things for minimizing domestic violence either
Already said it was wrong several posts ago. The point is not who is doing it but that no one should stay in an abusive marriage. Why you're straying so far from the topic I do not know.
There is also the flawed reasoning that if a man abuses once, he is always an abuser, a psychopath like the Duluth model suggests. In some cases, the man may have been defending himself. One-off cases of substance abuse can also lead to violent behavior (which is not really a legal defense for anything unless we are talking about unwilful intoxication.)
So you're saying if your daughter came home to you with a red mark across her face you would send her back. You'd say " sweetie, this was just a one off thing, he probably won't do this again, so go on home and make his dinner". Pleassssse tell me you don't have a daughter!!
You should be careful how you use 'you' since I've never beat, choked, etc. my wife. I could start a sentence with, "If you molest a boy...", directed at you, but the third person would be more polite in that case.
First, do not threaten me and do not tell me what to do. This is a discussion forum and if you are too immature to discuss that's on you. The "you" in that sentence did not mean YOU in particular. A mature person would have asked what I meant instead of some sick nonsense about child molesting. What a sick thing to say. smh Shame on you!
No it is not. I did not justify the violent behavior. I pointed out that there are different types of violent people.
Oh, I totally get that you're a right fighter and are just arguing because you have some odd dislike for me even though we have spoken to each other possibly twice before this.
You are absolutely reading the wrong ideas into my comments. Your assumptions are in no way justified or reasonable based on what I have written. I do not assume you are a violent person when you post. Why would you assume that I were violent or advocating violence?
I didn't assume you were violent. But the fact that you seem to be arguing against everything I say, disagreeing and telling antidotes and odd stories about how emotional abuse isn't wrong and this one off business, I'm not seeing you coming out strong against these types of abuse.
The issue I am addressing is the lax attitude believers have toward obeying Jesus when it comes to issues of marriage and divorce. When we are talking about actual violence and preserving someone's life, that is another major ethical issue-- preserving their life. If you are talking about a man, or even a woman, who could potentially turn out to be a killer, that's one thing. But if you are talking about giving a husband or wife permission to leave if their spouse is a little to critical or says mean things when they are angry, this seems to me that it may be another worldly manifestation of a lax attitude toward obeying what the Bible teaches on marriage-- especially as broadly as you are doing in this thread.
Then you haven't read everything the OP said. The old saying is the proof is in the pudding. Her spouse was cheating on her. So there's nothing broad about my comments at all. He refused to talk with her, to try and fix their marriage. He wouldn't go for help. Why? Because he was having an affair. And here you are still saying she ought to stay in the marriage. You are trivializing abuse.
I also consider it rather presumptuous to speak on behalf of God if He has not spoken. Paul seemed to imply that bearing false witness of God is a bad thing in I Corinthians 15. I have asked your for scripture to back up your assertions about your broad justification for divorce. How can you reconcile that with Jesus' teachings in passages like Matthew 5, Matthew 19, or Paul's commandments of the Lord in I Corinthians 7?
No more presumptious than you are putting words in my mouth. My "justification" for divorce is abuse, emotional/ physical or a cheating spouse. That is not broad.
And practically, why would you advise divorce over such issues as opposed to spending a few weeks and mom and dad's house? In our modern society it would be extremely foolish to jump all the way to divorce if you wanted to eventually reconcile, especially since so many people think that if they get a divorce paper with the government whether or not their actions were in line with the teaching of the Bible, that God somehow thinks it is okay for them to remarry.
She never mentioned remarriage, that's between her and God. I advise divorce in emotional/physical abuse situations. I'm not a counselor, I gave my opinion here like you did and everyone else. The OP will do what she feels is best. No one bases a marriage on advice they got from a forum. She wanted feedback, she got it. Neither your POV or mine is going to make any difference to her life in the long run. She moved on. Hopefully she is doing well and is happy. I think we can leave the subject here.
[/QUOTE]
Here we go with the feminists again. smh A Christian counselor isn't going to say mentioning Bible verses is abuse. Did the feminists invent the law too?
I know some are and I have seen some of the literature. A realistic understanding of domestic violence takes into account the fact that some women are violent, too, and hit men.
We already covered that and said it was wrong. Why are you bringing it up again?
Men are taught not to hit back. After several encounters, if a man defends himself and she reports him, he can go off to jail.
Well like you said, perhaps he should pray about it. Maybe God will make her stop.
There are precincts where the cops are mandated to cuff someone and take them off and the man is the preferred for arrest. If the man is arrested, he can be labeled as an abuser. No matter what the story was, the woman could go on an Internet forum or maybe to a pastor and be told she has a right to leave him or divorce him, even if she were the violent offender in the home. I'm not saying this is most cases, but there are different dynamics in every home. I've read that lesbian couples are more prone to domestic violence than hetero couples or even homosexual male couples.
I don't know what lesbians do, nor do I care. Can you post facts to back up your claims about certain precincts?
Men hitting women is stigmatized in our culture. That's a good thing, generally.
That's a good thing generally?!
It may make it tough for cops in some situations, but generally it's a good thing. But women hitting men is not equally stigmatized. It should be, especially wives hitting their own husbands. We see women fighting men portrayed in a positive sense in 'girl power' scenes in movies these days. That may not be a good things for minimizing domestic violence either
Already said it was wrong several posts ago. The point is not who is doing it but that no one should stay in an abusive marriage. Why you're straying so far from the topic I do not know.
There is also the flawed reasoning that if a man abuses once, he is always an abuser, a psychopath like the Duluth model suggests. In some cases, the man may have been defending himself. One-off cases of substance abuse can also lead to violent behavior (which is not really a legal defense for anything unless we are talking about unwilful intoxication.)
So you're saying if your daughter came home to you with a red mark across her face you would send her back. You'd say " sweetie, this was just a one off thing, he probably won't do this again, so go on home and make his dinner". Pleassssse tell me you don't have a daughter!!
You should be careful how you use 'you' since I've never beat, choked, etc. my wife. I could start a sentence with, "If you molest a boy...", directed at you, but the third person would be more polite in that case.
First, do not threaten me and do not tell me what to do. This is a discussion forum and if you are too immature to discuss that's on you. The "you" in that sentence did not mean YOU in particular. A mature person would have asked what I meant instead of some sick nonsense about child molesting. What a sick thing to say. smh Shame on you!
No it is not. I did not justify the violent behavior. I pointed out that there are different types of violent people.
Oh, I totally get that you're a right fighter and are just arguing because you have some odd dislike for me even though we have spoken to each other possibly twice before this.
You are absolutely reading the wrong ideas into my comments. Your assumptions are in no way justified or reasonable based on what I have written. I do not assume you are a violent person when you post. Why would you assume that I were violent or advocating violence?
I didn't assume you were violent. But the fact that you seem to be arguing against everything I say, disagreeing and telling antidotes and odd stories about how emotional abuse isn't wrong and this one off business, I'm not seeing you coming out strong against these types of abuse.
The issue I am addressing is the lax attitude believers have toward obeying Jesus when it comes to issues of marriage and divorce. When we are talking about actual violence and preserving someone's life, that is another major ethical issue-- preserving their life. If you are talking about a man, or even a woman, who could potentially turn out to be a killer, that's one thing. But if you are talking about giving a husband or wife permission to leave if their spouse is a little to critical or says mean things when they are angry, this seems to me that it may be another worldly manifestation of a lax attitude toward obeying what the Bible teaches on marriage-- especially as broadly as you are doing in this thread.
Then you haven't read everything the OP said. The old saying is the proof is in the pudding. Her spouse was cheating on her. So there's nothing broad about my comments at all. He refused to talk with her, to try and fix their marriage. He wouldn't go for help. Why? Because he was having an affair. And here you are still saying she ought to stay in the marriage. You are trivializing abuse.
I also consider it rather presumptuous to speak on behalf of God if He has not spoken. Paul seemed to imply that bearing false witness of God is a bad thing in I Corinthians 15. I have asked your for scripture to back up your assertions about your broad justification for divorce. How can you reconcile that with Jesus' teachings in passages like Matthew 5, Matthew 19, or Paul's commandments of the Lord in I Corinthians 7?
No more presumptious than you are putting words in my mouth. My "justification" for divorce is abuse, emotional/ physical or a cheating spouse. That is not broad.
And practically, why would you advise divorce over such issues as opposed to spending a few weeks and mom and dad's house? In our modern society it would be extremely foolish to jump all the way to divorce if you wanted to eventually reconcile, especially since so many people think that if they get a divorce paper with the government whether or not their actions were in line with the teaching of the Bible, that God somehow thinks it is okay for them to remarry.
She never mentioned remarriage, that's between her and God. I advise divorce in emotional/physical abuse situations. I'm not a counselor, I gave my opinion here like you did and everyone else. The OP will do what she feels is best. No one bases a marriage on advice they got from a forum. She wanted feedback, she got it. Neither your POV or mine is going to make any difference to her life in the long run. She moved on. Hopefully she is doing well and is happy. I think we can leave the subject here.
[/QUOTE]
-
1
- Show all
K
You can keep right on putting words in my mouth. What I said was abuse, abuse, abuse. Maybe you'll understand if I say it enough times.
So unless you're being crucified, stay in the marriage?
How about we leave the child molesting out of the convos ok? When I asked "Are you honestly trying to argue that God looks the other way when you emotionally /physically abuse your wife?! " I again did not mean YOU in a personal way. When a man abuses, not you personally. So now you can answer the question understanding I mean you as a person in general, not you personally. So your answer would be??
7
dude you don't know what you are talking about. you sound like a narcissist who is well practiced in how to bait and switch and put blame on an innocent party. I bet you do that in real life, eh? LOL!
Kayla has said nothing remotely close to what you are presenting
you seem to like to pass alot of hot air and try to sound like you are having a reasonable discussion, but you are making a case here that no one has presented and going on as though you have hung out a shingle that gives you a degree in blathering
EVERY SINGLE MARRIAGE HAS ARGUMENTS AND IF THEY SAY THEY DO NOT, THEN ONE OF THEM IS DEAD and the tomatoes are doing particularly well this year
that is not what this thread is about though.
Kayla needs to give YOU the silent treatment LOL!
people who actually do know what they are talking about here, will recognize the behavior you are exhibiting
it stinketh
Kayla has said nothing remotely close to what you are presenting
you seem to like to pass alot of hot air and try to sound like you are having a reasonable discussion, but you are making a case here that no one has presented and going on as though you have hung out a shingle that gives you a degree in blathering
EVERY SINGLE MARRIAGE HAS ARGUMENTS AND IF THEY SAY THEY DO NOT, THEN ONE OF THEM IS DEAD and the tomatoes are doing particularly well this year
that is not what this thread is about though.
Kayla needs to give YOU the silent treatment LOL!
people who actually do know what they are talking about here, will recognize the behavior you are exhibiting
it stinketh
-
2
-
1
- Show all
7
let's look at this
it is the truth.
manipulative people are experts at sounding knowledgeable and can maintain composure in order to give the impression they are the center of the universe, when everyone else is ticked off and reacting and being TRUTHFUL and condemning the false behavior
they can maintain composure because their presentation is a lie. and they are acting. and very good at it
violence does not have to be physical. some of the worst damage is what narcissists do to the psyche of those they play with
a common term is gas-lighting and the actions that go along with that, is the 'victims' question themselves, question their choices and question whether or not they are actually at fault. this is the intended result. in this way, the manipulator keeps you coming back for more but you will get nowhere with reason and certainly do not ever ever try to point out where they are wrong because honey, they are never wrong
the response is defensive behavior which can include behavior that the aggressor will quickly point out and label the actual innocent person, as out of control or 'needs help' or what have you
DON'T FALL FOR IT
the best reaction to give a person who uses these tactics is NONE AT ALL
it is the truth.
manipulative people are experts at sounding knowledgeable and can maintain composure in order to give the impression they are the center of the universe, when everyone else is ticked off and reacting and being TRUTHFUL and condemning the false behavior
they can maintain composure because their presentation is a lie. and they are acting. and very good at it
violence does not have to be physical. some of the worst damage is what narcissists do to the psyche of those they play with
a common term is gas-lighting and the actions that go along with that, is the 'victims' question themselves, question their choices and question whether or not they are actually at fault. this is the intended result. in this way, the manipulator keeps you coming back for more but you will get nowhere with reason and certainly do not ever ever try to point out where they are wrong because honey, they are never wrong
the response is defensive behavior which can include behavior that the aggressor will quickly point out and label the actual innocent person, as out of control or 'needs help' or what have you
DON'T FALL FOR IT
the best reaction to give a person who uses these tactics is NONE AT ALL
-
2
- Show all
We are Christians. The Bible teaches that God works in us to will and to do according to his good pleasure. Saul of Tarsus was a violent man who thought he was justified, but Jesus confronted him, he repented, and the power of God transformed his life.
Drunkards can have a difficult time coming out of their drunken lifestyle. But Paul says of drunkards, "And such were some of you, but now you are washed, now you are sanctified, now you are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God."
The power of God can transform abusers and pedophiles.
I am wondering what you base your statements on. Have you read that abusers rarely stop abusing somewhere? What was this based on? How would we know if most pedophiles abuse children? Pedophiles are those who are attracted to prepubescent children. Many of them could just not act on their perverse desires. Are they going to tell people they are pedophiles? If you were looking at stats related to convicted pedophiles repeating their actions, you'd have a selection error when it came to applying that to pedophiles.
Drunkards can have a difficult time coming out of their drunken lifestyle. But Paul says of drunkards, "And such were some of you, but now you are washed, now you are sanctified, now you are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God."
The power of God can transform abusers and pedophiles.
I am wondering what you base your statements on. Have you read that abusers rarely stop abusing somewhere? What was this based on? How would we know if most pedophiles abuse children? Pedophiles are those who are attracted to prepubescent children. Many of them could just not act on their perverse desires. Are they going to tell people they are pedophiles? If you were looking at stats related to convicted pedophiles repeating their actions, you'd have a selection error when it came to applying that to pedophiles.
Kayla,
Let me summarize my view here. We are Christians. We have some commandments of the Lord concerning divorce.
Jesus said that Moses because of the 'hardness of your hearts' allowed divorce and that he that puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery and tha the that marries her that is divorced commits adultery.
Paul relays the commandments of the Lord when he commands the husband not to divorce his wife and commands the wife not to depart from her husband, but if she departs, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband.
But you say that if a man or woman talks mean enough, that this justifies divorce. What scripture is that based on?
And why jump to divorce? Another poster suggested separation. My wife's folks are from a collectivist culture. In that culture, if a spouse experiences a perceived injustice from the other spouse, they call their in-laws and ask for help. I sat in one one of the family meetings about this as an adopted older brother to the groom and counsin-in-law to both of them. The issues here were the wife felt the husband wasn't responsible enough financially for the home. He was apparently going through some kind of depression or something. They had kids. They decided to send the husband off for a time to his father-in-law/uncle way up in the village in the mountains to get his head straightened out and later reconcile. The goal was always reconciliation.
You did mention a pattern of verbal abuse. A comment about that was buried in a quoted post I did not see initially. I would imagine that a hurt person in a troubled marriage where there was a lot of arguing could think through their past interactions with a spouse and interpret a number of incidents as a pattern of verbal abuse, even in a marriage that is quite salvagable. There are plenty of people out there looking for an excuse to do what feels right.
If a husband not loving his wife as Christ loves the church is grounds for divorce, is a wife not submitting to her husband as to Christ grounds for divorce also? A husband should love his wife as Christ loves the church. But if he fails at this, can he repent and be restored, or is divorce the only option?
My children are not old enough to be married yet, not by modern cultural norms. If one of my girl's came to see me and her husband had hit her, he could promptly expect a visit from me.
Let me summarize my view here. We are Christians. We have some commandments of the Lord concerning divorce.
Jesus said that Moses because of the 'hardness of your hearts' allowed divorce and that he that puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery and tha the that marries her that is divorced commits adultery.
Paul relays the commandments of the Lord when he commands the husband not to divorce his wife and commands the wife not to depart from her husband, but if she departs, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband.
But you say that if a man or woman talks mean enough, that this justifies divorce. What scripture is that based on?
And why jump to divorce? Another poster suggested separation. My wife's folks are from a collectivist culture. In that culture, if a spouse experiences a perceived injustice from the other spouse, they call their in-laws and ask for help. I sat in one one of the family meetings about this as an adopted older brother to the groom and counsin-in-law to both of them. The issues here were the wife felt the husband wasn't responsible enough financially for the home. He was apparently going through some kind of depression or something. They had kids. They decided to send the husband off for a time to his father-in-law/uncle way up in the village in the mountains to get his head straightened out and later reconcile. The goal was always reconciliation.
You did mention a pattern of verbal abuse. A comment about that was buried in a quoted post I did not see initially. I would imagine that a hurt person in a troubled marriage where there was a lot of arguing could think through their past interactions with a spouse and interpret a number of incidents as a pattern of verbal abuse, even in a marriage that is quite salvagable. There are plenty of people out there looking for an excuse to do what feels right.
If a husband not loving his wife as Christ loves the church is grounds for divorce, is a wife not submitting to her husband as to Christ grounds for divorce also? A husband should love his wife as Christ loves the church. But if he fails at this, can he repent and be restored, or is divorce the only option?
My children are not old enough to be married yet, not by modern cultural norms. If one of my girl's came to see me and her husband had hit her, he could promptly expect a visit from me.
K
No issue with any of that.
Never said that.
Depends on the type of abuse, the length of the abuse and if abuser is willing to seek help.
The context was how Christ treated woman vs how Romans treated women. I was speaking to something specific you wrote. We are talking abuse, kindly stick to the subject.
Excellent, after all this we can agree on something, miracles do happen.