Would you date or marry a separated or divorced person?

[presidente]

Or...

OR...

... Maybe seoulsearch was right about you having no idea what kind of audience this is here, and you should go back and reread her posts carefully. She spent a bit of time and effort trying to explain it to you multiple times. You just brushed her off as though she didn't have any idea what she was talking about. Go back and read them again.

If you keep missing the target, do you tell the target to jump in front of your arrow? Or do you correct your aim?

Of course seoulsearch was right that I don't know the make-up of the forum. I didn't know that it was so common on this forum for posters to derail threads with talk of why a thread shouldn't posted, like you and seoulsearch did.

I don't agree with the premise that I need to know the make-up of the forum to post a message. And if some divorced people don't like scriptures on divorce or discussions on the topic, I don't agree with the idea that that makes it wrong for me to post it.

 

[Lynx]

Of course seoulsearch was right that I don't know the make-up of the forum. I didn't know that it was so common on this forum for posters to derail threads with talk of why a thread shouldn't posted, like you and seoulsearch did.

I don't agree with the premise that I need to know the make-up of the forum to post a message. And if some divorced people don't like scriptures on divorce or discussions on the topic, I don't agree with the idea that that makes it wrong for me to post it.

I don't agree with you being so deliberately disagreeable either, but here we are.

We were trying to be nice and helpful. I was trying in a mile, passive way, but seoulsearch practically bent over backward to try to help you. All you do is complain.

I don't agree with that at all. But, again, here we are.

 

[JohnDB]

Of course seoulsearch was right that I don't know the make-up of the forum. I didn't know that it was so common on this forum for posters to derail threads with talk of why a thread shouldn't posted, like you and seoulsearch did.

I don't agree with the premise that I need to know the make-up of the forum to post a message. And if some divorced people don't like scriptures on divorce or discussions on the topic, I don't agree with the idea that that makes it wrong for me to post it.

So that whole message of "people don't care what you know until they know how much you care" was totally lost on you eh?

This is THE reason why no church in the world will accept you as a pastor or preacher or even as a Sunday School teacher.

 

[JohnDB]

"Love thy neighbor as thyself " is one of two Commandments Jesus gave that ALL of the Old Testament and New Testament Law rests upon and is extrapolated from.

If condemnation or browbeating or finger wagging is a person's idea of love....then we are not speaking the same language with the same meanings behind the words.

 

[seoulsearch]

Of course seoulsearch was right that I don't know the make-up of the forum. I didn't know that it was so common on this forum for posters to derail threads with talk of why a thread shouldn't posted, like you and seoulsearch did.

I don't agree with the premise that I need to know the make-up of the forum to post a message. And if some divorced people don't like scriptures on divorce or discussions on the topic, I don't agree with the idea that that makes it wrong for me to post it.

I'm not saying you shouldn't post your threads.

I'm saying, if you took the time to learn about the crowd here, you'd have a much better chance at getting responses, because you seem quite dismayed that you aren't getting the responses you seek.

Singles is very different from the BDF.

We talk a lot about our daily lives as Christians, so subjects change quickly and unabashedly, which is considered normal here. We also try to use some humor and banter, which I know is a much different atmosphere than the BDF.

If I were to go and post in the BDF regularly, I would have to learn to read the crowd first. I know things are much more serious there, with people being focused on serious Bible scholarship -- which is great.

Over here in Singles, we are often on the other side -- discussing what living out a Christian life looks like on what might seem to be a boring, mundane existence -- but almost everyone feels their life is repetitious and sometimes even unmeaningful now and then. So, we try to talk it out and help one another along, with much more informal talks than found in the BDF.

So if I wanted to become a regular in the BDF, I would have to get a feel for what was considered "normal" there.

And unless I changed my own approach and style of posting (not necessarily changing the topics I wanted to post about, but rather the way I presented and worded them) in order to fit the audience, I would never be able to hold a discussion there. I would also have to expect opposition at every turn, because I wasn't educated about who I was talking to or being respectful enough to learn their own unique culture.

Likewise, you can post as many threads as you want here, but you'll have a hard time getting most of the crowd to bend into the directions you seem to want to go.

So yes, please carry on.

But don't be so surprised if the responses you get aren't what you're trying for.

 

[presidente]

So....
Let's dismiss all of the quotes of Josephus....after all it's clearly showing that you really don't know what you are saying....then let's dismiss all of the OBVIOUS and well known anthropology of the day too. Because if you dismiss what has been well documented as to anthropology (which explains perfectly why Jesus says what He said and why He said it the way He said it in) Then we are left with a huge inconsistency here with Ezra's command for the Jewish men to "put away" their foreign wives.

What obvious and well-known anthropology of the day are you talking about? What aspect of culture or social history does my previous post explain? You can read the same sort of thing I wrote about the historical background in multiple sources online. I've seen it in multiple places myself.

I would imagine most people here are Gentiles, living after Christ did. Hebrews were not allowed to marry Canaanites and members of the seven nations. Priests couldn't marry foreigners.

Ezra 9:1
Now when these things were done, the princes came to me, saying, The people of Israel, and the priests, and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the people of the lands, doing according to their abominations, even of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites.

Some passages of scripture are inspired accounts of people doing things that we are not to emulate. We shouldn't emulate the way Amnon treated Tamar. This book tells things Ezra did.

If the priests were married to Egyptians (and maybe Moabites), I see a justification for what Ezra did in the Torah. Regular Israelites were not forbidden from marrying Egyptians. There was a specific law about marrying Moabites.

Be that as it may, it is possible this passage was an issue for some early Christians. We do not know what letter the Corinthians referenced in I Corinthians 7:1 contained. It is possible that some Christians were concerned about whether their marriages to unbelievers were legitimate, considering this passage from Ezra. He was also dealing at least in part with Gentiles married to other Gentile believers or else Jewish believers married to Greeks. Paul's advice was to remain with an unbeliever willing to remain with an unbeliever.

I don't see how what Ezra did creates some secret doctrine you won't disclose that somehow changes the straightforward interpretation of what Christ said, or anything I wrote. If you see some kind of contradiction, feel free to share it.

(We also get to dismiss your anthropology statements as well as to the two arguing Schmeekhah Rabbis too) You can't claim them either....

I wouldn't call that 'antropology'. What is your objection to looking at the historical background to the debate? Their debates are either in the Mishneh Torah. This is the kind of stuff seminary students and grads look at on the topic. Do a search on Google scholar for 'Christ' 'Hillel' 'Shammai' and 'divorce'.

And it is also really clear from the context of Deuteronomy and Matthew 19 that the put away woman with a certificate is put away. And Jesus spoke of 'Whosoever shall put away his wife' as it says in the KJV. Whosoever means whosoever... unless you want to deny what the King James translation says.

You can't claim two different sets of rules in a debate....either they are uniform or they are not.

Shaka when the walls fell.

What are you trying to say? What two sets of rules?

Then there's the issue of Bible shopping....because you don't like what the KJV says you shop for a Bible translation that says what you want it to say?

The KJV is against slandering brethren, too. You can't read my mind, but you are quick to make accusations.

The KJV supports well what Jesus said in the passage. I used the KJV2000B to preserve a Greek distinction that shows up in the KJV but not a lot of other translations, but doesn't obscure the verse with early 17th century grammar. Some people are unfamiliar with the earlier stage of English. I consider the KJV-only position to be an obviously stupid and ignorant doctrine, since the apostles clearly did not teach it and we are to hold to 'the faith once delivered to the saints.' It is clearly a doctrine that emerged after 1611 and was not an original teaching of the Christian faith. (Much later than 1611 of course.)

I personally like the KJV for its cadence, and I memorized this passage out of the KJV, so I have a vested interest in using it, but I used another translation out of consideration for others. Show me one thing the KJV2000B changes _in terms of doctrine_ when compared to the KJV of this passage.

Why not do as most people do and translate the scriptures to say what you want it to say instead of what it does say? (There is a name for such behavior, also a prohibition and a result for doing such as stated quite clearly by God)

Most people aren't Bible translators. The KJV says that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another commiteth adultery, also.

So for someone claiming piety above everyone else you sure do have a very dishonest way of discussing things.

Quote me where I claimed piety above everyone else. Do you ever stop slandering and accusing? What is wrong with you? You aren't even making sense, and you are making things up? Who is being dishonest?

Name one dishonest thing I said in the whole thread.

Also, your response was rather pitiful and poorly thought out. You didn't address any of the issues. You referred to well known 'anthropology' of the day, but then don't share any sources or summarize it. How do I know that you arent' being dishonest by pretending you have some source you don't care to disclose when it doesn't exist?

But I don't accuse you of that because I have seen poor 'scholarship' on the topic online, and maybe you read that. I read some pseudoscholarship on the divorcehope website, where the author did admit he didn't know Greek, but went on in great detail to try to argue that the distinction in Greek words made it okay to divorce and remarry as long as you gave a certificate. But this is pure sophistry, as one can see by actually reading the passage in English in a translation (like the KJV, which does well in this case) which preserves the distinction between the words used in translation.

You can find what I wrote about Hillel and Shammai in the Mishneh or a great number of articles from Bible scholars or Christian Bible teachers with a Google search or a Google scholar search.

 

[presidente]

I'm not saying you shouldn't post your threads.

I'm saying, if you took the time to learn about the crowd here, you'd have a much better chance at getting responses, because you seem quite dismayed that you aren't getting the responses you seek.

Dismayed? What gave you the impression of 'dismay'. I find personal attacks and derails a bit annoying, but I realize some people react negatively to controversial scriptures when it affects their personal life.

We talk a lot about our daily lives as Christians, so subjects change quickly and unabashedly, which is considered normal here. We also try to use some humor and banter, which I know is a much different atmosphere than the BDF.

That's fine. I'm cool with that. It's hard to do that though with people who come at you aggressively with false accusations about your motives and other undeciphirable accusations.

 

[presidente]

"Love thy neighbor as thyself " is one of two Commandments Jesus gave that ALL of the Old Testament and New Testament Law rests upon and is extrapolated from.

If condemnation or browbeating or finger wagging is a person's idea of love....then we are not speaking the same language with the same meanings behind the words.

Are you posting to yourself? Practice what you preach. Don't finger wag with false accusations, making up false motives for other people, and accusing them of it. Talk about the pot and the kettle.

If you aren't self-aware, other people can read your posts.

My OP asked whether posters would marry a divorced person and quotes scriptures on divorce and remarriage without any commentary. And that set you off. If you feel 'browbeat' or a finger being wagged at you when you read the Bible, don't put that on me. Do some introspection.

 

[Tall_Timbers]

Would you date or marry someone who had been divorced? If so, under what conditions?

If I were a widower, I probably wouldn't remarry, but if circumstances led to the possibility, only if I felt certain that the party in question was not guilty of any thing that would have made a divorce by the other party okay. The truth of the matter might be hard to come by. I would err on the side of caution.

Would you date someone who was separated from their spouse? If so, under what conditions?

Never, not under any circumstances.

 

[JohnDB]

What obvious and well-known anthropology of the day are you talking about? What aspect of culture or social history does my previous post explain? You can read the same sort of thing I wrote about the historical background in multiple sources online. I've seen it in multiple places myself.

I would imagine most people here are Gentiles, living after Christ did. Hebrews were not allowed to marry Canaanites and members of the seven nations. Priests couldn't marry foreigners.

Ezra 9:1
Now when these things were done, the princes came to me, saying, The people of Israel, and the priests, and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the people of the lands, doing according to their abominations, even of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites.

Some passages of scripture are inspired accounts of people doing things that we are not to emulate. We shouldn't emulate the way Amnon treated Tamar. This book tells things Ezra did.

If the priests were married to Egyptians (and maybe Moabites), I see a justification for what Ezra did in the Torah. Regular Israelites were not forbidden from marrying Egyptians. There was a specific law about marrying Moabites.

Be that as it may, it is possible this passage was an issue for some early Christians. We do not know what letter the Corinthians referenced in I Corinthians 7:1 contained. It is possible that some Christians were concerned about whether their marriages to unbelievers were legitimate, considering this passage from Ezra. He was also dealing at least in part with Gentiles married to other Gentile believers or else Jewish believers married to Greeks. Paul's advice was to remain with an unbeliever willing to remain with an unbeliever.

I don't see how what Ezra did creates some secret doctrine you won't disclose that somehow changes the straightforward interpretation of what Christ said, or anything I wrote. If you see some kind of contradiction, feel free to share it.



I wouldn't call that 'antropology'. What is your objection to looking at the historical background to the debate? Their debates are either in the Mishneh Torah. This is the kind of stuff seminary students and grads look at on the topic. Do a search on Google scholar for 'Christ' 'Hillel' 'Shammai' and 'divorce'.

And it is also really clear from the context of Deuteronomy and Matthew 19 that the put away woman with a certificate is put away. And Jesus spoke of 'Whosoever shall put away his wife' as it says in the KJV. Whosoever means whosoever... unless you want to deny what the King James translation says.


Shaka when the walls fell.

What are you trying to say? What two sets of rules?



The KJV is against slandering brethren, too. You can't read my mind, but you are quick to make accusations.

The KJV supports well what Jesus said in the passage. I used the KJV2000B to preserve a Greek distinction that shows up in the KJV but not a lot of other translations, but doesn't obscure the verse with early 17th century grammar. Some people are unfamiliar with the earlier stage of English. I consider the KJV-only position to be an obviously stupid and ignorant doctrine, since the apostles clearly did not teach it and we are to hold to 'the faith once delivered to the saints.' It is clearly a doctrine that emerged after 1611 and was not an original teaching of the Christian faith. (Much later than 1611 of course.)

I personally like the KJV for its cadence, and I memorized this passage out of the KJV, so I have a vested interest in using it, but I used another translation out of consideration for others. Show me one thing the KJV2000B changes _in terms of doctrine_ when compared to the KJV of this passage.



Most people aren't Bible translators. The KJV says that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another commiteth adultery, also.


Quote me where I claimed piety above everyone else. Do you ever stop slandering and accusing? What is wrong with you? You aren't even making sense, and you are making things up? Who is being dishonest?

Name one dishonest thing I said in the whole thread.

Also, your response was rather pitiful and poorly thought out. You didn't address any of the issues. You referred to well known 'anthropology' of the day, but then don't share any sources or summarize it. How do I know that you arent' being dishonest by pretending you have some source you don't care to disclose when it doesn't exist?

But I don't accuse you of that because I have seen poor 'scholarship' on the topic online, and maybe you read that. I read some pseudoscholarship on the divorcehope website, where the author did admit he didn't know Greek, but went on in great detail to try to argue that the distinction in Greek words made it okay to divorce and remarry as long as you gave a certificate. But this is pure sophistry, as one can see by actually reading the passage in English in a translation (like the KJV, which does well in this case) which preserves the distinction between the words used in translation.

You can find what I wrote about Hillel and Shammai in the Mishneh or a great number of articles from Bible scholars or Christian Bible teachers with a Google search or a Google scholar search.

See?
If you are allowed to completely dismiss the whole anthropology and documentation surrounding "put away" wives (which is more extensive than what you have brought forward) then you can't bring forward any extra Biblical text either. It's quite simple.
You claim superior knowledge and piety by your position and actions...no matter what else. Your actions are not congruent with your words. (And yet you claim I'm not self aware )

And then in another thread you absolutely dismiss the most important axiom of sharing Biblical truths with people: "People don't care what you know if they don't know how much you care"
Because....
Love thy neighbor as thyself " is what ALL of the Law and Prophet's decrees for interacting with one another hangs upon. That and Love the Lord thy God with all your heart, might, and strength.
Where you believe that you have the loving God part you totally miss it because you don't love the same things God loves....you want to destroy functioning families and deprive children of their parents.
Somehow I don't think Jesus would be pleased with that.

 

[presidente]

Never, not under any circumstances.

Thank you for your response. Why not?

 

[seoulsearch]

Dismayed? What gave you the impression of 'dismay'. I find personal attacks and derails a bit annoying, but I realize some people react negatively to controversial scriptures when it affects their personal life.

This right here makes it sound like you're disappointed that you haven't drawn out scores of people with which you can correct by posting walls of Scripture. It sounds like you've put yourself in an "I"m just preaching the Word of God and naturally, all the sinners are offended."

The ironic thing you don't realize is that we've had the questions you are posing asked several times over the years, and the answers were always the same, even with changing crowds -- people either said no, absolutely not, wouldn't even consider it, or else they would proceed with great caution and only do if they believed there was proper Biblical allowance.

We've probably had a few troll posts over the years or ones from newer Christians who didn't understand the seriousness of the subject matter, but the overwhelming majority responses were always within the guidelines of the Scriptures you posted. This is what I mean about understanding the culture of the crowd.

Will it matter to you at all if you don't find anyone here you can passionately correct? Not because any of us claim to be perfect, but because we have already been working on this issue with God and believe we have a solid Biblical stance.

I certainly haven't been able to read all your posts over the years but if I remember right, you pretty much had a Christian fairtytale. You prayed for the impossible and God put her across your path; you then married, and it's been your own happily ever after ever since.

This reminds me of the majority of couples at my old Lutheran church who presented the same thing about themselves. But because of this, they also expected everyone else's personal life to be all wrapped up with a neat Christian bow without a single wrinkle or blemish, because if that's what they had (or claimed to,) anyone else who didn't must have done something terrible to bring it upon themselves. And they were here to correct anyone who didn't have what they had.

Another crucial thing I believe you are missing is that a good number of people here, dare I say maybe even at least half, maybe even a majority, weren't fortunate enough to have a shiny Christian fairytale marriage.

But, God is faithful, and He helps us move on with both His guidance and His guidelines, and that's what most here are trying to their best to adhere to.

 

[presidente]

See?
If you are allowed to completely dismiss the whole anthropology and documentation surrounding "put away" wives (which is more extensive than what you have brought forward) then you can't bring forward any extra Biblical text either.

You haven't presented any 'anthropology' to support whatever secret idea you have in your mind. If you think there is some anthropology, history, cultural context, etc. that you think argues against a straightforward interpretation of the text of scripture, or anything I've wrote, let me know.

It seems more likely to me that you are either trying to buffalo me into thinking such things exist, do that for other posters, or else you read some bunk pseudoscholarship and you do not know what you are talking about.

Btw, I don't think 'anthropology' is the right word here. 'Historical anthropology' is an approach to history, but it isn't quite the same thing

It's quite simple. You claim superior knowledge and piety by your position and actions...no matter what else. Your actions are not congruent with your words. (And yet you claim I'm not self aware )

I don't make any claims about 'superior piety.' As far as 'superior knowledge' goes, I've shared some knowledge. I haven't said I have 'superior knowledge.' I suspect you know little about what you are talking about and are trying to posture, based on the fact that you haven't shared anything of substance, and instead make accusations and try to impugne my character.

Not self-aware? yes, not self aware of how awful you look when someone asks a few simple questions, quotes some scripture, and you go off on the individual as if they have committed some sin... after quoting scripture on a topic that hits home for you. Obviously, you are the one for the issue. You are not self-aware because you express concern about finger wagging and condemntation after you pretended to know my motives and made up false accusations about them.

Some people just don't have the same sense of embarrassment and shame that others do, or aren't aware of how they are acting. That can happen to all of us, at times. But it is helpful to take a step back and consider the situation.

And then in another thread you absolutely dismiss the most important axiom of sharing Biblical truths with people: "People don't care what you know if they don't know how much you care"

Jesus and Paul would preach to crowds. Jesus cared intently. But how did they people know that. He taught crowds who didn't know him well. They may not have known how much He cared, but He still spoke the word.

The Bible does not say, "Thou shalt not speak to people who know not how much thou carest."

Because....
Love thy neighbor as thyself " is what ALL of the Law and Prophet's decrees for interacting with one another hangs upon. That and Love the Lord thy God with all your heart, might, and strength.
Where you believe that you have the loving God part you totally miss it because you don't love the same things God loves....you want to destroy functioning families and deprive children of their parents.

Post where I expressed a desire to destroy functioning families and deprive children of their parents?

Is it loving to assume what people want and lie and say that they want things they don't? Can you post stuff like that without feeling embarrassed or ashamed, if not before others, then before yourself and before God? That's what I mean by not being self-aware. Take a look at yourself before you start pointing the finger at others. Think a bit. Be concerned with what you say.

This thread isn't about what people should do if they have divorced and remarried. That's a different issue. I asked singles if they would marry a divorced person. Supposing it was a sinful thing to do in a given case, what to do after the remarriage is a separate issue.

The topic I raised here was for the single person, whether they would consider remarriage to a divorced person. I quoted scripture. Read the OP. You start accusing me of having various motives and intentions, making stuff up, getting it wrong. Is that loving? You don't seem to get it when I point it out. Are you self-aware?

Somehow I don't think Jesus would be pleased with that.

You mentioned Ezra to support some position on divorce and remarriage that you didn't bother to articulate. Do you think Jesus was pleased with Ezra?

 

[seoulsearch]

@presidente, I've read your testimony about finding the Christian virgin wife you prayed for, which is wonderful.

But if God called her home tomorrow, or if He calls her first during your life together, do you believe you'll remain single for the rest of your life? As the original poster of the thread, it would be helpful to hear your own answers.

What would your own guidelines be for dating and remarrying, since it would be unlikely, not impossible, but unlikely, that you would find another virgin bride?

For myself, I'm ok either way. God has kept me single for a very long time, and if it's for the rest of this lifetime, I may not always be happy about it, but I know I can live under that if it's what He wants.

 

[17Bees]

It's not really the message. It's the messenger.

 

[presidente]

This right here makes it sound like you're disappointed that you haven't drawn out scores of people with which you can correct by posting walls of Scripture.

You're projecting your own thoughts about my emotions into the quote. I don't recall feeling 'disappointed.'

I do feel a bit annoyed at times at derails, not respecting the topic of the post. That happens everywhere. I moderate other forums elsewhere, and I'm lax with derails as long as there is some semblance to the topic. I wasn't expecting almost all posts to be about why the opening post shouldn't exist. And of course, I know some people spew bile at other posters from time to time, but that can still be annoying... not you of course. Derail, yes, bile, no.

If someone sees a thread they don't like, they can just not read or not post. Not everyone follows that idea round here, apparently.

It sounds like you've put yourself in an "I"m just preaching the Word of God and naturally, all the sinners are offended."

After the fact, I see some people get upset at quoting certain Bible verses. I wasn't thinking that when I posted the divorce thread. I could see the 'divorce hope' doctrine which is damaging might have infiltrated some of the people here, so I posted another article there for anyone who reads it.

Some people lurk and read and posts and can benefit them even if they don't comment.

The ironic thing you don't realize is that we've had the questions you are posing asked several times over the years, and the answers were always the same, even with changing crowds -- people either said no, absolutely not, wouldn't even consider it, or else they would proceed with great caution and only do if they believed there was proper Biblical allowance.

We've probably had a few troll posts over the years or ones from newer Christians who didn't understand the seriousness of the subject matter, but the overwhelming majority responses were always within the guidelines of the Scriptures you posted. This is what I mean about understanding the culture of the crowd.

That's fine. I think I may have searched the forum before posting, but I didn't see anything. That's fine if that has happened a lot over the years. But like you say, there are changing crowds.

Will it matter to you at all if you don't find anyone here you can passionately correct?

That's fine, too. I was wondering what singles would actually say in response to my actual post, sort of putting my thumb on the pulse of some non-random subset of Christian singles to see what they thing. The word is also beneficial to people and reading and thinking about it may help some people think through future life choices.

I certainly haven't been able to read all your posts over the years but if I remember right, you pretty much had a Christian fairtytale. You prayed for the impossible and God put her across your path; you then married, and it's been your own happily ever after ever since.

The way my wife and I met was certainly a beautiful thing. I may not have shared all marital struggles on christianchat if the topic hasn't come up. But we've faced a number of struggles, sometimes once a month, with some severe PMS-related issues and post-partum. No, it hasn't all been a smooth happy fairytale. My wife has threatened divorce when she's gone through her emotional issues. I've never threatened divorce or had 'buyer's remorse' where I wished I could undo it, though. I went through whole struggle rather intensely before proposing. Overall, I can see the kindness of God in marriage. I suspect that very few people have truly easy marriages.

This reminds me of the majority of couples at my old Lutheran church who presented the same thing about themselves. But because of this, they also expected everyone else's personal life to be all wrapped up with a neat Christian bow without a single wrinkle or blemish, because if that's what they had (or claimed to,) anyone else who didn't must have done something terrible to bring it upon themselves. And they were here to correct anyone who didn't have what they had.

I don't post in Singles a lot. I didn't come in here talking about having a perfect Christian life. I know life is tough. I also know two men, who seem to be godly men, gentle souls (who do not know each other as far as I know) whose wives both just left them recently. One of them has a wife who has mental and emotional issues, and I think he's been on a roller coaster like this for decades and he says he won't take her back next time. The other is a senior citizen who is believing God for his wife to return. I don't think less of the men for leaving their wives. I haven't had a chance to talk really with the brother whose giving up on the next go-round after the years of stress. But I certainly appreciate the attitude of the brother who is praying for reconciliation.

 

[presidente]

@presidente, I've read your testimony about finding the Christian virgin wife you prayed for, which is wonderful.

But if God called her home tomorrow, or if He calls her first during your life together, do you believe you'll remain single for the rest of your life? As the original poster of the thread, it would be helpful to hear your own answers.

My wife and I have talked about this. We have kids, so it is along the lines of, if you remarry, the other person has to be like this.... We went to a funeral recently, and my wife said she hoped that she goes first so I can say good things at her funeral and use her funeral to glorify God, and so she doesn't have to sort everything out after my death, do my part for the family, sort out my insurance... or whatever her concerns are. There is no good answer if you have to choose who goes first. I'd after to choose me to let her live, but then even if you have your affairs set in order, you leave a grieving spouse.

I'm in my 50's now. I'd probably want to remarry, eventually, after recovering emotionally, but the older I get, the more I'd probably lean toward life-time celibacy. I don't know if I could handle life-long singleness. I think I'm cut out for marriage. But at a certain age that might change.

If I were widowed and remarried, she'd have to be a godly woman. Based on some life experience seeing others who remarried a big priority would be having to really embrace my family and my kids, someone old enough not to be a peer to the kids. If still in childbearing years, I'd be open to trying to have children to allow 'be fruitful and multiply'-- which would mean two for her to multiply since I have some. I think of it as a married woman has a right to try to have children if the Lord allows it, and if she says she doesn't want them before marriage, she has a right to change her mind afterward. Which also is another reason in favor of siding with life-long celibacy the older I get.

If I did become a widow or remarry, the woman would have to fit my idiosyncraticies of what I find attractive, have a kind, pleasant personality, be affectionate at least after marriage, be high on compassion/empathy, and be high on conciliation (like I am in marriage). Conscientiousness and diligence are also important. And of course, we'd have to really get along and be thrilled at the idea of being together for the rest of our lives. I'd be looking for a virgin or a widow who had only been with her husband (or husbands, though too many late husbands is a red flag for safety reasons.) I spent many years in Indonesia, where my wife is from. Marriage values seem to be more traditional there. Though there have been more divorces in recent decades than in the past, the divorce rate among Christians seemed to be a lot lower the last I was there. It's not like the US.

My wife doesn't think she'd remarry. I told her he'd have to be a godly man and good with the kids if she did. She's told me she doesn't think she could find another man like me, that she doesn't think she could find another American man like me, and stuff like that in the past. You never know, though. We don't know how long our lives will be or what will happen.

I kind of end up describing characteristics I found in my wife, so I should pray for her for long life, and me also so I can be here with her.

 

[Niki7]

I didn't know this forum was a bit more Bible-discussion averse.

Translation: I am used to commanding respect and having the last word. I'm in charge here.

If someone sees a thread they don't like, they can just not read or not post. Not everyone follows that idea round here, apparently.

Or, as this is a public forum, people can respond as they will without anyone telling them they should move on.

True, not everyone thinks of themself more highly than they ought to and seems to believe they are running this forum when they make an appearance

 

[seoulsearch]

My wife and I have talked about this. We have kids, so it is along the lines of, if you remarry, the other person has to be like this.... We went to a funeral recently, and my wife said she hoped that she goes first so I can say good things at her funeral and use her funeral to glorify God, and so she doesn't have to sort everything out after my death, do my part for the family, sort out my insurance... or whatever her concerns are. There is no good answer if you have to choose who goes first. I'd after to choose me to let her live, but then even if you have your affairs set in order, you leave a grieving spouse.

I'm in my 50's now. I'd probably want to remarry, eventually, after recovering emotionally, but the older I get, the more I'd probably lean toward life-time celibacy. I don't know if I could handle life-long singleness. I think I'm cut out for marriage. But at a certain age that might change.

If I were widowed and remarried, she'd have to be a godly woman. Based on some life experience seeing others who remarried a big priority would be having to really embrace my family and my kids, someone old enough not to be a peer to the kids. If still in childbearing years, I'd be open to trying to have children to allow 'be fruitful and multiply'-- which would mean two for her to multiply since I have some. I think of it as a married woman has a right to try to have children if the Lord allows it, and if she says she doesn't want them before marriage, she has a right to change her mind afterward. Which also is another reason in favor of siding with life-long celibacy the older I get.

If I did become a widow or remarry, the woman would have to fit my idiosyncraticies of what I find attractive, have a kind, pleasant personality, be affectionate at least after marriage, be high on compassion/empathy, and be high on conciliation (like I am in marriage). Conscientiousness and diligence are also important. And of course, we'd have to really get along and be thrilled at the idea of being together for the rest of our lives. I'd be looking for a virgin or a widow who had only been with her husband (or husbands, though too many late husbands is a red flag for safety reasons.) I spent many years in Indonesia, where my wife is from. Marriage values seem to be more traditional there. Though there have been more divorces in recent decades than in the past, the divorce rate among Christians seemed to be a lot lower the last I was there. It's not like the US.

My wife doesn't think she'd remarry. I told her he'd have to be a godly man and good with the kids if she did. She's told me she doesn't think she could find another man like me, that she doesn't think she could find another American man like me, and stuff like that in the past. You never know, though. We don't know how long our lives will be or what will happen.

I kind of end up describing characteristics I found in my wife, so I should pray for her for long life, and me also so I can be here with her.

Thank you very much for this heartfelt answer! I found it to be both interesting and informative.

Thank you as well for being willing to answer the questions at hand in a most personal way.

May you, your wife, and your family have many fruitful years together.

 

[presidente]

Translation: I am used to commanding respect and having the last word. I'm in charge here.



Or, as this is a public forum, people can respond as they will without anyone telling them they should move on.

True, not everyone thinks of themself more highly than they ought to and seems to believe they are running this forum when they make an appearance

Or everyone can act like a bunch of little dictators who derail threads by telling posters what they can or cannot post about.

That sure us a way to welcome newbies and infrequent posters.