Women after divorce

[Joshpantera]

An old girl friend of mine is head long going into divorce and her fundy husband has been taunting her with allegations like she'll be an adulterer forever after leaving him. She's showed me the texts and I'm going to put together something good for her to come back with. Who's had experience dealing with this particular theological issue? I want to address it in a well rounded way. 

[sdelsolray]

 

An old girl friend of mine is head long going into divorce and her fundy husband has been taunting her with allegations like she'll be an adulterer forever after leaving him. She's showed me the texts and I'm going to put together something good for her to come back with. Who's had experience dealing with this particular theological issue? I want to address it in a well rounded way. 

 

How's this for well-rounded:

 

Him:  "You'll be an adulterer forever after leaving me."

Her:  "I've already left you."

 

or

 

Him:  "You'll be an adulterer forever after leaving me."

Her:   "According to your beliefs, so will you."

 

or

 

Him:  "You'll be an adulterer forever after leaving me."

Her:  "Do not project your religious beliefs upon others."

 

or

 

Him:  "You'll be an adulterer forever after leaving me."

Her:  "Yes, and I'm looking forward to it."

[★ Citsonga ★]

or

 

Him:  "You'll be an adulterer forever after leaving me."

Her:  "Not at all. After a jerk like you, I think I'll remain celibate."

 

or

 

Him:  "You'll be an adulterer forever after leaving me."

Her:  "If you find someone else, then you'll be an adulterer, too."

 

or

 

Him:  "You'll be an adulterer forever after leaving me."

Her:  "Oh, you didn't know that I already had an affair?"

 

[★ Citsonga ★]

or

 

Him:  "You'll be an adulterer forever after leaving me."

Her:  "I always loved Jesus more than you anyway."

 

[★ Citsonga ★]

or

 

Him:  "You'll be an adulterer forever after leaving me."

Her:  "Hey, you say Jesus is always with you, but I'm not into threesomes."

 

[Margee]

Or......

Him: "You'll be an adulterer forever after leaving me''

Her: I was always an adulterer cause I used to look at other guys asses with lust in my eyes.

 

 

Matthew 5:28 .... but I tell you that everyone who gazes to lust after them has committed adultery with her already in his heart. 

[florduh]

or

 

Him:  "You'll be an adulterer forever after leaving me."

 

Her: "Suck my dick."

[Joshpantera]

She's expected a strong theological argument coming from me. Here's a link to some christian's attempt at reconciling divorce with scripture: 

 

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/divorce-remarriage-a-position-paper

 

I think my first thoughts were the way to go. Trying to live today by standard of ancient mythology is ill advised, period. 

 

[sdelsolray]

 

She's expected a strong theological argument coming from me. Here's a link to some christian's attempt at reconciling divorce with scripture: 

 

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/divorce-remarriage-a-position-paper

 

I think my first thoughts were the way to go. Trying to live today by standard of ancient mythology is ill advised, period. 

 

 

How many ways can you gracefully let her down?

 

Her:  I need a strong theological argument from you to refute my (soon to be) ex-husband's statements.

You:  Since we were an item, I have rejected theology and replaced it with reason and honesty, among other things.

 

Her:  I need a strong theological argument from you to refute my (soon to be) ex-husband's statements.

You:  No, you do not need to deal with him that way.  Deal with him as a human.

 

BTW, that website is nuttersville.

[★ Citsonga ★]

Is she a Christian and honestly wanting to find a way to make the Bible support divorce, or is she not a Christian and wanting the theological argument solely as a come-back to him? Just curious.

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

What is the reason for the divorce? Even Jesus gives valid reasons for divorce. If her divorce falls in line with the criteria that makes it acceptable according to a biblical standard then she won't be an adulterer. Divorce is a touchy issue from denomination to denomination. It was one of the many reasons I left the baptist church because I had also been divorced...... a couple of times. It is hard to be a preacher in a church that doesn't like the fact you've been divorced and are preaching.

 

It was easier during old testament days to justify. In the law a man could basically give his wife a bill of divorce mentioned for about any reason. But Jesus said God suffered that because of the hardness of their hearts. So I'm  going to go over a few scriptures. 

 

Mathew 5:31,32

31  It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:

 32  But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

 

I believe what is good for the man is also good for the woman right? So if he cheated on her she has every right biblically to divorce him and not be an adulterer. If you believe what Jesus says then if it falls in line anyway. Because it is only if he hasn't cheated on her that it becomes adultery.

 

Mathew 19:3-9

 3  The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

 4  And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

 5  And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

 6  Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

 7  They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

 8  He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

 9  And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

 

Now this can be twisted a bit if one wants to but it's pretty weak if they have been together for a long time. Jesus said what God has put together let no man put asunder. If she believes that she wasn't following God's will when she married him then she could argue that God didn't put them together therefore they are only married on paper anyway. But like I said that can be a very weak arguement. 

 

1COR 10:

 10  And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:

 11  But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

 12  But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

 13  And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

 14  For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

 15  But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. note

 16  For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife? note

 

This would make it easy. If she deconvert and becomes an unbeliever and departs from her fundy husband then he will not be held in bandage under such circumstances. I take this to mean he will be granted a justifiable divorce if this is the case, and be able to remarry without becoming an adulterer.

 

Lastly

Ephesians 5:22-33

 22  Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

 23  For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

 24  Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

 25  Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

 26  That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

 27  That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

 28  So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

 29  For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

 30  For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

 31  For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

 32  This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

 33  Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

 

If she feels like the second and harder to argue category fits then this may help with her arguement. This gives a well rounded description of the duties of a man in a biblical marriage. If he is being abusive or mistreating her she can argue that he isn't falling in line with the biblical duties of a husband. I would argue that if he is not being the husband that the bible God has told him to be then the bible God isn't going to let him keep mistreating her.

 

I hope this helps.

 

Dark Bishop 

 

[Joshpantera]

 

 

How many ways can you gracefully let her down?

 

Her:  I need a strong theological argument from you to refute my (soon to be) ex-husband's statements.

You:  Since we were an item, I have rejected theology and replaced it with reason and honesty, among other things.

 

Her:  I need a strong theological argument from you to refute my (soon to be) ex-husband's statements.

You:  No, you do not need to deal with him that way.  Deal with him as a human.

 

BTW, that website is nuttersville.

 

I have given her a description of my personal evolution out of the SDA church, researching christianity back to origins, and going further to investigate the origins of judaism. And that my spiritual outlook has greatly changed. I spoke a little of pantheist philosophy. And she seemed receptive to what I had to say. I also pointed out that the same things that are wrong with SDA's trying to live by OT social standards, are equally wrong in terms of trying to live 2,000 year old turn of the common era standards. So far she's receptive to all of it. 

[Joshpantera]

 

Is she a Christian and honestly wanting to find a way to make the Bible support divorce, or is she not a Christian and wanting the theological argument solely as a come-back to him? Just curious.

 

 

She's SDA, but unhappy with the whole thing and looking at me to provide her with answers that she can't seem to get from any one else that she knows. 

[Joshpantera]

 

What is the reason for the divorce? Even Jesus gives valid reasons for divorce. If her divorce falls in line with the criteria that makes it acceptable according to a biblical standard then she won't be an adulterer. Divorce is a touchy issue from denomination to denomination. It was one of the many reasons I left the baptist church because I had also been divorced...... a couple of times. It is hard to be a preacher in a church that doesn't like the fact you've been divorced and are preaching.

 

It was easier during old testament days to justify. In the law a man could basically give his wife a bill of divorce mentioned for about any reason. But Jesus said God suffered that because of the hardness of their hearts. So I'm  going to go over a few scriptures. 

 

Mathew 5:31,32

31  It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:

 32  But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

 

I believe what is good for the man is also good for the woman right? So if he cheated on her she has every right biblically to divorce him and not be an adulterer. If you believe what Jesus says then if it falls in line anyway. Because it is only if he hasn't cheated on her that it becomes adultery.

 

Mathew 19:3-9

 3  The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

 4  And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

 5  And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

 6  Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

 7  They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

 8  He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

 9  And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

 

Now this can be twisted a bit if one wants to but it's pretty weak if they have been together for a long time. Jesus said what God has put together let no man put asunder. If she believes that she wasn't following God's will when she married him then she could argue that God didn't put them together therefore they are only married on paper anyway. But like I said that can be a very weak arguement. 

 

1COR 10:

 10  And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:

 11  But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

 12  But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

 13  And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

 14  For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

 15  But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. note

 16  For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife? note

 

This would make it easy. If she deconvert and becomes an unbeliever and departs from her fundy husband then he will not be held in bandage under such circumstances. I take this to mean he will be granted a justifiable divorce if this is the case, and be able to remarry without becoming an adulterer.

 

Lastly

Ephesians 5:22-33

 22  Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

 23  For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

 24  Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

 25  Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

 26  That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

 27  That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

 28  So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

 29  For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

 30  For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

 31  For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

 32  This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

 33  Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

 

If she feels like the second and harder to argue category fits then this may help with her arguement. This gives a well rounded description of the duties of a man in a biblical marriage. If he is being abusive or mistreating her she can argue that he isn't falling in line with the biblical duties of a husband. I would argue that if he is not being the husband that the bible God has told him to be then the bible God isn't going to let him keep mistreating her.

 

I hope this helps.

 

Dark Bishop 

 

 

I'm going to go over all of this. I think we may be opening a new can of worms here. I'm wanting to narrow down the motivation of the writers who were putting words in the Jesus characters mouth. They clearly wanted to make a change from traditional Jewish views on marriage and divorce. Beneath that we'll find some deeper issues. Obviously none of this comes from any literal Jesus saying any of it. All of these little scenes where Jesus spouts off to the religious authorities usually have some specific motivation. Also, I have to arrange it in proper order from authentic Pauline through later Gospel discourse (as Doherty and Carrier do for a correct timeline analysis) to see how these views on marriage evolved over time from Paul to the first Gospel and then the rest. In all of that may come some interesting developments in terms of how the theology evolved over time and for what reasons. 

 

CE -----------(Paul)-----(Gospels)-------------(Nicea)------------------------(Protestant Reformation)-------------------------------------------(Today)

[TABA]

 

 

She's SDA, but unhappy with the whole thing and looking at me to provide her with answers that she can't seem to get from any one else that she knows. 

 

Well I'd say she's come to the right place. 

[Joshpantera]

Another thing I may do is focus first on the issue of slavery coming out of the same writers in the same time period. That's one that everyone has to admit is out of line with today - slaves obey your masters. Not one word about abolishing slavery, freeing slaves, or an admonishment of the institution of slavery by Jesus or any other character in the fable. They clearly had no idea what would happen in the future. And everything they said, including both about slavery and marriage, belongs to a remote and ignorant period in human history. None of which, still applies today. 

[ag_NO_stic]

Him:  "You'll be an adulterer forever after leaving me."

Her:  "I know you are, but what I am I?"

 

Him:  "You'll be an adulterer forever after leaving me."

Her:  "Forever is relative."

 

Him:  "You'll be an adulterer forever after leaving me."

Her:  "And?"

 

Him:  "You'll be an adulterer forever after leaving me."

Her:  *middle finger*

 

Him: "You'll be an adulterer forever after leaving me."

Her: Just quote Matthew 5:32 and tell him that the dominatrix stuff was no longer acceptable. xD

"But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

[Jeff]

Him:  "You'll be an adulterer forever after leaving me."

Her:  "No, after your shit, I think I will just stick with women."

[Joshpantera]

Apparently he pulled the, "I feel like I may become a danger to myself" card. What a fucking douche. Yeah, women like that. Act pathetic and fish for a sympathy fuck. lol

 

This guy keeps digging a deeper hole as he goes along. 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

 

 

Seven letters (with consensus dates)^[5] considered genuine by most scholars:

 

• First Thessalonians (c. 50 AD)
• Galatians (c. 53)
• First Corinthians (c. 53–54)
• Philippians (c. 55)
• Philemon (c. 55)
• Second Corinthians (c. 55–56)
• Romans (c. 57)

The letters on which scholars are about evenly divided:^[6]

• Colossians
• Second Thessalonians

The letters thought to be pseudepigraphic by about 80% of scholars:^[6]

• Ephesians
• First Timothy
• Second Timothy
• Titus

 

Here's an attempt at putting them into historical context 

 

 

 

1COR 10:

 10  And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:

 11  But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

 12  But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

 13  And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

 14  For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

 15  But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. note

 16  For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife? note
 

 

 

So early on in the Pauline Epistles, the only thing they seemed to care about was believers and what extended, in their minds, from belief. He seemed to suggest that believers had it one way, unbelievers had it another way. That begins the historical context of christian marriage and divorce.

 

 

http://www.datingthenewtestament.com/Ephesians.htm

Thus, we should date the letter to the Ephesians in 61 or 62 A.D.

 

Ephesians 5:22-33

 22  Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

 23  For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

 24  Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

 25  Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

 26  That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

 27  That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

 28  So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

 29  For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

 30  For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

 31  For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

 32  This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

 33  Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.
 

 

Here there's no mention of divorce regulations. And this is not an authentic Pauline Epistle. So someone writing as Paul decided to take a course on submitting to husbands almost the exact same way slaves were told to submit to their masters. And the same as masters were told to treat their slaves accordingly, husbands were told similar about their wives. That seems to the be the line of thought this writer had in mind. And divorce regulation isn't mentioned in any of this. I assume that this pseudo Paul would divert back to what Paul wrote in the case of divorce popping up. 

 

 

 

Mathew 5:31,32

31  It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:

 32  But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
 

 

 

Fast forward to post 70 CE. But this time writers were taking issue with jewish tradition on divorce. Coincidentally, this takes place when Greek writers were midrashing the jewish scriptures and taking everything out of the original context and mistranslating quite a bit. And they seemed to have a general disdain for "the jews." So I'm not surprised to see that someone decided to lash out at jewish customs here and propose something different entirely. Paul wasn't really doing that, as far as trying to lash out at the jews. And this even later writing behind Paul was something new and very far removed from any possible historical Jesus. It seems clear enough that some type of post war and antisemitic bias was behind the views described. 

 

 

 

Mathew 19:3-9

 3  The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

 4  And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

 5  And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

 6  Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

 7  They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

 8  He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

 9  And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
 

 

 

This seems to clearly be the case of antisemitic writers asserting that they knew the jewish scriptures better than the jews themselves. And trying to use the jewish scriptures to confirm their perceived superior understanding. This falls in line behind such nonsense as the Isaiah quote mining and everything else. It's nothing more than gentile writers lashing out at "the jews" by way of claiming that they're adulterers and fornicators according to the new perspective being conveyed.

 

 

 

 

[★ Citsonga ★]

 

Apparently he pulled the, "I feel like I may become a danger to myself" card. What a fucking douche. Yeah, women like that. Act pathetic and fish for a sympathy fuck. lol

 

This guy keeps digging a deeper hole as he goes along.

 

Holy crap! That is low, and it really makes me wonder about this guy. Would there be a chance that he could actually turn out to be a danger to her?

 

[Joshpantera]

 

 

Holy crap! That is low, and it really makes me wonder about this guy. Would there be a chance that he could actually turn out to be a danger to her?

 

She says no, but I've been telling her to watch him. He sounds like the classic christian asshole who thinks the religion is the only thing stopping him from going barking mad, bat shit crazy, and becoming the worst person alive. He's a very small minded idiot. So I'm keeping a close eye but I'm several states away and there's nothing I could do stop any of that. I told her to just call police if he keeps it up. Have him baker acted. He'll think twice before alluding to suicide when he's being ushered away in a straight jacket over his stupid bluff games....