It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is Divorce a sin?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 10:53 PM
link   
We've been hearing a lot about the sanctity of marriage and keeping and preserving it by changing the law. But what about divorce? I always heard that getting a divorce was a sin. Well, is it or not? I would think that trying to maintain marriage is just as important as keeping it sacred and far away from gays. Is there any legislature that will help couples preserve and maintain their marriage instead of them using it up and throwing it away like a dime novel?




posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 10:59 PM
link   
Ask the Talibans, they might guide you in this question.



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 11:00 PM
link   
Why should we go to the Talibans for an answer to that question?



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 11:02 PM
link   
beacuse they are brainwashed woodpeckers, like you



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by jupiter869
We've been hearing a lot about the sanctity of marriage and keeping and preserving it by changing the law. But what about divorce? I always heard that getting a divorce was a sin. Well, is it or not? I would think that trying to maintain marriage is just as important as keeping it sacred and far away from gays. Is there any legislature that will help couples preserve and maintain their marriage instead of them using it up and throwing it away like a dime novel?


According to early Christians (pre 314ad) divorce is a sin, unless you where married to a non-Christian woman. However there was always the question of whether you did your best to convert her and hence save her soul, there were no references I could find to whether or not a Christian woman could divorce a non-Christian male. Point being a Christian male could divorce a female if she was not Christian and he intended to re-marry a Christian female. Guess that was allowed for difference of faith reason.

Interesting enough it was their believe, that if a Christian male married a woman (non-Christian or Christian), that if the woman cheated on the man then the wife was guilty of adultery and so was the husband, for driving her to adultery or not doing his best to prevent her from committing the sin.



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 11:10 PM
link   
I think the whole institution of marrige is to keep the common people from developing too much power. I know that sounds crazy at first, but think about it. Before monogamous marriges became the norm, most nations were formed by tribal situations, large families became something of a ruling class which threatened a centralized rule, either by government of theocracy. It's hard to become a powerful tribe with one wife and 2.5 kids.



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 11:11 PM
link   
Why the attack on the message poster? Are you just trying to be funny? The question apparently hit a sensitive nerve with you. Personally, I agree -- we should try to treat marriage more seriously from all sides.



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 11:15 PM
link   
But so is being born, so there's not much point in worrying about it, is there?



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 12:10 PM
link   
I think the best reference is Mark 10. Things like adultry and spouse not having the faith are heavy things to work with, but if you can make it work by all means give it your all. Through mental pain, emotional destruction, and the way your body tortures you going through something like a breaking marriage, never lose hope. Pray, talk, and listen to each other. Don't feel too defeated to step in the ring. Take breaks as needed but never give up. Be strong, it will be worth it. So, as it is written Mark 10:11 "Anyone who devorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultry." In this case it is the one who initiates the act of divorce is the adulterer. Adultery is listed as a sin.


Originally posted by Majic
But so is being born, so there's not much point in worrying about it, is there?



Point taken. Being that we're born into a sin nature, we do have that tendency and need to repent. I'd consider doing something about continuing to live in sin though, it guides your destiny.



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 12:30 PM
link   
I know a heavily Catholic couple that are utterly miserible in their marrage, but refuse to go against their religious beliefs and get a divorce. Each of them is just hoping and waiting for the other to force the issue. If being miserible is a sign of obedience towards some idea of god, then I would rather live the life that I know I have (this one) without that obedience.



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
I think the whole institution of marrige is to keep the common people from developing too much power. I know that sounds crazy at first, but think about it. Before monogamous marriges became the norm, most nations were formed by tribal situations, large families became something of a ruling class which threatened a centralized rule, either by government of theocracy. It's hard to become a powerful tribe with one wife and 2.5 kids.


In my province Qubec, people are not religious and marriage has become less popular. We are considered married after 3 years of living together
60% of kids have divorced parents....a lot of people in Hell hen


Ameliaxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by jupiter869
We've been hearing a lot about the sanctity of marriage and keeping and preserving it by changing the law.

Obviously, if they want to ammend the constitution in the US to 'protect marriage', they should forget about 'gay marriage' which is minor and realy insignificant and focus on divorce. The majority [~51% last I heard] of marriages end in divorce. People get married multiple times. They get married and divorced quickly. Obviously, this is more of a problem than gay marriage. So if the people supporting the anti-gay marriage ammendment weren't just bigoted, they'd also be supporting outlawing second or third marriages and forcing couples that get married to stay together for at least a year before divorce. But they're not. Because, well, they don't care about marriage.



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 02:00 PM
link   
I have been divorced for 4 years now , and yes, i divorced my wife.

She had been unfaithfull twice and the 2nd time was the final straw.

I thought i was entering into a lifelong commitment when i married her seeing as she was a catholic.

How times change eh? she was a practicing catholic who commited a sin against her religion and still continues to go church.
To me she is nothing but a hypocrit.

There is no way i could have stayed with her, or given her a 3rd chance, so divorce was the only route i could take.
Why should i suffer for the sake of a religion i have no faith in? I want to settle down and eventually get married again.

And no, i am not a catholic, although i had to convert to marry her in the first place, which to me was a farce, but i suppose love makes you do things like that.



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 05:44 PM
link   
Groupies:

Of course the word "sin" is a cultic term and more of a matter of geography than morality or ethics ("the tribe up the hill believes it's a sin according to THEIR god to be circumcised...the tribe in the valley according to the priests of THEIR god thinks its a sin NOT to be circumcised" etc.)

Howbeit....

R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean ("Jesus") taught his followers (apparently) that there would be NO DIVORCE, EVER.

(This uncomfortable and highly inconvenient fact has been a thorn in the side of "Christians" long before Henry VIII's time...!)

In this respect R. Yehoshua bar Yosef ("jesus") evidently sided in with R. Shammai (c. BC 60 to AD 10) who was rather stricter on interpreting such hallakhot (lit. "walkings" i.e. obeying the Torah of the god of the Jews)

Normally judging from the teaching of "Jesus" that we find sort of echoed in the Gospels (or at least the Greek words placed into his mouth in the Gospels...) he tends to side in more with R. Hillel "the great" (from Shammai's time) who tended to adopt a more lenient stance on Torot halakhot...but on the subject of Divorce, he suddenly turns into a "real stickler"...

Why is that?

R. Yehoshua's stance on divorce is not fully known exactly---we were not there with a video camera and batteries----and what we read in the gospels (and in Paul's references) was something hard to translate exactly into modern English from 1st century Greek (since the WRITTEN Greek is itself a very rough translation from the originally ORAL Galilean Aramaic) but would have probably sounded something like:

"And his disciples asked him, Rabbi, tell us of your stance on Divorce and Remarriage:

And he said to them, "Amen Amen I say unto you, If a man divorces his wife and marries another, he is guilty of Adultery:

(cf:"Lo Tinef", one of the so-called "Ten Commandments").

His disciples then are said to have asked him:

"But Rabbi, didn't Moses give a law in the Torah allowing Certificates of Divorce?"

And to this he was said to have replied,

"You have answered well in saying Moses permitted Certificates of Divorce: but it was because of the hardness of heart of the sons of men that Moses made this accomodation for them in ancient times:

But from the Book of Creation it was not so:

For in the Scroll of Bere#h is it not written,

'Male and Female created he them...?" and also

'For this reason a man shall leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife?'

Therefore what [the Most High] has brought together, let no son of man rend apart."

Then (it is said) one of his disciples asked,

"But, Rabbi, what about all those men who are divorced already?" to which the teacher was purported to have said (somewhat curtly): "in those cases, let the woman be reconciled with her husband."

This seems to suggest that this much stronger stance-than-normal against Divorce was part of a very primitive teaching tradition of "Jesus" that the early church just couldn't explain away, despite Matthew's attempt at finding convenient loopholes....even Paul seems to have said that his stance was "not from me, but from the Lord himself...." so it seems to have been ingrained in the earliest churches from the beginning.

It has every reason to be considered "part of the original teaching" simply because of its sheer difficulty (since it made everybody's life harder not easier, it would not have been made up, in other words).

Matthew's gospel (for what ever reason) does try to sweeten the bitter pill of Jesus and happily adds an addtional phrase in Greek (not found in the other gospels) which would be roughly translated as :

"except for the cause of Fornication"

a phrase which may well be the writer of Matthew's own "fake scribal addition" to a shorter and stricter saying of "Jesus" which totally forbade divorce altogether without such exceptions.

Or perhaps, "Jesus" softened his rhetoric on the subject by adding this phrase (i.e. changed his mind) as time went on and found his original stance untenable.

The writer of Mark's gospel (whoever he was, since the gospels circulated without titles or names for 250 years) has his own problematic version of this saying, where most copies of his gospel add a whole mirror-phrase forbidding women to divorce their husbands---a legal act which Roman women could do, but which Palestinian Jewesses could not do----which shows just how far his originally strict "no divorce law" was contorted to meet the needs of the local community after the crucifixion...

Matthew's additional phrase ("except for the legal cause of fornication" Gk: porneirea) seems to be a crude translation of the Aramaic "Nivlah" [Nevalah in Hebrew] = "shameful behaviour")

Even though the term can be traced back to a Hebrew and Aramaic technical term, this whole "exception" business was probably not original to "Iesous" but was a later "practical" adaptation for the Jewish Chrisitian community in Antioch where Matthew's gospel was being read in the "churches" among Jewish Messianic Christians, who just couldn't live with the stricter interpretation from the lips of the teacher himself.

At any rate, the word for "fornication" is a rather hard term to understand today clearly.

It could be translated as "unchastity" in Enlgish i.e. if a woman cannot spill blood on her wedding night onto the ceremonial "blood sheet" which was preserved later by her parents in case charges against her virginity should ever be raised by the husband. In other words, it could be loosely translated as "pre-marital sex", although Nivlah could mean "sexual peversion" (meaning, something like the modern "if she turns out to be a lesbian....") since the word has various shades of meaning....and we were not there with a video camera examining the tone in which such pronouncments were made by this man in the original Galilean Aramaic.

This whole subject of pre-marital sex was obviously a subject a little too close for comfort for "Jesus" in view of the scandal associated with his birth-circumstances---a sore subject which which apparently had been cast into his teeth by Judaean authorities during his own lifetime (cf: the story in John's gospel: "WE (intensive HUMEIS in Greek) were not born of Porneria (fornication), WE have one Father !!" in John's gospel)...or in Mark's gospel "is this not Mary's son?" with ne'er a mention of daddy Joseph.

There were other Jewish polemics against Christians by Rabinnic Pharisees in the AD 40s and 50s who taunted Christians for believing in a "the son of a lie" or "Mamzer" (lit. "bastard") e.g. "your heretical teacher had as just a wicked end as he had a wicked beginning" and other such innuendos).

But the bottom line is that for whatever reason R. Yehoshua (normally lax when it came to the stricter interpretation of Torah hallahot) felt the need to say NO DIVORCE EVER. PERIOD, echoing Malachi's strong statement "iin the last days" e.g. "Thus saith YHWH the god of Israel: I HATE DIVORCE!"

But few people take "Jesus" literally, so I suppose it doesn't really matter what he said or even thought on the subject....people are going to find away around it one way or another

Can you say, "Annulment"? Can you say, "Papal Dispensation"?



[edit on 10-11-2004 by Amadeus]



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 05:57 PM
link   
Well...

I think that now in 2004, people have more education and are less afraid of sins and hell and god's EYE....
Few years ago, people were a bit brainwashed by religion, it was a way of control...but now that is not the case

God wants the best for everyone of us, I just think that a divorce OR a difficult relationship is like a way to learn...it's an preuve (the word in english is....???) something we have to go throu to be a better person after. When you are married and unhappy...that is not good for yourself. You have to make a move to grow and find another person which you'll be happier with.

Ameliaxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 06:00 PM
link   
There is no such thing as sin(IMO) there is only the curenet cultures idears of right and wronge.



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 11:10 PM
link   
Knowing what the divorce rate is in our society, maybe some Christians should consider a civil union rather than a marriage. Then they could get divorced and not technically have sinned in the Church's eyes.



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by jupiter869
Knowing what the divorce rate is in our society, maybe some Christians should consider a civil union rather than a marriage. Then they could get divorced and not technically have sinned in the Church's eyes.


are you serious? technically they will have sinned everytime they had sex outside of marriage



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 12:52 AM
link   
Amelia:- it's an preuve (the word in english is....???)

Test.


Amadeus- This seems to suggest that this much stronger stance-than-normal against Divorce was part of a very primitive teaching tradition of "Jesus" that the early church just couldn't explain away, despite Matthew's attempt at finding convenient loopholes....even Paul seems to have said that his stance was "not from me, but from the Lord himself...." so it seems to have been ingrained in the earliest churches from the beginning.


It is difficult to forge a story, make moral judgements; laws then come face to face with an oops. I'm surprised that the church didn't find a way to address paedophilia, considering Mary's age was kept out of the good book.



posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 10:11 PM
link   
Since sin is a concern, how about lifting it up in prayer? Pitch it to God and see what you get back. You can't beat a little One-on-One with the big guy (metaphorically speaking). What do you think?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join