Dating before divorce

[KelliP72]

Is there a moral or Biblical reason why you shouldn't date after you are seperated but before a divorce is final? No, there is no chance of reconciliation.

 

[kspchemist]

Techinally you are still married. Therefore no dating until the separation is finalized.

 

[PhoenixDown]

I'm not sure about biblical reasons but the person may be rebounding (even if they were the one to initiate the divorce) and for that reason, dating during or right after the divorce may not be such a good idea.

 

[msjones21]

I disagree, kspchemist. Some divorce cases drag on for months, even years at times especially if there is a discrepency as to division of assets, property, and child custody. You can't expect someone to never date at all in that extensive period of time. Of course, then again, there are many Christians who would tell you, KelliP that anything but spending the rest of your life in total celibacy would be sinful, if you're divorcing for any reason other than marital infidelity. Obviously I disagree with that stance.

If there are children involved in this divorce settlement, proceed with caution. I would try my best to refrain from any deep intimate contact with someone, just in case the estranged spouse is monitoring your actions. I'm not trying to frighten you, but an estranged spouse can use sexual relations with someone before the divorce is final as a way to try and claim primary custody. Just be careful in that respect. And please, don't feel I am implying that you are planning on having sex with someone or that your estranged husband is going to hire some detective to record your every move. I'm just letting you know what my lawyer told me when I got divorced.

If you have met someone then I think that's great. Just make sure you move slowly and cautiously, especially if this separation from your husband is recent. Don't let someone be the rebound relationship. But hey, if you've met someone and you like each other and you click well I say go for it. Just be sure he knows your divorce is not yet final. It wouldn't be fair to conceal that. Tread lightly, but enjoy yourself.

 

[KelliP72]

Techinally you are still married. Therefore no dating until the separation is finalized.

Yes, I've heard this from other people but it doesn't answer my question, sorry.

 

[KelliP72]

It has been almost a year and believe me he doesn't have a leg to stand on. We have no children and he is not contesting it, at least not anymore. And I don't care any longer about property. I have everything I need and I just want to move on.

 

[transientlife]

Is there a moral or Biblical reason why you shouldn't date after you are seperated but before a divorce is final? No, there is no chance of reconciliation.

I have to say that until your divorce agreements are signed and official that you are still considered married. You may not be considered married in your head/heart, but by law you are, therefore dating before being officially divorced I would think wouldn't be advisable.

 

[KelliP72]

I know, I have heard that from a few people including a close friend. But why? Does it really matter whether its 'official' or not? Its not really a big deal anyway. I'm not dating anyone right now but there is a guy I work with who is really nice, and single and I could see myself in a relationship with him. Anyway my divorce will be final within a few months so its not really a problem.

 

[Mustaphile]

I know, I have heard that from a few people including a close friend. But why? Does it really matter whether its 'official' or not? Its not really a big deal anyway. I'm not dating anyone right now but there is a guy I work with who is really nice, and single and I could see myself in a relationship with him. Anyway my divorce will be final within a few months so its not really a problem.

You might want to think of the practical issues, like how is the person you're dating going to react to the knowledge that you are technically still married. Some people won't have an issue with it, some will. I would see it as a technicality myself, but the person that I might ask for a date might see it differently.

 

[The Bellman]

Is there a moral or Biblical reason why you shouldn't date after you are seperated but before a divorce is final? No, there is no chance of reconciliation.

I find it interesting that a christian woman is talking about dating before or after a divorce, given Jesus' teachings on divorce.

 

[KelliP72]

Why do you say that? I asked for a Biblical or moral reason and so far I've been given opinions but nothing else. If Jesus said I shouldn't date before or after my divorce then please show me where instead of talking down to me like it should be obvious to me.

 

[MQTA]

Is there a moral or Biblical reason why you shouldn't date after you are seperated but before a divorce is final? No, there is no chance of reconciliation.

If you want to be told Not to, you came to the right place. If you want to, don't tell anyone.

 

[The Bellman]

Why do you say that? I asked for a Biblical or moral reason and so far I've been given opinions but nothing else. If Jesus said I shouldn't date before or after my divorce then please show me where instead of talking down to me like it should be obvious to me.

I say it because Jesus is pretty darn clear on divorce - don't.

Matthew 5:32
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.

Matthew 19:9
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.

Mark 10:12
And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

In short...if you divorce, forget it. You can't ever be with another man, or you commit adultery (assuming you have sex with him - and, of course, since looking at someone with lust is as good as committing adultery, just dating a guy you fancy would be adultery).

Of course, you could just ignore this ridiculous and primitive stricture and live the way YOU think is moral.

 

[KelliP72]

So you're saying that it's OK for a man to divorce his wife and then remarry, but it's not OK for a woman to do the same?

 

[The Bellman]

So you're saying that it's OK for a man to divorce his wife and then remarry, but it's not OK for a woman to do the same?

No; I'm saying that that's what Jesus said. Or, at least, that that's what he is recorded as saying.

What Jesus said (in the quotes above) is that if a man divorces his wife (except for fornication), if she remarries - adultery. If he remarries - adultery.

And he doesn't even make the "fornication" exception for women. If she divorces her husband and remarries - adultery.

That's what Jesus says. Now, if you think that's a fair and moral precept - then obey it, and condemn yourself to a life of solitude because your marriage didn't work out. On the other hand, if you think that that is abominably unfair and sexist, then ignore it and live as YOU think you should, without recourse to the moral precepts we have at third hand (at best) written 2,000 years ago. I know which I'd be doing.

Basically what I'm trying to say (in my cumbersome way) is that biblical morals are, overall, awful, and that nowadays nobody lives by them, nor should they. Our morality has advanced since biblical days. We no longer think it's moral to own slaves, or stone homosexuals, or many of the things the bible tells us to. Read the bible, by all means - even accept its spiritual teachings, if you like. But for your own sake, ignore its moral precepts.

 

[Arturis]

I think Jesus was referring to a socially accepted and common practice of the time of a man being able to easily divorce a woman on a whim. I think it more a warning to keep marriage sacred, as it should be.

I think divorce is only right in the eyes of god if it for good reason. I seriously doubt that god would condemn a woman from divorcing her husband if he abused her or their children and then remarrying someone who loves her and treats her children with love.

 

[The Bellman]

I think Jesus was referring to a socially accepted and common practice of the time of a man being able to easily divorce a woman on a whim. I think it more a warning to keep marriage sacred, as it should be.

I think divorce is only right in the eyes of god if it for good reason. I seriously doubt that god would condemn a woman from divorcing her husband if he abused her or their children and then remarrying someone who loves her and treats her children with love.

Arturis illustrates my point perfectly. Here is Jesus' own words, explicitly stating what you shall and shall not do...and because what they state is so morally awful, he rationalises that what was really MEANT was something that he, himself, finds moral.

This is (fortunately) what christians all over the place do - they have their own views of what is moral, which differ greatly from what the bible teaches. So they "interpret" what the bible says to actually support their own moral views. This demonstrates that what the bible actually says is NOT the basis of people's moral views (thankfully).

 

[Arturis]

Arturis illustrates my point perfectly. Here is Jesus' own words, explicitly stating what you shall and shall not do...and because what they state is so morally awful, he rationalises that what was really MEANT was something that he, himself, finds moral.

This is (fortunately) what christians all over the place do - they have their own views of what is moral, which differ greatly from what the bible teaches. So they "interpret" what the bible says to actually support their own moral views. This demonstrates that what the bible actually says is NOT the basis of people's moral views (thankfully).

- So what you are saying then is that god would condemned a woman for divorcing her husband even if he physically or sexually abused, mistreated or endangered the life of her or her children? That doesn't sound like the god I know. Who's morals are we talking about here? This is the same Jesus who kicked the moneychangers out of the temple in a fit of righteousness but would sit back and tell a woman to grin and bear it in an unhealthy or dangerous marriage? Please.

This is not a matter of interpretation but rather one of rationality. I happen to think that god is more rational than that. Wasn't it Jesus himself who stated that it was the "spirit of the law" was more important than the letter of it? According to you its the letter of the law that is greater even though Jesus explicitly said the contrary. Who's interpretation in this matter is the correct one then? There can be only one truth.

 

[Lifesaver]

Unless the marriage is anulled (meaning that there never was a marriage to begin with), your marriage lasts until death parts you and your husband, and so do the obligations of one spouse to the other. No divorce paper will change that.

 

[The Bellman]

- So what you are saying then is that god would condemned a woman for divorcing her husband even if he physically or sexually abused, mistreated or endangered the life of her or her children? That doesn't sound like the god I know. Who's morals are we talking about here? This is the same Jesus who kicked the moneychangers out of the temple in a fit of righteousness but would sit back and tell a woman to grin and bear it in an unhealthy or dangerous marriage? Please.

This is not a matter of interpretation but rather one of rationality. I happen to think that god is more rational than that. Wasn't it Jesus himself who stated that it was the "spirit of the law" was more important than the letter of it? According to you its the letter of the law that is greater even though Jesus explicitly said the contrary. Who's interpretation in this matter is the correct one then? There can be only one truth.

I am not saying that at all. I am saying that that is precisely what Jesus said. You think that what he said is so immoral that you "interpret" it to mean something completely the opposite to what he actually did say, and you have an image of God as a moral being, which means he couldn't have taken such an immoral position - so he must have meant something different to what he actually said. Which is exactly what christians all over the world constantly do in regard to some of the hideous morality expressed in the bible.