Who can Divorce Whom?

[studentinprayer]

A failed marriage is any marriage that is detrimental to one or more spouses, and where there are no good prospects for a successful reconciliation. In my case, while divorce was definitely on the table, I treated it as a remedy of last resort. I was tired of being neglected and dissed by someone who was supposed to be my wife. I told her that either this improves or I'm done with the marriage.

Many vices can get justified by a loose subjective standard like ‘detrimental’ with low odds of recovery. Most pessimists feel that way in my experience. So I'd advise great caution in such a belief. Many unhealthy situations can be repaired even if they seem improbable.

In your particular experience though you mentioned intentional neglect & feeling tricked was a major factor. And I agree that is a pretty clear sign of something fundamentally out of place. I would feel similarly in those circumstances and whenever one or both ignores their vows to the point of intentional neglect, one should question if they ever intended their vows. We can’t be tricked into marriage and the vow require both people. So there we certainly agree more than disagree.

There is of course a question if one could grow into neglect and mistreatment through a sickness, perhaps, clinical depression. Even then, I have known those in dire depression and even in that volatile state neglecting a spouse would be odd summarization. Now, wanting to leave a sick spouse is something often tempting but ultimately wrong, so at least worth considering in such circumstances.

As for whether it is good to divorce for reasons not involving abuse, neglect, etc: why does marriage exist in the first place? Does marriage exist for its own sake? Some people seem to think divorce is this awful, horrendous thing and that marriage is this sacred cow, but I don't see it that way. Jesus didn't die on a cross to save marriage. He died to save people.

I’d say, a marriage exists in the first place? To raise children and to address the human need to overcome their inherent loneliness/isolation. But, to me that question is too abstract to be meaningful and I would instead ask if the marriage was valid.

Did both understand the commitment? Did both consent to the commitment? Was it free of cohesion? Was the real motives for another purpose than to becoming one perhaps love, money or status? Was there a fundamental change? Have the terms been grievously violated?

Does marriage exist for its own sake? Is to me a dangerous question for those in that situation.
We should recognize even the dire estranged married couples as that is how you heal something that is sick.
There certainly untreatable sick married couples, but assuming that the current situation cannot change is never a path to mend the broken.

Some people seem to think divorce is this awful, horrendous thing and that marriage is this sacred cow, but I don't see it that way.
I would very much defend it is sacred. If one wants to marry but doesn’t consider it sacred or a divorce a horrendous thing that leaves deep wounds -- I'd very much question if they are even able to marry. No doubt God will choose people over the sacred, but make no mistake there are consquences to not be vigilante to it and those who would give their lives to protect it are blessed.

 

[ZephBonkerer]

Many vices can get justified by a loose subjective standard like ‘detrimental’ with low odds of recovery. Most pessimists feel that way in my experience. So I'd advise great caution in such a belief. Many unhealthy situations can be repaired even if they seem improbable.

In your particular experience though you mentioned intentional neglect & feeling tricked was a major factor. And I agree that is a pretty clear sign of something fundamentally out of place. I would feel similarly in those circumstances and whenever one or both ignores their vows to the point of intentional neglect, one should question if they ever intended their vows. We can’t be tricked into marriage and the vow require both people. So there we certainly agree more than disagree.

There is of course a question if one could grow into neglect and mistreatment through a sickness, perhaps, clinical depression. Even then, I have known those in dire depression and even in that volatile state neglecting a spouse would be odd summarization. Now, wanting to leave a sick spouse is something often tempting but ultimately wrong, so at least worth considering in such circumstances.

I’d say, a marriage exists in the first place? To raise children and to address the human need to overcome their inherent loneliness/isolation. But, to me that question is too abstract to be meaningful and I would instead ask if the marriage was valid.

Did both understand the commitment? Did both consent to the commitment? Was it free of cohesion? Was the real motives for another purpose than to becoming one perhaps love, money or status? Was there a fundamental change? Have the terms been grievously violated?

Does marriage exist for its own sake? Is to me a dangerous question for those in that situation.
We should recognize even the dire estranged married couples as that is how you heal something that is sick.
There certainly untreatable sick married couples, but assuming that the current situation cannot change is never a path to mend the broken.

Some people seem to think divorce is this awful, horrendous thing and that marriage is this sacred cow, but I don't see it that way.
I would very much defend it is sacred. If one wants to marry but doesn’t consider it sacred or a divorce a horrendous thing that leaves deep wounds -- I'd very much question if they are even able to marry. No doubt God will choose people over the sacred, but make no mistake there are consquences to not be vigilante to it and those who would give their lives to protect it are blessed.

I no longer feel like I need to justify my divorce to anyone. Those who condemned me for it do not speak for God. And they had no real answer for what I should do.

Reconcile? Do they think I didn't already try that? Go to counseling? We already did that. How long was I supposed to pursue reconciliation efforts with a woman who would not have me as a husband? Until I die of old age?

I don't need to answer to people who make an idol out of an institution.

 

[Diamond7]

I don't know about heaven, but there definitely will be marriage and procreation on the new Earth.

We do not have a physical body in Heaven. Our body stays here on the Earth. We have a spiritual body.

 

[RevealedTruths]

We do not have a physical body in Heaven. Our body stays here on the Earth. We have a spiritual body.

Stop preaching gnosticism. The resurrected body is physical, as Jesus confirmed Himself. Luke 24:39. And heaven is not the final destination, but the new Earth.

 

[trophy33]

Stop preaching gnosticism. The resurrected body is physical, as Jesus confirmed Himself. Luke 24:39. And heaven is not the final destination, but the new Earth.

If the body of Jesus were physical, he would not be able to go through locked physical doors or to appear/disappear suddenly.

Spiritual bodies have the ability to materialize (any physical matter is just a sensory illusion, anyway), but it does not mean their nature is physical (stuck in the state of the matter).

 

[RevealedTruths]

If the body of Jesus were physical, he would not be able to go through locked physical doors or to appear/disappear suddenly.

Spiritual bodies have the ability to materialize (any physical matter is just a sensory illusion, anyway), but it does not mean their nature is physical (stuck in the state of the matter).

Jesus could go through locked doors and walk through crowds, walk on water etc. even before His resurrection, because He is God. The Bible never states that the resurrected body will have some special, supernatural abilities, that's not even what having a resurrected body means.

 

[trophy33]

Jesus could go through locked doors and walk through crowds, walk on water etc. even before His resurrection, because He is God.

Jesus never dematerialized before His resurrection, but relatively frequently after it. His body quite obviously changed, judged from the written record of gospels.

The Bible never states that the resurrected body will have some special, supernatural abilities

"It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body"
1Cor 15:44

 

[RevealedTruths]

Jesus never dematerialized before His resurrection, but relatively frequently after it. His body quite obviously changed, judged from the written record of gospels.

"It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body"
1Cor 15:44

If dematerialized, then that means that the resurrected body is physical in its default setting, but can de-materialize. Not that it's by default immaterial and can materialize.

Spiritual body means a body powered by God's Spirit, not something immaterial and intangible. An "non-physical body" is just as of a nonsense as a "non-round circle" or "non-square cube".

 

[trophy33]

If dematerialized, then that means that the resurrected body is physical in its default setting, but can de-materialize. Not that it's by default immaterial and can materialize.

If you read the gospels carefully, you can see that after the resurrection, Jesus appeared for a while and then disappeared and appeared again after some longer time. So the physical form was clearly the temporary one.

Spiritual body means a body powered by God's Spirit, not something immaterial and intangible. An "non-physical body" is just as of a nonsense as a "non-round circle" or "non-square cube".

I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God
1Cor 15:50

Sounds pretty immaterial.

 

[RevealedTruths]

If you read the gospels carefully, you can see that after the resurrection, Jesus appeared for a while and then disappeared and appeared again after some longer time. So the physical form was clearly the temporary one.


I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God
1Cor 15:50

Sounds pretty immaterial.

Haha, no. Flesh and blood is a semitic idiom for mortality, not physicality. If you doubt the physicality of the resurrected body, check Luke 24:39, Isaiah 26:19, Job 19:26 etc. Or just keep believing what you want.

 

[RevealedTruths]

any physical matter is just a sensory illusion, anyway

Ooooooh, that explains a lot. You should have said that right away, that you're a docetist. The belief that Christ's body was just an illusion is a docetist gnostic heresy.

 

[Diamond7]

I don't do celibacy, and that is that.

Could be someday you may not have a choice because of health issues.

 

[Diamond7]

Stop preaching gnosticism. The resurrected body is physical, as Jesus confirmed Himself. Luke 24:39. And heaven is not the final destination, but the new Earth.

It is "Gnosticism" that when you go to a funeral there is a dead body there? I am not talking about the resurrection. I am talking about when we die between now and the resurrection. What do you think is resurrected?

 

[trophy33]

Ooooooh, that explains a lot. You should have said that right away, that you're a docetist. The belief that Christ's body was just an illusion is a docetist gnostic heresy.

You try to find and name historical heresies too much. I am simply talking about the current science - physics. You know what a matter is, right? Just tiny particles that are waves of probabilities, there is nothing truly "physical" about matter. Matter is just an emergent concept we experience, but not the underlying reality.

You can watch some interesting youtube videos about physics and quantum mechanics explaining how it all works.

 

[trophy33]

Haha, no. Flesh and blood is a semitic idiom for mortality, not physicality. If you doubt the physicality of the resurrected body, check Luke 24:39, Isaiah 26:19, Job 19:26 etc. Or just keep believing what you want.

Just ask yourself a simple question. Why was Jesus after his resurrection just appearing from time to time, in various places, instead of being there physically "in flesh and blood" the whole time and traveling on his foot like before his resurrection.

Or how can we be in physical bodies in heaven with God who is spirit. Heaven would also need to be a physical place for our physical body to be there. Angels would be physical, too? Bible describes them as spiritual, though. Etc.

When we propose some hypothesis, it must make sense in the whole concept of what we already know, not just in few verses.

 

[ZephBonkerer]

If dematerialized, then that means that the resurrected body is physical in its default setting, but can de-materialize. Not that it's by default immaterial and can materialize.

Spiritual body means a body powered by God's Spirit, not something immaterial and intangible. An "non-physical body" is just as of a nonsense as a "non-round circle" or "non-square cube".

Sounds a bit like those transporters they have on the SS Enterprise.

 

[Mark Quayle]

@ZephBonkerer said:
I don't do celibacy, and that is that.

Could be someday you may not have a choice because of health issues.

Hoping to someday begin a thread on the subject of the ontological identity of a person, I expect to say something along the lines that none of us is yet "who I am". I talk like I am who I am, "and that is that", but I am not, really. I am constantly changing, unlike God; I am constantly "becoming", in contrast to The Great I AM. The real me has yet to be seen by me. God can, and will, do absolutely everything he decides to do, in me.

For an example, I plan to never get married again. (I am not willing to submit myself to such a commitment where someone else can mean so much to me that she has a bind on me, and where I mean so much to her that she is hurt so easily by my slightest miscalculation. I don't want to ever again take someone else, who is so different from me, so seriously. I want to try to live up to my own conscience —not hers, too!) That is what I am determined to keep as a precept —I will to not be married again. But I am not who I will become. God can do whatever he pleases with/to/in me.

 

[RevealedTruths]

You try to find and name historical heresies too much. I am simply talking about the current science - physics. You know what a matter is, right? Just tiny particles that are waves of probabilities, there is nothing truly "physical" about matter. Matter is just an emergent concept we experience, but not the underlying reality.

You can watch some interesting youtube videos about physics and quantum mechanics explaining how it all works.

Your logic is wrong, because you assume that we know everything about God's Creation, when in reality, we really don't know anything about it, other than some superficial scientific thories that always turn out to be wrong eventually. The Bible speaks of eternity as physical, including all the concepts that God originally created, but according to different principles.

 

[Diamond7]

none of us is yet "who I am".

Popeye claimed I am what I am. His basic character remains consistent. What would he be if it were not for Bruno to help him become what he was?

 

[ZephBonkerer]

Popeye claimed I am what I am. His basic character remains consistent. What would he be if it were not for Bruno to help him become what he was?

I was watching some Popeye recently on Roku. Good stuff!

I yam what I yam and that's all that I yam. I'm Popeye the Sailorman!

I race to the finish 'cause I eats all me spinach. I'm Popeye the Sailorman!