[Zelda]

@biashara:
if a spouse is abusive (physically or emotionally) and living with him is unbearable and past efforts at fixing the relationship have failed, i advise separation.
separation gives one time to clear one's head and figure out what the right course to follow is.
if, once on her feet again, the woman decides to forgive, then she forgives.

but what is forgiveness?
forgiving someone for stabbing you does not mean that you should put a knife into their hands and stand before them, exposed, for a second stabbing.
likewise, forgiving an abusive spouse does not mean saying, "okay, what will be will be- nitarudi, nothing has to change".
it is entirely possible to forgive somebody and then get on with your life without them.
if the woman chooses to forgive and, in addition, wants to make her marriage work, then she has to be realistic. she can't change the marriage on her own, no matter how strong her faith. her husband has to want to change, and he has to show that he is making an effort to do so.

it's rather ironic that you should say divorce is not christly. according to christian doctrine (for the most part), christ did not marry. therefore a married person can't exactly follow his example. paul (i believe), did not marry either. and the patriarchs (akina abraham) were polygamists, so once again, it's anathema for the christian to follow their example...
the bible serves as a great guide for life, but there are situations for which it doesn't have the answers. that's where human experience and wisdom have to step in. we turn to human wisdom all the time. and why shouldn't we? the bible has never been the sole basis for the creation of laws, even in jewish communities. any sane community deals with the problems it is facing in a realistic manner. we're not living in heaven, so we should drop the expectations that we will live according to every letter of the book every second of the day.
in my books, under extenuating circumstances, divorce is okay, as is remarriage afterwards.

[teejay]

I agree with you on that ATlian. It is not only in this day and time that such counsel cannot be practical but even in the days of Moses there were persons who thought just like that.

You have certainly depicted what I would call a monster to illustrate your point. Well, my advice would be to ask my sister to retreat in favour of a temporary separation, until such a time that the matter can be resolved "conclusively". The choice of separation is in acknowledging that "what God has joined" I am not permitted to put asunder. This sounds irrational, no doubt, not only to a non-beliver but also to quite a number of believers. Most would say "leave for Good" as the foremost solution. But once again may I say that God's ways are foolishness to our human logic(i.e. the only ground for Divorce is Adultery). This is why you ATlian has more than once asked us to relieve ourselves from the religious "railroad", so that we can have a secular view of the situation.

In secular perspective, I would no doubt, ask my sister to migrate, never to look back without a second thought. But now that I am a follower of Christ, I must abide by his teachings, which again must not be forced on a person, but dispensed out as advice. This why separation (and not divorce) for a while, is my point of advocacy. During that period of separation I would urge my sister to give his wild husband time to think his stand. In the meantime both sides The man's and woman's sides must engage in talks with open minds to help the two couples to seek the root of the problem and sort it out. If all else fail then let separation prevail, taking into consideration Christ's teaching. We must remember though that the last decision always rests with the advisee.

One thing I cant get out of my mind, though is that; what if for those reasons you give, she gets another man and the awful story replicates? I know of a woman who has been through several men to find peace in marital union, but without success. The result is chain of messy relationships littered with a web of "bastards". One is of course tempted to label this one as an isolated case. I would say, that is ignorance. Our cities are fool of this kind of marital mess. I think that Love through patience no longer pleads for the perpetuity of most relationships. Vows no longer have their true ultimate meaning. To most people they are like beautiful artistic piece of poetry meant to delight the audience in attendance of the ceremony. People marry for other reasons than love. Others look for rich fellas, others want to fulfil their sexual desires (lust), others want a house help, etc. Marriage has simply lost its God given Sacredness. I believe that a family is key pillar of the Church, and Satan knows this well. What better way can the be than to attack the family- destroy the church by its roots.

It is interesting to see the length at which ATlian has gone to try and drive his point home. Well, regarding the garment amalgam in Deut 22:11, I have this to say. That it is imprudent to relate what happened then to this topic, besides we have to first of all establish why God at that time gave such a command. I believe there was Good reason that caused the dissemination of that command. But that is a story for another day.

ATlian I am not asking anyone to stick to abusive unions. After all we have a right to enjoy happiness regardless of our marital status. I am instead recommending separation, rather Divorce. I have seen marriages that were certifiably irreconcilable, work once again after some period of separation. It seem as if the couples in their “break” realise their mistakes and work towards solving them.
May I lastly say that marital union is of utmost importance and that is why many a times in the bible the relationship between God and his chosen people/church is referred to in terms of Marriage. God Calls himself Husband of the Church (bride). Now God even when the nation of Israel ran away from him was always willing to pardon them. Coming to think of the crimes committed against God by this nation we can say that God was surely a patient husband, never divorcing Israel even in the face of open rejection. No wonder we call Him Long Suffering. Like I have said above a family is an important part of the church. And that is why at all costs the union must be salvaged.

[teejay]

Zelda

While it is correct that Christ never married, it would be untrue to say that He had no moral authority to comment on the Marriage subject. Taking you back a while,it would be worth noting that "Christ was there in the beginning with God" when the first couple was created, therefore H is the author of the institution of marriage. It is Him who set the guidelines of the Union. Therefore He knows best what He was talking about. Paul on the other hand was, after his conversion, a good student of Christ and therefore very much at par with his master when he taught what his master gave him. So his sentiments on marriage can be disregarded. About Abraham, I can only say that he was a man living at a time when people had so sinned that polygamy had ceased to be viewed as sin before God. In fact reading through the bible you would see that polygamous unions always pulled along with them, wagon loads of trouble. This is however not to say that monogamous marriages did not have their own challenges. In my own view I would say that Abraham was never polygamous. In fact we are told that he married another woman, Keturah, only after his wife Sarah had died, as for Ishmael’s mother, I think he was a concubine, whom Sarah had approved of, due to her (Sarah's) failure to trust in God’s prophecy of child bearing. In fact it is not implicitly indicated in the Bible that Abraham married Hagar. What happened between Abraham and Hagar was never a marital union. If you wish, Zelda I am ready to furnish you with information on Ancient Jewish marriages, at a later moment. You are however right that we cannot follow the mess that Abraham undertook as an example.

Well, you have brought in another interesting issue. That which says Divorce would be lawful on the grounds that remarriage is as much welcomed. What is not clear here, is whether you are talking of remarriage between the divorced persons or remarriage to different person altogether. I personally would advocate for the former- Remarrying your previous soul mate. This is lawful unto God, regardless of the cause of the divorce (adultery or any other marital abuse). See how He advised Hosea the prophet not to leave her wife, who was having numerous extra marital flings (Ref: Hosea). On remarrying a new partner altogether, think it would be wise to follow what God says-only the grounds of Adultery can you divorce and remarry a new partner and not for any other reasons. For any other reasons, Separation is most appropriate.

Even though we want to use our human logic sometimes to solve issues we must remember that God is wiser than all of us and when He says something, it is not out of mere talk but because He knows best.

[milanya]

You talk about people marrying for other reasons than love as breaking God's design for marriage. It seems to me as though most of the marriages in the bible, with the exception of a few were arranged. People would hand out wives as rewards, wives were acquired to bear male children. i don't recall so much about he loved her so he married her. I get the impression the love in the biblical marriages came after the marriage, not before. I stand corrected.

I feel confident to defend the NT, but the OT just baffles me.
Life's not a garden so don't be a hoe

[ATLian]

>Taking you back a while,it would be worth
>noting that "Christ was there in the beginning with God" when
>the first couple was created, therefore H is the author of the
>institution of marriage.

TeeJay,

did god plan for us to marry from the beginning? If he did it's strange that he created Adam without a companion. It's even stranger that after Adam got lonely, instead of god providing a woman for Adam, god made him ANIMALS for companionship:

Genesis 2:18 - 19: And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air

Finally when the animals didn't really saidia Adam, god decided to create a woman for him.



>About Abraham, I
>can only say that he was a man living at a time when people
>had so sinned that polygamy had ceased to be viewed as sin
>before God.

You're saying that people sinned until it became common place to god to the point where he didn't consider their sins to be sins any more? That makes absolutely no sense. Replace polygamy with murder or homosexuality and you'll realize why it makes no sense. The reason why polygamy was there is because it was good in god's eyes. Almost all of god's great men were polygamous. There are laws by god on how to treat your other wives. Clearly this shows he was OK with it.



>What happened between Abraham and Hagar was
>never a marital union.

True. They just committed adultery, just like he did with the other concubines he had.

[ATLian]

>You have certainly depicted what I would call a monster to
>illustrate your point. Well, my advice would be to ask my
>sister to retreat in favour of a temporary separation, until
>such a time that the matter can be resolved "conclusively".

TeeJay,

I've just described your sisters hypothetical husband as "a "man" who beats her, is verbally and psychologically abusive, doesn't provide for her, takes drugs, doesn't provide her with her conjugal rights, molests children physically and verbally, etc but who DOES NOT cheat on her." What other conclusive resolution do you want from this? Do you want him to kill her before you finally realize that he is not worthy of being anybody's husband, let a lone your sister's?

Also, god knows the future of every man. So god knows, for example, that the guy described above will never change, and he will live to be 110 years old. Do you honestly think god would want your sister to live the rest of her life an unhappy, single, childless, unfulfilled woman because of this cretin? Do you think his heart is warmed with joy because she decided not to divorce him and chose to live a life of misery and suffering?



>But once again may I say that God's
>ways are foolishness to our human logic(i.e. the only ground
>for Divorce is Adultery). This is why you ATlian has more than
>once asked us to relieve ourselves from the religious
>"railroad", so that we can have a secular view of the
>situation.

But you have relieved yourself from the religious railroad (to use your words) on so many issues. You can work on the Sabbath. You can wear clothes made of wool and linen. You do not stone people to death. etc etc etc. Why is it that you chose to disregard those explicit laws from god, then you come and say that you can't disregard this law on marriage? If you obeyed ALL of god's laws to the letter, I'd understand. Since you clearly pick and choose the ones that suit you, how can you chose such an archaic irrational law for your sister?



>This why separation (and not divorce) for a while,
>is my point of advocacy. During that period of separation I
>would urge my sister to give his wild husband time to think
>his stand. In the meantime both sides The man's and woman's
>sides must engage in talks with open minds to help the two
>couples to seek the root of the problem and sort it out.

Since that's your line of thinking, you might as well send your kid back to the classroom with the pedophile teacher who sexually molests him daily. If the hypothetical man named above was my sister's husband, there is no way I'm engaging in a open minded talk with him. He's going to end up in jail and I'll make sure he gets there with some serious injuries on him. There's no way I can think of encouraging my sister to even talk to him again, let alone going back into the marriage with him. No freaking way.



>One thing I cant get out of my mind, though is that; what if
>for those reasons you give, she gets another man and the awful
>story replicates? I know of a woman who has been through
>several men to find peace in marital union, but without
>success.

Well, then she leaves him, and keeps on trying. Relationships are NOT an exact science. That's why very few of us married the first person we fell in love with. Eventually one of those frogs will turn out to be her prince...



>ATlian I am not asking anyone to stick to abusive unions.
>After all we have a right to enjoy happiness regardless of our
>marital status. I am instead recommending separation, rather
>Divorce.

You don't seem to understand that the above monster is somebody who will never change. You want to imprison your sister in a separation with him for the rest of his/her life instead of letting her move on. That makes absolutely no sense.



Anyway, your above attitude illustrates my biggest fear of religion perfectly: Religion can blind a follower to the point where he does totally irrational things that are detrimental to his well being and health, and that may even cost his life. It's only blind faith that can make your sister stay with the man I described, and let her rob herself of a better life. Blind faith is dangerous!

[petermaumau]

If one is married to a believer, then it is till death do you part or else one person is being adulterous..

As for the sister married to a non believer, then 1 Corinthians 4 is exhaustive... ANd so is 1 Peter 3
If the unbelieving husband or wife depart,one is not in bondage in such case I assume remarriage is no problem..But The believer is not the one to depart..
As for the husband, he can be saved as he observes the goodness of his wife by her submissiveness..and all things not acceptable in the world.

But it is best to avoid all the drama , do not be unequally yoked to a non believer, imagine the drama that will erupt if you say decide to give some offerings

[ATLian]

Peter - if the husband of a 22 year old woman is sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for the gruesome murder of 10 children, are you serious that you want her to wait patiently till he dies before she can move on to another man? If that was your sister, would you actually be content to see her spend the next 70 years lonely, manless, childless, unfulfilled, celibate, depressed and bitter because of a verse in the Bible?



>As for the sister married to a non believer, then 1
>Corinthians 4 is exhaustive... ANd so is 1 Peter 3

Peter,

you're being hypocritical. Below are some explicit commandments from god that are very exhaustive but which you and every Christian I know do not follow, and are not planning to follow:

Leviticus 20:8,13: Kill all gays

Numbers 15:32 - 39: Stone to death those who work on the sabbath

Leviticus 11: 7: Do not eat pork

Deuteronomy 22:23: If a woman is being raped and her cries for help aren't loud enough, stone her to death

Leviticus 19:19: Never wear a garment made of different threads, like wool and linen

You've indicated previously on Mashada how much you enjoy eating pork. You can't have your cake and eat it to. You either need to drop the pork, start wearing 100% wool trousers only, start stoning all gays you know to death as well as enforce the divorce laws, or quit the hypocrisy and slack off on the divorce law the way you've slacked off on the above mentioned laws.



>If one is married to a believer, then it is till death do you
>part or else one person is being adulterous..

I don't believe that there's any "absolute law" i.e. a law that should always be followed no matter what the circumstances are. There is a justifiable reason to break every law, no matter what the law is. "Thou shalt not kill" is a very strong law, but most of us would have no qualms about killing someone in self defense. "Thou shalt not lie" is another strong law, but if some hired killers came looking for your father and they asked you "Do you know where your father is?", even the most saved and upright Christian would reply "No" even if he knew his father was under the bed in the next room. If a cop stopped you for doing 90 on a 55 zone and you told him that the reason is because you're rushing your very ill child to the hospital, he'd give you a police escort instead of booking you. etc.

That's why I think that those who want to adhere to the divorce law "no matter what" are like the cop above who'd give the speeding man a ticket.



>But it is best to avoid all the drama , do not be unequally
>yoked to a non believer, imagine the drama that will erupt if
>you say decide to give some offerings

BTW it's a fact that an overwhelming majority of marriages are between people of the same country, race and tribe, the same economic status and educational level, and the same religion. In fact the least crossed line is the religious line (when did you last attend a Christian - Hindu wedding?). Therefore statistics show that most divorces and separation are from people who are equally yoked. Therefore you're preaching to the choir with your above statement, and not addressing the real issue at hand.

[Zelda]

>Zelda
>While it is correct that Christ never married, it would be
>untrue to say that He had no moral authority to comment on the
>Marriage subject.

@ teejay:
bro, i have no quarrel with the idea of moral authority. my point is that, when it comes to marriage, a very human experience, we should look to those who have come before us as an example. jesus, who provided an example (as to how to live while on earth) did not live the marital experience. therefore, we cannot follow his actions. ditto for the other example(s) i mentioned. which brings me to a fundamental problem within this faith: do we have any good role models (married couples) to follow?

>"Christ was there in the beginning with God" when
>the first couple was created, therefore H is the author of the
>institution of marriage. It is Him who set the guidelines of
>the Union. Therefore He knows best what He was talking about.

ok. could you please tell us what exactly the guidelines of the union, as set out by god/jesus katika old testament, are?

>Paul on the other hand was, after his conversion, a good
>student of Christ and therefore very much at par with his
>master when he taught what his master gave him. So his
>sentiments on marriage can be disregarded.

paul was a human being like you and i. with all due respect for his mastery of the word, if he was alive today, i would not go to him for marital advice. why? because he has not experienced marriage.

>About Abraham, I
>can only say that he was a man living at a time when people
>had so sinned that polygamy had ceased to be viewed as sin
>before God. In fact reading through the bible you would see
>that polygamous unions always pulled along with them, wagon
>loads of trouble.

i don't think so. polygamy was always depicted as something that was okay in god's eyes, i.e. until the church was romanized. the opposition to polygamy today is a reflection of these later values, not a reflection of what the old testament tells us.
your understanding seems to indicate that god is willing to compromise on what he considers to be sin because of what's prevalent in society at the time. if god was able to accept polygamy because it was so prevalent then, perhaps god would be so kind as to accept divorce because it is prevalent siku hizi.... au siyo?

>This is however not to say that monogamous
>marriages did not have their own challenges. In my own view I
>would say that Abraham was never polygamous.

abraham had sex with haagar, and made her pregnant. she was bound to him and to his family, a slave: she had no option as to where to go or what to do. she probably could not be touched by any other man after abraham used her. she was simply a pawn in the game of abraham and sarah. that, to me, is much worse than it would be if he had married two wives and treated them both respectfully and accorded all his kids similar opportunities.
i would not want to be in a polygamous union, but i think that if god truly wants justice and equality for all humankind, then polygamy is way above concubinage, any day.
btw, on polygamy: i don't think the old testament actually takes a stand on it. polygamy is one of those practices that comes and goes. it depends largely on population demographics: if there is a substantially larger number of females than males in society, then the society adapts to this by making it possible for a man to marry several women. the opposite is also true. kule on the asian continent are communities that allow women to marry more than one man, and it can be directly connected to demographics. there is a certain logic to the way human communities function: they create rules that help them to adapt best to their environment.
in other situations, monogamy tends to be the norm, simply because it is economical. under those circumstances, polygamy is the reserve of those who can afford it or those who would like to believe think that they can afford it.

>In fact
>it is not implicitly indicated in the Bible that Abraham
>married Hagar.

it is not explicitly denied either.

>If you wish, Zelda I am ready to
>furnish you with information on Ancient Jewish marriages, at a
>later moment.

i would appreciate that.

>Well, you have brought in another interesting issue. That
>which says Divorce would be lawful on the grounds that
>remarriage is as much welcomed. What is not clear here, is
>whether you are talking of remarriage between the divorced
>persons or remarriage to different person altogether.

i advocate remarriage, period. if the "soulmate" was abusive, and still is, then how on earth can remarriage to the same person be justified?
returning to a poisonous relationship is akin to knowingly drinking a cup of poison. if taking of one's physical life is frowned upon within the religious context, then surely doing so at a spiritual or emotonal level cannot be justified at all.
i must add that i don't think it makes any sense to require that a woman remains celibate for the rest of her days simply because she is unable to get back together with her husband. such a puritanical view (ignoring the importance of sex in the human experience) would be a recipe for disaster. humans will have sex. if we do not create legitimate institutions within which they can do that, they will still have sex in private. in public, they will pretend to defend a status quo that they do not take seriously.
do not forget that god is the one who created, within humans, the capacity to enjoy sex and to experience closeness with another human being through that means. if a legally married man and woman are unable to have sex with each other for an extended period of time (e.g. because they are separated), then they are both bound to look for sexual satisfaction elsewhere sooner or later.

>On
>remarrying a new partner altogether, think it would be wise to
>follow what God says-only the grounds of Adultery can you
>divorce and remarry a new partner and not for any other
>reasons. For any other reasons, Separation is most
>appropriate.
>Even though we want to use our human logic sometimes to solve
>issues we must remember that God is wiser than all of us and
>when He says something, it is not out of mere talk but because
>He knows best.

and yet it is not always clear what exactly god said and what exactly man embellished. the recommendations you give presuppose that we're living in utopia. but we're not. few ppl marry their soulmates; physical and emotional abuse are rampant; drug/ alcohol/ substance abuse are common.
i would much rather that my sister divorced her husband and got herself back onto her feet, then put her life to productive use in serving god (by sharing her talents and blessings with those around her) than that she remained in a marriage in which her self-worth was always being crushed and she was always neurotic and depressed. sometimes martyrdom is overrated (and this is one of those instances).

being faithful is not just about following rigid rules, bro. we are duty-bound to live our lives to their fullest potential: emotionally, physically and spiritually.

i suggest: spend some time volunteering in a shelter for battered women, or talk to the ladies in your family about their personal experiences in marriage.

[spider-ndwalz]

@biashara..come on now gal...


even the good lord knows that a man who treats you like crap aint worth it...get you a man that respects you..and doesnt lay out his crap on you...a good man is worth keeping...they are few...you just have to know how to identify the good few men...