The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Divorce among modern protestants
RiemannLives
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
What I would like to discuss is how modern protestants, who tend to get divorced at absolutely astounding rates, can reconcile their behavior with their scriptures. From an outsiders point of view, it seems this is a case where the New Testament is so clear on a subject that the only option to rationalize divorce (in most cases, see Matthew below) is to admit the fallibility of the testament itself.
Yes, this could be called a "religion thread". But not, at least in intention, a general one. I am specifically talking here about modern protestant Christian religion when it comes to the subject of Divorce. This was spurred on by thinking about the "sanctity of marriage" arguments that get thrown around in reference to gay marriage and prop. 8. This post will be fairly long and is very much a niche subject.
When quoting here I will be using the NIV version for readability and linking to the King James because it is so widely used among protestants. Oddly enough, despite the King James many flaws, this is a case where translational issues are not a problem. In fact because Jesus was so very clear (not even using parables but plain speech) in his views on divorce and because they are referenced in several places throughout the New Testament this is one area where there is little controversy over authenticity.
In order to make the case that Jesus did not say something like these things (even without exact wording the meaning is clear) you have to essentially admit that the gospels (and Paul) are just plain wrong on a fairly important point.
As it is exceedingly likely that Mark was the first gospel to be composed, sometime fairly soon after 70 AD, it seems appropriate to first examine the first few verses of Mark chapter 10:
In the Gospel of Matthew shortly after the Beatitudes Jesus offers a slightly less strict version allowing for separation in the case of "unfaithfulness" (or immorality or several other similar words depending on how you translate the Greek).
Later in Matthew 19 is offered up essentially the same text as appeared in Mark 10 but again allowing for divorce for unfaithfulness:
It is also interesting to look at 1 Corinthians 7. While this is one of the letters of Saul of Tarsus and was not intended as scripture (though it quickly became regarded as such) Saul is valuable in that his letters - at least those that he may have actually wrote are the only portions of the New Testament for whom there is a known author and the only portions which were written prior to the Judean War. Saul himself never met Jesus in life but was, according to him, considered acceptable to preach his message by the pillars of the Jerusalem community of Christians after his death (albeit in exchange for a whopping great payment of cash money which Saul spent most of his life trying to raise).
The rest of 1 Corinthians 7 is fascinating in that Saul goes on to disagree with the hard-and-fast ruling of Jesus in some cases and presents his own opinions on the subject with greater nuance. But he at least has the decency to state that these are his opinions as different form those of The Lord.
Is there perhaps some commonly accepted protestant Dogma I am not aware of that twists the meaning of these passages? Or is this simply a case of only following (or forcing others to follow) the few passages and creeds that meet with the approval of ones own earthly judgment?
Yes, this could be called a "religion thread". But not, at least in intention, a general one. I am specifically talking here about modern protestant Christian religion when it comes to the subject of Divorce. This was spurred on by thinking about the "sanctity of marriage" arguments that get thrown around in reference to gay marriage and prop. 8. This post will be fairly long and is very much a niche subject.
When quoting here I will be using the NIV version for readability and linking to the King James because it is so widely used among protestants. Oddly enough, despite the King James many flaws, this is a case where translational issues are not a problem. In fact because Jesus was so very clear (not even using parables but plain speech) in his views on divorce and because they are referenced in several places throughout the New Testament this is one area where there is little controversy over authenticity.
In order to make the case that Jesus did not say something like these things (even without exact wording the meaning is clear) you have to essentially admit that the gospels (and Paul) are just plain wrong on a fairly important point.
As it is exceedingly likely that Mark was the first gospel to be composed, sometime fairly soon after 70 AD, it seems appropriate to first examine the first few verses of Mark chapter 10:
You can find the text in the King James version here. Despite four centuries of change in the English language the meaning is still plainly identical.NIV Mark Chapter 10 wrote:Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them.
Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"
"What did Moses command you?" he replied.
They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."
"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."
In the Gospel of Matthew shortly after the Beatitudes Jesus offers a slightly less strict version allowing for separation in the case of "unfaithfulness" (or immorality or several other similar words depending on how you translate the Greek).
King James version here.NIV Matthew Chapter 5:31-32 wrote:"It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce. But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.
Later in Matthew 19 is offered up essentially the same text as appeared in Mark 10 but again allowing for divorce for unfaithfulness:
King James here.NIV Matthew Chapter 19 wrote:When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.
Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"
Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."
Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."
It is also interesting to look at 1 Corinthians 7. While this is one of the letters of Saul of Tarsus and was not intended as scripture (though it quickly became regarded as such) Saul is valuable in that his letters - at least those that he may have actually wrote are the only portions of the New Testament for whom there is a known author and the only portions which were written prior to the Judean War. Saul himself never met Jesus in life but was, according to him, considered acceptable to preach his message by the pillars of the Jerusalem community of Christians after his death (albeit in exchange for a whopping great payment of cash money which Saul spent most of his life trying to raise).
King James here.NIV 1 Corinthians 7:10 wrote:To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.
The rest of 1 Corinthians 7 is fascinating in that Saul goes on to disagree with the hard-and-fast ruling of Jesus in some cases and presents his own opinions on the subject with greater nuance. But he at least has the decency to state that these are his opinions as different form those of The Lord.
Is there perhaps some commonly accepted protestant Dogma I am not aware of that twists the meaning of these passages? Or is this simply a case of only following (or forcing others to follow) the few passages and creeds that meet with the approval of ones own earthly judgment?
Attacked by tweeeeeeees!
RiemannLives on
0
Posts
But I'm no religious scholar. :P
I'm going to skip the rest of it and cut right to the chase. Your last sentence sums it up perfectly. People pick and choose what parts of the scripture they want to follow/believe in. Even those who claim to believe in the literal truth of the Bible. It would be nice if people could form permanent, lasting relationships on every try, but the reality is that divorce is necessary - no one should be forced to be with someone they hate, or someone who hates them, or be forced to accept a life in which they can't make their own choices about who to be with.
I don't read things with mistakes in them.
That must be a short reeding list.
I'd say it's that second one, although I'd be careful to distinguish between church dogma and what individual members do. Protestant churches don't really excommunicate anyone, so even if the church teaches otherwise members can and do get divorced with no church-related consequences.
And when in doubt, they can just fall back on "it doesn't keep you out of heaven as long as you accept Jesus."
Yes. Yes it is. :P
Exactly. I am not a believer myself but what prompted this thread was the idea that rather a large number of people in California are trying to seriously damage the lives and happiness of others because they do in fact believe. But at the same time they go about their lives doing things their own supposed Moshiah was very much against and explicitly forbid.
This, a thousand times this. A marriage won't work if the partners don't make it work.
Now, my thoughts on your question here"
I don't know about some general Dogma but in my experience we were taught the importance of the lesson not the exact wording (if that makes any sense). Basically here are some guidelines to govern your life with. Everything isn't literal (in the way I was instructed) or I'd be out in the streets stoning people and setting their wives on fire.
And yet the Son of God, who is omniscient in all things, decided that this didn't matter and that divorce is s Sin.
Doesn't staying in a horrible, abusive marriage because it is the will of the Son of God fall under the category of enduring suffering because it is part of His Ineffable Plan?
I seem to recall a certain Bishop of Hippo going on at length about not questioning Gods will simply because things in the world seem wrong by our lowly human standards.
fixed.
Come on now, you're being obtuse. Jesus made an exception for marital unfaithfulness and it's not unreasonable to extend that to an abusive relationship. My current pastor has taught from the pulpit that a woman being abused should get out.
Pretty much. It's impossible to love each other so much that it's always easy. I'm not one of those who go so far as to say that some days you have to try really hard to remember why you love the other person, or that some days you'll really want to throw in the towel, or anything - I've never had a day where I wasn't happy to be married to my wife, or where I had to remind myself that I loved her. But marriage requires a lot of upkeep, sort of like a car. And the more attention you pay to the little things, the less likely it is that your marriage is going to dump its transmission in the middle of I-5 during rush-hour.
Well, someone wrote that down in a book. Did Jesus write the book? I really don't think so. A bunch of different people supposedly did. Here, I did some digging and this might sum it up best:
"Protestants believe that their traditions of faith, practice and interpretations carry forward what the scriptures teach, and so tradition is not a source of authority in itself. Their traditions derive authority from the Bible, and are therefore always open to reevaluation. This openness to doctrinal revision has extended in Liberal Protestant traditions even to the reevaluation of the doctrine of Scripture upon which the Reformation was founded, and members of these traditions may even question whether the Bible is infallible in doctrine, inerrant in historical and other factual statements, and whether it has uniquely divine authority."
Plan? I'm curious why anyone can claim there is a plan. The greatest gift God supposedly gave man is free will. As a result, there can't be a plan.
Every 5 thousand miles you take her to the shop and drop a few grand?
Well, divorce is one of the many things that's a bit controversial in the bible. People interperet the scripture both ways. Either that divorce outright is a sin, or that the motive for divorce is a sin. I choose to beleive the latter. The basic idea is that man's heart is so hard (from sin and our imperfect nature) that divorce is an inevitability given some situations.
Either way, sin is forgivable. The folly that the church makes with regards to marriage (in my opinion) is that they tend to preach about marriage like it's a given and the key to happiness. And it's neither. That can't come from an institution, or from another. You must first be happy and peaceful with yourself before you can be happy and peaceful with another. Not very many people understand that concept or really know what it means.
Pretty much, yeah. Then I slap a label on her ass so I won't forget when to service her next.
Just out of curiosity how can you turn Matthew 19 or Mark 10 into "the motive for divorce is a sin". At the very least it doesn't allow for remarriage even in the case when you get divorced because of unfaithfulness.
The way I read it, the person who initiates the divorce and then remarries commits adultery, except in the case of unfaithfulness. Mark 10 seems to pretty clearly state that if he divorces and he remarries then he commits adultery, and vice versa.
One teaching I heard in a Presbyterian church was that getting divorced for no good reason before you got "saved" was effectively forgotten (along with your other sins) after you accepted Jesus, and you could get remarried with no problem. And if your wife (or husband) divorces you against your desires when you weren't unfaithful, that would similarly not be held against you.
Let well enough alone. People go into things with the best of intentions. Sometimes it doesn't work out. They're not going to burn in any hell for admitting that.
Stuffy religions simply stick to their bullshit far longer then they should when practicality makes keeping them in place untenable, but don't think for a moment they they really stick to their interpretations. They change them over the years because untenable means untenable (like suddenly its OK for blacks and whites to marry? yeah thats what I'm talking about -pulling 180s on interpretations of text).
Actually he's just pointing out yet another way in which a religious text is forced to cede to reality.
Wow, and thats not a dickish thing to do at all. Im not arguing that almost every single religious text has something it that is hypocritical, but to do so as if your standing on some moral high ground is completely ridiculous.
People have religions. They follow them the best they can. End of story.
So at what point do these glaring inconsistencies with reality, the horrible morality, and logical paradoxes actually matter?
Also, thanks for supporting a point I've made in a handful of various other religion threads.
If that was the End of the Story then the world would be a much better place. To provide a very current example in the Great State of California on this very day hundreds of thousands of people are going to vote to ruin the lives of other human beings they have never met exactly because of their religious texts.
These things matter to those of us who are not believers because believers, in trying to do what they see as right based on the teaching of Jesus, often try their damnedest to make them matter.
Matthew and Mark aren't the only 2 books to deal with marriage.
And actually Jesus specifically states that adultery is justified grounds for a divorce.
I understand that some people's interpretations of their religions is fundamentally flawed when viewed in a more deist/naturalist view of the world. However, you can't force them to change, and your not going to. Pointing out the flaws is a futile exercise. Your either preaching to the choir or your pounding your views on deaf ears.
So, people have religions and they try to follow them the best they can.End of story.
I mean duh. If people followed everything the bible says, they'd be Jesus.
Yes, in Matthew 5 and 19 (though in Mark that exception is not allowed). Which is why I quoted it. And the above mentioned bits Mark, Matthew and a couple bits out of the letters of Paul are actually the only parts of the New Testament dealing with divorce.
The New Testament, and especially the Gospels, is actually a lot shorter than most people think.
Up on a cross?
People are accountable for their beliefs. Their beliefs are not consistent with their book or any interpretation of it at all. Stop fence-sitting. It's because people like you sit there and apologize for them that they never have to come to terms with the fact that stoning insolent children isn't okay, that women aren't property, and that Earth isn't stationary in space despite all the things their book says.
Wrong. I'm not saying it isn't wrong. Which is where your blind attack comes from. What I am defending is their right to believe it. Given the chance to beat the shit out of the head of the Westboro Baptist church I would. But he has every right to believe his bullshit.
Your not the fucking thought police. Back the fuck up.
Can't you fathom the massive difference between their Right to believe what they will and their Right to force other people to live according to their beliefs?
When a group decides to make their religious beliefs Law and force others to follow it then their beliefs become everyone's business and everyone has a Right to contest them.
Uh, I'm sorry but your logic smashed its head on its way out the window.
You're defending religion, end of story.
What if someones religious beliefs lead them to blow themselves up taking out 40 innocent people? oh well don't try to change their mind before they strap on the explosives, you're only pounding your views on deaf ears.
It's called reasoning with people to get them to change their mind. Just because its not 100% effective doesn't mean it isn't worth debating.