If you could get your knuckles up off the floor you might see that there is more to life than s-e-x!
toldailytopic: Is getting a divorce immoral?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
If you could get your knuckles up off the floor you might see that there is more to life than s-e-x!
While I agree with your above exceptions the bolded is your opinion. I was not refering to rare extenuating circumstances but just general refusal of certian sex acts.
And so comments like that are suppose to keep people comming back to church? If you dont want them there then just tell them not to come back, thats what Paul did he did not make a spectical of it or degrade the person or make condesending remarks, we as christians are not suppose to be making such comments.
Which by the way is a big reason I dont tithe as I do not have title to the real property, but thats a topic for another time.
Well, without being overly descriptive on a family forum, I will just state that there are certain acts that are extremely uncomfortable and even painful.
Only a selfish spouse would demand that their partner shut up and deal with it ...
As long as you understand that you are not disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with Jesus.
Jesus provides the caveat that if you divorce for ANY reason other than adultery you are guilty of adultery if you remarry.highlife said:
Not pain, just acts that women might think are "gross", lagitimate physical pain is understandable.
So why did he even say what he said in mathew 19:11. I am agreeing with Jesus that I cant accept that teaching and that I cant measure up to that teaching. I dont think that thoes that have decided they cant meaure up need condemnation from the peanut gallery. Even Jesus said not everyone can accept this particular teaching.
You are forgetting the rest of this passage. You love the first part:
Ephesians 5:22-24
New International Version (NIV)
22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
You are really liking the idea of wife submitting to her husbands every whim. But you are ignoring your requirements:
Ephesians 5:25-29
New International Version (NIV)
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church—
Would a husband who loves his wife the way Jesus loves His church require her to do something she does not want to do? I wouldn't. Why would you?
They are co-requisites. A prude wife cant expect her husband to fullfil his end of the deal. Just as our relationship with God is conditional.
When the co-requisites are being met the relationship is in harmony, when a wife is being a prude you cant tell the guy he is being unloving becuase he wants his wife to provide a basic relationship nessicity. The church sold a bill of goods that you shoudl marry with no pre maritial sex and if the wife flakes out you just have to take it, see how thats not going to encourge church attendance and will cause people to not give the church much credibility. The church is giving women cart blanch excuse to prude out with no real consequence.
Even though we go to a church now, I am extremely apprehensive of it and always will be because this is the belief of most christians even though its contrary to scripture. Its not about scripture its about dogma and political correctness with most churchs. That is why I dont tithe and why I dont always go, I have to take it in small doses becaues they like to introduce just a little bit of urine into the bible and this topic is a big one.
That is because there should be no real consequence. There should be a loving husband that is willing to stand by her side and work with her to solve any issues that may be underlying her lack of desire. You should also be man enough to learn to control your libido so that it does not lead you into sin.
buzzzz wrong answer. Should a wife just tolerate getting beat up or emotionally neglected or a husband who gambles all their money away and calmly work with them even though he has shown no interest in changing in some period of time.
The churchs are more compasionate to the woman for the sins of the man and treat womens sins as if they are not even sin and then tell the man he just has to tolerate it .... sorry man thats the wrong answer, have fun in your little cult.
You are confused. There are many valid reasons for getting a divorce. There are times when a divorce is the best course of action. Getting remarried is a bit more dicey. For a woman that was beaten and divorced her husband, getting remarried is probably okay. For you to divorce your wife because she doesn't want sex as much as you do is immoral and any remarriage only compounds the immorality.
I have already proven my biblical case now your just quoting your own opinion and proving my point in my last post. The womans sin of being a prude is just as serious as a man that beats a woman.
You dont have to agree with me the issue is the bullying that the churchs do in these small "mens groups", it really is a sad state of affairs for the church.
Sorry, but you have proven nothing. You are attempting to use other scripture to negate what Jesus clearly said. I'm not buying it. There are good reasons to get divorced and there are acceptable circumstances for getting remarried. But all you are doing is distilling a marriage down to the satisfaction of your sex drive. It is not moral for you to divorce somebody simply because they do not want sex as much as you.
You call it bullying because you would rather be horny than holy. The Church is exhorting you to be holy, to do what is right towards the woman you married and in the eyes of God. As long as you are ruled by your libido you will fail to see the truth that the men's group is attempting to show you.highlife said:
What is most interesting is your tenor in this conversation. You sound like a guilty man who knows he is guilty and is desperately trying to justify his actions so that he can feel better about himself.
I think it is unfortuante that the church runs on a double standard of which they can not back up with scripture (there is no escape clause for a woman to remarry if she divorces if she is beaten by her ex husband but the church makes exception). However if a wife is defrauding and neglecting her husband then thats maybe a slap on the wrist but ultimatly if she does not modify her behavoir then no big deal. It is unfortunate becuase it ultimatly makes the church irrelavent.
It i you attempting to make the church irrelevant. The Church is doing the best it can to provide solid and consistent moral guidance. WHen people reject that guidance in favor of their own feelings, they render the church irrelevant. Morals do not exist to justify the fulfillment of our basest lusts, morals are a very high standard that we strive to achieve.
I agree, but church morals in regards to divorce and remarriage change with the tides. The church caves to things like political correctness and the feminist agenda.
I think at a certian point common sense has to be applied but it has to be applied in a logical fair consistant manner. Trying to say that physical abuse is a ok reason to divorce and remarry but sexual abuse via refusal the guy just has to take it makes you intellectually dishonest and drops your credibility.
You have no more biblical evidence that a woman can remarry if she was beaten than if a guy was refused. We have to resort to logic and common sense, unfortuantly in a church atmosphere there are few "reasonable people" to be found in some cases.
"Reasonable person A phrase used to denote a hypothetical person who exercises qualities of attention, knowledge; intelligence, and judgment that society requires of its members for the protection of their own interest and the interests of others."
A man agreeing that its ok for his wife to be a prude to his own detriment is not "reasonable", therefore after a period of time a divorce is really the only prudent option. If that person then burns with passion they should remarry if they can not contain themselves. What I have just wrote is a reasonable statement for the man in a difficult situation.
What you suggest is iron fisted legalism in lock step with your dogma. It is unfortuante as it can make church attendance painful when it in fact should not be.
If your former partner remarries and is therefore guilty of adultery are you free to remarry then?
LOL then its like a waiting game as to which one of you can hold out the longest, my bet is with the prude wife who did not want to put out in the first place. Then she can waste her ex husbands time and life if she knows he subscribes to draconian iron fisted church dogma that I dont believe Jesus ever intended.
I dont believe Jesus ever intended that churchs use mathew 19 as a draconian iron fist against his church. In these situations Jesus is the only one authorized to judge as these issues of divorce and remarriage are indeed sticky, he is the only one that truely knows our hearts and the suffering that may have led to a decision to divorce and the desire for sex and companionship that led to the remarriage.