From www.nairaland.com/1084309/debrief-cotton101-those-came-out/18

I'm a Christian. I believe that marriage is for life and that divorce is the aberration.

Please table your questions.

Morning Ihedinobi,

trust all is well. Wasn't expecting this, but more than happy to discuss. I'll be back at some point later to resume.

Best
TV

Good morning to you too.

I'll be waiting on you

Hmmm, gen gen, I wish I was home, I for grab pop corn dey follow wait.

debrief08: Hmmm, gen gen, I wish I was home, I for grab pop corn dey follow wait.

lol. Do you gotta make it sound like we're about to hit smackdown?

Ihedinobi:

lol. Do you gotta make it sound like we're about to hit smackdown?

Yes na "let me go and prepare" " Okay go and prepare, I dey here dey wait"

*following*

debrief08:
Yes na "let me go and prepare" " Okay go and prepare, I dey here dey wait"

dis aunty she de vex o. ;-D

Ihedinobi hi, apologies for the delay. Long day.

Ihedinobi: From www.nairaland.com/1084309/debrief-cotton101-those-came-out/18

I'm a Christian. I believe that marriage is for life and that divorce is the aberration.

Please table your questions.

I also believe that marriage is for life, that divorce is permitted - not necessarily prescribed - by reason of adultery, but it does not presuppose re-marriage. That can only validly happen in the event of death.

I should probably start from my original question which I didn't feel was fully answered. But first let me ask you this. Are your views strictly Christian, or coloured by other faiths or philosophies?

Best
TV

...I'll be back!

TV01: Ihedinobi hi, apologies for the delay. Long day.




I also believe that marriage is for life, that divorce is permitted - not necessarily prescribed - by reason of adultery, but it does not presuppose re-marriage. That can only validly happen in the event of death.

I should probably start from my original question which I didn't feel was fully answered. But first let me ask you this. Are your views strictly Christian, or coloured by other faiths or philosophies?

Best
TV

Strictly Christian

. . . grabbing my seat at the far side of the hall, ready to enjoy this . . .

...morning,

Ihedinobi:

Strictly Christian

Fine! I'll presume we can use the Bible for reference.

I quote you from the previous thread;

@bolded, not quite, I haven't. My posts are of one thought. I had earlier said that there aren't really good or bad marriages, just marriages and cohabitations. My comment which you posted followed from it.

Suffice to say that God respects man's right to do as he pleases. He respects the documents signed and words said as man's effort to build the marriage alliance. But for Him, it is a failed effort unless Himself cements it and He is never under compulsion to do so simply because a couple signed special papers or spoke special words.

When Himself cements it, divorce is a non-issue. When He doesn't, it will fall apart. He is not a vindictive Person so He does not insist on the participants in such an alliance to stick to it till they expire. If the two learn that they are the wrong fit, there are two courses of action available:

1. the couple go to God to be truly married or

2. they accept the failure of their effort and walk away from each other.

If one alone of the couple is submitted to God and seeks true marriage at His hand, it's not enough. The two must agree.

The Lord God does not see as man does. He sees the true nature and reality of things not what we wish they are. So, when He's not the One grafting together, He does not see a marriage or legitimacy of offspring. But He can take a man-made "marriage" if it is offered to Him and turn it into the real thing and heal the confusion of its offspring.

1. What is a "co-habitation"? Is it biblically permissable or not? I think I get what you mean (MOG, COM), but in all instances I'll allow you to explain.

Thanks
TV

TV01: ...morning,



Fine! I'll presume we can use the Bible for reference.

I quote you from the previous thread;



1. What is a "co-habitation"? Is it biblically permissable or not? I think I get what you mean (MOG, COM), but in all instances I'll allow you to explain.

Thanks
TV

The following is a quote from another post of mine that preceded that one.

Ihedinobi: My point is: marriage is grossly misunderstood, at least in our days. There seems to be a tendency to deal in it as a matter of convenience and expediency. That's a real pity. Marriage is too serious an affair for anyone to endure. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, there are no good or bad marriages, just marriages and cohabitations. Two people sharing a name and maybe some kids and living space are not necessarily married for all that. Are they sharing their lives as well? If they can define themselves independent of each other or exclusively in terms of each other, they are not married. Simples. There are no reasons for remaining in such a state, just excuses. Either the couple should really get married to each other or they accept their unmarried state and move away from each other to prevent strangulation.

The bolded is my answer to the first question.

As for the second, of course, it's not God's way.

Ihedinobi:

The following is a quote from another post of mine that preceded that one.



The bolded is my answer to the first question.

As for the second, of course, it's not God's way.

I'm still not clear. Is co-habitation merely your way of stating a marriage is not of God? Meaning that your use of the term "marriage" denotes that the union is of God? Or are you using it in it's normal "live-in-lovers" sense?

Further, how do we ensure God cements it before vows or ask Him to do so after? Oris that outside of our control. Does it imply that one that does not fail is of God and one that does is not? Will co-habitations always fail?

So many questions. It would really help if you could outline your premise clearly, perhaps reference scripture. For example saying marriage "is misunderstood", what is the essence ofmarriage as it was intended?

Thanks
TV

TV01:

I'm still not clear. Is co-habitation merely your way of stating a marriage is not of God? Meaning that your use of the term "marriage" denotes that the union is of God? Or are you using it in it's normal "live-in-lovers" sense?

The bolded is what I mean.

Further, how do we ensure God cements it before vows or ask Him to do so after? Oris that outside of our control.

It's like you said you yourself did. The correct thing is that even the partner is picked by Father for you. But being what we are in our frailty, at whatever point the couple commits themselves to Him for the establishment of their covenant is the point at which it really begins.

Does it imply that one that does not fail is of God and one that does is not?

Whatsoever the Lord does abides forever. Whatever the Lord does not do fails.

Will co-habitations always fail?

Yes. And I'm not necessarily talking divorce.

So many questions. It would really help if you could outline your premise clearly, perhaps reference scripture. For example saying marriage "is misunderstood", what is the essence ofmarriage as it was intended?

Thanks
TV

I hope it's a little clearer now, bro.

...so would it be right to say that a "failure" for a co-habitation - marriage transacted without God - could range from unhappiness, unfullfilment to divorce?

If so, l would appreciate clarification on your point about divorce being in some way permissable for co-habitees?

Thanks
TV

TV01: ...so would it be right to say that a "failure" for a co-habitation - marriage transacted without God - could range from unhappiness, unfullfilment to divorce?

The failure of such a union is evidenced by such symptoms. The failure itself is of the covenant.

If so, l would appreciate clarification on your point about divorce being in some way permissable for co-habitees?

Thanks
TV

I'm not sure what this question requires of me. However, I'll try to explain my stand.

Divorce is the breakup of the marriage covenant. God hates and is not a party to the nullification of such a covenant. In fact, the reality is that marriage in its true nature is unbreakable. So, in a sense, divorce is actually an impossibility. Consider that God had metaphorically divorced Israel and Judah before they went into exile. Yet we know that He wasn't finished with them even then. Compare 1 Cor 7:10-11.

Marriage is a grafting together of two persons to become one. Consider the field from which the term "grafting" is taken: agriculture. The picture is of a piece of one plant attached to another so that they begin to bond until they are indistinguishable in essence because they share the same life juices/source. This is what marriage is. God takes two people and bonds them so that they become one and produce one kind of thing, not two.

This means that in a situation where this is not the underlying reality, there is really no break when the two "in covenant" walk away from each other. However, I also said that that is only one of two courses of action, the other being that the couple appeal to the gardener/husbandman to fit them together. Compare 1 Cor 7:12-16.

@TV1, do you have more questions or can we go on to look at abusive relationships in the light of my answers?

Ihedinobi: @TV1, do you have more questions or can we go on to look at abusive relationships in the light of my answers?

Not quite, I'm sure the discussion will flow, but I'd appreciate if you could first clarify the following;

Ihedinobi:
This is what marriage is. God takes two people and bonds them so that they become one and produce one kind of thing, not two.

This means that in a situation where this is not the underlying reality, there is really no break when the two "in covenant" walk away from each other.

Are you saying where God has not Himself done the grafting it is essentially a "non-covenant" and therefore divorce is permmisable? Infact, it's not actually divorce per se - or not actually divorce spiritually?

Please forgive my tawdriness in response and my general slowness.

Regards
TV

Ihedinobi:
Whatsoever the Lord does abides forever. Whatever the Lord does not do fails.

Simplistic and true in principle, but clearly omits the responsibility of both parties to 'implement' or 'receive' what the Lord has 'done'.

In reality this statement should be modified to read thus: if a marriage fails, God is not responsible for that failure, in the same guise that when we sin, we move away from God, not God moving away from us.

As for grafting - again great analogy, but somewhat hasty in its conclusion. Grafting eventually results in the two parts being indistinguishable - it doesn't happen instantly when they are 'tied' together or attached. If the two parts are separated before the grafting process is completed, or, if due to external conditions the bond loosens, then the graft may be unsuccessful.

It's convenient to try to describe things in absolutes - but the reality is more nuanced.

Forgive my interjection - just wanted to share a few thoughts.

Following with my caramel popcorn.

TV01:

Not quite, I'm sure the discussion will flow, but I'd appreciate if you could first clarify the following;



Are you saying where God has not Himself done the grafting it is essentially a "non-covenant" and therefore divorce is permmisable? Infact, it's not actually divorce per se - or not actually divorce spiritually?

Please forgive my tawdriness in response and my general slowness.

Regards
TV

I guess it's ok

As for what I said, yes, there was not a real covenant in the first place to break, thus what we see as and call divorce is, in God's eyes, essentially an acceptance of the reality of the absence of the true covenant. Hence, it is acceptable.

debosky:

Simplistic and true in principle, but clearly omits the responsibility of both parties to 'implement' or 'receive' what the Lord has 'done'.

Please refer to post #12 which is TV01's. There he quoted a post I made in the referred thread where I pointed out that the two must be in agreement in their marital transactions with God.

In reality this statement should be modified to read thus: if a marriage fails, God is not responsible for that failure, in the same guise that when we sin, we move away from God, not God moving away from us.

Of course you're right about the situation. When you take full stock of my position, you'll find that the statement says exactly that.

As for grafting - again great analogy, but somewhat hasty in its conclusion. Grafting eventually results in the two parts being indistinguishable - it doesn't happen instantly when they are 'tied' together or attached. If the two parts are separated before the grafting process is completed, or, if due to external conditions the bond loosens, then the graft may be unsuccessful.

It's convenient to try to describe things in absolutes - but the reality is more nuanced.

You're absolutely right and I mentioned it without emphasis when I said that they begin to bond. It's the same with marriage.

I think that the expression of vows is an attempt at grafting. The success of the attempt depends on the person/people grafting. If it is God, then it'll work and these two who cleave to each other will become one. If it is not, well, . . .

Forgive my interjection - just wanted to share a few thoughts.

You're very welcome, my very dear brother. Please share more

armyofone:
Following with my caramel popcorn.

So very welcome.

@TV01, I appeal to you to make your responses a tad more timely so that we can delve into the real issue in good time.

Analytical: . . . grabbing my seat at the far side of the hall, ready to enjoy this . . .

Sir, I have been looking for u.

Please mail me.


@ Topic,

I also had the mind of calling TV out to ask what abused women (or partner as the case may be) should do when faced with abuse in marriage. I guess he can answer me here as well. And it is also directed at the OP since he believes marriage is a do or die affair.

Na so so popcorn una dey eat here. Wey my own?

Tgirl4real:

Sir, I have been looking for u.

Please mail me.


@ Topic,

I also had the mind of calling TV out to ask what abused women (or partner as the case may be) should do when faced with abuse in marriage. I guess he can answer me here as well. And it is also directed to the OP since he believes marriage is a do or die affair.

Being a mod, I expect that you're a bit too busy to note people and their favored positions

Sit tight anyway. I'm sure you'll be fully introduced to my position soon. It'll actually be a repetition (and perhaps, an expantiation) of my stance on Jenny's thread.

Ihedinobi:

Being a mod, I expect that you're a bit too busy to note people and their favored positions

Sit tight anyway. I'm sure you'll be fully introduced to my position soon. It'll actually be a repetition (and perhaps, an expantiation) of my stance on Jenny's thread.

U got me there. Actually, I couldn't follow that Jenny's thread as it kept on climbing. And I haven't read thru dis as well. It's not easy following threads dese days. Got my hands full with family, job and d interviews. I guess I will follow dis since it hasn't gone far. Thanks for understanding.

Btw, when are u granting ur interview?

Ihedinobi:
As for what I said, yes, there was not a real covenant in the first place to break, thus what we see as and call divorce is, in God's eyes, essentially an acceptance of the reality of the absence of the true covenant. Hence, it is acceptable.

So you've said as follows;

1. Men are allowed to take marital vows and enter into the marital covenant and God recognises that?
2. However if it's not "cemented" by God - before or during and agreed by both partners - it's not really marriage?
3. As it's not really marriage, they can separate and it's not really divorce? No harm done?

This of course begs a whole heap of questions;

1. Are they fornicating? And if they are "unfaithful" does it count as adultery, or still fornication?
2. They can presumably repeat this cycle of "non-marriage" marriage ad-infinitum, as it's not of God. No problem?
3. Please explain God's purpose for marriage for mankind in light of this.

Ihedinobi: @TV01, I appeal to you to make your responses a tad more timely so that we can delve into the real issue in good time.

Apologies, I did say.

Tgirl4real:
I also had the mind of calling TV out to ask what abused women (or partner as the case may be) should do when faced with abuse in marriage. I guess he can answer me here as well. And it is also directed at the OP since he believes marriage is a do or die affair.

That really does depend. The type, the stage, the seriousness - first slap after 2 years or daily attacks with blunt instrument - every situation is unique.

My stance is first get the foundation right. I know the question is "the marriage is in effect na and abuse is happening", to which I would say this; Nip it n the bud. A slap after 2 years should be easily remediated. Does it go from lovey-dovey to "death-match showdown" overnight? I'd also say - and I know it's foundational still - not only should you effect zero tolerance from day 1, but like we did, beware of the small things like yelling, little jibes etc, all which can escalate. Even if not to outright abuse, but to a kind of frission between the couple.

Best
TV

U still haven't answered my question sir.

TV01:
That really does depend. The type, the stage, the seriousness - first slap after 2 years or daily attacks with blunt instrument - every situation is unique.

My stance is first get the foundation right. I know the question is "the marriage is in effect na and abuse is happening", to which I would say this; Nip it n the bud. A slap after 2 years should be easily remediated. Does it go from lovey-dovey to "death-match showdown" overnight? I'd also say - and I know it's foundational still - not only should you effect zero tolerance from day 1, but like we did, beware of the small things like yelling, little jibes etc, all which can escalate. Even if not to outright abuse, but to a kind of frission between the couple.

Best
TV

If u effect zero tolerance from day 1 and it happened again like after a year, then it became like more frequently....what would you advise such to do?

U are right, yelling and all is enough to put a strain on d union and with that, it's just a matter of time before it escalates into sum'n else.

Tgirl4real:

U got me there. Actually, I couldn't follow that Jenny's thread as it kept on climbing. And I haven't read thru dis as well. It's not easy following threads dese days. Got my hands full with family, job and d interviews. I guess I will follow dis since it hasn't gone far. Thanks for understanding.

Btw, when are u granting ur interview?

Cool

What interview?