Also noticed something. @Ihedinobi please relax on some of the words you use, it could be termed provoking, but thank God TV has been avoiding them since. I understand your so emotional about your stance, but relax bro, we all learning and its an argument, your don't complaing that someone is forcing you to take their point of view while you too also forcing them to take yours. You get my point everybody has their views and everybody learns. I have learnt somethings from u and also from TV. Hope I didn't say too much to bruise any ego's not my intention let's just keep the discussions civil and void of personal attacks.

Malachi 2:16 - "For the Lord God of Israel says That He hates divorce..."

The fact that God hates divorce is enough reason for anyone who professes faith – in Him - to consider why.

The Lord instituted – and gifted man with the covenant of marriage for good reason. It is the basic building block and primary order of society.
I believe The Lord cares about the genuinely motivated marriage of all, even those who do not necessarily call upon Him. Marriage came before the Church and is by no means subject to it.

God gave us a template for marriage – as He has for many things – which includes instruction for issue resolution.

Point 1 – if you transact a marriage based on some other template – and I absolutely affirm your right to do so - please don’t come up in here and do either of the following two things;

1. Accuse God of somehow forsaking or misleading you
2. Forcefully assert a new non-literal meaning into scripture to justify your departure from it.

If anyone – Christian or not – departs from sound principles of marriage and does not seek the surety that trust in God brings, please, don’t be surprised if your union encounters stormy weather with the very real possibility of shipwreck.

I have repeatedly spelt out my understanding of the scriptures with regards to marriage, and no one has been able to show different, merely assert that reading must “not be literal”. Why not? (Not every Yoruba speaker is a Yoruba man and not every Yoruba man speaks Yoruba!)

debosky: I do believe God wants us to remain in marriage not just to 'endure' but to truly enjoy it. However, what I do get worried about is the 'literal' biblical interpretation that insists you remain in the 'marriage' despite all odds (except for adultery of course). It almost paints God as someone who is only concerned with maintaining a 'marriage' (even if only in name) above all else - regardless of the experience of those in the marriage. I don't think this is the intent and this is where the lack of prescriptive direction in the bible for every conceivable scenario translates into each person 'working out his salvation with fear and trembling'.

I hope you now appreciate, that 1. “literal remedy” is for a “literal union” 2. What you build, you support, what He builds, He surely will.

debosky: I understand TV01's position to an extent - you should start off with God directing you, you should be sustained by God's power, but guess what? What you should have done is not very useful when things have gone down the drain. God's instructions and His grace remain our first (and last) resort as Christians and we should never discount the power therein.

Your solution appears to be “to each his own”? Is that a remedy? Which brings me on to my;

2nd point. It’s not really a remedy that is being sought here. “Divorce” is not a remedy. Divorce is a “fail”, a failed marriage. A remedy would suggest a healed one.

Oddly enough I have been attacked by one who holds a more rigid literal interpretation than I put forward;

davidylan: 1 Cor 7:12-16 gives you a reason to divorce ONLY in the case the unbelieving spouse chooses to depart (but you do know that does not make you free to remarry unless the spouse is dead).

TV01: Now for a believer who came to faith after marriage, there is perhaps leeway. If the unbelieving spouse departs post-conversion the bible says they are not under bondage. Let the believing brother or sister act according to faith/conscience. I certainly will not be prescriptive here.

However the urge to play to the gallery overwhelms him, so he artfully contradicts himself and denies what he himself claims scripture says ;

davidylan: But i believe an abusive husband is NOT a believer in the first instance and by virtue of his violence has pretty much destroyed the marriage covenant. Left to me, if madam prayerfully finds another true christian man, she is not bound to her ex. I do not for one second believe God intends for us to suffer for ending up in marriage to one willing to destroy us.

I am neither surprised nor disappointed DL has always appeared “conflicted”. Wanting to appear the model Christian, but at the same time appear “down”. Thankfully DL, it’s “not left to you”.

davidylan: ... i have had to leave someone just because she did not fit the "biblical" model of a wife by other's standards.

You blame “others” because you’re a “man pleaser” – quit snivelling. I urge you to learn to “walk your walk”. Funnily enough, I met and married that same girl !

What is being sought here is an unquestioning “aye” for divorce and a silencing of any dissenting voices. What is being sought is a “normalisation” of divorce to justify all those that have already taken that step . Many wilfully and not for reasons to do with abuse per se. Some that do not see that, may unwillingly validate it.

My 3rd point is regards the vilification of men. The campaign against men here is obvious and concerning. Ultimately it will profit neither gender. Opening threads that lend themselves to this is at best ill-advised and at worst spiteful and voyeuristic. Again, many - possibly even some that are spearheading this campaign - don’t see that. Others are unknowingly being seduced by the language.

Unlike some who can only point to “research,” I have had a 360 degree experience of “abuse” and fully appreciate that it can be by either gender, take various forms and vary in degree. It may be “characteristic” of a person, but it may also be “circumstancial”. There may well be situations that are not retrievable, but in many instances full restoration is possible.

I once also “had a position” but “reality and experience” have given me pause for thought. The Bible says it is folly to judge a matter on hearing just the one side. Do we assume women are gold diggers or black widows as a starting point?

I may well be mistaken at times, I may also seem overzealous. But I will always argue for truth and for balance , and without fear or favour. I will always testify of Gods faithfulness and declare His goodness in my life.

@Afamdman - thanks for your objectivity and counsel.

Best
TV

^^^ you make some valid points. But at the end of the day to each his own.

I frankly dont believe that the christian race is a one-size fits all, sometimes a lot of us want to force our own interpretation of the word down the throats of others without stepping into their shoes for 2 minutes.

Tell all this you must die in marriage to Chris Okotie and ben the ben , abi wetin be that pasito name again. They even quote bible for everyone to justify. Smh!

[quote author=


You blame “others” because you’re a “man pleaser” – quit snivelling. I urge you to learn to “walk your walk”. Funnily enough, I met and married that same girl !

[/quote] sorry a question TV01 let me get this straight. You mean you married same girl david dropped or you meant it literally. And yes I do understand your point about the discussion making divorce seem as a way out. If we continue like this, in a few years time it would be acceptable, and its very true when you have divorce as a way out even before marriage, you most likely will divorce. But the bible is clear if you must seperate then seperate but also pay a price by not re-marrying am sure if that is also put at the end of most divorce argument people will think less of using the easy way out divorce. we as humans all have short comings do we beat ourselves when we do wrong to ourselves no!, we immediately make an excuse and forgive ourself. Plus oddly enough the things God has asked us to do as good christians are the very same things that would make us better spouses someone bring the what God says love is scripture here let's look at it. Divorce is an easy way out, I hope that's not what we also want to teach our chilðren is there anything wrong in us teaching them they can have the best marriage. I have a friend who is from a divorced home, to her divorce is a way out, once its not working am out she says. I think instead let's begin to teach and research more on what makes a good marriage possible start dwelling more on the positives and stop putting a microscope on the negatives, let's start discussing more on what gurantees the best kind of marriage. Wow. I have started this early morning with this.hmmm. Good morning all.

baby_123: Tell all this you must die in marriage to Chris Okotie and ben the ben , abi wetin be that pasito name again. They even quote bible for everyone to justify. Smh!

Nobody says you must die in the marriage far from it, everybody here agrees when its bad please seperate. But my stance is when you seperate you are not allowed to remarry unless your spouse dies. If you do and have sex the bible is clear your committing a sin. Its clear God wants reconcilation because he also said it there in 1cor 7:10 "let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband" so after seperation the next thing is reconciliation. Simple, plus all the argument here is based on scriptural principles. You understand it now ma.

TV01:
I hope you now appreciate, that 1. “literal remedy” is for a “literal union” 2. What you build, you support, what He builds, He surely will.

I have no issues with this - however, my point is that not everyone starts out with the right foundation, neither do they build as they ought to. God does not say 'well you didn't do it properly so that's your problem'.

In the event that such people find themselves contemplating divorce or some other degradation/dissolution of the union, my view is that I don't think God is solely interested in maintaining a 'marriage' in name only over the day to day experiences of the individuals involved.

Your solution appears to be “to each his own”? Is that a remedy? Which brings me on to my;

2nd point. It’s not really a remedy that is being sought here. “Divorce” is not a remedy. Divorce is a “fail”, a failed marriage. A remedy would suggest a healed one.

My 'remedy' as you call it is a recognition of the peculiar circumstances in each union and the lack of a 'common solution' for every case. While I believe God can heal any union (and this should be the first resort), it is incumbent on the participants to seek that restoration. Where one or both parties are unsuccessful in receiving/asking for that healing, then keeping a marriage in name only is a failure already - you don't need to sign a sheet of paper titled divorce for the failure to have occurred.

There is no universal remedy. Healing is preferable, but when not attained/unattainable, do you keep a semblance of marriage only on paper in a legalistic nod to 'obeying' the scripture? I don't accept the latter.

No one is saying divorce is a remedy. Unfortunately divorce may become a lesser evil or necessity especially when issues such as threats to life or incessant abuse is what obtains within the marriage. To deny this reality (in some cases, not all) is to make this purely an intellectual debate.

Furthermore, when I mentioned every one working out his/her own salvation, that is what it ultimately comes down to in my view. For example, some may be able to separate and stay that way praying indefinitely for restoration without falling into other temptations such as seeking out sexual intimacy elsewhere. Others may not be that 'strong' and fall into temptation. Is God then happy that the 'remain in marriage' instruction is upheld but sexual intimacy outside the union is occurring? I don't think so.

Others still may decide to avoid this issue by divorcing and re-marrying with a heart set out to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. It is my belief that God will bless the latter case. God wants the best for us, but when we fail, a second chance exists, be it within that current marriage or in a new one - that is my belief. It doesn't change the fact that God hates divorce.

What is being sought here is an unquestioning “aye” for divorce and a silencing of any dissenting voices. What is being sought is a “normalisation” of divorce to justify all those that have already taken that step . Many wilfully and not for reasons to do with abuse per se. Some that do not see that, may unwillingly validate it.

I agree this may be the case, but even if they 'silence' voices - the word of God remains. It is left to each individual how they relate with that word.

My 3rd point is regards the vilification of men. The campaign against men here is obvious and concerning. Ultimately it will profit neither gender. Opening threads that lend themselves to this is at best ill-advised and at worst spiteful and voyeuristic. Again, many - possibly even some that are spearheading this campaign - don’t see that. Others are unknowingly being seduced by the language.

Men are overwhelmingly the (physical) abusers in relationships so this is unsurprising. No side should be vilified, but we can't deny this reality.

There may well be situations that are not retrievable, but in many instances full restoration is possible.

We are in agreement on this.

debosky:

I have no issues with this - however, my point is that not everyone starts out with the right foundation, neither do they build as they ought to. God does not say 'well you didn't do it properly so that's your problem'.

In the event that such people find themselves contemplating divorce or some other degradation/dissolution of the union, my view is that I don't think God is solely interested in maintaining a 'marriage' in name only over the day to day experiences of the individuals involved.

My 'remedy' as you call it is a recognition of the peculiar circumstances in each union and the lack of a 'common solution' for every case. While I believe God can heal any union (and this should be the first resort), it is incumbent on the participants to seek that restoration. Where one or both parties are unsuccessful in receiving/asking for that healing, then keeping a marriage in name only is a failure already - you don't need to sign a sheet of paper titled divorce for the failure to have occurred.

There is no universal remedy. Healing is preferable, but when not attained/unattainable, do you keep a semblance of marriage only on paper in a legalistic nod to 'obeying' the scripture? I don't accept the latter.

No one is saying divorce is a remedy. Unfortunately divorce may become a lesser evil or necessity especially when issues such as threats to life or incessant abuse is what obtains within the marriage. To deny this reality (in some cases, not all) is to make this purely an intellectual debate.

God wants the best for us, but when we fail, a second chance exists, be it within that current marriage or in a new one - that is my belief. It doesn't change the fact that God hates divorce.

Men are overwhelmingly the (physical) abusers in relationships so this is unsurprising. No side should be vilified, but we can't deny this reality.

The above quoted, word for word, represents my position in this matter. And, I believe, it represents the position of the vast majority of people who have discussed this topic on these boards.

TV01
What is being sought here is an unquestioning “aye” for divorce and a silencing of any dissenting voices. What is being sought is a “normalisation” of divorce to justify all those that have already taken that step . Many wilfully and not for reasons to do with abuse per se. Some that do not see that, may unwillingly validate it.

Debosky: I agree this may be the case.

This, I disagree with. No one, not even those who have gone through divorce, is seeking an unquestioning 'aye' for divorce. On the contrary, the 'dissenting voices' are the ones that seem to be seeking an unquestioning 'nay' for divorce even where life and limb are at stake.



God hates divorce. Guess what else God hates?

Psalm 11:5 The Lord examines the righteous, but the wicked, those who love violence, he hates with a passion. New International Version (NIV)

So why the willingness understand an abuser's side of the story and to find out what the victim did wrong to cause it but the total unwillingness to understand the side of the story of the one who sought for divorce due to threat of loss of life or limb? After all God hates both things.

Where is the empathy? The humanity? In a case where one party was abandoned comatose in the hospital after repeated violent incidents; after resolution had been sought multiple times from family, elders, pastors and the like; how can a Christlike human being's immediate contribution to this story ever be, "what did you do to cause it" and "why did you not seek God properly before marrying"? Even if one wants to use it as a teachable moment to discuss their own version of prevention (no matter how limited it would be in it's reach, therefore not very effective), you cannot go about it by showing scorn and disdain to the broken and downtrodden all in the name of 'God hates divorce'. Is that what Jesus would do?

ileobatojo:
This, I disagree with. No one, not even those who have gone through divorce, is seeking an unquestioning 'aye' for divorce. On the contrary, the 'dissenting voices' are the ones that seem to be seeking an unquestioning 'nay' for divorce even where life and limb are at stake.

I would argue that some are and - this is not directed at you or anyone else in particular - I don't think we can deny that there are people who have divorced (whether due to abuse or other reasons) without fully exploring the opportunities for reconciliation and may be seeking validation of their decision.

Afamdman: Also noticed something. @Ihedinobi please relax on some of the words you use, it could be termed provoking, but thank God TV has been avoiding them since. I understand your so emotional about your stance, but relax bro, we all learning and its an argument, your don't complaing that someone is forcing you to take their point of view while you too also forcing them to take yours. You get my point everybody has their views and everybody learns. I have learnt somethings from u and also from TV. Hope I didn't say too much to bruise any ego's not my intention let's just keep the discussions civil and void of personal attacks.

I trust my Father everyday with my ego, you need not bother yourself about wounding it. Now, I would be much obliged if you could indicate some of the words you mean and give me examples of better substitutes. I'd also be very grateful if you could show me evidence of improper reasoning because of emotion.

debosky:

I would argue that some are and - this is not directed at you or anyone else in particular -

Hmm. I can't say that I've seen this.

I don't think we can deny that there are people who have divorced (whether due to abuse or other reasons) without fully exploring the opportunities for reconciliation and may be seeking validation of their decision.

Oh I'm sure there are people in the world who do that. Personally, I haven't seen this yet on NL though. I don't claim to have heard every divorce story there is on NL but from the ones' I've heard, I am yet to get that impression.

I prepared a response and started to post it in the morning when my battery died and I lost it all. Now that I returned to answer it I found that debosky and ileobatojo have addressed it quite well. There's a little something for me to add still.

TV01: Malachi 2:16 - "For the Lord God of Israel says That He hates divorce..."

The fact that God hates divorce is enough reason for anyone who professes faith – in Him - to consider why.

The Lord instituted – and gifted man with the covenant of marriage for good reason. It is the basic building block and primary order of society.
I believe The Lord cares about the genuinely motivated marriage of all, even those who do not necessarily call upon Him. Marriage came before the Church and is by no means subject to it.

1. Ileobatojo's response was quite apt. But I feel quite sure it won't fly by you. I'm not typing on a computer or I would produce the immediate context of that text which context I have previously alluded to. The important thing to note is that God first defined marriage before He expressed His hatred of divorce. The following is the NLT's rendering of vv. 14-16

'You cry out, "why doesn't the LORD accept my worship?" I'll tell you why! Because the LORD witnessed the vows you and your wife made when you were young. But you have been unfaithful to her, though she remained your faithful partner, the wife of your marriage vows.

DIDN'T THE LORD MAKE YOU ONE WITH YOUR WIFE? In body and spirit you are his. And what does he want? GODLY CHILDREN FROM YOUR UNION. So guard your heart; remain loyal to the wife of your youth. "For I hate divorce!" says the LORD, the God of Israel. "To divorce your wife is to overwhelm her with cruelty (footnote: to cover one's garments with violence)," says the LORD of Heaven's Armies. "So guard your heart; do not be unfaithful to your wife."

Well, I did it after all. Was quite a chore to type, but there you have it. Of course, you can just as easily rebel against it as accept it. I'm not betting either way.

2. As I have already pointed out, marriage may contribute to the order of society but God's Purpose for it is holy seed. If God gets His holy seed (and it's not restricted to kids), itself will be the order of society. I already referred you to 1 Corinthians 7:14 for a second witness. A third is Genesis 18:19. In the mouths of two or three witnesses every word shall be established but I could go from Genesis to Revelation and give you far more than three. It is not necessary that I do so. If you throw out the witness of three Scriptures, you won't accept a fourth.

3. Why does God hate divorce? The same reason He hates sin. It is a lie, just like sin. Divorce says that the marital covenant is no longer in force when the very foundation of it has not failed. Evidently, when the covenant is not founded upon I AM, itself is a lie.

4. I do not understand the bolded. Is there a need for assigning priority here?

God gave us a template for marriage – as He has for many things – which includes instruction for issue resolution.

This is a very poor approach to relating with God and the Bible. God is not a taskmaster and His Book is not an instruction manual. God is a Father and the Bible is His letter of love to His darling but woefully recalcitrant children.

The mentality evidenced here is the same as Jesus denounced the religious elite of His day for. It is the very thing I'm at war with on this thread.

Point 1 – if you transact a marriage based on some other template – and I absolutely affirm your right to do so - please don’t come up in here and do either of the following two things;

1. Accuse God of somehow forsaking or misleading you
2. Forcefully assert a new non-literal meaning into scripture to justify your departure from it.

If anyone – Christian or not – departs from sound principles of marriage and does not seek the surety that trust in God brings, please, don’t be surprised if your union encounters stormy weather with the very real possibility of shipwreck.

Jesus said a great deal about the religious elite of His Day, nearly all derogatory. But He did not fault their theology except in implying that it wasn't complete. In fact He exhorted His followers to obey their teachings but not imbibe their ways. The above is very like the venomous, accusing and completely unsympathetic spirit that they carried about.

It is not doctrine per se that we disagree on, just the meanings of them which you evidence willfull ignorance of.

(Split. See next post for the rest of my response)

TV01: I have repeatedly spelt out my understanding of the scriptures with regards to marriage, and no one has been able to show different, merely assert that reading must “not be literal”. Why not? . . .

"Thou shalt do no work on the Sabbath" is pretty clear literally, no? Did Jesus EVER break that law? Please don't give a hasty answer. Look into your Bible before you respond.

I will not go to that level to start picking words. There is no need for that. Let's just all keep it civil. Funny am just noting that ileobatojo is different from Ihedinobi. But to be clear I think TV01 has said it and we have said it even in this topic, if you experience abuse in your marriage, please seperate. Live apart from each other, divorce if you have to. Self preservation is still key. But I wish with the same energy we discuss divorce, we could use the same energy to discuss how to save marriages.

davidylan: ^^^ you make some valid points. But at the end of the day to each his own.

Agreed. My urging was "to walk your walk", which is what we all must do.

For what it's worth, God had to disabuse me of many erroneous notions and strip me of a lot of pride & prejudice before I was ready for a wife. Indeed, if He hadn't I would almost have certainly rejected my wife for any number of reasons - and probably made a bad choice.

If - as I am assuming - you are trusting your search to God - He will have you ready at the right time for the right one. And in the right place. It would take a whole chapter to list all the "naysaying" I was subjected to - and much from those closest to me. Not that they were necessarily hating, but they were frustrated by my being in "marital-limbo". As for the real hate, let me not go there.

A lot of what you go through is designed to test and strengthen you. God won't take away the joy of your woo'ing your spouse. You still have to "quit yourself like a man".It got to a point where the "slap-downs" were boosting my faith and imparting a sense of "wow, when God delivers eh!"

My position was, it had to be right or nothing. I marry the right way and the right one or I remain single and celibate. I'don't look back at any of the numerous women I met and think any "perhaps or maybe" thoughts. Lot's of "thank God for that" and "ye, The Lord delivered me" ones though.

And finally He did. All mouths stopped. The eyes of the naysayers were widened in wonder and the haters were choked.

Take heart, don't look back. I'd like nothing more than to hear that you've married and married well.

davidylan:
I frankly dont believe that the christian race is a one-size fits all, sometimes a lot of us want to force our own interpretation of the word down the throats of others without stepping into their shoes for 2 minutes.

I've always said it's more of a solitary walk - where paths may cross - than a group march. I don't pronounce doctrine or enforce dogma, just outline what I understand.

Best
TV

Afamdman: sorry a question TV01 let me get this straight. You mean you married same girl david dropped or you meant it literally.

lol! What do you mean "david dropped"?

No seriously, it was meant literally. When I first started "churching" I was like "it's a holy chorister babe for me". After meeting a ton of "MyPas - My Pastor Says - girls", I was freed from that particular mindset. My wife is Church of England, but gentle and sweet with a great character - and yummy. I don't think I'd let her step foot in a Naija style church without heavy security.

Afamdman: And yes I do understand your point about the discussion making divorce seem as a way out. If we continue like this, in a few years time it would be acceptable, and its very true when you have divorce as a way out even before marriage, you most likely will divorce.

Bro' forget me and the number of girls I met who always raised divorce as a possible conclusion - and as an acceptable one. Often predicated on the fact that they or someone close to them had been "abused". It was kinda sad really. And not just for the fact that I instantly rejected them.

Sadly, it's already considered acceptable. Appears it's trending towards inevitable.

Best
TV

debosky:
I have no issues with this - however, my point is that not everyone starts out with the right foundation, neither do they build as they ought to. God does not say 'well you didn't do it properly so that's your problem'.

In the event that such people find themselves contemplating divorce or some other degradation/dissolution of the union, my view is that I don't think God is solely interested in maintaining a 'marriage' in name only over the day to day experiences of the individuals involved.

Where I believe I differ is many are arguing "what God wants", my thrust is "what God can do".

debosky:
My 'remedy' as you call it is a recognition of the peculiar circumstances in each union and the lack of a 'common solution' for every case. While I believe God can heal any union (and this should be the first resort), it is incumbent on the participants to seek that restoration. Where one or both parties are unsuccessful in receiving/asking for that healing, then keeping a marriage in name only is a failure already - you don't need to sign a sheet of paper titled divorce for the failure to have occurred.

He is God of every circumstance and Lord of every situation. If their is one Christian in the union seeking Gods perfect will, He can do it, it can work. If no one is seeking Gods will - regardless of the hurt they've suffered - and I fully accept this can be heinous - why is just the one party labelled "an unbeliever"?

debosky:
There is no universal remedy. Healing is preferable, but when not attained/unattainable, do you keep a semblance of marriage only on paper in a legalistic nod to 'obeying' the scripture? I don't accept the latter.

God is. I always counsel aspirationally. In any case, why should I wish less for anyone else than what I myself have? With God's involvement, the end will not be a "legalistic nod" to anything, but a loving union.

debosky:
No one is saying divorce is a remedy. Unfortunately divorce may become a lesser evil or necessity especially when issues such as threats to life or incessant abuse is what obtains within the marriage. To deny this reality (in some cases, not all) is to make this purely an intellectual debate.

Furthermore, when I mentioned every one working out his/her own salvation, that is what it ultimately comes down to in my view. For example, some may be able to separate and stay that way praying indefinitely for restoration without falling into other temptations such as seeking out sexual intimacy elsewhere. Others may not be that 'strong' and fall into temptation. Is God then happy that the 'remain in marriage' instruction is upheld but sexual intimacy outside the union is occurring? I don't think so.

I think my previous replies speak to this.

debosky:
Others still may decide to avoid this issue by divorcing and re-marrying with a heart set out to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. It is my belief that God will bless the latter case. God wants the best for us, but when we fail, a second chance exists, be it within that current marriage or in a new one - that is my belief. It doesn't change the fact that God hates divorce.

As "Christians", there's no such recourse as "divorce and re-marry". If they were unbelievers that's different.

debosky:
Men are overwhelmingly the (physical) abusers in relationships so this is unsurprising. No side should be vilified, but we can't deny this reality.

I won't quibble here, but in the West, "alleged abuse" and a new style of "provoked abuse" is a tool that some women are not slow to use.

Best
TV

TV01:

Agreed. My urging was "to walk your walk", which is what we all must do.

For what it's worth, God had to disabuse me of many erroneous notions and strip me of a lot of pride & prejudice before I was ready for a wife. Indeed, if He hadn't I would almost have certainly rejected my wife for any number of reasons - and probably made a bad choice.

If - as I am assuming - you are trusting your search to God - He will have you ready at the right time for the right one. And in the right place. It would take a whole chapter to list all the "naysaying" I was subjected to - and much from those closest to me. Not that they were necessarily hating, but they were frustrated by my being in "marital-limbo". As for the real hate, let me not go there.

A lot of what you go through is designed to test and strengthen you. God won't take away the joy of your woo'ing your spouse. You still have to "quit yourself like a man".It got to a point where the "slap-downs" were boosting my faith and imparting a sense of "wow, when God delivers eh!"

My position was, it had to be right or nothing. I marry the right way and the right one or I remain single and celibate. I'don't look back at any of the numerous women I met and think any "perhaps or maybe" thoughts. Lot's of "thank God for that" and "ye, The Lord delivered me" ones though.

And finally He did. All mouths stopped. The eyes of the naysayers were widened in wonder and the haters were choked.

Take heart, don't look back. I'd like nothing more than to hear that you've married and married well.



I've always said it's more of a solitary walk - where paths may cross - than a group march. I don't pronounce doctrine or enforce dogma, just outline what I understand.

Best
TV

You know, you're great admonishing singles for almost the same reason that you're terrible with the abused.

You trod a good path. Not many others did or do. Live with that. Allow for people's foolishness whether willful or ignorant or else you won't be any use to God with them.

For me, I congratulate you and hope my story's the same or better than yours. But, if it means anything to you for me to admonish you, we Christians are a family knit together by blood and one Spirit. We shouldn't destroy the weaker ones among us with accusing sentiments. We should bear them up. Rebuke the sinning, forgive the repenting, restore the fallen. We Christians do not shoot our wounded, we stop the march, nurse them while protecting them from the enemy.

No doubt there are impostors. They're known for their staunch refusal to repent of that for which they're rebuked. When they have rejected admonition twice, we are to leave them to their devices and march on. But first we must assume that they are believers or else we will lose even our own true brethren.

Peace be with you, my brother.

ileobatojo:
The above quoted, word for word, represents my position in this matter. And, I believe, it represents the position of the vast majority of people who have discussed this topic on these boards.

I don't have to contest that "non-point" and I'm sure you fully appreciate why.

ileobatojo:
This, I disagree with. No one, not even those who have gone through divorce, is seeking an unquestioning 'aye' for divorce. On the contrary, the 'dissenting voices' are the ones that seem to be seeking an unquestioning 'nay' for divorce even where life and limb are at stake.

We have been specific about the implications for Christians and non Christians. In the "immediacy" of life and limb being at risk, the lengthy divorce process is not what saves.

ileobatojo:
God hates divorce. Guess what else God hates?

So if anything that God hates happens within a marriage, it nullifies Gods hatred of divorce? Or gives one leave too?

ileobatojo:
Where is the empathy? The humanity? In a case where one party was abandoned comatose in the hospital after repeated violent incidents; after resolution had been sought multiple times from family, elders, pastors and the like; how can a Christlike human being's immediate contribution to this story ever be, "what did you do to cause it" and "why did you not seek God properly before marrying"? Even if one wants to use it as a teachable moment to discuss their own version of prevention (no matter how limited it would be in it's reach, therefore not very effective), you cannot go about it by showing scorn and disdain to the broken and downtrodden all in the name of 'God hates divorce'. Is that what Jesus would do?

An appeal to emotion is just weak. As tragic as it is - and I have noted that severally - we can still have an objective discussion about it.
And teaching/prevention is the main driver for me. I always ask "wanna weds" to take note. Feel free to deride my beliefs/version.

ileobatojo:

Hmm. I can't say that I've seen this.

Oh I'm sure there are people in the world who do that. Personally, I haven't seen this yet on NL though. I don't claim to have heard every divorce story there is on NL but from the ones' I've heard, I am yet to get that impression.

You see what you want too.

And for the record, you haven't actually heard any complete "divorce stories" on NL. Only "one version or events". And no sensible person judges a matter on that.

Best
TV

Afamdman: I will not go to that level to start picking words. There is no need for that. Let's just all keep it civil. Funny am just noting that ileobatojo is different from Ihedinobi. But to be clear I think TV01 has said it and we have said it even in this topic, if you experience abuse in your marriage, please seperate. Live apart from each other, divorce if you have to. Self preservation is still key. But I wish with the same energy we discuss divorce, we could use the same energy to discuss how to save marriages.

The thing about me is that I give myself heart and soul to everything I do. Where I cannot do so, I cannot stay. And being politic is not a very strong aspiration with me. I call things as I see them. I worry about giving offence but it's of less import to me that people lose taste for me than that they lose the best I have for them. Also, I answer more than the words I see on my screen, I speak to the heart they evidence and I'm ever willing and hungry to be corrected.

As for the issue on hand, I believe it was me TV01 was referring to as holding sterner views. I sure do and am not afraid to do so. I believe in marriage for life but I also know that such things are impossible outside of God. So I would rather the participants in a Godless marriage take it to God to ground it or plain accept that their very marriage is a lie and walk away from each other. I don't know any other way to save a marriage than to give it to the Lord. I also know that the Lord never violates man's will so if only one side of the union is willing, He still can't unite the two. They must both want each other. And there is nothing anywhere that will make a person want something they don't want.

At best, what I can say to one whose conscience is uneasy about remarriage is that they separate, stay clear of any other union until their counterpart shuts the door of reconciliation with adultery or remarriage. This is assuming the counterpart is an unbeliever which is a valid assumption where said counterpart is unrepentant of whatever harm they were doing.

The reality is that if for any reason a believer finds himself or herself in marital relationship with an unbeliever (which situation ought not to be in the first place), until the unbeliever begins to exhibit displeasure with the union, they ought to stay. Who knows but that they may save their spouse? If the unbeliever is displeased, they are free from the marriage, in this case, completely.

This is unlike the case of believers where, papers or not, God sees no divorce. And in this case, there are marks that distinguish believers. Ignoring them is choosing to indulge in adultery. We have the Spirit of Christ. We have the mind of Christ.

TV01:

I don't have to contest that "non-point" and I'm sure you fully appreciate why.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

We have been specific about the implications for Christians and non Christians. In the "immediacy" of life and limb being at risk, the lengthy divorce process is not what saves.

Nobody said the divorce process saves. I strongly disagree and object to your repeated assertion that only when loss of life is imminent is when separation should occur. It's not only when they become axe wielding and fire starting that the victim should leave. Common sense will tell anyone that once one party wields an axe and starts a fire, the chances of the victim coming out alive are slim. Your view is simply not supported by facts in cases of abuse. So I can never agree that one should wait till it is imminently dangerous before leaving. This view is dangerously ignorant or disingenuous at worst. When you counsel people to go back to their abusive partners, what advice to you give them about what to watch out for to know that their life is in danger or will be in danger next time? How do you know at the time of your counseling that the next time is not the time that will be fatal? I really hope you will answer this question directly.

As a matter of fact, I would recommend separation even when there is no physical abuse in some cases. Do you know anything about the psychological impact of verbal and emotional abuse on a victim.

So if anything that God hates happens within a marriage, it nullifies Gods hatred of divorce? Or gives one leave too?

God hates divorce and he hates violence. Why do you hate divorce but excuse violence? Why do you have zero tolerance toward divorce but will tolerate the violence for many different reasons.

An appeal to emotion is just weak.

Then stop invoking the name of Jesus because you are not being Christlike at all. Jesus ministry was all about mercy not some false superiority based on your 'holy' works. Jesus said it himself, He desires your mercy not your sacrifice'. How many times in the bible did Jesus rebuke the pharisees for doing exactly what you are doing?

By the way, did you say your wife goes to the church of England? Are you trying to tell us that your wife chose and married you according to your template that you've laid out for us all? I highly doubt it. Now if she didn't and I can bet my bottom dollar that she didn't, how can you go around condemning others for not doing so?

And for the record, you haven't actually heard any complete "divorce stories" on NL. Only "one version or events". And no sensible person judges a matter on that.

I don't need to hear any other version of events when such heinous atrocities were committed by one party. What would I hear that would change my bottom line? Even if the other person's version is that the NLder was the 'axe wielding, fire starting' party, and they only responded the way they did for that reason, the bottom line is still the same. They don't need to be together.

All in all, I think my last word on this is: if you're married, don't seek to be free. Work to keep the union you have. Do everything within your power to be at peace with your spouse. But do not hold them back if they want to leave. If they also cast you out overtly or with their behavior, leave. I would admonish that people in such situations leave remarrying alone. But if your ex is an unbeliever and remarrying is an issue, you are free to remarry. But, like Paul said, you could be spared a lot of trouble staying single. But it is no sin to remarry given the conditions outlined.

TV01, I regret that a promising discussion ended in such a manner as this. I believe that you're a Christian but you may have become proud because of the successes you have had in your walk with the Lord. I may be wrong though. I have been hard on you, enough to be considered insolent and disrespectful. I didn't mean to be so nor was I so for the fun of it. I do not find any pleasure in alienating people. With my hard words, I sought that which is Christ in you, that which is Love, because I did not perceive it in your words and discussing behavior.

I am sorry for what hurt I have caused (and I'm sure I caused some) but I hope there is good fruit for it somewhere along the line. I pray that the Grace of the Lord abide with you.

ileobatojo:

I have no idea what you're talking about.

True debate is not concluded by by giving a "nod to the majority".

ileobatojo:
Nobody said the divorce process saves. I strongly disagree and object to your repeated assertion that only when loss of life is imminent is when separation should occur. It's not only when they become axe wielding and fire starting that the victim should leave. Common sense will tell anyone that once one party wields an axe and starts a fire, the chances of the victim coming out alive are slim. Your view is simply not supported by facts in cases of abuse. So I can never agree that one should wait till it is imminently dangerous before leaving. This view is dangerously ignorant or disingenuous at worst. When you counsel people to go back to their abusive partners, what advice to you give them about what to watch out for to know that their life is in danger or will be in danger next time? How do you know at the time of your counseling that the next time is not the time that will be fatal? I really hope you will answer this question directly.

TV01:
First we are talking about a spectrum of abuse. I've said the remedy depends on the variables. You appear to be fixating on extreme physical instances. In those cases separate yourself from harm.

TV01:
- I've said it repeatedly separate yourself from an unhealthy situation, avoid harm.

TV01: If there is the danger of harm, then separation should be considered and at some point 3rd part intervention.

TV01: , then I've noted that if potential harm is perceived, there are steps to be taken.

TV01: Healing and remediation should be persisted with, but if it escalates to a degree that may be considered harmfull, seperation should be considered and an increase in the external intervention considered.

The assertions are all yours. And all wrong. Feel free to make me emblematic of the opposing viewpoint and a focal point for your campaign, but for the sake of all following please stop tediously mis-ascribing things to me.

ileobatojo:
As a matter of fact, I would recommend separation even when there is no physical abuse in some cases. Do you know anything about the psychological impact of verbal and emotional abuse on a victim.

You have every right to make your recommendations. And without anyone willfully misinterpreting them. Please accord me the same priviledge.

ileobatojo:
God hates divorce and he hates violence. Why do you hate divorce but excuse violence? Why do you have zero tolerance toward divorce but will tolerate the violence for many different reasons.

Like I said, tedious.

ileobatojo:
Then stop invoking the name of Jesus because you are not being Christlike at all. Jesus ministry was all about mercy not some false superiority based on your 'holy' works. Jesus said it himself, He desires your mercy not your sacrifice'. How many times in the bible did Jesus rebuke the pharisees for doing exactly what you are doing?

ileobatojo:
By the way, did you say your wife goes to the church of England? Are you trying to tell us that your wife chose and married you according to your template that you've laid out for us all? I highly doubt it. Now if she didn't and I can bet my bottom dollar that she didn't, how can you go around condemning others for not doing so?

So if my wife didn't follow "my template" as you rightly say, wouldn't I simply have condemned or rejected her as opposed to marrying her if I was judgmental?

So you are quids in , but unfortunately still way too subjective, emotional or willfully biased.


Best
TV

TV01:
Where I believe I differ is many are arguing "what God wants", my thrust is "what God can do".

But the former is very important don't you think? We all know the ideal - God can make the union loving and fruitful. However, when the union is broken down (due to violence in this case or some other cause) does God value a marriage in name only over the well being of those in marriage?

He is God of every circumstance and Lord of every situation. If their is one Christian in the union seeking Gods perfect will, He can do it, it can work. If no one is seeking Gods will - regardless of the hurt they've suffered - and I fully accept this can be heinous - why is just the one party labelled "an unbeliever"?

It can work - that is not in dispute - but it doesn't always work is the reality, be it due to the failure of one party or both, even if one or both are Christians.

God is. I always counsel aspirationally. In any case, why should I wish less for anyone else than what I myself have? With God's involvement, the end will not be a "legalistic nod" to anything, but a loving union.

Did I say God wasn't the remedy? It's all well and good to aspire for the best, but reality is often different. To deny this and speak only of aspiration is head in the sand stuff. When aspiration does not meet reality, something must give.

As "Christians", there's no such recourse as "divorce and re-marry". If they were unbelievers that's different.

Therein lies the rub for me. Ideally you shouldn't divorce and re-marry, but this applies to all instructions not just divorce. For example - as Christians, there is no 'recourse' to fornication (i.e. ideally it shouldn't happen), but if one were to fornicate, will God reject such a person if they repent? I don't think so. Repentance doesn't mean you return to your pre-fornication state (physically anyways) but are still acceptable to God due to repentance.

Similarly if a person has committed a 'sin' of divorcing (as no such 'recourse' exists) and then repents and enters into a new union with the intent to build on a proper foundation, then God will bless that new union. That God, in his mercy, grants redemption and a second chance doesn't mean he doesn't hate divorce or any other sin or deviation from his will for that matter.

Simply put, in my view, re-marrying can be a (final) recourse for Christians (especially when it serves to prevent falling into other sin)- but not one pursued just for convenience or without justification. The preferred path remains restoring the initial union.

TV01:
Unlike some who can only point to “research,” I have had a 360 degree experience of “abuse” and fully appreciate that it can be by either gender, take various forms and vary in degree. It may be “characteristic” of a person, but it may also be “circumstancial”. There may well be situations that are not retrievable, but in many instances full restoration is possible.

Best
TV

Now, that is a balanced position.

TV01:

The assertions are all yours. And all wrong. Feel free to make me emblematic of the opposing viewpoint and a focal point for your campaign, but for the sake of all following please stop tediously mis-ascribing things to me.

Best
TV

Well, stone the crows! Why then have you spent days arguing with all and sundry on NL when you essentially agree with that one should separate (if desired) when they are being physically abused irrespective of people's perception of the severity?

My primary goal in this discussion has always been to avoid severe harm to a victim in the form of dangerous advice and that's why I have come down hard (and seemingly "subjective" and "emotional" ) on people who I feel are trying to place victims in harms way by compelling them to stay in the situation "while trying to figure out what it is they have done to deserve the abuse" and change it. I have no major argument with anyone who agrees they should immediately separate (if they so wish) when they are being harmed. The rest of my arguments with you, myriad as may be, are 'by the way' and secondary. It has taken you a lot of 'speaking out of both sides of your mouth' to get to this point but I will accept it for what you say it is.

So if my wife didn't follow "my template" as you rightly say, wouldn't I simply have condemned or rejected her as opposed to marrying her if I was judgmental?

So you are quids in.

I rest my case.

You people too like talk. Me< I don get my point. lol

debosky: Therein lies the rub for me. Ideally you shouldn't divorce and re-marry, but this applies to all instructions not just divorce. For example - as Christians, there is no 'recourse' to fornication (i.e. ideally it shouldn't happen), but if one were to fornicate, will God reject such a person if they repent? I don't think so. Repentance doesn't mean you return to your pre-fornication state (physically anyways) but are still acceptable to God due to repentance.

Reasonable on the face of it, but whilst other sins can be renounced and done away with, how does oneu renounce the adultery of "marrying a divorcee" whilst remaining married to the divorcee?

ileobatojo: Well, stone the crows! Why then have you spent days arguing with all and sundry on NL when you essentially agree with that one should separate (if desired) when they are being physically abused irrespective of people's perception of the severity?

Me argue? I have merely remained consistent in my position . Just so that you are aware, separate =/= divorce.

ileobatojo:
My primary goal in this discussion has always been to avoid severe harm to a victim in the form of dangerous advice and that's why I have come down hard (and seemingly "subjective" and "emotional" ) on people who I feel are trying to place victims in harms way by compelling them to stay in the situation "while trying to figure out what it is they have done to deserve the abuse" and change it. I have no major argument with anyone who agrees they should immediately separate (if they so wish) when they are being harmed. The rest of my arguments with you, myriad as may be, are 'by the way' and secondary. It has taken you a lot of 'speaking out of both sides of your mouth' to get to this point but I will accept it for what you say it is.

A laudable goal to be sure, it's just that unrelentlessly labeling men psychopaths and every situation heinous physical abuse, with divorce as the only recourse, you lose some traction, a lot of credibility and it's hard to take you seriously. Try balance and objectivity occasionally, it's lend credence to your position.

ileobatojo:

I rest my case.

i.e. "Quit while I'm behind"

By the way, feel free to use my template !

Best
TV

TV01:

A laudable goal to be sure, it's just that unrelentlessly labeling men psychopaths and every situation heinous physical abuse, with divorce as the only recourse, you lose some traction, a lot of credibility
Best
TV

I'd be happy to revisit this once you can provide evidence that I have done the above. Till then let's just leave it as the ridiculously false, completely made up rambling that it is.

TV01:

By the way, feel free to use my template !

Best
TV

You mean the one that even your wife didn't use? Thanks but no thanks.

TV01:
Reasonable on the face of it, but whilst other sins can be renounced and done away with, how does oneu renounce the adultery of "marrying a divorcee" whilst remaining married to the divorcee?

How do you do away with murder when the person killed is still dead? Once the sin is forgiven by God and he blesses the new union, that's the end of it. Or are you claiming God cannot forgive in this case unless the person divorces again? Or is it only the 'first' divorce that God hates?

Just so that you are aware, separate =/= divorce.

Unfortunately this is simply a superficial distinction, again holding on to the legalistic 'marriage' in whatever form. There is no 'separation' advocated in the bible is there?

All,

I took my seat earlier on but left at a point and totally forgot about this thread. Reading through the posts, I don't necessarily see mutually exclusive views on the subject. What I see is an issue seen from two flip sides- same coin, two sides. There is the truth side as represented by TV01 and there is the grace side as presented by OP and co.

I totally understand where TV01 is coming from. He presented truth as it should be. However truth has a deficiency; it is merciless. This is where grace comes in. Grace without truth, however, is not just! That is why the two must go together for balance. Take the work of Christ for example, he fulfilled the demands of truth/justice and purchased grace for us.

While marriage should be the way it is meant to be, the reality is that some marriages are not. While it is desired that the TV01's template be followed- seeking God's counsel before, not being unequally yoked, aligning with God's will for one's life, etc, how do you deal with those already in the difficult situation? What do you counsel and how do they come out of the situation? That is what TV01 did not address.

On the other hand, for those already caught in the web of a difficult marriage, where do you draw the line and where does grace stop being taken for liberty to continually misbehave? If you counsel staying in a marriage by all means, there are some who have died as a result. Where does it stop? How do you draw the line?

Personally, I believe in marriage. I believe in 'till death do us part'. This is why I sought out a godly christian spouse from the onset who has the same aspiration, persuasion, belief etc as me. We started with God and by His grace, we are more than 11 years and still growing strong. Am I saying we didn't have challenges? Nope. We do, but with same faith in Christ who brough us together, we have the same platform to approach the throne of grace to overcome jointly. It becomes easier, knowing the two of us are committed for life! Divorce was not going to be an option for us- that we settled long ago.

On the other hand, I once had the sad task of advising a friend to go ahead with his divorce after all efforts at reconciliation have failed. Do I tell them to stick to each other by all means when they don't want to? I cannot. God hates divorce. And a host of other things like has been pointed out- violence and wickedness part of them. I didn't know I will come to apoint that I will have to agree to such decision. But I did. God is interested in the total wellbeing of the individual.

Like I will always counsel, I believe most issues are not beyond reconciliation and that should be what to earnestly strive for. For christians, there are channels for such reconciliatory moves. And those should be fully employed. However, if a spouse doesn't want to stay any longer, there is little one can do. In any case there is no marriage in heaven!

^^^ We're in complete agreement. I do not believe that Truth can be separated from Grace in Christ. That is why I was fighting. Whether it is believed or not, my fight was for TVO1 not against him. Any child of God who is by any chance separated in any matter from either Grace or Truth is in serious trouble.

There is indeed that which is God's Way, but it is never an imposition. It's always an offer of Love to us. And when we accept it, the Lord Himself perfects it in us. Our part is to consent and agree with Him all the way.

Faltering and failing are not strange to us. That is why the Lord is the Doer. We are what we are, He is what He is. It is never our place to be Him. Therefore it is not Christ to rebuke without the sympathy of the Father. That is pride.

About marriage, I really can't say any more than you have. We have been saying pretty much the same thing all along. As I said to TVO1, it is not in theology/doctrine that we disagree but in the meanings of them, in other words, in their playout in everyday life and relevance to real life situations.