»Marriage, divorce, love, morals«
|
|||
 i chose to start a new thread for this instead of replying so that i wouldnt be off-topic. i wanted to ask some more questions in response to a post in the "is homosexuality immoral? poll/thread" this was the post: --- stinkz: (an answer to a question) allone: what if you meet a woman, fall in "love" get married, have sex...later find out that you are no longer in love or meant to be together, get divorced...meet another woman, fall in "love" again ("this time its different"), get married again, have sex with the new wife? is that immoral too? "Yes. Divorce is immoral. True love has nothing to do with what you call being "in love." Being "in love" is only a feeling, which, no matter how much you like a person, is only temporary. If this feeling is all that the marriage was based on, instead of commitment, then marriage is meaningless. You might as well just live together and screw each other until one or the other gets tired of it. That is exactly the problem we see with marriages today. Marriage is just "the thing to do" when you feel like you really like a person. It has little or no real commitment. Now, let me also point out that there are a few exceptions that are laid out clearly in the New Testament, which allow for a second marriage. One is divorce due to marital unfaithfulness of the spouse. The other is the death of the spouse. In these instances, it is not morally reprehensible to marry another person and be intimate with them.' posted by allone |
|||
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgReligion and Mysteries, from worship to werewolvesReligious & Philosophical Topicsmarriage, divorce, love, morals |
|
|||
|
stinkz: Yes. Divorce is immoral. True love has nothing to do with what you call being "in love." Being "in love" is only a feeling, which, no matter how much you like a person, is only temporary. If this feeling is all that the marriage was based on, instead of commitment, then marriage is meaningless. You might as well just live together and screw each other until one or the other gets tired of it.
That is exactly the problem we see with marriages today. Marriage is just "the thing to do" when you feel like you really like a person. It has little or no real commitment. so if they think that they are in love and wait until they are married its still immoral because it might not be "true love", right? how would someone know what "real/true love" is, if they have never felt it before? cant someone make a mistake and think that they are in love and get married and have sex and find out later that it wasnt "real/true love"? then they meet someone else, fall in love (feel a different love for the new person, and think that this new love is real/true love) and get married and have sex with the new person...that is still immoral? people are human, they can make mistakes. and who can say what "real love" is...it can be different for everyone. ask ten different people and you will get ten different answers. they may be similar answers but they will all be different...kinda like if you take a verse of the bible to ten different churches/denominations of christianity and you will get ten different meanings for it. (they may be similar but they are not the same) and there are also different types of love...i true/real love my parents...but i wouldnt marry them or have sex with them. if that is what real/true love is, then i should feel the same way about the woman i marry as i do for my parents? would that make it a moral marriage? if not, please tell me what this true/real love is. i think i should know so that i do not put myself in an immoral marriage. stinkz: Now, let me also point out that there are a few exceptions that are laid out clearly in the New Testament, which allow for a second marriage. One is divorce due to marital unfaithfulness of the spouse. The other is the death of the spouse. In these instances, it is not morally reprehensible to marry another person and be intimate with them. what verse gives these exceptions, i was reading Luke-16:18, which doesnt give any exceptions. it simply says divorced people who re-marry commit adultry. most marriages these days (in the US) happen when two people atleast think that they are in love with each other, it didn't use to always be that way, right? women were "purchased" from their fathers as property, in a sense, right? this was about the time the bible was written, no? love for your wife/spouse in the bible is not the same love that we have today. women were to love their husband (who just "bought" them) without question because...well, he was their husband. the idea/deffinition of love has changed from what it used to be/mean 2000 years ago. posted by allone |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 allone: i chose to start a new thread for this instead of replying so that i wouldnt be off-topic. Nice! I was just about to do the same! allone: "Yes. Divorce is immoral. True love has nothing to do with what you call being "in love." Being "in love" is only a feeling, which, no matter how much you like a person, is only temporary. If this feeling is all that the marriage was based on, instead of commitment, then marriage is meaningless. You might as well just live together and screw each other until one or the other gets tired of it. What percentage of people will ever find "true love"(other than love for God/Jesus/parents if you want to throw them into mix)? I think the % is so low that most people will never experience it. So in this short life we have, the best bet for john q. public to get even close is to "live together and screw each other until one or the other gets tired of it." I would go so far as to say that "true love" is very nearly a myth and the concept has grown the most in this century since film and tv have made it seem like anyone and everyone can experience it. Alot of women grow up believing there is a "Mr. Right" when in reality those ideals are nearly impossible to meet on the whole for most women. Now believing that there is rarely ever "true love" doesn't mean you have to settle for a scumbag, but I think that if you want to find a longterm partner, then it's healthier and more realistic to not hold that person to a set of ideals that don't exist except in a fraction of a percent, so basically that don't exist. posted by volonteshiva |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 stinkz: "Yes. Divorce is immoral. True love has nothing to do with what you call being "in love." In other words: Wait until you are 35 because 1) You are ripe 2) A mistake (= you married the wrong person) makes you suffer less years posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
knn: stinkz: "Yes. Divorce is immoral. True love has nothing to do with what you call being "in love." but he also gave exceptions to getting re-married without being immoral such as, your spouse cheated on you, or they died. so, lets see... 1. if your spouse cheats on you, its ok to divorce and remarry. um, if your spouse cheats on you, it was never "true love" in the first place..because if it was, your spouse would have never cheated, right? how can there be "true love" on only one side? wouldnt "true love" be from both people? if so, you entered into an immoral marriage...because it wasnt "true love". does the new marriage omit the first immoral marriage? 2. if your spouse dies, its ok to remarry. why would god bring you to your "true love"/"soulmate" if they were going to die at an early enough age to remarry? so then there is someone else who you can experience "true love" with, another "soulmate" out there? everyone that i have spoken to who believes in soulmates believes that there is only one soulmate per person. are they wrong? posted by allone |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
allone: but he also gave exceptions to getting re-married without being immoral such as, your spouse cheated on you, or they died. But he forgets and invalidates the most important reason why people want to divorce: They don't want to be married with each other anymore. (Actually the most important reason mayt be an accumulation of small lies to each other.) But the problem with Christians is the following: The priest marries you without a single objection, yet when it comes to divorce it's forbidden. In other words: I would not complain about priests if they had long talks BEFORE marriage with the couple to find out whether they really fit. And if they don't fit the priest should say: "Nope, I will not marry you." It's sooo stupid to claim that you as a priest have the power to declare the union as "holy" yet you are of no personal help BEFORE marriage to make it certain that it's indeed holy, as I write at IMO → Why the prohibition of divorce is unfair In other words: The priest has no authority whatsoever to know whatsoever about marriage. posted by knn |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
allone: but he also gave exceptions to getting re-married without being immoral such as, your spouse cheated on you, or they died. Actually there is another exception in the bible: If the husband stinks. No joke. If your husband worked in a tannery you had the right to divorce. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stinkz, you seem to be pretty sure about the 2 reasons (death, cheating). Where is it mentioned in the New Testament? posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 you want all the new testament stuff that deals with marriage? alright but you asked for it... Matthew 19:3-12 Romans: 7:2 1 Corinthians all of chapter 7 Ephisians: 5:22-25 1 Peter 3:1 there youg go, i had more but went through them and i had anything that mentioned marriage i don't think that's what you meant. posted by Agent Zero |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 allone: what verse gives these exceptions, i was reading Luke-16:18, which doesnt give any exceptions. it simply says divorced people who re-marry commit adultry. "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." (Matthew 5:32) You all seem to share the same incorrect notion about "True Love." True love is not some magical feeling that lasts forever once you have met the one right person. If you are looking for that, then volunteshiva is right: no one will ever experience true love. However, thankfully, true love is not merely a feeling, but involves an act of the will. Many times, in fact, real love goes against what we may be feeling for a particular person at a given time. For instance, when a person helps us in a time of need, even after we have backstabbed him, he is showing us real love. This type of unconditional love is what touches us so deeply, when we are on the recieving end. The person doing the loving may be going against every feeling in his body at the moment he chooses to love you, but it is still love. And it is a higher form of love than the mere tingly sensation you get when around an attractive woman. All aspects of love have their proper place. Eros brings man and woman together, and includes the feeling of being "in love." Friendship forms and continues to grow throughout a marriage relationship. Affection naturally springs up and gives us an endearing feeling as we grow accustommed to the other person's presence. But these three types fail, unless followed by the fourth and greatest kind of love: Charity. Charity, in marriage, is the unconditional, committed love which allows us to wilfully keep our vows to our spouse (which we made in Eros). Without this final, purely wilful kind of love, all the other forms, especially Eros, are meaningless. volunteshiva: Alot of women grow up believing there is a "Mr. Right" when in reality those ideals are nearly impossible to meet on the whole for most women. If only men would break their addiction to selfish lust, and begin to understand what real love is, there wouldn't be such disappointment among women. posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
stinkz: You all seem to share the same incorrect notion about "True Love." True love is not some magical feeling that lasts forever once you have met the one right person. i would like to know where you got your correct deffinition of true love. is it in the bible? is there a verse in the new testament that clearly explains what this true love is? posted by allone |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
stinkz: "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." (Matthew 5:32) ok, so if your wife is unfaithful, you are allowed to divorce and remarry without making her into an adulteress or anyone who marries her later on an adulterer. but what if the man is unfaithful to the woman, and the woman wants a divorce, is she allowed to divorce her husband? what about anyone who marries the divorced man (except for marital unfaithfulness), does he now become and adulterer? marital unfaithfulness: breaking a wedding vow, right? do you vow to only have sex with that one person for the rest of your life? or is it just an understood vow that doesnt need to be spoken? or is "marital unfaithfulness" meant to be interpreted as "cheated on"? posted by allone |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 Life altering decisions should be based on whatever you feel is the right thing for you to do, or whatever will make you happy. If you don't love your spouse anymore, for example if he/she is being a complete asshole/bitch to you why will you stay with him/her simply because a stupid little book says you have to? 
Start using your brain and stop being scared to shit about what "the book" says or what will people think. In the end, you only have one life to live and you should enjoy it to a full extent, not suffer inconmeasureably because you made a bad call and the Bible says you should pay for it. posted by Echelon |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
allone: but what if the man is unfaithful to the woman, and the woman wants a divorce, is she allowed to divorce her husband? Obviously. allone: breaking a wedding vow, right? do you vow to only have sex with that one person for the rest of your life? or is it just an understood vow that doesnt need to be spoken? Marriage is a an intimate commitment to one person for life. With any knowledge of what the marriage means, marital unfaithfulness is self-explanatory. Echelon: Life altering decisions should be based on whatever you feel is the right thing for you to do, or whatever will make you happy. You have two conflicting notions here. First, you say it should be based on what's right. Then you say it should be based on what makes you "happy." Echelon: In the end, you only have one life to live and you should enjoy it to a full extent I wonder how many of the world's tyrants followed that exact line of thinking. You mean "as long as you're not hurting anybody else" right? That's your little "Bible." I could ask you, "why are you so afraid of what your (incredibly short) book says, and what people will think?" Go out and murder people, if you think it will make you happier in the long run. Here's the bottom line. You misunderstand, and blindly believe that morality will make a person less happy (because he's not getting enough sex or something equally as ridiculous). I would rather cast in my lot with the philosophers, who say that acting morally and justly in all cases by controlling our fleshly desires, will lead to greater happiness. I wonder what will happen when you get old, and sex is no longer an option. What then? Is all happiness in life gone? Socrates embraced old age, because it was free from all the passions of youth, and he could think and Reason more clearly. posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
stinkz: allone: but what if the man is unfaithful to the woman, and the woman wants a divorce, is she allowed to divorce her husband? Obviously. obviously? that's it? please explain how its so obvious...remember, our minds are "warped" and what may be obvious to you may not be obvious to us. because, obviously, i didn't understand it...that is why i asked my question. ...the verse you gave as an example doesnt say anything about a woman divorcing her husband. (or did i simply interpret it wrong?) "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." (Matthew 5:32) i just went to  stinkz: Marriage is a an intimate commitment to one person for life. is this "intimate commitment" the "true love" that you were talking about? if so, again please answer this: where in the bible is "true love" clearly defined and explained? i would really like to know. even if the "intimate commitment" is not true love...can there be an intimate commitment without true love? if the answer is no, then we still need to know what true love is before we can enter an intimate commitment. stinkz: Here's the bottom line. You misunderstand... we misunderstand? or we misinterpret? who says which interpretation is the correct one? posted by allone |
|||
|
|||
1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Goto page
1, 2, 3, 4 Next
 Register Log in |
The time now is 23 May 2012, 22:47 php B.B. |