Why God hates divorce - an alternate look

[Churchmouse]

10 minutes ago, Davida said:

You are blocked by have a nice life.

I'm very sorry. I would have liked to have worked this out. the palm leaf is still extended. You have a wonderful life as well.

[enoob57]

2 hours ago, nebula said:

I feel like creating a poll:

How many different ways can this thread be hijacked?

bring back the skeleton or draw star duster   what number is this  

[nebula]

Marriages fail because we are wounded and broken people acting and reacting out of our wounds and brokenness. (Just like a lot of our conflicts on this Forum.) 

As is said, hurt people hurt people. (The first "hurt" being an adjective, and the second "hurt" being a verb.)

Ideally, people should humbly regard their actions that are hurtful and seek healing in Christ. But, far too often, even as Christians, we hide from our imperfections. (For example, I had a parent who would tell me it was my fault for feeling hurt when said parent did something that hurt me. Imagine then how said parent likewise would treat my other parent! Yes, it was ugly.)

Sadly, there are times when one is so locked in their self-protective state due to the wounding of their soul that staying married is far too toxic for both people function properly - both the abused and the abuser.

Consider that God divorced Israel (the Northern Kingdom - Jer. 3:8) - but even then called them, the people, to return to Him.

It's easy to make a blanket "no divorce" statement. But if you study the contexts as what is written, God's desire is for our hearts to be aligned with Him. And while it is ideal for married couples to find healing together, sadly, the nature of our brokenness is such that ending the marriage, while causing its own wounds, is the only path to healing and deliverance. I've witnessed this on more than one occasion. 

There is nothing loving in forcing a person to stay married to an abuser who refuses to repent and change.

[Churchmouse]

4 minutes ago, nebula said:

Marriages fail because we are wounded and broken people acting and reacting out of our wounds and brokenness. (Just like a lot of our conflicts on this Forum.) 

As is said, hurt people hurt people. (The first "hurt" being an adjective, and the second "hurt" being a verb.)

Ideally, people should humbly regard their actions that are hurtful and seek healing in Christ. But, far too often, even as Christians, we hide from our imperfections. (For example, I had a parent who would tell me it was my fault for feeling hurt when said parent did something that hurt me. Imagine then how said parent likewise would treat my other parent! Yes, it was ugly.)

Sadly, there are times when one is so locked in their self-protective state due to the wounding of their soul that staying married is far too toxic for both people function properly - both the abused and the abuser.

Consider that God divorced Israel (the Northern Kingdom - Jer. 3:8) - but even then called them, the people, to return to Him.

It's easy to make a blanket "no divorce" statement. But if you study the contexts as what is written, God's desire is for our hearts to be aligned with Him. And while it is ideal for married couples to find healing together, sadly, the nature of our brokenness is such that ending the marriage, while causing its own wounds, is the only path to healing and deliverance. I've witnessed this on more than one occasion. 

There is nothing loving in forcing a person to stay married to an abuser who refuses to repent and change.

Agreed, but how many times has the the abuse been present before the marriage and ignored because of selfishness.

[Churchmouse]

3 minutes ago, Davida said:

I think Christians also do not know enough about fighting battles on the spiritual level, instead most only are dealing with things on the personal or  human level.  The enemy comes to kill, steal and destroy and that often ends up leading to broken vows, marriages & families.

The thing is that the Devil can only manifest his dealings with man at a personal level. If the couple are strong in their relationship they will endure by drawing strength from one another and from God. If they don't have faith in that, then they have no trust and accordingly, have no marriage. Just a legal agreement for the lawyers to deal with.

[StanJ]

13 hours ago, Steve_S said:

1.  Another false assumption, I have both heard of and been to that website before.

Accusing me of not using God-given reasoning - why are you getting personal here? Are you at all capable of having a discussion without making it about someone else's reasoning ability or their intentions? This is a violation of our terms of service.

2.  Your conclusion is entirely incorrect on that count. I ask again, please provide names and credentials of the "many hebrew scholars" (your words) who believe this should be translated as "opposes."

3.  You are basing this argument on what you believe the nature of God to be, not on the scriptures He has left us. The scriptures say He hates something, then He hates something.

1.  you seem to be changing your story as you go along? if you had been to that website before then maybe you should have articulated that and your reason why you didn't accept the validity of the article and not just discounted it because the person is not well known to you. As far as being personal is concerned that would be in the eye of the beholder, but let me just tell you that some of your comments have sounded just as personal as you deem this one to be. 
2. No use repeating myself.
3. yes what I believe and have observed the nature of God to be. 

[Steve_S]

4 minutes ago, StanJ said:

1.  you seem to be changing your story as you go along? if you had been to that website before then maybe you should have articulated that and your reason why you didn't accept the validity of the article and not just discounted it because the person is not well known to you. As far as being personal is concerned that would be in the eye of the beholder, but let me just tell you that some of your comments have sounded just as personal as you deem this one to be. 
2. No use repeating myself.
3. yes what I believe and have observed the nature of God to be. 

1.  I never said that I hadn't been to the website. In fact, I never intimated that I hadn't been to the website nor that it was an overall bad website. I simply suggested that the way in which the word "sane" is presented is something I have only ever seen on the fringe, never from legitimate translators.

Also, I have not once personally attacked you. I've simply disagreed with you. I never accused you of not being reasonable or any such thing. If you feel specifically attacked, I invite you to direct me to the offending comments.

2.  You never provided a list to repeat. When a person makes the claim that there are "many" of anything, it is certainly within bounds to ask for evidence of that. That is all that I am asking, for a list of legitimate scholars and/or translators, among the "many" who agree with your contention. Is this unreasonable?

[StanJ]

14 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

All you do is quote liberal scholars.  You have provided absolutely no indication that you possess any competency in exegesis or the original languages.   So, that pretty much rings hollow.

I quote scholars, whether or not you agree with them and want to label them as liberal is your issue. IMO,  a lot of Christians need to be liberated from the bondage of their own beliefs.

14 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Well, the problem again, is that your theology is simply incorrect.   God loves and God hates and the Bible says so and as you can see in this thread, you are not convincing anyone that God is incapable of hate.  

 Well that would be your opinion and thankfully truth is not dependent on opinion.  According to you God has double standards, he can hate but he tells us not to hate.  Who I am or am not convincing, remains to be seen, unless of course you consider yourself God and know all?

14 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

And it looks like your entire argument is based on telling us that none of us can read or know what words mean and you are the only one who can.   You sit here and insult everyone's intelligence in the process.  You lost the argument a long time ago.   No one is buying what you're peddling.

Again opinion does not negate fact, nor does being contrary.  The only person that I find insulting anyone here is you. 

[StanJ]

12 minutes ago, Steve_S said:

1.  I never said that I hadn't been to the website. In fact, I never intimated that I hadn't been to the website nor that it was an overall bad website. I simply suggested that the way in which the word "sane" is presented is something I have only ever seen on the fringe, never from legitimate translators.

Also, I have not once personally attacked you. I've simply disagreed with you. I never accused you of not being reasonable or any such thing. If you feel specifically attacked, I invite you to direct me to the offending comments.

2.  You never provided a list to repeat. When a person makes the claim that there are "many" of anything, it is certainly within bounds to ask for evidence of that. That is all that I am asking, for a list of legitimate scholars and/or translators, among the "many" who agree with your contention. Is this unreasonable?

1.  sadly that is the nature of people who equivocate, they will never really get down to the nitty-gritty of what they mean or are trying to say. Matthew 5:37
2.  you mean like the list you provided when you did the same thing? I'm sorry I'm not willing to continue playing this game with you.

[StanJ]

9 hours ago, nebula said:

And when something is "not acceptable," how does God feel about it?

 again, in my opinion, God is impassible and as such doesn't have what we humans know it's feelings. When God decrees that something is not acceptable, that's it.  Do you really believe that God has to qualify His assessment of attitudes that are not acceptable?