Christian Divorce

[Zzyzx]

.
The bible appears to disallow divorce except for sexual impropriety / adultery and prohibits remarriage under most circumstances.

Yet, Christians divorce at rates as great or greater than Non-Christians and often remarry. When they remarry they are committing adultery according to the bible – and many continue the adulterous relationship until death.

If a person persists in their "sin" (adultery by remarriage), does not ask forgiveness and does not REPENT (but blatantly continues the adultery) then dies in that state, they are evidently an unrepentant sinner. Should they, therefore, be denied access to "heaven?"

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 9 by connermt]

Sure you can get a divorce but you can't remarry.

Also keep in mind women cannot divorce men as a man has to release her from her vows it does not go really the other way around. Most of these rules are designed in regards to the male not the female.

[dianaiad]

.
[Replying to post 5 by dianaiad]

No matter how you slice it Christians are at least as likely as Non-Christians to get divorced even though the bible makes it clear that god and Jesus require that people who marry are to stay married for life and remarriage after divorce is committing adultery (with VERY few exceptions).

Gallup polls indicate that 63% of divorced people remarry. Though the statistics on remarriage are not broken down by religious preference, it is safe to assume that many divorced Christians remarry – and in most cases that means living in sin (presumably without repentance).

What does this indicate about morals, righteousness, and following the bible?

One other small problem:

You are quite right: people who self identify as Christians are as likely to divorce (or break up) as those who do not identify themselves as Christians.

Ah, but what of those who actually 'walk the walk' and not simply 'talk the talk?"

By that, I mean....what of those religious folks who actually, y'know, know what church they 'belong to,' know their preacher and go to church more than twice a year? Those who go most Sundays, read the scriptures and actually attempt to be Christians more often than on Christmas, Easter and when a pollster calls?


Turns out that THOSE folks have a divorce rate...well, the National Survey of Families and Households shows that "nominal Christians" (those who 'talk the talk' but don't, y'know, actually GO TO CHURCH and all) do indeed have a divorce rate as high or higher than their non-believer peers.

That's possibly because there's a bit of an honesty problem there to begin with (but that's my opinion, only).

However, among those believers who actually go to church, pray, and participate in the life of the religion they claim to believe in? Those folks are something like 35% less likely to divorce than anybody else, That still leaves a divorce rate that is sad, but it doesn't allow the 'you are worse than we are' charges that non-believers like to level.


So, I suppose that "morals, righteousness and following the bible" requires something other than going to the football game, having a tail gate party in which one downs four or five beers, driving home, putting one's feet up, and satisfactorily closing the door in the face of a couple of Baptists handing out pamphlets (from the church one is supposed to belong to)...then answering the pollster's phone call with 'I'm a Christian."

See, here's the problem: believer or non-believer, people are people. They behave according to the rules of the folks they associate with the most. Now this isn't saying that those football watching folk are bad; but this is a 'faith without works is dead faith' sort of thing. It's not even as if those folks aren't "Christian." They are if they think they are. However, could anybody else tell that if they were followed for a week?

Jesus was rather clear about such folks, actually: the 'whited sepulchre' thing, and the lukewarm bit....if you are going to claim to be Christian, then you should behave as if you were.

I prefer straight up non-believers; they are more honest...and THAT, btw, might explain part of the discrepancy in divorce rates: people who are honest with themselves and others are more likely to be good at relationships (and perhaps less likely to divorce? ).

It's a thought.

[janavoss]

Thank you for providing the scriptural references, I think this is very helpful to the discussion. I also appreciate your synopsis of each.

“It was said, ‘Whoever sends his wife away, let him give her a certificate of divorce’; but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Not much new here, except here it is the divorces wife who commits adultery and a man who marries a divorcee commits adultery. Same conclusion: according to Jesus, unless the divorce is for the reason of unchastity, the couple is still married, therefore, remarriage is adultery.

The way I always read this is, if the reason for the divorce was adultery on the part of the wife, then the husband did not cause her to commit adultery if she remarries, she did that to herself. But I agree, the rest of it is nothing new.

How does a person repent of adultery? It should be quite an easy question to answer. Stop having sex with the wrong partner and have sex only with your spouse. Right? In the case of an improper divorce, repentance would mean going back to the spouse that he or she was wrongfully divorced from.

And here is the beginning of

[Zzyzx]

.

You are quite right: people who self identify as Christians are as likely to divorce (or break up) as those who do not identify themselves as Christians.

Ah, but what of those who actually 'walk the walk' and not simply 'talk the talk?"

By that, I mean....what of those religious folks who actually, y'know, know what church they 'belong to,' know their preacher and go to church more than twice a year? Those who go most Sundays, read the scriptures and actually attempt to be Christians more often than on Christmas, Easter and when a pollster calls?

It is interesting that 40% of people CLAIM to attend church weekly but actual counts indicate that only about 20% actually do so (by attendance counts).

For years, the Gallup Research Organization has come up with a consistent figure — 40 percent of all Americans, or roughly 118 million people, who said they attended worship on the previous weekend. Recently, sociologists of religion have questioned that figure, saying Americans tend to exaggerate how often they attend. By actually counting the number of people who showed up at representative sample of churches, two researchers, Kirk Hadaway and Penny Marler found that only 20.4 percent of the population, or half the Gallup figure, attended church each weekend.

As added proof for the accuracy of this smaller percentage of churchgoers, if 20.4% of Americans (approximately 63 million in 2010) attended the nation's 350,000 congregations weekly then the average attendance would be 180 people per congregation which is almost exactly the figure that numerous research studies have found.
http://hirr.hartsem.edu/research/fastfa ... facts.html

Thus, although 80% of the population claims to be Christian only about half of that number claim to attend church weekly – but only half of even that actually attend. So, a quarter of self-identified Christians attend church regularly and about the same percentage claim to attend but do not.

Where does that leave us? When discussing Christian divorce do we count only REAL Christians who attend church regularly (and presumably have a lower divorce / remarriage rate?)? Or do we also count those who claim to attend and do not? Or do we also count those who claim to be Christian but do not attend church regularly (or at all)?

What can we say about the tendency of people to lie to pollsters? Shouldn't the large percentage of Christians who evidently misrepresent their church attendance be trying to be more honest – and failing?

Also, non-religious couples may, as you suggest, be more inclined to live together without formality of legal / religious sanction. Perhaps that distorts statistics, but it may be a wise move for those who realize that living together is a valid test of long-term compatibility while courtship may be less so.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 11 by DanieltheDragon]

Most of these rules are designed in regards to the male not the female.

As should be expected in the time these rules came from I would think.
After all, 'the good book' tells women to submit to their husbands.

[dianaiad]

.

You are quite right: people who self identify as Christians are as likely to divorce (or break up) as those who do not identify themselves as Christians.

Ah, but what of those who actually 'walk the walk' and not simply 'talk the talk?"

By that, I mean....what of those religious folks who actually, y'know, know what church they 'belong to,' know their preacher and go to church more than twice a year? Those who go most Sundays, read the scriptures and actually attempt to be Christians more often than on Christmas, Easter and when a pollster calls?

It is interesting that 40% of people CLAIM to attend church weekly but actual counts indicate that only about 20% actually do so (by attendance counts).

That's quite true; for Catholics and 'mainline' churches, I've figured that the number is closer to 18%.

For years, the Gallup Research Organization has come up with a consistent figure — 40 percent of all Americans, or roughly 118 million people, who said they attended worship on the previous weekend. Recently, sociologists of religion have questioned that figure, saying Americans tend to exaggerate how often they attend. By actually counting the number of people who showed up at representative sample of churches, two researchers, Kirk Hadaway and Penny Marler found that only 20.4 percent of the population, or half the Gallup figure, attended church each weekend.

As added proof for the accuracy of this smaller percentage of churchgoers, if 20.4% of Americans (approximately 63 million in 2010) attended the nation's 350,000 congregations weekly then the average attendance would be 180 people per congregation which is almost exactly the figure that numerous research studies have found.
http://hirr.hartsem.edu/research/fastfa ... facts.html

Thus, although 80% of the population claims to be Christian only about half of that number claim to attend church weekly – but only half of even that actually attend. So, a quarter of self-identified Christians attend church regularly and about the same percentage claim to attend but do not.

Where does that leave us? When discussing Christian divorce do we count only REAL Christians who attend church regularly (and presumably have a lower divorce / remarriage rate?)? Or do we also count those who claim to attend and do not? Or do we also count those who claim to be Christian but do not attend church regularly (or at all)?[/qipte]

That depends: if we are talking about the doctrine, and whether Christian DOCTRINE should be criticized because so many self-identified Christians divorce, then perhaps the count should strictly be of those who actually live according to the doctrine they profess: you know, the ones who go to church and actually attempt to 'live like Christians?" If THAT group has the high divorce rate, then one could see a place to criticize.

However,.....

When medical studies are done to measure the efficacy of a pill, there is (hopefully) a big difference between the group taking the 'real' pill and the one taking the placebo. The idea is that in order for the medication to be worth anything, people who actually take it have very different outcomes than those who don't take anything...and those taking a placebo would have the same outcomes as those patients who don't take either the placebo or the 'real' pill.

I think in this case we should examine the outcomes in the same way: we have the non-believers, the 'nominal' Christians (those could be likened to the placebo takers, since in reality they live and behave like the non-believers in all ways except the use of the word 'Christian'), and the 'real pill' takers, the active, participating church going Christians. Yes, that group is considerably smaller than folks like to think, for varied reasons, but small or not, that's the population that needs examining here.

What can we say about the tendency of people to lie to pollsters? Shouldn't the large percentage of Christians who evidently misrepresent their church attendance be trying to be more honest – and failing?

I think so. That's why I said I prefer the straight up non-believers. They are more honest than those who only believe during the phone call.

Also, non-religious couples may, as you suggest, be more inclined to live together without formality of legal / religious sanction. Perhaps that distorts statistics, but it may be a wise move for those who realize that living together is a valid test of long-term compatibility while courtship may be less so.

Well...the statistics are rather clear on that, unfortunately; those who cohabitate before marriage are MORE likely to divorce later, not less.

And yes, the 'living together' part does skew the statistics.

I'd really like to see a good survey done that really takes into account these things: actual religious participation, break ups of 'cohabitation relationships' and honesty about beliefs.

I think we would get a very different view of things.

[connermt]

I wonder why there aren't as many christians standing outside of city halls around the US with signs making divorce illegal except by means of the bible, like they do with gay marriage....
Indeed, the 'protection of traditional marriage' is nothing more than a slogan.

[KCKID]

I wonder why there aren't as many christians standing outside of city halls around the US with signs making divorce illegal except by means of the bible, like they do with gay marriage....

Yes, it might be interesting to find out why that is. There is obviously a reason why Christians give much more weight to the one but not to the other . . .

Indeed, the 'protection of traditional marriage' is nothing more than a slogan.

Yes, I agree that it's little more than rhetoric.

[bluethread]

Absolutely. So, is it OK to divorce if one's abused?

It is acceptable to have unlawful acts prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

I wonder why there aren't as many christians standing outside of city halls around the US with signs making divorce illegal except by means of the bible, like they do with gay marriage.... Think
Indeed, the 'protection of traditional marriage' is nothing more than a slogan.

Are you saying that the idea of taking back Europe from the NAZIs was just a slogan on D-Day because we attacked Normondy and not Paris? Should we have questioned the loyalty of all Frenchmen during the the time of Vichy France?

[1213]

If a person persists in their "sin" (adultery by remarriage), does not ask forgiveness and does not REPENT (but blatantly continues the adultery) then dies in that state, they are evidently an unrepentant sinner. Should they, therefore, be denied access to "heaven?"

Adultery is wrong like other things that are told to be wrong in the Law. However it does not necessary mean that person can’t go to heaven, because:

… For most assuredly, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even one smallest letter or one tiny pen stroke shall in any way pass away from the law, until all things are accomplished. Whoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and teach others to do so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but whoever shall do and teach them shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.
Mat. 5:17-19