Divorce: what is the Big O.T. Deal?

[liamconnor]

In the case of adultery, the O.T. requires capital punishment. On this ground, it is accused of barbarism.


The accusation seems to presuppose a very loose concept of marriage and flexible interpretation of marriage vows. That is, it seems to be saying, "Look, we all know that marriage vows about life-long fidelity and all that is just a romantic thing we say at our weddings and are not to be taken seriously; the OT is barbaric for taking these vows so stinking seriously."

Questions for debate:

#1 How serious should a vow to life-long fidelity be taken? Is it just "a thing we say" which we all know we don't mean, or do we all know there is an implied clause "so long as I still have these same feelings for you or do not develop a sexual interest in someone else"?

#2 What should the consequences of adultery be? Does this increase or decrease the value of marriage?

[Zzyzx]

.

#1 How serious should a vow to life-long fidelity be taken?

It should be taken as seriously as other contracts between people.

Is it just "a thing we say" which we all know we don't mean, or do we all know there is an implied clause "so long as I still have these same feelings for you or do not develop a sexual interest in someone else"?

Many people obsess about sex -- others may not. Some couples agree that theirs will be an 'open marriage'. Some marriages involve more than two people (Polyandry, Polygyny, Group Marriage).

Traditionalists seem convinced that THEIR concepts regarding marriage are binding upon others and should be enforced with police power by criminalizing consensual sexual intercourse (or marriages) of which they disapprove.

#2 What should the consequences of adultery be?

That is a matter between the people involved. Often the consequence is divorce.

Among rational people the consequence for adultery is NOT a death sentence.

Does this increase or decrease the value of marriage?

That question requires that the 'value of marriage' be clearly identified and defined. Since marriage means different things to different people / different cultures / different times, there is no universal or absolute answer.

[Justin108]

Questions for debate:

#1 How serious should a vow to life-long fidelity be taken? Is it just "a thing we say" which we all know we don't mean, or do we all know there is an implied clause "so long as I still have these same feelings for you or do not develop a sexual interest in someone else"?

How serious should it be taken? Very. Serious enough that breaking this law should result in death? No.

#2 What should the consequences of adultery be? Does this increase or decrease the value of marriage?

People should abstain from adultery because they love their spouse, not because they fear death. What purpose would there be in killing adulterers? How is this anything more than sheer vengeance? Are you of the opinion that the law of killing adulterers should be upheld to this day?

[tam]

Peace to you Liam!

In the case of adultery, the O.T. requires capital punishment. On this ground, it is accused of barbarism.


The accusation seems to presuppose a very loose concept of marriage and flexible interpretation of marriage vows. That is, it seems to be saying, "Look, we all know that marriage vows about life-long fidelity and all that is just a romantic thing we say at our weddings and are not to be taken seriously; the OT is barbaric for taking these vows so stinking seriously."

I don't think that's true, Liam. Someone can take marriage and fidelity in marriage very seriously... but without calling for or agreeing with the death penalty in cases where a person fails to keep their vows.

Christ did, because God does, but Christ still showed mercy to the woman caught in the act of adultery.

Questions for debate:

#1 How serious should a vow to life-long fidelity be taken? Is it just "a thing we say" which we all know we don't mean, or do we all know there is an implied clause "so long as I still have these same feelings for you or do not develop a sexual interest in someone else"?

It should be taken seriously. You should not break your vows or be unfaithful.

#2 What should the consequences of adultery be? Does this increase or decrease the value of marriage?

Well, there are natural consequences of adultery: pain caused to self and/or others; loss of trust; etc.


Besides those, and according to Christ, adultery is grounds for DIVORCE. (though a spouse may choose to forgive their husband or wife; that would be between them)


**

Adultery is also something that we are accused of when we are unfaithful to God (in the case of Israel - Oholah/Samaria and Oholibah/Judah: both were called adulteresses; prostitutes by God)... or unfaithful to Christ (in the case of Babylon the Great - the great city made of people who claim to be married to the King, Christ, but instead of remaining faithful to Him, forms unions with other lovers. Hence she is called the great prostitute and an adulteress as well).


That adultery CAN result in death - because those other lovers that 'she' has taken and formed a union with - instead of Christ - cannot give her LIFE. Indeed, her lovers will at some point turn on her and devour her. As Assyria and Babylon did with Israel; and as the kings of the earth (created by BTG) will one day do with her.


Personally, I think (at least in part) that the scribes/teachers of the law did not understand any of this. (Just as many did not understand that when Paul spoke of a husband and wife, he was speaking of Christ and His Church) So instead of realizing that adultery is to be taken so seriously (because unfaithfulness to Christ and to God can lead to death)... they understood only that adulterers were to be PUT to death.


And because their hearts were hard, they did not show or understand or even emphasize mercy over sacrifice (even though God said "I desire mercy, not sacrifice").

Christ, however, came and showed what was true from the beginning. What had always been true.


(hope that helps to answer some of the questions you asked me, Justin, from the other thread that you started on the topic)

Peace to you and to your loved ones,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[rikuoamero]

I'm getting a distinct 'I want to live in ISIS controlled lands' vibe from Liam's latest posting. He seems to have abandoned arguing history and instead is seemingly trying to promote literalist laws from societies thousands of years gone, as if it's no big deal to be living in such societies.

[bluethread]

Christ did, because God does, but Christ still showed mercy to the woman caught in the act of adultery.

One more time. Yeshua upheld Torah in that case, by asking that the judgement be carried out according to the commandments. If the woman had been tried "without sin" and two honest witnesses had stepped forward, stoning her would not have been contrary to Yeshua's instructions.

[DanieltheDragon]

I'm getting a distinct 'I want to live in ISIS controlled lands' vibe from Liam's latest posting. He seems to have abandoned arguing history and instead is seemingly trying to promote literalist laws from societies thousands of years gone, as if it's no big deal to be living in such societies.

Umm eyes dunt see wuz duh big deal. Jus a lil stoning some folks for petty problems. Back in my day if uncle Mickey stepped out on aunt Mary it was a hickory bar and a new uncle.

[OnceConvinced]

#1 How serious should a vow to life-long fidelity be taken? Is it just "a thing we say" which we all know we don't mean, or do we all know there is an implied clause "so long as I still have these same feelings for you or do not develop a sexual interest in someone else"?

If you say it, the promise should be kept. However I think it's foolish to make such a promise to begin with. You don't know what is going to happen. Things that may happen may not even be your fault. (eg your spouse leaves you for someone else) So perhaps it's best not to make promises you can't possibly know you are going to be able to keep?

It seems that perhaps getting married is not a very wise thing to do if you have to make promises you may not be able to keep.

That is one of the reasons I am reluctant to get married again because it means making promises I may not be able to keep. I may in a moment of weakness screw things up. I may find out something about my spouse that I didn't know that might be a real deal breaker. My spouse might cheat on me.

What if one partner ends up being abused by the other? Should one have to keep their promise when being treated horrendously?

Maybe there SHOULD be some conditions on vows. eg: "so long as I am not abused" "So long as I am loved by you".

Even the bible allows you to break your promise though, doesn't it? It allows divorce due to immoralities. So it seems even in the bible a promise is not something you are always expected to keep.

#2 What should the consequences of adultery be?

What's wrong with just natural consequences? You cheat, you get found out, you get dumped? You lose your precious partner. You suffer anguish due to it. You suffer when you see your kids suffering because they no longer have two parents living together.

For me, when my good Christian wife left me for another guy at first it was very hard. I had to live with the fact that our partnership was over and that our ministry as a Christian couple was over. I had to see the sadness in my kids that they didn't have us both living in the same house with them.

And it wasn't even my fault that my wife cheated on me!

There is enough suffering when divorces happen. At least with me and my ex we remained civil with each other. We worked out a shared care arrangement with our kids. We came to an amicable agreement about splitting up assets and family items.

Others are not so fortunate. Some have endless disputes about assets. Some find themselves being forced out of their kids life due to a vindictive partner.

Why would there possibly be a need for further consequences by law or by gods when so many natural consequences are there? Why the need to impose further suffering? Should society be that vindictive?

Does this increase or decrease the value of marriage?

I don't see how imposing additional consequences on devorce would make marriage any more valuable. All you would be doing is forcing people to stay in abusive marriages and marriages where there is no love... like people have been forced to stay in when divorce was less acceptable.

We are indeed fortunate to not live in times where you are looked down upon for being divorced. We are fortunately to not be living in times where adulterers and adulteresses are shunned and demonised. Or where you are forced to suffer additional punishments when your marriage doesn't work out.

Back in the old days you were forced to remain in shams of marriages. Christians in particular were forced to remain in miserable marriages for fear of being branded by humans or worse punished by God.

We should be grateful that divorce is a lot easier these days. I know I am.

As a Christian who had a wife cheat on him, I forgave her. All because I believed that it's what God would want and because I had promised to remain with her through better or worse. Several years later she cheated on me again. I forgave her then too. Then the third time she decided she was going to leave for her new guy.

If it wasn't for the biblical laws pertaining to marriage and the fact I was expected to be forgiving, I could have got out of that lousy marriage way earlier and found someone loyal instead, like my current atheist partner.

Funny, in my life, with the relationships I have gained, it's been the atheists who have been the most staunch when it comes to loyalty.

[marco]

What should the consequences of adultery be? Does this increase or decrease the value of marriage?

Legal considerations are important in divorce; parties who made a contract have to be protected.

The sexual side, adultery, has nothing to do with outsiders. It is absurd to prescribe legal penalties for adultery but of course we have primitive societies flourishing today where biblical penalties are imposed. Some societies allow umpteen wives, though perhaps not as many as the busy King Solomon, and if this is okay then adultery doesn't seem particularly bad.

We have only recently come to accept that what people do sexually in their private lives is their own business, as long as consent is understood. The Bible was responsible for a great deal of nonsensical ideas on sexuality.