God and Sex

Post Reply New Topic

@Ragtime:

If you divorced your first wife, then what pandabear says is true according to scripture. The marriage vow is a lifelong vow and a "legal" divorce is not enough nor any excuse for divorce. In effect, if you have put away your wife through divorce, except for certain very specific (and few) reasons, you put her in a position in which she is unable to fulfill her vows to you. No matter what she does, she commits adultery and you're at fault for causing her to do so.

It's not a personal attack, it's just pointing out what the Bible says on the matter.

The Bible does allow for adultery and abandonment, however. But even then it's more like, ok, it's understandable why you'd divorce someone on those grounds. In the Bible, there is no such thing as "No Fault Divorce." In reality, someone is always at fault, and my personal feelings on this is that anything less than adultery, abandonment, or abuse is a stupid reason for seeking divorce. Work your sh!t out and quit crying about it.

...just sayin...

That's like asking if I'm a member of the human race.

Of course I'm incomplete, but God is the God of reason, and my life was literally in danger in my first marriage. (Again, thank you SO MUCH for bringing it up. Everyone give pandabear a big round of applause for deliberately bringing up another WP member's painful memories in front of everyone. Oh, I can take it -- but you're a dickhead for doing it. Since you're both a dickhead and an a**hole, I guess you can go f**k yourself.)

Anyway, as I was saying, God is the God of reason -- indeed, the inventor thereof -- and Jesus said not to divorce for any cause other than adultery. Well, let's examine this for just a second... I'd be dead if I didn't leave my first wife, so I assumed that my being alive and divorced was preferable in God's eyes. Since this was a matter of my own somewhat-liberal Scriptural interpretation, the Holy Spirit confirmed this, as the Bible says He does when it comes to hard judgment calls about what a Christian should do, and He did warn me clearly that I had to leave that relationship. And He blessed me greatly afterwards: what we Christians call confirmation.

Jesus often taught His listeners in comparison terms, and He taught about greater and lesser sins. It would have been the greater sin to let myself be killed than to divorce, and God confirmed that in my spirit.

Again, none of the above is anyone's business. But because you accused me of hypocrisy, I chose to correct the record.
Whereas you proving you're not a total douche would be impossible for you, I won't claim it.

How did he compell her to commit adultery when by your own statement you admitted that he divorced her because she was committing adultery?

That is kind of undude...

Especially since it sounds like his first wife was nuts if his life was really in danger...

That was ALMOST an excellent response, Ragtime

A few things:

First of all, trying to discredit someone on the basis of past behavior that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand is called "poisoning the well..." Basically, "you are a hypocrite, therefore you are wrong..." Pandabear shouldn't have brought it up, but you could also have just ignored the remark. Yours is a classic case of divorce on the grounds of domestic abuse. Just keep in mind that scripturally there is nothing really AGAINST this kind of thing, since you certainly have a right to self-preservation. On the other hand, Christ allowed Himself to be put to death by humanity to rescue humanity from sin. I don't know your circumstances, but I'd have had my wife committed if she were prone to abusive rages. But the point here is not to judge you.

Second, pandabear's comments were not a personal attack on you. You answered correctly by admitting that part of the human condition is failure to follow all of scripture in its completeness. But even if panda's comments WERE a personal attack, it is unbiblical to answer in kind. I think you mean well, but don't let this kind of thing get to you. It's not worth it.

I did not say that he had divorced her because she had committed adultery. I have no idea of the specifics.

Jesus is pretty clear on the subject:



This is a strong caution not only against divorce, but also against marrying a woman who has been divorced.

People who use to Bible to criticize the sexuality of other people can end up also having verses from the Bible pointed back at them, even though they don't like it. From their perspective, such people are indeed dickheads and a**holes. They can legitimatize their behaviour in their own eyes better than anyone else can, through the magic of prayer.

Of course, if his first wife had committed adultery, then he is completely off the hook.

Last edited by pandabear on 21 Oct 2011, 5:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

@ AngelRho

Actually, it is kinda obvious that pandabear's comments were intentionally personal in nature. Further, Ragtime is not being a hypocrit, just cause someone is prone to rages doesn't mean that they will be committed nor that they can be committed. In his case the only thing he could do is divorce and have a restraining order issued on his ex-wife.

And, it is blatantly obvious that this comment was intentionally personal in nature.

Well considering that Ragtime's first wife if I'm understanding the story right tried to murder him and was committing adultery, what the heck am I supposed to think by your comments?!?!

If I am in error as to your motives, I apologize, but you really need to ascertain the facts before you start making the comments you made in the future...

There is a problem with this Inu. Ragtime's actions were relevant to the point PandaBear was making. This doesn't make what PandaBear did wrong. In fact PandaBear pointed out a contradiction in Ragtime's belief and Ragtime's actions. No saying that it was justified will help. It is justified, but that doesn't mean people can just stick their fingers in their ears and ignore a contradiction.

How is it a contradiction?

1. His first wife was committing adultery.
2. His first wife was acting in a manner that would have likely resulted in him ending up in a body bag.

I'm sure that divorces are never pleasant, and that someone who was trying really hard to follow a Christian lifestyle would find the decision to divorce a very difficult one.

I was not seeking to hurt Ragtime's feelings. I would hope that, with time, and with his happiness with his new wife, he would soon be over the past.

I was simply trying to say that people who use the Bible to point out what they regard as short-comings in the sexuality of other people (or in any other aspect of their lives) could have some potential short-comings of their own, if someone wanted to cherry-pick scripture.

I think that you are missing the point.

I don't know if Ragtime's first wife had committed adultery while they were married. He doesn't have to say--it is irrelevant to the present discussion. Let's take Ragtime out of this.

The verse in question reads:



As I understand it,

1. If a married woman has coitus with man other than her husband (and I suspect that this might include not only vaginal penetration, but also anal sex, oral sex, hand jobs, foot jobs, or any other activity that would result in the man's sexual arousal and consequent ejaculation), then the husband is free to divorce her.

2. If a married woman does not have coitus with a man other than her husband (to include the activities suspected above), then her husband may not divorce her.

3. If a man divorces his wife, and the woman subsequently has coitus with another man (even after she marries the other man), then the ex-wife is still guilty of committing adultery against him (the man who divorced her). And, the first husband is guilty of having caused her to commit adultery against himself.

4. Any man who marries a divorced woman is guilty of committing adultery against the woman's first husband.

Another relevant question one might pose is: What recourse does a Christian man have, if his wife isn't committing adultery against him, but is otherwise disobedient to him? Perhaps she is behaving shrewishly?



Ain't it the truth?



The Earth might not be able to tolerate a hateful woman who gets married, but that doesn't mean that a Christian husband can divorce her.

I will point out


Now, if the Lord expects a pregnant slave girl to return to her cruel owner, how much more would the Lord expect a Christian man to return to his cruel wife?

Look at 1 Corinthians 11


A Christian husband is supreme over his wife, however cruel or disobedient she may be.

There is a problem that underlines your whole issue. First your God is not everything. Christianity is not a henotheistic religion, and to suggest so would be a heresy to any Christian that followed the Nicene Creed.

There's also a second problem. Peversion is not relative to position or personage. Perversion is relative to a moral code. So if your God breaks the code laid down in his or her own Bible, which apparently contains the perfect moral system, then he or she is a pervert. Furthermore a person is not their morals. To claim that someone is righteous because they are a God is a disgusting argument, a piece of moral relativism that should make anyone shudder for it justifies the most hateful misery imaginable.


And yet this perfection is so easily disputed I would readily claim that you're saying that your God is perfect because you just say so, rather than a raging psychopath worthy of Human censure. This is exactly the kind of behaviour I would expect from the figment of imaginations that wanted to give their opinions undebateable authority.