Divorce in other religions

[Delta2]

Centuries ago in Europe there was marriages by convenience, a dealing with families just by “money”, “power” or some other higher interests

A lot of women married without love or passion, however they learned how to love her husbands, and children, they raised their children with love and were good housekeepers

Amazing women, just AMAZING, they deserve a medal, or a statue

in the meanwhile the men was having loving affairs with concubines, not all of them, but a lot of them

The main question : the innocents - the children

How can God dismiss the little children, the innocents, the pure one of this world ? and not condemn severely the fathers - the adult ones

How can a religion that claims to have the word of God ignore that innocent and little children

poor and poor little children, that even God can’t protect and rose them to the highest place of innocence

 

[Annie_B]

Centuries ago in Europe there was marriages by convenience, a dealing with families just by “money”, “power” or some other higher interests

A lot of women married without love or passion, however they learned how to love her husbands, and children, they raised their children with love and were good housekeepers

Amazing women, just AMAZING, they deserve a medal, or a statue

in the meanwhile the men was having loving affairs with concubines, not all of them, but a lot of them

The main question : the innocents - the children

How can God dismiss the little children, the innocents, the pure one of this world ? and not condemn severely the fathers - the adult ones

How can a religion that claims to have the word of God ignore that innocent and little children

poor and poor little children, that even God can’t protect and rose them to the highest place of innocence

God does not dismiss the innocents of this world (the children you speak of). However, some “religions” do (however misguided this is…). The parents will have to answer to God just as we all will. Those “religious” who condemn the innocents because of their parentage etc. will have some extra explaining to do, I think.

Annie

 

[Delta2]

God does not dismiss the innocents of this world (the children you speak of). However, some “religions” do (however misguided this is…). The parents will have to answer to God just as we all will. Those “religious” who condemn the innocents because of their parentage etc. will have some extra explaining to do, I think.

Annie

There is no good and no evil without a reference

See the Einstein’s relativism theory

Nobody is evil or good without having a reference, even if that means a retrograde and a old…very old reference

That’s means that God doesn’t change, only us

Mark 10-9
What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder

It is wrong by all means, very wrong

think in the little children, God can’t never, never admit divorce in any circumstance, but of course…those that are responsible in that EVIL disengage is by all means double condemned

A catholic God can never, never, but never be a conveyance divorce God, i.e., He curse and makes divorce an EVIL THING

Think about the little children, think of them…they are the face of God

 

[Annie_B]

There is no good and no evil without a reference

See the Einstein’s relativism theory

Nobody is evil or good without having a reference, even if that means a retrograde and a old…very old reference

That’s means that God doesn’t change, only us

Mark 10-9
What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder

It is wrong by all means, very wrong

think in the little children, God can’t never, never admit divorce in any circumstance, but of course…those that are responsible in that EVIL disengage is by all means double condemned

A catholic God can never, never, but never be a conveyance divorce God, i.e., He curse and makes divorce an EVIL THING

Think about the little children, think of them…they are the face of God

I was just giving my two cents worth! I have no idea what you are talking about now…

Annie

 

[Delta2]

I was just giving my two cents worth! I have no idea what you are talking about now…

Annie

I was saying that Divorce is by all means a EVIL act, period

But the responsible of that act can be the man or the woman, you know…one of them can be innocent for this

But childrens are the most important, for God, the family, their innocence

If you don’t understand me, that’s because of my bad english, sorry

 

[Annie_B]

I was saying that Divorce is by all means a EVIL act, period

But the responsible of that act can be the man or the woman, you know…one of them can be innocent for this

But childrens are the most important, for God, the family, their innocence

If you don’t understand me, that’s because of my bad english, sorry

Ok - now I understand. I was just a bit confused because your post was more about children/innocents and the title of the thread was about divorce. And you are right; the children are the most important. As far as divorce being “evil - period” I do not agree. There are circumstances where it is permitted - even in the Bible. It may be a sin, but our sins can be forgiven if we repent.

Annie

 

[HashemEchad]

I was always baffled about something…it seems to me that the religions whose tenets forbid divorce, often end up getting them the most!

In Orthodox Judaism, divorce is permitted to us but is very rare. Perhaps this is because our marriages are often arranged, and spouses are carefully screened as for their backgrounds (medical, emotional, religious, etc). No one gets married in traditional Judaism based on hormones, emotion, or infatuation.

Most divorced people I’ve met were Catholics, followed by bornagain Christians.

It continues to puzzle me how so many bornagain Christians can feel its no problem at all to divorce one partner and marry another, when Jesus said that divorcing and remarrying was forbidden except for “fornication”.

 

[Sister_Amy]

Divorce is permitted in Islam as well though it’s called “hated” by God.

I don’t see it as evil. My sister was divorced, and I fully believe that it was best for her, and for her daughter, that she not remain married to her husband.

And sometimes that’s the case.

Doesn’t have to be evil.

 

[Abbadon]

Double Post

 

[Abbadon]

I was saying that Divorce is by all means a EVIL act, period

But the responsible of that act can be the man or the woman, you know…one of them can be innocent for this

But childrens are the most important, for God, the family, their innocence

If you don’t understand me, that’s because of my bad english, sorry

I don’t understand why your even married in the first place… But if you are and your husband/wife beats you and your children in altered states of consciousness, and you want to legally (that’s all that I can see that marriage is really any logical use for) completely remove them from your life why not?

 

[swariffin]

I was always baffled about something…it seems to me that the religions whose tenets forbid divorce, often end up getting them the most!

In Orthodox Judaism, divorce is permitted to us but is very rare. Perhaps this is because our marriages are often arranged, and spouses are carefully screened as for their backgrounds (medical, emotional, religious, etc). No one gets married in traditional Judaism based on hormones, emotion, or infatuation.

Most divorced people I’ve met were Catholics, followed by bornagain Christians.

It continues to puzzle me how so many bornagain Christians can feel its no problem at all to divorce one partner and marry another, when Jesus said that divorcing and remarrying was forbidden except for “fornication”.

Dear Hashem,

A marriage sacrament in the Catholic church is a sacred sacrament. If the marrying couple are already in the “fornication” condition, then the marriage sacrament is simply not exist. The marrying couple may not know that they are in fornication, or able to deceive anybody including the priest. But, God knows. So, a marriage under such fornication condition is not a marriage at all. If the marrying couple later divorce, it is not a divorce because there was no sacramental marriage between the couple. A legal sacramental marriage does not necessarily have the same meaning as the civilian marriage law. If there is no fornication in a marriage, even a pope is unauthorized to divorce it. That was why that King Henry VIII separated from the RCC, and established his own religion, because the pope did not approved his request for a divorce.

If you judge the catholic view of divorce, don’t see it from the divorcing catholic you know. The same as that no one can judge islam based on what the 9/11 terrorists did who happened to claim themselves as muslims.

 

[HashemEchad]

Henry VIII sought an annulment, not a divorce, if my memory serves.

He tried to say that his marriage to Catherine of Aragon was invalid from the beginning, because she was his brother’s wife (basing it on Lev. 11, even though that only applied to Jews.)

However, she maintained she never comsummated the marriage with his brother, and that Henry knew this.

 

[swariffin]

Henry VIII sought an annulment, not a divorce, if my memory serves.

He tried to say that his marriage to Catherine of Aragon was invalid from the beginning, because she was his brother’s wife (basing it on Lev. 11, even though that only applied to Jews.)

However, she maintained she never comsummated the marriage with his brother, and that Henry knew this.

Dear Hashem,

I can understand why the pope did not authorized the annulment (not a divorce), based on the reason that Catherine of Aragon was not consummated. Consummation of marriage is the final step in which the marriage reach its fullness. Henry knew this, then it means that Henry knew that Catherine’s previous marriage was not completed. Knowing that the previous marriage of Catherine was not in perfection, Henry VIII married her, and apparently consummated her. In this case, Henry VIII’s marriage to Catherine of Aragon was legal and completed under the canon law of the Church. The priest who lead the marriage sacrament of Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon should have known that, and decided that the marriage is legal in accordance with the canon law. In this case, Henry must have acknowledged that he knew all things about previous “marriage” of Catherine, and decided to waived them, and proceeded to marry Catherine.

 

[murtad]

Dear Hashem,

I can understand why the pope did not authorized the annulment (not a divorce), based on the reason that Catherine of Aragon was not consummated. Consummation of marriage is the final step in which the marriage reach its fullness. Henry knew this, then it means that Henry knew that Catherine’s previous marriage was not completed. Knowing that the previous marriage of Catherine was not in perfection, Henry VIII married her, and apparently consummated her. In this case, Henry VIII’s marriage to Catherine of Aragon was legal and completed under the canon law of the Church. The priest who lead the marriage sacrament of Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon should have known that, and decided that the marriage is legal in accordance with the canon law. In this case, Henry must have acknowledged that he knew all things about previous “marriage” of Catherine, and decided to waived them, and proceeded to marry Catherine.

Poor Henry! All he wanted was a divorce but the Holy Father refused to grant him his wish.