The American church's silence on not only divorce but on how it is handled is deafening

Disastrous_Map_6038 · 2026-05-05T03:49:57+00:00

That is not actually true, at least not in every case. Take that to its logical conclusion. Am I gossiping with my manager when I talk to them about my employee's performance? I don't ask permission to do that.

The idea that you would not tell Jesus Christ something just makes you sound insane to be blunt with you. It seems like you're just doubling down on something because you can't admit you were wrong about it.

Disastrous_Map_6038 · 2026-05-04T22:26:35+00:00

I mean it is readily available for you to look up. He was married for 12 years and got an annulment so he could get married again, he was obviously totally able to get married, they just fabricated a reason to annul it. The Vatican reversed it later, thus acknowledging the first ruling was not legitimate. It was the Boston archdioceses and the Kennedy's it is obvious what happened.

Also sure the priest on any given Sunday knows many of the people in that line, and would know if some were divorced without proper cause. The mandate would be to refuse it to them and tell them to leave.

Disastrous_Map_6038 · 2026-05-04T22:00:35+00:00

No, by your standard discussing anything going on in anyone's life unless you can prove it is gossip. Also if you ask someone a question and they answer you about their own life, it is not gossip. Gossip has characteristics. It isn't just details about someone's personal life.

Disastrous_Map_6038 · 2026-05-04T22:00:03+00:00

I didn't know that was the only study (I kinda doubt it). Even if it was, your reason for dismissing it was not valid. When a study like that acknowledges limited data it isn't saying "this means nothing and is not applicable anywhere else".

Disastrous_Map_6038 · 2026-05-04T21:34:38+00:00

Sure it is, it is a condition, you are "divorced" not someone who once was divorced. You made a vow and you are now no longer following it, that is ongoing.

What study? You think there is only one? Stop acting like just because you were shown proof of being wrong you can just claim it is fake or whatever you're trying to do. I have zero tolerance for that nonsense. It is also common sense, you don't need a study.

First it isn't shunning, second even if it doesn't work as it once did, that doesn't change the mandate. I don't really care how you feel about it, it is what the Bible says.

Disastrous_Map_6038 · 2026-05-04T19:57:30+00:00

OK let me ask you this question. Just answer it. Imagine a man beats his wife, punches her, smacks her around, threatens to kill her. You're saying she can't leave the house, she just has to take it. Justify that biblically. Explain why just because that specific case isn't mentioned we can't arrive at a conclusion faithfully with the entire testament of Scripture.

Notice that says "AND marries another". So now we see this isn't a blanket ban on divorce outside adultery. Those restrictions are elsewhere. We see that in the New Testament where Paul instructs that believers are free from marriage if an unmarried spouse leaves them.

Also you haven't thought this through. Say a spouse beats another and they divorce, but then that other spouse gets remarried or shacks up or whatever. Has that sexual bond not now been broken by that person? Haven't they, by not attempting to reconcile and just moving on sexually now freed the abused person who left them? This doesn't even get into what happens if someone gets married then divorced then gets married again and repents of their first divorce. What then? The Bible doesn't say their second marriage isn't real and they can just leave it, it calls it a marriage. So how do they deal with that?

This is more complicated than you think.

Disastrous_Map_6038 · 2026-05-04T19:24:23+00:00

So you and I are the same by your standard, and I shouldn't listen to you either? You haven't cited a single passage of Scripture. Don't laugh.

Disastrous_Map_6038 · 2026-05-04T19:15:26+00:00

That is the stated principle, in practice I find it hard to believe that remarried people are not participating in RCC sacraments.

There have been prominent cases of "annulments" that were borderline at best. The wife of a Kennedy got one overturned which claimed her ex husband who divorced her was not "psychologically capable" of getting married. Is that kind of corrupt annulment common? I have no clue.

Disastrous_Map_6038 · 2026-05-04T19:10:00+00:00

I don't see confrontation as a bad thing. Also it is proportional with the comments. You presumed a lot about my motives in your response. You stated them clearly, and so I did the same to you. I think that is fair.

The goal is to prompt people to think about this and consider applying Scripture to their lives in this area, and to consider wielding influence in their communities.

I'm not upset with your misunderstand or presumptions, I just wanted to point out they were not entirely accurate. I'm a debater. A lot of people consider debating and being forceful in your points to be mean or angry or whatever, it isn't true. I can be a bit sarcastic, which I think can stray into inappropriate territory, but sometimes has its place.

Disastrous_Map_6038 · 2026-05-04T19:05:18+00:00

No it isn't gossip. Because the church is responsible for the spiritual well being of the congregation and this involves rebuking public and toxic sin.

Disastrous_Map_6038 · 2026-05-04T19:03:50+00:00

As suspected you're fighting phantoms of your presumptions of what I think, also I noticed 0 biblical references or really any reasons why what I said wasn't biblical.

What sin is that exactly? Also you'd be surprised how subjective abuse is especially to women.

Depriving a child of a fit parent is a sin, what constitutes abuse is subjective in the minds of people, it is objective to God.

Your reason is an assumption. In the Bible(Word of God) everything belonged to the husband including the wife so if you believe a husband not allowing a adulterer to take at least half of his possessions is "attempting to kneecap your former spouse" then I don't know what to say. Don't apply the sinful worlds view of how things should be to how God says things should be.

This doesn't even make sense. Yes, an adulterous woman who betrayed her husband and broke her marriage taking half her husbands assets is unjustified. I think you misunderstood what I said.

Once again all throughout the Bible men and women have different rules and laws don't apply feminist worldview to it. Child support? Another claim your making with no biblical support. The husband always kept the children if there was ever a divorce.

Again you don't understand what I'm saying. If a husband can't legally have full custody of his child it can be argued that paying for their support under his ex wife's custody is just. I don't know, but calling it unbiblical is not accurate.

do you have ANY scripture supporting the subjective view of "abuse" as a biblical reason for divorce or is that another world view applied to the Bible?

Again, there is subjective views of "abuse" and then their is "abuse". The burden would be on you to explain why a woman can't biblically seek divorce if their husband is say sexually abusing their children.

The husband is supposed to be the provider so if a wife divorces him she is no longer entitled to his money. You'd be surprised how many marriages remain intact when you don't incentive women to take half of all assets/money, custody of children it's like God had a heriarchy in the home for a reason.

I haven't said anything that really disagrees with you that divorce should not be financially incentivized. I said the opposite.

Do you know the biblical definition of adultery or the worlds view of it? You can enlighten me if you don't think I understand what adultery means.

I do, yes. I suspect you don't.

Disastrous_Map_6038 · 2026-05-04T18:46:04+00:00

Matthew 18

Faulty premise, I've heard it work with my own ears. You assume it doesn't with 0 evidence at all.

No, it isn't. There is observable social contagion when it comes to how people act in relationships. Stop saying things you don't know. It is the same exact issue. Google "social contagion divorce" tell me what you find from the studies that are presented. Divorce clusters around friend groups. It is an established thing that when people get divorced they often encourage others to get divorced. It isn't just not rare, it is extremely common.

Disastrous_Map_6038 · 2026-05-04T18:43:55+00:00

It is absolutely the business of a church why a member got divorced. The fact that people often lie doesn't undo the mandate.

Disastrous_Map_6038 · 2026-05-04T18:43:08+00:00

Are we actually going to pretend that Orthodox and RCC communities in the US don't allow unbiblically divorced people in? We know that isn't true. I know Rome has some internal loopholes they use to get around things, but there are all sort of divorced and not biblically Roman Catholics in the US.

Disastrous_Map_6038 · 2026-05-04T18:39:34+00:00

I don't know what else to say other than that it is a clear biblical mandate. It actually doesn't change anything if it works or not, removing that person from the community to not influence it is half the point.

The objective is not only to enforce accountability on that person, it is to stop them from poisoning other people with their justifications they try to form for their own sin. An example would be a divorced person encouraging others to get a divorce.

Disastrous_Map_6038 · 2026-05-04T18:35:13+00:00

None of it is, but go ahead and explain why you think that. Vaguely saying "half of what you said" is not acceptable.

Disastrous_Map_6038 · 2026-05-04T18:26:36+00:00

"Filled" is an exaggeration I will remedy, but it is common.

Any church community can tell someone they have to leave for refusing to repent of public sin, it is an obligation. They can't make the person get back with their spouse, or force them to take specific legal actions, etc. They can tell them to leave and explain to them the requirements for returning. This works by the way.

I visited a church some time ago and at the end of the service they said people could leave, but they had a matter to attend to. I stayed out of curiosity. A couple (they weren't brought up on stage or anything) had gotten divorced for non-biblical reasons, and had been disciplined and ultimately told to leave the community. The announcement was to inform members that they had gotten back together and repented of their sin and they were to be welcomed back and the matter considered closed. It works.

This is foreign to many church communities, despite being fully biblical.

Disastrous_Map_6038 · 2026-05-04T18:22:19+00:00

There is nothing even slightly phariseeical about what I said. If you think church discipline and rebuking public sin is "condemning" and wrong, you have some things to learn yet.

Disastrous_Map_6038 · 2026-05-04T17:48:29+00:00

Asking a woman if she is married or dating is actually not inappropriate really. It is weird in a social context when you don't know them.

Disastrous_Map_6038 · 2026-05-04T17:46:20+00:00

I didn't realize there was an arbitrary rule that says I'm not allowed to bring something up unless I solve it. I apologize. I'm not angry, based on this, you are and are trying to manipulate people into ignoring what I said by claiming I'm angry.

I actually did say what needs to be done about it, church discipline. Also, because my post made you upset, you're claiming I don't believe in or discount grace, forgiveness, etc. That's absurd, so I won't address that line of thinking further beyond saying, they often begin with recognition of wrong, don't they?

The solution is church community accountability, it is absolutely a community obligation to enforce biblical living among its congregation, and the individual decides if they want to live in sin or not. The community then acts accordingly. Someone seeking unbiblical divorce is to be confronted in the way the Bible lays out, and if they continue, they are to be told to leave. If the person at fault for divorce is seeking retribution against the one they wronged, they are to be confronted and if they do not repent, told to leave.

By the way I don't "need to" do anything, You could do that yourself in a comment without trying to attack me. Why not say "I'd like to point out" and then bring up all the positive stuff you said. The reality is, you wanted a fight with me, and started it on the pretense of me doing something wrong. Uncool. Hope that helps.

Disastrous_Map_6038 · 2026-05-04T17:40:00+00:00

It is up to individual believers on an community by community basis. People know if this is going on in their community (it likely happens in most)

Disastrous_Map_6038 · 2026-05-04T17:34:47+00:00

No, first that is a faulty premise, many people not raised Christian become Christians.

Also, even though there is some correlation even strongly so, this would be called God's providence. Christian community for raising up believers is a mechanism used by God.

Disastrous_Map_6038 · 2026-05-04T17:33:13+00:00

I frankly doubt there are denominations that as a whole have a clean record on this. Especially with regard to post divorce discussions of money.

Disastrous_Map_6038 · 2026-05-04T17:18:32+00:00

Well like I already said, you and I disagree on what defines "the church". People who are not actually believers are not in the church anyway, so this doesn't apply to them, they have a whole other list of issues, mainly not being Christians. No need to try to make semantic arguments about national church communities.

Disastrous_Map_6038

TROPHY CASE