Posted on 07/22/2005 8:40:23 AM PDT by Frumanchu
Sure she can.
She needs to read "How I Found Freedom In An Unfree World" by Harry Brown.
Now that she has told him that she intends to divorce him, she must do it. Things will never be the same in that marriage and the potential for violence is now extremely high.
"In any event, I don’t believe that emotional abuse constitutes grounds for divorce in either the Old or the New Testament."
If I understand what Christ taught correctly (Note: I am not a Christian), the greatest commandment is twofold; to love God with all of one's heart, mind, and strength, and to love one's neighbor as oneself.
Also, I understand that love is an action, not a feeling. One loves by engaging in behaviors that are loving.
Emotional abuse is not a loving behavior. Therefore, one who consistently engages in that behavior is not following Christ's command, and cannot rightfully claim to be a Christian.
Ping to a few saints for discussion
Bump for later.
I agree. Our obligation is always to Christ, including no divorce except for infidelity and that still grieves the Lord and you are right - nothing says she has to live there right now. Love is a decision we make and it cannot be dependent on how good someone else is treating us. As long as he is not asking her to do unscriptural things, then he should be honored as her husband, regardless of his faults.
The liberal world tries to twist the Bible to meet its sensual needs or ignores it altogether. What a heartache, if true, for this woman to be in that situation with her husband. However, both need counseling in several facets of their lives to overcome their difficulties. Her husband has the right to divorce her for infidelity, but this does not absolve him of his responsibility for creating a wretched relationship, if he did.
If she divorces from her husband, she can not scripturally marry again per what Jesus says in Matthew 19. People simply need to excercise a lot more discretion BEFORE marrying and get their spiritual lives in order BEFORE marrying. Such would go a long way toward resolving problems.
I do consider real abuse to be a form of abandonment. If abandonment is putting distance between yourself and your spouse, then abuse is forcing your spouse to a great distance.
I disagree that emotional abuse is somehow not as bad as physical abuse. Physical abuse is more immediately dangerous the physical well-being of the abused spouse, but emotional abuse absolutely cuts the heart. I don't have the stats currently at fingertip, but emotional abuse is more an indicator of an impending divorce than is physical abuse.
Emotional abuse is one partner demonstrating his/her contempt for the other. It is a deadly, poisonous environment, and unless healed, the only way to deal with it and maintain one's sanity is to put distance between the two parties.
Oh, by the way, the worst students that I have to deal with in school come from broken homes or from homes where parents have divorced and remarried sometimes more than once. Such children are frequently very difficult to deal with.
The issue of abuse, whether physical or emotional, is no doubt a difficult pastoral issue. If the abusive spouse is a non-believer, then the case to be made for abandonment would be more directly relevant as such would constitute a Biblical grounds for the divorce. In the case of a believing spouse though it would seem to be much more complex. I'm inclined to agree with the previous poster regarding separation as opposed to divorce.
I would have to disagree that abandonment and abuse are the same things (regardless of the type of abuse). Jesus did not mention any kind of abuse in regards to divorce and abuse does not always put a great distance between the two spouses (not condoning it or saying it is not a big deal, just noting from my experience working with troubled families), not any more distance than other things like irresponsible spending, disagreements over raising kids, being unequally yoked, etc.
An abuser is ipso facto an unbeliever.
May be goin' to hell for divorcing a drunk?
Darn.
Let's say that you are ordered by the court to visit me, but each time you visited you could confirm that I was not present. You would have a reasonable argument in court.
Let's say that you are ordered by the court to visit me, but each time you try to visit, I stand on the doorstep and throw large, dangerous rocks at you. In effect, you are kept away.
Do you think your inability to visit would be understood by a knowledgeable judge?
I don't understand why if the husband is a believer or not would be an issue. Our duty to God should not change based on our environment. Of course, this comes from my view that abuse is not a form of abandonment. That reeks of pop psychology, IMHO (got a useless degree in that field) :)
That is not the case here. I could think of dozens of things that could keep a person from entering a house, but she was not removed from him and he did not leave her. Getting slapped or called ugly names or told you cannot have friends over is not the same as packing up and leaving you to pay the bills, raise the kids, and be lonely. And a planned separation so that the situation my improve with prayer and guidance is also not abandonment, even though the couple is not living together.
According to Scripture, the only valid Biblical grounds for divorce is fornication.
You probably wouldn't want to come to this marriage counselor.
I do believe in separation as one step in a progression that hopefully ends in restoration. BUT, if it doesn't end in restoration, then I consider it to be abandonment by an unbeliever.
I shouldn't be so glib in my response.
A chronic abuser can be considered ipso facto to be an unbeliever.
As can a chronic adulterer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.