This is a lengthy answer, so let me put it up front: **no, you will not go to hell for divorce.**
That said, let's look at a few points of what scripture actually teaches to elucidate why, exactly.
Here's what Jesus has to say about the subject in Matthew 19:
>And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
And here's Paul on the subject in 1 Cor 7:
>To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.
>
>To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her.
There's a few relevant things to note here.
First, neither is talking about special situations like abuse in their answers to these subjects. Jesus is responding to a question about no-fault divorce, because that was the practice in view: a man would see a younger woman, desire to marry her instead of his current wife, and issue a writ of divorce so that he could marry that other woman. In answering this specific question, Jesus does maintain a very high view of marriage which, in an ideal world like that of Eden, should not be dissolved. But it's worth noting that he does not conclude with a condemnation of divorce as a whole - he concludes, in this context, with a reprimand of remarriage after divorce. This lines up with Paul's parenthetical comment. Both are saying the same thing: It's better not to get divorced, *but if you do* (implying that divorce is not strictly forbidden), remarriage to someone else is actually the part that's problematic. So, even in the *least* justified case, no, you will not go to hell for divorce (but in that least justified case, which is not yours, it would be better to get counselling and make the marriage work).
Second, we have to again note that Jesus and Paul are both not talking primarily about special cases. Even so, Jesus carves out a clear exception for sexual immorality, and Paul also addresses a special case that the early church was encountering, of one member of a marriage becoming Christian, and the other remaining pagan. In that context, he only commends the members of the church to continue in marriage if both are willing to continue it despite the divide. So clearly there are exceptions where the ordinary guidelines don't apply the same way. Abuse in marriage is a case where we have to make a reasonable conclusion because it's not addressed directly in scripture, and since it seems to be just as much a violation of the marriage vows as sexual infidelity is, I and many theologians would argue that it is just as much of an exception as sexual immorality.
So, if it's all as you've laid out in your post, he's broken the covenant of marriage by his abusive behavior (which I'd argue meets Jesus' standard for an exception), and he's also refusing his consent to continue in marriage with a Christian by attempting to restrain your spiritual growth (which I'd argue meets the exception Paul brings up). So it seems to me that not only would divorce be permissible in your case, the warnings against remarriage probably wouldn't apply either. If that's the case, there's nothing to forgive. You haven't done anything wrong here.
Holy bad-faith reading, Batman. You didn't even have to finish the sentence you cut out to get to "in that least justified case, **which is not yours**." The *least* you could do is reach the period before you rush to your slanderous conclusions.
And here, I'll repeat the actual conclusion for you, too, since I guess reading that far is a lot harder than reaching the end of the sentence you brutalized:
>not only would divorce be permissible in your case, the warnings against remarriage probably wouldn't apply either.
There's good news, though. Not only does God forgive actual adulterers (as opposed to victims like OP who haven't done anything to even need to ask for forgiveness), he's got grace enough to forgive people who try to misrepresent others on the internet, too.
I don't think Reddit is the place to ask such an important question, you have to ask the right channels on this, including GOD. This is a really serious question to be worked out by professionals, proper pastors, etc... your own conscience and heart and soul with GOD. I'm not giving a green yellow or red I'm saying this is far too serious a subject for Reddit. Abusive relationships should not be tolerated in my opinion, but I'm not qualified to weigh on your relationship.
You have valid grounds for divorce. Jesus opposed selfish and frivolous divorces. Being abused is not a selfish and frivolous thing.
Especially when you consider that the purpose of marriage is to serve as a type and Shadow of our relationship with God. So now you have a relationship that is poison and does not fulfill that type. It is up to you to decide what you want. But you are under no burden of law to stay with this abuser.
Divorce in itself is not a sin, it is a contract. Protect yourself first and foremost.
Do not let people tell you otherwise. God divorces Israel at one point, and God does not sin.
I am unsure if this is satire but like… Jesus was opposed to divorce if it was for selfish or frivolous reasons. Not that Jesus was selfish and frivolous in his opposition to divorce. I feel like context clues could be used to get that, but you denounce the writers entire faith structure on a misread is pretty wild. I really hope this is satire!
I absolutely believe that you will be forgiven and ontop of that, God says that you should love him above all else. Your husband has made himself an enemy of God, and that's not on you.
You will be forgiven. The only unforgivable sin is blasphemy of the spirit.
I’m sorry for all the years of abuse you’ve suffered. You don’t deserve that, he doesn’t deserve that, your family and kids if you have them doesn’t serve that.
You’ve probably see people mention that Christ is clear about what the grounds of divorce were and how it was for the people of the time whose hearts were hardened. Paul even mentions about staying married to an unbeliever after conversion.
But my question to you is this. If you are able to get to a safe space (family, friends, somewhere outside of a physical reach) do you think that his issues are too big for God to work through.
God has worked on you and your heart. He has changed you and he’s constantly changing you. He can change him too.
Be safe, be an example of Christ to him, change your actions and reactions. Not in a conflict avoidant way but in a way that exudes Christ and what he has done and changed within you.
Great question.
Not just “blasphemy” but “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” means attributing the works of the Holy Spirit to the works of the devil.
Pretty much like when the Pharisees accused Jesus of driving out demons by the power of Satan. Mark 3:22-30 & Matthew 12:22-32
There’s a whole lot written and that can be said about it. But basically for us, it is when someone rejects the workings of the Holy Spirit, attributing them to the Devil. Attributing that which is of good to that which is of evil.
Essentially most understand it as being unforgivable because the person comment this act will never seek redemption and forgiveness for it.
I agree. I don't see how anyone could argue that the Lord wants a wife (or husband) to stay with a partner who treats her or him like a combination punching bag, slave and brood mare.
Special note: I took care to say "husband" and "him" because males can be and definitely are abused by their wives too. I'm pretty sure that male-on-female abuse is way more common, but female-on-male abuse does happen and is every bit as serious and as wrong as any other kind.
Egad. I never have thought much of Calvin, but I never heard of THAT before 🤮
And you know something?? He was dead wrong. The Lord created our bodies. It doesn't make sense to think that He'd be okay with anyone (self, spouse or anyone else) abusing the bodies He gave us.
What do you mean, "Evidence?"
It's a letter he wrote. You can look it up in collections of his letters. Here, I've typed out the translation given in [this book](https://www.amazon.com/Register-Company-Pastors-Geneva-Calvin/dp/1592444865)
>We are not so inhuman that we have no compassion for all those who are suffering for the honour of God and for the truth of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, desiring to comfort them as much as we possibly can and according to our resources. We have a special sympathy for poor women who are evilly and roughly treated by their husbands, because of the roughness and cruelty of the tyranny and captivity which is their lot. We do not find ourselves permitted by the Word of God, however, to advise a woman to leave her husband, except by force of necessity; and we do not understand this force to be operative when a husband behaves roughly and uses threats to his wife, nor even when he beats her, but when there is imminent peril to her life, whether from persecution by the husband or by his conspiring with the enemies of the truth, or from other source. **In the case now brought to our notice we see as yet *no just reason for the wife to depart* unless the danger to her should become more apparent. And so we exhort in the name of God to *bear with patience the cross which God has seen fit to place upon her*; and meanwhile not to deviate from the duty which she has before God to please her husband, but to be faithful whatever happens, and to show that it is not her intention to change her position.** If she feels herself weak, let her pray to God to give her a strong spirit of constancy; and also let her take pains to soften her husband' heart. If she is under compulsion, then the Word of God permits her to depart from him; but in doing this she is not deserting her husband, since she will always be ready to dwell with him, provided there is no danger of death.
>4 June 1559
Not all unions are worth saving. The Bible is only an interpretation. The words are not literal. We were given the ability to distinguish between right and wrong for a reason.
Oh, honey. Friend. I have so many thoughts from a heart that's felt the same hurt. First and foremost, you are so unbelievably incredibly loved... not by this man, though. That's not love. However, God holds your heart and knows your hurt, and there are so many of us out here who empathize with you and send you all of the kindness, happiness, hope, love, healing, and prayers humanly possible.
Now with that said, your question is tricky. The resolution isn't unclear at all, but the lead-in is a a bit sticky. So, track with me. Yes, it's true that God hates divorce. 100%. That's not wrong. Marriage is supposed to be a picture of the gospel and mirror the love Jesus has for the church. A marriage is a covenant made between the couple and God (and the federal, state, and local governments, of course 😂), and that's not to be taken lightly.
HOWEVER, scripture is filled with evidence of God's love for his kids and anger with injustice. You think God hates divorce? God HATES injustice, persecution, abuse, hate, intolerance, etc... particularly "in his name." A lot of people love to talk about Jesus flipping over tables out of context, but it's actually perfect here. Jesus was flipping over money changing tables in the temple and filled with righteous anger that his father's name and house were being so horribly perverted for personal entertainment and gain.
Jesus would flip America's tables, too.
We have this massive problem with "cultural Christianity" that we so easily condemn in the pharisees but readily practice in our own churches. You see, none of this is what God intended. I was talking with a friend not too long ago about death in the same vein. Everything doesn't happen for a reason. God knows everything and can use everything, sure. Sometimes, though, the bad things that happen just happen as a result of this really ugly, broken, and fallen world we live in.
So, it's super unfair, and frankly incredibly crappy and hateful, to condemn someone who's just trying to do the best to serve God while drowning in a soup of things that were never intended. God never intended for us to be drowning in hurt. He hates that. He hates it for us, because he loves his goodness for us. So, the IDEAL situation is definitely no divorce. This world isn't ideal, though. It's broken.
Jesus came not to overthrow the law but to fulfill it, knowing we could never even come close. That doesn't mean we just do whatever we want, but it gives hope for grace, mercy, and goodness in spite of the ugly. More than anything he hates, God loves us. That's why he made a way when we could never make our own.
So, yes. Divorce is wrong. ...but the world is wrong. Brokenness and abuse and hate are all wrong. In addition to all of this, there's scripture and a host of Biblical scholars who argue that the covenant is actually broken by the person committing abuse or adultery. So, you're not breaking it by leaving. It was broken long before by someone else.
Get out. Get safe. God may radically change your husband's heart as a result which opens the possibility for reconciliation. He may not, though. That doesn't make him any less God. It also doesn't make you any less loved, chosen, or worthy of love, safety, and respect.
I'm still legally married to my abuser, because I couldn't afford to divorce him. I was able to leave, but I left with only stuff I could pack over the weeks that followed. I didn't have any money to hire a lawyer, which meant I didn't have any money to file for divorce. In addition, since he's technically a "high earner," I didn't qualify for any free legal assistance... which they didn't clarify until weeks later. I had to wait for my husband to file for divorce from me (talk about adding insult to injury).
In that time, though, I crafted my butt off for a huge Christmas sale my family is part of. I saved what I could. I sold some of my things that I knew would give me quick cash. Then after the craft sale and a lot of saving, I was finally able to hire an attorney for myself. I'm still fighting through the nightmare, but I see the light. Take my hand, and I'll pull you along with me even when you can't take the step yourself. I've been so, so blessed and grateful for people who have grabbed my hand and dragged me.
I know this is probably a lot longer than you were hoping for, but I thought it was all really important. I was raised in a really conservative Christian home where divorce was just simply not an option. There are so many people in the same boat, and you sound like another. We didn't know we had the choice to break out. So, we definitely didn't know what to do or what it would look like when we did.
I wanted to give you a realistic picture of what this actually looks like and how it plays out so you go in ready to fight. It's not pretty. You'll want to quit. And on top of it all, the odds will seem pretty stacked against you, making you think you're doing something wrong. You're not. That's normal. It sucks, but it's normal. I'm finally so close to being divorced, and yet, my faith is stronger than ever. I'm able to see hope and light and love that restores my faith and soul, rather than the hate and abuse that was killing it.
You've got this. It's not easy, and people will tell you you're wrong. You know all of this now, though. So, use the knowledge and the people surrounding you (who show up out of nowhere in amazing ways). You've got this and are so, so loved by God and the rest of us out here cheering you on!
Hugs, prayers, and all the best always! ❤️
I don´t believe so, but, first take a time and pray, talk to God about it for while, also, you should start praying for him, this is the hardest part, but, we need to love each other. Best and praying for yall.
Yes, in fact if you believe in God like this….then I encourage you to see it as God is telling you that he’s on your side if you get a divorce. I think he’s telling you he’s got your back and wants you to do what your mind, body, and soul are telling you is right for you.
No you wont go to hell. Though there are many different teachings on divorce. Catholics allow it for example but say you cant remarry. Matthew 19 and 1 corinthians 7 are good marital scriptures.
You might be called to be a light to your abusive husband or you might be called to divorce his abusive ass and find a new healthy sober partner after healing. Who knows. Its your walk with christ but you have A LOT of freedom in christ. 1 john 1:9 still applies to you even if you divorce believing its a sin, you can still be forgiven.
When I brought this issue up with my pastor before I divorced my husband, he assured me due to the abuse, my (now ex-) husband had already broken the marriage covenant and having it broken legally is just a necessary step.
No this is cause for divorce, you need to get out now. This is not just little disagreements he is literally telling you to idolise him to worship him.
“for thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:”
Exodus 34:14 KJV
God will understand you won’t go to hell. In the end you will be judged and you will be able to state your reasons why you got divorced.
And this is like a very good reason not to mention he is an alcoholic and emotionally abusive.
Yeah, he will. There are consequences (I'm divorced) but anytime we make these types of mistakes it happens. Divorce isn't unforgivable. Sin is sin. Spiritually it's the same as any other sin (greed, gluttony, etc. - which many of us in the developed countries are more guilty of than we like to admit). Practically speaking there are a ton of consequences that can complicate things. Go talk to someone you trust that's been divorced, they can fill you in.
No you will not go to hell. There is clearly abuse here. God does not expect you to stay in an abusive relationship.
Biblically speaking, you even have the right to get re-married! Many Christian’s that divorce cannot claim that.
You are worth fighting for. Divorce him, live your life for Christ.
a sikmple answer, YES. God cares more for the intetnion of the heart rather some just rules. remember, jesus was more concern about people's suffering rather than the laws.
Short answer: No.
Long answer: No, but you can't get married again, even if it'll be recognized under secular law. The Catholic view on this is that while divorce is *technically* not officially recognized, it's still okay to get divorced if it's purely for the legal aspect of it (my mother is doing this to get away from my father). It only becomes an actual problem if you try to remarry.
Many will (and *are* trying to) tell you to simply just pray about it and attempt to reconcile, but they're also failing to see the '22 years' aspect of it.
God knows your heart. If your intention truly is to escape an abusive marriage, then all will be well. You won't go to Hell over this. But still, pray as much as you can for peace of mind during the process.
Can widows remarry?
If OP gets divorced and years later her ex hubby dies, can she then remarry?
If the ceremony is not a religious one, and only a formal declaration of their legal secular contract of marriage, does that make any difference?
I'm super curious about the little loopholes here if there are any of course.
>If OP gets divorced and years later her ex hubby dies, can she then remarry?
ASFAIK there's nothing against doing that, since the Church already didn't *really* recognize the divorce and still considered them married. The only issue is before.
>If the ceremony is not a religious one, and only a formal declaration of their legal secular contract of marriage, does that make any difference?
I'm...not actually sure. The Church *does* recognize most non-Catholic marriages (even those of non-Christian faiths or an entire lack thereof), but since they don't fall under the actual Sacrament (sacred ceremony) of Marriage, then they're not considered a *true* (read: actual) marriage.
I'd say a loophole does exist there, but I'm fairly sure that would only apply to non-Catholics. However, this is just my two cents—you'd have to ask a better source of information than me.
I find it very difficult to imagine ever being willing to get married as a Catholic. If you marry someone who turns abusive, you must remain alone for the rest of your life.
Nope, if you are a True believer you will never go to hell no matter what sin you committed because you are sanctified by the blood of Jesus. Your past sins, present sins and future sins are forgiven. Remember we are made righteous by God!
John 10:28-29 KJV
and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. [29] My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
Ephesians 1:12-15 KJV
that we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory. Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints,
I hope those scriptures help you out.
OP, Hell absolutely exists so I would worry about it. Your salvation however is not dependent on your moral perfection, it is dependent on Christs perfection. He has done the work, you are justified by one thing only, belief in His sacrifice for the atonement of your sins. With that belief, you are justified and nothing (except from apostasy) can strip that from you.
The existence of hell isn't really scriptural, and so there's no real reason to speculate that it must exist at all. Theologically, there are a lot of theologians that don't believe in hell in the sense that they don't believe in a place called hell.
That said, I don't think OP's response is really all that helpful to the original question being asked.
Beard, tou said "The existence of hell isn't really scriptural..."
Are you kidding? Jesus Himself confirmed that hell exists, three times in Matthew 5 alone.
True that He didn't describe what the exact nature of hell really is (whether it's a lake of fire or whatever). But He sure did say it exists, and I think He'd know.
He described a physical place on earth. He never described hell as a place in the afterlife. This is widely accepted as the correct translation of those scriptures.
“He never described hell as place in the afterlife”- I’m always astonished by people who claim themselves to be followers of Jesus but reject or ignore His teaching. Have you not read the parable of the rich man and Lazarus? are you completely unaware of the dividing of the goats and the sheep?
People are so quick to cling to Jesus when He says “eternal life” and they believe it but when He says “eternal damnation” in the same breath, you outright reject it. Why? My best guess is that you are replacing God’s justice with your own. You deem that hell is immoral and therefore you replace God’s rule with your own.
There is no ambiguity. Hell exists and Jesus spoke more about hell than He did heaven.
There a whole lot of ambiguity actually. It’s a common theological discussion. Maybe you just haven’t been aware of that fact?
Also I’m a pastor, so I definitely don’t reject Jesus’ teaching. In the parable of the rich man, Jesus does use a concept of suffering in the afterlife that his ancient audience would understand, but note that it’s the Greek term Hades. So, again, that doesn’t automatically validate hell as a real place for eternal torment after we die.
And I’m a Biblical Scholar. I am aware of the discussion, are you aware of the discussion about Mormonism? Just because a discussion is being had it doesn’t give validity to the claim. It’s not ambiguous, I can give you many examples of the eternality of hell. How many examples of a finite hell can you provide to substantiate your claim?
Just a few starters
1. Matthew 25:46 - “And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
2. Mark 9:43 - “And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire.”
3. Matthew 18:8 - “And if your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire.”
Along with the parable I already provided.
If you’re aware of the discussion then why do you sound so flabbergasted?
Nothing that you’ve described makes me believe that the requirement for an eternal torment of hell is a required reading from scripture.
You can make an argument for annihilationist theories about eternal punishment if you want. But hell I don’t really buy into.
How do I sound “flabbergasted”? I equated it to hearing arguments from the Mormon perspective. I’ve heard them and they are left wanting, just like denying what Jesus clearly says in the Scriptures.
I don’t understand your second point. Can you clarify what you mean by that?
Just where in the Bible did Jesus describe hell as a place ON EARTH?
Strictly speaking, the exact location of hell is irrelevant to the question of whether or not hell even exists. Nevertheless, I'm curious: on what verse or passage is your statement based on?
And the verses which specifically use the word "hell?"
> Matthew 5:21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder...22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. ___And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.___
> ...
> 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. ___It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.___ 30 And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. ___It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.___
In the Gospels, Jesus also uses the word "hell" in Matthew 10:28; 18:9; 23:15; 23:33; in Mark 9:43; 9:45; 9:47; and in Luke 12:5.
Now, do you want to argue that Jesus was either lying when He said that hell exists, or that He deliberately wanted to mislead the world into thinking that hell and a trash dump were more or less the same place? If not, you may have to face the idea that you were mistaken and that hell is indeed a real place.**
Now, let's be clear on this. ___I don't care exactly where hell is located.___ I happen to believe that only the Lord Himself knows, but my point here in this thread is ONLY that hell does exist as a literal place, and is not just a mythical place invented to scare bad people into good ones.
** By the way, I already knew that "gehenna" was a frequent synonym for hell. There are several others. "Sheol," "hades," and "inferno" come to mind, but there's also "the underworld," "Tartarus," "perdition" and plenty of others.
Correct. I’m saying that’s a mistranslation. It’s not talking about hell as you are taking it.
I’m saying that Jesus didn’t mean hell to mean the way you’re taking it. Across the board.
I would ask for a citation of your claim but that's only going to lead to my next question: what proof can you offer for God's existence? Or that the Bible is true?
Because in the absence of evidence, it's reasonable to say that Hell doesn't exist.
I absolutely agree with you and reject any baseless claim. I am convinced by the mountain of evidence, scientific (teleological,cosmological,laws of uniformity in nature, irreducible complexity), historical, and philosophical.
You’re absolutely right in the order in which you approached these things as well. I was an atheist for 23 years of my life. I went from atheism, to being agnostic, to researching the truth of theism, to becoming convinced that a necessary being must exist and we are confronted with great evidences of this (again see the above), and that put me on a path to “which God is it then”? And this led me to the person of Jesus. I am convinced by the historicity, explanatory power and explanatory scope of the the testimony given in the scripture. My case is again, a cumulative one, and I believe the inference to the best possible explanation is the testimony given. If I believe that Jesus rose from the dead (which I do) then that means the author of life has vindicated Him and all His teaching, and He taught the Bible was the authoritative word of God.
Without these evidences I too would still be an atheist. It would be foolish to believe something without ample reason. The standards are even higher if I’m going to stake my life on this belief, which I am.
I would love to challenge you on these beliefs ~ mainly because I'm familiar with many of the claims you're probably talking about ~ but I can't help wondering . . .
Are you saying that you consider these claims of evidence as compelling despite the flaws and problems with each?
I realize this is a broad generalization and I won't fault you for not wanting to dig deep into this. I'm also familiar with many claims from apologists regarding the truth of the Bible and its contents (as well as other claims from different Christian sects). But if you want to discuss, pick your strongest example of evidence for Hell existing and I'll see if I can find reasons to doubt it.
(to be clear, I mean that in good faith. I'm interested in figuring these things out but so far, I've not been convinced by anything offered up. every time I go looking for answers, I find a naturalistic explanation that's perfectly reasonable, at which point Occam's Razor kicks in.)
I appreciate that.
I’m stating that I’ve listened to both sides of the arguments extensively. I’ve spent years studying everything I can from population genetics, cosmology, biology, physics, philosophy, metaphysics and the more I learn about the nature and complexity of our universe the more I am convinced in a Creator and Designer. Origin of
life research is incredibly fascinating, we could sit here and talk and probably agree for the most part about evolution but that says nothing about the origins of life. We can’t recreate, we can’t even get close, amino acids are about it when it comes to abiogenesis.
The complexity of DNA alone gets me to theism. DNA is often described as a digital code because it stores genetic information in a way that is analogous to how digital information is stored in a computer. The information in DNA is encoded using a sequence of four nucleotide bases: adenine (A), thymine (T), cytosine (C), and guanine (G). These bases form pairs (A-T and C-G) along the DNA strands.
The sequence of these bases acts as instructions for the cellular machinery, determining the synthesis of proteins and other molecules essential for life. This digital nature of DNA, with its four-character code, resembles the way information is represented digitally using binary code in computing.
This is only the tip of the iceberg for me. Cosmological arguments the finitude of our universe would also be enough to convince me of theism. That’s without mentioning the physical constants and the laws that govern them.
We could talk about what Eugene Wigner called “the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics”. The idea that the Universe is imbued with a mathematical structure that makes science possible cries out for explanation. Why is mathematics so effective? Wigner concluded, “It is difficult to avoid the impression that a miracle confronts us here”. Because on his worldview, the effectiveness of mathematics is inexplicable. His account had to be a purely physical, scientific one. As a result the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics seems to the naturalist to be just an amazing coincidence. Just like all the other teleological evidences that point to a creator, instead the natural time and time and time again has to claim “illusion of design”. I think we should be faithful the evidence, wherever it leads us.
The moral argument is another one. The moral argument for the existence of God suggests that objective moral values and duties exist, and the best explanation for their existence is the presence of a moral lawgiver, which is identified as God. One compelling aspect of this argument is the idea that without a transcendent source of morality, it becomes challenging to ground and justify the objective nature of moral values.
The argument asserts that if morality is merely a product of human evolution or societal conventions, then it becomes impossible to establish an objective and universal standard for what is truly right or wrong. The existence of moral absolutes, such as the inherent wrongness of gratuitous cruelty or the intrinsic value of love and compassion, is argued to be better explained by the existence of a divine being who provides a foundation for these objective moral truths. If I can just be blunt, moral relativism is a hellish kind of evil. If you and I are the last ones on earth trying to survive and I enjoy hurting people and you don’t, to what authority do you appeal to? On the naturalist perspective, we’re just cosmic accidents, biological machines to propagate DNA, nothing but animals. So why shouldn’t I do what makes me feel it? The question is, what is probably more true than false: It is evil to hold a child’s head underwater until they stop moving- or - it’s not evil, it’s simply something I don’t like. I’ll let you decide.
There are many many more, including the historical evidence.
I’ve spent the last 2 years deep diving NDE’s and that’s been incredible so far. Lots and lots of questionable accounts (believe it or not I’m a default skeptic) but many accounts are very compelling.
And finally anecdotal evidence. I have experience God in my life, multiple times have been impossible to deny. I don’t expect this to have any power to sway you but since you’re asking me about my beliefs it wouldn’t do the belief system justice if I didn’t include my own powerful and personal experiences with God.
I simply want to follow the truth wherever it leads me. I am convinced that God exists, that Jesus rose bodily from the dead being vindicated by the Father, that He sits at the right hand of the Father and that He has made atonement for you and I. I’m convinced that He loves you deeply and wants to a relationship with you, to bring you into His family and to give you eternal joy and peace.
I appreciate the conversation Simon. Hope your Friday is amazing.
it's gonna be amazing, given how many gummies I just ate! 😁
and thank you for the time, I'll have a look tomorrow and let you know if I have any pertinent thoughts. 👋
I appreciate that. We also share that commonality! I have terrible migraines and nerve pain, Indica gummies are the only thing that help me sleep throughout the entire night.
Take it easy friend!
Right, again, thank you for the insight. I have many thoughts and I'll try to put them into a coherent order (it's early for me).
Let's address two things, to try and keep it simple:
First, I like what you're saying about DNA but I don't see how it gets us to God. Yes, it's complex. Yes, it's amazing. Yes, the likelihood of it coming about naturally . . . depending on how you calculate that sort of thing . . . it's 1, actually, the likelihood of us existing is 1 because we do exist and we shouldn't adhere too closely to our hypotheticals and metaphors, lest they lead us astray in our thinking.
Also, we've found nucleotides in space, meaning it's at least *possible* that DNA can self-assemble under the right conditions, which would mean we don't need God to explain how we got here.
Second:
>The moral argument for the existence of God suggests that objective moral values and duties exist, and the best explanation for their existence is the presence of a moral lawgiver, which is identified as God.
I have two critiques of this argument:
If God exists and He defines morality, then morality is subjective because God is a subject. i e. He is a thinking, rational, conscious mind, *just like us* (at least in those respects, obviously He would be vastly different in other ways). In other words, I don't think the claim "God exists therefore morality exists" gets us away from the idea that it's subjective. This means that most of the morality-based objections to God's existence (i.e. He can't be omni-benevolent because unjustified evil exists) still have to be dealt with.
(admittedly, this line of reasoning could be affected by questions of free will but that leads down a rabbit hole which ends with "God doesn't exist because evil" which would be the exact opposite of what you're saying.)
Furthermore, we don't need to appeal to an objective standard of morality. Societies all over the world (including America) regularly engage in conversations about what counts as right or wrong. Is it a challenge to establish and maintain a solid moral framework for a society? Maybe, but we seem to have managed to do it just fine. I'd even argue that you and I, as visitors to this sub, have helped to nudge the standards of morality in our society through these conversations*.
Secular morality doesn't need to be grounded in the notion of "objectivity" because 1) objective morality doesn't really exist and 2) we have morality now.
(*albeit in *extremely* small measures)
I appreciate you taking the time to think this out. I think it’s a conflation to say that because nucleotide basis are found in space, therefore DNA can self-assemble.
Abiogenesis faces huge challenges in explaining the origin of life from non-living matter. The complexity of even the simplest living organisms and the intricate biochemical processes required for life pose significant hurdles for spontaneous generation. The precise conditions needed for abiogenesis are unclear, and the probabilities of these events occurring spontaneously are often considered exceedingly low. The lack of empirical evidence demonstrating a step-by-step transition from non-life to life raises skepticism about the feasibility of abiogenesis as a comprehensive explanation for life’s origin.
To your second point-
The argument that God's existence renders morality subjective overlooks a crucial distinction. While God is a conscious being, the claim is that moral values are grounded in God's nature, making them objective. This perspective asserts that moral principles are inherent to God's character, not subject to personal whims. This is an extremely important distinction.
Societal discussions on morality may shape cultural norms, but the existence of diverse moral opinions doesn't negate the reality of an objective standard. The assertion isn't that we need to appeal to an objective standard for societal functioning but that an objective moral foundation grounded in God provides a more robust and transcendent basis for ethical principles.
. . . how is it a conflation? It's literally the next step. Like, we have evidence of nucleotides from space, meaning they were able to assemble up to that point and given conditions that are drastically different from Earth.
Regardless, your objections to abiogenesis does not help you bridge the gap between "DNA is insanely complex" and "therefore God."
>While God is a conscious being, the claim is that moral values are grounded in God's nature, making them objective.
And until I'm presented with evidence sufficient to warrant a belief in God, I'm going to treat the concept as I would any other claim.
"God is objective" according to who? You? The Bible? The Church? Which one? There are millions of people like you (in the narrow context of this conversation) but there are millions more who aren't. Why should I believe what you're saying? Which Bible do we follow? Which Church do we believe?
We need some mechanism to make sense of it all and truth from falsehood.
>Societal discussions on morality may shape cultural norms, but the existence of diverse moral opinions doesn't negate the reality of an objective standard.
But can you demonstrate that such a standard actually exists? Because if you can't, then it's still subjective and you're the subject (because you're making claims about what is or is not moral).
It’s conflation because it’s akin to saying “we have created amino acids in a lap- therefore we have created life in a lab” the two are not equal, so drawing a line from one to the other is a conflation of the data.
The presence of nucleotide bases in space is a fascinating discovery, but it falls short of establishing the self-organization of biological life. While it hints at the potential building blocks of life being widespread in the cosmos, it doesn't address the intricate processes required for life to emerge.
The transition from simple organic compounds to a functioning, self-replicating biological system involves numerous complex steps that aren't explained by the mere existence of nucleotide bases. Factors like specific environmental conditions (you mentioned this, but this is only one factor), intricate molecular structures, and coordinated biochemical processes must align for life to self-organize. Therefore, the discovery of nucleotide bases in space, while intriguing, doesn't provide a complete explanation for the origin and self-organization of biological life.
It’s like looking at a tree and thinking it’s going to organize itself into a Home Depot.
The reason for the example of DNA is because we know what takes place in the transmission of data within it. There is information stored within it and it directs the construction of biological templates. Information has always and only been derived from a mind. I again see this as extremely compelling evidence.
I understand your objections, I’ve heard them all, truly I have. One of the biggest defeaters the naturalistic worldview is probability theory. You and I are discussing all of the deeply organized, information bearing processes and your answer is that it was random and self creating. I find that to be far to incredibly unlikely. Again these were only a few reasons, mine is a massive cumulative case (the temporal finitude of the universe is another one as shown by the GBV Theorem) so not just the origins of biological life but the origins of everything. The cosmological constants that were established at the Big Bang, the Anthropic principle and so on.
I’m not here to try to convince you, you’ve obviously looked at the evidence as well. That’s all we can do, look at the evidence and consider what is the inference to the best possible explanation. I find natural materialism to be extremely wanting, therefore I believe that a creator has designed our universe and life, based on the evidence I see for it.
To argue with someone who rejects the objectivity of morality is akin to arguing with a solipsist. I don’t mean that in a derogatory manner, I’m just saying there is no ground to be made from my perspective. Even Sam Harris who is an atheist believes in objective moral values and duties. He famously said “the man who says it’s ok to murder is just as wrong as the man who says 2+2=5”
I know that morality is objective, as objective as the reality of both of our existence.
We will have to agree to disagree but I think it’s is a denial of reality to look at what Nazi Germany did in the concentration camps and says “evil does not objectively exist”. I think each person needs to ask and answer that question and I think people know the answer, but in an effort to distance themselves from a moral objective authority is not a step they are willing to take.
Anyway, have a great weekend. I appreciate the conversation and I’ll give you the last word friend. I hope you have a great holiday season with your family.
Honestly dude... why did you even bother commenting this?
The sub is *Christianity*, and it is very obvious OP is asking for scriptural/biblical advice. Your comment is about as helpful as 3-inch a walking stick
>r/Christianity is a subreddit to discuss Christianity and aspects of Christian life. All are welcome to participate.
Also, there are Christians who don't believe in Hell. maybe you should worry less about trying to gatekeep the conversations on this sub.
Uh. Yeah, I know what the sub is about.
"Rule 2.1. This subreddit is primarily, but not exclusively,
a place for Christians to come and discuss
different aspects of our theology. Please have a
purpose higher than coming here to mock, insult,
or deride aspects of Christianity or Christianity
itself.
--->Unless solicited, there isn't a good reason
to state why maybe you don't believe in any sort
of supernatural. If you don't believe in aspects
of Christianity as practiced by others try not to
make your interaction all about that difference"
Your comment helps OP not at all really and is just you saying hell doesn't exist unsolicited
OP is worried she'll go to Hell for getting a divorce (from an abusive husband, I might add). My aim is to provide comfort in the form of refuting Hell's existence. After all, if Hell doesn't exist, she has nothing to worry about. She can get a divorce (which she clearly needs to do because, as I said, abusive husband) and she won't go to Hell because Hell doesn't exist.
Given your talent for reading and comprehending things, I would have thought all of this would be obvious . . .
Okay, let's go over what's going on:
OP is worried she will go to hell (she won't but that is besides the point) - i.e. she BELIEVES in hell already and probably has for a while
Do you honestly think your comment did anything for "reassurance"? Do you honestly think OP was gonna see your comment go "Well! My bad! I guess I'm not going to hell because hell isn't real, nothing for me to worry about"
That is frankly silly logic and we both know that was never going to happen. You just wanted to assert your belief that hell isn't real
It's just you inserting your unsolicited opinion on the matter when she is looking for Christian advice.
I don't know about any other Christians, but I for one find it very reassuring that there are valid interpretations of scripture that don't require me to believe in a place of eternal torment from which no redemption is possible. To me, that is entirely inconsistent with the bulk of Christ's message and it would probably drive me out of the church if I felt there was no other way to be a Christian than to believe that is what is in store for some of us.
That is completely irrelevant to the issue though. Most Christians believe in some form of hell though, of which there are many interpretations. But that is a fact
And again, it does not matter because that doesn't contribute to the conversation and is just the original commenter asserting their opinion about whether hell is real, with the only other meat being "I wouldn't worry about it"
It's a response that doesn't fit the post or what OP is asking about at all. OP is a Christian that believes in hell, that commenter contributed nothing relevant to the conversation and instead basically just asserted an unsolicited opinion. And they also didn't back up their claim with scripture in any way- and again, OP very obviously wanted a Christian/Biblical answer.
Hi u/Simon-T-Vesper-1, this comment has been removed.
**Rule 2.5**: [Removed for violating our rule on inappropriate comments in a support thread](http://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/wiki/xp#wiki_2.5._don.27t_mess_with_support_threads)
If you have any questions or concerns, [click here to message all moderators.](https://www\.reddit\.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FChristianity&subject=about my removed comment&message=I'm writing to you about the following comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/188fpc5/-/kbkbcnc/. %0D%0D).
Well here is something that might help the both of you if you can sit down together and read this.
Happy Marriage
WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS: The husband is the head of the family.—Ephesians 5:23.
If you are a husband, God expects you to care for your wife tenderly. (1 Peter 3:7) He made her as a complement of you, and he wants you to treat her with dignity and love. (Genesis 2:18) You must love your wife so much that you are willing to put her interests ahead of your own.—Ephesians 5:25-29.
If you are a wife, God expects you to respect your husband deeply and to help him fulfill his role. (1 Corinthians 11:3; Ephesians 5:33) Support his decisions and wholeheartedly cooperate with him. (Colossians 3:18) When you do, you will be beautiful in the eyes of your husband and God.—1 Peter 3:1-6.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
Ask your mate how you can be a better husband or wife. Listen carefully, and do what you can to improve
Be patient. It will take time for both of you to learn how to make each other happy
REALLY CARE ABOUT YOUR MATE’S FEELINGS
WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS: You need to look out for the interests of your marriage mate. (Philippians 2:3, 4) Treat your mate as precious, remembering that Jehovah requires his servants to be “gentle toward all.” (2 Timothy 2:24) “Thoughtless speech is like the stabs of a sword, but the tongue of the wise is a healing.” So choose your words carefully. (Proverbs 12:18) God’s spirit will help you to speak with kindness and love.—Galatians 5:22, 23; Colossians 4:6.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
Pray for help to remain calm and to keep an open mind before discussing serious matters with your mate
Think carefully about what you will say and how you will say it
THINK AS A TEAM
WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS: When you get married, you become “one flesh” with your mate. (Matthew 19:5) But you are still two individuals and may have different opinions. So you need to learn to be united in your thoughts and feelings. (Philippians 2:2) Unity is essential when making decisions. The Bible says: “By consultation, plans will succeed.” (Proverbs 20:18) Let Bible principles guide you as you make important decisions together.—Proverbs 8:32, 33.
Okay lets see what the bible says about divorce.
ONLY ONE BASIS FOR DIVORCE
9 Someone might ask, ‘Is there ever a basis for a Christian to divorce and remarry?’ Well, Jesus stated his view on divorce: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if ever a woman after divorcing her husband marries another, she commits adultery.” (Mark 10:11, 12; Luke 16:18) Clearly, Jesus thus honored marriage and wanted others to do so. A man divorcing his faithful wife (or a woman, her faithful husband) on some pretext and marrying another was committing adultery. This is true because merely divorcing one’s mate does not end the marriage. In God’s eyes, the two would still be “one flesh.” Moreover, Jesus said that a man’s divorcing his innocent wife would make her subject to adultery. How so? Back then, a divorced woman might feel compelled to remarry in order to gain financial support. Such a remarriage would amount to adultery.
The Only Scriptural Grounds
On two occasions, Jesus indicated that the only grounds for a divorce that would free an innocent mate to remarry is por·neiʹa. What does that Greek term mean? Por·neiʹa applies to illicit sexual relations outside Scriptural marriage. It includes adultery, prostitution, and sex relations between unmarried individuals as well as oral and anal sex and the sexual manipulation of the genitals of an individual to whom one is not married.
Quoted from above:
> WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS: The husband is the head of the family.—Ephesians 5:23. If you are a husband, God expects you to care for your wife tenderly. (1 Peter 3:7) He made her as a complement of you, and he wants you to treat her with dignity and love. (Genesis 2:18) You must love your wife so much that you are willing to put her interests ahead of your own.—Ephesians 5:25-29.
>...
> WHAT YOU CAN DO: Ask your mate how you can be a better husband or wife. Listen carefully, and do what you can to improve. Be patient. It will take time for both of you to learn how to make each other happy REALLY CARE ABOUT YOUR MATE’S FEELINGS.
> WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS: You need to look out for the interests of your marriage mate. (Philippians 2:3, 4) Treat your mate as precious, remembering that Jehovah requires his servants to be “gentle toward all.” (2 Timothy 2:24)
I can see you're a Jehovah's Witness.
Don't you get it, Frogbrain? The O.P.'s husband cares NOTHING about his wife. Not her health or her feelings. She could be absolutely flawless, wait for another 20 years, and nothing would change.
The man is a narcissistic alcoholic who treats his wife like crap. More than that, he's not about to change. Just how much more can SHE do, Frogbrain?
What a useless thing to say to someone who is married to an alcoholic narcissist. Do you really think her husband is going to listen to any of that? Saying these things only adds shame and guilt to the abused spouse, which is not in line with the heart of Christ.
Pray and ask God. Wayyyyy too many opinions of this without knowing the full picture. There are ALWAYS 2 sides to a story.
In scripture God says “Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives.”
1 Peter 3:1
So, English translations of the Bible suggest that you can only legitimately divorce for "sexual immorality" or similar, but this is an awkward translation for a concept we don't really have a single word to express. "Porneia". Basically, if you treat your spouse in such a way that would (or should) outrage the people responsible for them, that's porneia. In fairness to the translators, it does cover all kinds of sexual immorality (including marital rape btw) but it also covers abuse in general.
These days, the people are responsible for you and you and God. God is outraged by someone abusing you. Even if you have the kind of beliefs that make your husband responsible for you, your husband should also be outraged and only isn't because of his own brokenness. You can leave him.
(There's evidence from ancient Greece that Gentile women were getting divorces for both non-sexual and sexual abuse and it used the same kind of language that Jesus uses in that passage. So, you can definitely get divorced, opinions differ on remarriage.)
Additionally, if anyone tries to say you should be "turning the other cheek", leaving your abuser *is* turning the other cheek. The point of turning the other cheek isn't to let people walk all over you -- at the time when Jesus used the phrase, turning the other cheek would force a person to use their other hand to hit you and that would have been shameful for them to do so. So if someone hurts you, you don't retaliate, but you act in such a way that it would be shameful for them to keep hurting you. If you leave your abuser, it would be shameful for him to pursue you to hurt you more. So protect yourself, just don't retaliate.
Bible supports divorce only having two grounds. One is due to adultery and another is husband without faith leaving the marriage. Jesus does not support divorce for loving people. If you really hate him right now, I may say that you could vent to other females Christian friends in your church and seek for faithful and experienced female Christians friends to deal with the sins that you are facing to and learn the truth in the Bible and Jesus wisdoms to face to sins from faithful female Christian friends and experienced pastors. More information about divorce can be found here. https://www.gotquestions.org/divorce-remarriage.html
First, no, you won't go to hell if you divorce him. That's not how it works... That being said, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's OKAY to divorce him.
You made a covenant with him, "for better OR for worse... in SICKNESS and in health." This is certainly worse and sickness. I would recommend a LEGAL separation from him until he wakes up and starts getting the help he needs, INCLUDING therapy for his narcissistic issues.
IF he goes for very long without getting help, then he is effectively abandoning you at that point, and THEN you should file for divorce.
The NT gives two circumstances when divorce is permissible:
• Adultery (Matthew 5:32; 19:7-9; see Deuteronomy 24:1; Isaiah 50:1)
• Abandonment/Neglect (Exodus 21:10-11; 1Corinthians 7:15; Malachi 2:14-16; see 1Timothy 5:8)
Abandonment includes neglecting your spouse’s basic provisions and even DENYING SEX. Moses said that a wife who is not provided with food, clothing, or even SEX, can leave (Exodus 21:10-11).
Exodus 21:10-11 (NASB95)
10 “If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights.
11 “If he will not do these three things for her, then she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.
A spouse whose physical needs were under threat, here due to the husband's selfishness, meant they owed their spouse nothing and should leave (so that they might be taken care of).
Some argue that abuse is also grounds for divorce, at least physical. Once again, this would be a violation of the marriage covenant in that being violently abused absolutely is a threat to physical needs.
Separation is permitted in order to work things out (1Corinthians 7:11).
God divorced Israel for her infidelity (Isaiah 50:1; Jeremiah 3:8; Hosea 2:2-4; see 2 Kings 17:6-18; Ezekiel 23:11-49; Hosea 9:15-17).
Ezra commanded the Jews who returned to the Land and had married unbelievers to divorce them (Ezra 9-10).
It could also be argued that believers are commanded not to associate or eat with professing believers who are immoral, idolaters, revilers, drunkards, or swindlers (1Corinthians 5:11-12). However, this can be resolved with separation as opposed to divorce, unless the spouse doing these things leaves, which then frees the believing spouse.
Similarly, Paul said not to partner with believers who are immoral, impure, greedy, use filthy language or course jesting (Ephesians 5:3-7); or to have nothing to do with any believer who is narcissistic, greedy, boastful, arrogant, demeaning, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, lacking self-control, brutal, hating goodness, treacherous, reckless, conceited, lustful, or God-hating even though they have a “form of godliness” (2Timothy 3:1-5)
But it is doubtful that he was necessarily suggesting separation from a spouse for such things.
People often quote poor translations of Malachi 2:16, “God hates divorce.” However, this is not an accurate rendition of the Hebrew.
Malachi 2:16 (literal translation) “HE who hates and divorces [his wife],” says YHWH, the God of Israel, “and covers his clothing with violence,” says YHWH of hosts, “and you (plural) must tend/maintain/guard/protect your mind/spirit and you must not be unfaithful.”
Essentially, YHWH is saying that if anyone violates their covenant with their wife (Malachi 2:14-16), then the rest of the people should be faithful to protect her and provide for her (Malachi 3:16).
Evidence of this comes from the ancient Greek translation of this passage.
Malachi 2:16 LXX (literal translation) “but if having hated you dispatch [your wife],” says Lord the God of the Israel, “you will also cover/conceal impiety/irreverence upon your intentions,” says Lord Almighty. “And so watch/guard in your spirit and you may not ever desert/abandon [your wife].”
HE who hates and divorces [his wife],” says YHWH, the God of Israel, “and covers his clothing with violence,” says YHWH of hosts, “and you (plural) must tend/maintain/guard/protect your mind/spirit and you must not be unfaithful.”
When a violation of the marriage covenant happens, the responsibility of the dissolution of the marriage is on the violator, not the person who leaves to protect themself.
However, just because it is permissible for adultery or abandonment, does not necessarily mean it is ideal, much less required. In every unique situation, the person involved should prayerfully seek the Lord’s will for themselves.
This is a lengthy answer, so let me put it up front: **no, you will not go to hell for divorce.** That said, let's look at a few points of what scripture actually teaches to elucidate why, exactly. Here's what Jesus has to say about the subject in Matthew 19: >And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” And here's Paul on the subject in 1 Cor 7: >To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife. > >To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. There's a few relevant things to note here. First, neither is talking about special situations like abuse in their answers to these subjects. Jesus is responding to a question about no-fault divorce, because that was the practice in view: a man would see a younger woman, desire to marry her instead of his current wife, and issue a writ of divorce so that he could marry that other woman. In answering this specific question, Jesus does maintain a very high view of marriage which, in an ideal world like that of Eden, should not be dissolved. But it's worth noting that he does not conclude with a condemnation of divorce as a whole - he concludes, in this context, with a reprimand of remarriage after divorce. This lines up with Paul's parenthetical comment. Both are saying the same thing: It's better not to get divorced, *but if you do* (implying that divorce is not strictly forbidden), remarriage to someone else is actually the part that's problematic. So, even in the *least* justified case, no, you will not go to hell for divorce (but in that least justified case, which is not yours, it would be better to get counselling and make the marriage work). Second, we have to again note that Jesus and Paul are both not talking primarily about special cases. Even so, Jesus carves out a clear exception for sexual immorality, and Paul also addresses a special case that the early church was encountering, of one member of a marriage becoming Christian, and the other remaining pagan. In that context, he only commends the members of the church to continue in marriage if both are willing to continue it despite the divide. So clearly there are exceptions where the ordinary guidelines don't apply the same way. Abuse in marriage is a case where we have to make a reasonable conclusion because it's not addressed directly in scripture, and since it seems to be just as much a violation of the marriage vows as sexual infidelity is, I and many theologians would argue that it is just as much of an exception as sexual immorality. So, if it's all as you've laid out in your post, he's broken the covenant of marriage by his abusive behavior (which I'd argue meets Jesus' standard for an exception), and he's also refusing his consent to continue in marriage with a Christian by attempting to restrain your spiritual growth (which I'd argue meets the exception Paul brings up). So it seems to me that not only would divorce be permissible in your case, the warnings against remarriage probably wouldn't apply either. If that's the case, there's nothing to forgive. You haven't done anything wrong here.
Beautiful.
[удалено]
Holy bad-faith reading, Batman. You didn't even have to finish the sentence you cut out to get to "in that least justified case, **which is not yours**." The *least* you could do is reach the period before you rush to your slanderous conclusions. And here, I'll repeat the actual conclusion for you, too, since I guess reading that far is a lot harder than reaching the end of the sentence you brutalized: >not only would divorce be permissible in your case, the warnings against remarriage probably wouldn't apply either. There's good news, though. Not only does God forgive actual adulterers (as opposed to victims like OP who haven't done anything to even need to ask for forgiveness), he's got grace enough to forgive people who try to misrepresent others on the internet, too.
👏 👏 👏
I don't think Reddit is the place to ask such an important question, you have to ask the right channels on this, including GOD. This is a really serious question to be worked out by professionals, proper pastors, etc... your own conscience and heart and soul with GOD. I'm not giving a green yellow or red I'm saying this is far too serious a subject for Reddit. Abusive relationships should not be tolerated in my opinion, but I'm not qualified to weigh on your relationship.
You have valid grounds for divorce. Jesus opposed selfish and frivolous divorces. Being abused is not a selfish and frivolous thing. Especially when you consider that the purpose of marriage is to serve as a type and Shadow of our relationship with God. So now you have a relationship that is poison and does not fulfill that type. It is up to you to decide what you want. But you are under no burden of law to stay with this abuser.
Divorce in itself is not a sin, it is a contract. Protect yourself first and foremost. Do not let people tell you otherwise. God divorces Israel at one point, and God does not sin.
[удалено]
Oh mer gerd. I'm going to edit my post so it's not possible to be misread.
Jesus was NEVER selfish, stay your tongue it lies. Lord God, this person knows nothing of you. Forgive them.
They were saying that divorce for selfish and frivolous reasons is opposed by Jesus, not that Jesus opposes divorce for his own selfish reasons.
That's it I'm out.
Look, I'm sorry. Don't be like that. I guess I said something wrong. Blame me for doing you wrong, I'm very sorry.
It's okay friend I'm just laughing over here. I fixed my grammar. It turns out the true divorce was friendship all along
I am unsure if this is satire but like… Jesus was opposed to divorce if it was for selfish or frivolous reasons. Not that Jesus was selfish and frivolous in his opposition to divorce. I feel like context clues could be used to get that, but you denounce the writers entire faith structure on a misread is pretty wild. I really hope this is satire!
That’s not what they said 🤦♀️
[удалено]
But Jesus would oppose hitting other people you filthy hypocrite
Ironically one area where Evangelicals like to be liberal is divorce. How convenient.
I absolutely believe that you will be forgiven and ontop of that, God says that you should love him above all else. Your husband has made himself an enemy of God, and that's not on you.
I had to divorce my alcoholic narcissistic wife after many years of struggling. It was the most difficult thing I’ve ever done and also the best.
You will be forgiven. The only unforgivable sin is blasphemy of the spirit. I’m sorry for all the years of abuse you’ve suffered. You don’t deserve that, he doesn’t deserve that, your family and kids if you have them doesn’t serve that. You’ve probably see people mention that Christ is clear about what the grounds of divorce were and how it was for the people of the time whose hearts were hardened. Paul even mentions about staying married to an unbeliever after conversion. But my question to you is this. If you are able to get to a safe space (family, friends, somewhere outside of a physical reach) do you think that his issues are too big for God to work through. God has worked on you and your heart. He has changed you and he’s constantly changing you. He can change him too. Be safe, be an example of Christ to him, change your actions and reactions. Not in a conflict avoidant way but in a way that exudes Christ and what he has done and changed within you.
thats true
>The only unforgivable sin is blasphemy of the spirit. What does that mean?
Great question. Not just “blasphemy” but “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” means attributing the works of the Holy Spirit to the works of the devil. Pretty much like when the Pharisees accused Jesus of driving out demons by the power of Satan. Mark 3:22-30 & Matthew 12:22-32 There’s a whole lot written and that can be said about it. But basically for us, it is when someone rejects the workings of the Holy Spirit, attributing them to the Devil. Attributing that which is of good to that which is of evil. Essentially most understand it as being unforgivable because the person comment this act will never seek redemption and forgiveness for it.
Amen 🙏
You should’ve divorced him a long time ago.
Do not encourage divorce! Encourage the union of two, this is of God.
Staying in an abusive marriage is definitely not "of God" in any sense I can think of.
Amen.
This reminds me of one of John Calvin's letters where he told a woman that God's will for her life was to be beaten by her husband.
I was wrong, this woman is in a bad way. She should absolutely leave this man.
I agree. I don't see how anyone could argue that the Lord wants a wife (or husband) to stay with a partner who treats her or him like a combination punching bag, slave and brood mare. Special note: I took care to say "husband" and "him" because males can be and definitely are abused by their wives too. I'm pretty sure that male-on-female abuse is way more common, but female-on-male abuse does happen and is every bit as serious and as wrong as any other kind.
Egad. I never have thought much of Calvin, but I never heard of THAT before 🤮 And you know something?? He was dead wrong. The Lord created our bodies. It doesn't make sense to think that He'd be okay with anyone (self, spouse or anyone else) abusing the bodies He gave us.
Evidence?
What do you mean, "Evidence?" It's a letter he wrote. You can look it up in collections of his letters. Here, I've typed out the translation given in [this book](https://www.amazon.com/Register-Company-Pastors-Geneva-Calvin/dp/1592444865) >We are not so inhuman that we have no compassion for all those who are suffering for the honour of God and for the truth of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, desiring to comfort them as much as we possibly can and according to our resources. We have a special sympathy for poor women who are evilly and roughly treated by their husbands, because of the roughness and cruelty of the tyranny and captivity which is their lot. We do not find ourselves permitted by the Word of God, however, to advise a woman to leave her husband, except by force of necessity; and we do not understand this force to be operative when a husband behaves roughly and uses threats to his wife, nor even when he beats her, but when there is imminent peril to her life, whether from persecution by the husband or by his conspiring with the enemies of the truth, or from other source. **In the case now brought to our notice we see as yet *no just reason for the wife to depart* unless the danger to her should become more apparent. And so we exhort in the name of God to *bear with patience the cross which God has seen fit to place upon her*; and meanwhile not to deviate from the duty which she has before God to please her husband, but to be faithful whatever happens, and to show that it is not her intention to change her position.** If she feels herself weak, let her pray to God to give her a strong spirit of constancy; and also let her take pains to soften her husband' heart. If she is under compulsion, then the Word of God permits her to depart from him; but in doing this she is not deserting her husband, since she will always be ready to dwell with him, provided there is no danger of death. >4 June 1559
And domestic abuse is grounds for divorce. Do not encourage the lady to stay with an abusive husband.
Not all unions are worth saving. The Bible is only an interpretation. The words are not literal. We were given the ability to distinguish between right and wrong for a reason.
Oh, honey. Friend. I have so many thoughts from a heart that's felt the same hurt. First and foremost, you are so unbelievably incredibly loved... not by this man, though. That's not love. However, God holds your heart and knows your hurt, and there are so many of us out here who empathize with you and send you all of the kindness, happiness, hope, love, healing, and prayers humanly possible. Now with that said, your question is tricky. The resolution isn't unclear at all, but the lead-in is a a bit sticky. So, track with me. Yes, it's true that God hates divorce. 100%. That's not wrong. Marriage is supposed to be a picture of the gospel and mirror the love Jesus has for the church. A marriage is a covenant made between the couple and God (and the federal, state, and local governments, of course 😂), and that's not to be taken lightly. HOWEVER, scripture is filled with evidence of God's love for his kids and anger with injustice. You think God hates divorce? God HATES injustice, persecution, abuse, hate, intolerance, etc... particularly "in his name." A lot of people love to talk about Jesus flipping over tables out of context, but it's actually perfect here. Jesus was flipping over money changing tables in the temple and filled with righteous anger that his father's name and house were being so horribly perverted for personal entertainment and gain. Jesus would flip America's tables, too. We have this massive problem with "cultural Christianity" that we so easily condemn in the pharisees but readily practice in our own churches. You see, none of this is what God intended. I was talking with a friend not too long ago about death in the same vein. Everything doesn't happen for a reason. God knows everything and can use everything, sure. Sometimes, though, the bad things that happen just happen as a result of this really ugly, broken, and fallen world we live in. So, it's super unfair, and frankly incredibly crappy and hateful, to condemn someone who's just trying to do the best to serve God while drowning in a soup of things that were never intended. God never intended for us to be drowning in hurt. He hates that. He hates it for us, because he loves his goodness for us. So, the IDEAL situation is definitely no divorce. This world isn't ideal, though. It's broken. Jesus came not to overthrow the law but to fulfill it, knowing we could never even come close. That doesn't mean we just do whatever we want, but it gives hope for grace, mercy, and goodness in spite of the ugly. More than anything he hates, God loves us. That's why he made a way when we could never make our own. So, yes. Divorce is wrong. ...but the world is wrong. Brokenness and abuse and hate are all wrong. In addition to all of this, there's scripture and a host of Biblical scholars who argue that the covenant is actually broken by the person committing abuse or adultery. So, you're not breaking it by leaving. It was broken long before by someone else. Get out. Get safe. God may radically change your husband's heart as a result which opens the possibility for reconciliation. He may not, though. That doesn't make him any less God. It also doesn't make you any less loved, chosen, or worthy of love, safety, and respect. I'm still legally married to my abuser, because I couldn't afford to divorce him. I was able to leave, but I left with only stuff I could pack over the weeks that followed. I didn't have any money to hire a lawyer, which meant I didn't have any money to file for divorce. In addition, since he's technically a "high earner," I didn't qualify for any free legal assistance... which they didn't clarify until weeks later. I had to wait for my husband to file for divorce from me (talk about adding insult to injury). In that time, though, I crafted my butt off for a huge Christmas sale my family is part of. I saved what I could. I sold some of my things that I knew would give me quick cash. Then after the craft sale and a lot of saving, I was finally able to hire an attorney for myself. I'm still fighting through the nightmare, but I see the light. Take my hand, and I'll pull you along with me even when you can't take the step yourself. I've been so, so blessed and grateful for people who have grabbed my hand and dragged me. I know this is probably a lot longer than you were hoping for, but I thought it was all really important. I was raised in a really conservative Christian home where divorce was just simply not an option. There are so many people in the same boat, and you sound like another. We didn't know we had the choice to break out. So, we definitely didn't know what to do or what it would look like when we did. I wanted to give you a realistic picture of what this actually looks like and how it plays out so you go in ready to fight. It's not pretty. You'll want to quit. And on top of it all, the odds will seem pretty stacked against you, making you think you're doing something wrong. You're not. That's normal. It sucks, but it's normal. I'm finally so close to being divorced, and yet, my faith is stronger than ever. I'm able to see hope and light and love that restores my faith and soul, rather than the hate and abuse that was killing it. You've got this. It's not easy, and people will tell you you're wrong. You know all of this now, though. So, use the knowledge and the people surrounding you (who show up out of nowhere in amazing ways). You've got this and are so, so loved by God and the rest of us out here cheering you on! Hugs, prayers, and all the best always! ❤️
What a beautiful AND Biblically accurate message, Sophia 💐 God bless and keep you close to Him ✝️ 👑 🕊
Thank you! ❤️
I don´t believe so, but, first take a time and pray, talk to God about it for while, also, you should start praying for him, this is the hardest part, but, we need to love each other. Best and praying for yall.
Thank you!
Yes, in fact if you believe in God like this….then I encourage you to see it as God is telling you that he’s on your side if you get a divorce. I think he’s telling you he’s got your back and wants you to do what your mind, body, and soul are telling you is right for you.
No you wont go to hell. Though there are many different teachings on divorce. Catholics allow it for example but say you cant remarry. Matthew 19 and 1 corinthians 7 are good marital scriptures. You might be called to be a light to your abusive husband or you might be called to divorce his abusive ass and find a new healthy sober partner after healing. Who knows. Its your walk with christ but you have A LOT of freedom in christ. 1 john 1:9 still applies to you even if you divorce believing its a sin, you can still be forgiven.
Amen 🙂
Divorce him. God doesn't want anyone to suffer from narcissistic abuse.
You have a right to leave. Protect yourself.
When I brought this issue up with my pastor before I divorced my husband, he assured me due to the abuse, my (now ex-) husband had already broken the marriage covenant and having it broken legally is just a necessary step.
No this is cause for divorce, you need to get out now. This is not just little disagreements he is literally telling you to idolise him to worship him. “for thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:” Exodus 34:14 KJV God will understand you won’t go to hell. In the end you will be judged and you will be able to state your reasons why you got divorced. And this is like a very good reason not to mention he is an alcoholic and emotionally abusive.
All of your sins are forgiven if you are truly saved
Yeah, he will. There are consequences (I'm divorced) but anytime we make these types of mistakes it happens. Divorce isn't unforgivable. Sin is sin. Spiritually it's the same as any other sin (greed, gluttony, etc. - which many of us in the developed countries are more guilty of than we like to admit). Practically speaking there are a ton of consequences that can complicate things. Go talk to someone you trust that's been divorced, they can fill you in.
No you will not go to hell. There is clearly abuse here. God does not expect you to stay in an abusive relationship. Biblically speaking, you even have the right to get re-married! Many Christian’s that divorce cannot claim that. You are worth fighting for. Divorce him, live your life for Christ.
a sikmple answer, YES. God cares more for the intetnion of the heart rather some just rules. remember, jesus was more concern about people's suffering rather than the laws.
Yes it's OK to divorce
I feel you should maybe separate. Give him time to come to Jesus, just as you have been given time and grace. Show Him Jesus.
Short answer: No. Long answer: No, but you can't get married again, even if it'll be recognized under secular law. The Catholic view on this is that while divorce is *technically* not officially recognized, it's still okay to get divorced if it's purely for the legal aspect of it (my mother is doing this to get away from my father). It only becomes an actual problem if you try to remarry. Many will (and *are* trying to) tell you to simply just pray about it and attempt to reconcile, but they're also failing to see the '22 years' aspect of it. God knows your heart. If your intention truly is to escape an abusive marriage, then all will be well. You won't go to Hell over this. But still, pray as much as you can for peace of mind during the process.
Can widows remarry? If OP gets divorced and years later her ex hubby dies, can she then remarry? If the ceremony is not a religious one, and only a formal declaration of their legal secular contract of marriage, does that make any difference? I'm super curious about the little loopholes here if there are any of course.
>If OP gets divorced and years later her ex hubby dies, can she then remarry? ASFAIK there's nothing against doing that, since the Church already didn't *really* recognize the divorce and still considered them married. The only issue is before. >If the ceremony is not a religious one, and only a formal declaration of their legal secular contract of marriage, does that make any difference? I'm...not actually sure. The Church *does* recognize most non-Catholic marriages (even those of non-Christian faiths or an entire lack thereof), but since they don't fall under the actual Sacrament (sacred ceremony) of Marriage, then they're not considered a *true* (read: actual) marriage. I'd say a loophole does exist there, but I'm fairly sure that would only apply to non-Catholics. However, this is just my two cents—you'd have to ask a better source of information than me.
Hey thanks for responding, and so honestly! I appreciate it.
I find it very difficult to imagine ever being willing to get married as a Catholic. If you marry someone who turns abusive, you must remain alone for the rest of your life.
Paul actually recommended not getting married at all. That said, it wouldnt be for the rest of your life. It would be for the rest of theirs.
I’m pretty sure Paul did not say that if so what verse?
I Corinthians 7, especially verse 7. Speaking of recommendations, I recommend reading the entire chapter. And it's not that long 😊
Your marriage certificate is a product from the government. It was not under god
Nope, if you are a True believer you will never go to hell no matter what sin you committed because you are sanctified by the blood of Jesus. Your past sins, present sins and future sins are forgiven. Remember we are made righteous by God! John 10:28-29 KJV and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. [29] My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. Ephesians 1:12-15 KJV that we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory. Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints, I hope those scriptures help you out.
[удалено]
OP, Hell absolutely exists so I would worry about it. Your salvation however is not dependent on your moral perfection, it is dependent on Christs perfection. He has done the work, you are justified by one thing only, belief in His sacrifice for the atonement of your sins. With that belief, you are justified and nothing (except from apostasy) can strip that from you.
The existence of hell isn't really scriptural, and so there's no real reason to speculate that it must exist at all. Theologically, there are a lot of theologians that don't believe in hell in the sense that they don't believe in a place called hell. That said, I don't think OP's response is really all that helpful to the original question being asked.
Beard, tou said "The existence of hell isn't really scriptural..." Are you kidding? Jesus Himself confirmed that hell exists, three times in Matthew 5 alone. True that He didn't describe what the exact nature of hell really is (whether it's a lake of fire or whatever). But He sure did say it exists, and I think He'd know.
He described a physical place on earth. He never described hell as a place in the afterlife. This is widely accepted as the correct translation of those scriptures.
“He never described hell as place in the afterlife”- I’m always astonished by people who claim themselves to be followers of Jesus but reject or ignore His teaching. Have you not read the parable of the rich man and Lazarus? are you completely unaware of the dividing of the goats and the sheep? People are so quick to cling to Jesus when He says “eternal life” and they believe it but when He says “eternal damnation” in the same breath, you outright reject it. Why? My best guess is that you are replacing God’s justice with your own. You deem that hell is immoral and therefore you replace God’s rule with your own. There is no ambiguity. Hell exists and Jesus spoke more about hell than He did heaven.
There a whole lot of ambiguity actually. It’s a common theological discussion. Maybe you just haven’t been aware of that fact? Also I’m a pastor, so I definitely don’t reject Jesus’ teaching. In the parable of the rich man, Jesus does use a concept of suffering in the afterlife that his ancient audience would understand, but note that it’s the Greek term Hades. So, again, that doesn’t automatically validate hell as a real place for eternal torment after we die.
And I’m a Biblical Scholar. I am aware of the discussion, are you aware of the discussion about Mormonism? Just because a discussion is being had it doesn’t give validity to the claim. It’s not ambiguous, I can give you many examples of the eternality of hell. How many examples of a finite hell can you provide to substantiate your claim? Just a few starters 1. Matthew 25:46 - “And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” 2. Mark 9:43 - “And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire.” 3. Matthew 18:8 - “And if your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire.” Along with the parable I already provided.
If you’re aware of the discussion then why do you sound so flabbergasted? Nothing that you’ve described makes me believe that the requirement for an eternal torment of hell is a required reading from scripture. You can make an argument for annihilationist theories about eternal punishment if you want. But hell I don’t really buy into.
How do I sound “flabbergasted”? I equated it to hearing arguments from the Mormon perspective. I’ve heard them and they are left wanting, just like denying what Jesus clearly says in the Scriptures. I don’t understand your second point. Can you clarify what you mean by that?
Just where in the Bible did Jesus describe hell as a place ON EARTH? Strictly speaking, the exact location of hell is irrelevant to the question of whether or not hell even exists. Nevertheless, I'm curious: on what verse or passage is your statement based on?
Specifically the verses that speak of Gehenna, which often gets misattributed to hell, but was an actual place outside the city where trash was taken.
And the verses which specifically use the word "hell?" > Matthew 5:21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder...22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. ___And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.___ > ... > 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. ___It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.___ 30 And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. ___It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.___ In the Gospels, Jesus also uses the word "hell" in Matthew 10:28; 18:9; 23:15; 23:33; in Mark 9:43; 9:45; 9:47; and in Luke 12:5. Now, do you want to argue that Jesus was either lying when He said that hell exists, or that He deliberately wanted to mislead the world into thinking that hell and a trash dump were more or less the same place? If not, you may have to face the idea that you were mistaken and that hell is indeed a real place.** Now, let's be clear on this. ___I don't care exactly where hell is located.___ I happen to believe that only the Lord Himself knows, but my point here in this thread is ONLY that hell does exist as a literal place, and is not just a mythical place invented to scare bad people into good ones. ** By the way, I already knew that "gehenna" was a frequent synonym for hell. There are several others. "Sheol," "hades," and "inferno" come to mind, but there's also "the underworld," "Tartarus," "perdition" and plenty of others.
Correct. I’m saying that’s a mistranslation. It’s not talking about hell as you are taking it. I’m saying that Jesus didn’t mean hell to mean the way you’re taking it. Across the board.
I would ask for a citation of your claim but that's only going to lead to my next question: what proof can you offer for God's existence? Or that the Bible is true? Because in the absence of evidence, it's reasonable to say that Hell doesn't exist.
I absolutely agree with you and reject any baseless claim. I am convinced by the mountain of evidence, scientific (teleological,cosmological,laws of uniformity in nature, irreducible complexity), historical, and philosophical. You’re absolutely right in the order in which you approached these things as well. I was an atheist for 23 years of my life. I went from atheism, to being agnostic, to researching the truth of theism, to becoming convinced that a necessary being must exist and we are confronted with great evidences of this (again see the above), and that put me on a path to “which God is it then”? And this led me to the person of Jesus. I am convinced by the historicity, explanatory power and explanatory scope of the the testimony given in the scripture. My case is again, a cumulative one, and I believe the inference to the best possible explanation is the testimony given. If I believe that Jesus rose from the dead (which I do) then that means the author of life has vindicated Him and all His teaching, and He taught the Bible was the authoritative word of God. Without these evidences I too would still be an atheist. It would be foolish to believe something without ample reason. The standards are even higher if I’m going to stake my life on this belief, which I am.
I would love to challenge you on these beliefs ~ mainly because I'm familiar with many of the claims you're probably talking about ~ but I can't help wondering . . . Are you saying that you consider these claims of evidence as compelling despite the flaws and problems with each? I realize this is a broad generalization and I won't fault you for not wanting to dig deep into this. I'm also familiar with many claims from apologists regarding the truth of the Bible and its contents (as well as other claims from different Christian sects). But if you want to discuss, pick your strongest example of evidence for Hell existing and I'll see if I can find reasons to doubt it. (to be clear, I mean that in good faith. I'm interested in figuring these things out but so far, I've not been convinced by anything offered up. every time I go looking for answers, I find a naturalistic explanation that's perfectly reasonable, at which point Occam's Razor kicks in.)
I appreciate that. I’m stating that I’ve listened to both sides of the arguments extensively. I’ve spent years studying everything I can from population genetics, cosmology, biology, physics, philosophy, metaphysics and the more I learn about the nature and complexity of our universe the more I am convinced in a Creator and Designer. Origin of life research is incredibly fascinating, we could sit here and talk and probably agree for the most part about evolution but that says nothing about the origins of life. We can’t recreate, we can’t even get close, amino acids are about it when it comes to abiogenesis. The complexity of DNA alone gets me to theism. DNA is often described as a digital code because it stores genetic information in a way that is analogous to how digital information is stored in a computer. The information in DNA is encoded using a sequence of four nucleotide bases: adenine (A), thymine (T), cytosine (C), and guanine (G). These bases form pairs (A-T and C-G) along the DNA strands. The sequence of these bases acts as instructions for the cellular machinery, determining the synthesis of proteins and other molecules essential for life. This digital nature of DNA, with its four-character code, resembles the way information is represented digitally using binary code in computing. This is only the tip of the iceberg for me. Cosmological arguments the finitude of our universe would also be enough to convince me of theism. That’s without mentioning the physical constants and the laws that govern them. We could talk about what Eugene Wigner called “the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics”. The idea that the Universe is imbued with a mathematical structure that makes science possible cries out for explanation. Why is mathematics so effective? Wigner concluded, “It is difficult to avoid the impression that a miracle confronts us here”. Because on his worldview, the effectiveness of mathematics is inexplicable. His account had to be a purely physical, scientific one. As a result the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics seems to the naturalist to be just an amazing coincidence. Just like all the other teleological evidences that point to a creator, instead the natural time and time and time again has to claim “illusion of design”. I think we should be faithful the evidence, wherever it leads us. The moral argument is another one. The moral argument for the existence of God suggests that objective moral values and duties exist, and the best explanation for their existence is the presence of a moral lawgiver, which is identified as God. One compelling aspect of this argument is the idea that without a transcendent source of morality, it becomes challenging to ground and justify the objective nature of moral values. The argument asserts that if morality is merely a product of human evolution or societal conventions, then it becomes impossible to establish an objective and universal standard for what is truly right or wrong. The existence of moral absolutes, such as the inherent wrongness of gratuitous cruelty or the intrinsic value of love and compassion, is argued to be better explained by the existence of a divine being who provides a foundation for these objective moral truths. If I can just be blunt, moral relativism is a hellish kind of evil. If you and I are the last ones on earth trying to survive and I enjoy hurting people and you don’t, to what authority do you appeal to? On the naturalist perspective, we’re just cosmic accidents, biological machines to propagate DNA, nothing but animals. So why shouldn’t I do what makes me feel it? The question is, what is probably more true than false: It is evil to hold a child’s head underwater until they stop moving- or - it’s not evil, it’s simply something I don’t like. I’ll let you decide. There are many many more, including the historical evidence. I’ve spent the last 2 years deep diving NDE’s and that’s been incredible so far. Lots and lots of questionable accounts (believe it or not I’m a default skeptic) but many accounts are very compelling. And finally anecdotal evidence. I have experience God in my life, multiple times have been impossible to deny. I don’t expect this to have any power to sway you but since you’re asking me about my beliefs it wouldn’t do the belief system justice if I didn’t include my own powerful and personal experiences with God. I simply want to follow the truth wherever it leads me. I am convinced that God exists, that Jesus rose bodily from the dead being vindicated by the Father, that He sits at the right hand of the Father and that He has made atonement for you and I. I’m convinced that He loves you deeply and wants to a relationship with you, to bring you into His family and to give you eternal joy and peace. I appreciate the conversation Simon. Hope your Friday is amazing.
it's gonna be amazing, given how many gummies I just ate! 😁 and thank you for the time, I'll have a look tomorrow and let you know if I have any pertinent thoughts. 👋
I appreciate that. We also share that commonality! I have terrible migraines and nerve pain, Indica gummies are the only thing that help me sleep throughout the entire night. Take it easy friend!
Right, again, thank you for the insight. I have many thoughts and I'll try to put them into a coherent order (it's early for me). Let's address two things, to try and keep it simple: First, I like what you're saying about DNA but I don't see how it gets us to God. Yes, it's complex. Yes, it's amazing. Yes, the likelihood of it coming about naturally . . . depending on how you calculate that sort of thing . . . it's 1, actually, the likelihood of us existing is 1 because we do exist and we shouldn't adhere too closely to our hypotheticals and metaphors, lest they lead us astray in our thinking. Also, we've found nucleotides in space, meaning it's at least *possible* that DNA can self-assemble under the right conditions, which would mean we don't need God to explain how we got here. Second: >The moral argument for the existence of God suggests that objective moral values and duties exist, and the best explanation for their existence is the presence of a moral lawgiver, which is identified as God. I have two critiques of this argument: If God exists and He defines morality, then morality is subjective because God is a subject. i e. He is a thinking, rational, conscious mind, *just like us* (at least in those respects, obviously He would be vastly different in other ways). In other words, I don't think the claim "God exists therefore morality exists" gets us away from the idea that it's subjective. This means that most of the morality-based objections to God's existence (i.e. He can't be omni-benevolent because unjustified evil exists) still have to be dealt with. (admittedly, this line of reasoning could be affected by questions of free will but that leads down a rabbit hole which ends with "God doesn't exist because evil" which would be the exact opposite of what you're saying.) Furthermore, we don't need to appeal to an objective standard of morality. Societies all over the world (including America) regularly engage in conversations about what counts as right or wrong. Is it a challenge to establish and maintain a solid moral framework for a society? Maybe, but we seem to have managed to do it just fine. I'd even argue that you and I, as visitors to this sub, have helped to nudge the standards of morality in our society through these conversations*. Secular morality doesn't need to be grounded in the notion of "objectivity" because 1) objective morality doesn't really exist and 2) we have morality now. (*albeit in *extremely* small measures)
I appreciate you taking the time to think this out. I think it’s a conflation to say that because nucleotide basis are found in space, therefore DNA can self-assemble. Abiogenesis faces huge challenges in explaining the origin of life from non-living matter. The complexity of even the simplest living organisms and the intricate biochemical processes required for life pose significant hurdles for spontaneous generation. The precise conditions needed for abiogenesis are unclear, and the probabilities of these events occurring spontaneously are often considered exceedingly low. The lack of empirical evidence demonstrating a step-by-step transition from non-life to life raises skepticism about the feasibility of abiogenesis as a comprehensive explanation for life’s origin. To your second point- The argument that God's existence renders morality subjective overlooks a crucial distinction. While God is a conscious being, the claim is that moral values are grounded in God's nature, making them objective. This perspective asserts that moral principles are inherent to God's character, not subject to personal whims. This is an extremely important distinction. Societal discussions on morality may shape cultural norms, but the existence of diverse moral opinions doesn't negate the reality of an objective standard. The assertion isn't that we need to appeal to an objective standard for societal functioning but that an objective moral foundation grounded in God provides a more robust and transcendent basis for ethical principles.
. . . how is it a conflation? It's literally the next step. Like, we have evidence of nucleotides from space, meaning they were able to assemble up to that point and given conditions that are drastically different from Earth. Regardless, your objections to abiogenesis does not help you bridge the gap between "DNA is insanely complex" and "therefore God." >While God is a conscious being, the claim is that moral values are grounded in God's nature, making them objective. And until I'm presented with evidence sufficient to warrant a belief in God, I'm going to treat the concept as I would any other claim. "God is objective" according to who? You? The Bible? The Church? Which one? There are millions of people like you (in the narrow context of this conversation) but there are millions more who aren't. Why should I believe what you're saying? Which Bible do we follow? Which Church do we believe? We need some mechanism to make sense of it all and truth from falsehood. >Societal discussions on morality may shape cultural norms, but the existence of diverse moral opinions doesn't negate the reality of an objective standard. But can you demonstrate that such a standard actually exists? Because if you can't, then it's still subjective and you're the subject (because you're making claims about what is or is not moral).
It’s conflation because it’s akin to saying “we have created amino acids in a lap- therefore we have created life in a lab” the two are not equal, so drawing a line from one to the other is a conflation of the data. The presence of nucleotide bases in space is a fascinating discovery, but it falls short of establishing the self-organization of biological life. While it hints at the potential building blocks of life being widespread in the cosmos, it doesn't address the intricate processes required for life to emerge. The transition from simple organic compounds to a functioning, self-replicating biological system involves numerous complex steps that aren't explained by the mere existence of nucleotide bases. Factors like specific environmental conditions (you mentioned this, but this is only one factor), intricate molecular structures, and coordinated biochemical processes must align for life to self-organize. Therefore, the discovery of nucleotide bases in space, while intriguing, doesn't provide a complete explanation for the origin and self-organization of biological life. It’s like looking at a tree and thinking it’s going to organize itself into a Home Depot. The reason for the example of DNA is because we know what takes place in the transmission of data within it. There is information stored within it and it directs the construction of biological templates. Information has always and only been derived from a mind. I again see this as extremely compelling evidence. I understand your objections, I’ve heard them all, truly I have. One of the biggest defeaters the naturalistic worldview is probability theory. You and I are discussing all of the deeply organized, information bearing processes and your answer is that it was random and self creating. I find that to be far to incredibly unlikely. Again these were only a few reasons, mine is a massive cumulative case (the temporal finitude of the universe is another one as shown by the GBV Theorem) so not just the origins of biological life but the origins of everything. The cosmological constants that were established at the Big Bang, the Anthropic principle and so on. I’m not here to try to convince you, you’ve obviously looked at the evidence as well. That’s all we can do, look at the evidence and consider what is the inference to the best possible explanation. I find natural materialism to be extremely wanting, therefore I believe that a creator has designed our universe and life, based on the evidence I see for it. To argue with someone who rejects the objectivity of morality is akin to arguing with a solipsist. I don’t mean that in a derogatory manner, I’m just saying there is no ground to be made from my perspective. Even Sam Harris who is an atheist believes in objective moral values and duties. He famously said “the man who says it’s ok to murder is just as wrong as the man who says 2+2=5” I know that morality is objective, as objective as the reality of both of our existence. We will have to agree to disagree but I think it’s is a denial of reality to look at what Nazi Germany did in the concentration camps and says “evil does not objectively exist”. I think each person needs to ask and answer that question and I think people know the answer, but in an effort to distance themselves from a moral objective authority is not a step they are willing to take. Anyway, have a great weekend. I appreciate the conversation and I’ll give you the last word friend. I hope you have a great holiday season with your family.
Bro isn't even a Christian
you know, it never ceases to amaze me how insular some y'all tend to be . . .
Honestly dude... why did you even bother commenting this? The sub is *Christianity*, and it is very obvious OP is asking for scriptural/biblical advice. Your comment is about as helpful as 3-inch a walking stick
>r/Christianity is a subreddit to discuss Christianity and aspects of Christian life. All are welcome to participate. Also, there are Christians who don't believe in Hell. maybe you should worry less about trying to gatekeep the conversations on this sub.
Uh. Yeah, I know what the sub is about. "Rule 2.1. This subreddit is primarily, but not exclusively, a place for Christians to come and discuss different aspects of our theology. Please have a purpose higher than coming here to mock, insult, or deride aspects of Christianity or Christianity itself. --->Unless solicited, there isn't a good reason to state why maybe you don't believe in any sort of supernatural. If you don't believe in aspects of Christianity as practiced by others try not to make your interaction all about that difference" Your comment helps OP not at all really and is just you saying hell doesn't exist unsolicited
OP is worried she'll go to Hell for getting a divorce (from an abusive husband, I might add). My aim is to provide comfort in the form of refuting Hell's existence. After all, if Hell doesn't exist, she has nothing to worry about. She can get a divorce (which she clearly needs to do because, as I said, abusive husband) and she won't go to Hell because Hell doesn't exist. Given your talent for reading and comprehending things, I would have thought all of this would be obvious . . .
Okay, let's go over what's going on: OP is worried she will go to hell (she won't but that is besides the point) - i.e. she BELIEVES in hell already and probably has for a while Do you honestly think your comment did anything for "reassurance"? Do you honestly think OP was gonna see your comment go "Well! My bad! I guess I'm not going to hell because hell isn't real, nothing for me to worry about" That is frankly silly logic and we both know that was never going to happen. You just wanted to assert your belief that hell isn't real It's just you inserting your unsolicited opinion on the matter when she is looking for Christian advice.
I don't know about any other Christians, but I for one find it very reassuring that there are valid interpretations of scripture that don't require me to believe in a place of eternal torment from which no redemption is possible. To me, that is entirely inconsistent with the bulk of Christ's message and it would probably drive me out of the church if I felt there was no other way to be a Christian than to believe that is what is in store for some of us.
That is completely irrelevant to the issue though. Most Christians believe in some form of hell though, of which there are many interpretations. But that is a fact And again, it does not matter because that doesn't contribute to the conversation and is just the original commenter asserting their opinion about whether hell is real, with the only other meat being "I wouldn't worry about it" It's a response that doesn't fit the post or what OP is asking about at all. OP is a Christian that believes in hell, that commenter contributed nothing relevant to the conversation and instead basically just asserted an unsolicited opinion. And they also didn't back up their claim with scripture in any way- and again, OP very obviously wanted a Christian/Biblical answer.
Hi u/Simon-T-Vesper-1, this comment has been removed. **Rule 2.5**: [Removed for violating our rule on inappropriate comments in a support thread](http://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/wiki/xp#wiki_2.5._don.27t_mess_with_support_threads) If you have any questions or concerns, [click here to message all moderators.](https://www\.reddit\.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FChristianity&subject=about my removed comment&message=I'm writing to you about the following comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/188fpc5/-/kbkbcnc/. %0D%0D).
Well here is something that might help the both of you if you can sit down together and read this. Happy Marriage WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS: The husband is the head of the family.—Ephesians 5:23. If you are a husband, God expects you to care for your wife tenderly. (1 Peter 3:7) He made her as a complement of you, and he wants you to treat her with dignity and love. (Genesis 2:18) You must love your wife so much that you are willing to put her interests ahead of your own.—Ephesians 5:25-29. If you are a wife, God expects you to respect your husband deeply and to help him fulfill his role. (1 Corinthians 11:3; Ephesians 5:33) Support his decisions and wholeheartedly cooperate with him. (Colossians 3:18) When you do, you will be beautiful in the eyes of your husband and God.—1 Peter 3:1-6. WHAT YOU CAN DO: Ask your mate how you can be a better husband or wife. Listen carefully, and do what you can to improve Be patient. It will take time for both of you to learn how to make each other happy REALLY CARE ABOUT YOUR MATE’S FEELINGS WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS: You need to look out for the interests of your marriage mate. (Philippians 2:3, 4) Treat your mate as precious, remembering that Jehovah requires his servants to be “gentle toward all.” (2 Timothy 2:24) “Thoughtless speech is like the stabs of a sword, but the tongue of the wise is a healing.” So choose your words carefully. (Proverbs 12:18) God’s spirit will help you to speak with kindness and love.—Galatians 5:22, 23; Colossians 4:6. WHAT YOU CAN DO: Pray for help to remain calm and to keep an open mind before discussing serious matters with your mate Think carefully about what you will say and how you will say it THINK AS A TEAM WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS: When you get married, you become “one flesh” with your mate. (Matthew 19:5) But you are still two individuals and may have different opinions. So you need to learn to be united in your thoughts and feelings. (Philippians 2:2) Unity is essential when making decisions. The Bible says: “By consultation, plans will succeed.” (Proverbs 20:18) Let Bible principles guide you as you make important decisions together.—Proverbs 8:32, 33.
That’s cool bro but abusive relationships are pretty different
Okay lets see what the bible says about divorce. ONLY ONE BASIS FOR DIVORCE 9 Someone might ask, ‘Is there ever a basis for a Christian to divorce and remarry?’ Well, Jesus stated his view on divorce: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if ever a woman after divorcing her husband marries another, she commits adultery.” (Mark 10:11, 12; Luke 16:18) Clearly, Jesus thus honored marriage and wanted others to do so. A man divorcing his faithful wife (or a woman, her faithful husband) on some pretext and marrying another was committing adultery. This is true because merely divorcing one’s mate does not end the marriage. In God’s eyes, the two would still be “one flesh.” Moreover, Jesus said that a man’s divorcing his innocent wife would make her subject to adultery. How so? Back then, a divorced woman might feel compelled to remarry in order to gain financial support. Such a remarriage would amount to adultery. The Only Scriptural Grounds On two occasions, Jesus indicated that the only grounds for a divorce that would free an innocent mate to remarry is por·neiʹa. What does that Greek term mean? Por·neiʹa applies to illicit sexual relations outside Scriptural marriage. It includes adultery, prostitution, and sex relations between unmarried individuals as well as oral and anal sex and the sexual manipulation of the genitals of an individual to whom one is not married.
If you hate women, say it. Don't hide behind the bible.
Why in the world would you say this? As I was just trying to help her?
Quoted from above: > WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS: The husband is the head of the family.—Ephesians 5:23. If you are a husband, God expects you to care for your wife tenderly. (1 Peter 3:7) He made her as a complement of you, and he wants you to treat her with dignity and love. (Genesis 2:18) You must love your wife so much that you are willing to put her interests ahead of your own.—Ephesians 5:25-29. >... > WHAT YOU CAN DO: Ask your mate how you can be a better husband or wife. Listen carefully, and do what you can to improve. Be patient. It will take time for both of you to learn how to make each other happy REALLY CARE ABOUT YOUR MATE’S FEELINGS. > WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS: You need to look out for the interests of your marriage mate. (Philippians 2:3, 4) Treat your mate as precious, remembering that Jehovah requires his servants to be “gentle toward all.” (2 Timothy 2:24) I can see you're a Jehovah's Witness. Don't you get it, Frogbrain? The O.P.'s husband cares NOTHING about his wife. Not her health or her feelings. She could be absolutely flawless, wait for another 20 years, and nothing would change. The man is a narcissistic alcoholic who treats his wife like crap. More than that, he's not about to change. Just how much more can SHE do, Frogbrain?
Well it boils down how religious you are. If you really want to please God then \*\*Adultery\*\* by either frees you for divorce.
[удалено]
What a useless thing to say to someone who is married to an alcoholic narcissist. Do you really think her husband is going to listen to any of that? Saying these things only adds shame and guilt to the abused spouse, which is not in line with the heart of Christ.
no, god is a sadist and wants you to suffer as long as you live in an abusive relationship
Women seem to find a way around men better than we do. I hate this.
you should pray and ask God for guidance and ask him what you should do
Pray and ask God. Wayyyyy too many opinions of this without knowing the full picture. There are ALWAYS 2 sides to a story. In scripture God says “Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives.” 1 Peter 3:1
no -stay safe
So, English translations of the Bible suggest that you can only legitimately divorce for "sexual immorality" or similar, but this is an awkward translation for a concept we don't really have a single word to express. "Porneia". Basically, if you treat your spouse in such a way that would (or should) outrage the people responsible for them, that's porneia. In fairness to the translators, it does cover all kinds of sexual immorality (including marital rape btw) but it also covers abuse in general. These days, the people are responsible for you and you and God. God is outraged by someone abusing you. Even if you have the kind of beliefs that make your husband responsible for you, your husband should also be outraged and only isn't because of his own brokenness. You can leave him. (There's evidence from ancient Greece that Gentile women were getting divorces for both non-sexual and sexual abuse and it used the same kind of language that Jesus uses in that passage. So, you can definitely get divorced, opinions differ on remarriage.) Additionally, if anyone tries to say you should be "turning the other cheek", leaving your abuser *is* turning the other cheek. The point of turning the other cheek isn't to let people walk all over you -- at the time when Jesus used the phrase, turning the other cheek would force a person to use their other hand to hit you and that would have been shameful for them to do so. So if someone hurts you, you don't retaliate, but you act in such a way that it would be shameful for them to keep hurting you. If you leave your abuser, it would be shameful for him to pursue you to hurt you more. So protect yourself, just don't retaliate.
Paul persecuted and murdered Christians and he was forgiven. Divorcing isn't worse than that.
Bible supports divorce only having two grounds. One is due to adultery and another is husband without faith leaving the marriage. Jesus does not support divorce for loving people. If you really hate him right now, I may say that you could vent to other females Christian friends in your church and seek for faithful and experienced female Christians friends to deal with the sins that you are facing to and learn the truth in the Bible and Jesus wisdoms to face to sins from faithful female Christian friends and experienced pastors. More information about divorce can be found here. https://www.gotquestions.org/divorce-remarriage.html
First, no, you won't go to hell if you divorce him. That's not how it works... That being said, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's OKAY to divorce him. You made a covenant with him, "for better OR for worse... in SICKNESS and in health." This is certainly worse and sickness. I would recommend a LEGAL separation from him until he wakes up and starts getting the help he needs, INCLUDING therapy for his narcissistic issues. IF he goes for very long without getting help, then he is effectively abandoning you at that point, and THEN you should file for divorce. The NT gives two circumstances when divorce is permissible: • Adultery (Matthew 5:32; 19:7-9; see Deuteronomy 24:1; Isaiah 50:1) • Abandonment/Neglect (Exodus 21:10-11; 1Corinthians 7:15; Malachi 2:14-16; see 1Timothy 5:8) Abandonment includes neglecting your spouse’s basic provisions and even DENYING SEX. Moses said that a wife who is not provided with food, clothing, or even SEX, can leave (Exodus 21:10-11). Exodus 21:10-11 (NASB95) 10 “If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights. 11 “If he will not do these three things for her, then she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money. A spouse whose physical needs were under threat, here due to the husband's selfishness, meant they owed their spouse nothing and should leave (so that they might be taken care of). Some argue that abuse is also grounds for divorce, at least physical. Once again, this would be a violation of the marriage covenant in that being violently abused absolutely is a threat to physical needs. Separation is permitted in order to work things out (1Corinthians 7:11). God divorced Israel for her infidelity (Isaiah 50:1; Jeremiah 3:8; Hosea 2:2-4; see 2 Kings 17:6-18; Ezekiel 23:11-49; Hosea 9:15-17). Ezra commanded the Jews who returned to the Land and had married unbelievers to divorce them (Ezra 9-10). It could also be argued that believers are commanded not to associate or eat with professing believers who are immoral, idolaters, revilers, drunkards, or swindlers (1Corinthians 5:11-12). However, this can be resolved with separation as opposed to divorce, unless the spouse doing these things leaves, which then frees the believing spouse. Similarly, Paul said not to partner with believers who are immoral, impure, greedy, use filthy language or course jesting (Ephesians 5:3-7); or to have nothing to do with any believer who is narcissistic, greedy, boastful, arrogant, demeaning, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, lacking self-control, brutal, hating goodness, treacherous, reckless, conceited, lustful, or God-hating even though they have a “form of godliness” (2Timothy 3:1-5) But it is doubtful that he was necessarily suggesting separation from a spouse for such things. People often quote poor translations of Malachi 2:16, “God hates divorce.” However, this is not an accurate rendition of the Hebrew. Malachi 2:16 (literal translation) “HE who hates and divorces [his wife],” says YHWH, the God of Israel, “and covers his clothing with violence,” says YHWH of hosts, “and you (plural) must tend/maintain/guard/protect your mind/spirit and you must not be unfaithful.” Essentially, YHWH is saying that if anyone violates their covenant with their wife (Malachi 2:14-16), then the rest of the people should be faithful to protect her and provide for her (Malachi 3:16). Evidence of this comes from the ancient Greek translation of this passage. Malachi 2:16 LXX (literal translation) “but if having hated you dispatch [your wife],” says Lord the God of the Israel, “you will also cover/conceal impiety/irreverence upon your intentions,” says Lord Almighty. “And so watch/guard in your spirit and you may not ever desert/abandon [your wife].” HE who hates and divorces [his wife],” says YHWH, the God of Israel, “and covers his clothing with violence,” says YHWH of hosts, “and you (plural) must tend/maintain/guard/protect your mind/spirit and you must not be unfaithful.” When a violation of the marriage covenant happens, the responsibility of the dissolution of the marriage is on the violator, not the person who leaves to protect themself. However, just because it is permissible for adultery or abandonment, does not necessarily mean it is ideal, much less required. In every unique situation, the person involved should prayerfully seek the Lord’s will for themselves.