Challenge regarding Christian morality

[Whateverist]

Yes. I am suggesting that a married couple stay together even though they are not happy. Of course, when a christian marries he does make a commitment to God as well as his spouse and I can't remove that from my opinion.

You mean a Christian conceptualizes marriage as a promise to God to stick it out with your spouse. So conceptualize it that way if you like, it's up to you. Of course, your real commitment is to a fundamentalist interpretation of the rules of living divined from the bible .. whether or not that has anything to do with God. For all you know, God sheds a tear every day that two people stay together in misery out of deference to His wishes .. even though he could give no fucks who you fuck or live with. Perhaps He only wants to see everyone happy.

But of course, this isn't really about any actual god as you find it. It is just about your strident desire for the book to be a straight forward set of marching orders. So that being moral and good and saved are as simple as doing what your daddy tells you. The bible, read literally, saves you from ambiguity and uncertainty .. well .. you know, at least from their conscious recognition.

Even without the religious factor, I do view it as a lack of moral integrity to make a promise and then back out on it;

That's why it is important to think about what promises you really wish to make to each other and not just grab something off the shelf. All anyone can really promise each other is to do their best to work on it. But if you see that it is making you or your partner miserable, change could be preferable. Also people evolve and change. As we get a better understanding of ourself or our mate it may become necessary to amend or annul the original agreement. The only difference for Christians is you insist on it being the spouse's fault in order make the necessary changes.

[Lek]

The problem with love your enemy is that the bible also teaches an eye for an eye. So you are left to choose between those two extremes; in other words it has taught you nothing, you pick how you already feel. Or maybe which best suits your current situation.

People think that the bible teaches "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth", but here are the actual verses:

Matthew 5:38-39New King James Version (NKJV)
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.

[LostLocke]

Exodus 21:23-25
23"But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

I know what's coming next.... that was the Old Testament, it doesn't apply anymore.
And if you guys keep saying that, then why bother with the OT? Why not just make the Bible just the NT?
And then why also pick out 'laws' from the OT that it seems you want people to still follow?

[Lek]

Exodus 21:23-25
23"But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

I know what's coming next.... that was the Old Testament, it doesn't apply anymore.
And if you guys keep saying that, then why bother with the OT? Why not just make the Bible just the NT?
And then why also pick out 'laws' from the OT that it seems you want people to still follow?

You're right. I will say that was contained in the old covenant. There is plenty of reason for the old testament; one of which is the demonstration that we cannot attain perfection by following the law. But the fact is that christians are not under the old covenant, but are under the new covenant. When Jesus stated the verses I offered, he was essentially saying the same thing. It was commanded of the Israelites, but we have a new command.

[Roxy904]

Lek, there are many different factors that can lead to divorce.
If the relationship is abusive, if they simply don't love each other any more, and so on. It's illogical to merely call it breaking a promise, especially when the 'promise' is no longer applicable in certain situations. Sometimes, people make mistakes; often, people make mistakes. Mistakes can cause problems, but merely glossing over the problem doesn't make it go away.

[Lek]

Lek, there are many different factors that can lead to divorce.
If the relationship is abusive, if they simply don't love each other any more, and so on. It's illogical to merely call it breaking a promise, especially when the 'promise' is no longer applicable in certain situations. Sometimes, people make mistakes; often, people make mistakes. Mistakes can cause problems, but merely glossing over the problem doesn't make it go away.

I agree that there reasons for separation or divorce, although I think most divorces are without good reason. I was speaking of the benefit of the application of christian morality to the marriage relationship. The subject of this thread is about how christian morality is different than secular morality and the tangible benefits of such morality.

[Roxy904]

Well, most do not divorce until and unless it's actually necessary (for well-being of the people in the relationship), and I have not seen any christian morality (morals that only christians follow) that has benefits that does not closely match secular morality.

[Lek]

Well, most do not divorce until and unless it's actually necessary (for well-being of the people in the relationship), and I have not seen any christian morality (morals that only christians follow) that has benefits that does not closely match secular morality.

A christian acquaintance of mine married a woman, who also claimed to be a christian, in a christian marriage ceremony. They promised each other in the sight of God to remain faithful "till death do us part". After a few years of marriage she cheated on him a number of times. Being a committed christian, he remained with her and hoped to somehow reconcile the relationship. As far as I know, he treated her with love and respect. She eventually filed for divorce and won even though he was opposed. Obviously, she was unhappy with the marriage relationship and decided to get out of it. Assuming that he did actually treat her well, was she morally justified in what she did?

[Silver]

Assuming that he did actually treat her well, was she morally justified in what she did?

Yes, because there is no reason for her to remain miserable. Her personal happiness is just as important as his happiness, and one would think he could learn to be happy that she has found elsewhere the happiness he was unable to provide.

[Roxy904]

Of course she was.
This divorce benefitted both people, because the husband left a false relationship and the wife left an unhappy one. How is there something morally wrong with that?