From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I find this article offensive

I find the line "Divorce affects more than the spouses; it also causes pain for any children from the marriage where the non-custodial parent is often seen less often or in some cases not at all. It is common for children to blame themselves for the divorce. Relationship difficulties for the children are especially common into later life if either of the parents is poisoning the relationship with the children for the other by making negative comments to the kids." I am the child of a divorced couple and I do not appreciate the view that my parents' divorce will somehow make me grow up emotionally challenged. I do not blame myself for the divorce. Trust me, if my parents did not get a divorce, life would be a lot worse for all three of us - the preceding year to the divorce was complete agony. They were arguing all the time, and I, personally, am glad that they don't have to do that anymore. The divorce has given them great relief, as they no longer have to live with people they hate, and it has also given me great relief, as I no longer have to watch the two most important people in my life screaming at each other. I suggest the line be removed from the article. -BLeeser

Can you imagine what would be left in the Bible if someone could demand the removal of anything he said offended him? Not much.--Andy Schlafly 17:46, 27 February 2011 (EST)
I don't recall the Bible ever telling me I will grow up mentally instable. Unlike you, Mr. Schlafly, I am an actual child of divorcees, so I think I have the monopoly of knowledge on how divorcee children feel after divorces. -- BLeeser

This offends you Bleeser because no one took the time to do research on divorce. It's found that children that are either way to young, as in infancy, to understand divorce and children who are much older, as in adulthood, feel the effects much less. Search any psycinfo database and you'll find these results.

Biblical view

I don't understand the position in the "Biblical view" section. Is it really claiming that divorce is adultery and thus a sin, or that sex/marriage after divorce is adultery, that the divorce didn't change anything, and that therefore the divorced couple are still married in the eyes of God? --Scott 03:57, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I am not gonna touch this with 10 foot pole. However, what is the Church's view? often the Church's view and the Bible's view don't quite synch up. I'd be more inclined to take the Church's stance over the Bible's, as it's probably more up to date.--Elamdri 03:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Up to date? Its holy writ. Nothing short of the second coming is going to change the instructions in the bible. If the Church, an instutition of Man, says something that contradicts the divine authority of the earthly incarnation of God Himself... then the church must be wrong, and that is that. The bible forbids all divorce with one possible narrow exception, and claiming otherwise does not change that. - BornAgainBrit
No offense, but if the bible is that clear cut, then why do we still have the Church? Why bother going to church if I can just get the information out of my Bible? The Bible was written by men, and it portrays the cultural biases of those men. Don't get me wrong, it is probably the best moral guidelines ever created and has laid the foundations for Western Society. However, it is not infallible. This is why I have a problem with non-nondenominational churches and biblical fundamentalism. To believe the Bible is the book of the Teachings of Jesus is fine, to believe it is a wonderful guideline for how to live one's life is fine. To suggest that everything written in it is divine truth without any bias interjected by those who wrote it is gullibility. To believe that path will only lead you to become a evil hate monger like Fred Phelps.--Elamdri 00:06, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Wouldn't than be rather depandant on which church we're talking about? What

The Church (with a capital "C") almost always refers to the Roman Catholic Church. ColinR 04:10, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, I thought conservatives where mainly Protestants... What

?????? !!!!!! I'm sure that will come as surprise to a lot of Roman Catholics. Dpbsmith 19:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, mainly was a strong word, wasn't actually what I meant, but I reda somewhere that in 2000 63 % of the votes for Bush was protestant and 26 % of them catholic. If that is in anyway representative, wouldn't it be wrong to use the view of the catholic church as a norm in this case? What

Fine, but nobody has answered the question: Is that section of this article claiming that the Bible says that divorce is a sin of adultery, or that sex after divorce is still adultery, the same as it was before the divorce? The section quotes an unspecified translation of the Bible, and does not cite any church teaching or Bible commentary for its opinions. --Scott 18:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Here is a better question, the Bible says you shouldn't have sex with someone before marriage. So if you have sex with someone you never intend to marry, is ok then? (this is obviously a joke)--Elamdri 21:48, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

I have trouble with the conclusions drawn in this article in regard to divorce is always wrong and Matthew's allowance for marital unfaithfulness doesn't really mean that. I would prefer we simply show that there are 2 different views and not necessarily point to one being right and the other being wrong. Christians, good Christians, can have different views on this matter. Would that be ok with everyone, or would I be stepping on someone's toes? Thanks Learn together 17:54, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

More data added

I came across this doing a Google search on major denomination position on divorce (i think) and found it rather lacking. It seems to have been that way for some time, so i researched and added more info and did some formatting, by the grace of God. What think ye? It needs more formatting, at least.Daniel1212 20:10, 1 July 2009 (EDT)