"Extreme physical abuse" only grounds for separation, NOT divorce.

by cedars 45 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  thetrueone

  When one reflects upon the fact that the WTS/JWS are intensionally trying to emulate the social morals of a civilization

  that existed 3000 years ago, it becomes easy to see how archaically unjust these set rules/laws can be.

  Woman at that time were seen as lowly second class citizens, bought and sold chattel whom if a man was wealthy enough

  could have all he wanted. They weren't even allowed to enter the temples to worship. If you desired a certain woman but she wasn't

  interested in your advances, you could capture her, rape her and after give a dowry to her father and wallah she would have to become

  the man's wife. How's that for social justest with respect toward woman ?
• 

  thetrueone

  Of course these old archaic laws put men at an advantage over woman and certain JW men will take this to their own personal advantage.

  It establishes precedent of a lack of respect and concern, more for about mens discretionary wants and desires.

  This religion like so many others ie. Islamic... were constructed at a time in human history that parlayed the ignorance of the civilization

  of which these laws were established. Modern concepts of what is fair and balanced to the concerns of both woman and men have changed

  dramatically over the years. Religion is a game of power for men to languish in, which usually leaves woman far detached from equality in respect

  to their own human rights.
• 

  ilikecheese

  Do you think the mercy vs. sacrifice rule may apply here? That it's okay to break the marriage laws when it may be saving the woman's life? Just a thought. I don't know if it occurred to anyone else.
• 

  cedars

  Do you think the mercy vs. sacrifice rule may apply here? That it's okay to break the marriage laws when it may be saving the woman's life? Just a thought. I don't know if it occurred to anyone else.

  ilikecheese - you've hit the nail on the head. The Watch Tower Society are so obsessed with preserving the sanctity of marriage that they will happily do so even if there is a threat to human life. This is not just wrong from a humane standpoint, it also contravenes the Christian principle of mercy v. sacrifice. Furthermore, of what use is a preserved marital bond if it results in the loss of life, bearing in mind that the marital bond is broken at death anyway (i.e. one doesn't continue married after one has died). The Society are missing the point of why marriage is to be held sacred - for the betterment of human life, rather than for the endangerment of it.

  Cedars
• 

  soft+gentle

  most jw women who have separated from their abusive husbands become free to re-marry fairly quickly as more often than not the husband does not remain a witness but leaves and quite quickly takes up with someone else. The jw woman then divorces him and can choose to re-marry if she wishes. However most don't remarry but quietly bring up their children if they have any (and they usually do), and are supported by the congregation.
• 

  cedars

  most jw women who have separated from their abusive husbands become free to re-marry fairly quickly as more often than not the husband does not remain a witness but leaves and quite quickly takes up with someone else. The jw woman then divorces him and can choose to re-marry if she wishes. However most don't remarry but quietly bring up their children if they have any (and they usually do), and are supported by the congregation.

  soft+gentle - you're side-stepping the problem by assuming that every man who is a wife-beater will be predisposed to adultery.

  Cedars
• 

  soft+gentle

  every or most?
• 

  cedars

  Either. You can't generalize in matters such as this - although I can see you would like to be able to.

  Cedars
• 

  soft+gentle

  I'm being pragmatic cedars. I don't agree with JW views about divorce but I don't agree with your take either preferring to ask myself what happens in practice.

  edit: have to leave now to do other things so please don't think I'm trying to avoid a confrontation
• 

  cedars

  Soft+gentle:

  I'm being pragmatic cedars. I don't agree with JW views about divorce but I don't agree with your take either preferring to ask myself what happens in practice.

  There is no room for pragmatism in a court of law. You deal with facts, and not possible outcomes. Just because someone is a wife-beater, doesn't necessarily make him an adulterer. As an example, a brother could beat the living crap out of his wife, hoping that she will finally crack and commit adultery with someone else, thereby giving him grounds to pursue other options. The beating could go on and on, with the sister's life increasingly in danger, with neither side committing adultery. There are brothers who are THAT sinister and evil. It is not "pragmatic" to assume otherwise.

  My summary of the matter, that the Society lends priority to preserving the marital bond over preserving human life, is demonstrably true from what they themselves have written. I'm not convinced that you would like to believe otherwise.

  Cedars