basta nananakit na ang lalake o babae, sipain na!

NOPE!

Divorce ay iba sa annulment ..

DIVORCE
"ayaw ko na sa asawa ko .. lumalaki ang tiyan nya kasi mahilig uminom"

ANNULMENT
"Noong bago palang kami ikasal lasenggero na sya ... ayaw ko nga sa kanya ... pinilit lang ako ni daddy eh ... kasi para daw sa kinabukasan ko"

Ang divorce ay para sa mga ... mahihina at walang lakas ng loob at maling pananampalataya

Para ma-iwasan ang diborsyo ....
1) Wag kang mamikot
2) Wag kang padala sa magulang para sa arranged marriage
3) Wag kang plastik sa LOVE mo ... babalikan ka nyan
4) Wag kang manloloko ng LOVER mo
5) Wag kang magmadali ... o mamilit ... kung napangitan syo .. tanggapin mo
6) Pakasal ka lang pagmahal mo .. tapos mag-usap kayo .. iaalay ang pag-aasawa sa diyos ....


Diyos lamang ang makakapag-paamo ng kabiyak mo ....


BOOK OF MALACHI:

15 Has not the LORD made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring. [a] So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth.

16 "I hate divorce," says the LORD God of Israel, "and I hate a man's covering himself [b] with violence as well as with his garment," says the LORD Almighty.
So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith.

always my Lord Jesus. Yan ba translation ng name mo?

tama ka kapatid

always ....... my LORD JESUS

Hmmm… mukhang medyo misleading o bitin yata yung depinisyon ng divorce ah. Paano kaya kung ganito?

DIVORCE : "ayaw ko na sa asawa ko .. lumalaki ang tiyan nya kasi mahilig uminom…kaya ayan pag laseng lagi akong binubugbog pati na ang mga anak namin”.

Ewan ko lang ha? Pero sa tingin ko para ngang mas malakas ang loob ng kaso ng divorce kaysa annulment based on the examples sa itaas. Kasi sa kaso ng divorce, at least the person has the guts to do something to protect herself and her kids. When all else fails, she has the guts to move on.

Sa annulment, the person didn’t have the guts to stand up against her dad’s pagpipilit. She knew she didn’t want the guy from the very start but she was too weak to stand on her own conviction.

I think divorce can be justified so okay ako diyan.

Oh, by the way. You guys may find this interesting:

Deuteronomy 24:1-3 said:

Matthew 19:9 said:

As the priest would say… “This is the Word of the Lord”.

Now it is our turn to say… “Praise be to God”.

actually there is a process in the Church which allows for dissolution of the marriage under canonical law...i am not too familiar with it...

to clarify the legal implications of by and between divorce and annulment...

divorce is the recognition of a valid and subsisting marriage and during the relationship the marital bonds are severed either by judicial pronouncement or mere signature on documentation...there arer rquisites to it varying from jurisdiction to jurisdiction

on the other hand annulment has the effect of expunging the existence of the marriage returning the parties to their original state as if no marriage had ever occurred...either there is a defect from the outset or the symptoms of a malingering incapacity manifests itself existent during the marriage...back to zero as it were...

just my two cents...

I don't know why the Philippines would even entertain the notion of divorce, when annulment, the way it's being "practiced" in the country is so much better. whether that's is how the law is written or not, I'm not entirely certain.
In the US, annulment can only be granted under certain conditions, usually, there is a time period...kinda like a warranty. and when granted, it is to dissolve the marriage...as if it never happened.
In a divorce, the marriage is terminated by a court order. and there are so many things that could be included in the court order, like: child support, alimony, division of properties (who gets what). IMHO, it will never work in the Philippines... and no politician in their right mind should even consider it...considering the many mistresses that they have.

For one, child support: if the wife filed for divorce due to the husband's infidelity/adultery, she would be entitled to child support/per child per month. alam naman natin kung gaanong kadami mag anak sa atin.
Alimony: this is the monthly support (allowance) for the ex-wife. just think about it...hiniwalayan mo na, sinusustentuhan mo pa rin.
The ex-wife could also ask for the house, the car, 50% of the business, and if married for at least 10 years prior to the divorce, could also be entitled to 50% of the husband's pension.
again, what politician in their right mind would allow that.

and that is just the law...and doesn't include religious ramifications, psychological impact on children, etc.

Deuteronomy 24:1-3
This is the old law .... remember .. JESUS fulfilled the OLD LAW and go on to emphasize those couples binded by GOD .. no MAN should seperate ... you cannot apply the OLD mosaic law on a post messianic period

Matthew 19:9
Good choice of text ... in justifying divorce ... but unchastity .. pertains to adultery not beating the wife ... beating is not a reason to seperate those binded by GOD. A wife can ask the police authority to put his beater husband in jail ... but not divorce him. Reconciliation is given a chance always.

Sacrament of Matrimony is a sacrament of SERVICE comparable to sacrament of HOLY ORDERS (priesthood) ... being married is not purely for having a family or settling down happily ... it is a lifetime service ...

so before getting married ... choose wisely ... not by accident like ... 'oops nabuntis ko eh' ... or ... 'pakakasalan ko nlang wala na ako sa kalendaryo eh'

priest usually dont suggest marriage after 'buntis' ... but parents do ... for the sake of their 'pangalan' ...

the western culture of sex invokes immaturity towards the young ... one mother would says ... 'ganyan talaga ang kabataan ... mapusok' .... it undermines the true meaning of the sacrament of matrimony.

Now, the western culture of sexual revolution is creeping the philippines with its side dishes ... [divorce] [abortion] [contraception] ... all against the pro-creation will of GOD

Is divorce in the western society ... promotes a better binding between husbands and wife? ... or did it became a merchandise? ... a commercial plot for the lawyers who are getting richer by the day? or for the gold digger who keeps on jumping from one partner to another? ... did the law on divorce ... somehow safeguarded the welfare of the children in western countries ...

NO ...

Instead, it integrates divorce as conventional norm of that society ... that even the toddlers understood that divorce is now part of their cuture.

INDIA ... a country of fix marriages ... where parents chooses for their child's partner ... but with consent of the couple ofcourse. When issues starts ... all members of the family tries to fix things ... resulting to a more binding reconciliation.

DIVORCE is not a divine right ... it is a product of a particular culture

I see. This is interesting. There’s another passage in the NT that talks about divorce. Mark 10: 2-12 states:

2Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" 3"What did Moses command you?" he replied. 4They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away." 5"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. 6"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 7'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. 9Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." 10When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. 11He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."

So in light of this passage in the post messianic period, the Deuteronomy passage should be ignored? That it should be downplayed in lieu of another verse in the New Testament? If the passage in Deuteronomy was allowed back in Moses’ time, then there must be a reason for that. So the reason appears to be as a “concession”? So God would allow something to be done for concessions? Let’s go back at the Markan passage again. Jesus recognized the trap being set for him and he responded accordingly, giving them a reflection of man's “hard-hearted wickedness”. But let’s review Matthew 19:9. It was written:

“And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. “

So, Person X divorces Person Y because Person Y committed adultery (fornication).

Person X is okay in lieu of the Matthean passage. Person Y is screwed.

Person X meets Person Z and they fall in love.

If Person X marries Person Z, Person X commits adultery. (in lieu of Mark 10: 11)

Does this mean that a common-law partnership, is then justified? (i.e. a live-in relationship or “living in sin” )


Anyway, I guess Matthew 19:9 was clear on the exception here, right? “Except it be for fornication”. It appears that biblically, there seems to be an exception to the rule on divorce. So it seems like it really depends on the situation.

But if we still insist that divorce is definitely and absolutely wrong, why would God permit it at one time (in Moses’ time) and not in another time (Jesus’ time)? I guess it would make sense if we REJECT the notion that the Bible or the Word of God or God himself is eternal and unchanging. The Old Testament and the New Testament are deemed to be the Word of God. If all of God's Word is true, then the question is why would we give emphasis to one injunction and not another? What is the criteria for deciding which verses to highlight and which ones to downplay?

The Scriptures are open for interpretation. What Jesus was promoting is the importance of marriage and the condemnation of adultery, I think, and I do see some truth to that. That it was God’s plan to have man and woman into a union and he does not want them to be separated. However, in some cases such as fornication, divorce may be justified. Jesus Christ was wise to recognize some situations that would give an exemption to the rule.

I see. Beating is not a reason to separate those bound by “God” ... but cheating is. With that, I can only wonder why a supposedly all-loving God can be so cruel and narrow-minded.

I agree that marriage should be treated very importantly and marriage is not a game where we can just quit anytime we choose. That love should remain strong for married couples and so on and so forth. Ideally, this should be the case, right? But we really don’t live in an ideal world, do we? And it’s just sad to say that people change, sometimes, not in the most ideal manner.

Pero let’s consider this. Do we agree that marriage is a contract between two people to love and honor one another till death parts them? That’s the traditional definition of marriage, right? Suppose that a man and a woman got married and everything is all nice and happy. Then after 10 years may nagbago sa kanila. Let’s say yung lalake nagbago. Suppose that he refuses to protect; that he abuses, assaults, and tramples upon the woman he wed. Is she under any obligation to him? He has violated the contract. And despite all the counseling and intervention done to make the marriage work, the woman is still being hurt and tormented. Don’t we see that the husband has failed to live up to the oath in the contract, to love and honor his wife? In addition to physical injury and mental anguish, the kids are being affected by the constant violence they are seeing from the father being done to the mother. Is she under any obligation to him now? Is she bound by the contract the husband has broken? If so, what is the consideration for this obligation? Must she live with him for his sake? Must she live with him and stay married to him for the Bible’s sake? Is there any obligation on the part of the wife to remain with the brutal husband for the sake of God? Should we insist upon a wife to remain with a husband who bruises and mangles her flesh? What should she do? Should the woman sue the husband and have the husband put in jail to be separated from her and the children? Then why preserve the marriage if they are going to be separated anyway

Even married women have a right to personal security. They do not lose, either by contract or sacrament, the right of self-preservation. Does the woman have the right for self-preservation and to seek a new life and a new happiness? Do we picture God, with his infinite wisdom and compassion, insist that a helpless woman to remain the wife of a cruel man?

Here’s another example. Suppose an inexperienced girl is married to a man and after a few weeks of marriage, the man finds out he has a sexually transmitted disease obtained from his flings with GROs or whoever. Now the Church would say that the marriage is an indissoluble sacrament. The girl must endure celibacy or stay together. And if they stay together, they must not use birth control (e.g. condoms) to prevent the birth of children with the disease. What if even after the husband gets treated or cured of this STD, he still continues to be unfaithful? Do we insist that the girl remain in this predicament?

You know, it’s easy for us to say that we should accept such predicaments presented above. That we should have faith and God will take care of the rest. But really, don’t we have the right to our self-preservation and happiness as well? If you guys still insist that we should still keep the marriage in such extreme cases, then it is your choice. I am not promoting divorce, don’t get me wrong. I am also a supporter of a happy and loving marriage. But I for one think that it would be wrong of us to judge the people who committed divorce ( as in “para sa mga mahihina” ) and we have to assess the rationale for divorce (not everyone has shallow reasons for this). An all-good and an all-knowing God wouldn’t be too narrow-minded, right?

If the reason why marriage must be preserved at all cost is because it was written in book X, chapter Y, and verse Z of the bible, then people ought to follow each and everyone of the commandments (such as not eating shellfish, killing people who work on the Sabbath, condoning slavery, etc) written as well. Hey, even the bible says so, right?

Matt 5:19 - "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven"

What does one do if divorce is a sin, but one's husband abuses the children? Why is it that we believe that owning a slave is morally wrong, but the Bible condones it? One method of answering these difficult questions is to realize that the Bible was written for a particular time period in which God accommodated the unenlightened people. Additionally, the Bible's laws are not always meant to be followed blindly, instead acting as a set of guidelines for correct behavior.

Laws, the Constitution, etc. are meant to be a set of guidelines for a good and just living. But these guidelines are meant for justice and equality for all, not about laws! That is why Jesus Christ crossed the law when he helped the adulteress, when he performed miracles and healed on the Sabbath, etc.

One cannot sense the effects of prescribed drugs until one becomes sick, saw a doctor, and had been prescibed a cure for his ailment. There are drugs with warning labels that say, to the effect, that one cannot take them without the proper advise from physicians. The number of dosage is also prescribed, the time by which you are going to take them, the side effects indicated, and additional warnings as to the limitations by which one cannot take them such as in case of pregancy, other ailments, and the use of alcohol during the time of prescription. This practically differentiates it from "over-the-counter" drugs used for common ailments.

Divorce, like prescribed drugs, is used for ailing marriage. One cannot use it unless he/she is, first of all, married legally, and is deemed by a legally authorized person to be actually "on the rocks" or to put it simply, the marriage is not at all working to the advantage of those concerned. It should be not like the drugs that you can acquire through the counter so easily.

I believe that the Bible is clear on the matter in so far as the prescribed methods of pursuing it is concerned. That it was granted to believers is not even the question. That it should be granted to Filipinos is even superfluous. Dahil matigas daw ang ulo ng tao, it was granted to them through Moses. But it does not mean na hindi na nila magamit ulit. Jesus was clear on that under certain circumstance, as infidelity.

Divorce, is it a sin? Who says? Where? And why? Because of the perception of the "sanctity" of marriage? What does "sanctity" mean? When the marriage becomes a problem where does sanctity lies? It went out of the window the very moment that one party has failed to live up to the oath in the contract, to love and honor one’s spouse.

GOD is not narrow minded ... you are narrow minded.

You see there is no MAN of sound mind who beats his wife

One example of the ROOT of beating is under the influence of DRUGS, or WINE; now this case ... is not justifiable for a divorce ... because after "MAHULASAN" the beater usually says sorry or do an act of reconciliation. The ROOT cause here is the vice, it is more better to resolve the issue by solving the VICE first.
---------------------------------------------------------------
[THIS CASE IS THE ONE STATED IN GOSPEL OF MARK]

Another example is ADULTERY ... when a MAN/WOMAN is having an EXTERNAL AFFAIR ... HE/SHE will show irritation over their FORMER relationship (this is a natural behavior by human instinct)... resulting to beating (by MAN) or "coldness" (by WOMAN). Now this is ... according to matthew ... requires divorce. But please be understood by your capacity that it is not the beating that is the reason for this lawful divorce but ADULTERY.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[THIS CASE IS THE ONE STATED IN GOSPEL OF MATTHEW]


You look at BEATING as the source of the problem ... but in actual it is the VICE or ADULTERY that is truly the source ... GOD is not narrow minded.

GOD IS JUST

Here are the theological facts:

We don't live in ideal world ...

This world will come to pass

A new world will come that is ideal

Only IDEAL-MINDED people will be in that ideal world

this world is a training ground to make us ideal for the new world to come

Those who choose the ideas of this world ... will be gone along with this world

Matthew 19:9
============
I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for
marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits
adultery."

Mark 10:12
==========
And if she divorces her husband and marries another man,
she commits adultery."

Luke 16:18
==========
Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery,
and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

1 Corinthians 7:10-12
=====================
To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord):
A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does,
she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband.
And a husband must not divorce his wife.


Apostle matthew wrotes
... divorce out of context of unfaithfulness is adultery
... divorcing husband must not marry again

Evangelist Mark wrotes
... divorcing wife must not marry again

Evangelist Luke wrotes
... divorcing husband must not marry again

Apostle Paul states
... divorce can be made but no re-marrying, and only the wife
applies for a divorce ... husband should not ... and that command;
saint paul said ... comes from the LORD.


In the biblical concept ... divorce can be applied ... but HE/SHE
who divorce must not marry again; and he who was divorced by the partner
also must not marry ..... and anyone who marries a divorced person
commits adultery ...... all persons X, Y, or Z are screwed

So if you choose to apply for a divorce ... it is like saying you
want to be single again forever.

The western culture's concept of divorce ... is simply ... unbiblical

You can only re-marry if your spouse died ... and no act of divorce
was applied during the time the spouse was still alive.

This means if person X wants to marry person Z ... person X must wait
until person Y dies ... meanwhile ... person X must serve person Y faithfully
while person Y is still alive

teka po sa lalake lang yong nananakit..