Meat Limits of Christian rules

[MemeFan]

Yes it would appear that you are blind and lazy or just a bit stupid.
Why don’t YOU google “obvious historic benefits of a Christian society”
The phrase that comes to mind for you is “ There is none so blind as he who will not see”
Perhaps you are not as clever as you think you are.

From my experience when somebody call me stupid, it's usually after they run of arguments.

You know, if something is obvious, you should be able to directly run of your head. Like, face-to-face conversation. You hear question, think max 5 second and tell your answer.

My answer is wealth, human rights and treatment of women.

But you can't or won't answer obvious. I don't research to answer obvious questions.

 

[MemeFan]

Recently Pat Stedman send, in my opinion legendary email. Here is almost full without promo at ending. He explains better what I'm trying to tell you why you can't blindly follow rules.

---
"Are you alright?"

Nobody had asked Hadley Vlahos that for years. But when her neighbor asked, it triggered her divorce.

Also known as Nurse Hadley, she's a hospice nurse influencer (how is that a job now??) with millions of followers and a best-selling book about caring for people at the end of their lives.

In 2023, a couple moved in two doors down from Hadley. The wife invited Hadley and her husband on a double date to a wine bar.

Great.

… Except on the drive there, her husband realized there'd be no TV at the restaurant to watch the basketball game. It wasn't his team, or the playoffs. He just wanted to watch the game. And when he found out he wouldn't be able to, he shut down.

As Hadley tells it, he sat at the table staring at the wall in petulant protest while the couple tried to make conversation.

What a child.

The next morning, the neighbor dropped by to invite Hadley to a girls' night.

"You can just leave the kids with your husband."

"Oh, I can't do that."

"What do you mean?"

"Well… he doesn't like for me to do stuff without him."

"So he is controlling you."

"Well, no. He doesn't tell me I can't go. He just makes a big deal out of it and it becomes such a problem that I don't go."

This near-stranger looked her dead in the eye and said it:

"That's not normal."

The neighbor never told Hadley to get a divorce. But after that conversation, Hadley’s eyes opened up to what a garbage human-being her husband was.

It was like a spell was broken and she could finally see the reality of how unhappy she was.

So she wanted a divorce.

Easy-peasy in every other state, but she lives in Mississippi, one of only two states that won't grant a no-fault divorce unless both parties agree to it.

Her husband refused to sign the papers, which meant she couldn't divorce him.

The only way to get a divorce from him was if she had proof of a legitimate reason to divorce him. The 12-point list of reasons includes infidelity, impotence, incest (lol), and habitual cruel and inhuman treatment.

Thus began her quest for a divorce.

She found out he was an alcoholic hiding bottles all over the house.

Not good enough.

He was verbally abusive and a few years before, he was arrested for physical violence against her.

Because she'd dropped the charges (Hadley felt bad for him because his mom was dying), this didn't count.

He even moved out to live with his new girlfriend.

Unless she could get photo evidence of them having sex, that wasn't good enough.

(WTF)

The whole story is crazier than I can relay here, but he also faked having cancer so she'd let him move back in, which worked for a few months until she found out it was BS.

(Can't believe this is the second time this week I'm writing about someone faking cancer)

To get out, she had to prove he was at fault — hiring a private investigator to document the affair, filing hundreds of documents, and sitting through an 11-day trial. All for the right to leave her own husband.

Then earlier this year, she was finally granted her freedom.

I think no fault divorce has had devastating consequences on society.

It’s made marriages disposable. People bail on a whim when divorce should be the last thing you try.

However, an anti-no-fault-divorce rule would have kept Hadley in that house.

This is a great example of where I have a strong position… that is not a hard and fast rule.

I think it's great that Hadley has escaped and can build a happier life now.

Because I don't live by rules, I live by context.

While I have lots of issues with no-fault divorce, the answer isn't a system that makes a woman hire a private eye and spend mid-5-figures to escape an alcoholic sociopath who is already sleeping with another woman.

This is the problem with rules.

Rules are judgment with the context stripped out. They’re short, memorable, and spread like monkeypox in a San Francisco polycule.

The increase in rules correlates with the decline in character of society.

And the worst decisions a man makes with women come from blindly following rules.

So you take a hard stance against your wife — or the girl you've been seeing three months — because the rule says to. But the rule doesn't have the full context. The last 4 years of marriage. Things you said before. Things she did before. So it can't possibly be right 100% of the time.

A few weeks back, half of Twitter was saying dump your girl if she sympathizes with Lindsay Clancy. I sent an email about it myself.

What I didn't say is that there are two completely different women in this group.

One is obsessed with the case and has decided a mother who did that is the real victim. This woman has poor character.

The other half-read a headline, said something soft, and will have forgotten the whole thing by next month. That's not a red flag. That's a person with an uninformed opinion.

The rule says "dump her." But the rule also can't tell these women apart.

Can you?

Knowing when you’re living inside an exception requires judgment. And judgment is built through reps.

 

[MemeFan]

And by the why, case of Hardley Vlahos opens another thing.

If two rules conflict each other, what then?

So it's possible to claim that Hardley can't start divorce since she didn't do sexual immorality, but what is she start do claim 2nd commandment of love as her argument. Obviously, her husband breaks command in abundance.

 

[HomesteadWife]

And by the why, case of Hardley Vlahos opens another thing.

If two rules conflict each other, what then?

So it's possible to claim that Hardley can't start divorce since she didn't do sexual immorality, but what is she start do claim 2nd commandment of love as her argument. Obviously, her husband breaks command in abundance.

The bible, though some may interpret things differently, does allow a few exceptions for women to be biblicalcally free from their husbands with the ability to remarry.

1. If an unbeliever who chooses to leave her she is no longer bound.
2. If he is not providing (necessary to life) food, shelter, and conjugal rights. (This needs to not be taken as the man has to provide according to the standards the woman wants.)
3. Serious physical abuse. (See biblical examples of slave being freed for this)
4. If a husband commits a grievous sin, punishable biblically by death, such as adultery she is free by enforcement of punishment.

Otherwise biblically women can choose to leave their husbands without a get. This means that they do not have the bill of divorce needed to remarry. She can choose to walk away from a marriage but has a consequence for the action. She doesn't get to take the mans children, his house, or half his wealth as the feminized and anti patriarchal society we live in today allows and enforces.

The rule of love, as your personal opinion and interpretation of it exist, doesn't apply here.

Emotional abuse is not a biblical reason to divorce.
If she was seriously physically abused she wouldn't have dropped the charges, I don't believe women who cry and file physical abuse aren't just lying and manipulating the majority of the time.
Having an affair, if the woman is unmarried, is fornication but not adultery and does not justify a divorce/death penalty.

This case you are quoting is a clear cut case of dramatized feminism. It is not a biblical conundrum. If the woman wanted to leave she could have at any point. She didn't and chose to go the route she did because she wanted to take the kids, his house, and half his wealth with her. Period. Feminism and you are white knighting for a sensationalized story.