Are Prenuptual Agreements Zig Forums?

God didn't make women that way, and not all women are that way. Only Western women are. And they haven't always been that way, and not all of them are. Only most contemporary Western women are like that. Disengage from the West and seek a wife elsewhere.

In the scheme of things, insulting God is worse than insulting a man.

A good example: my sister. Married a good man (he and I had been bros for years), and loves him dearly.

Indeed. Most won't, though, because they think they have to have a white woman.

Attached: christian wife.jpg (500x752, 59.62K)

Had the chance to meet and date a Filipino lady, but…what about the children?
They’d be, all jokes aside, placed in between two cultures, two people, two ways of thinking, living and relating to the world and God.

Attached: serveimage(5).jpg (759x1092, 112.28K)

>>>/reddit/

Let’s talk instead of insulting one another with memes; I told you my opinion, I could be wrong. Show me why I am wrong, please.
If I’m wrong, I could try to see this issue under a new light.

I've known several inter-cultural families. The kids integrate just fine.

A family is its own culture. You are Christian, your wife is Christian, your culture is Christian. And as the husband, your rule is law.

My fiance is the same as me even though we were 10,000 miles apart. I am closer to her than people I have known for most of my life. You don't marry a stranger. And I would advise that you don't marry someone that is a different denomination unless one of you are willing to convert.

For anyone that does find a foreign girl, it takes a lot of patience from both sides. Long distance relationships are hard. But I've found that if both of you can remain loyal to each other for the time it takes to grow and become married, those tests and stress only make your bonds stronger when you're married. Extreme honesty is necessary to make it work.

My last advice is that when you do find someone, you need to go meet them very soon in person. Within 3 months, I would say. Even if it is for a short time you will know the person, and if she is the one for you your doubts will expire.

I see, I still have my worries about this, but at least we spoke about it in a Christian way.
Thanks.

Truly spoken like a non-thinker

Behold, the child who throws a fit when his peas touch his mashed potatoes.(USER WAS WARNED FOR RULE 2: PERSONAL INSULT)

So does not marrying someone who isn't the right person to marry. There's a reason that Paul said that marriage is a last resort if you absolutely do not have the self control to not have premarital sex - the fact that divorce is very messy and is a sin.

A prenuptial agreement for classification of premarital assets could certainly be important for a family where one party has a large estate and substantial assets (like a farm or a large business) and the family owning those assets wants to make sure they stay in the family.

An example would be a grandfather farmer wanting his son to have an agreement before he marries his wife that if the son has inherited the 8-generation family farm and then the son dies, the farm should not be allowed to be sold if it could be given to the farmer’s grandchild.

Having an agreement to make sure family assets stay in the family is a totally legitimate use of a prenup. However, the whole “I’m rich and you ain’t getting my money if we divorce” thing fundamentally undermines the covenantal nature of holy matrimony.

A prenup can actually remove no-fault divorce terms. It is entirely legal to write a prenup that says, in case of adultery, non-cheating spouse gets everything.

That said, judges hate enforcing these and you'd better have very clear-cut evidence. The point of no fault was for them to not have to make findings on adultery, etc. but, you can force the issue into contract if you want.

Not true, if you actually hire a lawyer and go through all the legal hoops.

Mark doesn't make the Matthew 19:9 exception, Christ says it's still better to stay married and Paul (1 Corinthians) says you -cannot- divorce non-believers, but to accept it if they divorce you for your beliefs.

No.

The Sacrament of Marriage is intended as a icon of Christ and His Church, and should be a dissolution of self into a couple. Planning for its end even before it begins is counterproductive.

Just as those settling a new world should burn their boats on landing there, those getting married should plunge in without anything holding them back.

If they're Christian, they should make it work, assuming the common vernacular reasons given for them being "the wrong person" lel. Actual reasons with validity such as abuse actual abuse and not the special snowflake bullshit that counts for it in the modern West were cause for divorce in the Law and continued to be so, both in the Roman West and the Byzantine East, for centuries, before Rome in her various heresies made changes to that.

Irrelevant to the question.

...

Matthew 19:9 does make the Matthew 19:9 exception.

1 Corinthians 7

Such divorces are legitimate. I think you mean the Christian spouse cannot initiate the divorce not that they cannot be divorced. Also doesn't specify that it's only because of being left for belief.

This, we wouldn't need prenups if the church was harder on divorce and marital and sexual sins and more beneficial to those who are married.

"Did He not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union?" (Malachi 2:15)
"Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous." (Hebrews 13:4)
"'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church." (Ephesians 5:31-32)

When uncertain of Christ's exact teaching, go with the more restrictive lesson. Matthew 19:9 is permissive, not require. Mark does not grant the permission. Therefore, the way to obey both is to never get divorced from a believer.

This is more nuanced but more correct. I was typing the cliff notes.

Divorce is permitted in cases of adultery, but a prenup is going in planning on divorce.

If you have to contractually force your spouse into their covenantal obligations, you probably shouldn't be marrying them.

Not living with them =/= divorce.

Another option is to not bin the very words of Christ just because they are not in Mark.

Why was the Zig Forumstard not warned as well, mods? He is shaming someone's future children as being murderers because of a half jew. Elliot Rodger and he calls a Christian dumb.

Sounds like personal insult to me.

Although I like the idea and want it legislated, I believe that if a partner in a relationship asks for a prenup (without a third-party enforcing it on them), then the idea of divorce becomes implanted in their head, almost as if one believes the other is not as committed to the relationship.

Also this.

Are we living in a 'safe space'? Please don't make this place into Reddit. These rules are ridiculous and enforcing them for a religion with hundreds of denominations will only lead to discussions becoming dilute and artificial.

Maybe you should learn to speak to people without insulting them. It's surprisingly an easy thing to do.

As opposed to being comprised of name calling

Dude, have you ever been to Reddit? Everything there is more vulgar than Youtube comments and people throw insults at each other more than boxers at a weigh-in.

The brother or sister is not bound in such circumstances.

Paul clearly says it does in this instance.

You haven't addressed the argument. If the additional words made the teaching -more- restrictive, I would suggest obeying them. The point is, when uncertain, go with the most restrictive reading.

The only one insulting God is you for not thinking we should put them in their place and put men in their place as well.

I always thought the ideal solution in burgerland was to get married through the church, but not legally file it.
It does beg the question whether it's morally right to have your wife collect government funbux due to being a "single mother of 5".
I mean, the state does fund Planned Parenthood.

Give unto Caesar what's Caesar's. If the government says you get it and you ain't lying, there's nothing morally wrong with it. People just try to guilt white folk from using these programs because they hate white people. We use them heavy by numbers but low by percentages.

Government doesn't give a f about whether you've been in a church ceremony. If you don't file a license, you ain't married legally, period.

You basically called me a retard, you snake.

You can't get rid of Christ's explicit words

are you retarded?

grow up

if that's something you even need to remotely consider than it's the wrong girl

Everything in Christianity is very solid to me, but Marriage is the one area that i feel i HAVE to dig my heels, i trust God, but i don't trust what women have become. Yes, looking for a woman in another continent is good, but wow. I'm honestly happy for those who have found Good women, but they're the exception and not the rule. I get it, i don't expect a Victorian age rich man's trophy wife, but at the very least she should warrant the gender's distinct and permanent form of bullshit they enjoy feeding men. Women have always been so disappointing.

That was as sugar coated of an insult as possible, i don't think it warrants a warning even if it was the only point of the post.

When God made everything he did leave certain areas that can be exploited by satan and satanism (or else he would't have been as effective or those who control the world wouldn't have succeeded as well). I think God allows these mechanics of morality to test people, instead of removing the ability to sin all together. It's not calling him incompetent for allowing evil, it's just sucks at how effective we fall for them.
Did you read that after posting it, or the image? By pointing out legitimate emotions over the situations it's suppose to magically answer and invalidate the problem on my end. It's exactly the same as saying "you're bitter" "you're negative" that's your problem, enjoy getting fucked.

I don't call into question the words of Christ. I call into question the accuracy of those reporting the words of Christ.

Mark doesn't have an exception, Matthew does. Did Mark forget such an important exception or did Matthew insert it cause someone was like:

"Christ didn't mean that if they commit adultery, right?"

"Well, I mean, yeah, it couldn't apply there, could it?"

Right. So, maybe Matthew added the exception thinking it was probably said or on a bad report or maybe it was true.

Maybe Mark inadvertently left out the exception or maybe it didn't exist.

Since I have no way of knowing, I use the more restrictive possibility to make sure I avoid sin. Because Christ, even in Matthew, does not say you -must- divorce because of fornication, only that you can. Therefore, don't - then you're on the right side of Matthew and Mark, regardless of the correct reading.

That's the argument you're missing.

Ok, so why are you here? Why not go to some Liberal subreddit where you can call yourself a Christian while denying the inspiration of the Gospels?

How do you go about finding a girl like this anyway? Any Asians in my country are bound to be as corrupted by the leftist, hedonistic culture as the white women. Girls like pic related are lovely, but I'd probably have to not only leave my country of birth but the entire continent to find them. The culture shock is going to be massive, but maybe that's a good thing. I'm hesitant.

Does divine inspiration mean they're flawless? Also is the translation flawless?

I think you should cut the guy some slack.

I don't deny the divine inspiration of the Gospels, I'm simply pointing out a disparity between the gospels and you've resolved the answer without any critical thinking.

This is shown by your unwillingness to actually address my argument and, instead, continuously argument that if I don't accept your reading I'm ignoring the clear words of Christ. This is a fallacy - you're appealing to a self-evident truth when, in fact, it is not self-evident.

To me it seems the most forgiving, and the most Christian, to never divorce your wife under any circumstances. Why are you so vengeful that you need an excuse to do that? (see how arguing with fallacy is unfair - here, I assumed a motive for you that you may not hold)

What do you expect, when somebody starts a post with "a family is its own culture"? Applause?

he was right because it is. every family is its own little culture and has its own customs. you must not have ever dated anyone and met their parents at all.

Which is irrelevant with regard to the mental effort a mixed child has to put in when confronting himself with a society where he is unlike most of not all of the people he deals with daily.

*most if not all

It's not irrelevant. I'm right. Stop acting like Tenda Spencer and go back to Zig Forums. Being a Christian is unlike everyone else in a world full of fedoras like you. Ask anyone here how much they've been considered an outsider when they try to live by the Bible.

That's all fine and dandy but you're talking about the struggles you've had to deal with in your adult age, not in your infancy. Guys like Elliott must endure an additional level of hardship that doesn't need to exist.

wew

Yes.
No, but most attacks on the translation are just a thinly veiled attack on the original.

One which exists only in your head.
Your argument exposes your unbelief, it does not require any refutation.
It isn't my reading, it's the reading of the apostle Matthew and the Holy Spirit of God. I suppose the difference between us is I am not bold enough to think myself wiser than either of them.
It is self-evident because God is the one who spoke it.
Tell it to Christ, He's the one you're having issue with here.

No. It clearly does. Go read them.

Your argument exposes your fanaticism and how you aren't actually trying to use your mind to be closer to God.

If that's true, then you should reconcile the gospels the way I do and never divorce to be on the safe side. Instead, you choose to believe Matthew over Mark.

God didn't speak your interpretation. My interpretation is based on the same words yours are- unless you have a super-secret Book of Mormon you're using or something to make up certain interpretations as correct.

Christ agrees with me. He never insists you divorce. In Mark there is no exception, in Matthew he it is permissive but not required. I don't know what you don't understand about this.

It is insulting him. Who are you to question how God does things? Read Job and stop grumbling.

No. It clearly does not.

invalidate

Indeed white children are certainly still the majority in their generation in the West and will never be a hated and isolated minority. Oh wait no that's completely wrong ha ha

Are we Italians white? Are Spanish people, Portuguese people, Greeks and so forth white?
White…I never felt white. I always felt part of the people of Europe, but I dislike both Zig Forums and Zig Forums for how they always struggle to understand skin color is not the most important part. Yes, I do not want mass migration to Europe, I want, if possible, to keep the continent and its Nations homogeneous.
But "white" is just a buzzword like "racist" and "islamophobic".

"White" is shorthand for the Hellenic-Christian cultures. All those nations you listed certainly qualify. The reference to physical features is just a symbol. Whiteness isn't genetic or physical. When leftists malign white people they aren't voicing hatred for light skin, but rather what that skin represents. They want to burn pale Caucasians as effigies of Christ and reason. On the other hand, what Zig Forums fails to realize is that without the Logos and logic, "white" people are pretty much worthless. What both overlook is that people of other colors are perfectly capable of holding up these traditions. The West isn't white people, but white people are associated with it, which is why leftists hate white people, but Zig Forums has likewise mistaken the symbol for what it represents.

Yes? I don't understand the question

Or rather mistaken the value of the symbol for the value of what it represents.

No, not a minority, a singular individual unlike any of his neighbors most likely.

It's the nature of American politics. They focus more on race than ethnicity and nationality.

The movie Black Panther illustrates this perfectly. The American bad guy wants Wakanda to help all African across the globe while Wakanda is focused mostly on Wakandans.

WAKANDA FOR THE WAKANDANS

I don't see a pre-nup as validating divorce. Carrying a life raft on your boat doesn't mean you approve of a shipwreck. In our current society divorce rates are astoundingly high. And if you believe a pre-nup carries some hedge against risk I see no spiritual problem with signing one. The real solution is to not marry a thot.

Good post. All who come to Christ will be blessed and garbed in white, and whiteness, biblically, means purified by God. Has nothing to do with race. An atheist or LARPagan snownigger is of no worth and will be damned to hell, likely taking others with him by his influence and loud, spergy, boastful deception and ignorance. Worshiping race is Talmudism. All who deny Christ are wittingly or unwittingly serving Satan.

John 8:37-47
Titus 3:3-11
Revelation 2:9, 3:8-9, 7:9-14, 22:12-17

Divorce is not Christian.

In an ideal world, prenup wouldn't be necessary. But, nowadays, yeah, you need to prenup if you want to keep what you've worked for. If you wouldn't mind losing all of it, then you don't need to prenup, especially since the farce "no fault divorce" exists.

Usually yes.
I was given this advice by a lawyer once:
Makes it harder to throw out for "duress" I'm assuming.

Attached: reader.jpg (250x201, 7.29K)

There are still good ones out there. But you cant be desperate and settle. Thats why people get ruined in divorce. You have to ensure that this woman is someone you can make conversation with into old age. After the 18 month infatuation period you wiĺl know if you made a good decision or not

Right in the feels