Another thought I had about prenups

[chosenone]

Prenups, as in deciding who gets what financially if the marriage ends have never been legal here.

It's like I didn't say anything at all... you just gloss over it entirely in your opening sentence.

whoosh!

WS prenups as we see them today, are financial agreements to decide who gets what in the event of a divorce.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Prenups, as in deciding who gets what financially if the marriage ends have never been legal here.

It's like I didn't say anything at all... you just gloss over it entirely in your opening sentence.

whoosh!

WS prenups as we see them today, are financial agreements to decide who gets what in the event of a divorce.

I do not think that your (royal?) we is as inclusive as you think it is.

Jarrod

[Cally]

Prenups, as in deciding who gets what financially if the marriage ends have never been legal here. The legal system here is thankfully among the best in the world, and I am glad that the courts have the right to overrule often very unfair agreements made sometimes 20 or 30 years before, when things in the marriage have changed dramatically and children have been born. A divorce will only go to court of one or both are fighting the settlement, and most don't get to court because agreement is reached before that.
My solicitor, when he found out I was getting married again, said half jokingly, 'we do a good rate on prenups.' I just laughed and said, no thanks not for me.

(emboldening by me)

You blatantly contradict yourself in this sentiment yet again. After all the sermonizing about stuff being merely stuff, and trusting God for provisions so it's supposedly worldly for a man to protect himself with a prenup, but here the sentiment is that the agreements of some prenups are "unfair" over material things and that's a point of concern.

[chosenone]

This is a very interesting article that says what I also feel. Its is written by this man:-

Russell D. Moore is president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, the moral and public policy agency of the nation's largest Protestant denomination.
........................................................

A pastor emailed me recently to say that he'd been in the process of preparing a couple for marriage. In the flow of premarital counseling he learned that the man had insisted that his future wife sign a prenuptial agreement, and that she'd agreed to it. The pastor told the couple they're not ready to marry, and wondered whether prenuptial agreements have any place in a Christian marriage.

Let me first note that I am sure there are some legal circumstances in which a prenuptial agreement is mandated by law or by insurance policies, say in the case of a widow who remarries and who has minor children from her first marriage receiving an ongoing inheritance.

The typical arrangement of a prenuptial agreement, however, is completely outside the Christian vision of marriage. Here's why.

First of all, a prenuptial agreement assumes a contractual rather than a covenantal view of marriage. It assumes there are two "partners" in the marriage, each protecting his or her interests and resources.

A Christian marriage, however, is a one-flesh union. What is true of the one is true of the other. A prenuptial agreement in a Christian marriage makes about as much sense as a legal contract between one's mouth and one's stomach, in case of a refusal to provide nutrients.  The Apostle tells us: "No man hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church" (Eph 5:29).

This one-flesh union is in view in the traditional Christian vows, "with all my worldly goods I thee endow."

A prenuptial agreement also presupposes divorce. Divorce is a regrettable future possibility, in this scenario, but it is a possibility. A couple that begins preparing for the possibility of divorce is headed toward it. Why not have the couple sign a legal document with arrangements made for the children in the case that she murders him? We wouldn't think to do so because murder is, or ought to be, unthinkable for a couple preparing for marriage. Sadly, divorce is all too thinkable, even for those marrying in Christian churches.

I'm with my pastor correspondent. This couple is not yet ready to marry, to give themselves to one another completely. If the future groom can't trust his bride with his money, how can he trust her with his life, his family, his children, his future?

[chosenone]

Another interesting article

http://www.gotquestions.org/prenuptial-agreements.html

[Cally]

This is a very interesting article that says what I also feel. Its is written by this man:-

Russell D. Moore is president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, the moral and public policy agency of the nation's largest Protestant denomination.
........................................................

A pastor emailed me recently to say that he'd been in the process of preparing a couple for marriage. In the flow of premarital counseling he learned that the man had insisted that his future wife sign a prenuptial agreement, and that she'd agreed to it. The pastor told the couple they're not ready to marry, and wondered whether prenuptial agreements have any place in a Christian marriage.

Let me first note that I am sure there are some legal circumstances in which a prenuptial agreement is mandated by law or by insurance policies, say in the case of a widow who remarries and who has minor children from her first marriage receiving an ongoing inheritance.

The typical arrangement of a prenuptial agreement, however, is completely outside the Christian vision of marriage. Here's why.

First of all, a prenuptial agreement assumes a contractual rather than a covenantal view of marriage. It assumes there are two "partners" in the marriage, each protecting his or her interests and resources.

A Christian marriage, however, is a one-flesh union. What is true of the one is true of the other. A prenuptial agreement in a Christian marriage makes about as much sense as a legal contract between one's mouth and one's stomach, in case of a refusal to provide nutrients.  The Apostle tells us: "No man hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church" (Eph 5:29).

This one-flesh union is in view in the traditional Christian vows, "with all my worldly goods I thee endow."

A prenuptial agreement also presupposes divorce. Divorce is a regrettable future possibility, in this scenario, but it is a possibility. A couple that begins preparing for the possibility of divorce is headed toward it. Why not have the couple sign a legal document with arrangements made for the children in the case that she murders him? We wouldn't think to do so because murder is, or ought to be, unthinkable for a couple preparing for marriage. Sadly, divorce is all too thinkable, even for those marrying in Christian churches.

I'm with my pastor correspondent. This couple is not yet ready to marry, to give themselves to one another completely. If the future groom can't trust his bride with his money, how can he trust her with his life, his family, his children, his future?

The argument is garbage for many reasons already stated. A prenup is nothing more than a modification on a legal agreement that's already described by the government--which is to say, it's more about distrust in the family courts' notorious bias against husbands/fathers.

But if a woman can't respect the value of a man's life being equal to her own, as reflected by such an attitude, then she's not ready to marry. Any articles from this guy on the staggeringly high rate of divorces initiated by wives and his response to that?

[DaveW]

The Bible only says "one flesh," not "one mind" or "one fiduciary." 

While it is somewhat Off-Topic, this mindset is problematic; not only for this topic but for many different subjects.  "One Flesh" should not be taken as meaning the physical joining of 2 bodies; rather the Hebraic mindset did not see a distinct separation between spirit and physical. As used in Genesis 2, it means the WHOLE PERSON.

[chosenone]

This is a very interesting article that says what I also feel. Its is written by this man:-

Russell D. Moore is president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, the moral and public policy agency of the nation's largest Protestant denomination.
........................................................

A pastor emailed me recently to say that he'd been in the process of preparing a couple for marriage. In the flow of premarital counseling he learned that the man had insisted that his future wife sign a prenuptial agreement, and that she'd agreed to it. The pastor told the couple they're not ready to marry, and wondered whether prenuptial agreements have any place in a Christian marriage.

Let me first note that I am sure there are some legal circumstances in which a prenuptial agreement is mandated by law or by insurance policies, say in the case of a widow who remarries and who has minor children from her first marriage receiving an ongoing inheritance.

The typical arrangement of a prenuptial agreement, however, is completely outside the Christian vision of marriage. Here's why.

First of all, a prenuptial agreement assumes a contractual rather than a covenantal view of marriage. It assumes there are two "partners" in the marriage, each protecting his or her interests and resources.

A Christian marriage, however, is a one-flesh union. What is true of the one is true of the other. A prenuptial agreement in a Christian marriage makes about as much sense as a legal contract between one's mouth and one's stomach, in case of a refusal to provide nutrients.  The Apostle tells us: "No man hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church" (Eph 5:29).

This one-flesh union is in view in the traditional Christian vows, "with all my worldly goods I thee endow."

A prenuptial agreement also presupposes divorce. Divorce is a regrettable future possibility, in this scenario, but it is a possibility. A couple that begins preparing for the possibility of divorce is headed toward it. Why not have the couple sign a legal document with arrangements made for the children in the case that she murders him? We wouldn't think to do so because murder is, or ought to be, unthinkable for a couple preparing for marriage. Sadly, divorce is all too thinkable, even for those marrying in Christian churches.

I'm with my pastor correspondent. This couple is not yet ready to marry, to give themselves to one another completely. If the future groom can't trust his bride with his money, how can he trust her with his life, his family, his children, his future?

The argument is garbage for many reasons already stated. A prenup is nothing more than a modification on a legal agreement that's already described by the government--which is to say, it's more about distrust in the family courts' notorious bias against husbands/fathers.

But if a woman can't respect the value of a man's life being equal to her own, as reflected by such an attitude, then she's not ready to marry. Any articles from this guy on the staggeringly high rate of divorces initiated by wives and his response to that?

I think its a very good article, and I agree that the couple are no where near ready to sacrificially give themselves to each other 100%. As Christians we cant see marriage as the world does, because God says its a covenant.


One of the marriage promises that so many says is "with all my worldly goods I thee endow". That is the total opposite of what happens in a prenup. When I married, all that was 'mine' was now 'ours', and all that was 'his' was now 'ours'. There is no 'his' or 'mine' everything is joint. We are one now not two. We have a joint bank account and everything we own is ours.   

Don't you think that as Christians we need to trust God for our provision, and that He will restore whatever we loose? Or should we selfishly keep things from our spouse, so that if we divorce he/she wont have any of it, and we will be able to keep it all for oursleves? Which sounds more godly to you? Do you think that you can protect yourself better than God can?

[chosenone]

The Bible only says "one flesh," not "one mind" or "one fiduciary." 

While it is somewhat Off-Topic, this mindset is problematic; not only for this topic but for many different subjects.  "One Flesh" should not be taken as meaning the physical joining of 2 bodies; rather the Hebraic mindset did not see a distinct separation between spirit and physical. As used in Genesis 2, it means the WHOLE PERSON.

The whole person includes the mind, the body and the spirit. A pre-nup has no place when we really believe that. A pre-nup is actually very very selfish, wanting to look after no 1 with no thought for God or of the other spouse. As long as I am ok and have all my money and assets, I don't care what happens to you. Its true what God says that the love of money is the root of all evil. There are some thing far more important than that, like honestly fairness, integrity, trust, unselfishness and self sacrifice. God will always bless us and reward us for those attributes.

[AVZ]

Don't you think that as Christians we need to trust God for our provision, and that He will restore whatever we loose? Or should we selfishly keep things from our spouse, so that if we divorce he/she wont have any of it, and we will be able to keep it all for oursleves? Which sounds more godly to you? Do you think that you can protect yourself better than God can?

Somehow I feel that this argument swings both ways.
Even if there is a prenup, should not both parties trust in God for their provision?
I could as well say that the minor party in a prenup is greedy by wanting to have what the other person has. That too is not Godly. Same argumentation applies.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

The Bible only says "one flesh," not "one mind" or "one fiduciary." 

While it is somewhat Off-Topic, this mindset is problematic; not only for this topic but for many different subjects.  "One Flesh" should not be taken as meaning the physical joining of 2 bodies; rather the Hebraic mindset did not see a distinct separation between spirit and physical. As used in Genesis 2, it means the WHOLE PERSON.

No, Dave.  Just no.  That's not right.  I know why you're driving at that point - soul (or nephesh, or psuche) includes both body and some mental aspects.  But it's only the lower aspects that are included in the word - the power of movement, the appetites, the capacity for want and need.

Both the OT and NT show a difference between physical/flesh/nephesh/psuche and what is spiritual/ruwach/pneumatikos. 

The latter describes higher intellectual functions - cognition, self-awareness, the ability to reason, or to apply a paradigm.  It implies understanding and learning from outside sources while the former set of words only includes mental functions that are innate.

Jarrod

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

One of the marriage promises that so many says is "with all my worldly goods I thee endow". That is the total opposite of what happens in a prenup. When I married, all that was 'mine' was now 'ours', and all that was 'his' was now 'ours'. There is no 'his' or 'mine' everything is joint. We are one now not two. We have a joint bank account and everything we own is ours.   

Don't you think that as Christians we need to trust God for our provision, and that He will restore whatever we loose? Or should we selfishly keep things from our spouse, so that if we divorce he/she wont have any of it, and we will be able to keep it all for oursleves? Which sounds more godly to you? Do you think that you can protect yourself better than God can?

It's kind of frustrating that you just keep making the same point over and over, which has already been addressed thusly:

a) Not everyone wants to have common property in their marriage, and a marriage covenant allows the two people to set up their finances however they want to!

b) The reasons for not having common property often have nothing to do with divorce, or the potential for divorce, and more to do with freedom and eliminating competing interests.

Maybe you could address those points?

Jarrod

[Cally]

The Bible only says "one flesh," not "one mind" or "one fiduciary." 

While it is somewhat Off-Topic, this mindset is problematic; not only for this topic but for many different subjects.  "One Flesh" should not be taken as meaning the physical joining of 2 bodies; rather the Hebraic mindset did not see a distinct separation between spirit and physical. As used in Genesis 2, it means the WHOLE PERSON.

The whole person includes the mind, the body and the spirit. A pre-nup has no place when we really believe that. A pre-nup is actually very very selfish, wanting to look after no 1 with no thought for God or of the other spouse. As long as I am ok and have all my money and assets, I don't care what happens to you. Its true what God says that the love of money is the root of all evil. There are some thing far more important than that, like honestly fairness, integrity, trust, unselfishness and self sacrifice. God will always bless us and reward us for those attributes.

chosenone this just isn't even a conversation. You just declare over and over, matter-of-factly your one-sided point of view, which is absolutely LOADED with hypocrisy.

[Charming Anarchist]

Why is the idea of women being protected from their husbands acceptable, but husbands protecting themselves with a prenuptual agreement not as acceptable in the eyes of some?

---- because most lawyers are men.
Prenups will put a lot of divorce lawyers out of business. 




There is a lot of moral hypocrisy in our Christian churches. 
On the one hand, they look down upon prenups.  On the other hand, they insist on that we follow The Almighty Government laws concerning marriage and divorce ---- which is defacto the same as insisting that we follow an arbitrary anti-Christian prenuptial agreement of which we never agreed. 




I demand a revolution. 

I want our churches to INSIST that every single couple who marries signs a Christian prenuptial agreement laid out by the church.  In other words, it is the Church that demands that both man and woman abide by Christian rules and family values.   Thus, both man and woman are protected from the anti-Christian laws/abuse of our states. 

Some churches already do. 

[Cally]

Why is the idea of women being protected from their husbands acceptable, but husbands protecting themselves with a prenuptual agreement not as acceptable in the eyes of some?

---- because most lawyers are men.
Prenups will put a lot of divorce lawyers out of business. 




There is a lot of moral hypocrisy in our Christian churches. 
On the one hand, they look down upon prenups.  On the other hand, they insist on that we follow The Almighty Government laws concerning marriage and divorce ---- which is defacto the same as insisting that we follow an arbitrary anti-Christian prenuptial agreement of which we never agreed. 

Truth.

A prenup is just a couple saying to the government: the law allows us to modify the legal situation between a married couple and what YOU do in the event of a divorce. Here is our modification . . .

That's it.

I demand a revolution. 

I want our churches to INSIST that every single couple who marries signs a Christian prenuptial agreement laid out by the church.  In other words, it is the Church that demands that both man and woman abide by Christian rules and family values.   Thus, both man and woman are protected from the anti-Christian laws/abuse of our states. 

Some churches already do. 

Interesting.

[chosenone]

Why is the idea of women being protected from their husbands acceptable, but husbands protecting themselves with a prenuptual agreement not as acceptable in the eyes of some?

---- because most lawyers are men.
Prenups will put a lot of divorce lawyers out of business. 




There is a lot of moral hypocrisy in our Christian churches. 
On the one hand, they look down upon prenups.  On the other hand, they insist on that we follow The Almighty Government laws concerning marriage and divorce ---- which is defacto the same as insisting that we follow an arbitrary anti-Christian prenuptial agreement of which we never agreed. 




I demand a revolution. 

I want our churches to INSIST that every single couple who marries signs a Christian prenuptial agreement laid out by the church.  In other words, it is the Church that demands that both man and woman abide by Christian rules and family values.   Thus, both man and woman are protected from the anti-Christian laws/abuse of our states. 

Some churches already do. 

God tells us that we must obey the laws of our country and get married properly and legally, thats as it should be.
Of course most Christians are against prenups, I dont know of a single believer who has a prenup., for obvious and clear reasons. When we marry, all that we had before belongs to both of us, and if people dont like that then dont get married. The marriage service actually states "with all my worldly goods I thee endow" which is the total opposite of a prenup. A prenup is already thinking of a divorce and is also saying that this is mine and that is mine, which is very ungodly, greedy and fearful..

MY husband gave his ex wife their house....yes he GAVE it to her when he could have fought for half the value. He did that because he is a man of integrity  and high values and trusts God to provide for him and restore to him all that he gave and lost. He did it because he didnt think God would want him to fight over it in court. If we choose our marriage partners very carefully, and only marry people with strong moral values, masses of integrity, honestly and decency, and  we will have nothing to fear. Even if something bad did happen, and we act with fairness and integrity, God will always look after us. We do not have to be like the unbelievers who have no one, and for whom money is their no 1 in
life.   

No churches shouldnt adopt the 'prenups' that you favour, and I would be very surprised if any have. Do you honestly think that would stop men or women from sometimes bahaving badly? Also, few married couples stay at one church for all their married lives anyway,  and will move around and move churches often several times.

[Cally]

this is mine and that is mine, which is very ungodly, greedy and fearful..

It keeps a spouse from leeching off the other if that spouse chooses to initiate a divorce--which is a greedy, selfish, fearful, ungodly thing to do to the spouse whom you divorced. If you choose to no longer be "one flesh" with a person via divorce, yet continue to take from that spouse as if you were, then that is a greedy, selfish, fearful, ungodly thing to do.

Do you honestly think that would stop men or women from sometimes bahaving badly?

Of course it will. It will discourage marriage profiteering by making such an impossible thing to do.

[Cally]

MY husband gave his ex wife their house....yes he GAVE it to her when he could have fought for half the value. He did that because he is a man of integrity  and high values and trusts God to provide for him and restore to him all that he gave and lost. He did it because he didnt think God would want him to fight over it in court. If we choose our marriage partners very carefully, and only marry people with strong moral values, masses of integrity, honestly and decency, and  we will have nothing to fear. Even if something bad did happen, and we act with fairness and integrity, God will always look after us. We do not have to be like the unbelievers who have no one, and for whom money is their no 1 in
life.   

You keep talking about what a great guy your husband is for trusting God to restore what was taken.

What about people who collect alimony, chosenone? Why shouldn't they, likewise, trust God to restore what was lost without being selfish or fearful rather than their ex's money (even after divorce)? You'd have to be pretty far gone not to see that that goes two ways.