[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / asmr / ausneets / bflo / cafechan / ideas / kc / leftpol / vg ]

/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Winner of the 42nd Attention-Hungry Games
/ara/ - A Place for Mothercons.

Email
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


Christchan is back up after maintenance! The flood errors should now be resolved. Thank you to everyone who submitted a bug report!

File: c20a5cd16164bae⋯.jpg (70.59 KB, 600x399, 200:133, prenup.jpg)

ae06ba No.617096

I know way too many people that get fucked up the ass in divorces initiated by the woman. Regardless of your own actions, sometimes people just marry the wrong one and are in for a bad time.

What does /christian/ think of prenups?

a1303f No.617098

A prenup acknowledges the validity of a no fault divorce


e81c05 No.617107

Prenups mean nothing. Judges instantly and automatically throw those out as worthless in divorce proceedings.


cac178 No.617108

>>617096

Prenups won't save you if the waifu claims "signed under duress". everyone will believe her and your prenup goes out the window.

I still would have her sign one though.


17787b No.617111

I hear that making sure what you own stays separate helps.


0f3710 No.617113

Prenups acknowlege the validity of divorce. They are completely unchristian


17787b No.617118

File: 13fbb83eeb432f8⋯.png (957.53 KB, 814x855, 814:855, 20aeacfe6c86aa457dcf81fb1c….png)

File: 98022383c66080e⋯.jpeg (64.8 KB, 594x960, 99:160, dad is #1.jpeg)

>>617098

>>617113

>Prenups are unchristians

Neither is the state of marriage, but who wants to get taken to the cleaners and enslaved from half your pay check until the slut feels like finding another husband? Marriage/divorce so terrible right now, and you wonder why everyone is focusing on porn instead of looking to get ruined in the family court

And women still wonder why they're hated, or why people are cautious to them and their ability to self detonate to their "listen and believe" madness. Why would God make something so easily exploitable like these demons wearing human skins.


11d957 No.617119

>>617118

>Why would God make something so easily exploitable like these demons wearing human skins.

/r9k/


831d99 No.617122

>>617098

>>617113

Apparently divorce is allowed in cases of adultery (Matthew 19:9) and abandonment by an unbelieving spouse (1 Corinthians 7).

Secular courts allowing no fault divorce literally destroyed Western civilization.


a72da5 No.617124

File: f01e4dcb217e87a⋯.png (2.64 MB, 1900x1440, 95:72, Not an argument and fuck y….png)


831d99 No.617125

>>617118

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.


78fe2f No.617126

>>617124

> anon insults God by questioning why he allows women to exist

> another anon accuses him of being a bitter robot

> you accuse him of shaming men

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


11d957 No.617129

>>617125

>And they haven't always been that way, and not all of them are.

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


1cf15b No.617155

File: 84cbe21da9ee2c2⋯.jpg (59.62 KB, 500x752, 125:188, christian wife.jpg)

>>617125

>Disengage from the West and seek a wife elsewhere

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


a31558 No.617156

>>617155

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.


6103f4 No.617157

File: 8728bd50af40c1e⋯.jpg (112.28 KB, 759x1092, 253:364, serveimage(5).jpg)


1cf15b No.617160


a31558 No.617161

>>617160

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.


11d957 No.617162

>>617156

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


1cf15b No.617167

>>617161

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.


a31558 No.617181

>>617167

>>617162

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

Thanks.


6103f4 No.617182

>>617167

>A family is its own culture

Truly spoken like a non-thinker


1c872c No.617184

>>617157

>>617182

Behold, the child who throws a fit when his peas touch his mashed potatoes.

(USER WAS WARNED FOR RULE 2: PERSONAL INSULT)

5d177c No.617188

>>617111

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.


0555b4 No.617192

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.


2302eb No.617261

>>617098

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.

>>617107

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

>>617122

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.


71da62 No.617265

>>617096

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.

>>617107

Irrelevant to the question.


831d99 No.617362

>>617265

>Irrelevant to the question.

>What does /christian/ think of prenups?


831d99 No.617363

>>617261

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

1 Corinthians 7

>12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

>15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 16 How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

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.


e577d2 No.617365

>>617098

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.

>>617118

>"Neither is the state of marriage"

>Being a heretic

"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)


2302eb No.617374

>>617363

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

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.

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


a1303f No.617379

>>617122

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

>>617261

>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.

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

>>617363

Not living with them =/= divorce.

>>617374

>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.

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


bee2b9 No.617414

>>617157

>>617182

Why was the /pol/tard 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.


c9e8ba No.617416

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.


c9e8ba No.617422

>>617122

Also this.


c9e8ba No.617424

>>617184

>(USER WAS WARNED FOR RULE 2: PERSONAL INSULT)

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.


f28057 No.617427

>>617424

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


6103f4 No.617429

>>617424

As opposed to being comprised of name calling


166951 No.617432

>>617424

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.


2302eb No.617444

>>617379

>Not living with them =/= divorce

The brother or sister is not bound in such circumstances.

Paul clearly says it does in this instance.

>>617379

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

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.

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


d63508 No.617456

>>617126

>insults God

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.


732b24 No.617460

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.


2302eb No.617470

>>617460

>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".

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.


1cf15b No.617479

>>617429

You basically called me a retard, you snake.


a1303f No.617481

>>617444

>Paul clearly says it does in this instance.

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

<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.

If such a brother re-marries, they are an adulterer. Clearly, their bonds are not dissolved, what they are not bound to is their marital obligations, which is why this is in the context of abandonment.

>You haven't addressed the argument

Yes I have. I pointed out the argument is just a call to disregard the words of Christ. He said this, will you obey Him or not? Either you submit to Christ's words, or you are not a Christian.


63fe0c No.617484

>>617126

>questioning God is insulting him

are you retarded?


63fe0c No.617486

>>617379

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

>muh force is bad

>muh NAP

grow up


1dcaac No.617491

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


efbd26 No.617493

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.

>>617184

>Behold, the child who throws a fit when his peas touch his mashed potatoes.

>(USER WAS WARNED FOR RULE 2: PERSONAL INSULT)

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.

>>617126

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.

>another anon accuses him of being a bitter robot

>you accuse him of shaming men

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.


2302eb No.617510

>>617481

>Yes I have. I pointed out the argument is just a call to disregard the words of Christ. He said this, will you obey Him or not? Either you submit to Christ's words, or you are not a Christian.

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.


a1303f No.617517

>>617510

>I call into question the accuracy of those reporting the words of Christ.

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?


69694c No.617721

>>617155

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.


b1ee88 No.617727

>>617517

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

I think you should cut the guy some slack.


2302eb No.617730

>>617517

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)


6103f4 No.617736

>>617479

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


0581e0 No.617752

>>617736

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.


6103f4 No.617760

>>617752

>he was right because it is. every family is its own little culture and has its own customs

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.


6103f4 No.617761

>>617760

*most if not all


1cf15b No.617831

>>617760

It's not irrelevant. I'm right. Stop acting like Tenda Spencer and go back to /pol/. 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.


6103f4 No.617856

>>617831

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.


1cf15b No.617881

>>617856

>choosing to be a virgin until marriage is only adult age

wew


a1303f No.617883

>>617727

>Does divine inspiration mean they're flawless?

Yes.

>Also is the translation flawless?

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

>>617730

>I'm simply pointing out a disparity between the gospels

One which exists only in your head.

>This is shown by your unwillingness to actually address my argument

Your argument exposes your unbelief, it does not require any refutation.

>that if I don't accept your reading

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.

>you're appealing to a self-evident truth when, in fact, it is not self-evident.

It is self-evident because God is the one who spoke it.

>To me it seems the most forgiving, and the most Christian, to never divorce your wife under any circumstances

Tell it to Christ, He's the one you're having issue with here.


2302eb No.617907

>>617883

>One which exists only in your head.

No. It clearly does. Go read them.

>This is shown by your unwillingness to actually address my argument

>Your argument exposes your unbelief, it does not require any refutation.

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

>that if I don't accept your reading

>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.

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.

>It is self-evident because God is the one who spoke it.

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.

>Tell it to Christ, He's the one you're having issue with here.

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.


78fe2f No.617934

>>617484

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


a1303f No.617937

>>617907

>No. It clearly does.

No. It clearly does not.

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

<C'mon Adam and Eve, not eating the fruit is fanatical, don't you want 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.

Or, I could choose not to find myself smarter than the Son of God, and not abrogate His words.

>God didn't speak your interpretation

The text of Matthew 19:9 is not my intepretation

>My interpretation is based on the same words yours are

No, you have openly dismissed those words. Are you now trying to reverse yourself to try and maintain a face of orthodoxy?

>Christ agrees with me

except it be for fornication

>In Mark there is no exception, in Matthew he it is permissive but not required

I never said it was required. I said it was optional. You on the other hand insisted that it is strictly forbidden, and dismissed the words of Christ to the contrary.

And about this allegation of a contradiction, in Mark 16:5, there is one angel at the tomb, and in Luke 24:4 there are two. Is this a contradiction? Only a sure brainlet would think so. Mark has simply failed to record additional details. It is true both that there were two and there was one, since both the whole and a part in isolation are true. Therefore, just because Mark omits a detail Matthew records does not inalidate the fact Jesus said the words. If you reject those words of Christ as false or sinful, you are not a Christian.


a1303f No.617938

>>617937

>inalidate

invalidate


a0641c No.618204

>>617856

>you shouldn't have mixed-race kids because they'll be a hated and isolated minority

>you should have white children so that they won't be a hated and isolated minority

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


c2d444 No.618235

>>618204

>white children

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 /pol/ and /leftypol/ 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".


a0641c No.618267

>>618235

"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 /pol/ 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 /pol/ has likewise mistaken the symbol for what it represents.


6103f4 No.618322

>>618235

Yes? I don't understand the question


831d99 No.618335

>>618267

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


6103f4 No.618383

>>618204

>you shouldn't have mixed-race kids because they'll be a hated and isolated minority

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


721342 No.618386

>>618235

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.


1dcaac No.618433

>>618386

WAKANDA FOR THE WAKANDANS


5e8335 No.618462

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.


1cf15b No.619722

>>618267

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


170ca6 No.619988

>>617096

Divorce is not Christian.


239bc6 No.620016

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.


0526af No.620052

File: 659f24cd73d7541⋯.jpg (7.29 KB, 250x201, 250:201, reader.jpg)

>>617107

Usually yes.

I was given this advice by a lawyer once:

>Make her get her own lawyer so you both have your own independent lawyers during the signing of the prenup.

Makes it harder to throw out for "duress" I'm assuming.


1c9276 No.620317

>>617118

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


089def No.620325

>>617118

>dad on Christmas list

Right in the feels




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / asmr / ausneets / bflo / cafechan / ideas / kc / leftpol / vg ]