Sentences with phrase «not about the divorce»

David — because it's seems disingenuous (to me at least) to say that this isn't about a divorce when the entire narrative context is in fact about a divorce.

You all say this isn't about divorce, but it obviously is the context and where the anecdotes and accusations derive from.

After I made it clear that this isn't about the divorce, you seem to want to pull it back into a he - said - she - said thing.

But the aggrieved keep saying it's not about the divorce but the way it was managed by certain people.

This is not about divorce but a group of individuals protecting their image and brand by running over another.

No, this is not about a divorce per se — never was — or ping - pong statements to figure out who owns more culpability in the demise of a relationship.

This is not about a divorce, or trying to prove criminal spousal abuse.

«Post-nups aren't about divorce, but about getting your financial future in check,» she says.

The messaging is not about divorce, it's about what they want NOW which is to move on.

This post isn't about divorce but about moving out and starting over.

Not exact matches

«I would have been long divorced if I'd been married,» she told the Loose Women panelists about her decision not to marry.

Having a conversation about what you want if things don't work out as planned often helps couples have a more reasonable discussion when divorce hits.

I've also written about whether a CEO's divorce is a purely personal matter or not.)

More from Investor Toolkit: Health care an ever bigger part of retirement planning Don't get emotional about your investments How to plan — financially — for divorce

People who marry and don't divorce have about double the net worth of their peers who never wed, according to Jay Zagorsky, an economist and research scientist at Ohio State University, who studied the financial patterns of thousands of adults born from 1957 to 1964.

After seeking the guidance of a qualified attorney who is knowledgeable about relevant state laws to dividing assets, you can secure a comfortable retirement nest egg by working with a divorce financial planner to assess your retirement planning options and build a sound foundation for your late - in - life finances.

Mortgage lenders will not require you to provide information about your divorce agreement's alimony or child support terms, but if you're willing to disclose, it can count toward qualifying for a home loan.

I may be Catholic, but I'm not a maniac about it, runs their unofficial subtext — meaning: I'm happy to take credit for enlightened Catholic positions on the death penalty / social justice / civil rights, but of course I don't believe in those archaic teachings about divorce / homosexuality / and above all birth control.

In particular, certain passages in the Bible about male and female, love and lust, matrimony and divorce are not transparent in their meaning, and stirred Wojtyla's wonder.

I'm also quite capable of debating with him about whether or not government marriage in New York should allow no - fault divorce or whether married couples (as defined by the state!)

My neighbors wife has been cheating on her husband for 3 yrs now and they keep it quiet and their divorce is hush hush living in the same house, my wifes mother is mormon (my wife bolted from the «a womans job is to serve men and have babies» religion at a young age) she has been divorced 3 times and doesn't have a clue about just about any subject.

Second, while divorce negates an important element of marriage, it doesn't change the kind of relationship we're speaking about.

I understand that Julie's accusations are not just about an affair, or a «divorce», but are also about silencing.

This is NOT about the details of my divorce but about spiritual abuse by a few and the Pathology that led to the Thugology in the resulting context of really bad Theology.

Again, I really want to stress this is not about the messy never ending post divorce antics with an NPD but the culture of leaders in this publishing / speaking / minor celebrity circle that have smeared names and reputations in order to appear one way while behind the scenes another story is going on.

You can't find one statistic about Christians such as divorce rates, life expectancy, cancer survival rates, infant mortality rates, and so on that suggests any God is doing squat for you people.

And how about a declaration that, in the event of death or divorce, the Catholic party does not waive the right to pass on the Catholic faith to their children?

Our re-connection is not important but what I wanted to tell you is that when I told the wife about this thread, and that «Tony Jones» ex-wife is telling her story... I guess they got divorced?

Colina — What David said is true — you keep trying to control the narrative by pulling the conversation back to it being about a «divorce», when nobody really talked about that at all until you initially brought it up, then David addressed it (everyone else ignored it because obviously they weren't interested in the «sordid details»), and you again directed the conversation (attempted to direct it) right BACK to an over simplification of it being about the divorce between two people!

The Pharisees asked Jesus about divorce not out of spiritual concern but because of political calculation.

Their lived experience of the effects of contraception, abortion, divorce, and infidelity on their generation has made them passionate about the need for our entire culture - not only Catholics - to embrace the challenge andauthentic freedom embodied in the fullness of the Church's teaching on marriage, family, and sexuality.

This isn't about Julie and Tony's divorce.

I am not in contact w / any of them, have no clue about what they are thinking, but I know if it were me I wouldn't want to force or participate in an online debate with a group of virtual strangers over the intimate details of a personal divorce.

... The Jews (just like the church now) got flippant concerning divorce... I feel Jesus didn't have to mention homosexuality because the Law was clear to any Jew at that time... Paul had to mention it because he was an apostle to the Gentiles who I think were more prone to homosexuality behavior... I'm though not as learned as you... just my thought after 15 years of thinking about this issue... The church has a sacred duty to all... even gays... we need a unified loving answer to give them... but it must be the truth... because only the truth can set us free...

and why you do not take to the streets demonstrating against divorce or adultery the way you do about gays..

I could see it if they weren't members and never attended the church or if there was something about the marriage that went against church doctrine (some pastors will not marry couples who have not went through premarital counseling or had a previous divorce that the church deems wasn't on legitimate grounds, like adultery).

That union brings about an ontological transformation, a creation of a new entity which can not be dissolved through Moses» certificate of divorce, We have here, in Jesus» prohibition of divorce, not so much a command but an invitation to participate, through our marital unions, in the underlying, unifying purpose of all creation.

Jesus» sayings about divorce seem to be grounded in his perception of God's original intention in creation: «From the beginning it was not so.»

How can the writer believe that he and his fellow evangelicals should worry less about whether gays can marry or not and more about keeping their own traditional marriage in tact — 33 % divorce rate — yet claim Santorum shows well - placed compassion?

Since these are the things about which ideas of being were first formed in philosophy, it is important that as we refine our ideas we not divorce them from their place of origin.

He divorced his second wife becuase «There's no question at times in my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate.»

It's not just about the divorce, it's also about the domestic violence, spiritual and psychological abuse, withholding child support to buy silence, SLAPPs, about how he convinced his prominent friends to lie for him.

I reiterate, as I have over and over again, that it is not about the details of a difficult divorce, but how questionable actions and statements were lied about, covered up, and used to develop a smear campaign about victims, all to protect important people.

But if it doesn't — like when it talks about the anger of God, or repentance, or gay sex, or divorce — then we can emphasise its humanness, point out the limited knowledge of the writer, explain how they came to be so silly, and move beyond the text to a supposedly higher ethical standard.

Since these features of life are not about to change, divorce will remain an intrinsic part of married life, marriage and family are no longer synonymous, and we must aim not so much to prevent divorce as to prevent divorce's «negative consequences.»

Yeah, like divorce, which chrisitians don't seem to give a rat's ass about because they're too busy taking rights from others based on their freakin» book.

This type of thing: you may not commit adultery (could get stoned for that) but you can divorce your wife and marry another and scheme about all that.

We need to ask this question about married women who are abused by their husbands, about single persons who are not in position to marry, about those who have been divorced, about those heterosexuals who have no access to members of the opposite sex, about men who are impotent.

There are other sins described that are not God's best that in modern culture have been accepted, divorce, adultery gossiping etc. it doesn't change what God says about these things either.

Jesus didn't say anything directly about polygamy either, yet NT scholars on all sides have recognized that if Jesus regarded remarriage after divorce as adultery (a form of serial polygamy), on the grounds that it violated the duality of «male and female,» he certainly regarded unions of three or more persons as adultery (concurrent polygamy or polygamy proper).