On the Bezos Divorce

Many in the manosphere are jacking their jaws on the bezos divorce without any thought. Many losers in the MGTOW community are calling his wife a whore, and using the divorce as another example of divorce rape. They are morons.

Ahem, morality is a 2-way street. As a supporter of patriarchy, I also reject enslavement of the opposite sex. Sexual immorality is a biblical ground for divorce (the only, at that). Some red pill men think only men should be able to exercise this right.

Here are some thoughts you must consider:

  • His wife encouraged him while starting a risky business at a risky time.
  • He was the one philandering around on her. He is responsible for his actions.
  • The marriage lasted 25 years, and produced 4 children, whom his wife raised.
  • Jeff will maintain ownership of 75% of the Amazon shares he had, and voting control over the rest.
  • It’s reasonable to have to support an ex wife when she is past the age of remarriage/ child rearing AND you are at fault.

6 thoughts on “On the Bezos Divorce

  1. “Sexual immorality is a biblical ground for divorce”

    Hey, what immorality was Christ referring to? Adulterers were sentenced to death, how will a man divorce a dead person? ‘-‘

    If a girl got married and the man found out she wasn’t a virgin, she would be killed too.

    Like

  2. @Julia

    Your question is rooted in legalistic thinking. Just because the Mosaic Law prescribed a specific civil punishment for a crime does not mean direct universal applicability for all times and places. Indeed, Jesus quite pointedly never pushed for anyone to be put to death for their sins. By contrast, Jesus quite pointedly pushed the holy principles behind those Laws. Matthew 12:1-13 shows the difference between the law and the principles behind the law. Be it David breaking the Law or the priests breaking one of the 10 commandments and desecrating the Sabbath, both were innocent of wrongdoing. God himself spared King David the punishment of death for the adultery and murder in the Bathsheba/Uriah incident.

    The same mistakes are made in the current political arena. Many treat the 1A freedom of speech provisions as if they are based on nothing in particular. Yes, the 1A uniquely constrains what the government can do, but it’s based on underlying philosophical principles that apply to all parties (in a non-legal way).

    Like

    1. David wasn’t innocent of wrongdoing. Judgment was passed through Nathan. In lieu of death was the destruction of David’s family.

      Thus says the Lord, ‘Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your own house. And I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun. 12 For you did it secretly, gbut I will do this thing before all Israel and before the sun.’ ”

      Like

      1. I didn’t say David was innocent, though I can see how you could assume that from what I said. David was guilty of both adultery and murder, but he was not given the punishment of death as prescribed by the Law. In all of the examples I gave (David and the bread, priests and the Sabbath, David and Bathsheba/Uriah) the law was broken. Strict legalistic thinking does not account for any of those outcomes.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Put another way, the question “Adulterers were sentenced to death, how will a man divorce a dead person?” is fundamentally flawed because even though the Law stated that adulterers were to be put to death, not all adulterers (and murderers) were actually put to death, nor were all Lawbreakers guilty of the moral wrongs behind the law.

        Thus:

        (1) The punishment must fit the crime (e.g. situational sentencing) and serve a just purpose.
        (2) The spirit of the law trumps the letter of the law.
        (3) There is a place for repentance and mercy.

        Like

      3. I would say just because the penalty for the crime exists, doesn’t mean all who are guilty are caught or receive that sentence.

        David’s sentence was unique.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s