/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

That's terrible, I'm sorry for you. Your priest is right about divorce being unacceptable.

You can seperate, but yeah you can't divorce. In the case of adultery seperation is entirely reasonable.

Seperation means youre technically married, but you dont live together. Unfortunatly, no you can't remarry.

>>723726

>my priest wont allow divorce

>>723727

>Your priest is right

>>723730

>entirely reasonable

Thank God I'm not Catholic.

>>723726

I'm so sorry. Were there any warning signs or was this an out-of-the-blue thing? Do you have children together?

>>723726

>my priest wont allow divorce

But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Matthew 5:32

Follow God and not men, OP. You have sanction from Jesus Christ Himself to put aside this woman.

>>723738

Catholics don't follow the bible they follow the pope.

>>723742

A man can find in the New Testament that it is acceptable to divorce his wife if she commits fornication.

When you read the Bible you ought to use the King James Version for that's what's meant to be the Word of God in English

>>723745

I have purchased The New American Bible - Revised Edition. Is that significantly different? You'll have to forgive my ignorance on that, someone on 1/2chin told me it was a good starting bible.

>>723748

Yes yes, I understand how the institution of marriage has been corrupted and now the man is subservient to his wife. She has all the power. As for little burst of anger, sleep deprivation from exams + my brother just got divorce raped; so I'm somewhat aggravated (to say the least). You'll have to forgive me if my thoughts are a little all over the place.

>>723734

Yes. She stopped asking me to go out for dinners with her or cook together as we usually do when we were engaged. She blames me for everything. For not paying attention to her

>>723742

>I just visited this board to see if Christianity (specifically the denomination of Catholicism) was compatible with libertarian values

Chrisitanity is compatible with nothing but Christian values

>I REALLY hope this isn't something a Christian is expected to do. winnie the pooh accepting God's love if I'm expected to be submissive to my wife and the whims of the government

Only Catholics don't believe in divorce

>< Is this a common view of Christians, a Catholic thing, or are all believers in the Christian God suppose to support this? I'm seriously considering Christianity but obviously can't commit my soul to God without understanding its faith and demands.

I think what's more important to realize in a situation like this is that one must forgive her. The Gospel recounts a story of the man who is forgiven his debt by his master but fails to forgive his fellow servant's debt, and then his master brings back his debt in full. This is what happens to the one that does not forgive. It's hard as heck to do and I struggle with it every day.

>>723754

Hmmm, I think Catholicism isn't really for me then. Might sound picky-and-choosy but that whole "can't divorce and must always forgive" won't work if the woman I marry turns out to be a manipulative psycho.

>>723756

Forgot to add, I'll probably have to check out Christianity and the born-again Christians (know one of the latter IRL). I'm not really too sure about what other denominations there are. This does seem pretty complicated considering how big of a choice it is.

>>723754

>only catholics don't believe in divorce

the bible teaches against it, we should all reject it

t. baptist

>>723745

fornication is not adultery

Jesus already give you legal grounds for your divorce. read Matthew 19:9

>>723763

Short answer: yes even if your wife is regularly unfaithful you are not permitted to divorce her

You should read Hosea. It's a book about a prophet who marries a prostitute on God's instruction and demonstrates great faithfulness to her, as type for God's faithfulness to us despite our infidelity

It's just all the more reason to be careful in your selection for spouse. Note that women have the same restriction from divorcing an unfaithful husband.

I'm not convinced that the Bible instructs against corporal punishment for your wife though.

The one exception is "fornication", which seems to imply you married a woman who wasn't found to be a virgin

>ban you for using the term christcuck

>Catholic Church literally forcing a man to be cucked in his own home by a whore

Wew lad. OP go literaly any other denomination and get a divorce. The Bible says you can under these circumstances, and no amount of buhmuh from a priest overrides that. However, you should forgive her also. You must, even, but you do that AND divorce her.

Seriously any Catholic arguing otherwise is objectively wrong.

>>723760

>>723769

Fornication is sex between unmarried people. It can mean adultery.

>>723769

If you think the book of Hosea was about undermining the institution of martiage by allowing your wife to whore around then you need to self-reflect.

>>723742

Libtertarianism is a nightmare, human beings re not made to live in isolation with their fleshlight

If someone chooses to sacrifice for God and forgive their spouse who repents of their sin, that is honorable. But it's unlikely in this day and age for anyone who commits adultery to repent of it, because there are literally no material repercussions for it, except for the man.

>>723774

no you dummy it doesn't excuse prostitution

>>723769

Okay, so in short. I need to marry a virgin who has never married? I'm young enough, but finding that in this day and age is a challenge to say the least. But the idea that God would enforce literal cuckery is, to say the least, disturbing. I can't even enforce my will upon her as that's now domestic abuse. By any chance, do Christians HAVE to marry? Is it explicitly stated I have to marry?

>>723775

I figured as much, I'm young though so that's why I'm considering Christianity before committing. My current dream is essentially:

> own my own home, decent garden, pet dog and fish, humble minimalism, no debt. Along the way help out personally via charity and volunteering with my afforded spare time.

So I need to research Christianity and God to see if my current worldview is flawed.

>>723779

>do Christians HAVE to marry

No. But don't let someone persuade you that it is your calling to not marry. That is between you and God. Each are given gifts according to God's will.

1 Corinthians 7:6-7

>But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. For I would that all men were even as I myself. Paul was never married But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.

Proverbs 18:22

>Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the Lord.

>>723750

There are a lot of good things about NABRE

I'd say scripturally you can divorce but you should also try to reconcile

>>723779

The core of Christianity isn't moralism. Good behaviour isn't saving grace. But good behaviour and morality is a result of salvation.

It is by faith alone in Jesus Christ and it is by the grace of Jesus Christ bestowed upon you that have faith in Christ Jesus.

This is the core of Christianity. Not of your own will by by the will of God.

>>723788

I agree. All avenues should first be pursued before divorce.

I'm really sorry for what has happened to you, OP. I can't imagine how it feels. I truly am sorry.

For what it's worth the fundamental truth in Christianity is we aren't good people. We're broken, flawed sinners. You, your wife, and everyone you see. If you can find love in this world, grab it and don't let it go, acknowledging your wife is a flawed sinner too. As ever, think of your own sin to regain humility.

>>723779

you're free to marry a woman who isn't a virgin, but that's less desirable of course

Singleness can be a virtue

your greentext lifestyle goals are totally consistent with christianity

>>723773

>You're shocked by their heresy?

I'm shocked caths don't allow divorce for infidelity, and I'm asking if orthos are the same

>>723796

Not Ortho but:

https://denver.goarch.org/petition-for-ecclesiastical-divorce

Seems reasonable.

>>723726

divorce is the answer, speak with other priests.

or an anulment, since she has broken her marriage vows utterly.

forgiving is not the same as letting yourself be walked on by a disgusting person.

you can forgive her and forget her after the divorce. find a decent woman, not a betrayer.

>>723807

Exposit for me, why did God tell Hosea to marry gomer?

>>723808

As a symbolic gesture, not a legal precedent?

>>723810

agreed, I wrote "as a type" as in "typology"

>>723756

Dont marry her then

At least other denominations are admiting they pick and choose what to follow based on whats easy

Stop being such a cuck and dump the bitch.

>>723733

>>723738

>>723743

>swallow anti-Catholic rhetoric in order to ignore the truth

>embrace neutral perspective which allows truth to emerge and path to Rome lit brightly

Choose wisely

https://forums.catholic.com/t/matthew-5-32/30114/3

>>723738

Jesus didn't say we can or should divorce though, he simply said that if you divorce a woman based on sexual immorality you aren't making her commit adultery. So it might well be less sinful to divorce your wife because of her immorality, but that doesn't mean it isn't a sin to divorce her.

Matthew 19:3-8

3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

>>723761

Putting away one’s wife =/= divorce. In the case of that quote, the man would have to wait until the woman died in order to marry again (because divorce is a sin)

<I learned that last part from reading my bible

>90% of the thread is Catholic bashing

And they say the Catholics are the authoritarians of this board.

lol k

>>723773

Epic post friend

Please upvote my post on r/4chan

>>723820

>>723824

Because that is not Scriptural. It requires mental gymnastics to say that fornication between a wife and another man is not adultery. >>723772

And God allows divorce for that. God hates divorce and so do we, but infidelity is a serious crime, once punishable by severe means.

>>723726

Matthew 5:32

>But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and pwhoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Matthew 19:9

>And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

If you're in a church which doesn't follow the bible, it sounds like you have two divorces to make.

>>723733

divorce and/or separation/estrangement in a Christian sense does not apply the same way in a secular sense.

you can put your wife away, but you cannot re-marry, it is forbidden by Christ.

>>723828

but that's wrong, and you're trying to trick OP into committing adultery. begone, satan.

>>723830

<posts a bible verse

>but that's wrong

Reported.

>>723831

porneia refers to illicit situations, not adultery.

if Jesus Christ had backed up splitting with your wife if she cheats on you, the Apostle's and their teachings would have said so

no, not even the early Church ever endorsed re-marriage upon adultery

>>723829

>>723833

Perhaps in a future government, it would be wise to make laws where adultery is punishable by death, thus avoiding the sin of remarrying while under divorce. Better for the flesh of the ungodly to expire than for the godly to sin.

Note to the young whom may have such an opportunity.

>>723834

the godly would not sin either way, if you put your wife away, you are called to holy celibacy and abstinence no matter what. Adam was not permitted to take another rib.

there is no sex in Heaven, and only the pure of heart shall see God

>>723836

"There are a number of problems with this. First among them is that the exceptive clauses do not appear in the parallel passages in Mark and Luke. In Mark 10:11–12, Jesus says only, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery." Likewise, Luke 16:18 says, "Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery."

In Romans 7:2–3, he writes that "a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies she is discharged from the law concerning the husband. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress."

"To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband)—and that the husband should not divorce his wife. . . . A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. If the husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord."

woe to the man that tries to twist Scripture to defy Christ, woe to satan.

>>723840

>remarriage

You're changing the subject.

>ignoring the verses in Matthew which allow for divorce

You accuse me of your own transgressions, charlatan.

>>723843

>You're changing the subject.

How? Divorce in a Christian sense and Divorce in a secular sense are completely different. As St. Paul affirms, a man can put away an adulterous wife, but he is not free to take another as long as she lives.

re-marriage while the spouse is alive is BANNED. pure and simple.

>>723840

>the godly would not sin either way

Indeed, but I don't deem it to be of a joyous life for the godly spouse to suffer such that they be forbidden to love again, only because their other was adulterous.

>>723793

The whole point of Jesus coming to die for the sins of humanity wasn't to make you a good, moral, law abiding person. Is what I meant.

There's congregrations that preach a gospel of moralism which made me concerned for you, being interested and new to Christianity.

>>723846

>forbidden to love again

forbidden to love who? are those who do not have sex incapable of love? is Jesus Christ incapable of love? He lived, died, and rose again in perfect purity.

>but I don't deem it

that's your problem, the I.

>>723849

>The whole point of Jesus coming to die for the sins of humanity wasn't to make you a good, moral, law abiding person

vade retro satana

>>723851

I desire justice. Justice for the one who is unrepentant, and mercy to the one who sacrifices and suffers.

>>723854

who cares what you desire? we desire what Christ desires.

>>723845

Keep re-reading the below verse until it sinks in.

Matthew 19:9

>And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

>>723855

You desire whatever the Catholic dogma is at that point in time.

>>723>>723840

>the godly would not sin either way

I know you're not saying that we are without sin.

But that is quite a statement. 'Some pretty interesting stuff.

>>723840

woops >>723859

>>723856

I will keep re-reading, knowing the truth, and not willing blinded like you. Fornication is not an excuse for re-marriage, and only the Jews, from the hardness of their hearts, were allowed to. But from the beginning, it was not so, and through Christ, will never be so.

>>723859

would not choose to sin, willingly, and repent even to death to clean themselves

i don't care if rhetoric makes me sound calvinist

>>723726

>He said I must forgive her.

Yes but you should do that for your own benefit, son.

She is a wicked woman,

I was in a very similar situation but luckily, I wasn't married.

People like your wife are cowards at heart who would rather sweep problems under the rug and blame everyone but themselves.

Bad news:

She should change in order to become a good person, and she isn't going to because that takes courage and humility. She has neither.

Good news:

If you don't have children, you can divorce her with relatively low losses.

I know this doesn't dissolve the marriage vow that both of you made, but in case she miracolously decides to change her ways and come back to you, you can just remarry.

I honestly don't know what to say about finding another woman though. Give yourself time and space to grieve your loss, my friend.

And remember that no matter what you might have done wrong, she was the one who didn't have the guts to tell you her problems and she was the one who decided to cheat like a coward.

May God help you.

>>723862

Matthew 19:9:

>Whoever: (divorces wife) AND (NOT (for sexual immorality)) AND (marries another) => (commits adultery)

Jesus does not give a full logic chart with the outcomes from the combinations of truth or falsity of each predicate. However you should probably think that Jesus included all the predicates in his statement for a reason.

Note that if a married wife commits adultery, hardness of heart is already involved in the situation from her part. According to Jesus nation-wide hardness of heart is sufficient cause for permissive divorce laws. Christians are meant to be better than that, but a marriage takes two people.

>>723887

>a marriage takes two people

This.

You can't hold this relationship good and working alone, not with the current divorce laws. Not without authority.

>>723893

Sad, but true.

>>723752

Are you wealthy? You sound wealthy … enough for two households, maybe, even perhaps?

>She blames me for everything. For not paying attention to her

Isn't it funny that people try using that tired old excuse.

"Have some backbone!"

>>723756

>if the woman I marry turns out to be a manipulative psycho.

protip: don't marry one of those

>>723760

>fornication is not adultery

>legalism

>>723742

>libertarian values

What are you, 12?

>>723898

>just marry the right one, goy! Ignore the absurdly high divorce statistic, it's not like anyone can change or would lie about being a lunatic! It's perfectly reasonable for your balls to legally be in your wife's purse.

t. Divorce lawyer

>>723902

gtfo /pol/

this isn't your board

>>723910

Yes it is.

Also gtfo /liberal/, because it definitely isn't yours.

Also >>723902 is not dumb.

Divorce laws are in a state of immorality, exempting the wife from anything and making the husband pay for everything. It's abusive.

>every denomination other than catholic: why are we banned so often? Why are we persecuted so? The mods must be banning us just because we're not Catholic

>the exact same people: this entire thread

>>723902

>MGTOW

>/pol/ack

Repent or get out >>>/pol/

>>723915

>anyone that disagrees with me is a liberal

typical /pol/ behavior: childish

>>723943

>opposes /pol

>Im not liberal I swear

You're not fooling anyone schlomo. Repent your idolatry!

>>723726

CUT HER HAIR!

Then beat her publicly while she flees in view of your neighbors. Náströnd is the terrible place, where Hel holds court.

https://facultystaff.richmond.edu/~wstevens/history331texts/barbarians.html

>>723726

>my priest wont allow divorce.

What? Divorce is allowed in the Bible in case of unfaithfulness:

>But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

>saving for the cause of fornication

>Matthew 5:32

You must be Catholic, right? One more reason to winnie the pooh hate Catholics.

>>723726

>>723742

You know the problem these days is that indeed you cannot divorce.

These times you can go to the Church Court and argue that the marriage wasn't legit to begin with.

In times past a catholic divorce system was made relying on the vows that were taken at the altar, "'till death us do part".

Sadly this isn't a common practice anymore in our present society.

Your wife will never respect you again. Leave her or you’re a literal cuck.

>>723727

>That's terrible, I'm sorry for you. Your priest is right about divorce being unacceptable.

Murder is the only option.

>>723742

>tfw Christianity is incompatible with the modern world

Feels bad

>>723952

The solution would be to empower the man to keep the marriage together.

The way things stand today, a man has no authority in a marriage, and a woman can avoid all consequences of infidelity.

If you have divorce, that makes up for your wife being able to hurt you without consequence, because you can just leave her. But there is no divorce and in such a case having authority would be the tool by which a man can protect himself and the family. But that is also taken from us now.

You can't win against a sinner in a situation like this.

I blame no-fault divorce and feminism for all of this.

>>723726

I would leave her.

Would never marry or fornicate with anyone, but i would leave her.

I treat divorce more like separation.

>>723989

There are no consequences to cheating on no side.

A cheating wife would've been killed for the sake of the husband few centuries back, not that long ago cheating was grounds for prison in South-Korea but sadly they abolished that law.

>>724024

Begone, Satan. If Christ is pure, so we must be as well.

>>723827

>Because that is not Scriptural.

<Matthew, chapter 19

<[3] And there came to him the Pharisees tempting him, and saying: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? [4] Who answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female? And he said: [5] For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh.

<[6] Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. [7] They say to him: Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away? [8] He saith to them: Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. [9] And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery. [10] His disciples say unto him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry.

<[9] "Except it be": In the case of fornication, that is, of adultery, the wife may be put away: but even then the husband cannot marry another as long as the wife is living.

<[11] Who said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given. [12] For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it.

There are many in this thread who 1) cannot take it and 2) are akin to Pharisees

tl;dr - There is a difference (big one) between putting one’s wife away and divorcing her (and remarrying). One is lawful, the other is not.

t. God

> It requires mental gymnastics to say that fornication between a wife and another man is not adultery.

No one is saying that.

>>723726

>>724031

OP, even if your wife refuses to repent and do penance for your sake and the sake of your marriage, you must remain faithful to her nonetheless. If that means putting her away, having little to nothing to do with her until she repents, and separating, living separately, and discontinuing a public life together, then so be it, but marriage (true marriage; between two baptized Catholics with the blessing of the Church) lasts until death do you part.

You can separate, the so called separation from bead and board, and you can even completely forget about her, but you must keep in mind that matrinomy is until the death of one of you.

In some cases a civil divorce can be permitted to ensure your civil and monetary rights, still you are under the obligation of wedlock and if you civilly remarry you are in a great sin.

>>724053

>if you civilly remarry you are in a great sin

Read the thread and your Bible.

>>724055

?

What do you mean?

God says marriage is forever and OP is thinking about divorce which can't be done.

>>724065

And what's your problem retard? Are you telling me you can remarry now?

If that's the case you're in the wrong religion.

>>724066

>doesn't read the thread or his Bible

>other people are the retards

Read the thread and Matthew 19, especially verse 9.

If you demand more spoonfeeding you're only getting links to other posts in this thread.

>>723727

>Your priest is right about divorce being unacceptable.

That's not accurate. Divorce is permissable in cases like OP's in Catholic moral theology. What is forbidden is divorce and remarriage.

<Separation from bed and board (divortium imperfectum) is allowed for various causes, especially in the case of adultery or lapse into infidelity or heresy on the part of husband or wife.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05054c.htm

>>724065

Christ nor the Apostles nor the Church Fathers nor the Early Church ever endorsed re-marriage.

Just because you read with your eyes closed does not make you right. Repent, lest you commit adultery, or even worse, convince others into committing adultery.

So from this thread I can gather

Catholic/Baptist response:

>forgive her and try to mend a broken relationship

Orthodox response:

>beat her into submission

>cut her hair/publically humiliate her

>leave her and remarry

Surdo sparge boger faec

>>724067

So you really believe Christ allowed remarriage wtf. Oh and btw Matthew 19 is a summary of his previous teaching otherside if you were right jesus would be contradicting himself

Matthew 5:31-32

>And it hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a bill of divorce. But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: *and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.*

So marry a woman that was cast away by her husband no matter what and you're an adulterer

Matthew 19:3-6

>And there came to him the Pharisees tempting him, saying: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? Who answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, made them male and female? And he said: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.

You have forgotten to quote this part of Matthew 19. Weird.

Mark 10:4-9

>Who said: Moses permitted to write a bill of divorce and to put her away. To whom Jesus answering, said: Because of the hardness of your heart, he wrote you that precept. But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause, a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife. And they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.

No man can break up a valid marriage. No one on earth has that authority. Not even the pope. No one.

So Jesus only let's you put your wife away he never let's you marry again. Quite the opposite

And if to you the words of Christ are ambiguous somehow here you have the testimony of Paul.

1 Corinthians 7:10-11

>But to them that are married, not I, but the Lord, commandeth that the wife depart not from her husband. And if she depart, that she remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And let not the husband put away his wife.

And again Paul says you can't divorce and marry again plainly.

Some verses below he only allows remarriage if you were married with a non believer and he didn't want to be with you anymore. It's what the church calls the Pauline privilege since marriages with non Christians aren't true sacramental marriages.

Bottom line. A valid true marriage can't never be dissolved. Never ever.

So your wife cheats you? Fine cast her away. But if she or you marry another you are adulterous. It's an unanimously Christian teaching. Why are you against it? Is it somehow against your own opinion? Or reading Matthew 19 in the light of your own thoughts makes you feel better with yourself when the rest of what Jesus says is against it?

>>724038

>why did he mention "except for sexual immorality"

Because there were pagans and other non-Christians at the time who were engaged in marriage pacts outside the law of God.

Polygamy, incest, are out-right illicit from the start, the first woman you take to wife is your true spouse. The only situations you may licitly put her aside, are cases like St. Paul speaks of, where the non-Christian is preventing the baptism of the other.

Marriage between two baptized christians are -absolutely- binding, no exceptions.

>Can you call yourself a Christian when you willingly ignore scripture because you "know the truth" which somehow

There are many who are called to be Christians, but few are chosen.

This is going to sound sort of cold anon, but if you didn't have the perceptiveness necessary to steer clear of poisoned meat the first time around, civilly divorce the jerk and remand yourself to celibacy.

I mean, your own mental health might be best if you stay single rather than get roped into commitments with untrustworthy whores going forward, since you apparently have a hard time spotting them when you meet them.

Think of society. Should your community be burdened by the tedious melodrama of a future marriage, perhaps this time with children getting mindfucjrd by the trauma of btch-mom emasculating daddy? No, anon. Too much of that as it is.

Tl:dr these matters are bigger than just you, anon

>>724045

>all this outrage and nonsense

Read my post again. Pay attention to the part about “two different things”

>>724092

>For the third Winnie the Pooh time, if Jesus forbids remarrying until your cheating thot dies why in the name of the moderators' beloved yellow bear does Jesus add the "excepting the cause of fornication" line?

because He never did, and you accept the reading of the KJV over the Greek.

and it's because of the hardness of your heart, the only reason.

the Mosaic Israelites were only already free to re-marry upon the fornication of the spouse, if Christ was merely re-stating this teaching, why would the Apostles believe it a hard teaching?

>Nowhere in scripture does it imply the marriages of non-believers are somehow implicitly less binding than those of believers.

read corinthians

>>724092

>beloved yellow bear does Jesus add the "excepting the cause of fornication" line?

Because if you divorce for a stupid reason you are exposing her to adultery. And if she winnie the poohs with another dude later you are partially to blame for her sin, since you shouldn't have casted her away for a stupid reason.

Adultery of her part isn't a stupid motive so divorce is legal in that case.

>>724092

Furthermore he just allows divorce on the cause of adultery, but that doesn't follow that he allows remarriage.

And what this anon said >>724098

>>724096

I did read your post. Your interpretation requires Jesus to make an outright useless and foolish statement in verse 9 and earlier in Matthew 5 if your headcanon holds any weight, which is blasphemous.

>>724098

>because He never did

>ou accept the reading of the KJV over the Greek

Then explain how the Greek original removes that clause, wise one. I checked some other translations and it's there too. Are all these translators adding an extra clause to Jesus' statement through the hardness of their hearts? Are the printers of these translations also so hardened that they allow this to slide?

>read corinthians

>doesn't even give any specific examples

>just "lol read the entire book again to buy me more time"

>>724099

>Adultery of her part isn't a stupid motive so divorce is legal in that case.

…But that's what I was arguing, divorce is not permissible outside adultery and possibly your spouse preventing your baptism I'll have to look into that one more.

>>724102

answer this:

>the Mosaic Israelites were only already free to re-marry upon the fornication of the spouse, if Christ was merely re-stating this teaching, why would the Apostles believe it a hard teaching?

>>724102

>But that's what I was arguing, divorce is not permissible outside adultery and possibly your spouse preventing your baptism

Casting your wife away on the grounds of adultery is fine, but remarriage isn't which was the point of our discussion if I'm not mistaken.

>>724104

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.

>>724118

>>724122

Actually uncleanness when applied to people means something impure according to the Law or adultery. And since no man would divorce their wife because she has a bleeding during menstruation, its clear that the it refers to fornication or idolatry maybe.

So it was really odd for Jews the teachings of Jesus

Besides if your view was correct it would contradict Paul and the rest of the gospels.

More if that was the case the whore would be in a better position than the decent woman since the former could then marry legally. If I wanted to marry a married women I just needed to winnie the pooh her and after her divorce could marry her legally. And in that case a man would be separating something God united.

>The context of this was the Pharisees trying to trip Jesus up by asking if every cause were permissible to put away one's wife, to which he responded negatively.

And to which the others reply that its not good for a man to be married if those were the rules. If my girl cheated me and I could divorce her and marry again it would be fine. But now if I'm locked to that marriage either I forgive her which would deal a major blow to my pride and manhood and thinking that she might not love me as I love her and if I casted her away it would be painful to me knowing that I could never have any other wife because of her. And that sucks.

>>724139

Ironically the whole point of the existe of the Anglican Church was because the King wanted to divorce.

>>724140

There’s no coincidence that the (mis)translation of the kjv was intentional in order to try to legitimize divorce. But those who read their bible (the real, complete one) know better ;]

>>724139

>Full Question

I believe the Bible when it says he who divorces and marries another commits adultery, as we see in Mark 10:1-12 and Luke 16:18. But isn't Jesus leaving a loophole when he says in Matthew 19:9 "except for unchastity"?

Answer

>What may appear as a loophole is a consequence of misinterpretation or mistranslation. The King James Version and others translate the passage into English words that appear to say fornication, unchastity, or adultery are exceptions that allow a divorce.

>The constant teaching of the Church has been that a valid sacramental marriage can not be broken, even if one party sins. As Matthew 19:6 says, "Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate." Biblical scholars, such as J. Bonsirven, have pointed out that the Greek word that is pivotal here is "porneia," which means unlawful sexual intercourse. The Gospel does not use the Greek word "moicheia," which is the ordinary Greek word for adultery.

>The intent appears to be to distinguish a true marriage from concubinage. What is being said is that if a man and a woman are in fact married, the bond is inseparable. But if they are not married, just "living together," then there is no lawful marriage and there can be a separation or annulment. The wording of the New American Bible for Matthew 19:9 is a translation that gives us this sense.

<NABRE Matthew 19:

<3 Some Pharisees approached him, and tested him,[d] saying, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?” 4 [e]He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” 7 [f]They said to him, “Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss [her]?” 8 He said to them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 I say to you,[g] whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.” 10 [His] disciples said to him, “If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” 11 He answered, “Not all can accept [this] word,[h] but only those to whom that is granted. 12 Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage[i] for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.”

>>724154

>because the cheating spouse has already separated what God united and broken the covenant

So cheating spouses break what God had united. Wrong according to the same gospel

>pic related again. If you cheat, divorce your wife, then marry her, you're still an adulterer and so is your new wife according to Matthew 5 and 9.

But the marriage bond would be broken and their marriage would be a valid one, which it couldn't be, and yet the Jews viewed that as such.

>Of course it does, because you're wrong and outright ignoring Jesus' words to excuse cucking yourself.

You're the chuck here. You prefer to hang on to a mistranslated verse in order to justify your fear of being cucked. If jesus said I had to be a chuck I'd be one willingly even if I didn't like. God did the same with a prophet (Hosseia?) and he obeyed God. You obey God in everything even if that makes everyone think that you are a cuck.

>The only loophole here is that assuming Catholics are right, unless a cheating thot is executed she has an infallible way to torment her forever single husband.

And that's why the Jews said that marriage wouldn't be a good thing under such rules. Thanks for proving me right.

>Thanks for including some mental gymnastics on how this is actually just Jesus changing the subject to concubines and how we should read (((Rome's approved translation))).

So I'll just ignore the right translation of the text based on your feelings right?

And the text says putting a wife away.

Some people back then had concubines for years and with children. In those cases they could tell them to winnie the pooh off because they weren't they're lawful wife's.

And how can it be mental gymnastics? Because if your view its correct then Paul, Luke and Mark are wrong then.

>>Paul can add an exception for divorce but Jesus cannot

What exception? That if a pagan doesn't want to live with you you can marry again?

That isn't even a true marriage to begin with.

A true marriage (only between baptised Christians Catholic or not) is unbreakable.

>>723726

Forgive her and either:

1. Get back together

2. Remain seperate but not remarry

3. See if you're eligible for a annulment

>>724164

>3. See if you're eligible for a annulment

I'd be careful with that. Because it's hard to prove the marriage was invalid.

Because OP or his wife had to prove that they were forced to marry, i.e. marrying against their will, or that she lied and didn't love OP to begin with or wanted his money etc and this is extremely difficult to prove. Only if she had written a letter to a friend saying that before the marriage or other irrefutable proof.

And the problem is this. In the heat of the moment the truth might be "stretched" and if that happen they might be able to fool the bishop, but they can't fool God and they would be commiting sacrilege.

If I was OP I'd pick number two, since I could never forgive, at least not in the first 10 years.

>>723727

WHAT WOULD JESUS DO?

>>724163

>So cheating spouses break what God had united. Wrong according to the same gospel

He did not say it cannot be broken, but that we shouldn't (not can't) put it asunder except it be for fornication.

>But the marriage bond would be broken and their marriage would be a valid one, which it couldn't be, and yet the Jews viewed that as such.

Whether the adulterous spouse's new marriage is valid under the land's laws or not, it is still adultery.

>So I'll just ignore the right translation of the text based on your feelings right?

Porneia's meaning and its implication in this context are not "my feelings," and hold more weight than arbitrarily limiting it to a statement about concubines alone.

>Because if your view its correct then Paul, Luke and Mark are wrong then.

How exactly?

Ultimately, the remaining Catholic arguments (plus excusing the Pauline privilege) hinge on another issue: the Catholic belief that a Catholic marriage is fundamentally different from a nonbeliever's marriage and holds more weight. I have not seen scriptural proof for this assumption yet and until some is provided, your position's foundation is missing and most of this argument is pointless.

>>724174

> I have not seen scriptural proof for this assumption yet and until some is provided, your position's foundation is missing and most of this argument is pointless.

Have you ever read 1 Corinthians 7?

>the Catholic belief that a Catholic marriage is fundamentally different from a nonbeliever's marriage and holds more weight.

Marriages according to the new Law, so says Jesus is unbreakable, so a Jewish marriage from that moment on would be unbreakable as well.

>>724177

Have you ever read 1 Corinthians 7?

Yes. Where does it state that scriptural teachings on marriage apply only to Christian marriages and not preexisting/non-Catholic marriages? The closest I found is Paul stating that you should let your unbelieving spouse leave if they want to, and even then such a situation is still possible in marriages performed by the church, sadly. Most cases of adultery also involve an unbelieving spouse, even if they feigned belief beforehand. Are you starting to see now?

The Christian standards of marriage are applicable to all marriage, officiated by believers or not. There's a reason we fight against abominations like fag marriage even outside the church.

>Marriages according to the new Law, so says Jesus is unbreakable

>he thinks let not == cannot

>he ignores how even the NAB says "no human being must separate," not " can separate"

>he still hasn't found a good explanation for "except it be for fornication" that isn't arbitrarily restricting porneia's meaning to a statement on concubines in this one passage

Even in the case of a spouse committing sex outside the bounds of marriage, divorce is still a concession to the other spouse demonstrating their hardened heart by unnaturally separating what must not be separated through porneia, not an ideal. Sadly, we do not live in an ideal world and even believers make mistakes in choosing a relationship. We should not deny Jesus' one acceptable case for divorce just because we dreamed up a "marriage is completely unbreakable aside from the Pauline privilege" doctrine from misread scripture.

>>724153

Not an argument and not a kid, heretic.

>>724154

>more of the same stuff you’ve been spamming all thread

>more buzzwords

>more anime

Degenerate minds like yours may not be able to understand, yet our Lord (my Lord at least; I doubt you are authentically Christian at all) commanded that what God joined man not separate. Like He said, obey this command if you can… (you can’t?)

It’s about a love that transcends life and death (marital love), and if my wife changed into a whore my some demonic spell, I would do exactly what I advised OP to do and separate but retain hope that she might come around.

Inb4 more uncharitable word vomit

Maybe watching more anime will help you understand the Lord’s teaching. Maybe just saving some more anime images will help. Best of luck.

To all the Protestant Pharisees ITT - read mark 9 and Luke 16

>trying this hard to make our Lord eat his own words

Shame on you

And to the Catholics who foolishly work backwards to read their own theology into scripture, overriding Christ's teaching while making allowances for foreign ideas such as (((annulments))), I give Paul's warning to the church in Romans 11:

>17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;

>18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.

>19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.

>20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:

>21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

>22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

>23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.

>24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?

>25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

>>724223

>>724220

You still haven’t responded to the criticisms I raised. You are just a neet tier edgelord and it shines through your posts. 10/10 memes tho m8 I really mean it.

Either respond to the fact that the original Greek makes the exception only for those who are not in authentic marriages (I.e. cohabitation today), or keep shitposting, I don’t really care. I have wasted enough time with you already. I prefer intellectual debate. You have not proven yourself capable, so good day.

>>723726

Brother, listen please.

If you read the translation of King James you might think (and correctly in my opinion) that Christian men generally have more rights than Christian women.

Here is the supporting verse:

Matthew 19:9

9 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.

Now if the cause is fornication, you are permitted to put away, which seems to be the same thing as divorce, your wife and marry another if you want to. However, your wife must not remarry. Your wife must stay celibate from then on. If she does remarry, it is not your fault that she has sinned. That is what I believe that Jesus is saying here.

For those that don't believe in the KJV, you might want to listen to this plan for a New World Order

https://archive.org/details/New_Order_of_Barbarians_remaster_tapes_1to3/New+Order+of+Barbarians+%5Bremaster%5D+tapes+1+to+3.mp3

at 42:55

I think that you ought to divorce her, but it's up to you. You can pray and consider it

>>724307

Hello again low tier troll friend.

I will spell it out for *you* again, and then begone, degenerate…

1) Bible does not use word for adultery (moicheia).

2) Bible does use word for unlawful sex (porneia).

3) Verse 9 delineates a lawful marriage (where this commandment applied) from an unlawful union (where this commandment doesn’t). That is your “exception”.

>>723742

Being a Christian is surrendering to God wholly and entirely. That means following His teachings, commandments, and doctrine. If you are looking for if Christianity is "compatible" with something of this world then I think you may have started on a wrong foot, but you are welcome to try to find Him nonetheless, that is what is board is for.

>winnie the pooh accepting God's love if I'm expected to be submissive to my wife and the whims of the government

God is the only one you should be submissive to. The whims of the government has no bearings on us whatsoever. Should big gov one day decides to outlaw Christianity then the so-called "outlaws" we shall be.

>>724122

>False. Deuteronomy 24 discusses divorce if the wife finds "no favor" in her husband's eyes and has some uncleanness or indecency in her. The Hebrew word translated as uncleanness/indecency in Deut 24:1 does not refer to adultery elsewhere in scripture (for example, it's used in a section of Deuteronomy 23 about cleaning up garbage and poop in your camp) and and the passage goes on to discuss the wife's remarriage instead of commanding her death as it does to adulteresses elsewhere in the book.

ok, so Christ changes the teachings from killing your adulterous wife (remember the well?) to forbidding death and re-marriage for fornication.

any other excuse to defy Christ? on the day of judgement, you will have no anime .gifs

>>724343

>(remember the well?)

oops, I mean, that time the Jews wanted to stone the woman for adultery. which, I can only imagine a certain few anons here would be okay bringing back, i guess

I'm sorry for you, OP.

>my priest wont allow divorce

Don't look at what man says, look at what the Bible says. Let God be true and every man a liar.

>>724380

Christ did not permit re-marriage, friend.

>>724381

See >>723887

>>723726

Divorce. Avoid being a cuck. If you forgive, she'll just cheat on you again and take advantage of you. I know from experience.

God hates cucks/cowards.

>>724434

the abolishment or fixing of Catholicism (((annulment))) jewery*

>>724422

Most cringy and least Christian post I've ever seen on this board

>>724434

>your Catholic church actually has more ways to break up a marriage than protestants

based around the words of St. Paul, yes. Simony is still a sin, doesn't mean it does not happen.

>Let's stop pretending you give the slightest Winnie the Pooh over Jesus' actual words: when it comes to interpreting scripture you take the word of Rome and your own pride over greek, basic grammar, and common sense (like a general term for unlawful sex somehow not including adultery in Matthew 19:9 alone).

Jesus did not allow re-marriage in cases of adultery. He never did, and He never will. What will your answer be when He tells you this? You refuse to look at His Church, you refuse to look at His Apostle's, you just look at what you desire to be the truth. This isn't how it works.

>>724343

>>724347

https://biblehub.com/commentaries/calvin/john/8.htm

>I reply this is not an absolute and unlimited prohibition, by which Christ forbids sinners to do their duty in correcting the sins of others; but by this word he only reproves hypocrites, who mildly flatter themselves and their vices, but are excessively severe, and even act the part of felons, in censuring others. No man, therefore, shall be prevented by his own sins from correcting the sins of others, and even from punishing them, when it may be found necessary, provided that both in himself and in others he hate what ought to be condemned; and in addition to all this, every man ought to begin by interrogating his own conscience, and by acting both as witness and judge against himself, before he come to others. In this manner shall we, without hating men, make war with sins.

>>724491

>You refuse to look at [muh pope], you refuse to look at [muh tradition], you just look at [the Holy Bible].

>>724506

>calvin

*shrug*

>>724516

>Stay salty.

I will always correct you, because there is always one Truth. Better for you to be rebuked while you live than by Christ in death, which is permanent.

>Our thread IDs are visible

I'm aware.

>in case you or the mods try anything funny

Mods have banned me about 2-3 times actually, go ask them. Sometimes, I'm not charitable speaking with protestants.

>completely misunderstanding Jewish divorce regulations

If the punishment for adultery is death, this leads the other party free for re-marriage. Put on your thinking cap, did Christ allow the adulterous women to be stoned to death? Did He allow re-marriage? Did any Apostle? Any Church Father?

calvin is not a church father

>>724525

>If the punishment for adultery is death, this leads the other party free for re-marriage. Put on your thinking cap, did Christ allow the adulterous women to be stoned to death?

The Calvin quote addressed that, which you (((conveniently ignored))).

>Did he allow re-marriage?

If Matthew 5 and 19 are any indication, in the case of a spouse committing porneia (which includes adultery) he did and mentioned nothing about the spouse dying first. If you can already remarry with no problem after your spouse dies, why in a verse about divorce would he add an extra clause stating you can remarry if your spouse commits porneia, then repeat it twice? Why would Matthew see this seemingly pointless clause (in your view) important enough to record in both instances? Jesus was no man of pointless speech, and suggesting he arbitrarily limited porneia's meaning to concubinage in this passage alone is laughable.

>Did any Apostle?

Paul did, but you excuse the Pauline privilege because it isn't a Real Catholic Marriage™

>Any Church Father?

I'd have to look into it, but if I found one I am certain you'd ignore it.

>Mods have banned me about 2-3 times actually, go ask them. Sometimes, I'm not charitable speaking with protestants.

The protestants read and respond even when you post quotes from Catholic sources. I suggest following Jesus' advice:

>Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

>>724541

>The Calvin quote addressed that, which you (((conveniently ignored))).

there is nothing about calvin that deserves addressing, might as well ask me to read or refute nestor, arius, or steve anderson

>If Matthew 5 and 19 are any indication, in the case of a spouse committing porneia (which includes adultery)

which would contradict Luke, why would Christ condemn all re-marriage in Luke, but "allow" it in Matthew? The only logical conclusion is that porneia refers to marriages that were illicit from the start.

> If you can already remarry with no problem after your spouse dies, why in a verse about divorce would he add an extra clause stating you can remarry if your spouse commits porneia, then repeat it twice?

Where does Christ say "commit" porneia? I mean, you've answered your own question, if you can re-marry upon death of the spouse, then the only exception is a marriage that was invalid from the start (once again, incest, polygamy, etc).

>Jesus was no man of pointless speech, and suggesting he arbitrarily limited porneia's meaning to concubinage in this passage alone is laughable.

There's no arbitration on my part here, the only discordance is you and your ilk. If Christ forbids re-marriage while either spouse is alive, then the exception CAN ONLY apply to marriages that were illicit from the start, otherwise Christ is contradicting Himself.

>Paul did, but you excuse the Pauline privilege because it isn't a Real Catholic Marriage™

Under a strict guideline, which only applies to the salvation of one of the spouse. Don't you dare accuse St. Paul of endorsing adultery.

>I'd have to look into it, but if I found one I am certain you'd ignore it.

The only Church Father the Orthodox can bring up endorsing "divorce" (in a secular sense), is St. John Chrysostom, and He never endorses re-marriage, which is the crux of the issue.

>The protestants read and respond

Orthodox! When will you learn?

>>723726

Perhaps this is God’s way of testing your ability to forgive. If I were in your shoes I’d get a divorce, but I’m a Baptist so I think differently.

>>724551

>quote has nothing to do with anything Catholics disagree with

>ignore it because lolcalvin

Clever.

>which would contradict Luke

The passages in Matthew and Luke only contradict if you view Jesus as a theology robot who was obligated to state his complete views on a subject every time he mentioned one, which is ridiculous and insulting. Matthew 19 is a complete conversation on divorce whereas Luke 16 mentions divorce as a brief aside, even shorter than Matthew 5's brief statement, yet you set Luke 16's statement as the gold standard because it's the briefest and doesn't mention the pesky protty porneia clause. Bringing Mark 10's paraphrasing of Matthew 19's conversation on divorce is even more absurd.

>The only logical conclusion is that porneia refers to marriages that were illicit from the start.

>once again, incest, polygamy, etc

If porneia refers to a mutual invalidating act such as incest or polygamy (mutual in the relationship's context), or an unlawful union as >>724594

claims, how come one spouse is guilty of adultery if they remarry but the other spouse isn't? Does this mean the Catholic church lets the man off scot-free but labels the woman an adulterer if their incestuous marriage is nullified? I call bull. Jesus' examples in Matthew 5 and 19 clearly imply one spouse was in the wrong porneia-wise, and porneia (which covers a variety of sexual sins) done by only one spouse involves adultery by definition.

Interestingly, porneia is also used throughout scripture as a term for idolatry. This may tie into the Pauline privilege but I'll have to do more research before I'm certain.

>If Christ forbids re-marriage while either spouse is alive, then the exception CAN ONLY apply to marriages that were illicit from the start, otherwise Christ is contradicting Himself.

Do you know what an exception is? Because your example is not an exception. An exception is an action that is not part of ordinary operations or standards, and an unlawful union requires no exception to marriage because it isn't one: it is already excluded by the basic definition. A scriptural example of an exception is John 3:3: "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Is Jesus contradicting himself by saying no man can see the kingdom of God and that a man can see the kingdom of God by being born again? No, he provides an exception. So it is for divorce over porneia: an exception and an unfortunate one.

>Don't you dare accuse St. Paul of endorsing adultery.

I'm not.

>>724594

Enjoy whatever you're up to. Even though we disagree I still learned a lot in the process so the argument wasn't a complete waste.

>Btw I’ve never used discord

A friend was lurking the thread and said he thought he recognised Discord markup, so I threw it in.

>>724624

Quick correction: Matthew 19 contains a conversation, not "is a conversation."

>>724624

>Bringing Mark 10's paraphrasing of Matthew 19's conversation on divorce is even more absurd.

I should really proofread this stuff

Women are horrible creatures aren't they. Why did He create them? Literally endless hardships since eve. To date there has been a total of 1 good woman: mary.

>>724641

>this is your mind on r*manism

>>724624

I used the word exception because it was the word you used earlier in the thread. Go back and see I put it in quotes in an earlier post.

I think you’re really confusing the whole thing and over complicating it completely needlessly (if you are actually being sincere, that is).

The same teaching is in 3/4 of the gospels, and this caveat is not in 2/3, so how can you maintain the position that divorce is acceptable when those gospels unequivocally outlaw divorce by the words of our Lord (you can’t).

Like I said, the word for adultery is explicitly left out, implying that adultery is not the question at hand (legitimacy of the marriage is).

If you’re able to be objective about this, you’ll agree. This has been the inerrant and unwavering teaching of Christ’s Church since it’s creation.

>>724642

>Mary wasn’t a good woman

<all generations shall call me blessed

<I am the handmaiden of the Lord

This is your mind on Protestantism

>>724654

>I think you’re really confusing the whole thing and over complicating it completely needlessly (if you are actually being sincere, that is).

That's because I'm responding to your views and its holes, so naturally things are going to get a bit messy.

>The same teaching is in 3/4 of the gospels, and this caveat is not in 2/3, so how can you maintain the position that divorce is acceptable when those gospels unequivocally outlaw divorce by the words of our Lord (you can’t).

It isn't unequivocally outlawed if there's an exception, anon. Jesus and the gospel writers didn't have to mention this exception every single time divorce was mentioned for the exception to be valid.

Imagine if Jesus spent his entire ministry saying "Man cannot see the kingdom of God" over and over, yet once or twice he added "Except a man be born again." Would this exception clause be invalidated by all the other examples without it? God forbid, neither does this exception contradict "Man cannot see the kingdom of God." So it is for this case. What holds you back?

>the word for adultery is explicitly left out

…In favour of a word which includes adultery and possibly idolatry. Claiming this is an issue of marriage legitimacy is exchanging a clean, simple exception for (as you've explained it) an awful, convoluted theological hack with unclear implications.

>This has been the inerrant and unwavering teaching of Christ’s Church since it’s creation.

Our interpretations of scripture must not be confused for scripture itself: even the best of men are fallible. Large groups of people being consistently wrong on the same subject isn't a new thing either, such as Jews and their view of Jesus.

>>724656

Mary was great; and was Augustine's mom, Luther's wife, and my mom to name a few

>>724682

It’s not exchanging anything. It is the more rational explanation. If “adultery” was the intended meaning, then the word for adultery would have been used.

The other word (fornication) was used because that was the intent. Fornication is the antiquated word for cohabitation. That’s clearly the intent. Your mind is muddled by inexact translation.

>>724800

Even if, for the sake of argument, I conceded your point, you would still have to explain how 2 of the gospels (two!) both say that it’s always wrong and leave no room for (erroneous) doubts. YOU CAN’T EXPLAIN THAT

Anyway, it’s been fun, but I think you need a little less vitriol and a little more humility in order to come to terms with this teaching. God bless

>>724810

And what I mean by that is it honestly seems like you don’t want to see things my (correct) way because it IS a hard teaching, just like Christ states. It requires a lot of wisdom and humility to swallow the True bread pill. I very well may not have been able to myself at a younger age. I honestly think you’ll come around as long as you’re sincere in your faith and able to be objective.

>>724780

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU

I can almost guarantee that this is bait but lest someone actually accepts this idea, I'm going to point out how absolutely retarded it is

First off, when the purpose of something is fulfilled, you stop doing it because the point is done, this is the case with ceremonial law

It was done to prepare the way for Christ, and he was the fulfillment of that law

Hence, we eat shellfish and can sit on chairs when we have diarrhea even though under ceremonial laws those were condemned

Adultery itself is part of the moral law which was not depreciated with the coming of Christ but the death penalty for it would have to be instituted by an authority like a king for it to be legal, and then you would probably have to let the state carry it out

Now, with this in mind, we can settle that you have now encouraged OP to becoming a murderer, and you have also spread heresy and, if I remember right, don't hold me to this, rigidly following ceremonial law is also a sin

That's one Whopper of a post there.

>>724810

>>724811

As I said earlier, not mentioning an exception (and whatever porneia means in this instance, it's definitely framed as an exception clause) to something every time the subject is brought up doesn't invalidate the exception. Why didn't Jesus mention it in Luke? Why don't the other gospel writers record what Matthew did?

The paper and its sources speculate, but I can't say I know.

>it honestly seems like you don’t want to see things my (correct) way because it IS a hard teaching

I'm not against agreeing with a Catholic on something, and make no mistake, I loathe divorce as well and believe even with adultery reconciliation is the better option if it's possible. My problem is that the Catholic interpretation of this seems to have more holes and questionable logic than the protestant and Orthodox take, and nothing I've seen here or elsewhere addresses them adequately. Maybe I'll stumble across something big one day that clarifies it further, maybe not, but in the meantime I hope and pray OP makes the right decision even if I'm wrong.

>>724820

>definitely

No

Dude, if I tell you, “You are never permitted to divorce”, then it would make no sense whatsoever to interpret that as “You are never permitted to divorce unless she is a cheating whore.”

That would be asinine.

In effect you are saying that 2 of the gospels are 1) incomplete and 2) not free of error.

Stuff like this is why I have a hard time believing that you’re being sincere and keep saying I’m done.

>>724826

>Dude, if I tell you, “Man cannot see the kingdom of God”, then it would make no sense whatsoever to interpret that as “Man cannot see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.”

>That would be asinine

Again, you don't seem to get exceptions.

>In effect you are saying that 2 of the gospels are 1) incomplete and 2) not free of error.

The gospels are not modern day biographies and not intended as such, they are short-ish books which try capturing the life of Jesus. Each one has a slightly different perspective which is compatible with the others, and together they provide an accurate, multifacited view of who and what Jesus was. There definitely is some paraphrasing going on too when you compare the gospels recording the same incidents or conversations (such as Mark 10 covering Matthew 19's conversation on divorce with slightly paraphrased dialogue).

Why aren't the gospels a full record of everything Jesus said, or at least biographies with a no paraphrasing property? You have to remember that scrolls are much less portable than books and past a certain length they start to become unwieldy, not only for regular reading but for reproducing by hand and transport. Apparently some of the gospels already neared impractical lengths and John references this conundrum near the end of his gospel:

>And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

If I wasn't sincere I wouldn't still be here. It's been two days and I'm more or less done, just hoping OP is alright.

>>724838

>harping on about “””exceptions”””

>going off on more tangents about how the gospels are books and stuff

You completely ignored my post. Go read Luke 16 and Mark 10 and then re-read my post here >>724826 and think about it a little bit, bud.

>>724842

>Go read Luke 16 and Mark 10

That's what I was talking about about, I even directly mentioned Mark 10 in the second paragraph. Are you reading my posts? Are you sincere? Is this some elaborate shitpost where you string along a prottie, strategically ignore his points and accuse him of whatever you're doing?

I feel like a half-idiot who's slowly realizing he's inside a DanielFromSL video.

>>724624

>The passages in Matthew and Luke only contradict if you view Jesus as a theology robot who was obligated to state his complete views on a subject every time he mentioned one, which is ridiculous and insulting.

…that's almost close to blasphemy, dude. watch your words. did He not teach His Apostle's? Did His Apostle's not say there was many more things not contained in the scriptures that Jesus said and did?

Which, is why you need to pay attention the Church Fathers and the Early Church. Oh, and lookee here, they never supported re-marriage.

>how come one spouse is guilty of adultery if they remarry but the other spouse isn't? Does this mean the Catholic church lets the man off scot-free but labels the woman an adulterer if their incestuous marriage is nullified?

because you're purposely muddling up the meanings of the text, and only confusing yourself to justify your own erroneous understanding of the Scriptures

>>724819

>First off, when the purpose of something is fulfilled, you stop doing it because the point is done, this is the case with ceremonial law

Not that the shitpost wasn't retarded, but this is not a valid interpretation. It would make Jesus' meaning "I do not do away with the law, but I do away with it". Nor does Jesus restrict Himself to the ceremonial, but to the contrary, the relevant passage heavily features the ten commandments. The word fulfill, when its object is the law, means 'to keep'. However, though Christ's primary meaning is that He does not make an end to the law (to the contrary He perfects it in Himself), He actually refers to "the law or the prophets", which is how the Jews referred to scripture. So Christ's meaning is that He does not overthrow the Old Testament, rather, it is all about Him.

>>724908

you have yet to provide a real argument against the total ban of re-marriage in the early church, and have yet to present a single church father in support of re-marriage

Take a look at this channel, OP. He has several videos on forgiveness and divorce/re-marriage that might be of help.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQuOr0YEtaa1xoctcdUDZSg/playlists

>>724845

This is the second post that you have blatantly ignored my point. You have yet to reply to it. Lol

K eep

I t

S imple

S illy

>>724930

I'm going to ask you to provide proof until you do. Otherwise, you must admit you're wrong. I'm not sure that you will, but I do this so that others can see that you're wrong, and not be misled by you.

1. where did the early church ever support re-marriage

2. where did any church father ever support re-marriage

>>725024

>I do this so that others can see that you're wrong

Then you have failed miserably, because the only thing anyone can see is how full of shit you are

>>723726

Oh bullshit, Bible says you can divorce because of adultery. If you're Catholic, send a request directly to your bishop. You can forgive her, but you should by now means stay married to her.

>>725014

>respond to point

>WHY AREN'T YOU RESPONDING

>but I did, see-

>YOU HAVE NOT RESPONDED

I responded to the exceptions thing with greentext (perhaps you mistook it for your own words), wrote two paragraphs addressing the "you are saying that 2 of the gospels are 1) incomplete and 2) not free of error" sentence, and a single sentence about you accusing me of insincerity. What more do you want? Maybe you should, you know, read my posts before crying that I didn't read yours.

>>724886

>>724919

>>725024

Yes, I changed my mind on responding here.

>muh church fathers

Godly men, and their proximity to the New Testament means their statements on its authorship are very helpful, but theologically they're just as fallible as everyone else. For example, Augustine's Confessions has him speculating on whether enjoying colours is sinful? Does his position as a prominent early Christian make his suspicion correct? No. Luther and Calvin weren't right on everything either, but unlike Catholics we don't idolise their age and stature.

Also notable is that their period had a trend of discouraging marriage for aesthetic reasons, sometimes even going beyond scripture in cases like forbidding widows to marry. In this light, it isn't surprising that remarriage was looked on with particular suspicion.

From a brief skimming it's unclear whether Justin Martyr condemns all remarriage or just that of the guilty + those who lusted for a divorced spouse while they were married, Theophilus of Antioch's position was similar to Justin Martyr's and similarly unclear, while Clement of Alexandria viewed divorce as similar to an execution and saw the disciplining spouse's chastity as an ideal not all were gifted with. Origen (included for completeness' sake) spoke of Christ divorcing Israel and remarrying the church, insisted this was not adultery because Israel's "fornication" was reasonable ground for dissolving a marriage, and also wrote how "certain Church leaders have permitted the remarriage of a divorced woman while her husband was alive." Who were these church leaders? No idea. Finally, Ambrosiaster explicitly permits an innocent divorcing husband to remarry while forbidding the same for an innocent wife.

Are these men right or wrong? Are their names big enough for you? Whatever the case, the early church's position on remarriage is not as cut and dry as you claim.

>>725093

>hurrdurr I did type the words to the anon

I will paste it here for you to make it as easy for you as possible. Can you respond adequately to the following?

if I tell you, “You are never permitted to divorce”, then it would make no sense whatsoever for you to interpret that as “You are never permitted to divorce unless your wife cheated on you.”

That would be make no sense whatsoever because that’s not what was said.

Make sense?

>>725169

Already did that, so here's yet another spoonfeeding.

You leave out an critical piece of information in your strawman: the opponent has a likely exception clause in scripture to back his "unless your wife cheated on you." Leaving this out disguises your ignorance on what an exception is and your ridiculous belief that an exception is invalidated if one (in this case, Jesus himself) doesn't mention it every time the subject is brought up. So if we add the missing exception clause back to its rightful place in the example, suddenly the "unless your wife cheated on you" addition makes sense and has real weight backing it.

If you wish to deal a mortal blow to my position, you must provide a satisfactory answer to the example I gave back in >>724682 (tweaked for extra clarity) :

>Imagine if Jesus spent his entire ministry saying "Man cannot see the kingdom of God" over and over, yet once or twice he added "Except a man be born again" as stated in John 3:3. Would this exception clause be invalidated by all the other quotes which don't mention it?

Think over this carefully.

You are not forbidden to divorce her.

But you are forbidden to remarry. If you divorce her, you have to stay alone/ celibate all your life long.

>>725093

>Godly men, and their proximity to the New Testament means their statements on its authorship are very helpful, but theologically they're just as fallible as everyone else.

This is a sad and weak gloss against a very logical question.

On something as -fundamental- and -basic- as a teaching on re-marriage, we must look at how the Early Church and the Apostle's/Church Father's held it, for they are the direct continuation of the Church in the Scriptures, and if they teach that re-marriage is -forbidden-, then it follows that re-marriage was NEVER allowed.

Your failure to provide ANY PROOF at all speaks volumes. The ban on re-marriage from Christ is TOTAL, you must provide a COMPLETE REFUTATION from a Church Father that directly contradicts scripture, and Jesus Christ Himself.

I can only assume you're beginning to realize you bit off far more than you can chew. A true Christian does not care what /pol/ thinks, we care about what Christ thinks.

>>725028

not an argument

>>725218

This, try reconcile first and if it simply doesn't work then divorce/do whatever is best for your children

>>725189

>(in this case, Jesus himself) doesn't mention it every time the subject is brought up.

wait, wait wait, THIS is your reasoning? "Oh, Jesus didn't mention this every single time, He, True God and True Man, but have been just been speaking off-the-cuff maaaaan…"

>. So if we add the missing exception clause back to its rightful place in the example, suddenly the "unless your wife cheated on you" addition makes sense and has real weight backing it.

Or, Jesus Christ tells the truth, and never tells a lie, and He did not contradict Himself at all, nor did He "forget" His own teaching.

Tell me, if Christ "forgot" or "didn't bother to mention" to what else does this blasphemous thinking apply?

>>725247

You asked where any church father ever supported remarriage, insisting there weren't any cases. I gave some examples, only for you to shout that I failed to "provide ANY PROOF at all." and change the criteria to a "COMPLETE REFUTATION…that directly contradicts scripture" (thanks for the capslock).

Anyhow, since according to you anything supporting remarriage "contradicts scripture and Jesus himself," these should satisfy your criteria. Justin Martyr and Theophilus' stuff may or may not fit but they're still worthwhile reads.

Justin Martyr:

>First Apology, Chap. 15.

>Second Apology, 2.1-7.

Theophilus of Antioch:

>To Autolycus, 3.13.

Clement of Alexandria:

>Stromata (11.23)

Origen:

Matthew, 14:17,19,23

>Ambrosiaster

commentary on 1 Corinthians, specifically chapter 7

>>725256

If Jesus never lies or contradicts himself, and you believe exceptions are a contradiction, explain John 3:3.

>Man cannot see the kingdom of God,

>Man can see the kingdom of God through being born again.

Both ideas are exclusive and "cannot" is a very strong word, yet Jesus packed them into a single sentence. How does Jesus avoid contradicting himself and thus damning mankind in the process? You should be able to solve this.

>>725317

sweet now he's gonna change his opinion

>>725317

what you say

>you asked…any churcher father that ever supported re-marriage…i gave some examples

what you said earlier

>From a brief skimming it's unclear whether Justin Martyr condemns all remarriage or just that of the guilty + those who lusted for a divorced spouse while they were married, Theophilus of Antioch's position was similar to Justin Martyr's and similarly unclear

ambrosiaster seems to be persona non grata, so we only have origen and clement of alexandria, both of whom are the most contentious "church fathers" in the canon.

I suppose you believe God did not create the Heavens too :)

>How does Jesus avoid contradicting himself and thus damning mankind in the process? You should be able to solve this.

because it's a metaphor for baptism

>>725321

>I suppose you believe God did not create the Heavens too :)

I never implied I agree with any of them, or even if I did that I agreed with all of their teachings. You asked for examples and I provided some, beggars can't be choosers.

>because it's a metaphor for baptism

You have it backwards, baptism is the sacrament which either (depending on your denomination's interpretation) symbolises the rebirth or by/through which it takes place. You passed the buck and it passed round the circle back to you.

There's a single word and its associated concept which solves the problem. John 3:3 isn't particularly long either, so it shouldn't take long to narrow down. Can you find it?

>>725324

>I never implied I agree with any of them, or even if I did that I agreed with all of their teachings.

I asked for Church Fathers, you gave me the two guys who are not particularly well-known for being Church Fathers, and have major issues with their teaching. I will not say that you are dealing with me falsely, but the difference in what we regard as authentic tradition is stark.

nice protestant article on the matter:

https://theologicalstudies.org.uk/article_divorce_snuth.html

although their summary is contradictory, the only ante nicene "father" is origen, and throughout history the deviation from the authentic teaching seems to be one-in-the-same:

"but being a cuck sucks!"

>You have it backwards, baptism is the sacrament which either (depending on your denomination's interpretation) symbolises the rebirth or by/through which it takes place.

uh huh, that's why Christ gave a metaphor that explains how man can be "born again", even the baptists get this part right

>>725325

>and have major issues with their teaching

More widely accepted church fathers such as Augustine have issues of their own, such as that sneaking suspicion that enjoying colours makes him a sinner, yet those issues don't negate what they do get right.

>more baptism stuff

You're avoiding the original question, which was not on the exact nature of this rebirth but how:

>Man cannot X

>Man can X by Y

two seemingly contradictory ideas and words, can and cannot, are resolved by a word and its associated concept. Jesus and the gospel writers used it. Translators use it. Will you?

>>725331

>More widely accepted church fathers such as Augustine have issues of their own, such as that sneaking suspicion that enjoying colours makes him a sinner, yet those issues don't negate what they do get right.

St. Augustine possibly disliking crayons isn't as big of a deal as thinking all the fallen angels and Satan will be in Heaven. It's this same contradictory and untenable logic that leads Origen to thinking re-marriage is OK if it hurts your feelings to not have a new wife, just like all the souls in Hell may hurt your feelings, so they'll probably up in Heaven at some point.

>>725331

oh, as for your argument shifting. unlike you, we have authorities on the matter to proclaim what is and what is not metaphor, or is meant to be understood in a literal sense

since you cannot find any non-protestant source supporting re-marriage outside of "satan will be in heaven" Origen, you stand in a fairly weak position

>>723726

>>723727

>>724171

Jesus said that adultery was grounds for divorce.

>“It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’[a] 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. - Matthew 5:31-32

>>725334

>throws the baby out with the bathwater if there's enough bathwater

>if I believe in Jesus' porneia exception clause I agree with Origen's take on it

>>725335

Jesus' statement in John 3:3 still contains two seemingly contradictory statements and claiming it's a metaphor for baptism (true or not) does nothing to change this. One word and its concept resolved the two statements. For someone who routinely attacks my zeal for Jesus' words, you're sure hesitant to find it.

>>725341

You have a serious problem: 205044 refuses to acknowledge and admit the meaning of one key element from that verse, and it's not porneia.

>>724441

You don't know how the real world works, cuck.

>>723726

31 “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

>Except for sexual immorality

>>723726

Couple therapy.

>>723726

>only one post, OP

>no more posts

This is a bait thread. Sage.

(If not, does she repent? Even God does not forgive unrepentant sinners.)

>>725256

Now you see the reason for my frustration with this kid. He doesn’t think properly. His mind has been warped by internet, web culture and the culture of death. You cannot reason with such people because as Paul says God has allowed their minds to be darkened.

>>725343

it is of course porneia, because Jesus Christ did not admit adultery as an exception for divorce.

the only relevant sources you can find for re-marriage is 1. origen (cuz it hurts our feelings) 2. protestants (and a ton of em, also because it hurts their feelings) 3. somehow, the orthodox church, which I do not understand because they have close to zero support from the sacred tradition

>>725546

who knows, perhaps the anon will see the soundness of the argument and repent one day.

>>725549

That is what we can hope for still, and I would prefer that as it would mean all the time i spent here was not wasted. However, from rereading some of his posts, I get the impression he’s a 2/10 troll.

Should have known better.

>>725550

Hopefully other anons will read this and be able to discern the Truth as a consequence. God bless.

>>725561

Just arrived :

1)No

2)Yes

Divorce this slut OP and try to build a solid defense so you can have your kids over her (good luck though)

>>725558

You should pray about the subject matter at hand instead. Your logic is faulty. Seek counsel from a priest. Goodbye.

>>725561

>muh completely unbiased summary

The issue at hand is whether divorce is moral you disingenuous faggot. The linguistics and teaching of the Church and bible are settled.

Two books of the Bible record our my, at least Lord as outlawing divorce. You are trying to say something unintelligible which is why this thread is screwed up (post more animes!!)

The Bible is clear. It’s your interpretation that’s winnie the poohed up.

You’re either a troll, intellectually dishonest, or autistic.

>>726041

>muh straw man

Never brought up anything about my feelings. It’s not relevant at all.

“Divorce is not permitted”

>Muh interpretation is that theirs eksepshuns

Is based on feelings and not logic.

kid

>>726267

this is actually the big thing about the ban on divorce, when you actually look at the history there's only two big arguments for it

1. it really hurts your feelings to get cheated on, so why would Christ let you get your feelings hurt! eastern orthodox and the protestants have supported the laxing of Christ's commandment literally due to feelings of the betrayed.

2. Protestants accept the KJV rendering, despite the fact the reason that entire translation exists is to justify the Anglican sect, which sprung from Henry the VIIIth trying to divorce

For my own part, I can only reason that the Holy Spirit has abandoned these sects and schismatics to the darkness of their own mind.

>>726412

relaxing on the ban of divorce due to adultery*

>>726418

Scripture is a two-edged sword, woe to you if you're wrong.

>>726420

Okay, this is off-topic and wouldn't fly on any other board (or be necessary anywhere else for tl;dr reasons) but it's time I stopped beating around the bush. My instincts tell me you'll reject this but they're as fallible as anyone's.

I am genuinely, in a completely non-shitposty sense, worried for you. Not because you disagree with me: as imperfect creatures we and anything that isn't God have finite amounts of information and experience at our disposal and are thus bound to see things through different perspectives. Even if I turn out to be wrong, this is still an opportunity for me to learn from my mistakes and hopefully grow closer to Christ through a better understanding of his word.

My fear is that you've dressed up your own pride and possibly idolatry of the early church as a zeal for scripture. I pray that I'm mistaken. If I am right, you're in far greater danger than someone whose reading of porneia is possibly a bit off, likes reaction images, and sometimes gets carried away with bad jokes (like the black hole thing).

Even if I am wrong about Jesus' teachings on divorce, at least think this over. Please.

>>726412

Amen.

>>726418

There’s no exception clause in 2/3 of the gospels.

The teaching itself isn’t even in the 4th gospel (John’s); it isn’t even mentioned.

You are the one ignoring facts kid

It’s to the point that I don’t believe you’re being honest about this.

God have mercy on your soul

>>726560

So are you going to ignore the teaching completely because it doesn’t appear in John’s gospel?

Or are you going to follow the Bible?

Bready simple bud

>>726412

>the reason that entire translation (KJV) exists is to justify the Anglican sect, which sprung from Henry the VIIIth trying to divorce

Deliberate misinformation

The KJV is not the 1539 "Great Bible"

>>726578

Deliberate informative fact*

FTFY

>>723902

I'm living a Christian life and happily married to my wife. Marriage is a wonderful thing. All my clients live sad, godless lives, destroying one another and ignoring their vows. It's a living

Remember, while over 50% of marriages end in divorce, more than 50% of first marriages succeed for life. It's the pricks getting remarried 5 times skewing those statistics and anti-marriage evildoers presenting purposefully skewed statistics - and obviously, marriage is working for a lot of people that don't even have God. Imagine how well it works when you have a spiritual reason to believe in it.

t. also Divorce lawyer

>>723820

Why do catholics always have to jump through these hoops to justify papal interpretation of scripture? I'm sure you would be happy if the bible would just go away, that would make things so much easier for you, wouldn't it?

>>727955

so are you defending divorce because the catholics don't like it? also, what are you implying was meant by matthew 5;32? its not very ambiguous

>>727955

Christ never permitted re-marriage.

>>726561

>bible contradicts itself

>remarriage is sinful now its not

>doesn't mean invalid/illicit marriage union which is a interpretation that can reconcile the texts which is catholic interpretation.

>>728047

>implying the exception is not a exception for catholics and must be interpreted in absolute manner

>>728057

Catholic beliefs are formed by Scripture and Holy Tradition as affirmed by the Holy See, not a popular vote.

Why is this even an argument? The Bible says right there divorce is fine if it's due to cases of sexual immorality.

>>728671

which only applies if your wife happens to be your sister, or your father's 2nd wife, or etc

>>728047

The "issue" with the exceptional clause is an "issue" if it's only because you reject it. Christ completely bans re-marriage in Luke, and only allows re-marriage in the case that the marriage was never licit in the eyes of God in the first place.

If Christ had meant adultery, He would have used the word for adultery, and the early Church would have allowed it. You cannot find any authentic Church Father that allows re-marriage in cases of adultery!

>>723752

We often blame others for our misdeeds because we dont want it to be our fault and we feel bad about what we did. So at least she knows what she did was winnie the poohed up. Cant be sure unless she says it with tears in her eyes or if she acts like she doesn't give a winnie the pooh. If she acts like she doesn't give a winnie the pooh, then it's gone. Marriage is forever though. And if you have kids, they are the priority. Nothing is more important than your progeny. They are a continuation of you and those that came before you.

>>728718

>wrote a response to this

>disappeared

Either I forgot to hit send or the mods are acting funny again.

If a man is found lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman.

>>728717

And if any man marries her from that point on he'll be an adulterer because something something muh church fathers

>>729424

Seeing as the remarriage thing is literally spelled out in the bible, certainly we're allowed to use our "biblical interpretation" to determine what it means.

Who am I kidding, you'll chicken out of this particular protestant dogma just so you can have your laugh at Catholics

>>723726

Read the Kurtzer Sonata…..

>>728099

"Who am I to judge?"

>>730930

Imageboards are the alternative to "Silicon Valley" tech titan sites. You don't have to be any particular kind of person to want an alternative. It's like listening to rock instead of disco in the 1970s. It's for everybody who doesn't like disco.