Torturous logic on divorce and complementarian trashology

Somewhat off topic given the current trends, but haven’t posted in a while and wrote this a while back. Have maybe 1-2 more on this topic, before we head back into the current discussions.

One of the depressing things to me is how people can use crazy logic to get to the wrong conclusion. Take for example this back and forth divorce on RP Christians with this follow up. Refer back to the Divorce Part 8 Actual Final for more in depth arguments.

At the bottom line, it seems like your position results in the Mosaic Law permitting sin. Something to the effect of, “Yes, Moses allowed this sin. But Jesus, who raised the bar, doesn’t allow it.” This comes out clearly in your third point. I think the first and fourth points beg the question, so I’m only going to address the second and third points you listed.

Second point: I understand your point. If hardness of heart is sin, and divorce always involves hardness of heart, then isn’t divorce always sin? Of course, I would say that one or both of the premises is wrong, but I will admit that I need to study this more.

Third point: This appears to contain the critical assumptions of your position. This idea that Jesus was “raising the bar” has major theological problems. The Mosaic Law had already been declared perfect by OT prophets (Ps. 19:7), not to mention that obedience to it could produce life (Deut. 6:25). Jesus declared that he would perfectly fulfill the Mosaic Law (Matt. 5:17-20) . Your position seems to result in a new law: “Christ’s Version of the Mosaic Law”, which is superior to Mosaic Law. Even then, its unclear why the inferior Mosaic Law would permit sin.

This is the standard type of response I’ve come to expect from you. When I point out a contradiction or a problem, you wave your hands, beg the question, perform semantic gymnastics, and/or copy-and-paste another word bomb. Nevertheless, you write with such confidence that I’m sure it impresses the undiscerning mind. Notable examples would include your position on vows, Christ’s “ability” to contradict the Mosaic Law, marriage can be “annulled” but this isn’t a real divorce.

This position uses torturous logic to eventually get to the wrong conclusion. One can cherry pick examples of OT Scriptures to try to justify an OT stance on divorce, but when one looks at the whole picture the positions become even more stark as one is clearly wrong.

Your position: Jesus agrees with Shammai Pharisees in Matthew 19 that you can divorce for adultery with the exception clause. Not only that, according to Mike Winger’s position which you seem to accept has even more exceptions for divorce than even the Pharisees such as abandonment, abuse, etc.

My position: Jesus is right in showing that Mosaic law won’t pass away (for the Jews), but raises the standards in His “New Testament/Covenant” for Christians. For instance, Matthew 5-7 sermon on the mount… (“You have heard it said don’t commit adultery (10 commandments)… but I tell you… anyone who looks with covetous/lust on [another man’s wife] has committed adultery with her in his heart”). Clearly raising the bar here. Same with His statement on the beginning in Matthew 19 on divorce: “What God has put together let no man separate.”

My position is not even a contradiction unless you intend that Jesus wants to hold Christians to the standards of the Jewish law which Paul says is wrong. Moreover, what’s more likely? Jesus lowers the bar or raises the bar when establishing the New Covenant? The clear theme throughout the NT is Jesus raises the bar.

If you still think my position has all of those flaws that you say, I just can’t see how your think your position is more logically sound. Jesus agreeing with the Pharisees and lowering the bar for divorce for Christians? Really?

RE: marriage can be “annulled” but this isn’t a real divorce and vows

Literally examples of this in the Bible. Deut 22 – marriage is annuled because of no blood on the sheet means the wife is not a virgin. Matthew 1 – Joseph wants to put away Mary secretly because he is a righteous man and she is pregnant not by him. Her pregnancy annuls the betrothal marriage contract. Also referring to John 8 where the Pharisees quip that Jesus is a “son of porneia (fornication)” which ties back into Matthew 19 exception.

Same with examples of vows. Jesus cautions us because of the seriousness of them and to just let our yes be yes and no be no. You think your vows you said before God and man can be broken because of what someone else did? I don’t think mine can. There’s no Biblical support for the opposite either.

I don’t know how you think these Biblical instances are an example of “wave your hands, beg the question, perform semantic gymnastics, and/or copy-and-paste another word bomb” but ok.

The problem seems to be that people get so entrenched in their position of pro-divorce that everything turns into a justification for that. This particular man has an unrepentant narcissistic wife who is divorced, so I definitely understand how that turns into that. I would never wish that on anyone.

However, it’s very easy to reconcile the supposed problematic portions of my position with Scripture, but it’s impossible to do that with the opposite position. Yes, the Mosaic Law can be ‘perfect’ and ‘obedience to it can give life’ for the Jews. But clearly Jesus communicates to us in the NT that His New Covenant is fulfilling the Old and giving us a New Covenant that teaches us to “be perfect like our heavenly father is perfect.” Moses permitted divorce in the OT for hardness of heart. That doesn’t mean it was good. It was merely permitted as “not sin.” But hardness of heart to Jesus is clearly not a good thing and not something we should strive for as it’s always negatively talked about in the Bible.

Moreover, clinging to the Mosaic Law version of divorce leads someone in the exact wrong direction of “what God has put together let no man separate.” The said debater brings up Mike Winger’s video which my new post on divorce covered. Winger comes to the conclusion that Jesus agrees with the Shammai position on divorce for adultery, but when you watch further into the video he adds in more exceptions than even the Pharisees for abandonment, abuse, and so on.

Not only in this position does Jesus not raise the bar, but according to Winger clearly Jesus has a lower bar for divorce than even the Pharisees now. Torturous logic. Scripture now means the opposite of what it has previously said.

Now, obviously, I have stated that this is my conclusion based on studying the Scriptures in-depth. If you’re in a faith tradition that allows annulments or divorce with wise counsel then more power to you. No divorce seems to be the most accurate position, with possible exceptions for annulments given that a covenant marriage must be established. That’s why I think the Catholic position on marriage seems to be the most faithful to the Scripture.

However, at the end of the day you don’t have to justify your position to me, but you will answer to God.

Complementarians

To tie everything back to the title, this is the same type of logic that complementarians use to deny husbands headship authority.

Like the pro-divorce people they say no divorce is good. Look at what Jesus said! “What God has put together let no man separate.” Oh wait. But now if we read further we have an exception where divorce could be acceptable. How do we pick out Scriptures that fit this position? Also, let’s ignore the context of Mark 10, Luke 16, Romans 7, 1 Cor 7, and others not permitting any divorce and hone in on this exception. Let’s also ignore Joseph and Mary (Matt 1), Deut 22 (annulments), and the Pharisees calling Jesus a “son of fornication/porneia” (John 8) which provide strong context into the exception clause.

Likewise, complementarians pay lip service to headship. Headship is good they say. But then they use torturous feminist exceptions and passages taken out of context to deny that husbands should have authority over wives creating a neutered version that makes the husband into a sock puppet.

Headship is good. But clearly abuse is bad. Since abuse is bad, we can’t be having husbands have authoritative headship. Preaching that husbands should have authoritative headship would clearly create too many tyrant husbands (…when we see the exact opposite in real life. Too many husbands are wimpy cowards).

  • That is why now that husband and wife agreement is the most godly — the husband gets the “final tie break vote”. A husband who makes unilateral decisions that does not have support of the wife is clearly operating in bad faith.
  • Mutual submission. Husbands should be submitting to their wife’s decisions too while ignoring how authority works.
  • Husbands and wives are of equal worth and value before God but different roles…. but oops now their roles are the same because we’re partners in marriage! We work as a team! We’re all in this together, equally. Women can do anything men can do!
  • Husbands love your wives and if they aren’t feeling loved you need to do more to make her feel loved. Ignoring the fact that Christ’s love is for the purpose of sanctification which is to lead, teach, train, disciple, and correct a wife toward righteousness.

Now Scripture is reduced to something that is totally the opposite of what is written.

Eventually you get some twisted form of slavery where the husband has all the responsibility with no authority. Then they wonder why a wives have a hard time respecting their husbands or don’t want to have sex with him. It’s because YOU neutered the husband. What wife will get the hots for a neutered husband?

Yes, the husband is reduced to the status of a neutered dog who exists to make his “owner” feel happy.

Complementarians, like the egalitarians, twisted Scripture to fit the spirit of the age instead of standing on the hard truths of what God has said. At least the egalitarians were more honest about warping it and bowing to the culture.

Complementarians are the New Pharisees – blind guides leading the blind.

This entry was posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to Torturous logic on divorce and complementarian trashology

  1. dave sora says:

    Why in Mark is no divorce allowed at all (and there is an assumption women could divorce) while in Matthew divorce is allowed only when the wife commits adultery (and its assumed only men can divorce)?

    My answer is the death penalty. That is, Mark and Matthew are dealing differently woth the death penalty. Mark assumes the death penalty for adultery will remain, so no need for divorce. Matthew assumes the death penalty is going away so divorce for adultery takes the place of the death penalty for adultery. This may imply that Mark and Matthew made these words up rather than Jesus actually saying them, but its the obly explanation that makes sense, AND any doctrine on divorce that does not acknowledge that divorce for adultery was unneeded in the OT due to the death penalty is just frankly a non-starter. Christianity had to create NEW rules on divorce due to the loss of the death panalty and its unlikely Jesus knew the death penalty was going away so its unlikely he knew new rules would be needed, so they came from the church or perhaps Mark’s really came from Jesus (while assuming the DP would continue) but Matthew revised it later when the DP was gone. Later the Pericope Adulterae was forged to make it look like Jesus had himself got rid of the DP but its a false passage.

  2. dave sora says:

    Another thin besides the change from no divorce to divorce for adultery (replacing death penalty for adultery) which shows the anachronistic nature of the gospels (or at least Matthew) putting these rules in Jesus’ mouth (when they most likely come from the church) is the assumption that to marry a second wife a man must divorce the first!

    “If any man divorces his wife to marry another, he commits adultery.” But why would any man “divorce his wife to marry another” when he could just add more wives?!!? In the OT and presumably in Jesus’ lifetime polygammy was normal. If Jesus is banning it, if that’s a new thing, you’d think he’d be more explicit. Rather it seems by the time Matthew is written someone has banned it and its just normal to believe only in monogammy by Matthew’s time so he matter-of-factly assumes monogammy and transports that assumption back to Jesus’ time, creating a rather obvious anachronism. TWO anachronisms, (1) monogammy rather thab polygammy, (2) no death penalty for adultery. But surely in Jesus’ time both of those were still around!

    So then I would say the Catholic church is DEAD WRONG in opposing divorce for adultery, unless it intends to execute the cheaters. One or the other is necessary. No divorce for adultery and no death penalty for adultery is a violation of the man’s headship! Its torturing him! The RCC is guilty of torturing the male species! Period.

  3. dave sora says:

    Also that Jesus himself didn’t actually give any rules on divorce would wasily explain why we get THREE version in Scripture: (1) Mark’s, (2) Matthew’s, (3) Paul’s.

    AND a continuing controversy in the ensuing centuries, Hermes feeling the need to claim to be a prophet in the 2nd century order to establish his no divorce policy, and even then that policy was gone by the 3rd century as Tertullian is upset how the churches are allowing divorce. If Jesus had really given a position, we wouldn’t have 3 differing positions in Scripture followed by a history of confusion.

    So its best to acknowledge Jesus intended for the OT rules to continue (including allowance for polygammy and the death penalty for adultery). But since a new order was brought in, fanatical anti-divorce forces and anti-death-penalty forces (most likely female) took advantage and put their doctrines into Jesus’ mouth in forged passages in Scripture (including John 8) and created a mess.

    To deny this is to pretend these anamalous anachronisms are totally normal and that Jesus felt no need to explain to the Pharisees how his rules for divorce fit with the death penalty and that they had no interest in making him look like a fool for ignoring that issue! Its just not believable.

  4. surfdumb says:

    Will you address Derek’s reasoning for being a complementarian that he is explaining at Sigma Frame?
    If you read this Derek, can you explain the contradiction you think patriarchal men have? You said you have a 142 IQ, so you probably know how to explain things to much lower IQ guys, can you use that method, instead of assuming we know how to fill in the gaps?
    Instead of torturing us with hundreds of words to make the simple point that kephale, or preeminence is used most often, can you just get to the main point and say what authority you have in your complementarian marriage? Is your argument mainly, akin to a kid’s game, ie, “I was here first?”

  5. Oscar says:

    but oops now their roles are the same because we’re partners in marriage! We work as a team!

    Even that is an argument in bad faith. It’s normal to have a senior partner and a junior partner, and every team needs a team captain.

  6. Oscar says:

    My answer is the death penalty. That is, Mark and Matthew are dealing differently woth the death penalty.

    There’s a simpler explanation. Have you ever interviewed eye witnesses to an event (for an investigation, for example)?

    I have.

    If they’re telling the truth, they tend to tell the same overall story with slightly different details. One witness will emphasize one set of details, while another will emphasize a different set of details, even leaving out some of the details another eye witness emphasized.

    They’re not contradicting each other. They just happened to witness the same event from different perspectives. It actually helps the investigator corroborate the witnesses’ stories.

    The Gospels do the same thing.

    The Gospel of Matthew emphasizes different details than the Gospel of Mark, because the Gospel of Mark is Peter’s account dictated to Mark, and Matthew and Peter were vastly different men with vastly different perspectives. Peter didn’t even bother with the story of Jesus’ birth. Neither did John, while Matthew and Luke even included genealogies.

    None of that is a contradiction.

  7. @ dave sora

    Why in Mark is no divorce allowed at all (and there is an assumption women could divorce) while in Matthew divorce is allowed only when the wife commits adultery (and its assumed only men can divorce)?

    This position doesn’t jive with the Biblical context.

    Matthew is the only gospel to have an account of Joseph and Mary and Joseph’s decision to put Mary away quietly (deemed righteous by the passage). He could have claimed death penalty but didn’t, and he was righteous for not claiming it.

    Also, Matthew is the only one to have these ‘exception’ clauses.

    I don’t think that’s a coincidence.

    The rest of Mark, Luke, Romans, 1 Cor 7. and such are clear that only death breaks the marriage bond and possibly abandonment.

    So its best to acknowledge Jesus intended for the OT rules to continue (including allowance for polygammy and the death penalty for adultery). But since a new order was brought in, fanatical anti-divorce forces and anti-death-penalty forces (most likely female) took advantage and put their doctrines into Jesus’ mouth in forged passages in Scripture (including John 8) and created a mess.

    Nah. I already explained why this is logically inconsistent with the rest of Jesus’ preaching. Jesus would be taking a lower position on marriage and divorce than even the Pharisees if “except for fornication” means adultery, abandonment, physical abuse, and whatever else.

  8. Sharkly says:

    “No divorce for adultery and no death penalty for adultery is a violation of the man’s headship! Its torturing him! The RCC is guilty of torturing the male …”

    Correct! However, regardless of what happens to the adulteress the man’s headship has been violated just by the adultery itself. The stoning or divorce only serve as partial remedies for the violation done to the husband, who images Christ(God) in the marriage.

    Ezekiel 16:32 You unfaithful wife! You desire strangers instead of your husband.
    According to God’s prophet, Ezekiel, it is unfaithfulness even for a wife to desire others instead of her husband. She should desire to be faithful and choose not to ruminate on unfaithful feelings. She should choose to set her affections on what belongs to her, not covet or lust after other men who are not hers.

    I didn’t really follow the OP (who was arguing what) nor do I currently have the time to go through the linked posts to figure it out.
    But, I did want to point out that in Matthew 5 Jesus uses a lot of intentional hyperbole like: “be perfect like our heavenly Father is perfect” or saying that to be that perfect you’d need to cut off your hands or pluck out your eyes and to assist those beating your face in, to make sure they get both sides, and to bless people for cursing at you, and to even find yourself guilty of adultery for merely looking at another man’s wife and guilty of murder for merely having a single momentary hateful thought. Jesus’ point was that the Pharisees, who thought that they were blameless before the law, were still far from as inhumanly perfect as God is, and as such, they would still need a redeemer to restore them to God’s perfection. He was preparing a self-righteous generation of people to understand why they would all need Him to die sacrificially in their place.

    To twist those instances of Jesus using obvious hyperbole into Jesus contradicting His Father’s law, which He said He came to accomplish, not to abolish, is just being daft.

    This fits perfectly with Ecclesiastes 7:16 Do not be overly righteous, nor be overly wise. Why be self-destructive?

    To try to be as righteous as Jesus’ examples given in Matthew 5 would truly be self-destructive. Plucking out your eyes and cutting off your hands to avoid sinning with them, condemning yourself to death by stoning for looking or hating, and assisting people while they deface the image of God, by turning your other cheek to make smiting it easier, and blessing them for cursing the image of God, is all self-destructive for a human. Only God is impossible to deface, and unable to be sullied by every satanic curses in the world. For us to invite such abuse in the name of being as perfect as God, is truly self-destructive, and an overly-righteous conceit against God’s humanly unreachable perfection. We should rather acknowledge our sinful state and our need for Christ’s redemption. It’s far easier and preferable to plucking our eyes out to prevent our natural sex drive (lust of the flesh) from rendering us imperfect as we vainly seek to save ourselves by fulfilling the whole law of God, as only Christ has done. Don’t make Jesus clear hyperbole into a series of self-destructive commands which you bind yourself and others by.

  9. @ Sharkly

    While I agree with you to some extent on Jesus’ hyperbole to prevent legalism, I do not agree on your main point.

    To twist those instances of Jesus using obvious hyperbole into Jesus contradicting His Father’s law, which He said He came to accomplish, not to abolish, is just being daft.

    It’s clear that Jesus is here to fulfill the Old Covenant and institute a New Covenant. The OT served it’s purpose for Israel, but for Christians it’s more than just obeying the letter but the Spirit which is what Matthew 5 is driving at. This is also why Jesus derides the Pharisees for following the Law but their hearts were far from God.

    Jesus transforms “Love God and love your neighbor as yourself” higher to “Love one another as I have loved you.”

    It’s a clear elevation of standards and the theme of His teaching to align followers to the heart of God. Of which, we can consider divorce a part of that: “What God has put together let no man separate.”

  10. Pingback: Pericope adulterae | Christianity and masculinity

  11. dave sora says:

    @Oscar “They’re not contradicting each other. They just happened to witness the same event from different perspectives.”

    The same problem in the end: you cannot base law on the testimony of conflicting witnesses about what law the lawgiver gave. Its not the same as mere narrative.

    @DeepStrength, I’m not going to rely on the story of Joseph and Mary for moral theology, and it sounds to me like its saying he was trying to be extra nice anyway. only bethrothed not actually married.

    “The rest of Mark, Luke, Romans, 1 Cor 7. and such are clear that only death breaks the marriage bond and possibly abandonment.”

    Hence why the loss of the death penalty requires the exception for divorce. But there is also unbelievers in Paul’s rules, and an adulterer is also an unbeliever in reality. “But David…” Jewish hagiographa to spread feminism. But he was a king anyway. The same people who want to excuse adultery on the basis of David for common pleebs also claim King Charles is unfit to be king for cheating on Diana eons ago…so everyone arguing adultwry is Ok becauae David did it are hypocrites and thus pre-refuted by me, so don’t even bring him up.

  12. dave sora says:

    Actually with regard to David I will clarify a bit. How do the common pleebs put a king to death for violating the law? They don’t. How could they? They can’t. They simply lack the power. No further justification is needed.

    Yet the Jews felt the need to justify their failure to execute David for adultery by making up a story of God forgiving him, and thus created a story that is used to push liberalism all because they were too zealous to justify themselves in their totally understandavle failure to execute a king. A king!

    In reality the only explanation needed is that pleebs don’t have the power to execute kings. Making up a “God forgives adulterers” story was misguided and stupid, or pure evil.

  13. dave sora says:

    In fact they did try to execute the king by supporting Absolom against him. And they failed, not because God forgave him but because his political alliances were still stronger than those of the fledgling prince. So they shouldn’t have written a blasphemous story of God forgiving adulterers in a vain attempt to justify themselves in what nobody in their right mind would blame them for anyway, i.e. the inability to execute a king.

  14. dave sora says:

    It has to be borne in mind that in the OT forgiveness just means not dying. There was no public proclamation of an afterlife yet. To be forgiven was only the easing of the physical penalty. Therefore anyone who didn’t die from their sin assumed they were forgiven.. This is how this pagan story of David being forgiven for adultery arose…by the simple fact he didn’t die so people interpretted it that way in their folklore.

  15. Sharkly says:

    dave sora,

    I’d point out that David was under the Jewish sacrificial covenant, not the New Covenant. The Old Covenant allowed him to make his own sacrifice for his sins after the fact. While we are told that in the New Testament, not to be deceived that adulterers do not inherit the kingdom of God, and such were some of you.(1 Corinthians 9-10) Indicating that once an unsaved person is forgiven of adultery by Jesus Christ, if they return to adultery, they are worse off than they were before they were saved, because Christ will not be slain again for them, and they are no longer able to be redeemed a second time.

    Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, 6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

    2 Peter 2:20 For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. 21 For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them.

    Also, the Pericope Adulterae appears to have been made up not by Greek speaking Jews nor Hebrew speaking Jews, but by Latin speaking folks most likely in the church at Rome which was compromising with the Roman state to make Christianity their state religion. Rome ended up forcibly converting many goddess worshippers whose former religion had included temple prostitutes. In order to not have to put them all to death according to God’s law, wouldn’t it be handy if somebody suddenly remembered Jesus outlawing the execution of a person caught in adultery. And wouldn’t it be handy if that story got added into a Gospel. And while we’re at it, let’s now make women into the image of deity, so that Mary can even be made into a deity, co-redemptrix, and equal with Christ, and become a simple substitute goddess to make an easier transition into “Christianity” for all the forcibly converted goddess worshippers. The Great Whore of Rome, the Mother of Harlots, got Christendom into a lot of compromising positions while committing fornication with the kings of the earth and cheating on the heavenly King to secure herself an earthly queendom.

  16. dave sora says:

    Also this is no metoo situation of David sleeping with an unmarried woman which would have been find due to polygammy anyway. This is him sleeping with another man’s wife and killing the man. It would be the height or immorality for God to issue any decree forgiving such filth. Whether he might forgive him on the day of judgement when it cannot encourage others to sin likewise is different; but no declaration of forgiveness in this matter can be believed to have been actually issued yet without causing more people to commit adultery.

  17. @ dave sora

    Bro. Make one comment. No stream of consciousness 4-5 comments in a row.

    It’s too hard to respond and keep track otherwise.

    @DeepStrength, I’m not going to rely on the story of Joseph and Mary for moral theology, and it sounds to me like its saying he was trying to be extra nice anyway. only bethrothed not actually married.

    You can’t throw out stuff that doesn’t fit the narrative.

    It’s pretty clear the theme of the NT is the gospel and trying to reconcile everyone to God. Even the “worst of sinners” like Paul who was helping murder Christians. God wants the adulterers to come to Christ.

    Yes, there should be greater punishment from Churches though. Actual excommunications would be a good start for for those who are frivorcing and committing adultery.

  18. surfdumb says:

    Any comments about complementarianism based on the Bible saying kephale, not authority, and that authority was added in the 4th century and that I Cor 14:34-35 doesn’t belong in the Bible?

  19. Oscar says:

    you cannot base law on the testimony of conflicting witnesses about what law the lawgiver gave.

    Then it’s a good thing they don’t conflict.

    Making up a “God forgives adulterers” story was misguided and stupid, or pure evil.

    Then it’s a good thing it isn’t made up, because God does in fact forgive adulterers.

    1 Corinthians 6: 9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

  20. Sharkly says:

    The text of I Corinthians 14:34-35 is included in every single existing manuscript. The only point of question is that some manuscripts have those two verses placed a few verses later at the very end of chapter 14.
    Anyway, what sin could possibly arise from women keeping silent in the churches? The sin of men leading? LOL I’m not sure why Derek would question that passage.

  21. dave sora says:

    Its you who has thrown out what doesn’t fit your narrative. Divorce is a horrible sin even when your wife cheated on you and you divorce her for that reason (according to you and the filthy popes) but God forgives men who sleep with another man’s wife and then murders her husband so he can marry her. So the lesson is to murder the woman’s husband rather than him divorce her. Great lesson. What a religion Catholicism is.

  22. @ dave sora

    Its you who has thrown out what doesn’t fit your narrative. Divorce is a horrible sin even when your wife cheated on you and you divorce her for that reason (according to you and the filthy popes) but God forgives men who sleep with another man’s wife and then murders her husband so he can marry her. So the lesson is to murder the woman’s husband rather than him divorce her. Great lesson. What a religion Catholicism is.

    1. I’m not Catholic

    2. No clue what you’re talking about with your scenario.

    3. No one of any of the adulterers or murderers you are mentioning are using pericope adulterae to justify their behavior.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s