thats not what i said lmao

Hold up hold up

Let us see what you said

So you can't get an Annulment for adultery?

so council of rome in 826 was wrong then

unless spousal abuse, the kind that threatens the life of mother and children, is punishable by death, its cruel to not allow women to leave
and if women are allowed to leave, its cruel to not allow them to remarry in a context where the provider is a man

yeah. youre sentencing them to a hungry or otherwise death

Lmao, now people can divorce and remarry according to how convenient it is for them to get food

Do you really expect people to take you seriously?

You spit on even the most basic of Scripture, because "what if she hungry!"

do you really expect people to tske you seriously when i give you a fucking wall of source which include the council of rome and you just ignore it

youre an actual retard

I give you the saints, and regarding councils, we have ecumenical councils that you mentioned yourself

bruh moment

We also have the common sense of reading Scripture, while you have some cheap garbage you took from some blog

keep cool Christians

>autistic interpretations of autistically translated scripture
no thanks

<:bruh:569616839340982272>

Dude, again

You just said that you can just divorce and remarry if you are hungry

Nobody cares about what you consider autistic

my point was that there was no unanimous consensus on the issue of divorce and remarriage

nah man

i said that not allowing divorce and remarriage in certain cases dooms people to a painful death

>complains about autism
>does this

I just said what you said without the embelishment

I'm sure there are cases where not practicing polygamy can also lead someone to a painful dead

If someone is married to a poor wife or husband

Whitespace indentation is fucking bullshit.

According to you, it is allowed for that person to marry more people

fake news

bada bing

bada boom

God himself allowed Moses and Israelites to divorce and remarry given their circstances

He also allowed them to have several wives

which means its not moral law, its closer to ceremonial law

i mean, several major patriarchs had several wives. its not a universal moral transgression

This is not just ceremony, because marriage is a sacrament, and what God binds, it is not for men to divide

except for Moses

So those authors who say that sexual immorality disolves marriage can go ********************

Mosaic law was replaced already wasn’t it?