Posted on 12/04/2016 4:34:01 PM PST by marshmallow
I didn’t say or imply that. I said what an annulment IS, by definition.
You need to read more carefully. And do something about that hair-trigger.
Jesus did NOT say anything about “lustful thoughts.”
He spoke of a man “who looks lustfully at a woman.” “Looking lustfully” is an ACTION. A deliberate action. Having lustful thoughts may or may not be deliberate.
People constantly misquote Scripture, and then construct arguments on their misquotations.
I consider your post #15 to be hair trigger. I know full well what annulments are and I considered your response to my post #13 as a challenge against me.
Sorry for the misunderstanding between us.
I am attending a Christian Missionary Alliance, Bible believing church, and it teaches exactly what Jesus and the rest of His Word teaches regarding divorce.
Well, I'm glad for that, and I certainly don't dispute that there are (there must be) local Evangelical churches and pastors who believe and who teach what the RCC believes and teaches about divorce.
But, you must admit, most large Evangelical bodies do not. And you also must admit that, at least in this case, the RCC has been following your advice to seek wisdom in God's Word which, as you pointed out, never fails.
Seriously, I don’t think I disagree with you on anything substantive.
I even suspect that Bergoglio is an anti-Pope!
I don't disagree with you on that.
Yes, “ever since Vatican II”. Why can’t more Catholics connect the dots?
Really? You guys both agree that there are (at least) serious errors in the documents of Vatican II? I’m pretty sure ebb thinks so, but I have never gotten that impression from Arthur.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.