Jacob Harrison #fundie

Jacob Harrison #fundie fstdt.com

Another example of David J Stewart’s sexist Protestant fundementalist heresy. He believes that his wife should have stayed with him even after he commited adultry and molested an underage girl.

If you saw my previous posts, here, you know I am a Traditionalist Catholic so you might be asking me about why I am condemning David J Stewart for his views on marriage, given the Catholic Church’s opposition to divorce.

Well the Catholic Church does indeed oppose divorce, but staying married =/= having to live together. If a wife has an abusive husband, she can leave him, take the kids, file a restraining order, and live far away, but still remain married to him. So domestic abuse can still be stopped without divorce.

43 comments

old comment by Anon-e-moose

Congratulations, Jerkob: you've gotten yourself quoted.

It was only a matter of time.

Well, you're officially a fundie now. Should go well with your other appellation: Troll. [/Loony4Life]

You're now realising the extremely good reason as to [I]why[/I] Self-Mutilation made one appearance here in FSTDT: and one [I]only[/I]. Even though he'd been quoted many times previously: up to 2012.

Maybe he had enough self-realisation as to why he learned from his initial mistake: thus he appeared here only once.

But someone who shall remain Clueless doesn't.

Self-Mutilation's one & only appearance in FSTDT was in 2014. Why is it that anything said by him hasn't appeared here since...?!

--EDIT--

@hydrolythe

But only once. And at least you're not Jerkob. Or Jerky, Loony4Life, Conservatroll/Chopurcockov...!

@Yesman

@hydrolythe
Don't worry about it no one hates you. This was all a misunderstanding based on differing meanings of the word liberal. Considering how much of this site deals with American politics when people see the word Liberal they think the American liberal party not the Belgian liberal party. Most people meh'd this once they realized what you meant. Your fine

That's the difference, y'see. In fact, I wouldn't be opposed to your... 'quote' being excised from FSTDT's database.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

So domestic abuse can still be stopped without divorce

...but what about Ritualistic abuse: and by those Jerkob thinks they have the right to marry Catholics, certainly with any moral credibility?:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/sex-and-satanic-rituals-claim-as-priest-is-accused-of-murdering-nun-58012.html

Toledo Police had their man in custody a couple of decades previously: but the higher-ups in the Catholic diocese & a senior police officer brought the investigation to a halt. For a further 24 years the case went cold & a priest was let off scot free: thinking he'd gotten away with murder: literally, until a letter was mentioned. Then the case was reopened. Also, forensic techniques that had been developed since then.

The rest is history. As is the moral credibility of a certain Catholic sexism, nay, misogyny: and of the worst kind imaginable, apologist. As if the Paedophile Priests Scandal wasn't bad enough. And - like that letter mentioned in that murder case - something I chanced upon whilst flicking through the TV channels this morning, and was interested by a documentary shown on a crime/actuality TV-based channel.

There's an extremely good reason why the non-fiction book "The Blooding" by police/crime fiction author Joseph Wambaugh is about how the first murder to be solved using DNA Analysis was here in Britain.

...y'know, Jerkob: not very far from Ireland. Where an equally serious crime was committed by the Catholic church: and not only swept under the carpet, but - like that murder of a nun in Toledo - the clergy there had obstructed justice by not immediately making it a police matter: abandoning those paedo priests to the tender mercies of the Garda & Ireland's judicial system.

Because of course they had absolute socio-political rule there: up to 2015. Fortunately, 62% of people castrated the RCC politically: now they have less right to tell anyone what to do. That Paedophile Priests Scandal made sure of that.

I say that same-sex couples in Ireland should go to Catholic churches to marry them. And if the clergy so much as thinks of refusing, financially & socially destroy them in court: force them to marry LGBT people.

And you don't have the right to even think of having an 'Opinion' on the matter. Your own 'Church's lack of morals has made sure of that.

The Sex Discrimination Act here in Britain. Make it ultra-draconian, so that not even religions can be exempt. Legally force the RCC in Britain to have women as not just Priests, but Bishops, Archbishops: even Cardinals.

That is, if the RCC has the right to exist in Britain. There's an extremely good reason as to why we had that Civil War here, you know. Just ask Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby: and the one who installed him in that august position. Also who is the head of that C-of-E he is Archbishop of Canterbury of.

If they can be non-sexist in this way, what's your excuse, Jerkob? Why aren't you campaigning for your religion to be forced to enter the 21st Century...?!

Because of it's lack of morality: in every way imaginable, it has no right to think otherwise: but to be forced to change. Have completely new traditions. Or Else. [/Romans 13:1-5]

Because remember, Jerkob: since 2015, in Soviet Ireland God worships you.

With our C-of-E & it's Defender of the Faith also being C-in-C of most of our armed forces, with all our Challenger II Iron Chariots it certainly is the case here in Britain. [/Judges 1:19]

Your 'God' being told what to do is as things should be.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

law of the Kingdom of Heaven

Yeah... well, he's not exactly showing up at the SCOTUS in the US or the High Court in Britain to argue the toss: so a 'law' doesn't apply when the 'place' it's supposed to doesn't exist.

Just ask the current crew of the International Space Station. Or Obi-Wan Kenobi, Yoda, Anakin Skywalker & Luke Skywalker: when they merged with the Force, after being instructed how to do so by Qui-Gon Jinn: the only Jedi who had learned how to achieve immortality - impossible for Sith - as he was the only one who was fully attuned to the Living Force.

And as Jedi =/= Christian, there's someone's entire 'doctrine' completely fucked, then.

...or - like the 'Force' - 'Heaven' doesn't exist. Thus there never was a law that never applied to Planet Reality: as the 2013 Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act in Britain, the 26th June SCOTUS Oberfell vs. Hodges decision & legislation-deciding referendum in Ireland in 2015 proves. Laws. Romans 13:1-5.

Just ask a whole load of priests in Ireland now politically castrated since said 2015 referendum. And a priest in jail for murdering a nun in a Satanic act of ritualistic abuse in 1980; the enforcers of the law only bringing him to justice nearly a quarter of a century later. Holy Toledo!

And that's why - even if your 'Heaven' exists - not even it's so-called 'Laws' have the right to exist: least of all acknowledged by any legal expert here on Planet Reality. Just ask the prosecutor of that priest in Toledo.

But then, his 'God' - who is proven to be the Evil One: and Lucifer is actually the good guy in all of this, by opposing a worse-than Hitler-esque tyrant such as this inferior subhuman filth - ordered War Crimes, therefore...! [/Hosea 13:16]

That's why the fundie left-footers' 'God' obeys our laws:

image

Or Else. [/Judges 1:19]

old comment by Jacob Harrison

@Anon-e-Moose

Star Wars is not incompatible with Christianity. The events of Star Wars take place a long time ago in a galaxy far far away and in history God changed the rules of where the souls of the dead go. In Star Wars, the souls of everyone who died becomes one with the Force, but Qui Gon, Yoda, Obiwan, Anakin, and SPOILER ALERT:Luke had the ability to be able to maintain their individual consciousness after death.

Tartarus which is the realm of Hades for the wicked was intended to only be for Satan and his fallen angels.

Prior to the sins of the first Anatomically Modern Humans Adam and Eve on Planet Earth around 300,000 years ago, humans were intended to be immortal in both body and soul so they wouldn’t even have an afterlife. However after their sin, God decided to give humans mortality to have most humans go to Limbo/The First Circle of Hell, the most righteous heroic believers in him to go to heaven, and the wicked to go to Tartarus/The other 8 circles of hell.

And as I said before, it wasn’t until around the time of Abraham that he decided to sacrifice his son to increase membership into heaven.

@Anonymous commenter

God decided that marriage is meant to be a lifelong commitment. Who are we to question the authority of our creator?

old comment by Anon-e-moose

The events of Star Wars take place a long time ago in a galaxy far far away and in history

Thus by definition the Luc Besson film "Lucy" is a documentary.

Therefore God is a woman. And is doing an infinitely better job than the one so many fundies 'claim' exists: but doesn't.

But She does.

Travelling [I]back[/I] in time. When God made man, She was only kidding.

Who are we to question the authority of our creator?

image

Because we can. [/Judges 1:19]

Slaves who questioned the authority of their 'masters': many relied on your BuyBull to justify Slavery. Which is condoned by a so-called 'Master' - and a hyper-tyrannical one, at that - who now only has the right to be our slave. [/Local hero William Wilberforce]

image

God: 2,038,344

Satan (and only on God's authorisation): 10

Anon-e-moose: 0

And as we are morally superior to him - as the Hitler-esque War Crime that is Hosea 13:16 proves - he is forced to respect our authoritah!

Don't forget: all those modern-day Iron Chariots here in the UK: where they were first invented in WWI: leading up to the 21st Century God-Killer, the Challenger II. Also, the Piranha & Scorpion in a country not far from here. Thus in Soviet Britain & Ireland, God worships you. A certain legislation-deciding - and paedo-condoning RCC clergy-castrating - referendum in the latter country in 2015 made sure of that. [/Romans 13:1-5]

An inferior 'religion', therefore an inferior deity. We - superior humans - look down on the hypocritical & morally inferior, ergo FSTDT: anyone & anything that dares to so much as think it has the right to have ideas above it's station.

Also, the space elves in the - now therefore documentary - anime series "Banner/Crest of the Stars". The Abh became superior to their human creators.

The moral inferiority of Jerkob's 'Sacred Tradition' Catholic church. If it pleases the court, I would like to submit Exhibit A:

http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=137401&Page=6#2144658

@Jerkob

However liberals can’t claim the moral high ground because they condoned actual pedophilia rampant

http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=137401&Page=1#2142924

@Jerkob

my President Trump is a hero for America and Western Civilization because he is exposing the danger of the evil violent intolerant religion of Islam to the US, your country and Western Civilization as a whole.
The paradox of tolerance is that you cannot be tolerant of intollerance. Islam promotes extreme misogyny, homophobia, and intollerance to unbelievers

misogyny

...and now for the clincher, folks:

http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=137703&Page=1#2147532

@Jerkob

You are cherry picking isolated incidents in the Catholic Church and using it to justify forcing the Catholic Church to change it’s sacred tradition

However liberals can’t claim the moral high ground because they condoned actual pedophilia rampant
Many liberal sites such as Salon have posted articles about tolerating pedophiles
https://www.google.com/amp/www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/21/heres-why-the-progressive-left-keeps-sticking-up-for-pedophiles/amp/

>Being reduced to something akin to the oft-refuted 'claim' of 'Sacred Classes' by Mary Jane Lick Sick: an extreme misogynist & paedophile

http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=137401&Page=6#21446

@#2144653

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2016/oct/13/trump-makes-inappropriate-remarks-about-10-year-old-girl-video
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=donald+trump+i%27m+going+to+be+dating+her+in+10+years
Your fucking hero

@Jerkob

I actually cringe myself hearing of things like that. I know he meant that she looked beautiful enough that at age 20, she would find a good husband but I agree he should think before he speaks because that comment makes him sound like a pedophile

my President Trump is a hero

I agree he should think before he speaks because that comment makes him sound like a pedophile

However liberals can’t claim the moral high ground because they condoned actual pedophilia rampant
Many liberal sites such as Salon have posted articles about tolerating pedophiles

My, but that smacks of... Cherrypicking.

@Jerkob

I am not in a good mental state

...but your 'Sacredly Traditional' Catholic church is? A nun being ritualistically murdered by a Catholic priest. The Paedophile Priests Scandal in Ireland. And all because the likes of Jerkob allow 'Sacred Traditions': such as not allowing women to be priests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, nay, even the Pope due to Misogyny, to exist in their murderous & paedophilic RCC: because they allow the clergy to think they have the right to have ideas above their stations: when it's those priests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals etc who should be forced to change completely: as that now politically castrated clergy in Ireland has had to be forced to after that referendum in 2015. And all because the RCC in Ireland thought they had the right to have ideas above their stations: when said clergy, and even their 'God' are actually inferior to the People, and must therefore obey their new masters: the Will of the People, in secular democracies based on Rule of Law.

The prosecution rests.

Therefore ALL fundie left-footers - including you, Jerkob - are tarnished by the worse-than sin of their own unjustifiably hypocritical: and therefore inferior 'religion'. As per Protestant fundies are all worse-than sinners via Tony Alamo, David J. Pedo, Josh Buggar & Roy Less.

It's your hypocrisy - and therefore you no longer having the right to think the way you do: least of all think you have the right to be judgemental about anyone not exactly like you - which gives we more than infinitely superior Atheists, LGBT people & non-fundie Theists more than every right in the world to pick these oh so juicy cherries. Pick. Pick. Pick.

As we in FSTDT do against Protestant fundies. 'Adam & Eve', eh fundie Christain hypocrites? We invoke the worse-than sinners Tony Alamo, Josh Buggar, Roy Less, and David J. Pedo. Even their 'God' (Hosea 13:16).

Therefore all you 'Traditionalist Catholics' are worse-than sinners too: via the Paedophile Priests Scandal in Ireland, and the murder of a nun by a Catholic priest in Toledo. It's those very 'Traditions' you cling to like straw dust against the Dominant Paradigm that is Political Correctness in the 21st Century, which makes all of you fundie left-footers morally inferior.

Certainly to we more-than infinitely superior Atheists, LGBT people & non-fundie Theists in FSTDT. Even your so-called 'God' is inferior to us.

Remember: 'Adam & Eve' for you Proddie & Left-footer fundies, for everyone else to use against them, Tony Alamo, Josh Buggar, Roy Less & David J. Pedo, also the Paedophile Priests in Ireland & nun-murdering Catholic priest in Toledo; and now here's the pisser for all you fundie Christains:

Unlike the former two 'characters' in a book of fairytales: Fiction, the latter are all too morals-annihilatingly real.

Compared to all you fundie Christains as a whole, we are utterly sinless. Ergo, we Atheists, LGBT people & non-fundie Theists are more-than infinitely superior. Even to your inferior subhuman 'God'.

...and that is why we have more than every right in the world to question the authority of your so-called 'God': a proven worse-than Hitler-esque Tyrant. Because he never had the right to any 'authority' in the first place: if he ever existed, that is.

No wonder then, that Jonathan Edwards recanted of his long-time Christian beliefs & became an Atheist: We can be good people [I]without[/I] a 'God'. So much for the 'alternative': as represented by Tony Alamo, David J. Pedo, Josh Buggar, Roy Less, those Paedophile Priests in Ireland & nun-murdering Catholic priest in Toledo. Also, their Hitler-esque tyrant of a 'God' (Hosea 13:16; no 'Context' or 'Interpretation' allowed)

...and all because you so-called 'Traditionalists' refuse to change. Completely. Meanwhile, the Church of England. Reform Judaism. Wicca/Neo-Paganism. Even Quakers & Unitarian Universalists.

extreme misogyny

You don't even have the right to 'excuses' any more, fundie Left-footers: your own Misogyny.

Certainly re. Divorce. Frankly - and considering the above - you & your inferior 'religion' don't even have the right to an 'Opinion' about that any more.

old comment by Jacob Harrison

@Anon-e-Moose

1. Slavery in Ancient Israel was different from plantation racial slavery. Slavery was practiced throughout the entire ancient world and back then was a necessity for society to function.

2. Satan has way more blood on his hands. He invented evil so he is responsible for every crime committed in human history. The killings ordered by God were in RETALIATION for the crimes committed by the followers of Satan. The people of the Northern Kingdom of Samaria were a bunch of rebellious wicked murderers who worshipped demon gods so God ordered them slaughtered to warn the people of Judah to not commit the same actions as their northern brethren or they will face the same fate. The people of Judah did not listen so they were conquered by Babylon.

3. It is not cherry picking. It shows that the progressive left keeps condoning pedophilia.

4. Correlation does not equal causation. The Catholic Church's sacred tradition did not cause Priests to be pedophiles or cause that priest to murder the nun because the perpetrators of those crimes broke the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

5. Well yes, gay marriage is now legal in Ireland but it is government officials, not priest that license those earthly marriages.

Same thing in the United States. Gay marriage is the law of the land until conservative Supreme Court justices overturn that ruling.

6. While there are many good atheists, Atheism as a whole is harmful to society because the fear of God's wrath is what deters people with evil temptations from committing the evil deeds.

7. The Catholic Church does not force women to wear hijabs, nor does it condone wife beating, raping uncovered women, jihadi sex trafficking, and marrying underage girls. The progressive left condones that by supporting open borders. I encourage you and Skide to read the Quran and research the human rights record of Muslim countries.

@Keith

The evidence that Yahweh exists and that Catholicism is the one true church is overwhelming. I challenge you to explain the phenomena of the Virgin of Guadalupe.

Other evidence is the historical records of the list of Popes that date back to St. Peter. I also challenge you to refute the historical record. If Peter was not the first Pope than who was?

old comment by Jacob Harrison

That is not what I am saying. I am saying that the more you sin and the more serious the sin, the greater the debt increases. I agree that the penance for pedophile priests in the post Vatican II Catholic Church is not good enough. In the good old fashioned Catholic Church, penance for serious crimes involved torture and public humiliation. Castration would be a great painful form of penance for pedophile priests and it would stop their pedophilia. Even if they make it to heaven, they will still be tormented as the ghosts of the righteous Christians will reject them and they will require security protection from the Angel police force.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

Self-Mutilation grew up.

Someone hasn't though.

Explains why a certain someone who shall remain clueless still hasn't learned the lesson of why S-M's hole of FAIL remains at barely ankle-deep. And is - four years later - barely visible due to weathering of the edges of said hole, and being grown over. Why? Because the one who started that hole never returned to make it deeper. Like the plants growing over that very shallow hole, he grew up.

But then, as someone said: 'he had better things to do'. I'll let you guess who said that: if you can still hear him oh so deep down that hole of FAIL that is his lack of self-awareness, and what he says in light of his own situation: whereas Self-Mutilation realised his mistake: and learned from it.

The last quote here by him was in 2012. His one & only appearance in FSTDT was in 2014. He hasn't said anything else that has been quoted here since. Like I say: his one & only appearance here. Never returning again. Why is this? Why has he learned from his mistake, and someone who shall remain clueless: but quoted, hasn't...?!

image

It puts the Irony in the bin, or it gets the pointing & laughing again.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

@#2147848

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvhYqeGp_Do

'Another big news story of year concerned the ecumenical council in Rome, known as Vatican II. Among the things they did in an attempt to make the church more... commercial was to introduce the vernacular into portions of the mass, to replace Latin, and to widen somewhat the range of music permissible in the liturgy, but I feel that if they really want to sell the product... in this secular age, what they ought to do is to redo some of the liturgical music in popular song forms. I have a modest example here: it's called "The Vatican Rag":

(Piano intro)

First you get down on your knees,
Fiddle with your rosaries,
Bow your head with great respect,
And genuflect, genuflect, genuflect!

Do whatever steps you want, if
You have cleared them with the pontiff.
Everybody say his own
Kyrie Eleison,
Doin' the Vatican Rag!

(*Piano solo*)

Get in line in that processional,
Step into that small confessional,
There the guy who's got religion'll
Tell you if your sin's original.
If it is, try playin' it safer,
Drink the wine and chew the wafer,
Two, four, six, eight,
Time to transubstantiate!

So get down upon your knees,
Fiddle with your rosaries,
Bow your head with great respect,
And genuflect, genuflect, genuflect!

Make a cross on your abdomen,
When in Rome do like a Roman,
Ave Maria,
Gee it's good to see ya,
Gettin' ecstatic an'
Sorta dramatic an'
Doin' the Vatican Rag!'

-Tom Lehrer

...that, and "Poisoning Pigeons in the Park" are the favourites of musical comedy of my best friend. He likes comedy & satire, does he. "Private Eye" magazine. "Not the Nine O'clock News": which included the 'Life of Monty Python' sketch. Which, like the film that sketch parodies, is a satire of Christianity. Yet, even though he is a long-time Church of England Christian, he isn't offended in the slightest by either. Or by the anti-religion skits in the TV series "Dave Allen At Large"; usually anti-RCC, but sometimes Anglicanism.

But that tune by Tom Lehrer, is a piss-take of Catholicism: and - despite it's then 'attempt' at modernisation - it's refusal to change: it's so-called 'Sacred Traditions'.

But the Church of England doesn't mind satire; the result being that it changed it's traditions: for the better. Like I say: he likes satire, does my friend; unlike some whose reactions at "Monty Python's Life of Brian" - which that "NTNOCN" sketch parodies that of the C-of-E - he laughs at such. He would say that God has a sense of humour too; as a deity, he is above mere mortal affairs & desires, thus why would he be offended: at that, or anything else? An ascended being wouldn't care. He would obviously get Parody & Satire.

Someone has no concept of that: Satire. Which is what FSTDT is all about.

Perhaps that's why Self-Mutilation realised his initial mistake when he appeared here, and - via never returning - learned from that mistake. Seems that someone's mental disconnect is causing him to continually double down on his FAIL: as he just keeps on a-digging that ever deeper recess in the ground which represents such.

Self-Mutilation's hole was barely ankle-deep when he left such. Thus a question for that someone who shall remain clueless: Why is that shallow hole weathered & become overgrown in the four years since then, that it can be barely seen...?!

Because 'He had better things to do' is itself a cheap weaselling tactic, when he hasn't the self-awareness to realise why S-M learned from his mistake: when this - the first of two quotes by him: and which he continues to appear in - proves that he hasn't. So if S-M could: by not returning to FSTDT, what's Jerkob's excuse...?!

Other than the Damage Limitation exercise he's reduced to in any & all threads he appears in, and that defined by Andy Schaftafly: 'Last Wordism'.

Self-Mutilation Walked Away. What part of those two words doesn't Jerkob understand...?!

old comment by

You just CONFIRMED the deliberate mental disconnect bit just like how you're denouncing Stewart's mad raving as "protestant" when he's reading from the same Bible and you're both in agreement on the permanence of a marriage no matter how one side wants to run because the other is a vile monster that makes a mockery of the institution. Are you even trying? And a divorced parent who lost custody has far fewer avenues to just TAKE a kid without arousing suspicion, affect their financial future, garner sympathy with the tired old "but you're still a family" line that causes people to unconsciously push people WHO ARE LITERALLY IN DANGER OF KILLING EACH OTHER closer together and convince them to reconcile when it is so far past that point it's fair to say the resulting blood would be on the hands of the person pushing.

In fact how's THAT for a solution Jacob McTrollin'? If even the biblically outlined permission to divorce isn't biblical enough for a marriage to end and your incredibly childish 'that didn't count' annulment isn't in the cards just do them part through death. God forgives killers, after all. Encourages a good bit of bloodletting now and again even. Instead of being prisoners of fear for the rest of their lives changing addresses, engaging in financial cloak and dagger, constantly looking over their shoulder for somebody that should be nothing more than a bad memory that your neighbours act like YOU'RE a monster for pushing out of your life just be a prisoner of the state until parole when you make sure they never touch you or the kids again by bashing their head in with a rock.

old comment by Jacob Harrison

Now I regret not doing more research on what the Catholic Church’s policy on divorce is. The Catholic Church does permit legal divorce if a spouse is physically abusive, but the abused must wait until an annulment is granted for them to be permitted to remarry. If the abuser hid his or her true intentions before the marriage, then it is indeed grounds for annulment because it means that it was never a true legitimate marriage.

The problem today, is that legal grounds for divorce has expanded beyond actually abusive spouses. Today adultry, is considered grounds for divorce. Although adultry is a sin, it does not cause physical harm to the spouse or children and your spouse committing adultry is not an excuse for you to commit adultry by divorcing them and getting remarried even though marriage is supposed to be a lifelong commitment till death do them part.

Besides, divorce is always traumatizing to the children so it is in the best interests of the children that the parents keep the adultry a secret from them and stay married to keep the family together.

old comment by Passerby

I don't think there's anything that infuriates me more than that "for the sake of the children" argument when people make up reasons for other people not to divorce. BEST case scenario? Being raised by people who hate each other emotionally isolates them and gives them a very twisted view of what love is, like incels. Most likely scenario especially where abuse is concerned? You're putting them in a room with something that not only doesn't care about them but will take out all of their frustration on them until they mentally break... or die. Either way you're doing literally the worst thing possible to the child who has no escape.

And again, shithead, divorce is permitted IN THE FUCKING BIBLE!

It is never the word of God people like you go by, it's just trying to convince people a higher authority is behind your selfish words because you can't convince anyone of jack shit.

Optics. You would demand a family that is past reconciliation erode in continuous betrayal and stewing hatred for fucking optics. You will ruin lives, future generations, and by extension civilization itself for worthless OPTICS. It isn't about the vows, they're broken and you want people to continue like nothing happened. It isn't about the institution of marriage, this madness strips it of all emotional significance and becomes nothing but an empty performance under duress. If love, trust, mutual commitment, and any hope for a stable future is completely irrelevant then what is left in a marriage to differentiate it from a business deal gone sour? It isn't about the family, their resentment for each other will only grow as an emotionless routine punctuated by acts of cold betrayal and callous dismissal becomes a yoke. It isn't about the children, they suffer more for the flimsy illusion and loveless environment they will come to believe is normal than simply telling them the truth. A child cannot be protected from reality forever, to try is to deny them growth and to selfishly deceive them is to betray them and erode their trust in you. You leave them to become an object in the house two people fight over or simply use to hurt each other. You leave them with someone who puts their own needs ahead of the rest of the family and may even openly hate them. It isn't about God, you're going beyond the supposed "infallible word" to add your own spin. You're doubting God has any kind of "plan" for those who divorce and you refuse to leave that judgment to God. You overstep the bounds of law, refuse to recognize that marriage is not the sole province of religion, and even within a religious body do not accept that they could allow such a thing to happen.

It's not about anything but what you want to see while others live with it and actively hide their pain from the world and even each other. So what does that tell us about you?

old comment by Jacob Harrison

Well sexual abuse is a form of physical abuse, and I guess that extreme emotional abuse is also bad for the kids which permits divorce(and annulment if the abuser had abusive intentions while taking the wedding vows)

However parents having arguments or adultry is not permissible for divorce because it does not cause severe harm to the spouse or children. My parents argue a lot, I got used to it. It only bothers me when the argument is specifically about me. I prefer them staying together and arguing over them divorcing.

I never said that adultry is ok, I am just saying it is not grounds for divorce. Divorce does have a extreme negative impact on children so parents should put their children’s well being’s over their own issues.

The Old Testament permitted divorce, but the New Testament overrides the Old.

old comment by Passerby

THAT IS NOT WHAT THE DAMNED BIBLE SAYS YOU SELF-SERVING PRICK! It's REMARRIAGE that's condemned in the Bible except in the specific case of one party committing adultery since you're so stupidly hung up on that. Adultery is the one thing specifically stated to not only be a perfectly justified reason to divorce but to allow immediate remarriage without the other spouse dying first. Divorce itself is NOT called a sin and adultery was not the only reason to get a divorce.

Matthew 5 KJV

31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 32 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.

Even in Corinthians, where it says a husband and wife should not depart from one another it is immediately followed by saying that if it does happen then they must remain unmarried or else be reconciled.

1 Corinthians 7 KJV

10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: 11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

Edit: Must and should were only in some translations. I know how you types fetishize KJV version though, and I suspect it's because the language is so archaic and difficult to parse it leaves ample room to make it mean almost anything. But in this case the implication is very clear and very much the same. Divorce was permitted but not to be taken lightly, don't press for one when any other option is on the table but if it happens it happens. However following a divorce the husband and wife were not to re-marry as long as the other lived. Except in the case of an adulterer.

There's another long passage in Malachi that touches on this while reaming out those who cry out and invoke the name of God while paying only as much lip service as benefits them. The one time in the Bible where it directly says God despises divorce it is immediately followed with the qualification that it's because it was a means to cloak one's failings as a spouse.

Malachi 2

13 And this have ye done again, covering the altar of the LORD with tears, with weeping, and with crying out, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth it with good will at your hand.
14 Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. 15 And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.
16 For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.

Ye have wearied the LORD with your words indeed, Jacob. It is not for the children, it is not for God, it is but for your own vanity you bid one's rights denied to them and for the so-called sanctity of marriage to be mocked by rendering vows meaningless, a family loveless, a home a possible prison of terror, and the supposed goal of marriage, the children who have no defense of their own, a tertiary concern. And the cherry on top is that this may all be for the benefit of one referred to in the Bible as having denied the very faith and worse than an unbeliever.

In purely Biblical terms you've got sweet fuck all to argue with. In terms of the laws of this land, which the Bible also compels adherence to, you've got even less than that and encroach on the protected rights of others in the bargain. All you've been doing is either infuriatingly minimizing the reasons people divorce up to and including horrific abuse or else half-heartedly conceding points but then just restating that people shouldn't divorce anyway even when they have cause for it and staying together can do nothing but harm and hoping we'll just let that slide. So how much treachery have you committed that you cover the altar of God with tears for a broken covenant to remain on your own terms? If you only "guess" that extreme emotional abuse just might be bad for kids then it's probably so much fucking worse than anything we had already assumed.

Edit 2: Oh and before I forget as far as the differences between the New Covenant and the Old? The laws handed down from God didn't change: means of redemption did. The Sabbath was moved to a different day and Kosher rules no longer apply to Christians because Christ declared all food clean, (more specifically that nothing that makes the soul unclean comes from without) but other than that? If you're discounting the laws set down by Moses there was nothing specifically written to replace those governing marriage within the Bible and thus there's nothing you can hold up as a cudgel. If you still want to argue that then tough tits, Matthew (quoted first) and the rest of the Gospels where that sentiment is repeated are part of the New Testament. If you're going by customs set down by the Church in modern society congratulations you've already been told the various ways you've lost on that front.

old comment by Passerby

First off the Bible doesn't actually say anything different regardless of the translation which is one reason I've always rolled my eyes at those people who insist on the King James Version. KJV excludes 7 books the Catholic Bible still uses but so far as I know none of those books reference marriage and remain irrelevant. Before the Conservative Bible the best anyone could do was play around with the phrasing. Or least I thought that was the only exception because Catholic.org is the one instance of a reference to unfaithfulness/immorality in marriage being replaced with an "illicit" marriage despite all other references to adultery remaining intact. Not only is that a relatively recent - and intentionally targeted - change that throws a number of other references out of whack it would be physically impossible for Jesus to be referring to the marriage sacraments agreed on by the Catholic church because they hadn't been invented yet and he was referring to laws in practice at the time. And need I remind you Jesus said "I have not come to abrogate the law" and wasn't abolishing them or setting new ones. That was all the later Church, but of course you have very flexible views on when exactly changing church politics are holy and acceptable. Further Jesus said those laws existed because the hearts of men were hard, so how hard does a heart have to be to think it appropriate for children to suffer for optics when a marriage falls apart? Jesus spoke of marriage with the understanding that people who get married of their own volition would not go looking for reasons to push each other away, otherwise they should never have gotten married in the first place. Jesus spoke of many other laws and retributive attitudes of the time such as an eye for an eye and a blow for a blow. He didn't deny people had the right to it - he was careful not to challenge the law or punishment itself demonstrated by saying "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" making people analyze their own hypocrisy and hubris rather than flatly saying chucking rocks at someone until they die is inherently wrong - but suggested that people take more forgiving options and work to remedy a situation rather than flatly punish as was the custom.

Divorce is referenced in every translation, in multiple passages, as an everyday thing with instructions affecting the divorced. If divorce wasn't allowed period then it wouldn't even be mentioned, let alone speak to the divorced beyond "you are no longer a Christian" and be done with it. And if THAT'S what you think happens when someone wants a divorce and they become an unbeliever then 1 Corinthians 15 says don't bother trying to stop them. All of the instruction concerns - once again - remarriage saying to remain unmarried or else that will make you an adulterer. If you're not divorced and still married then how the hell can you be unmarried? As for the quote referenced from Jesus' sermon If he meant separated, he'd have said separated since divorce required a process. If the marriage never counted in the first place (what you argue about annulment) then a divorce would not be an applicable term. If divorce isn't meant to exist all of the references to it cease to make sense.

It's all optics. Parading your supposed uprightness for public attention, to appear as if your religion strengthens family bonds. And by appearing to have strong bonds, masking the rot underneath.

old comment by Jacob Harrison

From the site.

"Many Protestants seize on these so-called "exceptive clauses" as legitimizing divorce in cases where one of the spouses has committed adultery or engaged in some sort of sexual sin.

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 10:1112, 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."

This is striking. How could Mark and Luke, writing for the Greco-Roman world, omit the one, glaring exception that allows remarriage after divorce? Adultery and sexual sins were rampant in the Roman culture. Mark and Luke would have realized that their audiences needed to know about the exception even more than the Jewish audience for which Matthew wrote.

The exceptive clauses also do not appear in Paul’s discussion of divorce and remarriage. In Romans 7:23, 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."

And in 1 Corinthians 7:1011, 39, he writes, "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 wBecause the exceptive clauses occur only in Matthew’s Gospelone written for a Jewish audienceit suggests that they reflect some issue of particular concern to Jews. What might this be?

One possibility is that the exceptive clauses are there as an illustration of the precision demanded in rabbinic logic. In other words, the clauses indicate that if one divorces an adulterous wife, one isn’t making her into an adulteress because she already is one. That doesn’t mean that she’s free to remarry; it just means that you aren’t forcing her into an adulterous situation if you divorce her.

Another possibility is that the exceptive clauses are a way of avoiding altogether the subject of an unchaste spouse. In Judaism around this period, there was a debate between the school of Hillel and the school of Shammai over the circumstances in which one could divorce. The Hillelites argued that it could be essentially for any reason, while the Shammaites argued it could be only for adultery. The exceptive clauses could be a way of avoiding this debate. The Greek grammar allows the passage to be understood roughly in this sense: "Whoever divorces his wife and marries anotherI’m not going into the subject of unchastitycommits adultery."

A third possibility is that the Greek term used for "unchastity" porneiais being used in a special sense. For example, some have taken it to refer to unchaste behavior before the marriage is consummated. At that point, it is possible to dissolve the marriage, for marriages become indissoluble only when they are consummated. ishes, only in the Lord."

"Others have interpreted the Greek term used for "unchastity" porneiaas a reference to incest, the idea being that divorce and remarriage is permissible in the case of incestuous marriages, since the marriage was never valid to begin with. If this is correct, then we have the principle that underlies modern annulments: Those who are not validly married are free to contract it."

old comment by Passerby

And what in any of that forbids divorce? It's all about remarriage! You even referenced, personally and in plain English without labyrinthine ceremonial speech, the part that says what to do if someone does get a divorce. Not an annulment, a divorce from their spouse. How does "remain single" make any sense whatsoever if you're still married? By definition when you are married you are not single. But the hypothetical person in the Bible verse is single, because they got a divorce. Reasons for divorce aren't outlined or limited in the Bible, that one "exceptive" clause concerns remarriage and NOT DIVORCE. You're not concerned with the Bible - you just tried to de-legitimize the Gospels for this - you're terrified of people splitting up and ruining the optics of a marriage. Even the aspects of Catholicism are just a pretense for you!

There you go conceding the point again but then trying to shift focus hoping we won't even notice! You cycled through Biblical references but when countered with similar references pretended those didn't count Then made up stupid reasons why abuse, neglect, adultery, mistrust, violation of vows and possibly making them in bad faith before God to begin with etc. all aren't serious enough to consider divorce which incidentally all make a mockery of the very institution of marriage as a loving union. (And seriously, if adultery isn't so big a deal that it ends a marriage why is remarrying called adultery like it is a big deal? That is once again something that doesn't make any sense.) You further minimized the ways an abusive spouse can continue to plague the life of someone they're physically separated from when they still have legal marital status and entirely avoided the social stigma you're pressing right now that would cause neighbours to push them to reconcile even when it's far beyond the point of possibility and continue to shame them for escaping an abusive environment making that marriage, even in separation, a prison. And escape means you and potentially your children live as fugitives looking over your shoulders forever while your neighbours condemn you casually... something the Bible actually warns against I might add. Then since it became quite apparent you had no ground to stand on when it comes to trying to keep two people who do nothing but hurt and betray each other together and the relationship between a married couple themselves wasn't something you gave much of a crap about to begin with you moved on to pretend it's better for the children to keep them in a toxic environment that can turn them into twisted, broken adults or potentially endanger them than break the stupid optics. Something that offends me personally. Then when it becomes clear we're having exactly NONE of that self-serving nonsense especially as some of us have experienced firsthand what it's like for a toxic relationship to continue with that as an excuse you finally cycled back to the same biblical arguments and how they at the same time don't actually count. Gonna head back to minimizing how breaking every marriage vow and turning your spouse's life into a web of fear, deceit, and resentment as "one who has denied the very faith, and is worse than an unbeliever" isn't a big deal? Then on to the children, then back here just to hope we're worn down at some point?

Feel free. I'm done with you. To paraphrase someone I evidently pay closer attention to than some of his devout followers despite being agnostic: Get thee behind me, Satan, and may you trouble good folk no more. You speak not of God or goodly things but your own self-interest. Your words have no power over those who see them for what they are.

I have laid you bare and you shall trouble me no longer.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

@Pharaoh Bastethotep

Use of Chris Hemsworth wielding Mjolnir. Your argument is valid.

...and Jerkob's use of the Andy Schaftafly technique of 'Last Wordism': after Passerby's evisceration of what subatomic particles of an 'argument' you had left for justifying your precious RCC's right to think the way it does, certainly thinking it has the right to think of imposing it's special brand of 'Morality' on others: when I'd previously proved it has no morals whatsoever - via the Paedophile Priests scandal in Ireland (and elsewhere) and the Toledo Priest who ritualistically murdered a nun: whose own fellow clergy obstructed justice by having the investigations stopped for a quarter of a century - then they certainly have no right to think about the rights & wrongs of Divorce. Least of all you, Jerkob.

Your 'argument never had the right to exist in the first place, never mind have any validity.

Your 'Traditional Catholicism' has no concept of Morality whatsoever. But then, judging by the revelations here & the FSTDT Forums, neither does Jerkob.

His cousin in jeans...?!

Jacob Harrison #fundie fstdt.com

43 comments

Confused?