I've agreed that forcing someone at the point of a gun would mean that no marriage took place. However, you (and the Catholic Church) seem to want to stretch that far beyond the actual forcing of marriage. You've allowed for someone who has lived as a married person for years to suddenly say "Gee, I was forced. I want out." Sorry, but that is just nonsense. If you were truly "forced" then you should be getting out of it as soon as you physically, safely can.
Christ never allowed for divorce and REMARRIAGE.
He seemed to imply that remarriage would be allowed if the individual were abandoned by an unbelieving spouse. But that is an implication not an outright statement. (And by the way, we weren't even talking about remarriage, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it in now.)
He allowed for ONE case of the ending of a marriage.
No, it was 2. Adultery, and abandonment by an unbelieving spouse. (Actually, that was in one of the letters of Paul, but since Jesus is God, and the bible is the word of God, I'm sure you'd agree that came from Jesus.)
And 2) we are not talking about marriages when we are talking about annulments.
LOL That's just mankind parsing words in order to try to find a loophole around God's word.
Once again, it isn't just the Catholic Church doing that kind of thing. But it is definitely unbiblical.
You wrote:
“You’ve allowed for someone who has lived as a married person for years to suddenly say “Gee, I was forced. I want out.” Sorry, but that is just nonsense.”
No, it is common sense. Again, a 15 year old girl who was already scared to death because she was pregnant is told by her parents, “You WILL marry the father.” Is she giving free consent? No. Does that fact that she later stays in the relationship for years mean that she was any less coerced when she made the initial vow? No.
Free consent must be given.
“If you were truly “forced” then you should be getting out of it as soon as you physically, safely can.”
And people always do the right thing immediately when they can right? We know that all abused women leave their abusive boyfriends as soon as they are first slapped or punched, right? They don’t stay around and actually get abused over and over again, right?
“He seemed to imply that remarriage would be allowed if the individual were abandoned by an unbelieving spouse.”
No. http://www.catholic.com/library/Permanence_of_Matrimony.asp
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9712frs.asp
“But that is an implication not an outright statement. (And by the way, we weren’t even talking about remarriage, so I’m not sure why you’re bringing it in now.)”
Simple. Because you brought the issue that usually leads to the common misunderstanding about remarriage. You wrote: “Jesus allowed for the ending of a marriage only in the case of adultery or abandonment by an unbelieving spouse.”
“No, it was 2. Adultery, and abandonment by an unbelieving spouse.”
No. You said, “Jesus allowed for the ending of a marriage only in the case of adultery or abandonment by an unbelieving spouse.”
Now, where did Jesus teach about “abandonment” of an unbelieving spouse? He never did. You are mistakenly collapsing Paul’s Pauline Privilege into the direct teachings of Jesus. If you read 1 Corinthians 7:12 you’ll even see that Paul specifically denies that this comes from Jesus, “To the rest I say (I, not the Lord)...”
“(Actually, that was in one of the letters of Paul, but since Jesus is God, and the bible is the word of God, I’m sure you’d agree that came from Jesus.)”
Nope. And Paul says it didn’t either.
“LOL That’s just mankind parsing words in order to try to find a loophole around God’s word.”
Nope. It’s just the truth.
“Once again, it isn’t just the Catholic Church doing that kind of thing. But it is definitely unbiblical.”
No. The Catholic Church’s teachings on annulments are not unbiblical.