FH,

I don't think that any of we Christians here would disagree with that, but there are also many Christians here who count themselves among the WS side of the fence. I sure think that should have also been enough disincentive in the case of the first instance of infidelity but obviously for some it is not.

I again offer up my perspective from earlier in this thread....that I would consider the post nup's purpose as more of a sanity check/reality check for potential WS where they would delay taking that fatal step long enough to regain some perspective and perhaps avoid the FOG altogether.

I don't want anyone here thinking that what I am saying is that I would find it optimal that my FWH was lusting after OW but restraining himself only because he knew that I would leave him penniless. I'd like to think that we could spend the rest of our lives together without him ever being attracted to another woman or being tempted to cheat, but being a BS has relieved me of the ability to have that kind of naive optimism. He didn't stop to think of any possible repercussions before beginning his first affair and I don't want there to be any question in his mind of what the ultimate outcome will be if he ever repeats his mistake.

He has already told me that he would probably kill both me and OM if I were to have an affair. I'd say that is far more drastic than expecting him to leave with the meager material contributions he has made during the course of our relationship.

Who

Dern, I missed this part -
Hard to believe you said that - you're not serious, are you? - knowing how poor a job the "obedience" does? How many Pastor OM's have we heard about??? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

IT CLEARLY DOESN'T WORK!!

Try again.

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />
WAT

WAT, I no longer intend to contribute an opinion, much less give the reasoning behind the opinion.

Have it your way, it IS the "human" thing to do. Trusting God NO MATTER WHAT is not important anyway, right?

Suit yourself, FH. But what you said makes no sense.

With all the faithful on this forum who have been WSs, isn't it clear that "obedience" didn't work?

Sure, you'll say that, "well, then they weren't being obedient!"

Duh!

No matter how high an authority for one's morals is claimed, they can so easily be discarded, as we so often see. No better than my personal, "variable" <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" /> authority.

WAT

At the risk of having my head hit by a bolt of lightening, I'll weigh in (and probably sound like a smarta$$)...

I wasn't obedient. I didn't listen to God. And I *wouldn't* have listened unless God Himself came down from the clouds in a chariot of fire and told me to knock it off.

And then I still might not have listened. At this point, I just don't know.

Is that what you're wondering, WAT?

WAT, for one who is self-proclaimed "sufficient" in his own self, I will only let the Word of God speak on its own, there is no need for me to try to "reason" with you so you would might understand things that are "of God," not "of Man." You mock that which you do not understand.


"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."
Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than a man's strength." (1Cor 1:18-25 NIV)


WAT, WHO Jesus Christ is and one's relationship with Him is the basic, most fundamental, question and issue. ALL of the rest flows FROM that relationship, or LACK of PERSONAL relationship with our Lord and Savior.

"Obedience" that you mock is a result of LOVE, not fear or will or choice "against what one 'really' wants to do." It "DOES" out of love for what HE did for us. EVEN those who took their eyes off Him and fell into adultery "get back" that obedience for the present and the future by keeping their eyes on Jesus, not on their "circumstances."


"This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit.
The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:
"For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?"
But we have the mind of Christ." (1Cor 2:13-16 NIV)


"Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a "fool" so that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness"; and again, "The Lord know that the thoughts of the wise are futile." So then, no more boasting about men! All things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas [that is, Peter] or the world or life or death or the present or the future - all are yours, and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God." (1Cor 3:18-23 NIV)


"If you love me, you will obey what I command." (John 14:15 NIV)


WAT, what I have been talking about is grounded and founded in LOVE for Christ, not your "rights" or my "rights," not the "rights" of a Former Wayward Spouse or a Former Betrayed Spouse. I am talking about LOVE.

Call it foolishness if you will. But it is CENTERED in each spouse's relationship with Christ and in their keeping HIM, not either one of them, on the "sovereign throne" of their lives or marriage.

YOU argue that "protection" is the MOST important. I disagree. I "argue" that the couple's RELATIONSHIP with Christ is the MOST important. Just as Peter found out, it is WHEN we take our eyes off of Christ and begin to worry about the "realities" of this world that we begin to "sink."
It IS the husband's responsibility, and command of God, to BE the spiritual leader in his home, NO MATTER WHAT.

And I understand your difficulty in understanding that simple truth.

NBII -
No, not wondering, just remarking on FH's flawed logic about relying on "obedience" to prevent infidelity. Your remarks are a suitable example, IMHO.

Once again, FH - if you want to continue this, go back and read the entirety of this thread. This is ALL about the civil or business side of marriage and divorce, the secular aspects that, like it or not, are determined by laws of state - not the spiritual aspects. Your on-topic contributions are welcome just like everyone else's, but please take different topics and your preaching to another thread.

WAT

I understand your perspective, WAT. What you don't understand, or choose to reject, is that God instituted and ordained Marriage, not civil authorities. Man has managed to "corrupt" what God intended many times and there is no reason to expect any less from anyone who does NOT have Jesus Christ as their "bridegroom" in the "marriage of believers and God."

It's little different in many respects to society's attempts to "de-Christ-ize" Christmas and the REASON Christmas exists. God came before marriage. God instituted marriage. Man chooses to corrupt what God put in place and without Christ in their lives, God's intention for marriage WILL seem as "foolishness" to many. It, as Christmas, is NOT about secular gain, sales, or protection of profits.

You just don't get it, WAT, because you are blinded to, and seemingly violently opposed to, "things of God."

I am NOT, nor have I ever advocated, "reliance on obedience" to "prevent" infidelity anymore that you should "rely" on obedience to a post-nuptual agreement to prevent future infidelity. Obedience COMES FROM a reliance on God, not self. It comes from a LOVE FOR God, not self or spouse. "If you love me you will obey my commands." It is NOT "obey my command and THEN you will love me."

NO ONE can "serve two masters." A couple CANNOT both be keeping their eyes firmly upon Christ and following Him in humble submissiveness to His commands and NOT their own feelings, wants, or desires AND also simultaneously CHOOSING to sin against His command prohibiting Adultery.

To put into place a "nuptual agreement" that is based upon adultery (assumed to be in the future) is irrelevant to a couple who IS committed to Christ. It also is a slap in the face to God who says to love Him regardless of circumstances that we might have to face in life, and that includes monetary loss.

Very true, but God isn't the one to divide up marital assets when WS move on with OP. I guess my point here is that if everyone was obedient of God's word and the 10 commandments, there wouldn't be a need for this site, or marriage counselors, or police officers etc. Being a Christian doesn't make one free of sin, nor does it make most of us invulnerable to temptation. I don't see any harm in giving a potential WS one more disincentive to infidelity. It is sort of like having a lock on your front door. Thou shalt not steal aside, I still lock my doors.

Who

The division of property is one thing.
But when it comes to custody, what's up with assumption that the faithful spouse is automatically the better parent than the spouse who cheats? Just curious.

SC, I'll say that by definition, the cheater is very, very likely not the better parent.

But I don't know what you do in the case where the WS is a relatively better parent because, say, the BS was abusive and dealing drugs and the children were in real danger. Those cases exist. Of course the better sitch is to get out of those marriages BEFORE becoming a cheater.

JMHO

WAT

WAT,


By definition? What definition? I will grant you that people who cheat generally have either serious character flaws or psychological problems -- or both -- that need to be addressed. But who says those issues and/or problems are worse -- or more to the point, more detrimental to children -- than the issues the faithful spounse needs to deal with?

And I don't think it has to be as dramatic as a drug-dealing, abusive parent either.

Using my own situation as an example: I cheated. Until I work through my emotional problems, I'm probably vulnerable to do it again. And from some of the timelines I've seen for my particular issues, it could take me at least a couple of years to get my head out of my azz. But I have always -- even during my affair -- been a good and responsible parent.

On the other hand, my H used to be emotinally abusive to our older daughter. He's better now (ever since I first suggested I might want to split-up), and has actually become a really good dad. But he still slips back into his short-tempered habits from time to time. He also had (has?) a porn addiction. And in the event of a split, I could see how he'd jump right back into that. And as far as moral character goes -- well, let's just say that our last arguement was over the fact that he wanted me to lie about our financial situation to get a better deal with our new childcare provider, and I refused to do it.

As far as parenting goes, we both agree that I have better instincts and insights. He says it "doesn't come naturally" for him. And he ususally looks to me for guidance on how to deal with most tough situations. But he loves his girls with all his heart. (As do I).

So who would the kids be better off with?

They would not be in any "real danger" with their father (unless they were exposed to the porn, and I'm sure he would go to great lengths to make sure that did NOT happen). But if we're both being really honest about it, we both know the girls would be better off with me.

I don't know. Maybe some of you think they'd be better off with their dad, regardless. Maybe my situation is atypical. I just get the feeling that it's taken for granted around here that a WS or FWS is "by definition" a bad parent... and I'm here to say... that ain't always so.

--SC

Just want to add my two cents here.

Parents are many things. They wear many hats. One hat might be BS, one might be WS, but the foremost title on the hat is parent. Having said that...

Does the fact that my wife had multiple As make her a bad mom? She didn't expose the kids to the As so they're not seeing that example.

The fact of the matter is, custody is more determined by other lifestyle behaviors. Does the parent smoke in the home? Does the parent take the kids to church? Can the parent provide support to the kids?

Now, if my WW was bring all these men into our house, that would be another story completely. There are specifics of each sitch that have to be looked at and I don't think that saying a BS or a WS is a better parent is a generalization that ought to be made.

Exactly! which is why I question whether custody should be included in a standard post-nup.

I guess I don't disagree that child custody should maybe be handled separately from a pre- or post nup. Children are not "assets" or property. - or custody determinations should be specifically addressed in nups as being decided by whatever arbitrator or mediator or whoever can objectively evaluate what's best for the children.

How's that?

By "by definition" I meant prima facie evidence. A parent who conducts adultery is not being a "good parent." Setting aside the behavior of the BS for a moment, aren't those two acts mutually exclusive?

WAT

Who's to say that the capability of a WS or BS to parent won't change over the course of time? Assuming that the prenup is agreed to by both parties, hypothetical sitch...the FWS becomes an alcoholic, FBS has coping issues and has an affair. Now the current BS/alcoholic gets the kids?

Custody agreements can't be made in advance, IMO. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

From Penalty Kill


WAT, I agree with many things you say, but in my situation your assumption would be completely incorrect. My H would be the first to admit that I was an excellent parent before, during and after my A. He was a good parent and an excellent provider, but had many years where he placed his own extracurricular interests (not illegal) before the needs of his family. He was actually the one spending the most time, money and effort pursuing his activities while I was left at home to care for the children.

I think that speaking in generalities is seldom a good idea, and that is why I make reference to *my* situation only. The mileage of others may vary.

Not bad. Clean up that first sentence to be less wishy-washy, and I'd say it's downright open minded and fair of you Mr. T. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />



Mmmmm. I dunno. Even during my affair, fog, & withdrawl... I still read to my kids, huged and kissed them, cooked for them, taught them how to share, nursed their boo-boos and colds, did their laundry, refereed their squabbles, you get the picture. So, no, I guess I really don't think it's AUTOMATICALLY mutually exclusive.

--SC

PK - I don't think I was making an unwarranted broad generality.

You would recognize, I bet, that risking dissolution of a family via infidelity is not good parenting, right?

And I just said that it's very, very likely that the WS is - by this recognition - not being the best of the two parents in relative terms.

It's pointless to debate this by bringing up examples where the WS is a better overall parent. Perhaps you were one. Good job. It's clear you're likely doing a good job now - by virtue of placing high value on preservation of the family.

To debate this would require placing positive parenting value on various tasks, and negative value on others. How many years of coaching a youth baseball team gets erased by one affair? How many examples of NOT going to a parent teacher conference equals the damage done by an affair? Pretty silly, huh?

I wish you well in your recovery. Have you two discussed a post-nup? Perhaps you said so earlier - I apologize if my oldstimers disease is kicking in.

WAT