Owl,

Thanks for posting this...it is what I have been trying to say all along!

And Bob...your conclusion is exactly why I have come down the way I have. Without consensus, it is futile to try to come up with guidelines. Thus, Dr. Harley's guidelines as outlined above in Owl's post are what we must follow.

This board, as we all know, is about pain...hurt...betrayal. And much more. There is no way we will go thru this without disagreeing about something or without someone possibly getting hurt.

I have had no problem with people such as JJ VOLUNTEERING to go to a quieter spot, as I am all about Scripture's guidance concerning not offending a brother.

What I have questioned is those that would want to hound and "banish" the folks like JJ to another part of the boards. Or, as some have stated...completely from the website.

As has been shown, that is not Dr. Harley's guidance, nor his intent. If some here want to start a website called "Anti Affair Marriage.com," then I think they should. And then those rules should apply.

In the meantime, we should all heed Justuss' admonition. I know I have on many occasions bowed out, or stopped from even posting, knowing that nothing I was gonna say would be helpful.

As was said above...nothing wrong with getting a sense of where people are on the issue. Also nothing wrong with expressing our views on the issue or even having a thread that discusses the issue.

But I believe there is something wrong if any of us jump on a thread that concerns an individual that is clearly within the bounds of the rules and Dr. Harley's intent, and we hound that person because we dont like how they got into their marriage. If it is wrong, then say so. But many have gone well past the just getting out their view.

Many of the folks that take an opposite position on this, I consider friends. I have no problem with us disagreeing. I just want to protect these boards, as they are a lifeline to so many. Including all of us. And if we start going out of bounds from the rules and intent of this board (and the MB principles), then we may destroy what we think we are trying to save.

Just my two cents there.

Okay, BK, let me "clear the air" a bit before getting to a more direct response to your inquiry. Why do I hesitate? Because things have been said previously and words DO have meanings. Hence I am very skeptical of current questions when virtually the same questions have been asked and answered previously. The general response has NOT been one of acceptance of a differing opinion, it has been, on occasion, one of twisting (in some cases the old sort of "quote mining") what was said, and even resorting to not addressing the issues but attacking me personally for my beliefs.

So what sort of things have been said in the past that "frame" the current question/response? Let's look at a few and then consider MY opinions and/or criteria on this topic of helping someone on MB who is in what many consider to be an "affair marriage."



I have repeatedly said that my understanding of Scripture is MY understanding of Scripture. I post my understanding and my interpretations and my opinions, and I "own" them. I stand ready to explain my belief and why I think the Scripture supports it so that it is clear that it is not "just some randomly chosen or self-serving opinion arrived at for my own purposes." I do NOT "require" anyone else to accept or adopt them, they can choose for themselves. But just as I do not have to accept someone else's opinion, I have many times suggested that believers, in particular, go directly to the Word of God when there are areas of disagreement, in order to see what the Word of God says or doesn’t say, and then discuss what we think it means or what it clearly says about something. That is the whole point of 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

But then there has been a limiting restraint put on such a discussion that effectively negates any opportunity for reaching a "conclusion" that might reach agreement or at least an accepting understanding of WHY someone may hold a differing belief on a given issue, for example:


I agree that MB is intended for discussion aimed at marriage building. The issue currently under discussion is WHAT marriages are MB intended to help build and which ones should not receive help because of perceptions of, or even some real, hurt that others might feel (as in be "triggered").

There also IS a difference between a formal debate and in discussing and examining Scripture. You even rejected such a discussion via private email on one occasion, so by extension, it has seemed that you have not been interested in any discussion that brings in God and what the Word of God says. So I am hesitant to respond to your current questions, as sincere as they may be, simply because I CANNOT answer it completely without reference to Scripture. That very reference to Scripture may be met with a similar response of not being "interested" in discussing religious based opinions.

However, you have also referenced "religious" interpretations before, so you may well be willing to discuss these sorts of things at this time, hence my willingness to try responding and see what happens.


Now this raised the biblical stance on these issues, yet when discussion was engaged, it was shut down immediately with phrases such as "that's not how I interpret it." Answers to these questions ARE important and should be discussed, at least among believers, especially when those believers may have differing opinions. But if avoidance of a "religious debate" is the rule that is enforced, then the questions can be posted, can even be posed rhetorically, but they cannot be discussed and the reasoning of the opposing viewpoints cannot be examined.


IF you really don't want to talk about WHY a criteria or opinion is "in play" that is based upon Scripture, then tell me so and I will abide by that decision. If you are willing to discuss these things, then I will do so also. We may or may not arrive at any "agreement," but it could help with understanding why someone might have a differing viewpoint on something, such as helping someone who is in a marriage to a former partner in adultery.





Okay, this area could get a little "sticky," so please bear with me if you can. I DO think you have gone against your own previously stated criteria and will offer some quotes as to WHY I think thusly. Since the issue is "affair marriages" and whether or not to offer any help to, or to "tolerate" their presence and posting on GQ II, I quote these previous postings for context, NOT to accuse or condemn a valid opinion that you may or may not hold.










Okay, you make two distinctions here that are intended to parse an adulterous relationship into two classes; one that a WS engaged in adultery and then subsequently married the OP; and the other where someone was separated pending a divorce and began dating(also adultery) while they were still married, formed an attachment to that person (and obviously had no reason to "fight" a divorce), and then married that person. Obviously there are other scenarios that could be thrown in there, but let's stick with just these two for now since they refer specifically to the two situations of JJ/MFZ and NB II.

The Scripture is quite clear that adultery begins with "lust" for someone other than one's spouse. It often far precedes any verbal or physical declarations. It is also clear that adultery of any kind is forbidden by Scripture and equally clear that many who don't think they've committed adultery have, in fact, committed adultery "in their heart" by lusting after someone other than their spouse even though "no action may have come from it."

Therefore anyone who gets "involved" with someone while they are married HAS committed adultery.

You raised the issue of the old Jewish laws concerning divorce, and as you know, Jesus "set the Pharisees straight" on the "certificate of divorce for any reason" error. A Betrayed Spouse CAN divorce and NOT commit adultery if they marry again, but only if they are very careful about who they marry that second time. Anyone else other than the Betrayed Spouse, WILL be, or IS, guilty of adultery upon getting involved with someone else or continuing an involvement with someone. In the case of someone who begins dating, falling in love, etc. BEFORE they are divorced, they are committing adultery. That IS a definition an "affair" even though it is not what most people think of as an affair, i.e., one that was initiated by a WS with callous disregard for their spouse. Yet it is still an affair.

As such, when someone marries the person they became involved with WHILE still married, they are then entering an "affair marriage."

When you said to Mortarman; " Thinking further MM, I understand where you are coming from. I would not date until my divorce was final either," it was evident that you were recognizing this problem as a real issue and would yourself, therefore, err on the side of caution and wait until AFTER a divorce to begin activities that could turn into a potential second marriage.

You did also, however, clearly set aside this sort of affair, an "affair marriage," as clearly different from one where a WS was involved in an affair, divorced their spouse for the OP (even if the reason for the divorce also included other issues), and then married the OP. They ARE different, but they are different types of affairs and affair marriages and are still, thus, affairs and "affair marriages." Do I see a difference between them? Yes, in much the same way that there are differences between One Night Stands, Serial Adultery(multiple affairs), Class II involved Physical Affairs, and Emotional Affairs. They DO differ, but they are all "Affairs," and by definition, Adultery.

So when you said further to Mortarman; " But I see this in a whole different ballpark to someone who divorced specifically to marry their affair partner. It's not the same IMO," I agree. It IS a "whole different ballpark," but it's still "baseball" whether it's single A, double A, triple A, or the "Big Leagues." It may differ in "degree," but it's still adultery and still an "Affair Marriage."

From a biblical perspective, it's still a sin against God and still in need of forgiveness by God. Big sins, little sins, etc., are different "classes" of sins, but in God's eyes, ANY sin is anathema and WRONG.

For the record, there have been many posts on MB where separated people have been strongly advised by many members to NOT date while separated BECAUSE they are still married and dating IS a type of adultery in that situation. You saw that too, that is why you agreed with Mortarman.

Now, when NB II posted her story your responded; " NB_II - personally I consider your situation to be an error of judgement but not an AM. You are a valuable contributer here." I AGREE that NB II is a valuable member and a valuable contributor of MB. But here is precisely where your "criteria" for what is and what is not an "affair marriage" changes to JUST the first scenario stated above and excludes one that began while the person was separated prior to their actual divorce from their first spouse. You clearly state that scenario two is NOT an affair marriage, even though you have agreed that dating should be put off until after a divorce is finalized in order to avoid committing adultery (and the potential for marrying a partner in adultery and a creating, thereby, an "affair marriage").

I contend that they are both "affair marriages," but obviously of differing types. The point being that both types cause people to sin against God by committing adultery and both would be in need of forgiveness from God. Granted, one has to believe in God first in order to make the assessment of what is a sin. But that IS what you and I have been discussing, the "affair marriage" by God's definition whereby "adultery" is committed.

So the "issue" becomes, for me anyway, the repentance of a mindset that allowed adultery to be committed and forgiveness of that sin by God ON BEHALF of Jesus Christ, who died to take away ALL the sins of anyone who accepts Him as their Lord and Savior.

So you see my "criteria" is first and foremost an individual's relationship with Christ. In that situation, ALL of their sins are forgiven and they become a "new creation" in Christ. God works a miracle in their hearts and changes them to one that seeks after God. Recognizing the wrong choices we have made in our lives and seeking to not repeat those mistakes is part of that "new creation" that changes our worldview from "human centric" to "God centric."

In the case of JJ, she became a believer after her divorce and remarriage. I am not sure about NB II, but I think the same was true in her case. With respect to MFZ, I have read nothing about faith, so I suspect he is not a believer.

You previously stated (quoted above); "One thing I am sure of is the illegitimacy of affair marriages for believers. For unbelievers I am currently undecided. (However my current thinking is that they would not have to divorce and could stay married.)"

Given your statement, JJ was an unbeliever when she divorced her first husband and married her OP. So you state an apparent contradiction when you say on the one hand "my current thinking is that they would not have to divorce and could stay married" and on the other hand you said to Jilly; " Jilly,

For the record, while I DO think repentance of your adultery would mean a divorce, I don't say that you would have to re-marry your first husband. You could choose to marry anyone you haven't had an affair with IMO."

Putting aside for the moment that your advice would likely result in a marriage to anyone other than her OP that WOULD BE committing adultery (according to Jesus' definition as stated to the Pharisees), your stance vies-a-vie the "affair marriage" was that the only "answer" would be to divorce their current spouse. Nothing short of divorce would satisfy the "work" that was needed in order for repentance of sin to be real, and thereby forgiveness of the sin to be truly forgiven by God. Again, if the "issue" is an "affair marriage" and that is defined as marriage to anyone they had an adulterous relationship WHILE STILL MARRIED to their first spouse, then it includes ALL "types" of affair marriages.

My "criteria" regarding the forgiveness of sin is that ALL sins are forgiven a believer with NO requirement of any "work" to prove the sincerity of the repentance or to merit the complete forgiveness of God. In both JJ and NB II's cases, they have "right standing" before God because their sins were forgiven on the basis of what Jesus did for them, not on the basis of what they did to "earn" God's forgiveness from their own efforts. That is a "fundamental" belief of mine that is squarely founded on the Word of God that I take to heart in my own life and in how I "evaluate" the "worthiness" of a fellow believer to receive help or which ones to help that I can spend what time I have available for helping. "It is by grace you have been saved, not of works, so that no one can boast." Somewhere in here is also the biblical promise of Eternal Security. In reference to that, God tells us plainly that we can never lose our salvation (and therefore our forgiveness) once we have truly accepted Jesus Christ. The idea that one CAN lose their salvation logically leads to the NECESSITY of "works" on the part of the one who "lost" their salvation, in order to "merit" God's "re-forgiveness and re-salvation." But we are clearly told in Scripture that "all our works are as filthy rags." In other words, nothing we can do can MERIT (as in requires that God must do something for us in "return") God's forgiveness and our being saved.

In the case of MFZ, were I to participate in his thread I WOULD be looking to determine his position with Christ. I also know that there are many members on MB who do NOT believe in Christ, and if they are willing to attempt to help him for whatever reason they feel is justified, I will stay out of the way and let them help as they see fit. That's not really that much different in other threads I decide to "stay out of" because the participants don't want "God brought into it."

Having said all that, let me reiterate that I understand the potential for triggers for some members, especially newly Betrayed Spouses. I also stated on JJ's thread that I didn't care if she posted on GQ II or on any other forum, I would seek to answer her faith-based questions as best I could. I also would not hesitate to tell an "offended" new BS who happened across the thread (though not many would given the usual focus on their own thread and their own needs for the "newbie"), that JJ's situation is one of the rarities where the "affair marriage" lasted AND that the primary difference in her life TODAY is Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, not all marriages survive, not even those that employ the "MB principles." Society, much more than a thread on MB, tells people that divorce is "okay," that "playing around" or "getting some strange" is normal and a "part of life." I reject the societal relativism concerning marriage and it being a "disposable commodity" that one can put on and take off like a suit of clothes. Sin is sin, as one saying goes. But "sin" needs a "sinless one" who has determined what "sin" is in order for there to BE sin. Otherwise all that we have is "moral relativism" that is a forever changing "target" based upon the "criteria" of individuals, usually designed to allow them to do whatever they want. For me, that authority, that "sinless one," is God the Creator, and HE established the MEANS by which our sins are forgiven in their entirety. Once HIS "criteria" is met, then there no longer exists an "affair marriage" and there is no need for a divorce as a "work" of repentance.

That does NOT change the fact the fact that the marriage BEGAN as an "affair marriage." It changes what it is IN CHRIST. For someone who is "in Christ," it also means that further adultery is highly unlikely(though certainly not impossible given our innate sin nature) because the believer now has a very intimate knowledge of the TRUTH of God's command; "Thou shalt NOT commit adultery." God cannot simultaneously forgive all sins, cast them as far as the "east is from the west, create a "new birth" and a "new creation," AND declare the marriage to also be illegitimate and in need of yet another divorce (also considering how God hates all divorce) That is also one of the "messages" of David and Bathsheba.

When you reference "go and leave your life of sin" you interpret that as requiring a divorce. I don't. I interpret that as leaving a mindset that thinks sinning is "okay." It means leaving a "secular worldview" and embracing a "God's worldview" of being "in the world, but not of the world." It is first and foremost a "heart change", and God does NOT require, not want, anyone to think that they must DO something to "earn" His forgiveness, and that includes yet another divorce. The past divorce cannot be undone in this instance. The previous spouse is unavailable for remarriage even if he were willing, which he is not, because of God's prohibition on remarrying a former spouse who had remarried.

God says, in effect, "Come to me TODAY, come as you are, and begin a "new life in Christ" from this day forward. All of your past sins are forgiven and you are now "white as snow" in my eyes solely because of what Jesus did for you."

That's my criteria, BK, for MY attempts to help someone in need who finds themselves in the situation of being in an "affair marriage" of any type. I DO think that one's relationship with Christ is of paramount importance first. As you know, I also have tried to help others who are NOT believers but who are suffering from infidelity in their marriage, and I do so on the basis of the biblical instruction about being a Good Samaritan and on the basis of God's command to believers to "love your enemies as yourself." It IS hard sometimes, but it still is a command of God and should be attempted to be followed. The daily struggle against the flesh remains for believers and I, as have most others, have sometimes "lost" the battle of spirit versus flesh. There are no "perfect" humans, only forgiven and un-forgiven sinners.

I hope that has answered, at least in part, your inquiry into my "criteria."

If you have further questions, feel free to post them.

God bless.

FH - I will read and respond to this later - not ignoring you.

I've thought about this and thought about this but, nope, I still can't support anyone in an A marriage.

It made me think of one of our ex Prime Ministers. He died recently and his A marriage wife (of 20 years) wrote a piece for the paper on her "love" for him. She said they were "soulmates" and his exwife and kids were still bitter and she just "couldn't understand that". She then proceeded to tell the country how she'd tried to fight her attraction to him but it was "meant to be". 20 freaking years and I still saw it as nothing but an A marriage.

Jen, yep, doesn't sound at all repentant or remorseful for any damage she may have done. Not one that I would care to offer support to either.

God bless.

Hope you don't mind but I am going to reply to this piecemeal.

I completely agree with what you have posted here.

However (damn - does that negate completely?) LOL. However, my perception, if not your outright statement, is that anyone who doesn't agree with you is not interpreting the bible correctly. You posted as much to Jilly for her not to listen to anyone else because it was the words of men. Now that is so but at the end of the day, it is YOUR opinion (your words) that you are giving, just as I give my opinion based on my interpretation of scripture.

My perception is that if I don't agree with you, and I don't, then you don't accept my opinion could be valid and you then want to go raking through the scriptures to try and prove me wrong - a game that I am not interested in.

Your whole tone at times is that you are right and everyone who disagrees with you is just speaking the words of men whereas YOU alone are speaking the truth of God. My perception.

And I don't think MB is a good venue for religious dogma - I would prefer to help people.

Actually, I was really asking YOU for YOUR view of what marriages you would help. Not MB. YOU. For example you said you were not posting to Zog for undisclosed reasons. That is actually why I asked you the question what your criteria was.


I think you have misinterpreted what I have said.

I have no problem with your Christian perspective OR your use of scripture. None at all. I applaud it.

I don't have the TIME it would require to go into a debate with you about different interpretations of scripture via email or any other means and not only because I think you are more interested in being right than you are in having a discussion. Most of our points of difference FH are WELL DOCUMENTED in Christian literature so really what is to be gained? MB is for Marriage Building.

I don't believe I ever shut down any debate FH. Am I not allowed to post how I interpret something?

OK I agree with that.


OK FH- I quoted the OT example merely as an example of the DIFFERENCES in divorce law. In that culture at that time separation WAS divorce. In some jurisdictions, 3 months spearated and a divorce can be granted.

So something in one place may be adultery whereas the exact same thing in a different place or time isn't.

I was really only saying that I view differently someone who commences a new relationship (note NEW not pre-existing) as being DIFFERENT to someone who divorces their spouse so they can marry an affair partner. TOTALLY different kettle of fish.

I don't know if it is sin FH frankly. Who is to say when GOD considers a couple divorced? It may well be different to the "state" definition in one jurisdiction or another. As long as the marriage didn't end because of the new relationship I don't necessarily consider it an affair.


I agree with that of course but not all people hold to my standards. Personally I do believe no dating until legally divorced buy I'm not going to hang someone who believes differently.

I also believe in 1 year free of relationships for every 5 year married as Harley says as well but I'm not going to hang anyone who doesn't abide by that standard either.

OK let me make it clear, when I asked your criteria, I was asking for YOUR criteria wether or not you would help a poster. Not sin, not forgiveness - I was asking HOW you decide who you will help because you said you would not help Zog but you did help Jilly.


OK - it's not an inconsistency as such. It is me after prayer and contemplation changing my position OK? I have infact offered Jilly assistance on the new thread MM started. Shocking I know. BUT that does not mean that I believe she should be here on GQII.

I would also, in cases like Jilly, need to be convinced her "conversion" is not just a convenient way of "legitimising her affair" and I do think even with Jilly the jury is out on that point but I am prepared to offer her the benefit of the doubt.

Well I agree with some of that at least. But FH - this is not about forgiveness.

But I don't see repentance as works.

Neither do I think anyone can earn their way "back into God's favour" by works. That would be your interpretation of my words.

and FWIW, at least Jilly had the decency to move to the quiet place. See, if an AM spouse is really repentant, don't you think the thought they might be offending victims of the same crime would lead them to show some compassion and do likewise. It's real easy to claim to be conveniently converted. Works follow and prove faith.

I don't mind at all, it's often easier to do that way.




Obviously I can't help how anyone perceives anything. There are also some things that are fundamental to the Christian faith that are not, obviously ihmo, open to varying "interpretations." They CAN be "interpreted" differently, but, again in my humble opinion, those "variances" in interpretation are most often founded in the desire of "men" to make the Scripture support what they want it to support so they can do whatever they want to do. Generally, in those sorts of cases, it is very important to go to the Word of God and consider the issue not only in light of a given passage, but in light of the entirety of Scripture. That is also part of what we have been discussing here, differences of opinion.

It also IS my opinion that some "opinions" held by some are NOT supported by Scripture despite any traditions. In that respect, it's not much different than the traditions of the Jews of Jesus' day that you referenced with respect to the "laws of Moses" concerning divorce. As Jesus said, those "methods and reasons" for being able to divorce were accepted by virtually all of the Jews, but it was nonetheless wrong, and Jesus "set the record straight" that the traditions founded in the desires or "hardness of the human heart" were wrong and NOT what God had set up when He established marriage.

So in some respects I understand your perception and in some cases it would be a correct perception and in others it would be an incorrect perception. If my "stance" on a given issue is NOT supported by Scripture, then I SHOULD be called on it and Scripture should be used for correction, rebuking, training, etc. It IS, imho as a believer, the Word of God that is the "final authority" on the basic fundamentals of Christianity and the commands and teachings of God to HIS people everywhere.

My "point" on those areas of disagreement is that "opinions" don't count where the Scripture has clearly spoken. That was my point with MEDC, for example. He prefers to state his opinion of Scripture but will not "support," "explain," or "defend" his opinion with Scripture. He prefers to attack an opposing view, or at least me when I have a differing opinion from his, by attacking the individual. Hence it is an attempt to not just "marginalize" a differing opinion, but to seek the de facto dismissal of ANY opinion by ad hominem attacks, such as calling me a "dope" or a "church of one." That, too, is HIS perception and his right, but I hardly think it's "academic honesty" or a "valid defense" of his opinion of what Scripture is, or is not, saying.

There IS room for differences of opinion in areas where God has chosen to NOT fully reveal His will or what will happen. The second coming of Christ is, for example, one of those areas where differences of opinion as to when it will happen and what will happen to believers alive at that time can be held and NO opinion about it is "clearly and definitively" expounded by Scripture. The "imminent return" of Christ IS beyond debate, but the WHEN is known only to God, as another example.




I may have well said something like that, or even exactly like that, though I can't recall the "when and where." Without a specific reference point where I would have said something like that, all I can say is that I DO believe that some things said as "Christian" are incorrect and are the product of "men" and not God. Most often those are in areas where I have spent time examining all the arguments "pro and con" on a given issue and arrived at a "conclusion" as to which position is consistent with Scripture and what seems to be "of men."

Eternal Security and the concept that someone who is a believer CAN lose their salvation is one of those sorts of areas, for example. Many of the beliefs and tenets of the RCC, as a church institution, also fall into that sort of category, in my opinion arrived at by studying the divergent viewpoints and what the Scripture does reveal. I understand that others can, and certainly have, gone on the attack when I have stated an "opposing" opinion. That is their right, but once again, when believers "differ" in opinion it is the Word of God that SHOULD be turned to and not just a "dig in the heels" approach of "I'm right, you're wrong!" and I don't care what the Scripture says because my "church" says it's this way. NO human or church is "immune" from error, but it is also true that when some ideas become "institutionalized," and they are contrary to what Scripture teaches, they become very hard, if not impossible, to surrender to God the error. That is, after all, what happened in the Reformation, including the very serious attempts by the RCC to quash and squash Martin Luther and others who had the "temerity" to oppose established traditions of the church. Yet as much as people may perceive MY opinion or beliefs as "not interpreting the bible correctly," it is equally interesting that they don't see their own dogmatic acceptance of some "church" positions in the same light. This is ESPECIALLY true when the "area of disagreement" is about a subject or subjects that the Word of God IS very clear and definitive about. "Works" versus "Grace" is just one of those areas, but it is a very important area, as I hope you would agree.



I have said many times that my "tone," sans voice and inflection, etc., MAY be perceived by someone that way, especially when they disagree with something. I can't help that perception, but I have also said that I keep trying to work on the "tone" perception issue. Unfortunately, as you have correctly stated, we all have "limited time" occasionally with which to discuss things and sometimes I admit to not taking the time to more "softly" make a point.
So I stand "convicted" of that "tone" perception.

I would also state that "tone" really shouldn't be the "important thing" when discussing differing opinions of Scripture. It once again should require that fellow believers "go to the source" for clarification when there are areas of disagreement, especially when those areas could be contentious.




I understand. But by the same token, Believers CANNOT separate obedience to God in "helping" people because all believers are no longer "their own." They are "bought and paid for" by Christ and are God's children, no longer the "children of men" only, because they have undergone the second birth and been created anew as part of the family of God and no longer part of the family of Man.

So "religious dogma," or instruction, admonishment, etc., IS necessary for those who profess a belief in Christ. It is NOT appropriate for unbelievers, and again, that is part of the "case by case" decisions of who to invest limited time in helping. Unbelievers would, for example, view advice to "be humbly obedient to God no matter what you are feeling" as being "foolishness." We CAN'T help everyone, nor would everyone want help from all people all of the time either. So we DO have to make some choices regarding who to help and what help may be most beneficial. For me, there are PLENTY of people willing and able to offer "secular" help. I choose, most of the time, to try to help fellow believers who have found themselves either involved in or harmed by sin and sinful choices. This is especially true for believing Betrayed Spouses of WS's who have also claimed to be believers but who have been "caught up" in the enticement of sin, if that makes any sense to you.

The "Good Samaritan" approach to helping others is a very good approach, too, in my humble opinion. That is what you are doing and is commendable.

That is also part of my choosing to help JJ despite "prevailing opinion" that her situation was "too bad" for help where others might see that help and arrive at erroneous perceptions. The Jews of the day would not help someone bleeding on the side of the road and would not even touch or talk to someone who was not a Jew, especially not a Samaritan. They considered doing so to be highly "offensive" to them and would not want someone else to be "offended" by choosing to help the "untouchables," so they would refuse to attempt to help.

God bless.

It seems pretty clear to me that a "don't ask, don't tell" or at least "don't tell" policy is going to end up the defacto answer. It gets rid of rubbing people's nose in potential success of post affair participants and it requires only that the people in the affair marriage keep a secret -- presumably something they are practiced at.

The drawback is that people who would not want to support such a relationship may do so unknowingly -- that said, those seem to be the same folks who think that AM is doomed regardless how much support due to the flawed character of the AM spouses.

For the record, I do think that the MB principles help any relationship. Medicate, Plan A, Plan B is the Tao of Steve on prozac. Radical honestly, meeting ENs, and joint agreement are just all good ideas.

Edited to correct bad grammar.

Count me as one who believes that an AM is doomed regardless of support IF the participants never engage in self-reflection and fix what was broken within themselves. However, I believe the same of regular marriages.

MB techniques are great but only if both parties in the marriage engage in self examination and work to improve themselves.

I agree Eagle, only I think Affair Marriages come up to bat with two strikes on them before the first pitch is thrown and a normal marriage has all three strikes before being sent to the pine.

Good analogy!

BP shows amazing patience on this thread. In spite of attempted sidetracks, I think his message has been pretty simple. And I do understand it.

I remember the events after Dday as if they were yesterday. I remember that I loved my WW. I wanted her to be happy. I was confused because my world had crumbled around me. I had already given up to the A and OM before Bigger pushed me onto this site. I was posting on SI before. What a pity party that group is.

Bigger sent me here. I realized that Affairages don't normally work out. I slowly began to see things as they really were. I gained courage to fight. Both BS and FWS quickened my steel. Now I chew OM's and piss their blood.

But there was a time, early on, when I had given up. I was willing to die so my DDs could have a better life.

So I now what BP is talking about here. Most of you are not even in the same solar system as this point he has consistently tried to make.

Maybe you all need to spend some time on TOW or SI. Many of you need a serious reality check.

I get BP's message. I simply don't agree with all that he's got to say.

I don't need to spend time on TOW or SI...I came here using yet another web forum where I saw all I needed to about that side of things.

I don't need a reality check either...I know right where I'm at.

Again...debating about whether we should or shouldn't provide assistance to someone coming here asking for help with their marriage is useless...that ruling was already provided by the moderators. The bottom line is, if you find that thread offensive, don't go on that thread. Simple enough. If you don't like that person's situation, don't post to them. That's the guidance Justuss gave...how's that still open for debate?