On Cerri's thread you wrote:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by ForeverHers:
<strong>That brings us to the idea of a "moral compass." The issue for both you and your husband is "what, or who's, moral compass, if any, should be embraced and applied to your individual lives?" What ARE the "black and white" issues irrespective of "societal acceptability?"

Your husband seems to be of the humanistic moral relativistic school of thought; "If it feels good, do it." No "right or wrong," only feelings are important, and then, ONLY your own feelings, not anyone else's.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Please stop with the over generalizations.

I suggest you remember that just because others do not share an intense faith like yours, that does not make us incapable of knowing right from wrong.

I'll stack my "humanistic" right and wrong moral compass up against ANYONE'S who professes to obtain theirs from supernatural guidance. Period. And I am FAR from being alone.

All,

My intense faith allows for the diversity of all "religions" or no religion if one so chooses.

I don't think any one religion has moral superiority over another. To me, it's like different colors of the rainbow. All individual colors are necessary in order to complete the rainbow.

What is offensive is when those who believe their religion is the "only religion" try to shove their belief's down other's throats. How's that supposed to work???

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I suggest you remember that just because others do not share an intense faith like yours, that does not make us incapable of knowing right from wrong.

I'll stack my "humanistic" right and wrong moral compass up against ANYONE'S who professes to obtain theirs from supernatural guidance. Period. And I am FAR from being alone.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">WAT - Good for you. I congratulate you on having a moral compass that works for you. It still does nothing to address Cerri's problem. The question is still valid, "who's" moral compass will her husband embrace that will result in a "morality" that does not include adultery as an acceptable "alternative?"

Cerri's point about only she being able to decide when "enough is enough" is also valid. That IS the point, WAT. Only the two of them can really decide, and only the two of them (and their children and families) have to live with the consequences of their choices.

Considering Cerri's litany of her husband's past behavior, "it if feels good, do it" would seem to be about the only "moral compass" that he has. Cerri is the ONLY one who can decide whether or not to divorce or attempt another reconciliation, but it would seem PRUDENT, if she should choose another attempt at recovery, to DEFINE a moral "compass" or "common ground." The same sort of thing would also seem prudent for her to address should a divorce happen and a future potential marital partner appear.

WAT, I'm not exactly sure what it is that you have against Christianity, or me in particular, but just what is it about being obedient to God that seems to send you off the deep end?

There was no "preaching" to Cerri. I asked a simple question for clarification, she answered clearly and with the same respect that the question was asked. So I ask YOU, WAT, since YOU have chosen to make it an issue, if NOT Christ and God's clear values and commands, then what "yardstick" for moral behavior is to be used and WHY should anyone other than yourself ascribe to whatever you think it should be?

Not sure why you are picking a fight, but if you want to have a discussion, I'll participate. But if all you want is a fight, I have more important things to attend to.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I don't think any one religion has moral superiority over another. To me, it's like different colors of the rainbow. All individual colors are necessary in order to complete the rainbow.

What is offensive is when those who believe their religion is the "only religion" try to shove their belief's down other's throats. How's that supposed to work??? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">CSue, I have to be a bit confused by what you are trying to say, or why you are trying to connect it to Cerri's thread. Just where do you think anything was trying to be "shoved down" anyone else's throat?

No one is talking about "moral superiority" of one religion, or no religion for that matter, over another. What I asked was a very simple question, "if not that morality that comes from God as revealed in Scripture, then what 'moral code' and why should that be applicable to anyone other than one's self?"

If you want to talk about "Salvation" as a separate issue, then I'll be happy to talk with you about that because that is an issue with clear alternatives to choose from. But don't get that confused with "morality" and "moral code."

I'm not interested in debating with you. I'm only asking you to stop implying that there is only one source for determining morals, especially knowing right from wrong. You seem to be myopic in espousing that only one source is available and that one source is the one you follow and whatever is embraced by others is faulty. You clearly stated that "humanistic moral relativistic school of thought" has "No "right or wrong," only feelings are important, and then, ONLY your own feelings, not anyone else's."

I find this offensive and insulting.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> So I ask YOU, WAT, since YOU have chosen to make it an issue, if NOT Christ and God's clear values and commands, then what "yardstick" for moral behavior is to be used and WHY should anyone other than yourself ascribe to whatever you think it should be? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">See? Only one way! One "yardstick." Any others you deem inferior. How can you be so narrow minded?

I have nothing against Christianity, other than the hypocrits who hide behind it or its narrow minded thinkers who cannot see anything else. You do your faith a disservice by representing it as so omnipotent.

My "humanistic" yardstick has served me very well - and I'll stack my morals and sense of right and wrong against yours any day.

WAT

You know what WAT, your anti-Christian bigotry is showing, and it isn't pretty. Neither is your backhanded calling me a hypocrit.

ONE last time, I never said (you, apparantly because of your bias against Christianity only read what you wanted to read) that Christianity was the "only" source of a "moral compass."

What I said was if someone rejects Christianity and "it's" moral teaching(which they CAN and DO very frequently), then what else does one choose and on what basis do they make that choice (if one assumes that HAVING a moral compass is important)? In what framework does their "choice" of a moral compass for themselves have applicability for others besides themselves? What makes their choice of a moral compass "universal" for someone else and does that chosen "moral compass" have a clearly delineated "right and wrong" that does not change with societal changes?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">You clearly stated that "humanistic moral relativistic school of thought" has "No "right or wrong," only feelings are important, and then, ONLY your own feelings, not anyone else's."

I find this offensive and insulting.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Okay, so you found it "offensive and insulting." Congratulations on your returning as much "offensive and insulting" as you could muster. I see you ARE "stacking morals and sense of right and wrong" against mine any day, relativistically speaking.

WAT, what part of "humanistic moral relativistic school of thought" seems to be so upsetting to you? Relativistic is the operative term here. The morals are relative, not absolute. The individual decides what is "morally good" for themself, regardless of anyone else. I happen to accept the "moral laws" as established by God and choose to accept them as "operative" for both myself and others who claim to also be Christians. Can you show me where these "Christian morals" are meant to be hurtful to others? Just what part of the 10 Commandments, for example, do you think harms someone where a different set of "morals" would be "better" or "superior?"

WAT, people CAN and DO choose what is generally thought of as "high morals" irrespective of their religion. People DO know "right from wrong." I happen to accept the Biblical reason for that capacity in man as being the result of Adam and Eve eating fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Man has, ever since, known right from wrong. But Man also often finds sin more attactive, choosing "wrong" more fun, etc.

So just what IS your purpose in twisting something that I asked Cerri into your own little misunderstanding and desire for a fight?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I have nothing against Christianity, other than the hypocrits who hide behind it or its narrow minded thinkers who cannot see anything else. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">WAT, your disrespectful judgments are evident. You obviously are a man of "superior" intellect and superior morals. But I wonder if the issue of "glass houses" and "throwing stones" might be relevant?

WAT, you pick a fight where none exists, other than, perhaps, in your mind.

If your real "bug" is about salvation and not "morals," then I can more readily understand your apparant anger. Regardless, THIS thread has hopefully given you the opportunity to vent your feelings and I DO thank you for not hijacking Cerri's thread with it.

WAT, just lost a post back to you. Not having the time right now to try to recreate it, I will simply say you need to go back and reread things. You are reading way too much into things that were not said. Perhaps if I can find the time, I will redo the lost post.

Foreverhers -

I always enjoy your posts. I am a believer, and take no credit for anything in my life where I have done good. Actually I have done more harm than good. But I do credit my Lord and savior Jesus Christ for the little bit of good in my life.

I love WAT's posts. It is fine with me that he is not a believer. I think he has great ethics, and of course there is nothing wrong with that.

We all come to this site as we are. Hopefully we can help each other.

believer - I understand what you are saying. I happen to agree. WAT comes at things from a humansitic perspective and I come things from a Christian perspective. Both us have "things to offer" from time to time and both of us have had our opinions disagreed with from time to time.

WAT is very helpful, but in this instance, for what reason escapes me, HE picked a fight with me over Christianity. I have no idea WHY he did so, but I'm also quite willing to "defend" myself if needed.

If I am wrong, I will say so and apologize. But I also am getting very tired of the notion that it's "okay" to bash Christianity with impunity, but "heaven help" anyone who might say anything against ANY other religion, including atheism.

In this case, WAT "went after me" for something that I asked Cerri. I have no idea what "tripped his trigger" this time, but he leaped to an erroneous conclusion and then sought to attack me for his false conclusion.

None of us likes to see "bickering" on the board, but I also think that in the spirit of Honesty and Openness, false accusations need to be confronted. NONE of us, including WAT, is "perfect" and "mistake free." Neither am I. This "open season" attitude on Christians, and Christian principles, is flat out bigotry in most cases and should not be tolerated anymore than other forms of bigotry should be.

So, if you have been offended by the bickering, please accept my apology for the unintended result of our "discussion."

God bless.

It's clear you cannot see what I'm referring to, so this will be my last attempt to explain it.

This wasn't bashing whatsoever. My admonition to you was to cease over generaliziing others who do not share your faith or your intensity of it. Read what you wrote - it's crystal clear: "Your husband seems to be of the humanistic moral relativistic school of thought; "If it feels good, do it." No "right or wrong," only feelings are important, and then, ONLY your own feelings, not anyone else's."

How else is that to be taken? And you accuse me of picking a fight?

I did not call you a hypocrit.

I am not an anti-Christian bigot. I couldn't be and participate on this forum for over 4 years.

Perhaps my initial suggestion should have been more along these lines:

Please do not over-generalize. I suggest you remember that just because others do not share an intense faith like yours, that does not make us incapable of knowing right from wrong. When you do this, it detracts from your otherwise thoughtful and constructive advice on infidelity topics.

WAT

Having morals isn't Christian. I mean I don't know anyone that believes in marriage that is pro-infidelity, do you? Regardless of their religion, if a person chooses to marry someone....to be with them for the rest of their lives....there is an expectation that they will be faithful, and not cheat, otherwise there would be no purpose to marriage.

-Caren

Forever:

Remember, we had our issues with each other a few weeks ago?

I am definitely a Christian.

This forum is not about this. It's about helping folks heal their marriages.

However, I will share that you sometimes sound dogmatic and hostile even though you may not mean to do that. I'm probably guilty of the same. Below is an example:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">but just what is it about being obedient to God that seems to send you off the deep end?
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">It seems extreme to state that WAT was going off the "deep end" because he was expressing an opinion which is different than yours.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">My admonition to you was to cease over generaliziing others who do not share your faith or your intensity of it. Read what you wrote - it's crystal clear: "Your husband seems to be of the humanistic moral relativistic school of thought; "If it feels good, do it." No "right or wrong," only feelings are important, and then, ONLY your own feelings, not anyone else's."

How else is that to be taken? And you accuse me of picking a fight? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Okay WAT, this is getting us nowhere, but I'll try to get more specific in the hope that it might help.

First, my comment was directed to Cerri about her husband's possible motivation for engaging in a ONS while knowing her position and their past problems with his previous infidelities. Perhaps you have a "better" explanation of why someone, who by Cerri's answer to my inquiry, has no apparant faith of any kind and just does whatever he thinks is right for him?

Cerri, and Cerri alone, will decide whether to end her marriage over this latest "escapade" of Steve's, or to attempt yet another recovery. MY admonition (advice) to her is simply that IF she chooses yet another attempt at reconciliation the TWO of them need to get on the same page. Enter the need for a common "moral compass," common Boundaries and Standards, etc.

Whether or not Cerri, or anyone else for that matter, should choose Christianity as the model for their "moral compass" is irrelevant to her current situation. What IS needed is a common, and agreed to, set of a "moral yardstick." That is most commonly expressed in the STANDARDS that one chooses for themselves, those things that the individual will not allow themselves to do to others, or will do if they are helpful things that they would do.

I asked about their stance vis-a-vie Christianity so I would know whether or not to offer any Christian "perspective." You seem to have taken it as some underhanded attempt to foist Christianity upon someone who is "not interested" or to "generalize" that only Christians have "superior morals." THAT seems to be the basis of this thread that you started, and I am still at a loss to understand why you felt it necessary to accuse me of "overgeneralization" when I was directing my comments directly to Cerri and about her husband's specific set of "decision making" guideposts (commonly referred to as "morals").

WAT, I'm going to say it one more time, MORALS and moral behavior are NOT the exclusive pervue of Christianity. They are universal in that ALL humans know "good and evil." SALVATION, eternal life, a "higher power," etc., are all issues that have to do with religion. If you want a discussion about the existance of God or any other religious topic, I can accomodate you. But MORALS, good-bad-nonexistant- are the basic fundamentals of ALL humans. The choice, individually, is WHICH set of morals and for what reason, are applicable to us, and which do we want in a spouse we have dedicated spending the rest of our lives with?

Mimi - Agreed. But consider this too, it was WAT who began this. So I get crucified if I respond?

I really do think it's time that I leave the system. I'll take my "dogmatic" positions and work on my own marriage. WAT can keep his "dogmantic" positions too, since they are "more acceptable" it would seem, or at least not "called into question" by others. Too much time invested in MB that can be spent on other things. Besides, there ARE plenty of others with plenty of opinions, dogmatic and otherwise.

God bless, good luck.

I think it's a case of simply knowing "when to say 'when'." It's time.

<small>[ January 31, 2005, 08:26 AM: Message edited by: ForeverHers ]</small>

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by ForeverHers:
<strong> Perhaps you have a "better" explanation of why someone, who by Cerri's answer to my inquiry, has no apparant faith of any kind and just does whatever he thinks is right for him?</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">See?

"No faith" = "just does whatever he thinks is right for him"

Q.E.D

WAT

I'm leaving right now for the rest of the week and will not reply further to this.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Your husband seems to be of the humanistic moral relativistic school of thought; "If it feels good, do it." No "right or wrong," </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Well, I am a believer and I can say with 100% certainty that all morality is relative. There is no such thing as absolute morality.

In fact---- acts by themselves have no intrinsic morality. The morality of an act is always tied down to a specific situation. So an act may be morally acceptable in one instance and unacceptable in another depending on the circumstances.


As for adultery:

The act of having coitus outside marriage is viewed as immoral because it causes harm to those involved. However, there may be an instance where adultery may actually be morally acceptable based on the situation.

For example: Lets assume there are six persons left in the planet after a nuclear holocaust. A married couple and four single women. It turns out the married woman is sterile, whereas the single women are all fertile.

So there you have it------------- one man and five women left on the planet------ it is up to them to propagate the human race. In this instance some may say it is acceptable for the married man to have SF with one of the single women to preserve the species. Otherwise the human race dies!

The point is that all morality has to be relative to the actual situation.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">The point is that all morality has to be relative to the actual situation. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">As I am weaning myself off the addiction of MarriageBuilders, I guess I'll just keep my responses shorter and shorter until they, along with with my participation here, fade into the sunset.

Stanley - Using extreme hypotheticals to "prove" a point works for me.

Adultery, by your definition, is "morally relative." So I'll simply agree and tell you that Myrta did nothing wrong, all WS's have done nothing wrong, and all BS's better get off the pot and flush the garbage they've been dumping because when things are simply excused, because, after all, it's all "relative," there is NO need for places like MB, SYMC, counseling, etc.

It is all relative, baby! Do whatever you feel like doing. Vows? Don't mean a thing. If they won't work in hypothetical extreme cases, they don't apply at ANY time!

Obedience to God's commands? NOPE. Not needed, it's all relative. Do what you feel like doing.

Salvation through Christ? NOPE. Not needed since sin is "relative" and no absolutes apply.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">From Worthatry: See?

"No faith" = "just does whatever he thinks is right for him"

Q.E.D </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">WAT, don't be ridiculous, or disengenous, it does'nt look good on you. Glad to see you have no reply. Interesting that you won't tender an opinion as to his motivation or moral compass that would let him arrive at the conclusion that adultery is "acceptable" behavior for him. No, it's easier to twist what I said to Cerri about her husband into some insideous "generalizaion" about everyone who is NOT a Christian, even though I NEVER said that. Q.E.D. back at you.

Relative?

well, maybe. I guess, in the sense that Shakespeare's statement "There is neither good nor bad, but thinking makes it so" is a statement that good and bad are viewed relative 2 our humanity. Would it be good or bad if the Earth were destroyed 2 make room for that Hyperspace Bypass in Hitchhiker's Guide? Definitely a "bad" if you're an Earthling. Maybe not if you're not.

Excuse for adultery or sin? Not in my relative view.

Here, we're taught 2 learn from our traumatic experiences. All of them. That doesn't mean that we should seek an adulterous relationship so as 2 have the oppor2nity for personal growth we might not otherwise be exposed 2.

Like the concept of free will. Anything is "permissable", but not everything is expedient... ...and we only live so long.

-ol' 2long

<small>[ February 01, 2005, 12:59 PM: Message edited by: 2long ]</small>

WAT and FOREVER HERS,

Gosh, I just hate to see the two people I admire most for your straight ahead answers having a disagreement. <img border="0" alt="[Teary]" title="" src="graemlins/teary.gif" />

You are both wise. You both have great advice for some of the people here who are really hurting.

I for one, would like to thank BOTH of you for you wisdom and insight. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

Please guys, lets not quibble. You are both worthy.

FH, I would like to thank you for your response to my post awhile ago, on forgiveness. As a Christian, it meant a lot to me.

Perhaps no one knows that I found MB after my H's affair was over. I looked to God. God gave me a perfect plan A and plan B before I found MB. MB has helped me. WAT and FH have helped me.

Maybe I need to wean myself off MB when I see how un-PC it is to be a Christian. Can we all have a little respect for the different point of views and beliefs on this board?

There are generalizations, even tho' every situation is unique. I like MB because it is based on saving the marriage. And I don't care what anyone else thinks, affairs are immoral.

I've been thinking about leaving MB. Maybe it is time to move on.

Love you all and thank you, WAT, FH for all the wisdom I have gleaned from your posts. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

Love in Christ,
Miss M

<img border="0" alt="[Teary]" title="" src="graemlins/teary.gif" />

"We gaze up at the same stars, the sky covers us all, the same universe encompasses us. What does it matter what practical system we adopt in our search for the truth? Not by one avenue only can we arrive at so tremendous a secret."
- Symmachus, 384 BC

Miss M,

About respecting WAT and FH both so much, ditto that!

If there were ever a white guy sitting on my shoulder reminding me of the golden rule, it would surely be WAT.

If there were ever someone whom I would turn to with questions about the bible, or for gentle kindness when I am enraged, it would be FH.

This thread about breaks my heart, to see WAT and FH go head to head like this.

I am trying to break my addiction to MB as well, but for different reasons.

Dang it's a hard habbit to break!

Found a computer on my business trip.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by ForeverHers:
<strong>Obedience to God's commands? NOPE. Not needed, it's all relative. Do what you feel like doing.

Salvation through Christ? NOPE. Not needed since sin is "relative" and no absolutes apply.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Correct and correct. I'm glad we finally agree. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

I feel like continuing to live my life by the Golden Rule.

WAT

<small>[ February 01, 2005, 07:08 PM: Message edited by: worthatry ]</small>