Ya know, WAT, I tire of either your obtuseness or willful obstinancy. The "liberal" versus "fundamental" that I was referring to was WITHIN Christian churches. It has to do with God and Scripture and a Christians' role as a "bought and paid for servant of God."

No matter the source that defines "right" and "wrong", it comes down to individual ethics and integrity.

No, one more time, WAT, it does NOT come down to this conclusion. It DOES from your humanistic perspective, but it does NOT from a Christian perspective. The individual does NOT have the "right" to choose ethics and morals that are personally "appealing," but in opposition to God's clear teaching on the matter. GOD, not Man, is Sovereign. THAT is where you and I differ and will differ until we both face God at the Judgment.

The individual, Christian or otherwise CAN choose to sin and to behave against God's will. God gave all humans that ability when He gave us Free Will. But the ABILITY to choose does NOT confer "rightness" upon the choice. It is whether or not the "choice" and "action" are in concert with, are obedient to, God's Standards and commands that determines the "Rightness or Wrongness" of the choice.

That's where SIN enters in. That's were forgiveness of sin becomes a necessary part of the equation, as does REPENTANCE of the sin.

You would seek to argue that "humanism" is "as good as" or perhaps even "superior to" God's Standards, and I am in strong disagreement and oppostion to such an argument.

No one is arguing that there cannot be some "similarities," as in the "Golden Rule" that is a part of virtually all religions and civilizations. But there is a MARKED difference in what, and WHO, the STANDARDS are based on.

Christians SHOULD accept God as the Standard and His will as their will. That they don't always do so is further evidence of the existance of sin and the selfishness of Free Will left to it's own purposes.


.

No, it has more to do with your MOTIVES. You DON'T see adultery as FIRST and FOREMOST a sin against GOD. You see it solely as a "wrong" against other people. The "object" of Christian "rebuking" is the reestablishment of the sinners relationship with God as the PRIMARY "object." "Thou shalt not commit adultery" is a command of God. That a similar prohibition might be appropriated by unbelievers simply because they "like" the idea does not diminish or replace the fact that we are talking here, in this thread, about Professing Christians who ARE under the Standards of God by choice when they accepted Christ.

Endures4evr - a word of caution if I may. It is highly desireable if you are going to see Kathy that you have a second person with you for support and as a witness.

I understand your wanting to talk to Kathy about this, and she has a right to know what's been going on. But the FIRST attempt at "loving confrontation" should be with the SINNERS, not the betrayed. The sinner (Luke) should be made to understand that HE has a Christian obligation to TELL his wife, rather than have her find our from someone else. But if he won't, someone (you or someone else) WILL inform her because it IS rather common knowledge now.

I would waste no time in meeting with Luke and with the Pastor's wife if at all possible. The ELDERS, DEACONS, whatever the church has to fill the role of church leadership SHOULD be standing for God and doing the necessary steps of church discipline. But if they don't, then a member who trusts the Lord should act FOR the Lord and against willful sin or the "tolerance" of willful sin in the body.

This is NOT going to be easy. Have you enlisted the help of some prayer warriors to help in this battle and for your emotional support? "Going it alone" is okay when necessary, but if there are others who can "join with you," it is far better to have supportive helpers.

God bless.

FH - Still you equate godlessness to hedonism. That's the bottom line for you and you're wrong. I am godless (referring to your version of god) yet I am not hedonistic. I am a good person. I know right from wrong. I practice it in my daily life. I perform good deeds. How can that be?

It all comes down to your stubborn belief that it's your way or the highway.

Answer me this: Two people. One claims to be Christian and the other claims to be an athiest. What can we predict about their future behavior?

My answer is that we can accurately predict nothing. Neither one is immune from wrongdoing yet both might be good and just people in equal proportions.

I have chosen ethics and morals that appeal both to me and coincidently could be entirely consistent with "God's clear teaching on the matter." Have I displayed any ethics or morals in conflict with this - other than not accepting Christ?

Could I alter my ethics and morals at a whim? Sure. But I don't. Don't have reason to. Which brings us right back to the question you won't answer: which is worse? Not having authoritative morals or not following authoritative morals?

I maintain my humanistic standards are just as good as yours and better if I follow them better than you follow yours. Hence my question above - what can we predict about future behavior for a Christian vs an Athiest?

WAT

[color:"red"] [/color] Figured I'd try a color!
Thanks, Forever, for the caution. I won't be talking to Kathy. If anyone anyone would be unreceptive to change, it would be Kathy. Of the two, I think she is the fuel, so to speak. Not that Luke is a lost babe in the woods, but she was extremely assertive in her flirtatious behavior around him. She knew he wasn't happy (probably being friends with his sister gave her the 'in') and she saw an opportunity to have another fling like she did at their previous church.

WAT, I usually don't take sides on religious arguments because they usual go nowhere and cause nothing but rancor! But I agree with you on the matter of the outcome of a Christian vs an athiest. God gives us free will. We choose how to live our lives and treat others. We know what God expects of us, but whether we do do what God expects is another matter. Also, there are many who believe in God but do not embrace Christianity. Will they be locked out of heaven? No. Their beliefs center around whatever religion they were taught. It doesn't make it wrong.
I know a fellow student whose introduction to God was through a 12-Step program (as I was). He later accepted Christ as his savior but acknowledges that some folks don't. He's enormously spiritual, a good man. What loving God would turn away from someone who has devoted themselves to honoring God with pure intention but did not become Christian? The God of my understanding would love him regardless of his brand of religion. Does that make any sense?
Yes, I know I've strayed WWWAAAAAYYYYYY off. But I just wanted to throw my coffee money in! Okay, let me slip on my armor before anyone takes aim! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Hey, how do you get a font color? Mine is still white.

Endures...You said: "I wasn't trying to get my rocks off on juicy details if that's what you're alluding to."

I am confused again. I have never heard a woman say that.
I thought you were a female but women don't have 'rocks'.

[color:"red"]I[/color] [color:"green"]haven't [/color] [color:"blue"] quite [/color] [color:"orange"] figured [/color] [color:"yellow"] that [/color] [color:"purple"] out [/color] [color:"red"] yet [/color]. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Click on the font color and then type bewteen the color on/color off brackets.

WAT

Sounds to me like you are looking for something to be "confused" about. I am a female and have used that phrase. It is not gender exclusive. It simply means to get a thrill.

Sorry! I guess 'get my jollies' or whatever. I never thought about the 'rocks'! I guess you're right. I'm laughing my head off here. I feel so stupid!

WAT, I have come to expect nothing less from you than a constant distortion and refusal to understand anything about what it means to be a Christian.

FH - Still you equate godlessness to hedonism. That's the bottom line for you and you're wrong.

No WAT. I do not equate godlessness to hedonism. I equate it to "lost and unsaved" no matter how "good" they think they are.

I am godless (referring to your version of god) yet I am not hedonistic. I am a good person. I know right from wrong. I practice it in my daily life. I perform good deeds. How can that be?

WAT, we all know right from wrong unless we are mentally 'incompetent.' That was an "ability" that we got from Adam and Eve and was the "fruit" of the tree. Since you live in a society that was founded on "Judeo-Christian" principles, with laws that were founded in the same, I am not at all surprised that someone, including yourself, can choose to be "good" by societal standards. I PREFER that condition regardless of anyone's personal beliefs.

That still is not the issue. NONE of us is "good enough" to be saved through our own "works." ONLY through acceptance of Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior are we reconciled to God THROUGH what Christ did on our behalf. God established Jesus Christ as the ONLY way to be forgiven of all of our sins, be reconciled to him, and to learn to conform our lives to Christ-likeness as we surrender our lives in all areas to Him.

It's that "surrendered to Him" part that continually escapes you. It's NOT that Christians are perfect and incapable of sinning. Such a thought is mere "justification" for unbelievers to say dumb things like, "see, they are no better than unbelievers and in some cases worse than unbelievers." That, sadly IS a true statement, but it does not address the fundamental beginning question of salvation by the grace of God. By the same "logic" I COULD point to unbelievers who ARE "hedonistic" and also unbelievers who are "evil." To say that ALL unbelievers are like that, based on their actions, would be untrue and unfairly "painting them with an 'apples and oranges' sort of coloration."

There are MANY people who claim to be Christians, but you sure could not "prove" it from their lifestyle. They tend to conform themselves to the "world," and not to God. In fact, the Scripture warns us about them in many places, such as in the Parable of the Sower.

Answer me this: Two people. One claims to be Christian and the other claims to be an athiest. What can we predict about their future behavior?

My answer is that we can accurately predict nothing. Neither one is immune from wrongdoing yet both might be good and just people in equal proportions.

WAT, I'm not interested in "predicting" anyone's behavior. My point is simple; ALL people have Free Will and can choose, just as an unbelieving spouse who is married to a believing spouse (unevenly yoked) CAN CHOOSE to live in fidelity with their believing spouse and fulfill their role as husband or wife AS IF they were a Christian following God's commands. Likewise a believer, as well as an unbeliever, CAN fall prey to sin and commit adultery. Likewise a couple CAN choose fidelity their entire lives regardless of whether they are Believers or Unbelievers.

Where we diverge is not in the "capacity" of someone who tries to "behave" according to some set of "good behavior rules, be they God's rules or societies rules that are based in Judeo-Christian concepts, but it IS in the area of of person who HAS accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. The is, and always will be, a matter of salvation of the soul, not of any "good works."

So let's modify your statement/question a little to take it out the realm of "claim" and into the realm of reality. Two people. One [color:"blue"] IS a Christian who has surrendered their life to Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior[/color] and the other [color:"blue"] IS an athiest[/color]. What can we predict about their future behavior?

Now, if someone HAS had a true conversion experience they then have the indwelling Holy Spirit to help guide them and instruct them and convict them of areas of sin in their lives as HE helps to guide them in the process of Sanctification. If they have not, I really wouldn't expect much change because they are then not a "new creation."

It is the responsibility of each individual Christian to conform their lives more and more to Christ-likeness. As an aside, one way that one knows that process is happening is that the closer we walk with God, the more we recognize just how far short we fall and how far we still have to go to be "Christ-like."

An atheist would have NO indwelling Holy Spirit and their FUTURE, if that condition is not changed before they die, CAN be predicted with certainty. HOW a Christian lives his/her life on earth SHOULD be as a surrendered servant of the LORD. It is NOT a matter of claiming to be a Christian because of convenience, upbringing, or for "fire insurance." It is a personal relationship with God that an atheist will never have.

It all comes down to your stubborn belief that it's your way or the highway.

Wrong again, WAT. I has nothing to do with what *I* think. It is "God's way or the highway," not your way or my way or anyone else's way. THAT is the fundamental difference you can't grasp and why you think "comparing" individuals "wins" you an argument. God has said it quite plainly, THE WAY is a very narrow way and the way that leads to eternal destruction is a VERY WIDE WAY that most people are traveling.

One more time, then, I will ask you THE questions; "Is Jesus Christ who He said He is?" If He is, what stops you from accepting Him as YOUR Lord and Savior?

If He isn't, then by default, being "obedient" to His commands is "foolishness." If He isn't, then you de facto substitute "humanism" for "godliness." And YOUR chosen behavior is NOT incumbent upon anyone else to follow in like manner after you, or after any other construct of Man and/or Society, for that matter. The INDIVIDUAL gets to decide for themselves their own behaviors, individually, if there is no God to set "universal standards."

I honestly do not know what he actually said or claimed - I don't think anybody does. Assuming you are referring to what was attributed to Jesus saying, no, I do not accept that. You know this based on our prior "discussions."


Suppose I'm obedient to some or all of his commands just because they're coincidentally consistent with my standards, is that foolish?


Not necessarily - depends on what one believes is "godliness." Could be that one believes in a different version of god than you do.


I agree that no one has to follow my standards of behavior, other than my son as I raise him. (My success at that is another matter. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> ) But it is incumbent upon others in society to follow society's rules and laws. Don't you do this? This permits civilizations to exist.


I consider that individuals have to abide by society's rules that individuals may participate in setting.

FH - we've plowed this ground before. I agree that I can change my moral standards on a whim but if, as a result, they conflict with society's standards, I either get "corrected" or pay the consequences. I also have my conscience to answer to.

We agree that what you describe as "God's" standards are unchangeable by man (assuming God exists). But we also agree that just because someone professes to follow such unchangeable standards doesn't mean they always will. Hence my prior question to you, what difference does it make in predicting behavior? You apparently agree: None.


You mean, you have come to expect nothing MORE from me, right? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I haven't intentionally been distorting anything, but I can agree that I don't fully understand what it means to be a Christian or an adherent of any other faith since I cannot identify with any that I know of. It's not a refusal to understand, rather, it's an inability to understand.

But knowing as little as I do, I think I can identify hypocrisy when I see it. Knowing Christianity WAY better than I do means you ought to be able to identify hypocrisy among Christians even better. I have no reason to think you don't.


I'm neither lost nor need saving. And I'm glad you finally state it so clearly - when you think of someone like me as "lost and unsaved" it's a asterisk on their "goodness" and they need to be fixed.

WAT

Sorry to get a bit offtopic, but this line of thinking can be a bit dangerous.

I think that the problem is that you can't prove that there is a "God's way" anymore than a radical Islamic terrorist can prove that there's an
"Allah's way." Justification of actions based on "God's way" is very dangerous because there is no external validation of God's way. There's no way for you to prove your dead Christian friend is in heaven and a dead Islamic suicide bomber is not. Maybe you are right. Maybe they are right. Neither of you can prove it.

Marriages and fidelity have value outside of God.

[color:"red"] [Well, here's the story of the how my meeting went with Janet. It was pretty much the way I thought it would go. After some idle chatter and 25 attempts to get her son to leave us alone, I said, "I don't know what you'll make of this, but I have some pretty ugly news I want to share with you." She looked angry and scared at the same time. I said that there had been rumors of Luke being involved with Kathy, the minister's wife. She didn't move a muscle, nod her head, or anything. I was waiting for her to call me a liar. So then I said that recently a few people had seen them together in a neighboring town, and I was one of those people. I said that they had been spotted kissing a couple of those times. I asked her if she'd ever had any inkling that something wasn't right or that Luke might have been cheating, and she said she'd suspected it for a long time but that she had never had any proof, and figured that someone in the family would have said something to her if he was seeing someone because they work on the farm with Luke and would be inclined to know. She was quite calm, which was a great relief to me, but I suspect she had shut herself off. I imagined a big explosion when Luke marched through the door! I gave her the manilla envelope of MB reading material I had printed out, and told her that she would find the information in here very valuable and wonderfully helpful. I told her about the website too, which was printed in the material anyway. We talked a little more about it, my giving her my impression and adding that Kathy had done the same thing at their former church. Janet said that she and Luke had not been happy for a long time but they were hanging together for their son, Will. I asked if she thought about working things out, and she said she wasn't sure if she wanted to or not. I asked her to think about what it was that attracted her to him in the first place and if it was worth trying to recapture what they had. I told her she had every right to be furious, and could be mad at me for being the grim reaper, after all, we don't really know each other too well, and she would have a right to feel resentful of my coming there and giving her this intimate, horrible news. But she just said no, that it wouldn't have mattered who told her. It was getting close to the time when Luke would be coming across from the farm to get dinner, so I said I would leave and let her have a little 'alone time' (which, sadly, she probably has plenty of anyway!) She said "thanks for the printouts. I'll read them." I put my hands on her upper arms as I stood in front of her, and I said, "Please, know, Janet, that you can call me anytime, day or night, if you have any questions or you just want to cry or yell at someone. Everything you tell me will stay with me and go no further." I think she was a little relieved because I believe she always thought of me as Luke's friend, and that I would be more aligned with him. But if I could I would give him the biggest smack upside his empty melon head! While it's true that he's more my friend than she is, mostly due to the number of years we've been friends, I think of Janet as his partner and therefore my friend too. She's a hard person to warm up to because she's extremely quiet and not very warm, but she can be personable. I've enjoyed chatting with her about antiques and such.
So that's it, guys. I left and will call her tomorrow at the doctor's office she works at and check up on her, see how she's holding up. I anticipate a huge avalanche from Luke and don't know how I'll handle it. Please give me some tips on what to say to him and how to keep from boxing his ears.
Thanks so much for all your wonderful encouragement!! /color] <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> [color:"green"] [/color] [color:"green"] [/color]

Quick post:
I apologize if you have a hard time reading my post. I used the wrong color font and couldn't get it changed. I've got to get used to these commands! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

Wow, good job.

That must have been very difficult and you should be proud for doing the right thing. You are a good person.

Be prepared for Luke to think of you or confront you as evil or of invading his privacy. That reaction would be very typical.

The recommended thing now, or one of the recommended things, for Janet to do is contact the minister (OW's husband) - but she has no evidence other than your testimony. Normally when exposing to the OP's spouse, we recommend hard evidence to counter the expected denial. If Janet chooses to contact OW's H, she may name you as her source. Be ready for this, but I think you must understand this already.

WAT

Hey Endures,

I'm proud of you. Of course sad at the same time, but what you did was necessary and hard.

WAT is right, there will probably be some backlash from Luke. He may say they're just friends. That would be typical. I'd then ask him if he is willing to kiss Kathy the same way in front of Janet? Anything he isn't willing to do with his W present could be considered a betrayal of his vows before God and Janet.

Hang tough and keep doing the right thing.

BTW - I think it is harder to read when there are no paragraphs in the post rather then the color red.

Bless you.

S&C

[color:"yellow"] [Well, the sh*t will hit the fan, of that I'm certain. I'm in the process of getting loaded, and I don't care! I'm tense, anxious, depressed, and menopausal. Bad combo. Oh well, tomorrow's another day, Scarlett!

My girlfriend Sue, who lives out of state, but who grew up with me and Luke (we all graduated h.s. together), said I should have let things be. She's a "conservative" Christian! This woman is a Bible-totin' Baptist, and she's telling me to let the affair run its course! Shoot me cuz I must be crazy! What is wrong with these people, the ones telling me to leave it alone?

Tomorrow I have an early day. Maybe I'll visit Luke at the farm and shoot me some quail, [censored] Cheney style! (Do you believe that??! What a donkey!) <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" />
'Oh, God! I thought you were a covey of quail! Pardon me while I reload!'

Time for a refill. Who said 'I shall return'? Custer? Patton? /color]

Well I guess they've never been the BS. Here's a letter to WS from a poster by the name of trueheart. You can give this to Janet or to Luke himself trueheart's letter to WS's.


Just be careful where ya point that thing.


uummm, isn't Cheney an elephant? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" />

Keep us posted.

Bless you.

S&C

Many, many affairs - maybe the majority of them - do indeed "run their course" without intervention. But these are the "smart" affairees - they come to their senses before anyone finds out and hopefully learn their lessons and mend their ways.

And guess why these "smart" WSs come to their senses?

Could it be the fear of being exposed? You betcha!

Really intoxicated WSs, I believe, actually think they're being successful keeping their affairs a secret. Very irrational confidence. We've heard lies that a 4 year old wouldn't believe.

"Intoxication" is an apt term - their brains are flooded with dopomine and their normal "oops" response is shuttered - the self correcting "better not do that" limiter that "sober" folks naturally have. This is why college kids at a kegger will do stupid stuff like try to jump to the next balcony. The love drug has the same effect.

Anyway, this is why exposure has to be implemented for the hard core affairees. Luke's case is an example - he honestly probably thinks no one notices. Your friend's advice is dead wrong for a case like this. The cynic in me comcludes this is just another example of the "fatalism" displayed by some folks in some faiths - turn it over to God, He'll fix it and we have no responsibility.

Endures - look for a thread titled, "Oops, is this the Fog?". It's an old one I'll find and bump up for you. You may find it interesting.

BTW, you can get rid of the yellow text by editing your post and deleting the color codes.

WAT

Endures4ever, with THIS I agree with WAT.

With respect to your friend, Sue, I disagree. Sadly, though, NOT confronting a "brother" who is sinning is becoming the "norm" for many churches as they abandon Matthew 18:15-20 and the concept and teaching of "church discipline" because it's often "uncomfortable."

There are many resources that are available to you and I'll see if I can find some of them.

I am "out of time" myself, as I must go out of town (tomorrow morning) to the frozen "northland" of Wisconsin for the next week to help my parents who have encountered some health and lifestyle changing issues. I will probably be unable, or very limited in ability, to connect to the internet while I'm gone. Uff da!

It is probably incumbent upon you, now that Janet is informed, to also let the Pastor know what you have witnessed and that others in the church have also directly witnessed "inappropriate behavior," in the spirit of reconciling sinners to God, not in a spirit of "malicious gossip and meddling." Matthew 18 makes it incumbent upon Christians to "be their brother's keeper" when there is known willful sin in their lives.

God bless and surround you with His protection, wisdom, and peace.