piojitos:

sorry about the 2's. It's kind of a genetic imperative with me. Hit me sometime in 2002, and has stuck since. I "lost" the posts of one of my favorite thinkers at the time, as I recall, because she didn't like the 2's either. Espoir, I think her username was. I still feel bad about that. She had great insight.

But what can I do? I'm the '2 guy'. I must follow my calling, or die in the attempt.

FH:

I'm sure I've seen more nonsensical things in my lifetime, but I sure can't remember them.

Yaknow, though?

I don't want 2 play anymore. I must go now.

-ol' 2long

2long, I've seen the same sort of nonsense before 2.

So what is the "nonsense" you are referring to now?

Kinger,

Your initial question was about justifying an affair, and whether or not the WS believes an affair can be justified.

I want to respond from the standpoint of a marriage that is in the recovery phase - we are making it out of the he//hole that was left in the wake of my husband's affair last fall. He had a 2-3 month sexual affair with an acquaintance. He says no emotional connection, just sex only, she says the same thing. It was over the moment I found out. He is remorseful, and was definitely in a fog at the time.

I think what is referred to as "justification" should be viewed carefully. If you are talking about what the WS says on d-day or shortly thereafter about why they had the affair, I think that we are talking about something other than justification. That, to me, is more about self-preservation in the first place, then probably more complicated after the initial moments. Right at getting caught, there is probably denial, then what you call justification - basically, lies generated to protect the self. The WS doesn't want to look bad, doesn't want to have others think he's bad, doesn't want to hurt someone (either the BS or the OP), etc. On d-day and right after that, the "justification" you hear is pretty thin. It probably follows right along the same lines as the thinking that went on in the WS's mind when he/she was entering the A in the first place. Part of the "fog".

Later on, the justification does change. Once the fog is lifted, both spouses have had some time to figure out what they feel, where the marriage is going, etc., the justifications likely change. In the case where the BS and WS both want to save the M, justifications fall away very quickly, as they are pretty much non-productive in the recovery process. They give way to more meaningful dialog about the true why and how and what of the affair, the relationship, and the future. The justifications turn into questions to be explored about what is wrong with the relationship, and what can be done to turn it around, as opposed to "this is why I did what I did". Truth be told, most WS cannot really put one true reason down for why they had an affair in the first place. Too many reasons, a very complicated web.

Is your question about remorse? I think most WS do have remorse, whether or not they remain in the marriage, love the BS, the OP, and so on. Societal norms would dictate that adultery is wrong, is not acceptable by and large, and most people who violate in this magnitude have remorse. If not, that would indicate the WS is truly a callous person indeed, don't you think? To feel no remorse for hurting someone? I imagine there are a few WS out there who don't have remorse, but the vast majority do. From what I have read and seen, when a WS is in an active affair, there is often a sort of compartmentalization that happens in the mind, which allows them to live with their betrayal and guilt. Many WS are able to separate the two "love lives", which explains why some affairs can last so long, by this compartmentalization. Other WS end up confessing their affairs out of guilt - they are probably lousy compartmentalizers......or maybe just more honest people? Can't really say for sure.

Don't listen to the "justifications" at or near d-day. You can't rely on them. You need time to pass for both people to be able to evaluate the true meaning of the affair, where the WS was in his/her head, and time to let the fog lift. There are neurobiological factors involved as well, if you would like to start a new thread (or if the threadjackers would move elsewhere, hint, hint) I would like to talk about this some more. Also, I'd like to answer your question about forgiveness.

As I said - not a criticism - just more of an observation. I do find it physically painful to try to read them. It is not just you. There are other posters who go way over the top on abbreviations. Orchid is one. Whenever I find that I have to pause continually to try to make out what the poster is saying, I lose the meaning of the post. I finally learn to just stop reading.

If 2's is what you have to do, more power 2 you. It is my loss.

It IS your loss Piojitos. 2long could tell you all about rock science, or was that rocket science? I always get them mixed up.

believer,

Yes I know it is my loss because of what little I have been able to read, I sense that 2long has some really great things to say. It truly does hurt me physically to read threads all broken up. As I mentioned, it is not just 2long.

schoolbus,

I think kinger may be gone. I would like for you to start a new thread. In fact, I might do it for you. You are one of the few that has had anything relevant and intelligent to say on this thread in quite a while that has anything to do with infidelity. Just don't mention Christianity on the new thread at all and hopefully others will stay away.

Just ignore everyone, piojitos.
Then everyone will stay away.

Well now that would be worthwhile. I am interested in both as it turns out. Rock science out of necessity (we punch holes in it every day and try to suck it dry so you will have gas for your SUV) and rocket science as a hobby.

FH,

As long as you never post on any of my threads, that will be helpful enough. Thanks. But I think we have already had that discussion. No matter.

I am not gone. I have not "run for the hills."

Wow! My post brought out quite an interesting discussion.

ForeverHers suggested that I do not subscribe to Protestant beliefs, which is inaccrate.

If I am understanding ForeverHers posts correctly, ForeverHers believes the bibles written word is literal. If I am correct, there is no need to debate ForeverHers position. It is a waist of time. ForeverHers mind is closed. It is a completely useless to debate ForeverHers beliefs. Whether it is right or wrong, it doesn't really matter because ForeverHers is here to impose beliefs not debate them.

Schoolbus, I appreciate your post. It was very insightful. I would also like to discuss forgiveness.

kinger,

Gee and you figured that out so quickly. Good for you. Glad you are back. Schoolbus started a thread for you.

Kinger, you really are quite interesting, especially your lack of understanding of the difference between "literal" and "inerrant." Instead of answering simple, clear, questions to you, here you are doing EXACLTY what you want to accuse me of doing. Very telling.

For the record, Kinger, I never "impose" my beliefs on anyone, but I am NOT shy about "debating" them, or "standing in defense of them," or in debating someone else's "dogmatic" belief (i.e. evolution) that they want to impose on others and then they run for hills or stoop to emotional and/or personal attacks rather than "debate" the facts when someone has the "temerity" to take the other side in the "debate." There is a term for that sort of thing, but it's pointless to state it.

Regardless, it would seem clear that you consider "subscribing to Protestant beliefs," whatever that may mean, to be sufficient in God's eyes to be "born again." It's possible you might be a Christian, but since we have no idea WHAT you define as "Protestant beliefs" and since you refuse to state clearly what your beliefs about Jesus Christ are, I'll just assume it's more of the same "I'm okay, you're all nuts" sort of stuff you began this thread with. So much for dialoge with you, it would seem. I suppose the other posters were right after all and I was opting on the "benefit of the doubt" side too much after all.

Good luck with whatever search for answers you might be looking for. You'll find folks like to piojitos to be perhaps more to liking with their "openmindedness."

It is a pity you never really answered the questions put to you and that you take so long in responding that coherency is lost and the thread can go off on tangents while waiting around for you to show up. Then, when you do show up, you think the thing to do is to abuse other posters who might be trying to help you. Protestant? Perhaps. Christian? Wouldn't seem so.

Regardless, good luck, I do mean that.

Kinger - it's also interesting that you have no compunction to stooping to personal attacks when it suits you, even though you apparently didn't like it when bigkahuna questioned your motives for posting.

Interesting set of Standards you've chosen.

Apparently Kinger really didn't find it at all helpful despite what he said (as his attack on me would indicate anyway).



By the way, Kinger, IF this "My #1 belief in life, which is highly religious by nature, is that everyting happens for a reason", is what you think is "Protestant belief," let alone "Christian belief that saves," I can understand your attack on me and my beliefs.

Too bad you just wouldn't actually engage in discussion of all of those beliefs. I stand on my previous advice to you, as my last advice to you, you really should reexamine your chosen set of Boundaries and Standards.

I hope it all works out for you Kinger.

ForeverHers


It sounds to me as though you're doing the same thing. You said earlier:


So, it appears to me that you believe that God exists (specifically, the Christian God of the Bible and Jesus Christ) and, therefore, the Bible is a credible source of information.

It seems odd to me that you would think it's a preconception that people would start of with a 'no god' assumption as that appears to me to be the 'natural state' or the 'default position' otherwise there would be no need for anyone to learn about God.

I did read the Josh McDowell book. I found it .. interesting... but not really all that compelling in terms of really proving anything. More than anything else, it seemed to overly obscure things instead of just saying: Here. The proof is here.

I did try to keep an open mind but I'm not sure anyone really is capable of completely ignoring all their prior thoughts and experiences when trying to figure something out - or if that someone exists, she is not me.

What I find the strangest part of this whole thing is the concept that the earth is only 10,000 years old. I can't quite wrap my mind around how that can be true. We have entire fields of study (geology, archeology, astronomy) that have dated things to be much, much older than that by reliable methods that are correlative. Are you suggesting all our methods of dating based on radioactive isotope half life's is just wrong? What evidence is there anywhere to support that?

I mean, I can see arguing against 4.something billiion years and 4.something else billion years old but the discrepancy between 4 billion years and 10,000 years is mind boggling.

Anyway, I'm not actually looking for an answer from you. I understand that you believe that even if no one else believes in the God of the Christianity, all these things remain facts for you. I wonder if you're able to turn your perspective around and understand that all of us that believe different things, believe them the same way you do. They remain facts to us and 'the way things are' whether or not you choose to embrace those facts.

The thing that bothers me the most, is your constant assertion that people who don't believe in God are doing so because they are bothered most by making the lifestyle changes they'd have to make if they DID beliieve in God. It implies that we're all just doing this to be difficult and rebellious and it also implies that we're implicitly doing something wrong or living poor lives which just isn't true.

The harder I tried to look for God the more cynical about Him I have become. I've stopped for the time being. No one seems to want to answer what are to ME the important questions. Instead, people seem to want to direct my questioning into places that aren't compelling, that aren't convincing, and that frustrates me to no end. Maybe it's a misguided, "consumer mentality" that I have or something. On the other hand, it does seem to be a question of some importance and something that should be duly weighed and investigated -- not just a 'jump on the bandwagon and start singing because everyone else does.'

Oops, small rant there. It wasn't directed at you, I was just describing my experiences since we've dialogued before about how I just don't believe.

Anyway, I just can't wrap my mind around discounting all those branches of science (forget about just biology) enough to say the earth is only 10,000 years old. It's just not credible. I suppose if I can't make that leap -- it doesn't really matter how all the 'stuff' got on the planet, does it?

Mys

Myschae - Since I have to leave in a few minutes, all I can do right now is to acknowledge I read you post and a give you a very brief response to one part of it.

I understand the difficulty, and let me say that whether I accept that the earth may be only several thousand years old instead of millions of years old is "irrelevant" to the discussion of origins and evolution.

There is a LOT of scientific evidence that touches on all the areas of "contention," including radiometric dating.

I'd be happy to get into that, but it seems most have decided that they don't want to consider anything that might cast "doubt" on the Evolutionary Model."

ForeverHers


I understand that you feel this way but please understand that I consider it to be of significant importance to the question because, if the Earth is only 10,000 years old, then there simply hasn't been enough TIME for the observed evolutionary changes to have occurred (ie, there must be some alternate explanation). Evolution requires enormous amounts of time - 10,000 years isn't nearly sufficient.


Really? There's lots of scientific evidence that supports a discrepancy on conventional dating types that accounts for <quick calculation> a discrepancy that is 5 orders of magnitude 10^5?

I don't know how you feel about it, but when you're dealing with numbers ranging from 10^4 - 10^9 then +/- 10^5 isn't exactly a discrepancy! It's outright proving that the method is utterly useless as any type of measure for anything at all. I'm surprised that type of evidence hasn't revolutionized the fields. My assumption is that many of the experts in the field must not agree or give any credence to this evidence -- which makes me question "why?" I really don't think it's some anti-religious conspiracy because that's just not the way I understand science to work.


I don't think it's that we don't want to cast doubt on the Evolutionary Model -- heck, I'm not even at considering Evolution at the moment. I'm still back on the age of the Earth, the Sun, and the stars. Honestly, FH, if there were evidence that everything (?) is only 10,000 years old then it would be much more believeable that things had to be created rather than evolved into being. But, we HAVE things that are older than 10,000 years (fossils, rocks, trees, oil, diamonds.. etc) and, while that doesn't prove evolution or creation, it certainly seems to imply that a 10,000 year old Earth is impossible. Light from the Andromeda Galaxy is 33 million light years old, for gosh sakes.


Mys

Okay, Myschae, if you want to continue this discussion, I'm going to move it to a different thread. This is Kinger's thread, for whatever purpose Kinger wants it to be. Would that be okay with you? If so, I will copy your post to that thread so that you, and anyone else who might want to spend some time on a topic not directly relating to "saving marriages" can have an intellectual discussion and examination of the subject. Should you wish to continue, please respond on that thread. Perhaps when it's established I'll come back and edit this post to include the whereabouts of that thread.


Edited to add the link to the above mentioned thread:
To be or not to be....

FH,

I noticed something, can you please take a look at how your previous post comes across? I have put my comments. For what it's worth, u might want to consider your efforts vs your output.



This is Kinger's thread, [/quote]

Orchid: Good




Orchid: Not good. In fact, it's bad.


Orchid: Good.

I respect your opinions as I do most posters. Yet you have a way of getting under the skin of some. I know I have in the past also. Each of us have a right to our own opinions and s/b respected as such. Then it's ok to have deep discussions.

You see, that 1 small 'bad' post totally derails your intent.

One other very important point.....most come here to learn how to deal with their inidivudal sitches regarding A, R & M issues. Sometimes it's best not to get tooo deep into issues where personal opinions (or sometimes even fact) can detract from their original objective from being here.

Then we can all benefit without feeling encroached upon.

JMHO, hope it helps.
L.

Orchid, I'm not going to "spar" with you. I understand what you are trying to say.

You don't like the "for whatever purposes" part of what I said, and you are entitled to not like it.

Plainly, it IS Kinger's thread and he is already using it for whatever purposes he likes, so it's irrelevant, it would seem, if you take "offense" at my stating the obvious.

Regardless, NO ONE is required to participate in ANY thread or any discussion unless they want to and choose to.

IF some may want to discuss basket weaving, in depth, or knitting, or the history and "evolution" of the Hula dance, then they can. ONE thread with only willing participants will hardly detract from all the other threads dedicated to infidelity or helping others.

I WOULD submit that discussing evolution and creation WILL help those who are interested in those subjects as long as it, as with any thread, is conducted with civility, objectivity, and tolerance of divergent views. Not really too different, if you'll think about it, than "infidelity threads" where posters do not ascribe to "all the points of the 'Harley way'." There IS room for divergence of opinion and each person weighs the arguments and decides for themselves which they think are applicable to themselves and whether or not to embrace those ideas for themselves.

As you said, "JMHO, hope it helps."
FH

FH: I understand why you think my post was a personal attack. It did read much more harsh than I meant it. However, I stand by the meaning, which is that there is no need debating you, because your firm in your beliefs. There is nothing wrong with that. It just makes debate on that topic useless.

My position on evolution is so weak that I don't think it merits argument. You asked for my belief. There it is. Evolution certainly seems much more reasonable and logical than Adam and Eve. However, I believe that everything happens for a reason. Is that reasonable and logical? Probably not, but I believe it.

Am I correct that you totally dismissed my belief that everything happens for a reason as not being Christian? If so, why? I am seriously curious.

I do not think you all are nuts and I am okay as you suggested. I apologize for not responding to your questions in a timely manner.

As for my Christian beliefs, I don't think I can offer an answer that is all that suitable. You have already questioned my beliefs. You have suggested that my beliefs are not Christian without me even posting. Heck, you may be right. I don't know. Believing in a power greater than us is highly religious, which is all that I really stated if you think about it. I believe in right and wrong. I am a member of a Protestant Church, which is where all of my religious teachings have come from, which is why I prefaced that in my comments.

I just don't know. I have not questioned your religious beliefs one bit. I just stated that you were not open for discussion concerning them. What do you want me to say? I feel like I need to defend my beliefs to you, like my beliefs are not good enough. What else do you want me to say?