Thank you FH, I really appreciate it! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> Oh and I am sorry 'bout the smart aleck "daddy" comment! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Mrs. W

BP - I replied to your statement: "I am not a drama queen."

And you said: "And you don't think this response was just a LITTE BIT OTT ? I'm a human being. Equal to you."

To you, it may be off. But then, you defined who I am...a drama queen...which isn't a human being...it's a label.

I believe you honestly have not discerned the difference in telling someone who they are, what they should feel, think, believe or how they should perceive...and stating your own opinion as the opinion it is and not fact. As if your opinion isn't valid unless you state it like fact.

You are free to to tell me who you THINK I am, any day of the week. To share your perceptions, perspectives...as your own. It's not implied when you state definitively "You are a drama queen." And you can't control what anyone infers...(and yes, I'm slipping in the correct conjugation of imply and infer...because it's tricky). I am not saying you are abusive because I feel abused, don't like your opinion or am a victim. I'm owning my perception...and believe this is biblically outlined...God defines me and no other. You can point to my actions...own your own perceptions, though, 'k?

"Show me where I said you were not." By stating as fact that I am a drama queen. I can't be any more clear than that, BP. You sound like you're saying your intent wasn't to reduce me to a label, an object. I won't assume to know. You may rationalize and say, "Well, all people know that drama queens are humans" and you would be stating your opinion as fact. I happen to believe that drama queens are not real, not human. The term is a label.


MEDC - Had you read my post to BP (re: where he lied and said I told HIM that his WW's A was a wonderful gift to him). I clarified. I did NOT say that to him. I said it to Larry. I own I said it two years ago on a thread called "Do The Feelings Ever Go Away?" I've learned a lot since then. Thank you for your opinion, if I had said that to him.

Patriot - My biological mother had affairs and I am literally born of one. I was adopted into a marriage which had infidelity in it. Then I was adopted by my stepmother, who married my father two days after her divorce was final.

It does just keep on giving. Giving an OC up for adoption has no more guarantees than keeping it. However, I would see it as a most devastating consequence to the mother as I can imagine...and believe that we have to hit that bottom before we truly repent.

No one can decide that for any human being, IMO. We can't determine what it will take to get a person to the place where they understand these are consequences to their own choices. We can't make people own anything. And, like Al-Anon says...you can find someone in your family tree, even on a far limb, relating to alcohol...I believe the same for affairs...and we are handed down directly and indirectly a lot of family secrets, which affect us, relating to infidelity, whether we know about them or not.

Which is why I don't believe Noodle has the answer on this one...I don't think there is one. I respect she believes differently. My parents believed much what she did...only it was about a baby to me, an unwed mother. I hear, "Give up that baby when it's born or suffer the consequences." And they made themselves the consequence...a boundary enforcement...and disowned me. So I got to face the choice to give up or not...just as I've experienced being given up.

I believe it's one thing to form systems to make humans work...it's totally another reality when you experience it. Which was what I thought we were doing on MB...sharing our experiences...

I'm feeling really, really slammed. Dispirited by a spiritual thread...Holy Ghost alerting me to my sins? Which has more impact...Patriot...BS/WS seeing vets slam, DJ, AO and SD here...or JJ's questions about God? Is she really that terrifying a symbol? She's human. In a human marriage.

Pep and BP - In an A marriage, there is no booty...there was no prize...there is no profit...there is more of the same fantasy, as JJ said, until one of the partners cheats again...and they will...and then reality comes in.

I don't see gain here at all...I see more of the same...which is why replacing people doesn't make you thin, healthy, or beautiful...and surely doesn't get you authentically loved to your core.

Which is what happens in marriages that recover. They have the booty, the prize, the blessings. JJ's road is a heckuva lot harder. I pray she gets where God wants her...in spite of how his representatives here have defined who she is, what she believes, thinks, feels.

And I hope she'll share the journey with others.

LA

Okay and I believe that she can still do that in the "Quiet Corner"...Those that choose to read or help her can just as easily do it there, no?

LA, if you truly want to help Jilly why does it matter where it is done? Why is it so important to a few of you to help her ONLY here in the trenches on GQII?

My questions are sincere, I really don't understand...<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Mrs. W

BK - You are absolutely correct, there are still many things that are mystery to us because God has either not revealed it to us or chosen to only partially reveal something. An example would be the "when" of the second coming. It has been revealed that it WILL occur, but the timing is reserved for God only to know. WE are instructed to be ready (as in being truly born again) "as if" it could be immediately. And, obviously, at some point in time, it WILL be immediate for those living at God's chosen time.

That you are fundamental in your beliefs is a good thing. But my comments were directed at your statement regarding the "sheep and goats" separation of peoples when Christ comes again. In that context you made it very clear that you do not think that separation is based upon faith alone. If not faith alone, then what else is "needed?" Since we are told quite clearly that we are saved by faith alone, and since you have also stated that you do not believe in the fundamental doctrine of Eternal Security, I would ask you to say what you think will be the "determining factor" in the separation of the "sheep and goats." If it includes "works," then the next logical question would be "which works" and "how many works" and what if the "work" that is needed happens right when the second coming occurs and a person no longer has the chance to do that work?

What I am looking for is clarification of what YOU believe, so we don't have to play the "mind reading" game and you don't have to keep telling me that I have a "wrong understanding" of what you DO believe in this area you brought up of "sheep and goats" and in "saved or not saved," and "saved or capable of losing one's salvation."

Faith without works is not necessarily dead. As you said, we don't know the heart condition, but God does. Certainly the thief on the cross with Jesus had no works. Yet he was saved simply because of his faith, and it was genuine and not a "deathbed, get out of jail, attempt."

What James has said is that someone who claims to be a believer, to have faith in Jesus Christ, WILL, at least over time, exhibit works that God has given to the individual to do. That is consistant with what Paul said. "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared in beforehand that we should walk in them." (Eph.2:10 NKJV)

It is not the "works" that brings salvation, but it is consistant to "expect" to see changes in a believer's life wherein they are trying to be obedient to God. That is, after all, the "work" that Jesus gave us. "If you love Me, keep My commandments." "This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you." (John 14:15; 15:12 NKJV)

What is clear from the "sheep and goats" is that those who are saved by true faith in Jesus will have done "works" in response to His love for them and that others who have not done anything but claimed to be believers, or who were always unbelievers, will be the "goats." The "issue" isn't the "works," because of at least two major points.
First, works don't save anyone, faith alone does.
Second, many unbelievers do "good works" such as described in that passage in Matthew 25, and they are not, and will not, be saved.

This goes "hand in hand" with the admonition to those who profess to believe to "make sure of their salvation." That is, to actually be surrendered in spirit to God, not just doing things to "earn" good marks. Another way to look at it is a warning to not take God's love for granted and think that merely by "saying" some words that one is saved.

What I guess is the question is whether or not you think that a "good work" that JJ needs to do is to divorce her husband as a way to "prove" that she has had a saving faith. Obviously I don't think so, particulary since that would entail a divorce, which is something God hates. It would be akin to saying that a thief must cut off his hands to prove that he won't steal again. I also look at what she has said and what she has done since accepting Christ as indications of her truly being born again.

Nope, BK. Not judging you. Merely grouping you with those who think that JJ's marriage is "illegitimate" and that she should divorce her husband.

Just like others seem to be grouping me into a cadre of "fundamental" believers (meaning that is "bad"), among other things, etc.


I would also, for example, group you in with people who do not believe in Eternal Security for believers, simply because you have previously stated you don't believe in Eternal Security and that a believer CAN lose their salvation. That isn't judging you either. You are not judged by God either for not believing in Eternal Security. It may be "incorrect theology," but it is NOT what determines whether or not someone is saved. There was a time before I really had to sit down and examine the doctrine of Eternal Security when I also thought that someone could lose their salvation.

Now, if someone thinks that they are saved by their own works, and not by faith in Christ alone, I would most likely group that person in with the "unbelievers" group because the Scripture clearly teaches that faith alone is what saves us, "lest anyone should boast."

No judgment concerning your "standing with God" was intended, but if you were offended by that grouping, please accept my apology.

[color:"red"] L A [/color]



The booty is what the betrayed now has to live with or live without ....

the booty is the trail of tears of others

the booty is what was taken without the right to interlope

security
finances
hope
sometimes the very will to go on

the booty is what the betrayed says was taken from him/her .... not what the adulterous denies taking

Well that was a direct quote from scripture - the KJV - here is the NIV version of it....



Agreed. Our works do not save us. We are saved BY FAITH.


Well Jesus, when asked by these groups, told them in no uncertain terms it was because they did not follow his commandments.



OK Let me emphatically answer this. I don't at all see this as a good work I see this as repentance. Now I ghave seen you in the past equate the two but they are not the same. Repentance is not a good work.

I am NOT saying that JJ has to divorce to be saved either. Just to be clear. I have persistently and consistently said I do not know what her standing before God is.

Well having identified with you in that label I would not say that is a bad thing either would I? LOL.


See this is where we have the problem FH because it is YOU who I believe has the bad theology, yet you continually pound on this point without ever acknowledging that there really ARE opposing views here.

You pound on and on about Scripture being the final authority without ever acknowledging that people also only relying on scripture come to a different view.

You pound on and on that any view in opposition to yours is "man's view" not God's and apparently YOU are the only and final arbiter of such.

Pep-

You said-

I stole exactly what from you? What cannot be returned? To me, that specific choice of words is a little confusing. If you would clarify this, I would be grateful.

Your trust and good will are still yours to give freely, give conditionally, rescind, or withhold. Your choice.

Maybe you think I stole your time? I can go with that. If so, please accept my apology. I agree that time is one thing that cannot be returned. Would love to hear your thoughts beyond that, if you feel so inclined.

Am I still stealing by lurking and benefitting from your wise counsel to others, even if you are unaware? Is this a possibility? Definitely a sobering thought for me. Ugh.

The ones injured the most by my lie were God first, and myself second and the good people of this site after that. The long term repercussions of my poor choice still rebound off the walls of this forum. The short term gain I got at the time just wasnt worth it.

Even if I think that I could help someone now, I don't post, fully realizing that my advice may be seen as tainted by my own hand. An obvious consequence. I see that now. Wish I'd had the foresight to see it then.

Offered as further clarification, I directed my husband to this thread not because of JJ's circumstance, but I thought the various expositions on Scripture in general and classic Reformed theology in particular were outstanding to say the least. And wanted to share those with him.

I do not seek for history to be erased or undone. Not possible. On this we agree also. Not sure exactly what I am seeking, but my gut says there is something there to be uncovered. Hmmm....

Well, DH is home, and time to cook dinner. I do believe that he plans on visiting this thread after dinner.

I can hardly wait. He can tell us all how we aren't saved again.

Who knows - he may even apologise to MrsW

MrsW,

"Okay and I believe that she can still do that in the "Quiet Corner"...Those that choose to read or help her can just as easily do it there, no?

LA, if you truly want to help Jilly why does it matter where it is done? Why is it so important to a few of you to help her ONLY here in the trenches on GQII?

My questions are sincere, I really don't understand..."

I don't understand myself right now, either, MrsW.

What I saw when JJ came on was her attacked posting on another thread, if I recall...then making her own...and attacked...and then MM made this one...and she stuck to two threads only.

Now I see her being attacked again...because of where she's posting? Can you put yourself in my perception for a moment when I say I see bullying? Because I was one?

This blurs the lines for me greatly. I saw the initial attack as "we don't support people in A marriages so do not post here on MB" become "you are legitimizing your A marriage" to "it's okay to post to two threads, just not here on GQII".

I see a push back, demands...and bullying. Changing the premise of the attacks...though I believe that the pain of BS/WS was the principle behind each one. And not all the posts were attacks...they were statements to protest...and became attacks by being repeated, justified threadjacking, and seemingly, will not cease until JJ gives in to one more demand.

That's my perspective. I'm looking for others. I posted "Fear, Love and Marriage" tonight to help me see more clearly...and again, I own my perception may be distorted because I was a bully...wanting what I wanted, when I wanted it and in the way I wanted it.

I'm sensing that here.

I just suggested to a newbie to move her post to GQII...gets the most traffic, therefore, the most help. There's been infidelity in her marriage...not current. She was posting under Resolving Conflict. Where to put what in the forums with the overlap can be confusing for me.

So to tell JJ to move her thread because though it is spiritual, contains infidelity, inner conflict, ENs..."Other Topics" is where you want her now.

I am astonished and appalled at you not addressing how terroristic your crew's posts are...where I know you would see SD's if this were between other posters...because I hurt you stop, you move, you do it this way, now, other there.

That's what I'm hearing and what I'm not sure of...because that isn't congruent with what I believed these posters choice of actions. I'm blown away.

And I know what they justify doing to other, they will justify doing to me. And what they justify doing to me, they will do to others...and now I'm severely afraid for our BS and WS's safety...which puts me where you are, putting their pain as our highest priority.

I'm looped. I'm sorting it out.

Thank you for your respect and not attacking me.

LA

One thing I do not believe Bop P to be is a liar. And who you said it to is of little importance... that you said it at all is shocking...that it came out of the mouth of a FWS (and BSif I am right) is downright offensive.



The loss is the same for the bio dad....but IMO, that consequence pales in comparison to what I would venture a guess is the number that are slaughetered so that mommy can hide the dirty little secret.... that is a dire consequence to mother, father and mostly to unborn baby.



When did you learn to speak like this??? Perhaps in Bob's eyes you are a drama queen...so to him, it is fact. Your view of yourself may be as off as Bob's... and certainly not objective.

I like you LA.... you have made me think about many things... but IMO, you come across as very learned in matters of human interaction... when IMO, it is people that are free to call a "duck" by its true name that are in fact the truly evolved ones. JMO and one area where we surely differ. Bob wasn't telling you who you are... he was telling you his opinion of what you are...and to him, that is reality.

And so that I am clear... I suggested point blank to someone in an A marriage today that her presence here is offensive to many and that I hope she leaves this forum. IMO, an A marriage has no place here...so she was being cheated on... big deal...I didn't care that the drug dealer got robbed of his illegal earnings... that was not a concern.... it doesn't matter to me to see an affair marriage suffer the consequences of its existance. I really don't wish them any ill will... but that does not mean that I need to extend a helping hand to help heal something to which I am morally opposed.

-emphasis mine


LA...I have no "crew"...I am not responsible for anyone here but myself...I stand by what I've said on this thread, as I've said previously, this whole thing has my soul SCREAMING...

I'm stunned by your above quote to be honest...feels like an attack to me...

Mrs. W

MEDC,

I hear you took offense at what I believed for me. I understand. That BobP took it as you are, making it broader than it was, the truth, not my truth, is where the lies come in.

I apologized to Larry for asking if he would consider that perspective...that belief. I will not apologize to you, BobP or any other BS because I didn't say it to them. Wasn't sharing that belief from two years ago with them.

I believe you have to take offense, like blame, MEDC. You can't make it offensive as a fact. And I did not say BP was a liar...another gross twist of my words. I said he lied about me saying it to him.

He made it about him. I didn't.

"When did you learn to speak like this???"

The Bible, MC, books like "Boundaries in Marriage" by Cloud and Townsend based on biblical principles. I call it respect.

"Perhaps in Bob's eyes you are a drama queen...so to him, it is fact."

I believe his opinion is valid...it's his. When he makes it a fact about me, he crosses the line. As do you. As do I.

"Your view of yourself may be as off as Bob's... and certainly not objective."

No one's view is objective about humans...comes through our human filter...of OUR experiences. We are limited beings. We cannot be objective. I see our whole point here on this thread is to achieve an objective principle to act from. It's a struggle.

I didn't say Bob's view was off, MEDC. His perception and beliefs are his...they truly are valid.

"I like you LA.... you have made me think about many things... but IMO, you come across as very learned in matters of human interaction... when IMO, it is people that are free to call a "duck" by its true name that are in fact the truly evolved ones."

Good to know.

"JMO and one area where we surely differ. Bob wasn't telling you who you are... he was telling you his opinion of what you are...and to him, that is reality. "

He chose the words that defined who I was...you can hear and experience them as opinion...takes the assumption of his intent. I'm not assuming. As you say, he called a duck a duck...he defined me. "You" statements do that, MEDC.

His reality is his...no less real than my own. You may intend to express your opinion as fact, even choose to perceive that it is fact...stating it is the truth instead of your own has no ownership that I can see right now.

You are huge on abuse issues, MEDC. Are you not well schooled in verbal abuse? Have you not arrested people for assault who are yelling and screaming that someone is a ******, a liar, an ingrate? Isn't verbal assault real?

Defining someone's essence...telling them who they are...like a drama queen...not that you see them as dramatic; like a liar...not someone who is not telling the truth of an action...is to me, stepping into God's terrority...for he created us...and you would be defining his creation as a liar, a cheater, a drama queen.

So when people make mistakes...they are one?

Are you saying God made us that way? Our essence? Not what we do...who we are?

LA

Good evening you'all!

First a big Hello to JustJilly. I hope you are reading this stuff on the fine thread you have started. This is alot better than on the threads where people are sickly sweet to each other. Real life isn't like that. The difficulties life throws at us need real answers and I hope you are doing ok and all this stuff helps.

For the rest of you'all, your posts are on the way. I live for days like this.

MrsW,

I can see how you perceive that as an attack. I put you with MEDC, BobPure, BigKahauna, because you are friends with them and I did not read where you called them on their attacks. Or stated your thoughts about their attacks on others.

I saw where you did call Helen's H on his attack. And I saw you catch and own yours with the daddy comment.

I do not believe you have not attacked me...you have remained silent while those specific others did. Not for stating their beliefs, sharing...expressing. I may have taken your silence as approval. The attacks I am referring to are those that defined who I am, told me my beliefs are offensive, that I have the power to legitimize anything.

And when you felt attacked, you responded. You shared. I believe that was me truly attacking your standing by and doing nothing with your influence on your friends. I see that now.

I apologize. I could have shared what I meant without attacking you. I will not do so again.

LA

Actually, yes I am. And I find your responses... my opinion here... to be about perceived abuse and not actual abuse. You are... my opinion again... for some reason overly, almost obsessively bent on pointing out the alleged abuses of others... and then you put your little digs in there at people that you seem to feel are not as evolved as you. In a way.... it seems almost fraudulant.
And you said "another gross twist of my words".... boy your really are all full of yourself sometimes. When you say someone lied... you are calling them a liar... liars lie LA! Cheaters cheat! Ducks quack! You just hide behind your words and then take false offense when they are called by their true name. Sad... and IMO, very immature.

LA, it is a gross exaggeration to say that JJ was "attacked" merely because others object to the presence of her affair marriage on a forum where others have been victimized by folks like her. Anyone with even a modicum of decency and sensitivity should be able to understand how very galling such a monstrosity would be here. She has been told over and over again how hurtful the presence of her affair marriage is and chooses to ignore it. She is not a victim, LA, and should not be portrayed as such.

Just as she ignored the pain of the victims in her affair, she ignores the pain she causes here. Rather, her obstinate refusal to take this affair marriage to a less incendiary place is the equivalent of an "attack" since she full well knows the effect on others. And clearly doesn't care.


And I am equally appalled to see you characterize JJ as a victim of "terrorism," when it SHE who insists on terrorizing others with her affair marriage on a forum of victims, being fully aware that many people look on in horror at the prospect that this forum could someday be used to help their own OW or OM resolve problems in an affair marriage. That is like treating the rapist in a room full of rape victims.

And I don't get the reference to "SD," I am supposing that means "selfish demand," something which is not relevant to the posters here unless you imagine their goal is to fill your "lovebank." I don't believe it is. I believe such misuse of lovebusters against fellow posters is usually an attempt to shut others up.


You think that facilitating an affair marriage on an anti-affair forum, full of affair victims, makes people feel "safe?" Have you read any of the posts on this thread? Somehow I don't think folks feel too "safe" to watch an OW recieve "help" restoring her affair marriage. Seems like you have your priorities a little backwards, LA.

You know, what is just astonishing to me is that JJ would sit back and silently watch all this dissension and not care one whit. It takes an amazing level of entitlement and callousness to knowingly incite such dissension when it would be so easy to remove the discussion to another place.