LA, I have seen no "attacks" from this "gang," [anyone who disagrees with you, I suppose] but I have seen an attack from JustJilly in the form of parading her affair marriage on an affair forum. And from you in your sick characterization of those whose dare to object as "TERRORISTS."

If that is not an "attack" I don't know what is. Would you accuse rape victims of "terrorism" for objecting to the presence of the rapist in their midst? Because that is the equivalent of what you are doing. I think most reasonable folks would classify that as an "attack" to punish the victim for protesting.

Yet, I have not yet seen your objection to that. Rather, I see you facilitating and encouraging it.


And this is just your subjective viewpoint, right?

LA, I'm totally confused-most especially by the sentence that I bolded-I attacked you? *scratching head* How exactly am I responsible for "attacks" made on you by others??? I have NO CONTROL over others...friends or not...I don't control Mr. W either-nor would I wish to...I control me and me only...My silence? Dear Lord...I have enough trouble dealing with my own feelings...I really can't be responsible for those of others...I'm not that powerful-lol-just ask our DD7...I can only imagine the brick wall that I would run into if I tried to tell MEDC, BK or BP how to post...I would NEVER do that...Not something in my yard...

Yes, I did respond to HW's hubby's post because it was an attack on ME...I responded to FH because his comments were about Mr. W's defense of ME...Simple as a dimple, no?

Mrs. W

LA is now the champion of affair marriages. She just went over to MMarc57's thread to let her know that not everyone feels affair marriages don't belong here... and that she is basically proud of her. (The woman is in an A marriage.... her 5th marriage... trying to hold on to man that hasn't tried to have a relationship with his son from the threesome girl that joined him and his wife in bed.......).

MEDC,

About understanding verbal abuse well, you said:

"Actually, yes I am. And I find your responses... my opinion here... to be about perceived abuse and not actual abuse."

Really? You have pointed out these exact abuses on other threads...the emotional abuse when a H says, "You shouldn't feel that way." Or when someone says, You are a selfish fraud" which is name calling. Are you saying that name calling (telling someone who they are) is not abusive?

That's what I hear you saying to me...that it's just my perception I need to adjust. I'm perceiving wrong. I'm perceiving name calling where it isn't. How is "You're a drama queen" different from "You are selfish and a fraud"?

I'm asking in all sincerity. Checking my own stuff.

I remember you telling posters to call a duck a duck...Tell him he's an abuser. It's not your perception...it's reality.

"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."

Thank you for sharing your opinion in a respectful way.

"And you said "another gross twist of my words".... boy your really are all full of yourself sometimes."

You can't hear that, can you, MEDC?

"When you say someone lied... you are calling them a liar... liars lie LA! Cheaters cheat! Ducks quack!"

No, MEDC. I believe to tell a person they ARE a liar is to define and put them in a box. Make it their entire being...not a choice they make. Because it's BEING a liar, not lying. We are human beings.

Would you consider printing this post and taking it to your Women's Abuse board and reading it to them? I would be interested to know if this is how they define verbal abuse. Based on me having told a lie, I'm a liar. Based on me having cheated, I'm a cheater.

"You just hide behind your words and then take false offense when they are called by their true name."

Again, you are defining my intent (to hide) and that I take false offense...as if there is offensive as you define it (a fact) and a false offense (what I perceive and take)...which I hear you saying is that I shouldn't perceive the way I do, feel what I feel or believe what I believe. That's abusive.

"Sad... and IMO, very immature."

LA

*thud*

Mrs. W

LA... thank you for the chuckle... I am heading to bed with thoughts of words dancing around in my head....an artistic dance with no real meaning.... just words bouncing about.

Oh... and call the people at Websters... their dictionary has DJ's in there...

Liar... N... one who tells lies.

Cheater...N...one who cheats.

Oh God... are they going to have to make corrections... nah... I think they're okay.
As far as the abuse groups LA... YOU have never met a group of people more willing to call a duck by its true name... they make me look like a pansy! lol.

This whole thing reminds me of Bill Clinton's testimony before the Senate when he actually said... "That all depends on what your definition of the word "is" is!"

Seriously funny stuff here tonight!

LA, do you also believe that Jesus Christ was "abusive" when he called people "liars," "hypocrites," "vipers," "swine?" Jesus Christ himself would not live up to your very subjective standard of "abuse."

But then you did express that you do not have the capability of forming an objective viewpoint,["We cannot be objective"] so it is understood that your notion of "abuse" is entirely subjective and not presented as an objective viewpoint.

Goodevening all!

The Theologian of the Day Award goes to...........bigkahuna! you are the only one who knew that unregenerate is an old word (read that a theological word) used for those who are lost. That is because God has not regerated them with His Holy Spirit yet.

My statement about the unregenerate was directed at those who were/are debating with FH about theological issues. (read that not directed toward's you Mrs. Wondering now that you and Mr. Wondering know what that word really means. Sorry for any confusion). You'all were comming on this thread not to help or say anything at all to JJ. You were comming here to express what you think the bible says. No care, no love, no empathy to what JJ was seeking. You were/are using this thread to publicly dis someone just to see yourselves talk. (where is the good works you were talking about? when it comes to JJ?). She was concerned about her justification and for all your prattling, no one except FH took the time to talk to her, not just to eachother. And when someone is speaking the truth and explaining things clearly,; well, read my 1st post for clarification.

Now to the rest of you'all and esp Mrs. Wondering.
I'm having a hard time seeing where I made a personal attack against you. As I was reading this thread, I expected those people comming in here that i am refering to in the previous paragraph. But you came on telling JJ to get lost. And you asked her how are the betrayed spouses supposed to feel Telling JJ to go post in a place where no one could see her because her sins were to great. But then I looked at the bottom and saw your signature line and saw that you were in the same boat as she was. So that's how come I singled you out with my statement. 12 years ago her 1st husband also had an affair, was a drunk, and on heroin or meth or some bad drug like that. You were being very mean to her (almost with a vengance) and I call you out to explain why. If I made a personal attack, I am sorry. ( and if you help me to understand how i did it, I will make a proper appology where I dont use the format of....if i hurt you i'm sorry....because that isn't a real apology)

Now for everbody.
This is a great thread. I don't like the nicey-nice talk that people use and put there emotions on their sleeves and claim offence when sobody is really expressing the truth or something they disagree with or it hits to close to home. Not that soft speach isn't required when helping someone through an affair or a bad emotional marriage at times. But the bluntness on this thread is refreshing and I will be posting more. Soon I may not be a troll under the bridge but one who will come out and say "Halt, what kind of theology wants to cross my bridge"

Looking forward to responses. God Bless you'all

LA - for the record I have not so far as I know made one comment about anything you have posted here. Not one. Yet you accuse me of attacking you? I certainly disagree with you but I have not attacked you. I respect you very much and are disappointed in your stance but that is life.

So you will perhaps understand the difference in myself and JJ...I did NOT destroy TWO marriages...I am NOT in a marriage born of an AFFAIR...I have fully repented of my sin of adultery and have returned to my first and only marriage...Clear enough for you?

And signatures here are NOT put there so that you may attack based on PAST transgressions...JJ, IMO, is STILL in a state of ADULTERY...You dig?


Mrs. W

P.S. Your excitement over the "fun" of this board is SICK...You sir seem to be a shark that smells blood in the water...SAD...

Mrs.Wondering.
I still don't see an example of how I personaly attacked you like you said. you are also meaner in your posts to me than i am to you. And I'm no shark either just a cook ma'am.

Well, others certainly saw it...not just me...Perhaps you should read here more before posting...Get a feel for the netiquette round these parts...

And btw, I'm not mean you're just a SISSY! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Shall I call you a WAAAAMBULANCE? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" />

Mrs. W

P.S. Mr. W did know what unregenerate meant...He just found it such a pompous thing for you to say that he turned it around on you...

MrsWondering.
Thanks. Great post. yea, I guess i was being a wuss. I hear that waaaambulance comming. I didn't mean to attack you and I will pay attention and learn.

LMAO!

Sorry, couldn't help myself. Back to our regularly scheduled circular recurring argument, I mean discussion.

**snort** I think I just hurt myself! LOL! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Okay BK, so let’s see if we can increase our understanding of our positions and understanding of Scripture and even potential areas of disagreement.

You keep referring to me equating repentance with good works, but for the life of me I’d like to see where I’ve done that. I do not, nor do I remember saying, that repentance requires good works to prove that repentance is real. So if you provide a reference to what you are referring to, I’d love to see it and see if I did somehow leave you with that impression.

Now, if I understood what you wrote correctly, you see divorce as somehow “proving” or “required” for JJ to actually have repented of the sin of adultery. When someone repents of their sins and accepts Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, what, if anything, do they have to DO in order for their heartfelt, sincere, sorrow over their sins to be “real” or to be “forgiven” by God?

If you are contending that “real repentance” requires a “work,” an “action,” to be accepted by God, then you may be referring to “go and leave your life of sin.” Here we would need to spend more time talking about what “go and sin no more” means in the context of a believer. Regardless, Jesus preceded that statement with “Neither do I condemn you.” He did not condemn and He did not require and penance or deed that must be done.

We know that the woman was caught in adultery, “in the very act,” and the penalty for adultery was the same as it would have been for David, but God chose to forgive and not impose the death penalty. It is also interesting that the man in this case was not also brought before Jesus, so I sometimes wonder if this woman was “brought up” on false witness charges (as they later did to Jesus), but even if not, Jesus did not condemn her for her sin (and I’m sure Jesus knew all of her sins). To further “complicate” things with respect to this portion of Scripture, there is strong evidence that this portion of John (7:53-8:11) was not part of the original book of John. (That’s another topic, so we’ll just leave it at that.)

But taken at face value the command would be “literally” “go and sin no more.” Jesus knew that “not sinning” was not possible for humans, so it’s logical to conclude that He did not mean anything like “be perfect or else you lose your salvation.” In this woman’s case it is also logical to assume that Jesus was speaking about the sin that was the basis of the “charge,” i.e., adultery. If that is true, and I don’t see any reason why it wouldn’t be since it is consistent with “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” then He was telling her to no longer be an adulteress. What I don’t know is if this woman was a believer or not. My assumption is that she was not. There is no indication of her being anything other than a Jew and the Law of Moses was to be applied. “Go and sin no more” is actually “Leave your life of sin” (the lusting in her heart that lead to adultery).

There seems to be two aspects to this idea. The first is logical, stop doing the sin you were doing (makes a lot of sense since it was unlikely that Jesus would be called upon again to save someone from stoning if they were caught in adultery, so “Don’t count on me to be here to pull your chestnuts out of the crushing stones”). It also makes sense in that the 7th Commandment applied to the Jews (and really applies to everyone). The second aspect of “Leave your life of sin” could be to believe in the one who has the authority to forgive sin, even a sin so egregious as Adultery. That means accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior, “leaving” the natural life of sin for the “new life” in Christ.

I don’t know which of these two makes the most sense, but the first is easily the most obvious. With Jesus’ propensity to speak in Parables, however, I wouldn’t rule out the second one either, since the second one really is the gospel message.

Having said that, though, there remains another aspect of this “woman caught in adultery” passage that bears on the issue we’ve been talking about concerning repentance and doing something to prove that repentance. Let’s assume for a minute that the woman was married (we don’t know that from the text). Then obviously the command was to return to her husband (ostensibly her first husband and he was still alive) and obey “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” If she was not married, or widowed, then since she HAD committed adultery, anyone she married would then also be committing adultery and she would, by definition, be living in an “adulterous marriage.” So the “Go and sin no more” command either meant that she must live as a single person or that any marriage would not be “adulterous.” We don’t know which may have been the case.
According to Scripture, however, any such subsequent marriage would be committing the sin of adultery for the person and the spouse. But we also know that all sins are forgiven in Christ, and once forgiven, are treated by God as if they did not exist. Therefore, even in the case where the woman may have married, and thereby committed adultery again, Jesus’ response to a believer would be the same as it was to her, “Neither do I condemn you.” Jesus looks at the heart for true repentance from sin.

So what do we have to turn to for “guidance” since this passage does not clearly say HOW she was to live out the rest of her life, and since we know that NO human can “sin no more” and lead a perfect life? We have “the just shall live by faith.” We have “for it is by grace you have been saved, not of works, so that no one can boast.” The ONLY way to “go and sin no more” in the eyes of God is to have one’s sins covered by the blood of Christ. It is NOT that we don’t sin, it is that God does not condemn us for our sins when we repent and accept Jesus. That is also why I personally think Jesus was telling the woman BOTH of the things discussed above.

Repentance that precedes forgiveness by God is a heartfelt sorrow over sin, but not a “work,” as you have already stated. I agree with that. In addition, no “work” is required by God to “prove” that repentance. God and the individual know if the repentance is sincere or not. Repentance is really a “turning to God” and following after God as Lord with heart and mind and is not “conditional” upon also doing something to “undo” the sin that was repented of.

Now, someone could argue that Scripture DOES teach “doing” something if, for example, we looked at Matthew 18:8-10 and took it out of the context of the whole of Scripture. “If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life lame or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the everlasting fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into he11 fire.” But that really isn’t what Jesus was trying to teach. Obviously, it wouldn’t take long for some people to be missing almost all parts of their bodies. Or in the context of adultery, missing “vital pieces” used in the commission of adultery.

This whole section is being taught with a young child sitting in the midst of them, and what Jesus was talking about was what faith in Him was “all about.” “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives me. Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe to the world because of offenses! For offenses must come, but woe to that man by whom the offense comes!… Take heed that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that in heaven their angels always see the face of My Father who is in heaven. For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost.” (Matthew 18:2-7;10-11)

What could a child do? Nothing. They believe by faith. They “come as they are” whenever they come. When Jesus calls, they come. That is how it is with all believers. We all begin as children, responding to His call, believing and putting our trust in Him. So why was Jesus putting all that “cutting off the offending part” in the middle of this lesson about Faith Alone? This is referring back to what Jesus had said about adultery in Matthew 5:27-30. It is NOT the act itself that is the “problem,” it is the “heart condition,” the lust. If we were to apply this cutting off and plucking out in a literal sense rather than the figurative sense that Jesus was using to illustrate to those who thought only physical adultery was adultery, then there would be a WHOLE LOT of blind and crippled people walking around as they “paid” the cost of their sin to prove their repentance.

But that is not what Jesus was teaching. He was teaching the very simple fact that we come to Him “as if” we were a child with nothing but our own faith and trust in Him to “commend” ourselves to Him. To quote from a commentary on this; 18:3 “become as little children. This is how Jesus characterized conversion. Like the Beatitudes, it pictures faith as the simple, helpless, trusting dependence of those who have no resources of their own. Like children, they have no achievements and no accomplishments to offer or commend themselves with.” (The MacArthur Study Bible, p.1425)

So repentance does not require the “doing” of anything to prove its reality. Repentance is a heart and mind condition of deep, sincere, sorrow, over the sin that was committed.



I agree. And who is it that CAN follow His commandments? Who is it that will even be willing to try to follow all of His commandments? Only those who are already His by reason of faith. That is the concept that James was trying to make clear. Those who had a saving faith will respond by doing the “works that God had prepared in advance for them to do,” not to BE saved, but because they already ARE saved.




BK, I said “may be,” I did not say “is.” It must be “may be” because there ARE opposing opinions. It is in examining the Scripture that we give weight to an opinion or even discard an opinion that is found to be “wanting,” or even “suspect” when looked at in the context of the entire Scripture. That is the purpose and meaning of 2Timothy 3:16-17: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work(that God has prepared in advance for us to do).”

MrsW...

MEDC's truth wasn't the truth. I did not say I was proud of her...I said I saw her as brave by posting her history and situation honestly.

ML - Jesus called those who were lying, liars. Active, not forever. Same for people who are not lying..they are called honest. When they lie, they are not honest. Then they become honest again.

I hear you saying that once a liar, always a liar...once a cheat, always a cheat. How would that work for an honest person? A lying person? A cheating person? A compassionate person who tells lies through omission? Would that be a liar, compassionate person?

I'm so confused.

I am choosing to stop addressing every statement telling me who I am...all the labeling, the boxing, the stamping down into the ground I feel people doing here.

I want clarity...that's my highest priority.

Are y'all (and I'm reverting to that from fatigue, not disrespect) saying that the issue before us is JJ's right to post in peace? And these terms are the only ones which will allow her to post in peace?

I am asking for clarity here.

Are y'all saying that MB Infidelity GQII is only for those in non-A marriages? That Harley or the Moderators will not allow OW's and OM's as you called them, ML, to post to whatever thread they want...or create one, because BS and WS will feel as y'all said you would have had JJ been here posting when you were newly betrayed?

Is this about preventing a suicide, like BP was sharing on his thread, that had he come here and saw a thread with an A marriage being helped on it he would have killed himself?

I'm not mocking...I truly am asking because I know remember his story and totally believe him when he says this.

If the principle you are proposing, and I've asked this before and did not see a response to it...nor to my initial question, either...is that if BS and WS feel harmed, punished, terrified from JJ's posts being answered and supported here, that she should not choose to post?

Or where she should post as an act of compassion and acknowledgment? Because that would include the Villagers thread, wouldn't it? In GQII, as well?

I know I can't understand through all my reactivity. I am not here to debate abuse, ML. I am saying please stop and you won't, BP won't, MEDC won't...I said this is my boundary and I heard them say that's not a real boundary.

It's mine. It's in my code. I'm not saying it's the truth anymore, okay? From your attacks I want to run away so badly and hide...I'm totally in my child right now and don't know anything but my own stuff.

I know I asked, said stop. And y'all didn't...you won't...and so I'm wondering what the heck is the difference? I hear you saying you asked, you said stop and JJ won't. So the beatings continue? You call that acting from respect?

For a cause? To me, that's like the Crusades...where if you can't convert 'em, you kill 'em. I can't understand this at all, from veterans of MB who have been attacked, degraded, discounted, defined and know what betrayal truly is...making a vow and not keeping it.

JJ didn't vow to anything...she's not betraying you or other BS or WS. She is a FWW, not an OW, by MB standards. She is married. Those are facts. She has repented here and on Villagers, owned the damage, the pain, the horrible choices and the consequences. She stated her A marriage is proof that you continue in a wayward state of mind...that it is living fantasy, not reality. She owned her entitlement, fed from resentment and lack of respect. She stated her desire to NOT live that way anymore...to live in alignment with God for her principle guidance and said she was seeking to explore to know and change her life.

She is not who she was last summer when she began posting. She came here to save her marriage. That's what she said.

I choose to believe her. I saw no ownership in the beginning...and I see her being honest and not judging of others, telling them who they are and how to live. I see us as offering our beliefs and experience and working with people to as a friend of the marriage.

Is that what this is? You are being a friend of your own marriage? Of all marriages? No, wait...of legitimate marriages?

Can you please answer me, anyone, then...if JJ divorced on the grounds of adultery, full recognition and ownership of past choices, then could she re-marry her FWH with new vows, and keep an intact family for her child and stepchild?

I very much want to know the answer to this...and I hear MM saying that wouldn't be necessary. That she isn't in an A marriage, based on her first BH agreeing to divorce her due to her infidelity.

I'm not all there yet, MM. I'm inbetween. I don't know why BH did that...made that choice. I don't know if he was a Christian or what he believed or experienced. I don't think I can know directly. I know that I am treating JJ as JJ, not a poster child of A marriages. She just represents herself, case by case basis.

Which is what I hear y'all saying...case by case...and yet I see you as trying to make her responsible for far more.

Terrorists terrorize...they limit choices and demand something. They hold hostage something...lives in exchange for something. I have felt terror from these posts. I do hear demands, and yes, ML, I called it SD's because I applied all I learned here to my marriage and every other relationship I have...to know when I share my admiration, I am aware I am meeting an EN...to what extent, I don't know. My own boundary is to do so honestly, without agenda other than to share my stuff.

I see so much compartmentalizing of humans and concepts and life tools. I'm dizzy. I was of the mind that God didn't compartmentalize. That we were his creation, part of him, with a purpose, and to know and be known by God and other humans.

LA

Very good FH - we may be getting somewhere.


See here is where I have the problem. How is there heartfelt sorrow over sin demonstrated by someone who continues in that sin?

Mrs. W. - Okay, I agree with the first part, but could you answer a question or two that relates to your sin, my sin, and JJ's sin?

When is a sin forgiven? When are all sins forgiven? When does a sinner, still encased in sinful body, stop being a sinner in God's eyes?

Well I'd like to take a stab at that one LA.

If a person HABITUALLY tells lies it becomes part of their character - they become a LIAR by virtue of their continued action.