The real bottom line here is that no one is denying Jilly the right to BE helped...EVEN HERE ON MARRIAGE BUILDERS~~~> HERE!!! ...What has been asked and ignored, is why does that help have to be HERE on GQII???
If the desire to help her and her desire to be helped is altruistic in nature, then WHY does it matter to her or them WHERE that help takes place?
Mrs. W. - One more time let me reiterate that I am, and have been, more than willing to discuss things with JJ on some other thread, some other site, anywhere where she can receive some help for questions she has. That has never been the "issue," at least for me.
What is the "issue" is that some folks on MB seem to think that they have the right, even the duty, to decide who and who cannot post on MB, or at least on the Infidelity Forums. They use as their justification "to be protecting others from potential pain or rationalization on the part of some reader for some bad behavior."
That justification can easily extend to anything they decide they want to apply their "test" to. At the very least, NO person should be allowed to post on MB if they were a WS who divorced and later entered into an "adulterous marriage" if their "test" is evenly applied, because ALL such marriages, whether to an affair partner or to someone else, ARE according to biblical standards (that they are using), committing adultery when they marry.
They have no compunctions about hurting JJ or causing her pain, in part because some of then think she is "not worthy" of any help simply because she happens to be one former WS who did leave her husband and married her partner in her affair. It has even been stated that she "got what she deserved." They, or at least some of them, consider her marriage to be "not legitmate" and "not recognized" by God as their principle justification for "going after" Jilly in specific. Her acceptance of Christ plays no part in anything in their minds. That's fine, that is their opinion. They can even state their opinion and refuse to post to her (as MEDC has done with another person recently). But they are not "satisfied" with that. They will not be satisfied until she posts nowhere on the Infidelity Forum.
Again, they use the justification that since they don't like it they will impose their will on another valid member of MB, and they couch that vendetta on the basis of "protecting" others from what others may, or may not, feel if they happen to read JJ's thread and learn that she is a former WS.
But that's not enough, either. Now we have Bob Pure attacking other believers for their faith, in some attempt to impune and demean their integrity and render anything they might say as "irrelevant." This from the guy who was ready to do much physical harm to the OM in his life with a sledgehammer. I understand the DESIRE for revenge, but is that something someone might read and "use" for justification for their doing something? Do we ban people for "hypothetical maybe's?"
He brings up the "rapist scenario" again, taking it totally out of context again from the discussion where that occurred. The obvious reason is that he wants to discredit anything that I might say about anything. He goes further in attacking doctrinal beliefs while steadfastly refusing to talk about them.
I find his attitude in attacking fellow believers to be highly offensive, but you won't see me asking for him to be banished or even suggesting that he can't be helpful to some other members on MB.
Bob has lost sight, in my humble opinion, of what forgiveness of sin means to a believer when God grants His forgiveness and seems to want to ban, or render irrelevant, fundamental beliefs of Christianity and of believers who believe in the those fundamental beliefs. Personally, I don't care if he doesn't accept them, until he begins to USE Christian beliefs to attack and abuse others in order to get "his way."
I've been working on a series on Repentance and this issue of "get JJ off of the forums and into some dark corner." But I am having serious doubts about posting it since it would be "irrelevant" in Bob's judgment. He won't even answer very simple biblically based questions, preferring to resort to ad homimem attacks.
I personally don't think there is ever going to be a "meeting of the minds" wherein JJ could have even just ONE thread that she posts on. They will not be satisfied until they impose their will on her, and on anyone "foolish enough" to post to a "sinner," even though that sinner has been forgiven the same as they have.
Whatever happened to the "other option" that everyone has. They do not have to post to anyone that they don't want to help or that they don't see where they can offer any positive help. They can, and I am sure they already have, sometimes leave the "helping" to some other members.
If they feel so strongly that JJ should not have the right to post here, then rather than launching into all the "indignant" personal attacks, they can take their arguments to the Moderators for a "ruling." Have they done so? I don't know, but I suspect not since the Moderators have been silent on the "issue" up to now.
How many "newbies" are likely to read any thread of enormous post length? Again I don't know, but probably a very small percentage. How many "newbies" spend their time essentially on their own threads, seeking help for their own situation? Again I don't know the actual statistics, but I'd venture that it's a pretty high percentage.
No, this issue is NOT about protecting others. This issue is about imposing their will on someone else that they don't like. Jilly has sincere questions about her new faith in God. THAT is primarily what we've been trying to discuss. We aren't even talking about infidelity, let alone attempting to "justify" infidelity. There is NO justification for infidelity.
Bottom line for many of the ones seeking to drive JJ off the system is that they do not believe themselves in the promises that they make when someone is forgiven. Or so it seems. Perhaps that is because they don't think they HAVE forgiven Jilly and therefore don't need to abide by "forgiveness promises." If they have not forgiven her, then the question is why have they not forgiven a fellow believer who HAS said that she repented of her sins, as God has commanded all believers to do when a fellow believer admits their repentance?
The accusation is that I and Mortarman and anyone else who is willing to try to help JJ HERE on MB, are "insensitive" and "callous" to the feelings of others. That's an interesting opinion, but that's all it is, their opinion. Even IF it were true, and it is not, they still don't have the right to demand that someone be booted off the system. Our "job" as caring individuals is to help where we can and not try to force "our views" down someone else's throat. Our "job" should be, "if we don't have anything nice or helpful to say to an individual, then don't say it."
The minute we start "judging" what one thread discussion may be "interpreted" or "misinterpreted" by anyone else on another thread may be, and then use that as a criteria to call for the "banishment" of said person, is the minute we have elevated mind reading to a fact and FEAR as THE justification for any behavior in which we might want to engage.
I would challenge anyone to show where I have ever, in 5 years of posting, told someone that having an affair was "okay," where divorcing is the "best solution" to infidelity, or where forgiveness of sin CANNOT be found in Jesus Christ. ANYONE that might read something on this thread and then try to use that as a "justification" for continuing in THEIR sin would find me opposing their rationalization, and opposing it forcefully with Scripture.
If they are NOT a believer, they won't care about "biblical things" anyway.
But let's take just one example of a thing that is frequently said that is frequently found to "hurtful" and "offensive" to a BS. People are often told that the WS "has already left the marriage" when they chose adultery. The marriage is already over. But if you "stuff your anger emotions," YOU (not God) can "win her back." Others have been told that their marriage is "hopeless" and they should move immediately to divorce. What is being offered are OPINIONS, regardless of whether or not they might be felt as hurtful by the BS.
What is happening now is that "feelings" are being elevated to the level of "allowability" for a member to post.
I'll give another example, because it's one that I have said several times, that I am SURE many MAY have been offended by. I have stated that as a believer, I find it hard to understand how someone can recover a loving marriage of equals without Christ being in the marriage and without the ability to "forgive as God has forgiven my own sins." I KNOW that people have been offended by the mere mention of "surrendering their lives to Christ," because I have more than once been told to "please stay off the thread." So maybe the next thing to ban is anyone who wants to talk about the need to surrender their lives to Christ and to walk in obedience to all of His commands?
"Staying off a thread" is something that we all should consider from time to time, as Pep said to me back in January on another thread. I took her advice, regardless of the hurtful attacks and "reinventing" of meaning of "Christian doctrines" that were called to be discussed. Perhaps, others might consider doing the same, but I doubt it. Two threads they have now hijacked to force their opinions on others, so I don't see restraint being all that likely.
