I see a number of issues in the David & Bathsheba story.

Let's see - David - the most powerful man in the land sends soldiers to fetch a woman at night. Was she willing? Coerced? Certainly scripture never tells us Bathsheba sinned. Was she raped? Her husband murdered and then David under OT law had to marry her?

Part of God's judgement on David (who was totally forgiven) was all the things you describe. His kingdom was never the same again. His son openly slept with his wives and concubines.

Jesus set a new standard in the NT which is why the story of David and Bathsheba doesn't worry me as much as it first did when I started considering and discussing affair marriages.

Foreverhers - you are nothing if not consistent. You consistently take the most twisted interpretation of a biblical position and twist it.

You know full well that Christians sincerely disagree and can support with Scripture doctrines related to OSAS without the mental masturbation you are going through here.

You my friend have an opinion just like anyone else but it is ONLY that - an opinion.

You do not speak for God.

And that goes for affair marriages as well.

The worst thing as MEDC says is that you choose to dredge this all up again here where you know that it is offensive to most BS's whether or not you think it should be.

The first thing I would like to say is that I apologize to JustJilly for any pain that my sincere inquiry may have generated as a result of many of the postings on this thread. I also apologize because those posts have made JustJilly the “target” and I have to respond to them by using her situation specifically, as she has been singled out simply because she “dares” to post on the system, no matter how circumspect she has tried to be.


Let’s see if we can break down these posts into some “manageable” themes in order to hopefully address them more cogently.

Theme 1: JustJilly’s marriage is illegitimate, has no standing before God, and should be ended by a divorce.

Theme 2: If divorced, JustJilly could then marry anyone else and not be in an “adulterous” marriage.

Theme 3: Discussing JustJilly’s current situation on MB is not welcome because others might have their feelings hurt or be offended that someone who DID divorce their first spouse and married the person they were having an affair with is even being considered “worthy” of any help.

Theme 4: Attack the person when you disagree with a stated position.


Before addressing each of these “Themes” I would first like mention that I began this thread specifically to talk directly to JustJilly. That others have chosen to read and post is their choice. That some have chosen to take an “attack” posture is unfortunate, but whether I like it or not, it is an open forum. Nevertheless, no one is “forced” to read any thread they don’t want to read and no one is required to post on any thread. The sole purpose, or at least it is my opinion that the sole purpose should be, is to try to offer help to anyone who is hurting and trying to deal with their circumstances.

Suffice it to say that there have been many disagreements in the past and no doubt there will be many disagreements in the future. But it is also my hope that where there are disagreements, they can be discussed civilly without the need to resort to ad hominum attacks on the posters rather than discussion of opposing viewpoints.



Theme 1: My question to the proponents of this position is what do they define as “illegitimate” and what marriages are “illegitimate” and what marriages are “legitimate?”
For Christians, my question would be expanded to be what does God consider to be a marriage and how does God define a marriage to be “legitimate” or “illegitimate?” In addition, proponents of this position need to answer the following question; is God’s forgiveness and our justification before God conditional? If it is conditional, what is the condition that God requires, works or faith alone?

For those who may have engaged in premarital sex, thereby creating a “one flesh” situation that is a definition of “married,” and who subsequently married someone else, perhaps even someone who they were also having premarital sex with at the same time they were also sexually involved with someone else first, should they divorce their spouse in order to repent of their sin?


Theme 2: Should anyone who is in a second, third, fourth, etc. marriage divorce their current spouse in order to be truly repentant? Carrying the arguments of some of the posters to it’s conclusion, anyone who is in a marriage that began in adultery MUST divorce in order to be “truly repentant” of the sin of adultery. Or is it just restricted to someone who has come to know Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, regardless of what they did or didn’t do in the past?


Theme 3: I fully understand that some people can be, and some are, offended by any attempt to help someone who is in a marriage that began as an affair. It IS offensive in the same sense that any sin is offensive and in the same sense that all sin is offensive to God. My “recommendation” would be for those who might be offended to simply not read the thread they find offensive. I do not “advocate” for helping people who are in the midst of trying to justify an ongoing affair to continue with an affair anymore than I would advocate for someone who is stealing to continue stealing. However, when the thief repents of their sins and turns to God for forgiveness in Christ, or the drug addict repents and turns to God for forgiveness in Christ, I do think it is a Christian’s duty to try to help and not shun them as some “untouchable.” Are there some who might be offended by trying to help thieves and drug addicts? I have no doubt about it, especially if they have been the victim of thievery or drug addicts. Does that mean that no one should even attempt to help them? I don’t think so, but I accept that others may feel offended as they personalize and internalize someone else’s situation.

For Christians, that would seem to be similar to the attitude of many who accused Jesus of offending them because he ate with and talked to “untouchable” sinners. What about the issue of the Good Samaritan? The “bad person” lieing broken and bleeding on the side of the road should not be helped because they are not good enough or clean enough or might offend others?


Theme 4: There really is no place for ad hominem attacks. It is not the first time that I have been “argued against” that way, and it probably won’t be the last. So any response to those posts will be to the issue, not to the person.

Much of this was discussed last August with the same people who are posting now. I am going to forgo direct responses at this time and think about the wisdom of attempting to respond directly.

God bless.

edited to correct a misspelling

Theme 3: I fully understand that some people can be, and some are, offended by any attempt to help someone who is in a marriage that began as an affair.

Not me. I only object to it happening HERE. Help anyone you wish. Do not skew this so that I look uncharitable. Uncharity is forcing a lesson in very shaky affair marriage legitimization in the face of heartbroken suffers of infidelity.

My “recommendation” would be for those who might be offended to simply not read the thread they find offensive.

Rubbish. Scared newbies are DRAWN to controversial threads and you know it.

I do not “advocate” for helping people who are in the midst of trying to justify an ongoing affair to continue with an affair anymore than I would advocate for someone who is stealing to continue stealing.

However, when the thief repents of their sins and turns to God for forgiveness in Christ, or the drug addict repents and turns to God for forgiveness in Christ, I do think it is a Christian’s duty to try to help and not shun them as some “untouchable.”

FH do you ever actually read any of the replies you get ? Ever ? This situation is absolutely UNLIKE the examples you give , and I do not know how you can ever draw an anaology between them. Jilly is not untouchable, its just innapropriate to help prop up her active affair on these boards. Do you not see that ? Or do you just not care ?

JustJilly is like the thief of $millions who turns to God for forgivenessbut continues to live high on the hog on his stolen millions. A Junkie who asks forgiveness and continues to toke. A rapist who asks forgiveness but continues to attack. Would you counsel that burglar in his victims empty safe , with this sad victim standing by ?

Jilly is ever so sorry about her affair, now that she has also been on the sharp end of one, but has done WHAT exactly to make amends for her affair ? While she is in a relationship with her OM the affair is still active !! The burglar is still living off the loot !

Do you not SEE or CARE that your support of her is seemingly "legitimizing" affair marriages ? If you are saying that Jilly's marriage is legitimiate and not sinful now because of her forgiveness, think carefully about the message that sends.

Adultery - that uniquely painful sin - is JUST FINE. Have an affair if you want, and everything's alright as long as you marry the OP and obtain Gracious forgiveness from God. John 8:11 says to the woman caught in adultery " Go - and SIN NO MORE".

How EXACTLY is continuing affair life with your OM just like before "sinning no more" ? , FH ?

Are there some who might be offended by trying to help thieves and drug addicts? I have no doubt about it, especially if they have been the victim of thievery or drug addicts. Does that mean that no one should even attempt to help them? I don’t think so, but I accept that others may feel offended as they personalize and internalize someone else’s situation

Of COURSE people should help them, but not in the middle of the safe place their victims go for help. How can that POSSIBLY be compassionate or right ?

More people might object to drug addicts being helped on drug victim wards, and thieves being counselled in robbery victim counselling centres. Can you not see this or does your brand of faith prevent your HUMANITY from ever manifesting ? These poor sinners are all helped IN APPROPRIATE PLACES. Only YOU think an infidelity forum is the right place to counse Jilly. Is it just possible everybody else is RIGHT and you might just be WRONG here for the first time ever FH ?

It IS offensive in the same sense that any sin is offensive and in the same sense that all sin is offensive to God.

All sin is offensive to God, but affair-marriages are particularly and uniquely offensive and demotivating to me and many other BS and FWS on this BOARD FOR PEOPLE HURT BY INFIDELITY. God sees all sin the same eternally, YET he gave us LAWS through Moses and wisdom though Solomon to help us deal with their consequences APPROPRIATELY on earth. I think it is most inapprorpiate to appear to legitimize an affair HER.

Would you have us dismantle all our legal systems and replce it with " be forgiven" ? Is THAT what Jesus did during his time manifested as felsh and blood on Earth ?

If your faith impels you to entirely discredit how so many hurting people are affected by your cruel choice to cousel this woman in their faces, then I want no part of that Faith.

Help her. Please. But do not force a lesson in your brand of holiness on bytstanders who are hurting by doing it here, in hurt BS central.

FH : I fully understand that some people can be, and some are, offended by any attempt to help someone who is in a marriage that began as an affair.

BP: [color:"blue"]Not me. I only object to it happening HERE. Help anyone you wish. [/color]

Pep: [color:"red"] DITTO [/color]

Before beginning responses to several questions that have been raised, I thought I’d “time travel” a bit back to the “JustJilly:Begin Again” thread of last July/August and pick up on some posts that remain relevant to the issues raised on this current thread. It is my intention to use them to “frame” this current set of questions, including those that may be redundant. Anyone who wishes to can also go back and read that 7 page thread in its entirely to get the entire “context” and make sure that I am not “quoting out of context.”



section of a post from JustLearning to MM on 7/31/06








Returning to the present day questions on the current thread:





Bob and MEDC, this is a valid and relevant question. So let me simply give you my opinion on the matter and you can evaluate whether or not it makes any sense.

We discuss things here all the time that SOMEONE is going to find “offensive” or “difficult” to hear, so I understand what you are saying. We tell people things they “don’t want to hear” all the time. We talk to Wayward Spouses who are “in the fog” and we hear things from such Wayward Spouses that ARE likely to be hurtful to some, especially to Betrayed Spouses. We talk to people frequently who have experienced “false recoveries,” another huge fear of a “possible outcome” that many, if not all, Betrayed Spouses fear when they choose to attempt recovery instead of go directly to divorce.

There ARE several members who post, and probably many more “lurkers” who anonymously read, who are NOT in their first marriage. No doubt they have much “baggage” and memories from their first marriage too, and there are undoubtedly many who might fear that their marriage could end and see those posters as “proof” of their “feared outcome” and could, perhaps, be offended that anyone would try to help someone in a second, third, etc. marriage, because it MEANS that the previous marriage did not survive.

“Current travails” aside (not to minimize them), what we DO is try to help each INDIVIDUAL in their own situation regardless of our own feelings or the potential feelings of others on the system. We choose those we try to help, regardless of prejudice, according to our own availability of our time and our assessment of whether or not WE might be able to offer some relevant help. Others, for a variety of reasons, we choose not to post to. Sometimes we choose not to participate in a thread simply because we don’t have the time for “everyone,” and sometimes we choose not to post because we don’t want to offend someone and result in ‘not being helpful.’

But NONE of us is “responsible” for the “feelings” of someone else.

In a case such as JustJilly’s, we have to decide if “attempting to help” supercedes the “risk” of being seen as “offensive” to someone else or even actually “being offensive” to someone else. It is a “value judgment,” obviously. It is, imho, in the same category of telling someone to get a divorce instead of trying to save their marriage. Most who come here don’t want to hear “get a divorce,” they want to believe that their marriage can be saved no matter what “shape it is in.”

Believe it or not, there are even many who find any mention of “following God” to be offensive and NOT helpful to their marriage. Again, we choose to post to other people about God and obedience to God EVEN THOUGH we know that others on the system might find those sorts of posts “offensive” to them. Others choose to post totally secular things and advice, also knowing that other members who happen to be believers might “take offense” at what they are saying.

So, what is the “forum elders” dilemma? To “post or not to post.” To attempt to help where they can or to not offer any help that they think they might be able to offer. To be obedient to God or not to be obedient to God in “passing on” the “same comfort that you received from God.”

Ultimately, WHO should be “allowed” or “not allowed” to post is up to the system owner, not to the members. The members need to “sensitive,” but not “censorous” of others who they might have a personal dislike for or who they might have personal objections to the “subject matter” of the posts.

God bless.

I humbly post from the perspective of a newbie whose life has been permanently changed (and marriage saved....so far) by you three previous posters and numerous others on this forum.

While I see benefits from both sides of this challenge, I just want to say that......

I sought,

I saw,

I chose,

I followed through with God's help......

...and I (we) are benefitting.



In spite of such differences, thank you for that privilege.

Ace

Artor – there may be some parallels here, but we obviously have to careful to not overextend them. Without question, what is usually done here is a “Jonah-like” warning to Wayward Spouses who are engaged in a current affair. But, just like Jonah, we are NOT the “the judge.” We cannot and do not enforce punishment or even consequences of disobedience to God and infidelity to a spouse. We, as believers, “warn” according to what God has said ARE the consequences that attend infidelity, as well as the promises that God makes to someone who will submit their will (however confused and/or wayward it may be) to God’s will in humble obedience. We ask for repentance because God asks for repentance. But when someone repents and turns back to God, is it our responsibility to accept God’s judgment in the matter or to react as Jonah reacted and “get mad at God” in a “how dare you” sort of judgment against God because He chose to have mercy and withhold some of the consequences? WE may consider the compassion of God to NOT “be the way we would do it,” but we are NOT God and have no inherent right to tell God what He should or should not do. Our ONLY responsibility is to be obedient to what God tells us, no matter how we might “feel” about it.

In JustJilly’s case, we are talking about a person who has “found God” and turned her life over to God. She is now “born again.” That does not mean that all the consequences of prior sins and choices are somehow magically erased. They still have to be “worked through,” as do the sins of her husband and their consequences. But God is most patient and enduring with His children, using ALL the circumstances in one’s life to mold and shape them to result in good coming out of the circumstances, good that leads to honoring and glorifying God in THEIR lives, regardless of what anyone else in the world might think.

“I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.” (Exodus 33:19b)

“He who conceals his sins does not prosper, but whoever confesses and renounces them finds mercy.” (Proverbs 28:13)

“For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.” (Hosea 6:6) [Could this apply to “sacrificing” a marriage begun in adultery? Does God “prefer” turning to God rather than “burning” that marriage?]

“And the word of the LORD came again to Zechariah: “This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another. Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the alien or the poor. In your hearts do not think evil of each other.” (Zechariah 7:8-10)

“Going on from that place, he went into their synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, they asked him, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?”
He said to them, [color:"red"] “If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? How much more valuable isa man than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.”[/color]
He said to the man, [color:"red"] “Stretch out your hand.” [/color] So he stretched it out and it was completely restored, just as sound the other. But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus.” (Matthew 11:9-14)

Jesus is “in the restoring” business, not in the pandering to others feelings or misunderstandings of the grace and mercy of God, in my humble opinion.


“What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses,

“I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

“It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

“One of you will say to me: “The why does God still blame us? For who resists his will? But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

“What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath – prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory – even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but from the Gentiles?” (Romans 9:14-24)

My question with respect to the current discussion flows from this truth of God. What sin is “too big” for God to forgive, what situation in our life is “too adulterous” for God to have mercy on, independent of any “sacrifice” that we might make? Does God, who establishes all marriage, require the dissolution of a marriage in order to “have mercy” on the people in such a marriage, or does God require repentance of the “mental state” that leads to sin?


“At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another. But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. This is a trustworthy saying. And I want you to stress these things, so that those who have trusted in God may be careful to devote themselves to doing what is good. These things are excellent and profitable for everyone.” (Titus 3:3-8)


God bless.

Bob, I understand what you are saying and I am sensitive to it. By the same token, most Wayward Spouses need no reason other than their own desires to do whatever they want to do, justify in their minds whatever it is that they want to, rationalize anything that they can “use” to justify their sinful behavior. But that some Wayward Spouses might potentially attempt to use JJ’s situation to rationalize their own infidelity is not the issue in JJ’s case. The FIRST issue is anyone’s acceptance of Jesus Christ as their own personal Lord and Savior, RECEIVING forgiveness of all of their sins and justification before God based upon what Jesus did, not upon anything that we may have done.

THAT is the “message” that this discussion can just as well “send” to a BS and a wavering new FWS here that is applicable to their situation that is also dealing with a “sin.” Behavior change IS necessary for anyone who accepts Jesus and will be the desire of their hearts as they seek to “please God” and not to “please man.”

God bless.

Bigkahuna - “Foreverhers – you are nothing if not consistent. You consistently take the most twisted interpretation of a biblical position and twist it.

You know full well that Christians sincerely disagree and can support with Scripture doctrines related to OSAS without the mental masturbation you are going through here.

You my friend have an opinion just like anyone else but it is ONLY that - an opinion.”


Yes, BK, I do have an opinion and it would seem that by your definition only your opinion “counts.” Just to be clear, it is my opinion that this is “my” thread and you are under no compulsion to read it, let alone post on it YOUR opinion as being the “only true opinion” by engaging in character assassination as your means of “rebutting” whatever it is you perceive of as an opinion that is different from yours.

”You do not speak for God.”

No I don’t. I let the Word of God do that. Neither do you speak for God, so what is your point? Are you saying that you speak for God in your opinions? If that’s so, then the way to address the differences of opinion is in looking at the Word of God and what IT says, and that includes things that appear to be “difficult” for believers. Of course, if you don’t believe that the Scriptures ARE the Word of God, then any “authority” devolves to “mere opinion.” Is THAT the position you are arguing?

Since you want to attack me and my interpretation of Scripture, accusing me of “twisting” Scripture and engaging in “mental masturbation” to make me “feel good” in my “twisted thinking,” it is now incumbent upon you “go to the Scripture” as the authority and “prove” your contentions. This is no longer, in my opinion, “optional” for you. You have engaged in slander against me and have stated that YOUR “opinion” is the only correct position regarding the issue of “Eternal Security.” To say that I am disgusted and offended by what you wrote is to put it mildly. But putting those “feelings” aside, you have “cast the gauntlet” and THIS TIME I will pick it up and address the Eternal Security question. I WOULD suggest, however, that we have that discussion on its own thread in order to keep the discussion focused. The last time you raised this issue was in an email to me and you stated you didn’t want to discuss it then. I acceded to your desire and did not respond to you. But you persist and now you have brought it again to the “public square,” therefore I am required by God to stand ready to “give an answer for the hope that is within me.” With God’s help, I will do that.



”And that goes for affair marriages as well.”

This is where you are simply flat wrong, BK. That is not “my opinion,” that is the stated FACT of Scripture. This is precisely the very issue that was brought up on another thread last January and where I got vehemently attacked, as you are doing here. The issue of sin has NEVER been what we do to “earn” forgiveness and complete justification (legitimization, if you will) in God’s eyes.

“Affair marriages” are no different from any other sins, they are sinful by nature. I’m sorry if that offends you or anyone else, but it is a Scriptural fact that ANY sin is sinful because of our sinful nature and natural inclination toward sin and disobedience to God. “ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” “It is by faith you have been saved, not of works, lest anyone should boast.”

“Boasting” would seem to be what you are engaging in and what you are “requiring” for repentance to be “real” is some “work” that “earns” forgiveness based upon what is DONE by the sinner, rather than what was DONE by Jesus Christ.

It is NOT for us to judge what someone does as being “sufficient” for God. But there ARE many religions that teach that fallacy and remove GRACE from God’s ability to forgive and justify someone, replacing it with what “we MUST DO in order to merit God’s forgiveness and justification.




“The worst thing as MEDC says is that you choose to dredge this all up again here where you know that it is offensive to most BS's whether or not you think it should be.”

For the record, BK, in this instance I am NOT interested in “majority opinion,” or “minority opinion,” or the “feelings of anyone” other than JustJilly within the confines of this thread and her specific situation. If that sounds “callous” to you, I am sorry. I am talking to ONE specific member of MB about their specific circumstances and whether or not you “like” it, or “dislike” the subject matter, is YOUR problem, not my problem. I also do not appreciate the attempts by you and some others to extrapolate what I say to THIS member to be what I would say to ALL members, in effect putting words in my mouth. So my suggestion regarding this thread is that if you don’t like it, don’t read it. I stay off of many threads that I personally find offensive, but I am getting very tired of others who have an “opposing” opinion engaging in ad hominum attacks to “prove” or “defend” their opinions. When it comes to the opposing opinion issues, DISCUSSION of those issues is pertinent and perhaps even helpful to others who have not, as you have, arrived at a “written in concrete” conclusion.

I would remind you of Peter. Peter was “abhorred” by the thought of eating unclean food, per the prevailing Jewish thought. Jesus taught him that NOTHING that goes into a person’s body makes him “unclean.” It is what comes out of a person’s heart that makes a person “clean” or “unclean.” I’d be willing to bet that MOST of the Jews in Peter’s day would have taken your very same position of condemning someone and accusing them of twisting scripture, rather than accepting what the Word of God actually has said, simply because they “don’t like what God has said on the matter” and prefer their opinions and traditions OVER the Word of God. They would, no doubt, have protested as you are protesting if Peter “went against their opinion,” even if he was being obedient to God’s teaching.

If I am an in error in my interpretation of Scripture, I welcome your, or anyone’s, showing me by Scripture where I am wrong. It would further assume that is a position that would be shared by believers who do hold that the Scriptures ARE the revealed Word of God. That is little different than what Paul did in many of his letters. But I would also think you might want the same, assuming of course that you DO think the Word of God is authoritative for Christians and supercedes all contrary opinions. IF the Word of God is not authoritative to you, then on what basis do you intend to determine WHAT God has said and WHAT is true or false from God’s perspective, irrespective of any of “man’s” opinions or feelings?


God bless.

Hi ForeverHers! I dropped by MB for a visit.

The moral dilemma is fascinating but I don't have anything to contribute to the discussion. And don't want to interfere with your thread.

I just thought I'd point out to you that it's spelled "ad hominEm".

P.S.: I've been praying for you. I wanted to say that despite our intense and profound differences it was strangely refreshing and fascinating to meet such a consistent, rigorous, old-fashioned Calvinist. Like meeting one of the Mayflower Pilgrims.

God bless.

Bob, you more than most, should KNOW that I read all of the replies I receive AND I often offer advice in response that the receiver may not “like.” You didn’t, for a while, if you will recall.

I see and care that you and some others feel offended by my trying to help some in need that you and some others have judged as being unworthy of help on “this” system. You would seem to want her to go to a “leper colony” to receive whatever help she can and not “infect” others, even though they are NOT required to “be in her presence” through reading, much less posting, on this thread.



Bob, you demean yourself with these questions because you KNOW that I WOULD counsel with a repentant thief, junkie, rapist, etc.. You also KNOW that I would NOT be counseling any of them to continue stealing, using drugs, or raping people.

But let’s extend your “thief” analogy a little to perhaps make it more clear.

If a person had their money stolen, the thief repents, and is willing to “make it up” by returning the money (even if it takes a lot of time because he has already spent what he stole) AND the original owner forgives the repentant thief and forgives the “debt,” the thief can “keep” the money because the RIGHTFUL OWNER (God) has forgiven them of the act and the debt.

If you don’t believe me, then I would direct you to Matthew 18:23 to 35 for the parable of the Unmerciful Servant, because it speaks directly to your “issue.”




Bob, I HAVE thought carefully about it and the whole issue of “justification” before the Lord. See the above response for a fuller response.


Now, consider the following information, too, in your outrage:




Quote from JustLearning on 8/4/06 regarding this very same matter that was voiced “back then.”




From a post on 8/6/06 by JustJilly in response to a question posed to her:




Is it your contention that she has not “done enough” to merit forgiveness, the forgiveness of God that “wipes away all sin debt owed?”

She has a husband and a child with him. Is your “response” that in order to satisfy your concept of “repentance” that she must destroy her current marriage and her child so that you won’t be “offended?” Is her repentance of her own adultery not “sufficient” to God or her former husband? Do we even know if her former is a believer who would have forgiven her in obedience to God’s commands when she confessed her sin and repentance and asked him to forgive her? Even if her former husband did not forgive her, is God’s forgiveness dependent upon what anyone does other than the individual presenting themselves to God, even when the "deed" cannot be undone without having to rob from someone else or without having to commit another sin to "pay the debt" owed to the former that someone other than God might demand?

WHERE is it written that God cannot forgive and justify ALL sins, wiping the slate clean, as pure as the whitest snow for ANYONE at ANY TIME in their lives when they accept Jesus Christ and surrender their CURRENT lives to him as Lord and Savior? What MUST anyone do to “legitimize” their lives before God CAN justify them?

I would ask you, in the spirit of Christian brotherhood, the same question you posed to me, “Do you not see that ? Or do you just not care ?”

God bless.

Bob, think about what you just wrote. Who was Solomon? Solomon was David and Bathsheba's son. God granted Solomon His wisdom. Did that choice somehow confer a "legitimization" to the "affair marriage" of David and Bathsheba WITHOUT David having to divorce Bathsheba?

Perhaps you are "stretching" here a bit because you personally find such a marriage offensive to you. I understand that, but I also caution you against projecting your feelings onto others on the system just as I try to guard against projecting my feeling onto others. We are both human and we both DO still struggle with our feelings, emotions, etc. and I understand that we cannot "please all of the people all of the time."

But Bob, for the record, again as you know from personal experience, I try as best I can to confine my attempts to help and the advice that I offer to one based in being obedient to God's Word. And I do so knowing that as the Scripture teaches, God's Word is offensive to many people, but is not to be hidden under a bushel regardless of what other's may "think of me."

God bless.

Athanasius - thank you. I will try to find the word and correct my typo.

But NONE of us is “responsible” for the “feelings” of someone else.

Correct. So you think that permits us to do anthing, choose however avoidably hurtful, so long it does not directly contravene scripture ? Even if there are easy alternatives that will avoid needless hurt of many ?

Jesus advises us to take the path that hurts and demotivates many when there are easy options that avoids that to achieve the same good end, does he ? News to me.

Answer me this -yes or no :

Would you counsel a rapist in front of rape victims rather than quietly, away from rape victims ?
If your answer is no, then how can you counsel JJ here in good faith ?

If your answer is yes, you are making the best argument for atheism I have heard in many a long year.

Ultimately, WHO should be “allowed” or “not allowed” to post is up to the system owner, not to the members.

Has anyone said you should not be allowed to post ? Has anyone said Jilly should not be allowed to post ? Why do you make my request and comments into some kind of attack when they are nothing of the sort ? I have told you that you SHOULD continue to help JJ, but to do so in a place that does not downheart and upset the vast majority of other forum users.

You can EASILY take this somewhere else, and everybody wins: You counsel JJ, infidelity sufferers don't have to endure the apparrent legitimization of affairs on their forum.

Again, answer very simply why you choose to support JJ here when you KNOW it will hurt many more, than to do it elsewhere ?

I am NOT interested in “majority opinion,” or “minority opinion,” or the “feelings of anyone” other than JustJilly within the confines of this thread and her specific situation. If that sounds “callous” to you, I am sorry. I am talking to ONE specific member of MB about their specific circumstances and whether or not you “like” it, or “dislike” the subject matter, is YOUR problem, not my problem.

This answer tells me that YES you WOULD counsel a rapist in the face of rape victims. Has your faith stolen all your humanity FH ?

You KNOW you are hurting possibly dozens,maybe hundreds of upset BS and new FWS on here, but you choose to flamboyantly fly in the face of their needs to indulge your own desires here in the name of a God that I do not recall saying the needs of the one take precedent over the needs of the many. That was Spock in a death scene in a Star Trekmovie, not Jesus, as I recall.

You seem to think this piece of "evangelism" in the face of these hurting people is somehow noble, and teaches an example of Christian forgiveness, when in truth it teaches and example of callousness IMO.

There is no Glory for God in a sitation where many are needlessly hurt. JustJilly is already saved, FH. This is counselling not evangelism in any case.

You would seem to want her to go to a “leper colony”

No, just chaperoned email or a forum less used by the broken hearted. No need to render my request more dramatic than it is. I have had many of my own issues counselled offline where myself or my counsellor considered it demotvating or private to do so in a public forum.

Two of my greatest counsellers, forum members, are very devout Christians too, are THEY "worse" Christians than you because they chose not to force a lesson on the hurting masses in order to help me ?

Evn YOU have leant me support by email in the past, FH. Why me then and not jilly now ?

If a person had their money stolen, the thief repents, and is willing to “make it up” by returning the money (even if it takes a lot of time because he has already spent what he stole) AND the original owner forgives the repentant thief and forgives the “debt,” the thief can “keep” the money because the RIGHTFUL OWNER (God) has forgiven them of the act and the debt.


And you think that is what happened in JJs case ? Both exes have forgiven them so their marriage is now legit ? I didn't think humans could legitimise a marriage aginst what scripture says uniquely about marriage ?

Are you saying that If God alone forgives, the booty of the crime cannot be kept, but of the VICTIM forgives also, the sinner can keep the booty ? Man, thats a lot of pwer in the hands of the victim that I never knew we had.
All these years I kept myself faithful, when I could just pick out a "new model", have an affair and affair marriage, and when my and her XBS forgives us, God forgives us and bingo ! Life's sweet again ! Why be faithful ?

I would ask you, in the spirit of Christian brotherhood, the same question you posed to me, “Do you not see that ? Or do you just not care ?”

I do not see that. It is not evident to me from Scripture that forgiveness of sin also wipes away all consequences of it. Murderers may be forgiven, but the dead stay dead.

God's Word is offensive to many people

Not my point in this case : Justjillys example being flaunted as legitimate here in this hurting place is what is offensive here IMO.

In summary you will continue to enable justjilly here in the certain knowledge that you are hurting people less fortunate in recovery than you and no humanitarian compassion will make you change your ways.

Bob, he knows full well what he is doing and frankly he doesn't care.

Okay, as you asked me I will ask you, didn't you read my opening post? I didn't have JJ's email address.

Regardless, I don't KNOW it will hurt many others. But since when, since you bring it up, did the potential hurt someone else might feel about ANYTHING someone chooses to post enter into your equation of what should or should not be posted?

There are people who have hurt me deeply many times with what they have posted. Should they have not posted? Should I have not read what they posted? Should I let my hurt feelings dictate an equally hurtful response ON PURPOSE?

I've been guilty of doing that in the past and have endeavored to eliminate that from my posting style. I have seldom heard anyone "jump on" someone who posts offensive posts to me, so is that supposed to give me the right to lash out at them?




You are dodging the issue, Bob. This is a "group counseling site" in much the same way that "group counseling" happens everywhere for victims. Individual "counseling" or discussion can, and often does, happen, but the nature of this site IS "group therapy." I'm personally not a big believer in "group therapy" for most individuals, preferring individual counseling. Perhaps you would feel better if I amended the thread title to include something like "thread reading and posting restricted to just FH and JJ" or a warning that anyone who might read the thread MIGHT find the subject matter "offensive?"

Shoot, you may even remember that there was a similar sort of request some time in the past when a bunch of female posters created a "For Women Only" thread. Would that thread by itself be deemed "offensive" to some, particularly to some males on MB? Perhaps. Could it be that what the women wanted to discuss could also contain some things that others might find "offensive" if they read it?




"So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation: the old has gone, the new has come! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God. God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." (2 Corinthians 5:16-21, emphasis added)

Bob, when you write "JustJilly is already saved, FH," you are really saying or acknowledging two things. First, she was not saved until recently, much after her affair and divorce from her first husband. Second, she IS saved, and as such IS NOT now in an "illegitimate marriage" because of what was quoted above, "...not counting men's sins against them."

Men may want to "count sins" but God doesn't do that for those who are his adopted children in Christ. THAT is the point of receiving Christ and the Good News of being reconciled to God through Christ.

"Do you not know, brothers - for I am speaking to men who know the law - that the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives? For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive., but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called and adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man.

So my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code." (Romans 7:1-6)

Bob, I understand that there are many on the system who do not believe in Jesus Christ and to whom all of this may be "interpreted" from their own perspective, and perhaps be seen as some sort of rationalization or justification for sinful behavior. In reality, if they do not have Christ, they don't need any "excuses" to behave sinfully, that is the "normal" human nature.

There are some who think of themselves as Christian, but who seem to want to remain under the authority of the law, the "to do's" and "don't do's" that have the "law" as the "judge," rather than God as the judge according to the promises inherent in accepting Jesus Christ as one's Lord and Savior.

A strong warning is also issued to believers that they are NOT to take their position in Christ as a "license" to sin willfully AFTER they have accepted Christ. That is a distinctive warning that we are not done with fighting the battle against a fallen flesh. That is why we strive to be obedient to God because of what Jesus endured and did for us, canceling the Age of Law and replacing it with the Age of Grace.

Adultery remains a sin and always will. But the overriding point is that accepting Christ as Lord and Savior transfers, if you will, the "guilt" of that sin to Christ, who took it on our behalf so that it, along with all of our other sins, were nailed to the Cross and paid for in full by His death. Therefore, believers are justified before God by what Jesus did and not by what we did or what we do to "earn" anything.

Make no mistake about it, marriage IS serious business with God, especially for anyone who "claims the name of Jesus." Christians should KNOW better than to engage in adultery, but sin is SO enticing that even believers can fall prey. The "dividing line," however, on the issue of sin, and in particular the sin of adultery or an "illegitimate marriage" is Christ. Once someone becomes a believer, they are NOT to commit willful sin because they are now "owned" by God. Prior to that time....."all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

"Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation - but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, "Abba," Father." The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children. Now if we are children, then we are heirs - heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory." (Romans 8:12-17, emphasis added)

God bless.

Post deleted by notonlywords_

FH

This is EXACTLY my point, and it is not I who is dodging the issue.

Would you counsel a rapist in a room full of rape victims because you are not responsible for any hurt they may feel as result of your choice so to do ?

Please answer in as few words as possible.

by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body

So you interpret this to mean that forgiveness erases all physical traces of the sins of the body ?

* The murdered victims are raised ?

* The derelict victims are restored ?

* The broken hearted victims are raised up ?

See now I have a test of interpretations of scripture that I try to apply and you clearly do not:

If an interpretation that claims physical manifestation is borne out in life, it is probably correct. If it is not borne out in life, you should seek a better interpretation.

None of the above ever happens on this fallen earth to my witness. So another interpretation must be sought else we misrepresent the God we purport to follow.