MelodyLane,

I already decided to change how I live. You do not have to convince me that all sex, including premarital sex, outside marriage is wrong. I agree extramarital sex is wrong. I will not agree with you on premarital sex, but that is not necessary for me to fix my marriage.

You also do not have to try to convince me that my OMs all had some secret contempt for me in order for me to choose monogamy. It's not necessary for me to believe these men are pure evil with no feelings of genuine friendship in order for me to remain in my new monogamous state. We are arguing about all the wrong things.

What got us off on this tangent is that I was trying to explain (not excuse!) why I made such bad choices. MrsW suggested a need for approval might be a factor. I would say it's more a need to be desired.

The problem is, what I wanted all along was to get that feeling from my husband. I had given up on trying to feel that way with him and sought that feeling elsewhere. I'm not trying to justify it. I know it was wrong. But that is what I now want from my husband.

Yep. You have said something that is spot on. The problem is that those other men didn't desire you they used you. You were a means to an end. You need to find a way back towards finding self respect and dignity.

I have four things to say then I'm out of this thread.

1. Men do NOT think women who enjoy sex are sluts. Good grief, we're not in Victorian times here. Men, even men who are liberated, think women who'll have sex with them at the drop of a hat are "easy game". Most women dislike and have no respect for men players and philanderers for the same reason.

2. I do things with my H sexually that would make most people's hair curl. It's because there's trust and love and intimacy and safety and I am a very highly sexual person.

3. I talk to another FWW on another board (not TOW BTW) who was a prostitute when she was young. What she said about the men who visited her was EXACTLY what you are saying about the men who had sex with you.

4. I am not against premarital sex.

Aph, do you really want to experience this with your husband? Will that be enough for you? Do you really want marriage and all that it means? Marriage is a relationship of EXTRAORDINARY CARE that includes ROMANTIC EXCLUSIVITY and PERMANANCE between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN-Those words in all caps are Dr. Harley's words regarding marriage-it is what is taught here...Is that what you want? If so, why? I'm not being flip with you, honestly, I'm asking a serious question that I think YOU very much need to consider the answer to...

See, I think, whether you realize it yet or not, that you use your sexuality as currency for male attention...You mistake that attention for admiration and adoration...I'm not saying that you or women in general don't enjoy sex...I can assure you that I am no prude...but I think that even you somewhere deep down realize that the kind of sex that you are exhaulting here is very empty and the satisfaction is quite short lived...If it was really as satisfying as you claim, you wouldn't still be searching, no, you would instead be basking in a self satisified glow and be ever so happy, and we both know that that is NOT the case, is it?

Drop the defenses Aph...Your anger and lashing out here I see as intense deep hurt...Do you agree?

Mrs. W,


Yes that's the whole point! But everybody seems to be telling me I'm wrong for wanting it in the first place - That sex is only something women give in order to get something else. I see it as something shared. IMO, the wrongness is from seeking it out from other people, not seeking it from my own husband!


The answer is that I think I was wrong in thinking I could have sex on the side without it affecting the rest of my marriage. I want the emotional intimacy that goes along with monogamy. Also, I think maybe I just need to be more creative in getting what I want from my husband. Maybe I was wrong is seeing him as a lost cause in bed.


Now how am I supposed to argue with you when you're actually making sense? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> But seriously, that is a good point. I may well be doing that. That sort of focused attention and enthusiasm during sex is what I've been trying to get from my husband for years.


Well, it can actually put me in a good mood for an entire week. But it's not worth creating nonsexual problems in my marriage that may not have been there before because my attention and energies have been focused elsewhere. I really did think I could juggle - and give him just as much attention as before. But I have heard too many BHs say they knew something was wrong before they knew she was cheating. And just thinking about that makes me break down and cry.


Well a large part of it is being misunderstood. There are some posters who are better at issueing slogans than they are at really trying to listen to what I'm saying. I've had words put in my mouth countless times, and it's very frustrating. But I think you finally get it. Thanks for listening <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

familycomesfirst,

I'm 37. If my husband did what I did, I wouldn't have much right to complain unless it was with his ex-wife or someone he'd actually leave me for. If he LEFT me for someone else, that would devastate me. And I don't like that he keeps a naked pic of his ex-wife, not because it's another woman but because it's his EX-WIFE. Ugh. But if he say, had a ONS, I could get over it - especially if it made it easier for him to recover from what I did.

Mrs.Wondering,

It's good now. It wasn't always. He had an anger control problem and was mildly physically abusive. By that I mean he left no marks but the severity of the punishment depended more on his mood than on what we actually did. There were no injuries until my mom got her black eye but there was a great deal of fear and a great deal of yelling (from mom too, even moreso actually.)

However, when I was 19 and he gave her that black eye she called the cops and ordered him out of the house for 10 days. After about 3, he agreed to anger management counseling. Best decision he ever made. It really worked wonders. Too bad it didn't happen sooner. But that's the past and I'm not one of those people who is obsessed with wrongs done in childhood. He did the work to reform himself. That's good enough for me.

Thank you for answering my questions. I hope you find a way to make your M better. Best of luck on telling your H about your affairs.

hopeandpray,


They desired me sexually, which is what I'm talking about here. If they didn't desire me sexually, they would have been ONS, not affairs. If they were using me, then I was also using them. But I don't see how "using" can be mutual. But that being said, yes I need to find my way back.

The Affirmations of Humanism:
A Statement of Principles

We are committed to the application of reason and science to the understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems.

Good. So are Christians.


We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature for salvation.

Obviously. Denial of God and the substituting of the created for the Creator is fundamental to Secular Humanism. No believer "denigrates" human intelligence. In fact, some of the greatest scientific minds have been believers themselves. At the fundamental basement is a preconceived bias that denies God and takes "on blind faith" that all things happened by chance and 'evolution.'


We believe that scientific discovery and technology can contribute to the betterment of human life.

No problem here. It is basic to Christian belief also and NOT the exclusive province of those who deny God.


We believe in an open and pluralistic society and that democracy is the best guarantee of protecting human rights from authoritarian elites and repressive majorities.

So do Christians. And I'm sure even the Pilgrims, among others, would also share in that belief. But "repressive minorities" are already in control and "liberal elites" are every bit as dangerous and repressive of freedoms. You have no corner on this even if you might consider yourself to be a "Secular Progressive."



We are committed to the principle of the separation of church and state.

Interesting. Then you set yourself squarely against the Constitution. There is no "separation of church and state" in the Constitution. All that is banned is a "State Religion," and THAT is precisely what many Secular Humanists are proposing and pushing for. The "State religion of Atheism," based not upon fact, but upon a presupposition that based entirely upon FAITH, not fact.

What the Constitution GUARANTEES is not only freedom FROM an "Official State Religion," it guarantees the "free exercise of religion" and that "Congress shall pass NO laws abridging the free exercise of religion." There IS no "public" versus "private" stipulation. NO means NONE. Under NO circumstances.

I won't bother to go into the beliefs of the founding fathers or of subsequent leaders, but it is CLEAR from history that most of them felt that a belief in Almighty God was essential to both the prospering and the survival of this nation.



We cultivate the arts of negotiation and compromise as a means of resolving differences and achieving mutual understanding.

Nothing wrong with negotiation or compromise as long as there are clearly defined boundaries beyond which compromise becomes capitulation and surrender. Fundamental to this position is that there ARE absolutes that are "right and wrong" and not all things are "relative."

What you compromised was the self determined RIGHTNESS of monogamy in marriage, no matter what the marriage might actually be like. It was a voluntary commitment and vow base in the "absolute" definition of exclusivity in traditional marriage. It was NOT open to "negotiation" or "compromise."


We are concerned with securing justice and fairness in society and with eliminating discrimination and intolerance.

Uh huh. As long as it "limits" the discrimination to Christians and the beliefs of Christianity, not to mention the Constitution of the United States. Eliminating "discrimination and intolerance" MEANS that the traditional sanctity and meaning of Marriage is "compromised" away in favor of "swinging," "open marriages," redefinition of "marriage" to allow homosexual "marriages," and essentially surrendering all things that might somehow "impinge" upon the "wants and desires" of an individual. That IS what Secular Humanism is all about. The individual is "god" and can decide for themselves what IS and what IS NOT "right or wrong" regardless of what anyone else might think.


We believe in supporting the disadvantaged and the handicapped so that they will be able to help themselves.

No problem here. Christians have been committed to supporting the disadvantaged (i.e.,poor) and the handicapped (physically and mentally) for a very long time, much longer than "Secular Humanism" has been. All "SC" is doing is appropriating something that's been done for a long time by others and is NOT unique to Secular Humanism.


We attempt to transcend divisive parochial loyalties based on race, religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, and strive to work together for the common good of humanity.

So does the church of God. There is ONE church of God and it includes ALL believers regardless of " race, religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, sexual orientation, or ethnicity." And working together for the common good of humanity is fundamental to a belief in God and that all humans are created in the image of God. Perhaps you might even recognize the second greatest commandment stated by Jesus; "Love your neighbor as yourself." Secular Humanism may want to appropriate that commandment as if they the only ones to have "found a better way," but they also categorically reject the first commandment that precedes it.


We want to protect and enhance the earth, to preserve it for future generations, and to avoid inflicting needless suffering on other species.

A noble cause to be sure. But again, not the exclusive domain of Secularists.


We believe in enjoying life here and now and in developing our creative talents to their fullest.

Nothing wrong here, unless you define "enjoying life" as a license to sin and for self-gratification at the expense of others. That IS what adultery is about, you know.


We believe in the cultivation of moral excellence.

Now this one, given your history, should be interesting to see you explain. Just what IS "moral excellence" and WHO defines it? What, or who, establishes what is "good moral behavior" and what is "bad moral behavior" independent of the desires or rationalizations of the individual, be they Secular Humanist, Christian, or any other person or society?


We respect the right to privacy. Mature adults should be allowed to fulfill their aspirations, to express their sexual preferences, to exercise reproductive freedom, to have access to comprehensive and informed health-care, and to die with dignity.

ahhh…the elevation of the selfish desires of the individual to do whatever THEY think they want to do. This IS the crux of Secular Humanism. Moral Relativism. Denial of anyone else's rights if they might "interfere" with whatever the individual wants or desires.

Mature adults should be allowed to fulfill their aspirations

No problem, as long as your aspirations don't impinge on my aspirations or the marriage aspirations of other Faithful Spouses.


to express their sexual preferences

Ah yes, the "right" to do whatever they want sexually, with whomever they want, whenever they want. Want, want, want. "Morals?" What morals?

Express your sexual preferences all you want WITHIN your marriage and your ONE mate. Leave everyone else out because YOUR "sexual preferences" are certain to adversely impact the aspirations of someone else's spouse.


to exercise reproductive freedom

And you have that right. Abstinence. Contraception. When, and if, you will have children. But you do not have the right to kill another person to "exercise reproductive freedom." The right to say "no" and keep your legs together.

Alpaerisis, you have the "right" to drive a car anywhere you want to go, but you DO NOT have the right to "drive drunk" (careless abuse of your right to drink and your right to drive) because YOUR choices can have a devastating effect, even a fatal effect, on others who had no "say" in your choices.

But when you CHOOSE to engage in sex and a child results, you do NOT have the right to choose death for that child. Of course, that's my opinion, regardless of the fact that the child is genetically completely different from the mother. If you truly believe abortion is okay in some "extreme cases," then you should be against all abortion for the convenience of the mother who CHOSE to engage in sex KNOWING that that is precisely HOW children are made. Rape, for example, is quite a bit different from willful adultery.


to have access to comprehensive and informed health-care, and to die with dignity.

No problem here, and access to health care is the LAW of the land. To "die with dignity" is also not a problem. So how do DEFINE death with dignity versus death some other way….aborting a viable, healthy baby?


We believe in the common moral decencies: altruism, integrity, honesty, truthfulness, responsibility. Humanist ethics is amenable to critical, rational guidance. There are normative standards that we discover together. Moral principles are tested by their consequences.

Yet you have consistently and repeatedly violated every one of your stated "common moral decencies."

"Humanist ethics is amenable to critical, rational guidance. There are normative standards that we discover together. Moral principles are tested by their consequences."

This is nothing more than the clarion call of Secular Humanism…that ALL morals are RELATIVE. YOU had "great sex," therefore your adulteries were "moral" and devoid of negative consequences. There are NO "absolutes, and get any group together and they can decide for themselves what is "normative" in the "morals department."

And that IS what you have been defending and using to justify your choices to commit multiple adulteries with married and unmarried men. It's all "relative." NOW you say that they were "wrong." Why? If they are wrong now, they were wrong then, and they will continue to be wrong in the future.

But you don't see it that way. There is no remorse evident, just another desire to "get what you think you want now….your husband." One more time, it's all about "me, me, me! And what I want." With your commitment to Moral Relativism that is inherent in Secular Humanist, WHY would anyone believe that you "suddenly" have decided that adultery is wrong "at this time" and was "wrong to engage in previously?" What is to "keep you" from "changing your mind again when morals are "discovered together" and declared "normative" by group decision (whether that group is a group of one or of several)?

You want a "test" of the consequences of your Secular Humanistic position on this subject? The divorce rate has never been higher. Kids do "just fine" in a fractured marriage, or no marriage at all. The list is long as to what the consequences have been of this philosophy.


We are deeply concerned with the moral education of our children. We want to nourish reason and compassion.

Bull. You want "no boundaries." That's what Secular Humanism offers. "Your morals are whatever YOU want them to be." Very compassionate, if I do say so.



We are engaged by the arts no less than by the sciences.

Oh boy. And no one else is?


We are citizens of the universe and are excited by discoveries still to be made in the cosmos.

Okay Carl Sagan. What other citizens are there? I know, "billions and billions" (Carl Sagan impression).

Discovering the wonderful way in which God has made and ordered the universe has LONG been a pursuit of believers. So what makes this the "exclusive" terrain of Secular Humanists?


We are skeptical of untested claims to knowledge, and we are open to novel ideas and seek new departures in our thinking.

I'll bet you are Secular Humanists are OPEN to "novel ideas" and love to "seek new departures" in our thinking of what Morals are, especially the morals that might "restrict" their "right" to do whatever they want to do.

How about the "untested claims" that Jesus Christ actually did RISE from the dead? No, if one were to admit that, then it might impact their "Morals" and their concept of "right and wrong," and who, actually, IS in control that we are all ultimately "answerable to."



We affirm humanism as a realistic alternative to theologies of despair and ideologies of violence and as a source of rich personal significance and genuine satisfaction in the service to others.

"Theologies of despair?" Give me a break. Try to "name names" and be specific."

"Ideologies of violence?" Is that anything like Radical Islamists? Naaaa, can't be just that, Rosie said Christians are just as bad, so do you agree with Rosie?


We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than despair, learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance, joy rather than guilt or sin, tolerance in the place of fear, love instead of hatred, compassion over selfishness, beauty instead of ugliness, and reason rather than blind faith or irrationality.

Right. But your ACTIONS speak much louder than the words. And you have no real understanding of what "blind faith" really is, do you? Ask your husband when you tell him what you've been up to.

By the way, have you heard the one that goes like this: "Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, mind, and soul"?
"Do good to them who hate you and despitefully use you?"
Ever bothered to read 1Corinthians 13?
"Forgive AS you have been forgiven by your heavenly Father for your sins."

Ooops, NO "sin" in the Secular Humanist "playbook," that would be "judging" behavior as "wrong."


We believe in the fullest realization of the best and noblest that we are capable of as human beings.

A "noble" wish. Too bad the actuality is FAR short of the goal.




I do accept that you are a Secular Humanist. THAT is the point. I disagree that Secular Humanism is THE answer, or even a "good answer" in that it's underlying philosophy is "if it feels good to me, do it!" That philosophy has been "tried" and found false as a "guide" for good Moral behavior, but IS the "enabler" of the pursuit of selfish desires no matter who might get hurt in the process.

If you think the "answer" is to put me on your "ignore" list, feel free to do so. You don't want to deal with truth anyway, that is very evident from all of your postings to date.


What does working on myself mean?

How about starting with a clear understanding of, and definition of what, are YOUR own personal Standards and then what your Boundaries?

I would submit that if Secular Humanism and Moral Relativism are your Standards, your desire for a loving marriage with your husband is unlikely. Your Boundaries are also very lacking, or at least suspect, based upon your responses to other posts above, (i.e., it would be "okay" if your husband had a "revenge affair").

Can you confirm or deny, Aph?

And pssssssst Aph. You have not earned the "F" in "FWW" honey.

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

ForeverHers,

If our Secular Humanism discussion goes beyond this post I think it should go to either private message or topic marked off topic or something. We don't want to get too derailed. So this is my last public response on SecHum, although there's some other stuff in here as well.

I'll address the topic of remorse first. I'm still getting to know people on these boards. Some people I trust, some people I don't, and some people I just don't know about or haven't met. In just about every Internet forum there is always someone who will poke at any perceived weakness, enjoy your suffering and rejoice in your tears. This is especially true if they are unhappy themselves. I do feel remorse, but I don't feel comfortable expressing it publicly online. I don't want it to become a source of entertainment for some twisted person. on to the rest of the post...

I'm so glad you've seen so many similarities of Humanism to Christianity. You see there IS some common ground. Nothing in the document is meant to be the exclusive terrain of Secular Humanism. It is the particular combination of things that makes it Secular Humanism. The similarities to Christianity and other religions, combined with the differences.

You are completely wrong about the Constitution, though, but this is the last thing I'll say on that subject:
I've actually read the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and Thomas Jefferson's letter (in a book of his writings that I have) explaining how the no establishment of religion clause of the First Amendment IS MEANT TO BE INTERPRETED as a wall of separation between church and state. May I also remind you that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is Constitutional and what is not. The SC is in charge of interpreting the Constitution. That is their job. And they agree with me, not you. They rule by precedent, not dogma.


Well first let me remind you that I have expressly said that my adultery is not justified by anything, especially not Secular Humanism. That being said, moral excellence is defined by the laws of human nature. For example, all people in all times and in all cultures are hurt by false imprisonment, torture, excessive denial of personal liberties, physical attacks on their person, etc.

As much as the cultural relativists would like to pretend that living in a different culture makes you a different species, human beings the world over have SOME things in common. That's why Humanist organizations promote universal Human Rights. So the moral good is to avoid things that hurt people (yes like adultery), and the moral excellent is to do things that promote the welfare of people and the human species in general. (Although, we have concern for animals as well but that's a much more complicated topic.) So, if someone is going to be hurt by what you do, you shouldn't do it.


The only example there that could possibly be defined as selfish is abortion. But look what happened when it was outlawed. Just as many abortions happened and women also died. So, do you want to prevent deaths by providing choices other than abortion? Or do you want to outlaw it and bring back the bloody coat hanger? Which one would be better for society and result in fewer deaths? I don't want to get dragged into an abortion debate, so I'll just say this. There is a movement of centrists who would like to unite the right and left in the common goal of reducing the number of abortions. Outlawing abortion won't achieve that aim. Been there, done that, and it failed. Time to try something different.


Better that they be in committed relationships with each other than in fake marriages with unsuspecting straights who become devasted when they find out their husband is getting blow jobs from men. I'd hate to be that woman, wouldn't you? Morals are about what hurts people, what harms people. Gays being off by themselves don't hurt anybody. Gays being fake-married to straights? That hurts a lot of people.


No, death with dignity means giving a terminally ill person some autonomy so that if they are suffering and want to go sooner rather than later, and on their own terms, that they can. This is not the ideal situation by any means. The ideal situation would be being able to make the dying person free from all pain and discomfort. But when that's not possible, it's the individual who should decide and not the government. After all, it's the individual who is suffering the pain or in some cases loss of self.


Yes, we've established that. Unfortunately, I have no time machine so I'll just have to do my best reform myself and clean up the mess when my husband learns the truth.

I will say this, though. Outside the realm of decisions concerning sexual behavior, I adhere to my moral principles very well. That doesn't justify the times that I deviate - my point is only that instead of having a moral problem generally the problem is confined to one area. That's because anytime I let my emotions override my brain (or conscience), 99.9% of the time that decision has something to do with sex.


You do realize, of course, that the words "normative standards" mean the exact opposite of relative, don't you?

I'll give you an example of a normative, NOT relative, moral standard - torture is always wrong even when the United States calls it "extraordinary rendition" or "creative interrogation tactics" or whatever else is the new euphemism of the day.


Nope. I already said I was wrong even by my own standards. The point of this conversation in the beginning was to figure out why I was cheating, not to justify it.


Yes, exactly. I agree 100% You are confusing reasons with justifications. I was exploring REASONS why I led myself astray, not justifications for it. As for me changing my mind, I didn't. I knew it was wrong and did it anyway. I created rationalizations, sure, but people do that no matter what their religious or philosophical background.


Theologies that say people are basically evil, good people will go to ****** just for what they believe, God's will or karma justifies social or economic oppression, if you fly airplanes into buildings killing thousands of "infidels" you will be rewarded when you die, changing your mind about religion means you deserve death, or violence is justified in the name of God (or anything else, really). I could go on and on, but I think you get the point.

BINGO!



Rosie is a naive westerner who knows nothing about how Islam is actually practiced. Islam is at least 500 years behind Christianity - gotta give credit where credit is due - Christianity IS better than Islam if you judge by how they are practiced in this current day and age. Humanists were the ones who led the effort to get Dr. Younis Sheik released from jail when he was facing the death penalty for blasphemy in Pakistan. Islamic states are messing with MY people by charging them with apostasy and blasphemy. Putting death fatwas on their heads! I have given Muslims quite an earful on YouTube, believe me! But don't get me started on Islam - I could go into an endless rant. Muslims are messing with your people, too, you know but Secular Humanists would never do that. We are very pro-democracy.


Now, now. You know full well that plenty of formerly wayward spouses of Christian background are here, too. People have their weaknesses no matter what their theology. And I'm here, aren't I?

That's fine. You are entitled to your opinion, as am I.

But you are NOT entitled to your own facts. SecHum doesn't say anything like that. It's "If someone will feel bad, don't do it" and "If NOBODY will feel bad, it's probably okay." I don't mind honest differences of opinion and even criticism of Humanism, but it can't be a strawman. I'm not going to let you get away with saying something about Humanism that isn't true.

Again, those two philosophies are not compatible. You can't have normative standards if everything is relative. The International Humanist and Ethical Union would not be cooperating with the United Nations in promoting universal human rights if we believed rights were relative to place or culture.


1- Christian marriages are not the only happy marriages.
2- It's not that it would be okay, it's that if it would take some of his pain away, it would be worth any pain I would have to endure. And just knowing that it would less his pain would reduce my own. Unfortunately, there are some people on the board who have said revenge sex didn't make them feel any better. In that case it would not be worth it.

Resilient,

Child abuse is fairly common. Mine (physical) was relatively mild and my dad eventually got help and reformed himself. See my post to Mrs.Wondering for more details if you are interested. Because he changed, I don't see any point to holding anything against him now. We get along these days just fine. So I don't really see any point in blaming my waywardness on my childhood. It's in the past.

BTW, in case anyone is wondering, I don't even spank my kids. And they are doing great.

Are you talking sexual abuse?

LIE.

I vote for the coat hanger as crimes are supposed to happen in back alleys. And if the criminal happens to die in the commision of the crime, so be it.

There are other forms of abuse aside from physical dear. Don't think for a moment your children are not being affected by your marital discord and your very inappropriate response of serial adultery. They, children, are more in tune with whats going on than any parent would like to think or admit.

Your claim "they are doing great" tells me you are still so far in the FOG. Quite ordinary and typical of a WW.

Honest to gawd, do you think this is our first time at the Rodeo. Lets be real, shall we.

Working On One Self

[color:"blue"] Lession 1:

Stop Lying
Be Honest and Real [/color]

Just for the record, APH is very much not a troll. I do not engage in her threads simply because I have already given her all the advice I can on another forum. She sees enough of my writing on various threads to the point where there is no purpose in me addressing her directly.

I asked her to come to MB to get help. That help has been given both with 2X4 and with compassion. Frankly I have NO clue why she has had the affairs she has had; multiple affairs. Unless I can get a fingernail under why someone does what they do, I am largely ineffective in providing advice. So I don't.

If she were the "Hairdresser from Marietta," which APH knows what I mean, I could offer advice, which would be quickly rejected. HFM is a state of mind that is pure critter and not only proud of it, those so afflicted complain loudly when anyone points out their critterness.

I don't think APH is pure critter, yet she HAS had multiple affairs; addiction to hedonism is about all I have come up with. Try to help her if you can anyway you can, I think she has stuck around here and taken the rocks because she really wants to find herself and direct her life in a different way.

Remember folks, it is almost always baby steps and time and repeated lessons.

Larry

[color:"red"] She is a Freeloader. She may have been a Renter at some time in the distant past, but not recently. She has never been a Buyer, and I do not think she ever will be a Buyer. The best she can do is Renter.[/color]


Freeloader is unwilling to put much effort into the care of his or her partner in a romantic relationship. He or she does only what comes naturally and expects only what comes naturally. It's like a person who tries to live in a house without paying rent or doing anything to improve it unless the person is in the mood to do so.

Renter is willing to provide limited care as long as it's in his or her best interest. The romantic relationship is considered tentative, so the care is viewed as short-term. It's like a person who rents a house and is willing to stay as long as the conditions seem fair, or until he or she finds something better. The person is willing to pay reasonable rent and keep the house clean but is not willing to make repairs or improvements. It's the landlord's job to keep the place attractive enough for the renter to stay and continue paying rent.

Buyer is willing to demonstrate an extraordinary sense of care by making permanent changes in his or her own behavior and lifestyle to make the romantic relationship mutually fulfilling. Solutions to problems are long-term solutions and must work well for both partners because the romantic relationship is viewed as exclusive and permanent. It's like a person who buys a house for life with a willingness to make repairs that accomodate changing needs, painting the walls, installing new carper, replacing the roof, and even doinf some remodeling so that it can be comfortable and useful.

Aph,

You and I are almost totally opposite and I have absolutely no idea how to offer any kind of help for you. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

But I care and I'm praying for you to find peace from the same source as me or another.

Ace

I have no problem with taking a discussion about Secular Humanism to another thread. If you'd like to do that, feel free to do so.

So let me simply conclude that if Secular Humanism is your chosen "faith," then you have violated several of the principles of that faith the same as anyone who does something in opposition to the tenets of their given faith.
The "question" will always be, IF someone violates their chosen faith tenets, how do they "get restored" to a "right walk," how do they receive (or qualify for) forgiveness, and what KEEPS them "walking in their faith" as per the tenets of that faith "from this day forward?"




This is a "strawman" argument. With the exception of Larry178 (who has not even posted on this thread), there would appear to be no one that you know on MB, let alone those who have chosen to spend some of their time responding to you. You chose to post on MB ostensibly because you want to know how to have the "best chance" of saving your marriage. Whether or not you "feel comfortable" expressing feelings of remorse over your affairs is neither here nor there. What you need to understand is that no one currently BELIEVES you are in the least remorseful for your affairs based entirely upon what you HAVE written (i.e., being a "goddess of love" to these Other Men, having great sex, not being at all concerned or remorseful for the enormous pain your actions have inflicted on the spouses of the married men you were "helping" in the sex department, etc.).

That you now claim to be remorseful is hopeful, but there has been no indication that the stated remorse is anything more than a statement. It has not been "backed up," if you will, by anything you have said or done. In fact, the exact opposite is what has been clearly stated in many of your posts. Remorse is not a "blouse" you can put on and take off for convenience. It is an indication of a truly changed philosophy and personality that is now totally inconsistent with continuing sin, and a sincere repentance of past sins that are now abhorrent to the "new you."




Of course there are "similarities" between Secular Humanism and Christianity, just as there are "similarities" between most, if not all, "religions" of the world. One example of that would be that you can find some form of the "Golden Rule" in just about every religion. But the argument you are raising is that "one religion is as good as another" is, in my opinion, a false argument. It is NOT the "points" of a given religion that make it true or false, it is the OBJECT of their faith.

For example, in every religion in the world except for Christianity, everything is a "DO" based faith. Do this, do that, and you MAY be found "good." In Christianity, it is a "DONE" based faith. It based solely upon what Jesus Christ DID FOR US, not on what we "do." ALL people "fall short" of the beliefs of their chosen religion from time to time and, therefore, do not qualify as being "good." The simple reason is that either God exists and is Sovereign, or He does not, in which case it doesn't matter WHAT anyone believes in. IF God exists, then HE "sets the rules" and we don't have a "choice in the matter." We either "do it His way," or we do it "our way."

What you choose as your way (Secular Humanism) does NOT address the ultimate questions of "why am I here," and "what happens after death." Your way places the individual as the "supreme judge" of right and wrong and each individual, or group of like-minded individuals, "gets to" determine what is "right and wrong" for themselves.

For me, the issue is NOT that people who do not believe in God or in Jesus Christ CANNOT lead what are generally accepted as "morally good" lives, they can. The reason is that God has written His moral code on the hearts of ALL men and women. WE choose to accept or reject "His way" because of our sin-nature. Without a life that has been transformed by Christ, we are left with our own selfishness as the "thing" that "sits on the throne of our lives." We "submit" our will only to our own will at any given moment. We become the judge of what is right and wrong for ourselves, based upon what we "want" at any given moment. Therefore right and wrong become "relative" and not absolute. And EACH individual has the "right" of the very same self-determination and the right to "reject" someone else's judgment of what is right and wrong. That is the "normal condition" of fallen mankind, but to have a "fallen mankind" requires that they "fell" from some "higher condition" and that, in turn, requires an "outside of ourselves" standard that "sets the bar" for what is universally "good, bad, right and wrong."
When you finally confess your adulteries to your husband, on what basis should he forgive you and choose to continue your marriage? Put another way, WHY should he believe what you say NOW when all of your actions have PROVEN the exact opposite? If he chooses to forgive you and remain married, on what basis, or to whom, do you both surrender yourselves, your own wills, feelings, wants and desires? It can't be the "god" of Secular Humanism because SC embraces the concept of Moral Relativism.

And no, you can't point to things like the "universal rejection of torture" as being sufficient either. What he is going to experience is the "ultimate" in marital torture, not just once, but several times. I'll have more to say about your example of torture later on, but for now you really need to be thinking about WHY he should choose to do anything other than divorce you and "set you free to do whatever you choose to do." That is, if you truly want to remain married AND build and loving and trusting relationship with him in the future.




Okay, we'll not go off on this tangent unless you want to make another thread for it. So let me simply say that your "interpretation" is based solely upon a writing of Thomas Jefferson and that your "interpretation" is an incorrect application of what he wrote. It is a FACT that the Constitution does NOT include separation of church and state OTHER THAN the prohibition that the Congress cannot establish ONE religion as the "official State Religion" as they had in England and elsewhere. Furthermore, to safeguard that point, the Constitution also GUARANTEES that no law shall be passed (or for that matter "interpreted" by the Supreme Court) that ABRIDGES the free expression of ANY religions ANYWHERE in the United States, and that includes "public places."

When Jefferson is talking about a "wall of separation of church and state," he is referring to the establishment clause of the Constitution that PROHIBITS any one religion from becoming the "State Religion," not to keep the free exercise OF religion out of public places or out of government. What is going on today is the attempt to make "Atheism" the State Religion.

With respect to what you wrote about the Supreme Court, "May I also remind you that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is Constitutional and what is not. The SC is in charge of interpreting the Constitution. That is their job. And they agree with me, not you. They rule by precedent, not dogma," this is NOT what the Supreme Court is supposed to do according to the Constitution. They are NOT the "final arbiter," the people are. The Supreme Court is comprised of individuals just like you and me, and many of their "decisions" have had nothing to do with the Constitution. We can go into that also if you'd like, but again, it should be on a different thread. Suffice it to say, "Roe v. Wade" is just one example of where the Supreme Court has chosen to deny "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" to every aborted baby by claiming that a woman "right to be pregnant or not pregnant" supercedes the rights of everyone else, the baby, the father, anyone. Never mind the FACT the baby is a distinct and genetically different person than the woman, never mind that the VAST majority of abortions are solely for the "convenience" of the woman, never mind that the "moral thing" to do would be to protect the innocent from the harm that could befall them because of the selfish choices of someone else(i.e. those who we would loosely call a "mother"), the Supreme Court is NOT free to amend the Constitution to fit their "whims." And that is precisely what the Supreme Court has done many times. The Constitution is NOT a "living document" that they can pick and choose what to uphold and what not to uphold. It is the STANDARD by which our country operates and provides for how LAWS, and the Constitution itself, can be changed. The Constitution does NOT grant that right to the Supreme Court, it grants it to the PEOPLE by way of, and only by way of, the Constitutional Amendment process, not the "interpretations" or personal biases of 9 men and women who choose to set themselves ABOVE the Constitution and the People.



I agree, adultery is not justified by anything, in fact it is specifically "outlawed" by the Seventh Commandment given to us by the Sovereign Judge and Lord of all people.
Moral excellence is NOT defined by the "laws of human nature," they are defined by God. Only by accepting the presupposition that God does not exist can anyone put "human nature" in God's place. And that raises the question of "what IS the normal nature of Man" and what, other than each individual for themselves, determines what is applicable to all people in the way of behavior, morally good, or otherwise?

You cite torture as an example. Fine. I have no problem with torture being immoral. But how does one DEFINE torture? It is in this area that a careful definition of the word is essential. Who determines WHAT torture is and who determines what a given "mistreatment" of someone else can be classified as "torture?" How much "persuasion" is "acceptable," and therefore NOT "torture," when it becomes necessary to protect others from the "bad morals" and potentially hurtful activities of the person or group they belong to?

Put another way, when do the "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one?"

IF someone, or some group of people are actively using and embracing torture as a means to impose their will upon others, what is the responsibility of others to oppose them, and to what "extreme" should that opposition be employed? Put another way, if their (the "bad guys") activities don’t directly affect or impact ME personally, why should ANYONE oppose them in any way? Why should anyone attempt to "impose" their standards of right and wrong, morality and immorality, on anyone else? Who "gets to determine"(has both the authority and the Sovereign right to impose their will on everyone else) what those "Standards" of right and wrong, morality and immorality, ARE and why they should be applicable worldwide to everyone regardless of what any individual might decide to choose for themselves?




"if someone is going to be hurt by what you do, you shouldn't do it."

THIS is the "yardstick," the STANDARD, of Secular Humanism? You should't do it?

That leaves the "decision" up to each individual and their "interpretation" of whether or not someone is going to be "hurt" by whatever I choose to do. What are consequences for someone who chooses to "hurt" someone else, or who chooses to do something because THEY don't think it will hurt anyone?

All you are doing is restating the "Golden Rule" concept. If someone believes that it's "okay" to have someone else impose their "lifestyle" on someone else, then it's "fair game" for them to "do unto others" if they would be equally willing to have someone else "do unto them." Survival of the "fittest." "Might makes right." "HURT" is relative and NOT absolute. The Individual gets to determine it for themselves.

The "point" is simple. Without an "external" set of Standards established by someone who is LORD, and therefore has the inherent RIGHT and AUTHORITY to establish them regardless of an individual's personal agreement or disagreement with them, the "morals" and "right and wrong" cannot be anything but "relative" to the whims and desires of individuals. ONLY groups of like minded individuals can seek to impose their will on others, and they are "morally right" to do so, regardless of who may get hurt or who may simply surrender their rights without a fight.




No, I disagree. Either abortion is morally wrong or it isn't. When is the taking of a human life (the ultimate in "hurt" imposed upon someone else) NOT wrong and immoral? You seek to find some "middle ground" in the "acceptable level of hurt" that is totally against the tenets of Secular Humanism. ANY abortion would violate those tenets, unless, of course, they truly ARE relative.

" The only example there that could possibly be
defined as selfish is abortion."

If this what you truly believe, then remorse over your adulteries cannot be real. SELFISHNESS is at the core of adultery. ( Mature adults should be allowed to fulfill their aspirations) You fulfilled your "aspirations" and you DON'T define it as "selfish behavior?"

"to express their sexual preferences" OUTSIDE of the bonds of Marriage is NOT "selfish behavior?"

"to exercise reproductive freedom" OUTSIDE of Marriage is NOT "selfish behavior" even though someone else (the resultant baby) "pays the ultimate price" for someone else's selfish "exercise" of "reproductive freedom?"

"to have access to comprehensive and informed health-care" means what? That the individual gets to determine for themself what "access" means, what "who gets to pay for MY health care means," what "personal responsibility" and the consequences of my choices mean?" Just what the definition of these terms are is vital to understanding what you mean by the phrase and what circumstances you are attempting to apply it to.

"to die with dignity" Dr. Kevorkian maybe? There ARE living wills and advance directives already available to anyone who wants them so that they CAN "die with dignity." Hospice already exists for managing pain and discomfort. When does someone else get to decide when YOU need to die, and when does someone else decide that you continued existence is "undignified" simply because you don't fit their definition of a "dignified" life might be? This is an extremely slippery slope you are advocating and must be approached with the utmost care. I don't reject the "concept," but it does need to be carefully defined.




NAMBLA for instance?

"Gays being off by themselves don't hurt anybody."

Abstinence for anyone, homosexual or heterosexual, doesn't hurt anyone.

Ever heard of AIDS? I employed a homosexual male as the head of one of my departments. Aside from his attempting to accuse me being "hostile" to gays (discrimination in the workplace) after he chose to leave the company, a charge that was investigated by the State and dismissed as having no basis in fact, he has subsequently died from Aids, after passing on his "gift" to who knows how many others.




Ahhh yes, a Dr. Elizabeth Kubler Ross devote'.

I believe I addressed this previously.

A question for thought: If an individual has NO say in whether or not they allowed to live, grow old, and approach death (abortion), WHY should they have any right to choose to terminate their own life by suicide when someone else might want them to "stick around?" "Pain" is not the determinant factor, we already know that, though it may be "a" factor.




"Outside the realm of decisions concerning sexual behavior, I adhere to my moral principles very well."

Okay, so in "just this one little area" I was a bad girl. In everything else I'm a good girl. Perhaps you are in everything else, but you grossly underestimate the enormity of the betrayal that is adultery.

That you go further and state; " 99.9% of the time that decision has something to do with sex" indicates the overriding emphasis and concern that you place on YOUR "sexual fulfillment and appetites" that WILL end your marriage. If 99.9% of the time your husband KNOWS that you will "give in" to your decisions and seek gratification outside of your marriage, WHAT possible reason could he have to stay married to you?

" - my point is only that instead of having a moral problem generally the problem is confined to one area."

Okay, and it's this "one small area" that will be paramount in your husband's mind. FIDELITY means NOT giving into anything that takes you "outside" of the marriage. If it "hurts you" to say monogamous and confined to the marriage for your sexual needs, then your husband, by definitions of Secular Humanism, has not only the right but the obligation to let you seek gratification outside of the marriage and not be subject to his "shortcomings in the sexual department of marriage."

Aphaeresis, I really think you need to reexamine this whole philosophical base upon which you are building your life and your choices.



I disagree. Normative only describes what a group generally accepts. It does NOT "confer" rightness or wrongness. Furthermore, the "norm" can be changed by popular vote or choice, it is NOT absolute.

I also addressed your torture example above, so all I will add at this point is that your example does NOT prove that torture is not "relative." Would it be ethically and morally wrong to NOT obtain information from a "reluctant" individual if the lack of that information resulted in the harm or death of many innocents who were depending upon you to keep them safe from harm? Aphaeresis, Freedom is NOT "free." There ARE costs that MUST be paid….and that IS relative and IS also normative at the very same time.




Okay, then WHY were you cheating, not just once, but multiple times?

Why did it not make any difference (and it seems as though it still doesn't in your mind) whether the Other Men were married or single?

I know, you listed all the things that your husband does (many of which are not right, by the way) as the "justifications," if not the "why's," of why you chose to commit adultery.

So let's begin by examining your concept of Marriage and Marital Vows and whether or not they are binding or "relative."




With all due respect, we are NOT talking about "other people," we are talking about you and YOUR choices. What other people do should be of "no consequence" to you, don't you agree? This is a form of what is called "gaslighting."




Of course I get your point, but I am not sure YOU get your point. What you are describing are abuses of religion and the choices of individuals to justify doing whatever they want to do.

The fact that you "don't like" what a given "theology" might teach does not automatically make it "wrong." That you don't like the idea that heaven or he11 actually exist doesn't mean that they don't. That SIN exists because there is a Holy God who is the antithesis of sin is not a matter of "personal belief" or "like or dislike" either.

The "bottom line" is that when looking at a given "theology" it is the OBJECT of the faith that is what is important, whether we like it or not. We CAN choose to reject truth, that is done all the time and it's no different when it comes to the truth of God and Jesus Christ.




Glad you agree. Now, how about "ideologies" of Planned Parenthood that PUSH abortion and violence upon the unborn children?

"Open Marriages?"

"Sex with anyone just as long as I get what I want?"

How do we want to define "ideologies of violence?"




Compared to Muslim extremists, or even Islamic States, Humanists would have to be pro-democracy, because democracy "tolerates" and "allows for" differences in beliefs, so I understand what you are saying. Atheists would basically fit into that "preference" category also, until someone wants to practice their faith in public places.

Salman Rushdie is back in the news again with Pakistani's and Islamic members of British Parlament calling once again for his death because Britain wants to give him a knighthood for literature. So do we fight Islamic extremists and extremism with all we have at our disposal, or do we fight with one hand tied behind our back, or do we fight without bullets, or do we fight by ignoring the problem and hoping it never shows up on OUR doorstep? The Cause of Right necessitates there BEING an absolute Right that is universal despite any opposing opinions.

What "theology" actually HAS "absolutes" that are NOT open to opinion or change, and if there are more than one "theology" that thinks they have the "right absolutes," which theology is actually correct and right (since there cannot be more that ONE correct theology in fact)? On what basis WOULD one theology stand "head and shoulders" above all the rest and BE the only correct one despite the many "alternatives?"




Once again, we are not talking about OTHERS. We are talking about YOU. That others have weaknesses and have failed their own faiths is NOT an issue. This whole thread is specifically about "What does working on MYSELF mean?". "And other questions" does NOT mean why others chose to commit adultery other than how those reasons might be similar to your own thought processes and equally WRONG.




Thank you. But it IS opinions that we are talking about and whether or not those opinions are right or wrong.




Fair enough. "IF someone will feel bad, don't do it." "If NOBODY will feel bad, it's probably okay." Who determines what someone else feels? How do you know? If your opinion is that NOBODY will feel bad, why would it only be "probably okay" to do something? Why SHOULD or WOULD someone "feel bad" about anything?

Secular Humanism DOES say "if it feels good, do it," not "it's probably okay to do it."

Secular Humanists set the agenda of what is Normal and, therefore, not going to makes someone else feel bad, as a group. If anyone else disagrees with them, they have "no right" to feel bad about something that is done.

Secular Humanism suffers from the same problem that virtually all "religions" suffer from, there is no "higher authority" than Man. The difference between Christianity and other religions is that there is a "higher authority" who proved His "claim" to that position. Rejecting or accepting that "proven one" does not alter the truth, but it should cause one who sincerely wants to do right to carefully examine the evidence that might say "this one is the REAL truth."




Nonsense. And PLEASE don't put forth the UN as any sort of yardstick of "moral uprightness." Need I go further than Darfur? How about the "Oil for Food" program for Iraq?

It's ALL relative to the desires of the individuals in each group. That IS the point of Secular Humanism.




No, Christian marriages are not the only happy marriages. That's because Christianity is about a relationship with God, and many don't have much of a relationship with God, or simply call themselves Christians because they like the sound of it but reject the fundamental beliefs of Christianity.

But "happiness" in marriage isn't the "point" either. That is applying a subjective feeling to the commitment and covenant of marriage, of willing surrender and servanthood of each other ahead of self, rather than God's ordained roles for husband's and wives and His promise to believers that they WILL grow closer to each other as they both, individually, walk closer with Him.

"Two wrongs NEVER make a right." Adulteries by both husband and wife do NOT "level the field" and make the other's adultery, or the marriage for that matter, "right." That's not just the experience of some on MB, that is a universal truth. IF you cut off your arm and found out that it "wasn't a good idea" to do that, would you want your husband to cut off his arm to find out for himself that it was a "bad and hurtful idea?"