Star..I really considered your words from yesterday...but I keep running into a few problems point to either troll or worse with this poster. Call it an occupational hazard, but when I see one or more than one lie I know there are more yet to be uncovered. There is no way a pastor was 100% on board with her plan...no way, no how. I also do not believe for a minute that she saw tow therapists that suggest she is totally together to the point where she doesn't need counseling. Sorry...I just don't buy it.
Couple that with a person showing up and griping about the word HO after calling others "pricks" and questioning their character and that is another thing I don't buy.
This poster strikes me much the same was as LTK and Best Advisor did. Very much the same way.
So, Star, I did consider your words...but am left to go with my instincts and experience here...as well as an accurate accounting of what has already transpired. It all adds up to the same thing with this poster.

Mimi:

Another thread that spun out of control, huh?

Back posted something on the SF as an EN thread and you asked her over here to find out more.

Excellent suggestion.

Nine pages later, maybe, we can just address the initial point.

Back wants to attract her divorced,and remarried, wayward husband back.

Her methodology to do so may be flawed.

Since she is Divorced, what methods are available to her?

1. She can Plan B him, and go to darkness.

Under this plan, she shouldn't even TRY to be seen by her ExH. No hanging at McD's, or a coffee shop WHERE he might show up. No communications, except thru the designated intermediary, and modify her routines to make sure that her path never crosses ExH's. Deliver a proper Plan B letter. Describing her Love for ExH, how the Divorce was not wanted by her, and even inspite of the divorce, her religous convictions as such tell her that she is still married to him. But she needs to only coorespond via an intermediary, so that she will not tamper further in his marriage, nor cause unnecessary conflict in his existing marriage.

2. She can do a Plan A type thing, that I will call Plan Back.

Under this Plan Back, because she CANNOT do a proper PLAN A, She talks to ExH. Remains pleasant with him, and makes him aware that she is still attracted to ExH. Keeps in place proper boundaries. And sees what happens. Seems an awful lot like an EA to me. Very dangerous. Both to Back, and to ExH. To Back, as SHE is setting her self up for a lifetime of waiting, possibly. To ExH, because we already know the type of character he has, that he will continue to string Back along, maybe even manipulating her into a PA. Because? He can.

3. Just wait for ExH to return.

Live her life. Be happy. Be unconcerned with what ExH does. Continues in her personal and spiritul growth. If she runs into him, so be it, be polite. Then goes on her way. If his affair marriage falls apart, and he divorces again, he can contact Back and see what might happen. But Back is LIVING her own life. Back may end up never having another relationship with a man, that's ok. That's HER choice. Doing this, SHE has chosen NOT to interfere in her ExH's marriage, and lives a cleaner, more moral life. What happens in the future, is in the future. SHe works on HERSELF, and if ExH returns, so be it.

And Back:

Everytime you see your ExH, you WILL feel the way you do. Until your day of passing. If I had gotten divorced, every time I would have seen my Ex, I would have realized that I settled for second best. He may feel the some way. But that is a CHOICE he made. Until HE decides to fix that choice, your options are limited. And the Plan Back option listed above? Will destroy your OWN self-esteem. And raise your ExH sense of entitlement.

It's not YOU, Back. It's ExH. Until he makes the choice, there really isn't much that you can do.

Just my .02

LG

medc,

I have no quarrel with you. Each of us must make our own choices. Thanks for explaining.

MEDC - don't you think that this sort of illogical statement is beneath you? Pastors (priests, bishops, etc.) are HUMAN and not infallible.

I'd venture a "guess" that there might be several RCC clergy who would support a position "100%" that I would find to be "unbiblical" (for example, Prayers for the dead to get them into heaven).

If someone else chose to believe what the RCC cleric might say and support because it was supportive of their own position, I might disagree with their conclusion but there WOULD be a cleric who supported their position "100%."

What I, personally, look to is the Scripture itself to see if what some Man or Woman said is consistant with God's revealed Word or not. Whether or not someone can "find" a particular pastor, priest, or religous "group" that supports their own position is, perhaps, comforting to someone, but it is not "de facto" authoritative.

I would submit, therefore, that it is entirely "possible" that Back could have a pastor who does support her beliefs "100%." In areas of potential disagreement, believers should turn to the Scripture as the "final authority" and not just leave with the opinions that may actually be in conflict with Scripture.

Such is the case, in my humble opinion, concerning Divorce, the severing of the Marital Covenant, and Remarriage for divorced believers as it has been "discussed" on this thread.

But that is something that I hope to explore further with Back, if she is so inclined.

sorry FH, I am sticking with 100%....or at least 100% of priests that are sane. I can imagine an insane priest agreeing to that plan...otherwise, nope. Couple that with 2 therapists seeing no problem here....sorry...the odds just go up exponentially...

It's also entirely possible that the Eagles will beat the Patriots by 30 points today...but I would venture a safe bet that the odds against that are darn near 100%.
IMHO, Back's story would require that outcome to the Eagles game...a 90 yard field goal by a one legged kicker and the Dolphins winning the Super Bowl (this year).

Hi,

You're beginning to "tip me"... because you speak calmly... and I can listen without feeling an open wound is being, well, gored. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

The assessments, the value judgments, that anything between my ex would not be pure are what trigger me. I think it would be pure. I believe our love is perfectly pure and holy... still.

Also, if it wouldn't be okay to seduce him "all the way"... it wouldn't be okay to even speak to him, imo.

The spectrum must be pure for any point on the spectrum to be pure, imo.

That being said, what you and mimi are saying about potentially enabling rather than the current relationship imploding via a Plan B... are non-value-judgment points of counsel that I am considering for their tactical weight.

I have some other thoughts too... from things the 2nd psychiatrist told me (being a trained expert) about emotional dynamics. I'll post those.

God bless

Back:

How did your divorce come about?

How long have you been divorced?

How long has he been married to her?

Touche.

Yet, I do feel defensive. Part of that is warranted (by certain persons who I feel have behaved in acting out their own issues "at me"... making me more defensive)... and part of it is not.

Yet, I am not dispassionately discussing a matter in which I am neutral and unaffected.

I am discussing a matter that has been the most painful experience of my life... and one that threatens to "revive" intense pain. (Kind of like a person going to sit in a dentist chair having had one's tooth drilled without novacaine. ie... a raw nerve could get hit.)

The pain that I have experienced - and has been "re-triggered" already here - is real.

I also appreciate some patience with what, at times, I do recognize to be hypersensitivity. It's understandable... and there's a reason why I kneejerk... or jump out of the chair sometimes.

And understanding that is helpful as well.

God bless

FH, A much as I support your wisdom an knowledge of the Bible, and also you as a very strong member of the faithful, why is it that you never hesitate to take a cheap shopt at the RCC position of Bible interpretation?

As a christian and a RC, I find this extremely offensive, and very un Christian like. What ever happened to unity in the Christian Religion? Are you completely opposed to the fact that Christ would rather we all be united under one tabernacle once again, as it was in the beggining?

Your hostility to the RC position has been your weakness and your undoing, IMHO. Your hardened stance in your heart, is your flaw.

For the record, MEDC has spoken the truth in love of the truth. He will not mince words with those who tap dance around what we all know is true. For that, I admire his bravado. I find it refreshing.

Back is desperately trying to interpret scripture to meet her own personal desire. Many folks have tried desperaterly to do this, but it never, in the end works.

Christ does not mince His words in the Bible. He is quite clear, and back's plan to seduce her XH back into the M is nowhere to be found in scripture. The fact that her H is continuing to commit A is obvious. So what does Christ tell us about sin. Run from it and make it as far away from you as the east is from the west.

This is not the course that back is taking, and if she persues this, it will be her undoing from Christ. JMHO

All Blessings,
Jerry

AGREED, Jerry....

Every time I look back... all I feel is pain. Or it seems that way. Because I hit the pain and stop.

I don't want to look back. I don't want to open the door, I don't want to think about it. I have been paralyzed.

That being said...

When I met with the 2nd psychiatrist, relative to forward thinking, this is what he told me.

He said that it is the woman who "controls" the relationship.

He said what he said... and I interpreted it.

He caused me to believe that men are like "power tools". It's the woman's response to the man that determines their functionality.

It made a lot of sense to me. Here I was feeling powerless... because I am in a very reactionary mode... reacting in pain out of pain, in a way... almost exclusively... "shut down"... and paralyzed... just because I am being wracked by pain.

I kept waiting for the ex to "stop it". (pain-focussed).

So... what is the solution? Who holds it? Him? Or me?

From what the psychiatrist told me... me.

If I can get out of reactionary mode... and come out of withdrawal... the ex will come out of withdrawal towards me.

I'm in control... ultimately.

It's not that I "control" the ex... it's that I have power to empower him. That I'm not using...

I can't think about anything. I'll shut down if I look back.

I have to look forward. I may become stronger... and not shut down.

If and when I become stronger... I'll be able to look back.

Right now, if I look back... I don't think I'll move forward.

I have disempowered the ex's functionality toward me in having panic attacks and shutting down. He's acting out what I am inputting into him. He falls apart.

My strange, unreasonable, illogical step of MccyD's is the first time I've had a really good idea.

It's by me establishing my own zone of comfort and gaining composure and being able to come out of extreme withdrawal... that my ex will be empowered.

I'm not explaining it well, like the psychiatrist did... but it resonates with me.

The ex has been trying to "get me" to feel and convey what he needs to be empowered.

I've paralyzed him.... out of my paralysis. I've given him panic attacks... out of my panic attacks.

To "reverse the curse"... it's me who has to "break free". It'll be just like touching a person and "unfreezing them" relative to my ex. As soon as I "come under the anointing"... and am free... and can relate to the ex freely... he will be able to relate to me.

I don't thing the OW has any power. I don't want to talk about that or her either.

The healing of the entire matter depends upon the healing of me, imo.

If you love something, let it go.

If it returns to you, it is yours.

If it doesn't, it was never yours to begin with.

However, I really have never "let it go" and given it opportunity to return. That's what matters.

I "lost myself".

The "ex" can't return to me.

I'm not here. (That doesn't make sense... but it does.)

This is what everything the psychiatrist said that "came together" for me.

I lost the spiritual capacity to be "present"... in relation to the ex... due to "the fog"... a spiritual attack... hitting me... and wracking me into pain and panic attacks.

Maybe I can explain... but I'm not sure.

Enough to say this... I know that I know that I know that, actually, I am not powerless.

I don't have to "reach out" to try to "control" the ex.

ALL I NEED TO BE ABLE TO DO... is to come out of panic attacks and be PRESENT.

Not just physically, but spiritually.

If the ex sees my car and comes into MccyD's... and I collapse into a panic attack... I will not be present.

But if I can find my comfort and strength and withstand and remain present... there aren't enough devils in ****** to hold him.

The love of God will set him free.

History? I won't be "present" if I go back there.

Yesterday doesn't matter. I've got to be present.

I don't think I'm strong enough not to collapse if I turn back to look.

(I can't help it it's weird... I don't know if anyone can understand... I really don't know.)

I feel something stirring within me... frail, weak, vulnerable... having experienced nearly total defeat... and almost utter helplessness, powerlessness, and paralysis.

I feel like if I go to MccyD's... there's enough grace to make me "present"... and ALL of this BS (betrayed spouse b-s)...

will be history.

I wanna think about Plan A. I feel grace.

The "ex" is in the darkness... only because I have been.

The Bible says that if we walk in the light we will have fellowship in the light... cleansed from all sin.

I'm fighting the powers of ******, imo, just to come back... into the Light.

Like I've been pushed into the darkness... in grave, deep offense... and there's no way out... unless I come out... and I haven't been strong enough... but the Lord is calling me out.

People can agree in judgment.

I feel I'm agreeing with God.

Question?

Your child is kidnapped.

If you take the child back (the child being yours and given you from God)... have you, too, become a kidnapper?

Or does possession and rightful relationship... really matter?

Are you gonna be able to answer the questions regarding the specifics of your situation?

How did your divorce come about? How long have they been married?

Was it a psychologist or a psychiatrist that you met with?

Psychiatrists typically only prescribe medication and aren't well-trained in psychotherapy.

Strangely enough... my pastor holds the Westminster Confession theologically interpretively in a general sense.

That position holds that the ex is dead in unrepentance.

But I tell my pastor that the bond still exists.

He believes me and supports me.

(He's not Catholic. But I have friends who are.)

My ex will never die. Jesus Christ lives in him.

He's not dead. He's alive.

However, should he physically die... then I'd agree... I'd be free.

Believing that he is equal to dead in the sight of the Lord due to sin in the flesh... contradicts all of scripture, imo.

Can we sin and lose the Holy Spirit?

Is sexual immorality the equal of blaspheming the Holy Spirit?

I trow not (in KJV verbiage).

That's my opinion.

And this is my life... and if I was a stronger person in and of myself... probly I would have remarried by now.

I can't feel the Lord in it... and just am not strong enough in myself. I just get upset... feel very hurt... am sometimes tempted to date... but I just can't bring myself to bear up against the heat of that either... cause my conscience can't bear it. (I get convicted by the Spirit it's sin... and am way too dependent on the Lord to be able to keep going down that path... cause I can't feel Him with me.)

It's not easy being weak.

Though sometimes I just look at myself and think it's pathetic.

I should qualify my statements. It's one of those... whoever is weak is strong things.

My incredible personal weakness... in that unique way... is why people are bowled away by me and think I'm so incredible... which is strange.

It's because I'm so weak... they think I am strong.

When I am "present"... the presence of the Holy Spirit is so strong (they say)... they say it's incredible.

(They get confused and think I'm strong. No, I'm weak.)

If that makes sense.

Kinda does to me.

Like Paul.. who trembled and was weak.

I have to wonder if he had panic attacks... and was able to "break through"... into the Light... and that's why such strong presence of the Lord rested upon him.

Possibly.

It's just in this area... I'm not "present"... and my weakness is translated into panic attacks... rather than teh Lord's strength.

Strange as it may be... I believe the Lord has told me that He has called me to ministry on...

marriage.

Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit says the Lord.

(and not now..;.. lol)

My marital status is a mess... that may someday become a message???

We can only hope.

Back:

The questions I asked? Are you gonna answer them?

Back...Did your psychiatrist give you an actual diagnosis or maybe suggest, even in passing, Bipolar Disorder??? Did he/she recommend or prescribe medication?

Your ideation is quite grandiose...

Mrs. W

Back:

I like to help folks come up with a PLAN..that requires SPECIFICS regarding your particular situation...

As Mrs. W is stating, you are going from one thought to the other...

We need SPECIFIC INFORMATION regarding your situation...

Of course not! Your child is your child, not to be viewed as a possesion but rather a gift from God. A TRUST from God that you will do all that is good and holy to protect and nurture your child from evil, and to love God.

The very same is true of your sanctified M from God. You are to treat it as holy and sacremental, not as a competiter with the viles of Satan. If your H does not recognize this, then what on earth is Holy about your determination to seduce him back into this unjust M? Is that how your courtship was before this M? Did you seduce him into this M with the weakness of his flesh?

I suspect not. Which is precisely why Christ would not endorse your rather diabolicel scheme to do so now. It is not HIS WAY!!!!

This is your scheme, back, not God's!!!My gut tells me HE would not have it this way!

I will pray that you discern the difference.

All blessings,
Jerry

Jerry, with all due respect for your consternation, I was NOT "taking a cheap shot at Roman Catholicism."

Let's just be clear about this, I did not "introduce" RCC theology into the discussion, I was responding to MEDC's assertion that anyone who might hold to a differing perspective and interpretation than what he holds must be "crazy" and NO ONE "could" hold to a position in 100% agreement with one that might be diametrically opposed to the one MEDC, you, me, or anyone might hold.

As for DISCUSSING any position, by any "denomination," the standard by which all teaching and tradition is "supposed to be" examined and discussed is the Scripture itself. Adherence to tradition and teachings of any "body" is fine so long as it is in agreement with the Scripture.

Do I understand that people can get "offended" by someone offering, or holding, a differing opinion than what someone else might hold, if for no other reason than few of us "like" the idea that what we consider to be true might actually be false? Of course I understand that, just as I can be "offended" if I let myself by someone else "attacking" what I believe rather than discussing WHY they think it might be Scripturally incorrect. That is why the Scripture admonishes all believers to "test" (examine) everything to make sure that "other gospels" are not taught or find their way into the "church" and in so doing, potentially mislead others who do not take the time to examine for themselves. That is also the basis of the instruction and teaching of 1 Timothy 3:16.




This is, actually, a very good question Jerry and very relevant to "today's" world. Would you like to explore this a little, or did you intend the question to be a rhetorical question to limit discussion to just one "viewpoint?"



Not at all opposed, Jerry. I am in total favor of "one church" of all believers regardless of where they happen to be or what "earthly Church" they may attend or identify themselves with. That church began on Pentecost. That church is not "limited" to the Roman Catholic Church. That church is open to all who have "attained" membership through faith in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.

It also does not turn a "blind eye" to Paul's admonitions, and that is tied to your previous question that addresses "love" and "doctrine."





Jerry, that is your opinion and you have every right to hold it if you so choose.

For the record, I am not "hostile" to the RCC "position," when it is in accord with the Scripture. I "oppose" the RCC "position" (on whatever topic it may be) that is not in accord with Scripture (especially when it elevates "Tradition" to an equal or superior position to the Word of God itself). If that makes me "hostile," then I guess I just have to live with your assessment, though I would think that all believers would want to understand God's Word for themselves as part of their own discernment of God's will in any given matter.





That may be true, Jerry, but it is her right to hold whatever opinion she chooses even if you or I disagree with it. We CAN state why we may believe that anyone's position (opinion) may be wrong as we see it, but when discussing biblical beliefs, it should be done in a review and discussion of what Scripture says, and not solely upon our own opinions. No one, not you, not me, not anyone else, has a "corner" on infallibility or interpretation of the Scripture. Therefore, it is through respectful discussion of those "differences," with the Scripture itself as the "subject matter," that is what believers are "supposed to do" whenever their are differences of opinions that rise to the level of "doctrine" and not just "personal preference" (i.e. eating meat, not eating meat on Fridays, etc.).




Jerry, whether you or I might disagree with her interpretations and justifications isn't the "point." The "point" for a believer, which Back identifies herself as being, is what does the Scripture SAY about it. Even pointing out where the Scripture SAYS clearly something is no "guarantee" that anyone will "change their mind." But the Holy Spirit indwells and provides illumination of Scripture to all believers who are sincerely seeking the will of God. That same Holy Spirit is in all believers, but we don't always want to "listen to the Holy Spirit" and that is part of the "Free Will" that God gave each of us. He (God) admonishes us to conform our lives to His will (the physical process of Sanctification), but we are not talking about sanctification in a "salvation sense" here. We are talking about understanding and applying God's will to our lives, even when we might not "like to" because we "want" to do something different.

God bless.