Next step for what?

No, I saw those too, but that doesn't change the fact that this relationship began AFTER seperation, which ultimately led to divorce. It was not ANY of the A's pre-seperation. THIS relationship had very little to nothing to do with the divorce.

Don't get me wrong, I see a LOT not to like about SD's past, and agree that TECHNICALLY this relationship was adultery, but I don't think it rises to the level of the A's that led to the seperation. Personally, I see a definitive difference is this situation and feel that SD is worthy of the benefit of the doubt, now that she's trying to do things the right way, rather than eternal condemnation for her past choices.

Put me with the previous poster that thinks this site is about learning from and recovering from past mistakes.

A classic example of why this may have had everything to do with the divorce (because the WS was unwilling to reconcile) check out cases like sexymamabear who had moved on (while separated) and was then faced with a WH who wanted to reconcile.

A marriage is NEVER over till it's OVER, ink dried.

This woman hasn't learnt anything from her affairs I don't think. She plunged straight into a new relationship. Where is the self examination and soul searching? Nope. She just got a new bed warmer straight away.

It's madness doing the same things and expecting a different result.

Definition of nomenclature please?

By my tally, SD had 10 affairs while married, and zero time alone before becoming engaged to a guy who was also a cheater (serial?) in prior relationships.

Now, whatever they may have "learned" notwithstanding, this does not bode well for the future. Time alone is very important, and it hasn't occurred here.

AGG

Sorry Jo - typo corrected....

Some very valid points, AGG.

I still hold ground that her relationship with the OM is adultery, therefore her marriage will be adultery-based. She WAS married at the time and admitted herself she was still dating her husband after they separated with very clear intentions to reconcile.

Jo

OK, for the sake of debate, let's look at it through your lens then.

The reality is she is now in a 4 year (as best we can tell) monogomous relationship and engaged to this OM ... what now??? (I also think its fair to assume the original H has moved on and probably involved with someone new at this point.)

Are you seriously going to advise this woman to end this relationship at this point, because it began as adultery???

Are you all unwilling to give ANYONE the benefit of the doubt that they may have learned something from past mistakes???

I'm sorry but I made many mistakes in my youth that I would love to be able to "do over", but the best I could do was learn from them and try to not make the same mistakes again, and I've been relatively successful at that, although I'm always capable of making new mistakes, possibly just like SD is struggling through now ... we simply don't know enough at this point to be making such blanket condemnations.

yes.

Just so you all know, this is not Orchid, this is her husband. She left her MB page open and I read some of this thread. It's been years since I posted anything on here because I haven't been reading, but if this is the way some of you people "help" others I would want nothing to do with you.

I read SwingDancer's entire post and several responses after that, but I won't take the time to read all. I'm glad Ark talked some sense into some of you and maybe others have agreed with him so I apologize for any redundancy, but I have to add my comment because some of you really pissed me off.

It was blatantly obvious to me that SwingDancer was NOT trying to belittle others, make light of affairs, brag about her adventures, nor in any way trying to make like what she did was/is right. Whether she was right or wrong she was extremely sincere and wanting to be a helpful contributor to this forum. While some of your comments had merit, the spirit in which some of you made them was completely uncalled for and highly mean-spirited. You took a sincere poster and kicked, bit, slapped and stomped her in the head for what she wrote.

I felt she deserved commendation for opening up and sharing her experience, hoping others would learn from it AS SHE HAS. I agree she should disclose all to her fiance, yet I would also leave that decision for HER to make rather than attempt to dictate to her what I think she has to do. That's HER choice to make, and no one is to be her judge if she chooses not to. Also, she is DIVORCED ALREADY, so what do you all want her to do, dump this guy and try to go back and fix her former marriage? Why not offer CONSTRUCTIVE criticism or even thank her for sharing her experience rather than the DESTRUCTIVE words that came out in the beginning? I do agree with what Orchid wrote, just so you know I'm not including her in this and my words are not intended for all who have written in here. I think you can all figure out who I'm referring to.

Says who? You....so what? I would judge any person for withholding that type of information from a potential marriage partner.



Wow, that sounds judgemental.




Could you add a bit more drama to this statement?



Well goodie. Others felt differently. Stop being a hypocrite and judging them for their response.

Okay, BK, I'll try not to "stir things up with you too" and try to answer your question directly.

Now, to make sure I understand that your inquiry was serious and not a "veiled jab," aside from JustJilly, how many other people who are in something other than their first marriage are you including in your reference to "affair marriages" that I have supposedly "supported?" And were they believers or unbelievers?

In JustJilly's case, she had been married some 15 years and had come to know the Lord during that time, repenting of what she did and receiving forgiveness from God. She was, and so far as I know still is, married and was married when she arrived here.

If the people are NOT believers, it matters little what the "spiritual" considerations of God are because God is not a part of their lives anyway, they continue as sinners in need of salvation from sin through Christ.

Now if you want to believe, as I do, that marriage is a Covenant that was created by God and ordained by God, then the couple should stay together and not divorce, or if they do divorce they should not remarry while either of them is alive. ONLY the Faithful Spouse has the God-given right to remarry if they so choose, but God would prefer that they forgive and reconcile.

Anything else is putting "self" and self-centeredness ahead of obedience to God, who Himself endured everything and gave up His life for us.

You and a few others choose not to see "forgiven of all sins by God through Jesus Christ," as being sufficient even though that is what God has said happens when someone accepts Christ, and that is your right. You and a few others choose to NOT reoognize that a subsequent marriage is legitmate even though it may have been entered into as a product of an affair or a divorce by a spouse who had committed adultery. Once the marriage is made, the marriage is a new covenant whether or not the couple is a believer. I suspect, though, that the underlying reason for this rejection of marriages that "commit adultery" when they marry is rooted in the concept that even salvation can be lost by a born again believer who commits a "big enough" sin (or as the RCC puts it, Mortal Sins). If this rejection of these marriages is NOT founded in a theological belief and an acceptance of what the Word of God says about Marriage and Divorce, then what other basis is there for claiming "illegitimacy" of a subsequent marriage to where the marriage is called "continuing adultery," which in turn is a theological concept being applied to someone who does not believe in God or Christ?

I don't it see that way because Jesus PAID the price "in full" for ALL of our sins and that righteousness of Jesus is imputed to ALL who come to God with Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

People without Christ generally tend to come with what are generally referred to as "good morals." But according to all "good morals" that I am aware of, adultery is not considered good. Society lends it's "blessing on divorce" and it's "acceptance" of all marriages, regardless of how many someone might have or for what reason they were divorced from their first, second, however many subsequent marriages.

But the contention of some is that these subsequent marriages are always and forever "affairiages" and not legitimate. But that is based in a theological concept not a "societal concept" that thinks very little of the Covenant condition of marriage, and one that even if adultery was committed in marrying an affair partner or someone else (by the WS), are "forgiven" according to the very same theological basis that prohibits adultery and yet forgives it for Jesus' sake for those who are His. That theological basis is God's will, not ours. We may not "like it," but when God says ALL sins are forgiven, He means all sins. Where sin has been forgiven, it no longer exists in the eyes of God because Jesus already took the sin upon Himself and paid the price for it "in full."

When it is possible to stop sinning and walk away from what what someone was doing that was sinful, they should. But marriage is in a "different" and "special" category. You DON'T commit one sin to stop doing another sin, and ending the marriage in order to "earn forgiveness" or to somehow "erase" the mistake IS to break yet again God's command to NOT divorce the person you are married to, especially if you became a child of God after you did the sin. But regardless, even in the case of a believer who sinned by marrying again when they didn't have the "right" to marry someone else, it IS a marriage and not something to be trashed to "prove" that forgiveness is merited.


Now, you have posed a hyptothetical circumstance pertaining to SwingDancer whereas JustJilly was case a in fact where she had accepted Christ.

So let me answer that hypothetical question by posing a couple to you in return. IF SwingDancer truly accepted Christ BEFORE she were to marry this person she is engaged to, would all of her sins be forgiven? If she then sinned again and married this person despite the fact that the then LORD of her life commanded her not to commit another adultery by marrying him, would she lose her salvation? Would she need to be convicted of her sin and repent of it, and would she receive forgiveness for THAT sin, committed after surrendering her life to Christ? The command of God is to NOT commit adultery, it is NOT to divorce.

You may well argue that she would not be in a true marriage, but I would ask you on what basis? Even Jesus recognized that the woman at the well HAD had multiple husbands. He recognized the marriages as "legitimate" marriages, but was convicting of the sin of adultery. So would your recommendation be to commit yet another sin and divorce in order to "make things right" with God?

But you asked me where I would draw your line here, meaning NOT this situation where someone is planning to marry, but AFTER they were married.

My "line" is simple, it always has been. It is whether or not they are born again believers.

If they are not, I will argue for the "biblical way" from the standpoint of not supporting someone who wants to commit willful sin against God, even though they might not even recognize the existence of God. And especially not if they are in "justification mode" (not "justified by God but justifications they use to make it 'okay' in their minds, including blaming the Faithful spouse for 'pushing them into adultery and divorce").

If they are, then they are no different than anyone who has received their justification through Christ, and the argument would be "sin no more." As the Scripture instructs, "do not leave the state you were in when you were saved, but follow from whatever state you are in." In the hypothetical you stated, or in the real case of JustJilly, that "state" was marriage that "should not have been, but is."

And I'm willing to bet that there have been some folks on MB who have not revealed that they were not in their first marriage, but were seeking advice for whatever marriage they were in now. And they probably received advice even from people who would have perhaps withheld helping them had they known that it was not a "first marriage."


You probably wanted some short answer, BK, but you know I do tend to try to "explain" my thoughts and reasoning. Sorry for the many words.

Helpful? How? "Hey, I had 10 affairs, and now got a new guy who is GREAT in the bedroom - this could happen to YOU too!!"? Is that her contribution?

What exactly did she learn that she is trying to "share"? That if only her H had pursed her during her 10 affairs, that she might have stayed??

AGG

I agree. The original post was badly worded in parts but the intent was good and it was interpreted the wrong way by some. It's a classic case of people reading into it what they want to see coming from their own perspective.

I appreciate your post FH. I will take a while to respond.

It's a classic case of people reading into it what they want to see coming from their own perspective.

You think so Ozdreamer? Or could it that some are reading into it what they want to see and that is to enable that "wayward" thinking, rationalizations, and justifications?

Perhaps some are simply seeing things as they really are and not being "fooled" into thinking everything is "gray" and there is no "black and white" (right and wrong).

But then we've already been treated to that sort thing here in the "States." "It all depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is."

It is what it is.

FH, considering this was a first post by this person, it would be a pretty safe bet that is a troll just posting under a new name to support his or her own position.

Isn't that right Dorothy?

Is that your "perspective?" <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

I believe the original poster's intent was sincere. Her post came across as frivilous in part, but it was not the whole post. Being a new poster it's hard to judge not knowing the personality of the person in question. As you have done with me without knowing anything of my sitch.
She made mistakes and has learnt and no doubt is still learning, as we all are. It's just silly to say 'leave your new parner and go back to the marriage'. It's over, it's ended. What would be the point? At some stage you have to move on and do things differently because you have learned the old way was the wrong way.

Interesting. That is your opinion, of course.

Silly or not, there are others whose opinions are just as valid as are yours.

But then I take it that you don't believe in the sanctity of marriage or in the "'till death do us part'" vow either.

If I have taken that wrong, just what IS so "silly" about telling someone who did all the adulteries and who divorced her husband that the right thing to do would be to return to him and to earnestly try to recover her marriage?

I know, you may be basing this opinion on the idea that she felt they probably never should have married in the first place, and it may be true that they shouldn't have. But the fact is that they did. If anyone has a "right" to remarry and create a "new life," it is her Betrayed Husband, not her. It really is that simple.

Remember, her idea of "trying" was to have recovery done "her way," and when it was taking longer than she wanted, she said, "oh well....time to go outside the marriage again...and again....and again.....and again......and again........and again........and again.........and again..........and again.

And then there's the OM she is engaged to. No telling how man other women he had. All we know is that there were apparently several. I wonder how man "oh well's" there were in his mind too.

But son of gun, NOW they've found each other and have found TRUE love at last. If at first you don't succeed, just keep changing partners until you find one that you think you like now. But a lifetime???

I wonder how things might have turned out if SD had spent 4 years doing the hard work of recovering her marriage rather than shacking up with the OM?

Guess we shouldn't ask, and I guess we'll never know.

"Disposable marriages" is not what we tend to support around here.

It's just silly to say 'leave your new parner and go back to the marriage'. It's over, it's ended. What would be the point?

The point would be obedience to God. But then, let's leave God out of marriages, right?

By the way, why DON'T we just issue Driver's Licenses to all the Illegal aliens in the USA anyway? After all, they've left their former home and entered this one illegally. At some stage we just have to let people "move on" with their lives regardless of the laws, right? I know, I know, "the legal process for legally gaining the right to come to a new home is ridiculously long when they can just "walk" whenever THEY feel they are justified in NOT obeying the laws.

Sheesh....parallels, parallels.