I just typed out a long response and lost it because of how long I took to type it. Here is the short version.

Melody,
How are you defining secular? From your posts it looks like you are likening it more to atheism based on MyRev's anti-religious posts. But if we use the definition that secular means anything not pertaining to religion, then I think I could make a more stronger case that MB principles are secular than they are religious/Christian, despite what the personal beliefs of Dr. Harley may be.

Please correct me if I am wrong on any of this as I have not read all of Harley's material.

Dr. Harley does not approach adultery from the standpoint that it is a sin against God's covenant of marriage or any other overtly religious belief. He may very well believe that, but his books approach it from the standpoint that it is horribly destructive to everyone involved (BS, Children, WS, etc...). It takes no religion into account, only how emotionally devastating it is.

Adultery being wrong is not a religious view. Its a mature and rational response to how much it hurts when you are betrayed by someone who agreed to care for you. Adultery being a sin against God is a religious view. Read the second post of this thread. Its all about how their relationship will always be adultery, no matter if they are faithful for the rest of their lives. It will never be blessed, yada yada yada. That is a post that is not based on Harley's concepts, but on preaching religion to people.

That is what I understood MyRev to be saying. His statement that religious views have no place here does not mean Christian's can't post. It simply means don't preach Christian or specifically religious views. The same would also be true for atheism at the other end of the spectrum. Any person that offers advice based on the belief that there is no God should just as readily be criticized.

I guess thats enough for now.

SD,

I think your post makes a lot of sense. I am also a FWW (get your stones ready, everyone!) and the mindset you had in your previous marriage makes sense to me (that doesn't mean it was right, but it makes sense)

My guess is that because of your previous sexual abuse, that is why you equated sex with love and a healthy marriage - this is very common among victims of abuse. I do hope you have worked that issue through in therapy. Because your future husband could be involved in an accident, get ED, etc, and SF would be out the window again. You need to make sure you have a realistic view of this, and of your own worth.

I don't get the people who are saying your current relationship is an adulterous one. It may have started out that way, but to suggest that you go back to your ex who you divorced 4 years ago and work things out with him seems like some strange advice. IMHO, if you are no longer married, you aren't an "adulterer" (I think if some had their way we would have huge red As emblazoned on our chests.)

I know that many people on this site are very strong Christians, but finding forgiveness through your own relationship with god is very personal business, and I don't see how or why you would need to justify that to anyone here.

Basically, the fact that you are here and trying to learn is good enough for me. I'm trying to do the same thing. I've been too chicken to post my story because I didn't want a beat down like you received.

So, I admire your courage and wish you the best.

Maggie...if a relationship starts off as adultery and a sin, what transforms that sin or adultery into something good and wholesome? I am confused by your post.

Wow...a truly interesting topic, to say the least.

What is this nonsense about Swingdancer's current relationship not being adulterous? We ARE all aware of what adultery is, correct? We've all spent weeks/months/years obsessing about adultery...examining every facet of it over and over again until we feel like we're going crazy. Can there REALLY be any sort of debate about this?

There IS no gray area. Swingdancer's relationship WAS adultery from the beginning. The fact that she was separated, unhappy, not trying to reconcile, and in the process of getting a divorce is completely irrelevant.

If you've been separated from a physically abusive crackhead with no genitalia for 10 years and the divorce papers are going to be signed tomorrow at 8:00am, you are still committing adultery if you sleep with someone tonight.

Adultery is not a philosophy or an abstract concept. It a very specific offense. Much more clear-cut than, say, murder.

I agree that freedom of religion should be the norm on this board. Believe in God, Buddha, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Tooth Fairy, whatever you choose.

It only upsets me when I read about how much God cares for me...and LOVES me. He wants me to recover and be a whole person again? Gee, isn't it great that NOW he takes an interst in my mental state...too bad he couldn't have been as concerned about my wife's mental state before she transformed into a ******.

Maybe he was too busy allowing one of his Catholic "followers" to bang my wife.

God doesn't care. None of us deserve this, and could take it away with a thought.

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

No, that wasn't my intent ML, but I'm not surprised you posted that, ******edit***********

What really bothers me right now has nothing to do with religion, but with the fact that I wonder if anyone was really helped here.

If my then WH came here, would he have been guided wisely and reverently down the right path, or stoned by those he came to for advice, in his wayward, fogged out zombie state? Would he have been thwacked in a HELPFUL manner, or would his thread have broken down in bickering among the posters, instead of guiding him down a path where he could find clarity, and help.

I didn't see much information regarding marriage builder's principles, so much as anger at the way in which SD posted, her tone and/or irreverance. Is there some belief that a wayward is NOT going to act wayward when they come here?

It's just disappointing to me; I see opportunity slipping away. Others see it differntly, I suppose.

We are truly fortunate to have so many passionate contributors.

I just don't see that the community here is broken. Its diverse, for sure, but not broken. Whenever somebody comes here and gets "run off", we seem to immediately blame the community. We should be more tolerent, we should be less tolerent, we should ease them in, we should go right at it, black and white, shades of grey, on and on.

At what point do we hold the poster responsibile? If they really want help, they will get it.

How many posts did it take till someone told you something you didn't want to hear, something that hurt your feelings? 5, 10, 50? Did it stop you from trying to get help? You're still here. You survived it. You did it because you wanted help.

I can't help but feel "running off" is the decision made by people who don't want help or aren't ready to recieve it. Modifying the community to accomodate them is not a realistic model. We could change our ways a thousand times and it won't change that they don't want help or aren't ready for it.

As always, just my opinions.

True dat.

The issue is not how I define secularism, because my point could just as easily be made with any other discipline. Insert NON-Christian; the point is still the same. The point was to show how absolutely unfair, and bigoted, it is to ask anyone to keep their worldview at home. If Christians wrote a similar post and told non-Christians to shut up and not talk about any non-christian viewpoints here, there would be an uproar.


He most certainly does. He talks about God's covenant quite often. Have you ever listened to his radio show? Spoken to him?

If he feels like expressing his Christian views, he does so. Just as other posters may do so on this board. Just for the record, Dr. Harley speaks very freely about his own Christianity and actually says he got these principles in a "prophecy from God."

That being said, his purpose is NOT to prostelyze, but to help people save their marriages. His Christian WORLDVIEW is the foundation of all of his opinions on right and wrong, be assured of that, though. However, I don't understand how that is relevant to the issue at hand. The issue at hand is Christians posting their own standard of "right and wrong" on this board.


I just don't understand what you are getting at with this. So? And what would be wrong with expressing his religious views? And how does that relate to what a board member writes here?


Right and wrong for Christians is determined by their CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW. Christianity is the foundation of their worldview. Right and wrong is determined by GOD.


Harley's concepts stem from his Christian worldview. But I don't believe that Dr Harley WROTE the post, did he? Are you asserting that others should NOT post their religious views for some reason? WHY? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />


What he actually said is that Christians should not be expressing their views on "right and wrong" because their worldview is formed by their Christianity. We have his exact quote.

He meant that Christians should shut up about their Christianity. But he feels entitled to express his own personal non-Christian views, which are based on his anti-Christian worldview. That is a bigoted viewpoint about which any reasonable person would object.

Even so, Christians are allowed to post their Christian views the same as anti-Christians. They are allowed to discuss scripture all day long if they want. The board owners are advocates of Christianity.

Let's try it this way so we don't get distracted by the word "secular":

You see, I don't see any place on this forum for non-Christian beliefs. IMHO, this whole issue is about "right and wrong", and in most cases that coexists nicely with most non-Christian beliefs. However, when they don't based on someone ELSE's interpretation, then the entire message they are trying to convey is LOST. Speaking of one's own individual non-Christian beliefs in a debate is only beneficial if both parties share the same basic non-Christian phylosophies, otherwise the poster is simply wasting their time.

I want to know if those folks who supported MyRev's bigoted anti-Christian remark would support the point put forth in the above paragraph? Is it ok for me to suggest that "non-Christian" viewpoints have no place on this forum?

If you believe this should be applied to Christians, as MyRev suggests, do you, therefore, believe it should apply to NON-Christians?

Rprynne,

Go back and read the first page of this thread and put youself in SD's shoes. Is that the type of reception you received when you first came here? If it had been, can you honestly say you would have stuck around for more of the same? Maybe so. You seem to have a pretty thick skin. But understand that not everyone does.

When I first came here, NOBODY treated me that way. And my very first post/thread was all about me rationalizing why I didn't want to tell my husband about my affair which had ended just a couple of weeks earlier. If it hadn't been for patient, nonjudgmental, kind posters like JL, Mortarman and Dorry (remember her?), I probably wouldn't have stuck around either. And I can assure it, it WASN'T because I didn't want help.

--SC
And how do you explain JL's decision to leave?

--SC

Interesting side note to the conversation....

In the last 15 minutes there were 16 people listed as "Anonymous" reading this thread. Some might be members who are not logged in, but some are undoubtedly others who have not signed up yet.

Differing opinions aside, it seems that there is an "attractiveness" to or "interest in" this thread and the various posts. No way to know if it's helpful or a hindrance for some, but I hope it's the former as they may be dealing with whatever situations are in their lives to bring them to MB.

"What is this nonsense about Swingdancer's current relationship not being adulterous?"


She's been divorced for 4 years. The relationship may have started out as adulterous, but no longer is because she is divorced.

Just my interpretation, but clearly not the prevailing view around here.

When I first came here, NOBODY treated me that way. And my very first post/thread was all about me rationalizing why I didn't want to tell my husband about my affair which had ended just a couple of weeks earlier. If it hadn't been for patient, nonjudgmental, kind posters like JL, Mortarman and Dorry (remember her?), I probably wouldn't have stuck around either. And I can assure it, it WASN'T because I didn't want help.

This was my point. How are we to help BS's if we 'run off' their WS's? Nobody has a clue what this woman's religious beliefs are, but we KNOW that she is wayward. Why not start from there instead.

I'm not at all suggesting that we sugar-coat or soft soap WS's coming here, I'm suggesting we use some couth when first responding to their posts, sticking to MB's principles; guiding them firmly and appropriately.

Two words: JOHNNYMAC. A betrayed spouse who came here in the depths of despair who was RUN OFF by *YOU*. You badgered and bullied the man until he didn't want to come back. [he is my COWORKER] So, don't you dare point a finger at anyone for "running off" a serial cheater who did not even come here for help when YOU have run off a BETRAYED SPOUSE who really needed help.

And no, I have not blamed you for that, because if John really wanted help he would have stayed. Just as if the WS, SwingerPro, really wanted help [which she never even indicated] she would not have left.

People who really want help will not be run off by wild horses.

But I find it interesting that you don't give a DAMN about JohnnyMac, but you are so "concerned" about a 10 time serial cheater who lies to her OM and who didn't even need help. GOOD GRIEF, what a hypocrite you are!

And I am so sorry that JL left, however, he is the master of his own fate. Many others have left here, INCLUDING ME, and it was entirely our own decision. I have left out of DISGUST over other posters myself. But that was entirely MY DECISION and no one elses.

SC, I get a little weary of your incessant belittlement of this board. You usually come back when you smell blood in the water and see an opportunity to draw a little more blood. ugh!

this whole deal about how it isn't adultery anymore since she is divorced reminds me of the freaky teacher that got pregnant by her 12 year old student...went to jail...got out...got pregnant again...went back to jail..AND NOW that he is over the age of 18, they can be and were married. So, maybe she isn't raping a child anymore...but she is still a pedophile...she is still registered as such. So, just because the law cannot put a finger on her for continuing the abuse she started when he was a young child, doesn't mean it is right.
I look at the continuation of an adulterous relationship the same way. Just because it may not meet the LEGAL definition of adultery, it doesn't make it right IMO.

I think the teachers name was Latourno....

Krazy,

I know your pain, and your disdain. I know it well. I just couldn't not respond to your post, to say I am sorry.

How come that blasted tear icon doesn't work on this forum. The one icon we would probably all use the most??????

it does!! But only TEXANS can use it!! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

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

Hi there Weavie ....

Nice new name hon.

To get the teary icon to work manually, type: : teary :

<remove the spaces between the word and the colons>

Jo

p.s. I'm def not from Texas <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" />