Sorry for my silence on this thread. I was out of town on business and have not had a chance to add to the discussion until now.<P>As far as the Marriage Builders website being religion-neutral, I expect you know that Dr. Harley, who founded the site with his wife, is explicitly Christian. So is Mudder, who posted previously, and so am I. All the discussion you get from me at least is going to be from a Christian point of view. I have no other to offer. I hope very sincerely that I have not made any remarks that came across as insensitive or disrespectful. I have displayed that flaw in the past, and I don't want to do so again.<P>I understand you to be discussing two differing questions. One seems to be 'Is it possible to live together platonically with a member of the opposite sex?' I did not make my opinion on this very clear, perhaps. Yes, it is possible, in my opinion. All the stuff I put in about biology and the near occasion of sin does not mean that I think any two un-related adults living together are sexually involved. However, it is far from uncommon for hormones to overcome good intentions. And the more time you spend with someone, the more likely it is that the other person will be available at a point when your resistance is lower than normal. Look at the infidelity threads on this website and see how many affairs happen with co-workers. The more time you spend with someone, the more involved with them you become. This is one of the reasons why Dr. Harley recommends the gift of time, and says that married couples need to spend at least 15 hours a week interacting primarily with each other. <P>Of course this is not a guarantee that no two adults can cohabit platonically. Of course they can. What I am saying is that it may not be as easy as it should be. <P>The other question under discussion seems to be 'Is it a good idea to live together, platonically or otherwise, to see if we are compatible?' <P>My opinion is that it is not. Living together, with or without sex, is not the same as being married. <P>I would not assume that discovering whether a couple is sexually compatible is a matter of a few days. Being sexually compatible in the long run is not the same as in the short term. People change over time, and the process of adjusting to each other's changes is a lifetime process, not a simple yes or no decision reached when you are both in your early twenties. <P>I would further assert that living together platonically is also not a good test of whether or not you should get married. Commitment, as I think I mentioned before, makes a big difference. There are lots of things that look very different when both of you make the assumption that you are in it for life. Without the easy out of 'Well, we will just split up', problem resolution, decisions on how to allocate time and money, even how you take care of each other emotionally take a rather different spin.<P>Marriage is like parachute jumping. The real thing has a very different feel from practice, and your motivations are different.<P>All this is my opinion. Feel free to take it for what it is worth.<P><BR>

Firstly... it sadens me that the only opinion you can put forth is a chirstian one... to limit yourself to a single view because it is the view you choose to believe is like placing blinkers on because you feel FORWARD is the only direction to take.<P>Secondly... there was only ONE question asked... I don't need to ask if people can live together platonically because I know they can... But it bothers me that the "implication" is that 2 people of opposite genders living together seems to AUTOMATICALLY assume sex... which everyone who responded to this thread did.<P>Thirdly... If you cannot tell if a person is sexually compatible in a couple of days then obviously you aren't paying that much attention in bed ;-P<P>And lastly I have a question for you :<P>Q: Which would you rather have?<P> a) Marrying someone, finding out AFTER you<BR> are married that you are TOTALLY<BR> incompatible, unable to live together<BR> and cannot co-exist together.. even<BR> after trying all forms of councilling,<BR> working on it and committment?<P> OR<P> b) Spending some time living with that<BR> person to discover that you are not<BR> compatible, STILL working at it to make<BR> sure it isn't just "one of those things"<BR> and eventually parting company without<BR> the need to divorse or feed lawyers<BR> unnecessary money?<P>Now remember... BOTH of the above options have the 2 people committed to making it work.<P>So which would it be?

Hi all,<P>I've been reading this thread as it develops and feel inclined to throw my two cents into the ring:<P>First, thanks to Valiant for reminding us all that this is to be a respectful, supportive place, and that despite the fact that we all have different backgrounds and belief systems - and maybe, in fact, because of it - we can help each other learn and grow in relationships.<P>Lostsoul, I do understand your question. Why is it you can share the rent with a female roommate, and that's okay, but if the roommate is your girlfriend or fiance, it's assumed sex is part of the relationship? Not all people do make the assumption, but the ones who do are loudest about it. I've been with my boyfriend for several years, and because of the duration of the relationship most friends and relatives assume we're intimate. Perhaps I'm one of the few twenty-somethings left in America who can still blush, but I find this embarrassing. I for one believe sex should be saved for marriage, but that's not what you asked about. You asked why the assumption is made, and the best answer I can give you is "I don't know either". Unsatisfactory, but to say otherwise would be dishonest.<P>The problem, Lostsoul, is that you started this thread with a question, but one I feel you had already made up your mind about. Rather than collecting advice, you were waiting for someone to validate your frustration and agree with you. When that didn't happen, and when those who responded to you made other comments, you felt as though you hadn't gotten what you wanted and needed - and, really, you hadn't. <P>But, again, that didn't answer your question, so let's get to it: in your last post, you asked which I'd rather do: marry someone and find out later we were utterly, hopelessly incompatible, or live with someone and make the same discovery?<P>When you put it that way, who wouldn't vote for the second option? But the answer choices you've selected are not comprehensive. I would say neither. I would never marry or live with someone that I didn't already know I was compatible with! Compatibility isn't something like blood type, where you either match or you don't. People change, lives change, and being perfectly compatible at 25 doesn't guarantee compatibility at 45 without a lot of hard work, which many on this bulletin board feel is well expressed by the Marriage Builders concepts of care, protection, honesty, and time. Marriage isn't the cementing of a relationship in it's current state, it's a promise to continue to grow and change together, and a promise not to leave when you feel "incompatible" but to stay and fix it. So, to get married, you don't need an absolute guarantee of compatibility, because none exists - but you do need to know that this person you're marrying is one you can promise to continue to build and maintain compatibility with, and one you can trust to make the same promise to you.<P>The willingness and knowledge necessary to make this promise could possibly come after living together, but it could also be gained without living together. It's not the address that's important, it's the health and depth of the relationship that counts. Given that marriages between those who live together beforehand end in divorce more often than marriages of those who had never lived together, it's likely there's some aspect of living together that influences the later marriage. I also have no explanations for this (aren't I helpful?) but Dr. Harley does, and you can read his Q+A on living together for one explanation of this phenomenon.<P>Be aware that most people on this board have read and agree with most, if not all, of the Marriage Builders concepts (or they wouldn't stay and post on the board, or try to put them to use in their own relationships!) So many of the responses you'll get here will be in line with what you read in the Q+A and Basic Concepts sections of the website. While you may be disappointed with this single perspective, the people who respond (myself included) are happy with the effect MB concepts have had on their relationships and sincerely believe their implementation is an effective way to a more satisfying, happier relationship. Note, I didn't say the only effective way - but heck, we're only human, we can't have all the answers!

When I begin to repeat myself, I get the feeling that a thread is beginning to play out. <P>Why do people assume that persons of the opposite sex who are living together as a test of their compatibility are having sex? Because most of them are. But if you are living platonically with someone as such a test, what the dickens do you care what anyone else thinks about what you are doing? If you are not doing anything you consider wrong, why do you need anyone else's approval? <P>As to why I can't look at things from another point of view besides Christianity, well, I can and I do, but I believe that Christianity is true. I cannot look at things from another point of view for long because I think you get more of the truth from agreeing with Jesus than you do from anyone else.(Feel free to disagree with me anywhere you like.)<P>Your question about whether it is better to find out you are totally incompatible with your partner after marriage or after living together is not a good one. The problem with it is, I think, tied to the disagreement I had with your opinion that discovering sexual compatibility is a matter of a few days.<P>Living together is different from being married, and the difference is called commitment. One of the reasons living together is not a good test is that people change. You may live with someone, decide you are compatible, marry, and then be just as disappointed as someone else who got married and then discovered that their spouse changed without living together first. The difference is that with marriage, both partners are committed to changing together. Much of what Dr. Harley recommends is to discover how your spouse is growing and grow with them, by spending time together and by showing a commitment to their happiness by working for it. <P>Suppose I am married (I am). Now my wife starts a new career, or develops a new interest, or her sexual interest increases or decreases or changes, or she changes in some other significant way. If I want to stay married to her (I do), I grow with her. I commit myself to being involved with her new way of being, and she commits to staying involved with my old way of being. We are both committed to making the relationship work. If we were living together, the likelihood is much greater that one or both of us would say "Oh, the hell with it" and walk away, because we never took the step of formally and clearly promising to ourselves, our families, each other and to God (sorry, my Christian point of view is back) that we were in this thing 'till death do us part'. <P>You can explore your compatibility with another person in a number of ways. But until you actually commit to working it out no matter what and come what may, you are not really married. And a couple with the kind of expectations of compatibility formed during dating, and armed with the life long commitment that Christians define as marriage, is in much better shape for a good marriage than a couple who has lived together and is basing their commitment on the assumption that neither is going to change significantly. <P>True love is not something you find, it is something you create. You cannot create it except with someone you trust. And lovers who trust each other, commit to each other.<P>Maybe other people have different opinions. But I found out this morning that my wife is NOT seriously ill, and is NOT going to die, and I can reasonably expect at least another 18 years of marriage with her, and I am too happy to worry a bit about anything else!<P>May the Lord bless you with a happy marriage.<P>Regards,<BR>rs0522

younglove:<P>Thank you... You are the first person who has had the honesty to say simply "I dont know". Everyone else has expounded what they WANT the answer to be but none have said what they truely think it is.<P>As for me already making my mind what I wanted from asking this question you are right... But what I WANTED from asking this question was someone to say something that made both common sense and was supported by things other than their perception or views (or wild comments like "Because most of them are"). And yes, I DIDN'T get that answer so I continued to search. Is that such a bad thing?<P>You also mentioned more marriages end in divorce from people who live together first. What a warped statistic that is. Think about it for a moment. Those people MORE likely to avoid living together before marriage are predominantly christian. Those who are christian are of the believe that marriage is sacred (and possibly even FEAR divorce). Therefor the fact more people who live together before marriage fail is NOT as a result of the living together... its as a result of the pre-condition that existed within the people before they were married.<P>Is that not obvious? <P>rs0522:<P>I truely hope you do not take this the wrong way my friend... but DO YOU READ?<P>You said the difference between living together and marriage is "Committment". Obviously you failed completely to read the post I wrote which said "IN BOTH CASES THE PEOPLE ARE ***COMMITTED*** TO MAKING IT WORK"<P>This only highlights PERFECTLY my point about people with blinkers on... you would have let the words pass your vision and yet you automatically went back to your own assessment and started regurgitating exactly what you had said before without even considering the "meaning" behind what I wrote.<P>This board is supposed to be about respect and I am sorry to say that doing something like that is very disrespectful to me as it suggests what I said has no relevance with what you will reply... should I therefor even bother to speak?<P>One point about your reply though that really did astound me...<P>"Why do people assume most people living together are having sex? BECAUSE MOST OF THEM ARE".<P>Can you tell me that you honestly do not see how incredibly judgemental this is?!?? Have you actually done a survey to come to the conclusion this is the case? Or are you simply basing this on what you WANT to be true rather than actually finding out the truth. younglove was right... people DO assume that if you are together you are intimate... and with comments like that it shall only continue...<P>No wonder so many marriages are in trouble... it has nothing to do with committment, or fidelity or anything else... it comes down PURELY to people ASSUMING something without actually finding out the truth for themselves. Instead of working out WHY your partner isn't paying you any attention you ASSUME they dont love you any more and go out and have an affair.... Instead of working at a relationship you ASSUME there is nothing to gain so you leave...<P>That is the whole reason why 2 people who are VERY committed to each other can STILL end in divorce... because of this, but I am sure you will disagree... why? Because you are incapable of agreeing... it would go against everything you have said so far to actually realise that a perception is based on a WANT or a FEAR rather than on a REALITY.<P>Truely I am not trying to be antagonistic to anyone on these boards but I am becoming more and more frustrated with the blindness I see in people... While I can provide them reasons, logic, common sense and everything else to back up why I feel the way I do... others come to me with "because" and "it just is" to support their claims... Would you blame me?<P>Dr Hartley:<BR>I feel I should put this in here as well... I have ready what Dr Hartley has put in here and I have to say quite honestly that it is the most insightful information I have ever read on the nature of relationships... it opened my eyes to a lot of things I never realised until gaining this information. Though I may have some points of contention on some of the information here I have great respect for what Dr Hartley has written because he has supported ALL of his claims with examples, evidence, common sense and clarity... and never ONCE did he have to mention a verse in the Bible to do it.<P>Is that a lesson to be learned?

LostSoul:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I truely hope you do not take this the wrong way my friend... but DO YOU READ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>.<P>It's Dr. Harley---not Dr. Hartley. <P>And another thing:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Truely I am not trying to be antagonistic to anyone on these boards but I am becoming more and more frustrated with the blindness I see in people... While I can provide them reasons, logic, common sense and everything else to back up why I feel the way I do... others come to me with "because" and "it just is" to support their claims... Would you blame me?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>You are extremely antagonistic. We antagonized the hell out of each other a while back. You're the only person here who can elict this type of response, and the only one on the board who fires back in this way. It's my opinion that if these behaviors carry over to your personal relationships, you'd be pure hell to live with.<P>You need to work very hard on understanding some of the MarriageBuilder principles. Disrespectful judgements---the desire to "educate" your spouse to your enlightened view, is one of the most insidious and harmful. It's easy to see how beating the heck out of your wife or husband is a lovebuster; but the issue of disrespectful judgements can be just as harmful.<P>And there are several published studies in refereed journals indicating that well over 50% of "roomates" who are dating are engaging in premarital sex. As well as population studies demonstrating that the distribution of religion/beliefs for these people who are living together prior to marriage are not significantly skewed from the "normal population sample". <P>So much for your research---back to the library for you, LostSoul.<p>[This message has been edited by K (edited March 14, 2000).]

People, please. Let's calm the tempers, and count to ten before we type, okay? I know it's very tempting to respond to a dig with a comeback of our own, but let's refrain. Telling someone you "hope they don't get offended" but then asking "DO THEY READ?" is ridiculous, because that question is clearly offensive but makes it sound like if they're offended, it's their fault. And just to be fair, it's not just you, Lostsoul - two asked the "DO YOU READ" question, and there have been several catty little comments made, from all directions. Let's end it. Okay. End of lecture. <P>Lostsoul - while you may be right that the religion of a person influences their decisions regarding relationships, and thus alters marriage statistics, I think you are overestimating the influence of the religious on the data. Current studies show that only about one-third of those who identify themselves as "Christian" attend church at least once per month. Among people I personally know, I know several Christian couples who are living together, and several Christian couples who are divorced - calling oneself Christian doesn't always mean the same thing (there are dozens of denominations) and thus doesn't always denote the same beliefs (though many are similar) but the main point is that it doesn't guarantee adherence to Christian principles. Most people do not completely fulfill every requirement of their religion - how many Catholic couples do you know that follow the mandate to never use birth control?<P>However, anecdotal data isn't sufficient evidence on which to base a statistical discussion, so forgive me my blabbering about "people I know". Only 10% of American adults attend church at least once a month (this is different from the above statistic because this is all adults, the above number is those who attend church at least monthly who self-identify as Christians). I'd assume that those who wouldn't live together, and once married wouldn't divorce out of regard for their religion would also attend services; this seems to be a reasonable assumption. So, your point that religious views skew marital data accounts for roughly 10% of the difference in divorce rates between those who did and did not live together before marriage. However, the difference in divorce rates among these two groups is about 30 or 35 percent, too high to be accounted for solely by religious differences. <P>This data is available on altavista.com if you follow the family and society links. I quote it not to engage you in a statistical battle - I haven't got the mental ammo to win - but simply to point out that there is something about living together which leads to high divorce rates, and its not just religion. <P>What Dr. Harley argues this difference is, and what I think rs0522 is trying to show, is that there is a fundamental difference in the mindset of those who are living together and those who are married. (sorry, rs0522, if I'm wrong in paraphrasing you please post what you were actually trying to say). When rs0522 says the difference is "committment" (despite you pointing out that in both your choice a and b, both people are committed to making it work) is that, in both the options you listed, the couple divorced. If ending the relationship was even considered an option, which evidently it was - then some would argue this couple was never truly committed to working it out in the first place. It's not that rs0522 didn't read your post, it's that s/he (again, sorry rs0522!) disputes your addendum that each person is totally committed to the relationship. Let's say that I'm totally committed to running a marathon. If I make this committment whole-heartedly, some would argue that I will either run a marathon or die first, because there wouldn't come a point where I stop trying. In divorce, however, one or both has stopped trying, and some would say this is indicative that the committment of the couple when they entered into the marriage was not a complete committment. I believe this is what rs0522 meant when s/he said: "But until you actually commit to working it out no matter what and come what may, you are not really married." Or did you not read rs0522's post, or read it and get caught up in your own assumptions? (sorry. I should go back and read my own lecture at the beginning of this post.)<P>I think perhaps some of the recent fireworks in this thread stem from different understandings among those who are posting about this message board and its purpose. In your last post, Lostsoul, you asked me: "As for me already making up my mind what I wanted from asking this question you are right... But what I WANTED from asking this question was someone to say something that made both common sense and was supported by things other than their perception or views (or wild comments like 'Because most of them are'). And yes, I DIDN'T get that answer so I continued to search. Is that such a bad thing?" <P>If you had simply read the responses you got and noted the ones that fit your criteria and ignored those that didn't, no, it wouldn't have been a bad thing. Whenever you ask for advice or opinions, you're getting them from human beings, who tend to make decisions for themselves based on their opinions, and it's thus not very realistic to expect that they'll offer you up an explanation which is opinion-free. All who posted were trying to help by offering their take on why people do assume opposite-sex roommates who are in a relationship are having sex. There is rarely just one, correct, clear-cut answer to anything, and I'm convinced, Lostsoul, that you are more sophisticated than to believe the world - or just the complicated arena of romantic relationships - is black and white, or has such an explanation. If you asked a bunch of your friends this same question, and got a bunch of explanations, you would think them over, discard some or perhaps all, and pick one or devise some other explanation based on your opinion of which you thought was right. Rarely do humans make decisions or provide explanations devoid of opinion.<P>But there's another problem. When the explanations you got didn't match up with what you wanted, it's not just that you chose among them or discarded all of them. You set out to convince several of those who posted that they were wrong to feel as they do, or at least ignorant and blind for using the criteria they had in reaching their decision. In responding to rs0522's claim that you had been antagonistic you justified your antagonism with: "While I can provide them reasons, logic, common sense and everything else to back up why I feel the way I do... others come to me with 'because' and 'it just is' to support their claims..." And this is where I think the purpose of the message board may be misunderstood. Lostsoul, the people who responded to you didn't want or need you to "provide" them with anything. K made the point that this is a disrespectful judgment (educating someone to your "enlightened" point of view). They weren't trying to give you airtight arguments, they just shared their opinions. They didn't come to you trying to "support" their "claims". This isn't a debate. It's not a philosophy class or a logic and argument class. It's just a place where people come together to try to figure out why their once promising relationship crumbled, and how to restore it. If you post asking for explanations and advice, you'll get many types of responses. I for one think that's beneficial - some you'll find helpful, some not, but in the variety there may be something useful to you. Use what you like, ignore what you like, but don't criticize those who don't share your views. One of the best parts of the forum is the support and friendship of the other members, and you'll miss out on that if you debate people all the time.<P>In all this ruckus, your initial situation has gotten lost. Why is it that you want to "back up" the way you feel with logic, reason, etc.? You initially stated: "I go to university and share a room with a lady... Apparently that is considered to be within the bounds of decency. I am considering marriage and move in with the person I intend to marry.... Somehow this is considered to be '"outside' the bounds of decency." We don't know for sure if this is a hypothetical situation or not (if this was resolved in an earlier post, I apologize, when the thread gets long the middle tends to get a bit fuzzy). But let's say that, since you're posting and arguing one side if it, you're not doing it just for fun and you're currently considering moving in with your fiancee. Are you facing opposition from your/her family? Are you curious/worried about what the reaction of others might be? Are you angry that these reactions potentially prohibit you from moving in together?

To younglove:<P>Thank you for a thoughtful and well expressed post. You expressed what I thought better than I could have. Incidentally, I am a guy.<P>To Lostsoul:<P>You feel that my observation that most couples living together are in fact having sex is 'incredibly judgemental' (sic). Please be clear that I did not say 'most couples living together are having sex - and this is dreadfully sinful'. It was an opinion as to the relative frequency of sex amongst couples who live together, not a moral judgment on whether this is right or wrong. It is based on my experience with family members and friends who were living together and were in fact having sex. My belief that they were sexually involved is based on statements made by them, and my observation of their sleeping arrangements, and I have found them to be generally truthful people. <P>If it adds anything to the discussion, while I was in school, I shared the rental of a house with several other people, one of whom was a woman, and I never had sex with her. I cannot remember if anyone assumed that I was sexually involved with her, but if they did, I paid no attention to it. <P>As to your question on whether it is better to break up after living together or after being married, I guess I do not see the relevance of how commited each couple is to working it out. If the marriage or cohabitation does not work out, the commitment was obviously not enough to sustain the relationship, so I don't see the difference. I took your post as proposing that living together before marriage is a good idea because you can then break up if you find you are incompatible. Most of my posts in response are expressing why I don't believe this is valid, because living together is not a good test of compatibility. <P>I am afraid I don't see the point of your suggestion that Christians don't live together as an explanation of why marriages of cohabitators break up. If you are not a Christian (please note I am not judging you, but positing a position), the 'protective effect' you suggest of being a Christian does not apply to you, and your marriage is just as likely to break up regardless of whether you live together first or not. <P>I am sorry to say I still don't understand the nature of your original question. <P>You seemed to be asking why people assume that those who live together are having sex. My response, which was 'Because most of them are' struck you as judgmental, so I won't push it. <P>If you are asking 'Is it OK to have sex before marriage?', your own actions seem to indicate that you believe it is not (if you are living together platonically). If that is the case, you are doing the right thing, and the opinions of those who assume falsely that you are having sex don't matter in the slightest. <P>If you are asking 'Is it OK to live together before marriage?', my response all along has been that it may be OK but it is not very helpful in deciding if you should get married (for all the reasons I have been citing).<P>I am sorry I have not been able to help you. I am glad we have others (hi, younglove!) who express themselves better than I.<P>Regards,<BR>RS0522

I know this is risky but I can't resist!<P>Dear RS0522, Younglove and K (good to have you chime in)<P>After my initial innocent attempts to answer, what I thought was, a sincere question I have simply watched in amazement this thread. What you folks need to realize if that LostSoul’s posts are not real questions. Rather they are a platform, rooted in the hypothetical, from which he intends to enlighten us (the great unwashed) and bash anyone who might have a differing view. I’m equally sure that he really doesn’t think he has bashed anyone or been disrespectful even when it is clear to everyone else in the thread (including the moderator Valiant). But alas we are the ones with the “blinkers” on. We are the “laughable”, “wrong”, “fearful”, “ignorant”, “closed minded”, “arrogant”, “disrespectful”, “judgmental”, “blind”, “sad” and “inconsiderate” ones. (the reasons for the quotes is that each of these words are used by LostSoul, in this thread, to impugn people who disagree with him) I’m sure that once again LostSoul will endeavor to correct my sad pathetic view and inform me and the rest of the world of the (his) truth. His posts are not even arenas for the exchange of ideas. They are simply pulpits for his own pontifications. If you doubt any of this check out LostSoul’s other threads. <A HREF="http://www.marriagebuilders.com/forum/Forum2/HTML/000459.html" TARGET=_blank>http://www.marriagebuilders.com/forum/Forum2/HTML/000459.html</A> <A HREF="http://www.marriagebuilders.com/forum/Forum2/HTML/000444.html" TARGET=_blank>http://www.marriagebuilders.com/forum/Forum2/HTML/000444.html</A> <P>This one is my personal favorite :-) – mind you the original question was about the meaning of a Bible verse. I was silly enough to think that it would be ok to use the Bible to answer it. <A HREF="http://www.marriagebuilders.com/forum/Forum2/HTML/000443.html" TARGET=_blank>http://www.marriagebuilders.com/forum/Forum2/HTML/000443.html</A> <P>Valiant,<BR>If this post is too candid please remove it. I gladly bow to your authority. :-)<P><BR>

YoungLove:<P>Thank you.<P>Quite honestly out of everything that people have written here yours has been the only posts that have truely set out to provide a clear understanding of what you wish to say and WHY you wish to say it.<P>You have actually taught me something... and it is something I had not realised until reading your last post. You mentioned that I do not take peoples replies and filter them for what I need in order to answer my question... and you are right. I have always been the kind of person who respects *everybody* as equals and as equals our opinions are open for debate or for someone to ask "why" we think something... that has always been how I work. When the reply to why we think something is not sufficient for me I will debate with them... This isn't to "enlighten" those who do not have it... but to provide them things they never thought of before in the hope that they can either solidify the position they started with... OR come to a new understanding of their own choice. But I dont accept when people solidify their position for its own sake and I clearly see their reluctance to GOOD change.<P>I am sure some people will try to throw that back at me but here I stand saying that despite what I thought I now realise through someone "enlightening" me that there is a better way of doing things in this regard, while they stand fast in what they think unwilling to even consider the *possibility* that they require growth.<P>I wish there were more people like you on here YoungLove... and have you noticed that you haven't agreed with any of what I believe and yet I value your reply? That to me says that I am not here seeking my OWN answers... but am seeking TRUE answers.<P>Statistics is the worst possible way of trying to define something... my explaination of how it is skewed was only ONE possible error factor. To quote statistics is like saying "100% of people who eat Carrots Die!!!!". They can always be twisted to your own ends. Yes I am sure altavista.com has stats on these things but they are already prejudgemental in the fact of who they interview, who bothers to reply etc, etc... Do you honestly think that anyone who even "slightly" considers themselves christian would be more than happy to sit down and answer a questionnaire detailing their living arrangements with someone else? Its like the child abuse figures... they are wildly out because we dont KNOW half the cases that actually occur.<P>K: Thank you for your post, duely filtered out of respect for this board. Oh and many thanks for correcting me on Dr Hartley, was a genuine mistake.<P>rs0522: I now know from where your opinions stem and from where your views are derived, I can assimilate them using that to apply how much value they have to me. Thank you<P>Mudder: Again I understand where you are coming from as I do rs0522 and the same applies. Thank you<P>To those that I do not reply to any further it is not because I do not value what you have to say, because to me valuing something is replying to it... but I shall not reply because it is my personal belief that the view from which you come is not conducive to growth in any area that happens to be outside your personal belief and thus serves no purpose in my replying... As such would it be too much to ask that you do not reply to any of my future posts? As I shall not reply to yours.... why after all muddy the waters when neither of us believes in the other?<P>Once again... thank you YoungLove, and you hare MORE than enough mental ammo to go around... It was a pity that the people who replied after your post didn't listen to your words, I know I gained something from them

After the accolades I've received, I'm almost afraid to post again - maybe I should quit while I'm ahead? <P>But there is one thing you haven't addressed, Lostsoul, that I would like to know the answer to - surely you read Mudder's post. He believes your posts are "not real questions. Rather they are a platform, rooted in the hypothetical". After re-reading this thread, and following Mudder's links to others, I have to say it sure looks that way.<P>This type of academic thought-exploration would be highly valued, even encouraged, in many settings, but I for one feel (though certainly there are others on the board who will disagree) that this type of debate/discussion is not entirely appropriate for these forums. I think it's inappropriate because of the way discovering this is what you were doing has made me feel - duped, deceived, even a little hurt, as though the usual environment of the board has been compromised. In the future, if you decide to ask a hypothetical question, I think you should include in your post that it is not a real situation. <P>But before you scroll down and begin composing your response, find out why I feel this way: the people on this forum are here almost exclusively because they are people in pain, people who are losing hope that they will ever again simultaneously be with the one they love and feel happy and secure. I know that's how I feel, and I'm "only" dealing with the crumbling of a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship, albeit a five-year one. I can't imagine the pain of those here who are dealing with affairs, abuse, betrayal, mistrust, divorce, and all the while trying to be strong for their children...<P>When I found this website, I was hesitant at first to post to the forum. I'm a bit shy, and was nervous about "airing my dirty laundry". How would people react? Would they criticize me? If I was honest about my shortcomings in my relationship, would they judge me? I posted a few things, and was met with a warm, supportive response, and eventually felt welcomed enough to post replies. Even if I may not be in a similar or comparable situation, I can relate to the pain evident in people's posts, and began to feel that perhaps, once in a while, I could suggest something that might help. But still, the main reason I'm here, in all honesty, is not altruistic but selfish. It's nice to help, but mostly I need balm for my own wounds, and I get that here.<P>I "haunt" the pre-marriage and living together boards frequently, and when I saw your thread stepped out of my own pain to respond to you in yours. Don't you see, Lostsoul? We thought you needed and wanted help, but if this situation is hypothetical then what it is, is bait. When hurting people reached out to help you, you engaged them in a sometimes philosophical, often semantic, nearly always idiosyncratic battle, and for what? Your own gain! Because you feel it's your purpose in life to "provide" people with your "guidance", when in reality you do so because it "provides" you with a feeling of what - superiority? usefulness? And again, while it may be encouraged in other environments, that type of "examine all you ever believed to be true" debate is at best, usually useless and at worst, hurtful to those here! You may think that's because they're comfortable with "blinkers" on (what on earth has that meant all this time? do you mean blinders?) and look down on people who don't want to debate "truths" with you. But first of all, many here are struggling to cope with lives that have already been turned upside down, and are better off re-examining closely held beliefs another time, when their hearts aren't so heavily burdened that they've taken up residence somewhere around their knees - and second, perhaps I was wrong about your level of sophistication - perhaps you do think black and white explanations exist: "I am not here seeking my OWN answers... but am seeking TRUE answers." Do you really think one answer is sufficiently true to apply to everybody? We're not talking about the law of gravity here but of the rationale of humans! Has it occurred to you that rs0522's examination of "committment" as it pertained to your examples is what IS true to him? And Mudder's Biblical quotations are what IS true to him? Please tell me you don't honestly believe someone could answer your original question (why do people assume opposite-sex roommates who are in a relationship are having sex?) with one reason which everyone who makes this assumption would agree upon as their reason for that assumption. Anything else would be based at least in part on opinion and thus couldn't meet your criteria for THE truth.<P>Although you cloak this comment by thanking me for "enlightening" you, you make it clear that you see yourself as the teacher: "This isn't to 'enlighten' those who do not have it... but to provide them things they never thought of before in the hope that they can either solidify the position they started with... OR come to a new understanding of their own choice." You see yourself as Socrates reincarnate, not as a member of a 50/50 exchange. Why are you arrogantly assuming it's your duty to "provide" people anything? Especially when the people you're engaging in your little thought experiments are those whose hearts are in about a million pieces and should be forgiven for not wanting to debate hypotheticals...<P>I do have to take exception to your view of statistics and "enlighten" you: many people believe (and I'd like to point out that those who believe this are often untrained in statistics, or at least undertrained to make this judgment) that "statistics can always be twisted to your own ends." This is true only of bad statistics. Unfortunately, this is the type which most often receives media attention, and scientists have often twisted statistics for political and/or personal gain (if the results of a study are actually inconclusive, they may tweak the p-value or the alternative hypothesis used in its evaluation in order to make the results look meaningful - this is done to continue to receive grant money). One very famous example is a Reader's Digest study, performed (I believe) in 1924, though I may be wrong about the year. This magazine polled its readers to find out for whom they would vote in the upcoming presidential election, and then published its results indicating the Republican candidate would win by a landslide. He did not, in fact, the opposite occurred. The erroneous predictions are most likely due to the fact that readers were to respond to the poll by telephone, those who owned a telephone at this time were more than likely wealthy, and because of their economic status were more likely to vote for the Republican candidate! However, those trained in statistics are now aware of these problems, and thus have developed techniques of random selection, and methods to mathematically model the actual population polled to the larger population. No statistician worth his weight in salt would ever select respondents for interview in a way that allowed religion to be a factor, nor would he not use a regression line to consider whether the number of respondents was disproportionately Christian compared to the number asked to respond. Your certainty that statistics is bunk suggests to me that perhaps you haven't examined your strongly held beliefs about statistics closely enough and perhaps you could benefit by debating them with me. I could enlighten and teach you - don't solidify your position for it's own sake, and don't be reluctant to undergo GOOD change.<P>And one last lash, Lostsoul - if you truly thought you were helping people by "providing" them something, why on earth wouldn't you have done so in the true manner of Socrates - gentle questioning? Why insult, antagonize, criticize, and offend? Take a look at Mudder's list of what you have called those who did respond to you. If you fancy your role as that of teacher, look back over your thread and look closely at whether you've fulfilled it in an admirable way.<P>The entire last paragraph of my last post - which you evidently read because you referred to it when you felt it was to your advantage - questioned you about what I then thought was a real situation causing you real pain and for which you were in need of real help. I notice you conveniently ignored the last paragraph of my post. So now I'm asking you straight out: is this thread based on a real problem, or do you just find it interesting/amusing to take advantage of the good intentions of those trying to help?

I have given up trying to talk to people... because instead of listening they simply make their own minds up before words have even come out of my mouth.<P>Just reading Mudder only confirms this for me moreso than the existance of God is confirmed for Mudder.<P>You only need to read my posts to realise that this is NOT a philisophical debate and taking YOUR advice I simply ignored Mudder because I realised it was not possible for him to see it in any other way than he wanted to.<P>I have suffered great pain in going through things like this, I HAVE been in that situation and I MIGHT be in that situation again... to even contemplate that I would use this forum as a means of just waxing philosophically is very hurtful and once again is just someone making their OWN mind up without FACTS.<P>You feel "duped"... because you WANT to feel it... you FEAR that is the case... "People will believe something is true because they WANT it to be true or because they FEAR it is true"... I dont know how many times I say this and now many times people ignore it and then FALL prey to it...<P>Why am I *ARROGANT* enough to feel that I am a teacher? We are ALL teachers... I learned from you... therefor you TAUGHT me... the act of your teaching makes you a TEACHER. Are you ARROGANT because you tried to "enlighten" me about my replying to people I should simply have ignored or politely told to desist? Why do you make ME to be arrogant when I do something and then absolve yourself when you do EXACTLY the same thing???<P>I truely gained something from what you wrote last time and I was genuinely thankful for it... but now I feel like once more someone would rather believe their own demons than actually see the truth that stands in front of their eyes...<P>And you wonder why I ATTACK problems... gentle questioning gets nowhere when people continually react in this way... I TRIED gentle questioning and all I got was ignorance... I ask a question and I get an answer to a DIFFERENT question... people ignore what they read and write on what they WANT.<P>If rs0522 *IS* someone who cannot read when I write committment and think it is something else then I wish not to hear from someone who is not answering what I asked... if Mudder is going to quote Bible verses at me so disrespectfully then I dont WANT to have someone else plagurize, standing on some haughty pedistal as if the fact that those words come from a text 2000 years old means they are righteous and correct.<P>I have read all the material from Dr Hartley on here and he doesn't go around quoting the Bible so why should anyone else??? That is just demeaning to everyone else and totally elitist to think that they know the TRUE way while we do not... Who sounds like the TEACHER now???? Who sounds like they are LECTURING everyone else now????<BR>

You feel "duped"... because you WANT to feel it... you FEAR that is the case... "<P>Lostsoul, this is a very convenient stance for you to take because it means you never have to take responsibility for your actions and how they affect other people. If you stomped on my hand, would I not feel pain? Would you then tell me I felt that pain because I wanted to, or because I feared it hurt? Sometimes, Lostsoul, the things we do to people affect them because that was the logical outcome, not because it was their choice.<P>When people quote the Bible, by the way, they do so not because of its age, but because they believe it is the Word of God - and surely you can agree that if it truly is the word of the Creator of the world, it deserves the pedestal upon which it is put. Dr. Harley doesn't write from his Christian perspective in his books because he sells them and it is thus his "job" to write for all - people on a forum offering their opinions are not selling you anything and have no professional responsibility to make their opinions free of religious influence.<P>"I have given up trying to talk to people... because instead of listening they simply make<BR>their own minds up before words have even come out of my mouth." But you admitted you had done the same thing when you asked this question in the first place! Surely you don't expect that adults wander around with no opinion on several important issues! We all settle upon explanations that seem reasonable to us, and can usually provide them pretty readily when asked. <P>"I ask a question and I get an answer to a DIFFERENT question... people ignore what they<BR>read and write on what they WANT." Why does this bother you so much? It's no one's job here to give you the answers you want, or to respond to your posts in the way you would like them to. The people who responded to you did their best to answer your question, and to turn it into a debate about their reasoning seems like you ascribe to those on the forum some type of responsibility to answer your questions to your satisfaction. <P>Consider this, Lostsoul - when I jumped onto this thread I tried very hard to be fair, to discuss the issue at hand and to be open-minded to your points. Re-read my post again. If that's how your posts made me feel, despite the mind-set from which I started, isn't it possible the others on this thread might be right to feel as they do?<BR>

I know I shouldn't but I can't help it! :-)<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LostSoul:<BR><B>I have given up trying to talk to people... because instead of listening they simply make their own minds up before words have even come out of my mouth. </B> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>LostSoul, I am sorry I had the audacity to come this forum with a belief system in place.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> <B>You only need to read my posts to realise that this is NOT a philisophical debate. </B> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>If your posts were so clearly NOT philosophical Younglove would not have questioned them. Indeed she came here with no preconceived ideas about you as did I. Rather after observing the pattern of your posts and the tone of your replies the question arose. Oh and by the way you still have not directly answered her direct question. The question was “is this thread based on a real problem”? She did not ask if it was based on some past pain but a current dilemma.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> <B>I have suffered great pain in going through things like this, I HAVE been in that situation and I MIGHT be in that situation again... </B> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>This sounds hypothetical to me.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> <B>To even contemplate that I would use this forum as a means of just waxing philosophically is very hurtful and once again is just someone making their OWN mind up without FACTS.</B> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Actually no! I believe that this is true because of examining the only thing any of us have to go by on these forums, your words. Your words are the facts that betray you.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> <B>You feel "duped"... because you WANT to feel it... you FEAR that is the case... "People will believe something is true because they WANT it to be true or because they FEAR it is true"... I dont know how many times I say this and now many times people ignore it and then FALL prey to it...</B> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I take my hat off to you here. You have said this far too many times for anyone to count. I must also applaud you for crafting a philosophical statement that makes you always right and anyone who disagrees with you the fool. It takes a special kind of mind to be able to do this. :-)<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> <B> Why am I *ARROGANT* enough to feel that I am a teacher? We are ALL teachers... I learned from you... therefor you TAUGHT me... the act of your teaching makes you a TEACHER. </B> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Actually I would rather be known as a learner. I’m merely a student that learns much on these forums and when I think it appropriate I offer to share what I have learned or what I believe. I’m just guessing that Younglove feels the same. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> <B> And you wonder why I ATTACK problems... </B> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Actually sir you attack people. No one would object to a problem being attacked.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> <B> gentle questioning gets nowhere when people continually react in this way... I TRIED gentle questioning and all I got was ignorance...</B> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Sir, what you got was a differing opinion/viewpoint. Why is that so vexing for you?<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> <B> I ask a question and I get an answer to a DIFFERENT question... people ignore what they read and write on what they WANT. </B> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Has it ever occurred to you, sir. that your questions are not clearly written or leave a large margin of ambiguity? No, I’m sure it is just we who cannot read!<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> <B> If rs0522 *IS* someone who cannot read when I write committment and think it is something else then I wish not to hear from someone who is not answering what I asked.</B> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Perhaps it would help if you include in your posts your definition of the words used. This will help alleviate this troubling problem of us foolishly answering the “wrong” question.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> <B> if Mudder is going to quote Bible verses at me so disrespectfully then I dont WANT to have someone else plagurize, standing on some haughty pedistal as if the fact that those words come from a text 2000 years old means they are righteous and correct.</B> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Here we go again…(for the record I quoted the Bible once) In my original response (if you would kindly re-read it) I explained that my view was going to be from a Biblical perspective because that is what *I* believe. Nowhere did I ask you to accept my belief system! You responded by making statements that gravely misrepresented my faith and my God. Because of your words I was compelled to at least set the record straight on what I believe. I did that by using verses from the Bible. Sir, you have displayed by your posts that you are intelligent and educated so you must realize that plagiarism is the use of someone else’s words as your own. In both my original reply and in my response to your attack on my faith I gave credit to the “author and finisher of my faith.” I wish you would show me the words that I used that were haughty or that portrayed me as righteous or even correct. I simply stated what *I* believe! Could it be that you believed that that is what I was doing because “you WANTED it to be so or that you FEARED that it was so?” (the previous quotation is the intellectual property of LostSoul – all rights reserved) :-)<P><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> <B> I have read all the material from Dr Hartley on here and he doesn't go around quoting the Bible so why should anyone else??? </B> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I think that perhaps the reason Dr. Harley doesn’t invoke scripture in his commercial writings is because he doesn’t want a religious difference of opinion to hinder someone from implementing his concepts. If you doubt Dr. Harley’s religious inclinations why would he allow there to be an online Bible study and a Prayer Requests page on his web site. I on the other hand am just offering my opinion and think it is actually appropriate to let folks know where that opinion or perspective comes from.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> <B>Who sounds like the TEACHER now???? Who sounds like they are LECTURING everyone else now????</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Alas LostSoul, once again, it is you!<BR><p>[This message has been edited by Mudder (edited March 20, 2000).]

I think things have gotten way out of hand... and I am more than happy to accept the responsibility that I am the instigator of this.<P>I appologise that it has ended in this way, truely one of my weaknesses is as younglove said... in not realising whom to reply to and whom to simply accept as a difference of opinion. Some people I can listen to quite well such as Younglove, while others I see only ignorance and blindless in every word they say. <P>Younglove, I take responsibility in everything that I do, I always have... and to say that my quote always leaves me above it is applying a personality type to me that just is not correct. Do you think that *I* don't see things because I WANT or FEAR them to be true? Of course I do... we ALL do... that is what I am trying to say.<P>But while I can stand here and say that I either WANT or FEAR the existnce of a diety... Mudder will say "No way, I can *ONLY* say he exists and that it is not out of FEAR or out of WANT". So when you ask yourself who uses this philosophy to absolve themselves of any responsibility.. ask who is willing to accept ALL possibilities... and who is willing to accept ONLY 1?<P>Mudder... I feel I must appologise to you. (Yes even after having *another* attack at you in the above sentance). Despite my very acidic response to you you have shown an amazing amount of calm and while your words gave a slightly patronising (yeah, like mine haven't) tone I believe you didn't intend them as such.<P>I do want to ask something of you though Mudder. I would appreciate it that if you are going to reply to me if you would refrain from using quotes from your belief system. I ask this simply because I personally find it offensive (Something for which you have never even bothered acknowledging) and to have started quoting to me without first asking "Would you like me to?" is disrespectful. Not everyone follows your beliefs and I am sure if someone walked up to you in the street and started quoting verses out of their texts at you that you would find it offensive as well. Is that truely too much to ask? Must you always read a book before deciding what YOUR answer to me is? You live in a world my friend... and for you it is a world CREATED by somene... and yet you always look behind you to something created thousands of years ago instead of actually experiencing it for yourself within that creation.... How can I NOT help but get the impression that you are blind when I see these actions?<P>You said that I did not answer the question Younglove asked... and yet the very next sentence answered it and you threw "Hypothetical" back at me... Let me put this to you...<P>"I am thinking about leaving my wife"... Is that not hypothetical!?!? Does that mean a person saying that does NOT have a problem??? So please, don't try and use the fact that one of my problems is "CURRENTLY" hypothetical but STILL definately a problem I am facing mean it isn't just as worthy to be on here as everyone elses... shame on you for doing that ;-)<P>I asked my question succinctly, I said purely why the fact that a persons intentions towards another meant that living together was seen as sinful or "to tempt" sin. I used a hypothetical situation to get at the crux of what I believe the problem is so people wouldn't jump to conclusions. I didn't realise I had to break it down so much for people to read... but now I realise that I DID need to break it down for people to read what I asked and not what THEY wanted to hear.<P>Mudder... I like your analogy of being a "Leaner". SO tell me... do learners Always run around throwing verses at everyone? I thought to learn was to listen and NOT talk. I love how you described it as "And if on occasion I think I could just kind of let a quote slip out that may help somebody else.. then I kind of will". What a wonderful way of disguising the fact you are a teacher!!! There is one thing WORSE than someone who does something... and that is someone that "pretends" they dont do something. That is a very dangerous avenue my friend, to do so is manipulative of other people...<P>If it WALKS like a duck and it TALKS like a duck... dont postulate yourself into thinking its just a goose!!!<P>In closing I only have this to say... quoting verses at me is what I consider a personal attack... and so I provide a personal attack in return. I find it offensive, ignorant, haughty and altogether blind and DANGEROUS to come from a position of absolute authority (and you DO believe your faith is *THE* absolute authority).<P>In the future I shall choose to politely ask such people to cease.

LostSoul,<P>Please stop berating and talking down to the other people on this forum. <P>I didn't want to name names, but since you have no e-mail listed, I am forced to correct you publicly.<P>If you insist upon continuing your antogonistic behaviour, I will ask the administrator to delete your UserName.<P><P>------------------<BR>Valiant, Moderator<BR>Marriage Builders Forum

Mudder,<P>Sometimes the only constructive thing that we can do is to pray. I do feel sorry for Lostsoul.<P>

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>originally posted by LostSoul:<BR><B> I used a hypothetical situation to get at the crux of what I believe the problem is </B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I rest my case.<P>

But while I can stand here and say that I either WANT or FEAR the existence of a diety... Mudder will say "No way, I can *ONLY* say he exists and that it is not out of FEAR or out of WANT". Lostsoul, aren't there things that you neither FEAR nor WANT but know to be true? I am short - 5'3", to be exact, but don't feel too badly for me because (contrary to conjecture) I'm a she. Anyway, I'm short. I don't WANT to be, or FEAR being short, but I AM.<P>However, there are few things in life which simply ARE. Different people require different amounts and types of evidence to convince them that something IS. But that you have chosen a different threshold does not necessarily mean your opinions are any better or worse than anyone else's. One day, (this actually happened) I was watching the news, and the weatherman reported that it was currently raining where I live. But, I was sitting in a bay window relaxing in sunshine! The weatherman had fancy computers and mathematical models and equipment which convinced him it was raining where I was, whereas I had only one piece of evidence and no computer print-outs to back me up, but I was nevertheless convinced of what WAS. There is evidence - archeological, physical, historical - that the events of the Bible actually occurred. Whether that evidence is sufficient for you doesn't mean Mudder should be any less convinced - his examination of the evidence didn't have to include an investigation of other people's opinions.<P>"...and to have started quoting to me without first asking 'Would you like me to?' is disrespectful." ??? You posted asking for people's opinions, but then want them to ask your permission to offer them? Would you order room service in a hotel and be upset if they didn't ask your permission to knock on your door? If you're unwilling to consider Christian opinions, perhaps you should state this when you post a question (along with a disclaimer if the situation if hypothetical).<P>"Must you always read a book before deciding what YOUR answer to me is?" Correct me if I'm wrong, Lostsoul, but you seem to have no idea how terribly offensive that comment is to a Christian. Here we go again to the threshold of convincing: if you didn't know how to program your VCR, what would you do? Read the instruction manual? When Christians want to resolve a problem, they turn to what they believe is their instruction manual. Again, if you find this perspective intolerable, state this in your initial post so people don't offend you when they try to help!<P>"I find it offensive, ignorant, haughty and altogether blind and DANGEROUS to come from a position of absolute authority (and you DO believe your faith is *THE* absolute authority)." Lostsoul, are you a mind reader? How do you know this is what Mudder believes? If he takes the Biblical perspective on this, Mudder would argue that he has no authority at all, that what is and what is not are not up to him but to God. (I sincerely hope I'm not misrepresenting Mudder here, if I am, I hope he'll post to correct me.)<P>" 'I am thinking about leaving my wife'... Is that not hypothetical!?!?" NO, Lostsoul, that is NOT hypothetical if the man actually is thinking about leaving. If he said "Suppose my wife did this, should I leave her?" and the action he questions had never happened, THAT would be hypothetical.<BR>

In respect of the moderation of this forum I shall no longer reply on this thread.<BR>